Welcome Reddit refugees

theory_of_this · 2020-07-11T10:21:52+00:00

well well well

I think this is the first time I've been a member of a banned thing online. On a cancelled list.

The banning of GCdebatesQT does feel a bit like the break up of a school gang. Where are the cool kids going? lol How will I know if I'm in the best regrouped gang or not?

theory_of_this · 2021-08-04T09:35:19+00:00

I still think the situation will become too noticeable and sports rules will ban transwomen. I think that's just tough and trans people have to accept that.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T12:58:57+00:00

But why do you think you are attracted to masculinity?

I mean I would hope the LGBQT+ community would be for masculine women.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T12:43:13+00:00

OK thanks.

Though I think activism tends to attract loud voices.

Do you feel pressure to identify as trans/NB or is that not something relevant to you?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-09T12:49:25+00:00

I think I respect gnc gc people more than conforming straight gc people.

Conforming gc people slip into "they're all sick perverts apart from the proper gay ones" very easily.

theory_of_this · 2020-07-15T17:45:17+00:00

Well if you want to debate a crossdresser, I'm still here. But you'll need to go to reddit or twitter and recruit people.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-09T12:55:54+00:00

I don't think religion can be dismissed that easily. It's likely appeared from evolutionary pressures. It serves a purpose. Societies without religion have secular forms that serve a very similar purpose. It's just like refined aspects of religion.

Secondly although religions appear very differently across the world, all known societies have social gender. They all have majority gender conforming societies with gender variant minorities. I'd expect they also link same sex attraction to gender non conformity.

This is not a specific justification of all trans politics but that "gender" can't be abolished, just as all religious like forms can't be abolished.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-04T12:12:45+00:00

So they aren't ID'ing out of oppression. Which seemed to be an earlier claim.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T11:32:31+00:00

I can see you meeting more in that context.

theory_of_this · 2021-06-10T08:43:47+00:00

Busy right now. But when I get some time I'll respond.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-12T22:01:37+00:00

Uh probably not very essentialist, but what does essential mean to you?

Anything from very bad essentialism, "man hunts" "woman cooks" to some very mild things, "men and women have slightly different behavioural biases on a couple traits."

Usually connected to evolutionary ideas which are unpopular in progressive circles.

A classic essentialist behaviour is criminality. Men appear far more criminal than women. Across all cultures. Some might say it's a product of dimorphism but I think it seems more basic.

Neither sex wants to "own" that but it might be directly correlated with other behaviours with more positive reputations, such as risk taking.

Is the trans element the only aspect of "liberal feminism" you object to? I think the other topics would be "sex positivity," porn, bdsm, sex work, gay rights. I'd say radical feminism would object to marriage and most gender norms.

We do probably need better political labels.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-09T08:04:41+00:00

Selfishly I miss my own posts. I spent time making arguments and now I can't access them. Sometimes I'd refer people to points I'd made.

All gone now.

This place seems a lot more quiet.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T12:09:13+00:00

You say women's rights does that mean you meet more transwomen?

Out of that context in wider society what would you say is going on?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T08:54:37+00:00

Do you meet a lot of trans people in the UK?

theory_of_this · 2021-06-14T09:23:54+00:00

Sorry about my absence at the moment. My time allocation must be off.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-25T11:40:52+00:00

I think most QT here are more truscum so you're not going to get much debate on this point.

Steve is a 45 year-old male who everyone thinks he is very "manly"

And masculinity goes with being a man right?

I'm interested in the essentialism here. How essentialist are you?

Was Jessica masculine?

If Jane came out as a lesbian at 45 and became masculine would we doubt her? I mean I wouldn't.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-12T22:40:43+00:00

To be honest you are the person here I find the most difficult to debate.

It comes across as a list of accusations.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-12T22:29:17+00:00

Really? Then why is it called "gender critical" rather than "gender abolitionist"?

https://wildwomynworkshop.com/store/badges/badges-25-mm/abolish-gender-25mm-feminist-button-badge/

Its not like I made it up. It's common position from gc. However I do see descent on it and there are a range of opinions in gc. It would be nice to formalise that in order to understand the arguments.

In short, my view is that any society where certain ideas are not allowed to be thought is a tyranny. I have always objected to strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes and made efforts in a variety of ways towards reducing, eliminating and laughing at them. But I don't think it's desirable to attempt to abolish them because doing so would mean taking measures to control what other people are allowed to think, feel and dream about. Enough societies have tried that sort of thing already, and it has never worked out well.

OK thanks I think I get the idea now.

Government laws and interventions on gender to force it would be bad and coercive.

But leaving the state aside I'm still not clear on what your preference is.

That there would be no "stereotypes" ?

I have to be honest a lot of this seems like a logic trap, such that male stereotypes are viewed as good unless it's a toxic male and all female stereotypes are bad unless its the right kind of woman.

Stereotypes seems like another term for gender norms. Surely they change, but at its heart society doesn't seem to really want to get rid of them all. It might want "freedom" but there are enough biases remaining to count as soft social enforcement. That can come from the majority of people being conforming, even if they are liberal on non conformists.

Likewise most people opposed to trans ideology don't actually want a world without social gender, most of the behavioural aspects of gender.

Which takes us back to the question of what gc actually wants because this isn't all about trans people.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-09T23:37:40+00:00

My question was meant to progress the debate. To find out what you thought.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-09T22:22:09+00:00

What male gender non conformity is acceptable to you?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-09T22:09:36+00:00

This is a gotcha position for all gnc men. The only forms of male gnc behaviour are forms that gnc women find acceptable for gnc women. A logic trap that even people outside of the debate recognise.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-09T22:03:07+00:00

But I think either way trans or not trans politics does affect society. There isn't an easy way to opt out of either.

Then the idea of gender abolition would change all of society, in theory.

theory_of_this · 2021-04-27T13:17:46+00:00

We really need term refinement or better political categories.

Often here both qt and gc seem to be very different things than the label implies.

theory_of_this · 2022-09-17T09:42:58+00:00

Yes, but straight men, and even some straight women, often have "gay phases" at some points in life. That doesn't make them any less straight.

Why? What's wrong with saying they aren't entirely straight?

You're saying people should be able to identify as they wish?

theory_of_this · 2022-07-26T17:25:41+00:00

You're attracted to feminine women but also hate femininity?

This might be obvious but that doesn't sound very healthy.

Are you sure you don't just naturally like expressing masculinity?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-11T16:03:09+00:00

Noticed this in the New Statesman. The New Statesmen is a left wing British political magazine. Generally pro feminist so I thought it was interesting to see here.

David M Buss is probably too right for me but I accept the general premise.

The science of sexual conflict

How evolutionary theory explains why men and women seduce, deceive, abandon and hurt each other.

There was a time, near the beginning of this century, when the wacky behaviour of creationists was the subject of intense media interest. People who believed that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old were intent on teaching schoolchildren a religious alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection, and every right-minded atheist was intent on stopping them. Leading the charge was Richard Dawkins who, in a 2009 review of a book titled Why Evolution Is True, condemned the folly of those who, rather than “working out that they have probably misunderstood evolution… conclude, instead, that evolution must be false”.

An under-acknowledged truth, however, is that hostility towards evolutionary theory is not confined to religious fundamentalists. Many secular liberals, for instance, find the notion of a divergent mark left by evolution on male and female brains to be a source of intense discomfort. Most feminists prefer to explain differences in male and female behaviour as a consequence of socialisation, particularly during childhood, and are sceptical of any account that presents these differences as innate – fearing, I suspect, that toxic male behaviour would be harder to challenge if it were found to be natural in origin. In fact, the very idea that there are evolved psychological differences between the sexes has become so taboo in some circles that even voicing the possibility is taken to be an indication of anti-feminist sentiment.

In 2017, the Google engineer James Damore fell afoul of this taboo when he circulated an internal memo which suggested that the under-representation of women at the company might partly be a consequence of “differences in distributions of traits between men and women”. Damore cited legitimate scientific research, but he was nevertheless fired for violating Google’s code of conduct, provoking a media storm.

The problem Damore encountered is that the socio-political ramifications of evolutionary theory can upset everyone, because “nature red in tooth and claw” is grisly, and not only among non-human animals. Evolution is a blind, amoral process that essentially depends on two things: random gene mutations and a huge amount of death. It doesn’t care about human well-being or 21st-century niceties. And sometimes digging down into the research reveals things that we’d rather not know.

But David M Buss is one of those rare people who is able to look Darwin straight in the eye without flinching. Professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Texas, Buss is the author of a long list of popular titles, the latest of which – Bad Men: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment and Assault – returns to his favourite academic topic: human mating.

Buss is interested in conflict between men and women, both as groups and as individuals. We are all engaged, he argues, in a “co-evolutionary arms race” in which the weapons are beauty, deception, charm, coercion and aggression, often deployed subconsciously. Buss understands male and female interests to be fundamentally misaligned in important ways, and Bad Men is thus dedicated to “everyone who has suffered from sexual conflict” – which is, as he points out, all of us.

The book, organised lightly by theme, is a recitation of decades of accumulated research, conducted mostly, though not exclusively, on heterosexuals. Fortunately for Buss, his subject is gripping enough to carry what could otherwise have been a rather dry format. Delivered in the cool tones of an eminent scientist, each page nevertheless manages to evoke equal parts titillation and horror. Examining human mating from an evolutionary perspective turns out to be as disgusting, compelling and unnervingly intimate as watching someone burst a pimple.

Although his subject is “bad men”, Buss also introduces us to a lot of bad women. Sexual conflict has a way of bringing out the worst in humans: we learn about deception in online dating, treachery within marriage, stalking in the aftermath of break-ups and harassment in the workplace. Buss’s thesis – which is extremely well supported by the research data – is that male and female sexuality is, in general, different, and that these differences produce conflict, sometimes in strange and subtle ways.

We start from the recognition that reproduction places more physical demands on women than it does on men. Pregnancy lasts more than nine months, and concludes with a dangerous labour, which is followed by many more years of breastfeeding and childcare. Men, however, only really need to expend the amount of effort it takes to orgasm in order to reproduce. This foundational physical difference has led to average psychological differences between the sexes that are sometimes profound. As Buss writes,

[S]ex differences in reproductive biology have created selection pressure for sex differences in sexual psychology that are often comparable in degree to sex differences in height, weight, upper body muscle mass, body-fat distribution, testosterone levels, and oestrogen production… [they] show up in mating motivations, such as sex drive and the desire for sexual variety… in the emotions of attraction, lust, arousal, disgust, jealousy and love… in thought processes, such as sexual fantasies and inferences about other people’s sexual interest.

Buss is keen to stress that these differences are average ones, just like differences in height between the sexes. You cannot confidently predict an individual’s preferences or behaviour if the only thing you know about them is their sex. At the population level, however, even minor average differences can produce striking effects.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-25T20:36:04+00:00

Butch lesbians don't tend to suddenly appear in midlife.

I think they do happen.

I think they tire of not being themeselves.

So you are a Blanchardian? That is essentialist. Gender norms would be tied to sex.

But you also say you are a straight gnc woman?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-11T21:19:23+00:00

I don't think anyone "gender critical" thinks the abolition of the sex stereotypes and other sexist ideas and beliefs that constitute "gender" is a realistic or achievable end goal. Or, for that matter, even a desirable one.

I'm confused by this because "abolish gender" is practically the gender critical slogan.

How could radical feminists see the abolition of the "sex stereotypes and other sexist ideas" as undesirable?

We are arguing against forcing everyone in society to have to accept and adhere to the strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes that genderists hold dear.

You don't want everyone in society to have to accept and adhere to strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes that would be undesirable to abolish?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-06T22:35:59+00:00

But gc isn't for gnc males. Only as far as saying this person is good for not saying they are female.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-05T13:08:06+00:00

Ha, as an essentialist I'd say "stereotypes" are unavoidable.

Though trans people trend to be more non conforming than cis people.

Non conforming people are tiny percent of the population.

theory_of_this · 2021-04-27T19:53:37+00:00

Well I see it here and elsewhere. People will say "I'm qt but..." or "generally I'm gc but..." Lots of qualified positions.

Also it lots of people make assumption about people with those positions.

theory_of_this · 2021-04-26T21:11:55+00:00

But do you see them elsewhere? Like online?

theory_of_this · 2021-04-26T21:08:43+00:00

hey. I do have a problem seeing anybody I identity with in public life. I see people online, with youtube channels and stuff, that I relate to. But nothing quite in "the national life."

It's a thought. Also that there is "public life," "popular fiction and drama" and "regular life."

gnc people are there in regular life, fewer in public life and even fewer in "popular fiction and drama"

And there's gender divisions in that.

It's like that thing though about real life being certainly messier than fiction. Real life, you can walk through a city and see all kinds of things, less so on television.

Also I never quite see my "take" on gender. Is it that idiosyncratic? Maybe. Though often in these debates literally everyone has their own take, in the way that doesn't happen with sexuality. Where a lot of patterns are more agreed upon.

theory_of_this · 2021-04-19T20:44:58+00:00

hey I'm dropping by

) Why are you GC or QT?

I guess I'm closer to qt but often I seem to be out on my own on opinions. lol

Maybe qualified qt, closer to trans realist, with a component view of gender.

Basically more essentialist than either side here.

2) Were you ever on the opposite side? (Ex. Went from GC to QT or QT to GC?)

Always slightly heretical.

3) How do you define "man" and "woman"?

I'd go with biology and go with biology sometimes being socially complicated.

4) Transwoman are...Transmen are...

I mean I'd respect their rights to identify.

Often seems besides the point.

5) What are your thoughts on the term "cis", "natal" and "biological"?

Seem pretty useful for discussing this.

6) Do you believe transmen can play in sports with biological men and vice-versa---can transwomen play in sports with biological women?

I think trans people in sport are going to hit some basic issues. Which will often mean it's probably not a good idea. That's tough.

7) What is considered misgendering?

Using gendered language for people that prefer the other gender due to a trans condition?

8) Gender is...and sex is...

The interesting questions.

I think gender often means the social aspects.

I don't think the social aspects can be abolished.

Reshaped? Yes. But it's never going away.

9) Do you know people in real life that are QT if you're GC or that are GC if you're QT? Are they friends or family?

I've known most are "liberal," a lot are brosocialist, some radical feminists, but a lot are conservative, or de facto conservatives.

Certainly male gender non conformity can't really be discussed. Often it's tolerate but "lol freaks."

10) How do people normally treat you based in your views?

I try to avoid commenting anything too controversial either way.

Certainly people just knowing I'm a crossdresser is highly socially dangerous. So I can't appear to know more on the topic. That looks "gay" or suspect, "a healthy male doesn't have opinions on gender."

11) Are transmedicalist GC, QT, or neither?

Other.

I figure there are more than 2 factions in this.

Indeed I keep meaning to make a post here merely to debate the actual multiple factions and positions.

12) What is one thing you wish the other side knew about your position?

So much.

Maybe I'd start with, it's not about porn. I may go to "fetish" clubs but porn never played any role in the formation.

Extra (optional--Put N/A if you choose not to answer, it's okay) 1) What is your sexual orientation?

Straight male.

But as a crossdresser I probably don't count as a normal straight male.

2) Are you a transman/transwoman or a biological man/woman?

Male.

3) What region are you from?(North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa)

Scotland. Hello Rowling :)

4) Feel free to share your background story here of how you became GC or QT.

As a crossdresser, firstly gender is a fascinating topic. Even if it is highly politically charged.

I spent a long time trying to work things out about the why, not the what.

I could never quiet fully agree with qt. I was always too essentialist. And I'd concede to the complications.

But too essentialist for liberal tastes.

In that sense when I saw other crossdressers saying "It's only fashion" and personality I'd be skeptical. That doesn't mean I identify as trans or anyone ought to. But it is to do with gender. It looks related.

If someone is selecting behaviours and expressions of the opposite gender, they are doing a selection that others make, called "gender." Humans are deeply social creatures. Gender is social activity that people carry out personally.

theory_of_this · 2020-07-16T00:15:44+00:00

Are you more traditional essential ist? Or feminist essentialist?

I too miss the old sub. Its a loss. Maybe I just believe in difficult conversations.

I feel like I'd like a history of the subreddit. A list of the events. I miss some of the comments I made.

We also need flairs here. I think there is an option to turn them on.

theory_of_this · 2022-12-15T22:02:31+00:00

This must be the one place on the internet where people are complaining the trans culture war is too quiet. :)

I still have a million topics

theory_of_this · 2022-09-17T09:39:18+00:00

I think Blanchardianism, that's the Bailey auto sexuality stuff is flawed.

I think the "porn makes perverts" model is flawed. I don't think the science shows it. I don't think Blanchardianism supports it (it is about an innate desire). The attractions are real but I think they are something more innate. That's just how humans are. Mostly conforming but with a fuzzy consistent range of gender divergent people.

When you try to enforce the Blanchard models you end up with seriously odd ideas. Like pseudo bisexual autogynephilia by proxy, something like that. Where transwomen who are attracted to transwomen are interpreted as being attracted to a person who confirms their identity. I think at a basic level they just are attracted to transwomen, of different degrees.

There's a background idea here, that if it wasn't for the corruption of modern life, porn, the internet, decadence that men would be normal, straight conforming, good people. That they have been corrupted by culture.

Further still it's overlapping and adjacent to saying gay rights, the sexual revolution and feminism have corrupted the natural order of the sexes.

I should say I'm not justifying porn addiction, porn production or saying certain identities do not exist. I am pointing out errors in these models.

theory_of_this · 2022-06-06T10:52:42+00:00

Chickens can sometimes undergo natural sex changes. Normally, female chickens have just one functional ovary, on their left side. Although two sex organs are present during the embryonic stages of all birds, once a chicken's female hormones come into effect, it typically develops only the left ovary. The right gonad, which has yet to be defined as an ovary, testes, or both (called an ovotestis), typically remains dormant. Certain medical conditions can cause a chicken's left ovary to regress. In the absence of a functional left ovary, the dormant right sex organ may begin to grow; if the activated right gonad is an ovotestis or testes, it will begin secreting androgens. The hen does not completely change into a rooster, however. This transition is limited to making the bird phenotypically male.[5][6] The condition could also be caused by mycotoxins that can develop when animal feed is stored, and these have the same effect as synthetic hormones.[7] In about 10 percent of cases, if eggs fertilized with male chromosomes are cooled by a few degrees for three days after laying, the relative activity of the sex hormones will favour development of female characteristics. The sex chromosomes work by coding for enzymes that affect the bird's development in the egg and during its life. This cooling will produce a chicken with a fully functioning and reproductively fertile female body-type, even though the chicken is genetically male.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change#Natural_sex_change

theory_of_this · 2021-07-24T08:38:11+00:00

So what's your take? How would you describe it?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-23T10:54:29+00:00

There was a science paper on some cases. We discussed in the before time in the other place. More things we lost in the fire.

The report was on a very low number so it was hard to judge what was going on.

I think a good number reverted to their biological gender. One of the adjusted from what I inferred was living as a butch a lesbian.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-17T08:10:14+00:00

Frankly, I think I'm pretty "pure" but apparently not enough for some.

This is the nature of purity spirals.

Eh, debatable. There are many bad people in the world. That doesn't mean everyone is a depraved monster. Those are just the worst of the worst. It doesn't mean the others are good.

But we can't pass laws about it all was more my point there.

Good point. The question should be why a man doesn't watch porn. There are many who stop watching for purely self-interested reasons. They don't care about the abuse or exploitation of women at all. I'd rather a respectful man look at a naked photo on Reddit than deal with a disrespectful man who still gets off on violence but chooses not to watch porn because it desensitizes his penis.

I can understand that.

Just realised this was GC only. My mistake. Though I'm all for these debates.

I think a lot of QT or liberal side don't always think these things through or don't grasp them.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-13T19:58:36+00:00

I wonder what the numbers are of QT people that actually believe "not dating is bigotry" ? Are they that high.

Here's a follow up question. How many would date a person on the other side of the argument?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-12T11:59:17+00:00

I think that virtually all of the hypotheses that you express over-rely on common sense (vs good sense) and that your frame of reference is most likely, at best, only 6% of human history, and that the entirety of those 12,000 years (as opposed to the 200,000 years of human history and pre-history) have been either within or peripheral to a subsistence system that is notorious for incentivising social stratification, especially in regards to the sexes.

I think there is evidence that humans are not blank.

I think we also accept there is plenty of evidence that evolution affects the behaviour in all other animals.

It's not wild bad speculation to think human behaviour is also influenced by evolution. I think that's commonly accepted in the relevant sciences.

The degree and forms are debated. That's fine.

When you’re talking about 200,000 years of human history, you need to question your most basic assumptions about how things work to allow the evidence to speak for itself. The fact that sexed division of labour most likely didn't exist until, at most, the Upper Palaeolithic Era (so, at most, the last 25% of human history), is very substantial evidence against your hypothesis of fundamental, natural differences in behaviour existing between the sexes.

Do you have evidence of this? I don't know of absolute egalitarian societies with no gender norms.

Do they vary? Sure. Are they very moderate in places? Sure.

Why would we evolve dimorphic bodies and sexual reproduction and then behave identically?

Pretty sure in nature dimorphic bodies are correlated with dimorphic behaviour.

Ultimately I think that at this point it's unknowable

I get that it's a hard topic but taking the hard blank position for all behaviour and all gendered behaviour seems a leap to me.

I know that it's very tempting to latch onto a belief system that explains things in a way that feels right, but

I mean I think a lot of this is awkward truths where "Feels right" looks like the wrong term. Some things are unpleasant but true.

Thinking bad behaviour is not wired into humans seems like wishful thinking. That doesn't mean "we're bad therefore we must do bad things." Rather than we have to act like humans are prone to "bad" behaviours. Rather than hoping we are perfect if it wasn't for a "bad culture."

theory_of_this · 2021-07-12T10:23:39+00:00

See when a claim is made (like, evopsych has validity) it needs to be supported.

I think humans evolved. I think humans have innate psychology (aside from any questions of gender).

I think that psychology is the result of evolution. I don't think it's all random spandrels. As basic as that.

What's the alternative? We are perfect blank animals?

Every time I look into it I see behaviours connected to long linages of animals that go back into eternity.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-12T10:10:31+00:00

You are again conflating differences with innate differences.

I'm saying I think there are innate differences and I think they are natural.

Even if it is slight in some traits.

Unless you believe that evolutionary psychology explains the entirety of human behaviour and that largely rejecting evolutionary psychology implies that there is one single idea or discipline that will explain the entirety of human behaviour.

I don't think evolutionary psychology explains everything.

But I don't think science needs to explain everything to be correct.

I also don't think that everything called "evolutionary psychology" is correct.

But I find work that argues towards absolute innate equality unconvincing and not supported by science.

Is not a claim. What are you asking for proof of?

Proof that all recorded sex conflict is down to patriarchy.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-12T10:01:24+00:00

You think a pop psych book is science

They can be good or bad but they likely all refer to science papers.

I don't think all "pop science" books are bad.

think actual sources are irrelevant to discussing biology,

I think they are relevant.

But science is a hard and this topic in particular is disputed within science.

and want someone to give you a study proving that you have no proof of what you claim.

I want to see a science paper claiming humans are innately blank.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-12T09:19:12+00:00

Cute how you immediately assume I say it’s not science because it’s not a gc magazine.

Well yes. GC would view trans ideas as unscientific, no? A lot of the debate is about the science.

A magazine article is not science. A pop psychology theory with loads of valid criticism is not science. The opinions of people are not science.

Sure it's a political magazine reviewing a pop science book which I think is relevant to debates here.

How about a study that can be replicated and gets the same results every time?

We can't offer relevant reviews of relevant pop science books. It has to be science papers or nothing?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-12T09:10:45+00:00

I don't know what was more obnoxious: the conflation of the criticism of evolutionary psychology with criticism of evolutionary theory in general, the suggestion that the author is some sort of brave iconoclast for daring to suggest that male and female psychology is naturally different, or the implication that male violence is at least partially feminists' (read: women's) fault for largely rejecting evolutionary psychology.

I think that's an uncharitable take of the reviewer.

Better outcomes might require admitting there are differences in order to act on them.

If you believe men and women are behaviourally identical when they are not and this results in crime or social issues that could be avoided then there is a problem.

As an aside: it should be noted that the vast majority of the criticism of evolutionary psychology is not political.

Seems like the subject gets political very quickly and that criticism is often political. But I accept the truth of a science is independent of politics.

Do you think evolutionary psychology is wrong? Does this depend on what you mean by evolutionary psychology?

You can certainly use a pop psychology book as a source, but I would recommend going straight to the 'research data' the article mentions when possible.

Well it is a pop psychology that refers to actual science.

Buss’s thesis – which is extremely well supported by the research data – is that male and female sexuality is, in general, different, and that these differences produce conflict, sometimes in strange and subtle ways.

That seems like a good point.

I suppose gc generally think all gender differences are cultural.

But I was interested in this because this was a feminist in a left wing publication admitting there maybe something to this.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-11T16:03:16+00:00

The dynamics of the sex trade reveal this particularly starkly. Women make up the overwhelming majority of sex-sellers, for the simple reason that almost all sex-buyers are men (at least 99 per cent across the world), most men are straight, and the industry is driven by demand. Sex-buyers are people who seek sex outside of a committed relationship, usually with a person they have never met before, and this kind of sexual encounter is far more likely to appeal to those who score higher on the inventory of what psychologists term “socio-sexuality”: a desire for sexual variety.

One of the most well-supported findings within the cross-cultural study of human sexuality is that men are, on average, higher in socio-sexuality than women. This makes intuitive sense within an evolutionary framework since, while it may be advantageous for fathers to hang around after conception to increase the mother and baby’s chances of survival, it isn’t always necessary. A man who can game the system by abandoning a woman after impregnating her, and then ride off into the sunset to impregnate more women is successfully spreading his genetic material. He carries the risk of retribution, including violence from the woman’s male kin, but the benefits may sometimes outweigh the risks.

Our female ancestors had to bring up their children in a dangerous environment, which usually meant keeping a male partner around, both for material support and for protection from other men. Our male ancestors, meanwhile, “recurrently faced an adaptive problem no woman in the history of human evolution has ever faced – investing resources in the mistaken belief that a child has sprung from his own loins and not from those of an interloper”. In our evolutionary history, men who unwittingly devoted themselves to raising children who weren’t genetically related to them were at a selection disadvantage, while those who practised what biologists call “mate guarding” could be certain that their children were their own.

Although women experience jealousy just as often as men do, the male expression of this emotion is most destructive: 50 to 70 per cent of female murder victims are killed by men motivated by sexual jealousy, whereas only 3 per cent of male murder victims are killed by romantic partners or ex-partners. The disproportionate institutional power that men have historically held means that male sexual jealousy is also embedded in cultural and legal systems. In much of the Middle East and West and Central Africa, men are permitted to take multiple wives, but women must remain monogamous. Even in the modern West, where this sexual double standard is no longer formalised in law, it still shows up in myriad ways.

The invention of hormonal birth control may have reduced the biological necessity of mate guarding, but it can’t undo evolution. If you take a group of married men, hook them up to machines that monitor heart rate and other physiological responses, and ask them to imagine their wives having sex with another man, they are sure to show an intense physical stress response, whether or not their wives are imagined to be on the contraceptive pill. Although cultural variation demonstrates that it is possible to encourage or discourage an instinctive emotion like jealousy through the use of social pressures, it is very hard to override adaptations that are deeply embedded in the human mind – this, in the end, is the core tenet of evolutionary psychology.

Bad Men is a popular-science book, rich with lively detail, but it can also be read as a self-help book informed by evolutionary research. Plenty of Buss’s insights will be useful to anyone attempting to navigate the modern dating landscape. For example, it apparently really is true that men who own sports cars are more likely to cheat on their partners, as are women who wear a lot of make-up. It is also true that a man who is reluctant to introduce a partner to his friends and family is probably attempting what Buss coyly terms a “short-term mating strategy”, or what others might refer to as a “fuck and chuck”. Most stereotypes about human mating are borne out by the data.

But there are also more important insights to be gleaned from the second half of the book, which is concerned with violence, overwhelmingly inflicted by men on women. An unfortunate effect of the feminist rejection of evolutionary psychology is that most feminists have stepped away from the discipline and so play only a minor role in shaping it. Yet the discipline can still be put to feminist ends. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of psychological differences between the sexes is not only hard to justify scientifically, it also denies us the opportunity to take advantage of a body of knowledge that could be truly useful, particularly for the young women who are most at risk from sexual violence.

Bad Men is well worth reading for its practical advice, which includes – among much else – strategies for victims of stalking, as well as a lengthy description of the psychological characteristics of men most likely to rape (impulsivity, disagreeableness, promiscuity, hyper-masculinity and low empathy). Buss makes a scientifically informed case for recruiting more female police officers to investigate sexual crime, and explains why women’s intuitive fear of strangers in dark alleys is perfectly rational, demonstrating that, at a policy level, evolutionary psychology could be used to argue both for major reforms to the criminal justice system, and for minor changes, such as improved street lighting.

Despite these helpful recommendations and his attempts to signal friendliness by quoting icons such as Kimberlé Crenshaw and Susan Brownmiller, Buss is bound to be either condemned or ignored by most feminists, given that recognising the natural origins of male violence is such a dismaying prospect. Nevertheless, while this might not seem an obvious choice of feminist reading matter, I would press this book into the hands of any teenage girl. “Men’s sexual violence toward women remains the most widespread human rights problem in the world,” writes this unlikely feminist ally. “A deep understanding of the co-evolution of sexual conflict in humans will not magically solve all problems. But I am convinced it is the light and the way.”

Bad Men: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment and Assault David M Buss

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T14:43:17+00:00

But isn't femininity rooted in female oppression?

Surely people can't be naturally be for that?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T14:23:51+00:00

But in an ideal world would there be feminine women?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-01T14:00:20+00:00

Isn't masculinity a stereotype no matter who's doing it?

Do you see any reason for femininity?

theory_of_this · 2021-06-19T13:30:37+00:00

lol it's getting too long

If there's anything I've missed let me know

theory_of_this · 2021-06-19T13:27:31+00:00

Part 1

Regarding complementary I do mean it in three possible ways.

Equal but different with a different flag. Equal but demarcating roles. Similar but with trends in power.

Societies then handle these tin different ways

The flag model is simple, equal but humans having a desire to socially mark biological sex, with more than just physical characteristics. Which is obviously a useful case in sexual reproduction.

Like that gender is a flag for sex. That can serve uncontroversial social purposes.

Second might be gender acting as a flag for gender roles. That most humans have lived without technology in communities where sex as a direct physical implication of role. All encountered societies have had gender roles.

The third would be politically difficult. The idea of men as dominant male. I certainly entertain the possibility that women find masculine dominance is naturally sexually appealing. It’s not everything about the sex appeal of men but it’s so purvasive, recurring and common that’s difficult not to consider.

Obviously I can see why it is politically explosive. But we take it for granted. It’s not just that mean abuse power for sex, it’s that power itself is sexually attractive. Even a small percentage preference in people creates noticeable results in large populations.

Yes I can see the terrible implications of this. It’s not the world I’d organise but it looks familiar.

It’s not that this is the end all position, only that it might be a proclivity of humans.

But you don't see yourself being the same as them? Seems like you have the same foundational belief system as the Red Pillers and incels.

Ha no I’m not on their side.

The red pillars aren’t exactly positive about crossdressers or gender variant men. One aspect I might agree is men and women on average are different in regards to sex. Sexual drive, sexual preferences etc.

That courtship advice has to admit that men and women are generally different.

Incels seem mad, hateful, depressed and depressing. I mean I want compassion for them but they need help.

But you see how I’d disagree with Red Pillers?

Do you know the “blue pill” side?

Kind of extreme on the other side. Probably too liberal feminist, pro trans, queer theory for you. They are far more tolerant of gender variance in men than Red Pill. Even if I find them too anti essentialist.

Like, what do I recommend to straight crossdressers? I would tell them that crossdressing is not popular with women. Femininity in general isn’t. No matter what form it takes. It can work but it’s a minority of women. That’s just how it is.

Maybe that’s Purple Pill.

So was I just a stupid, ignorant person for never being exposed to that growing up? You're saying every other single person but me in my small, God-fearing community was thinking about sex as an act of dominance and power, and I was the lone hold out? How did they know when I didn't?

I’m not saying you’re stupid. This is a debate about underlying psychological drives. I’m not saying “sex and power” is the totality. It’s just prone to being strongly linked. It’s a common idea that sex and power are linked? It’s all there in science and the arts.

It's not like people are scheming and plotting everywhere.

Ha, I think they are. It’s inevitable.

The reason that Ramsay died such a horrible death...

Drama needs suffering for it to work. But it’s not real that makes it acceptable.

Anyone who was taking pleasure in those scenes of sexual abuse and torture is deviant.

I think that’s probably true.

It was not the intent of the directors or producers to show the abuse of that girl as sexually arousing.

The creators' intentions might be ambiguous in that.

Certainly the last season was torture.

I feel like I would be a good law enforcement officer because for me it would not be an ego trip.

Quite possibly.

It's real violence, though. Women are really being hit and strangled. Women are really being called horrible names. BDSM practitioners often try to claim that what happens during sex is somehow not real life. That rings hollow to me. Sex is perhaps the realest part of life of all. A man calling a woman a "whore" during sex is calling her a "whore." He can't say he doesn't mean or it doesn't reflect how he truly feels about her. Of course it does. Otherwise it wouldn't give him pleasure to say it.

Sure I can’t defend all bdsm at all.

But policing language in the bedroom is a problem.

I think this way of thinking has bad unintended consequences.

But if all the women are the same and get rid of certain beauty practices, they're not going to stop desiring them. In fact, I think they'll soon forget all about those things. Men in other cultures and in the past never saw women with shaved legs or underarms and still desired then. Men in certain tribes desire women with bald heads.

Sure but they still had gender norms and gender expression. They were still very much down for body adornment and gendered sexual display.

The more resources humans have the more they indulge it.

I'm saying if it was thrown away. All women buzz their heads, stop shaving, and throw away makeup. Heterosexual men would still obviously want to fuck them. As evidenced by history and other cultures today. We're really just primates when it comes down to it. Female primates don't have gender.

Sure but they still have preferences.

If you suppressed gendered display it would re emerge in other ways. It’s what humans do.

I take neutrality for granted. Femininity is something artificial that is only expected of women. The opposite of femininity is really neutrality, not masculinity.

This is a key idea. I think masculinity’s neutral aspect is cloudy. Yes, traditional society took “men” and “masculinity”to be the natural order.

But masculinity isn’t neutral.

I’m not clear on how one is constructed but not the other is not? I’d think they are both a mix of cultural and natural drives.

Well, of course it is. I know it's harder. I'm not saying it will be easy for you. But if you live in a place where you can express yourself safely, then you shouldn't worry about what other people think. Do you really worry about social approval?

Of course I worry. I’ve already lost friends simply because people know I am a crossdresser. It’s not publicly acceptable. That’s just how it is.

I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be the way I am. The kind of woman I am is upsetting to some in society, but it doesn't make me change my mind.

As we agreed it is more socially acceptable for women to be gender non conforming. It’s a female privilege. :) That’s a joke.

I am empathic to anyone who is gender non conforming. I know it has a social cost. I can see it. Being gender conforming as a man or woman doesn’t have a social cost.

But some men are gay. Some men are feminine. Some biological males are transsexual. Shouldn't they be proud of who they are instead of hiding it?

Ah that’s into a different question.

I thought that's what everyone has been working towards, so that GNC men do not have to hide in the shadows. Surely both sides can agree on this.

In theory, yes. But in practice I think we are light years for gnc males being normalised to everyday life.

What do you think of this article? Men and boys standing up for the rights of other males to be GNC.

Fine but I don’t think it’s going anywhere. By that I mean I don’t think society is changing that much.

Tolerance might be going up but not normalization.

But then I think gender moves along. If skirts, heels, make up etc were normalised both genders would move on to other things.

Gotcha. Thanks. I don't know why you're attracted to them either. If it wasn't a fetish, I'd say it was just a personal preference. But since it is a fetish, I think it has to have originated somewhere.

I always feel fetish is a way of ending thinking about it.

theory_of_this · 2021-06-08T09:05:16+00:00

I wonder when or if we will accept the link between testosterone and behaviour?

theory_of_this · 2021-06-03T19:56:38+00:00

"Zeus is the alpha of alphas."

gay biker MC erotic romance “Living off the grid and being an outlaw brings a dangerous reality.”

Billionaire BOSS: Secret Baby (Oh Billionaires!) He’s the man I absolutely hate.

billionaire badass CEO Collin Stark. Did I mention he's an ex-Army interrogator?

Well I doubt this set of characters are going to be challenging cultural norms.

Do I need to look for more in the list you gave?

theory_of_this · 2021-06-02T13:20:00+00:00

Where are these "prenatal androgens" supposed to have come from?

I thought it was an uncontroversial idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

Most extensively studied in organizational effects of hormones is congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH).[6] CAH is a genetic disease that results in exposure to high levels of androgens beginning early in gestation.

Isn't it a thing that is studied?

theory_of_this · 2021-06-02T13:00:45+00:00

Ha, I can't tell with mine.

On your right hand if you stretch out your flat hand, which finger is longer?

Your index finger or your 4th, ginger, the ring finger?

I should say I'm not sure what to think of the idea.

If the evidence is good I would have to believe it.

It need only be a trend rather than one to one to be real.

They look like a heterosexual digit ratio? I'm right handed.

Isn't that heterosexuality among men?

But I'm also more physically masculine than a lot of women, which would lead me to believe I had an atypical prenatal environment. So maybe it's not foolproof. What's your hand ratio?

My right index finger is longer than my ring finger.

It's not universal, though. Autogynephilia does not appear to be found in all cultures.

Well I'm not a Blanchardian. Though it is very essentialist.

Perhaps a starting point is, are there straight crossdressers in all cultures? My guess is yes there are. But outside Western culture sexuality and gender are handled differently. But I still think crossdressers are linking into universal sexual frameworks.

Lots of non Western cultures are very traditional and very locked into a traditional gender roles. But also crossdressers are actually rare. It isn't common by percentage.

But what about women? Are women with higher sex drives likely to have more paraphilias? I have zero, but my libido is through the roof.

ha though isn't a high libido considered a perversion for a woman?

Though I do like the question. "Are women with higher libidos more perverse?" I'd like to know the scientific answer.

Also, what's up with all these "asexual" kinksters who go around committing BDSM acts while also claiming to have no sexual drive or sexual attraction?

Not sure. I think it's real. Although I would think sexuality and behaviour are linked, I think behaviour that is considered sexual might also serve non sexual purposes, like identity, so I think identity can be sexual. For instance people finding cultural forms attractive. So people feel attached to a cultural form even if it is not not sexual.

I also think some things are innately lend themselves to sexualization more than others because they are aesthetically or tactically pleasing. In that sense they can be pleasing without being sexual.

I also think some bdsm activities probably cause endorphin peaks. That might not be directly sexual.

theory_of_this · 2021-06-01T22:30:53+00:00

Couldn't you say that about anyone here though?

Well yes. But these kinds of forums have gnc people. Gnc people are likely to have minority digit ratios, in theory.

theory_of_this · 2021-06-01T22:00:52+00:00

That doesn't sound that radical though.

theory_of_this · 2021-06-01T21:42:15+00:00

See, I can only speak for my own self, but as a radfem and a straight woman, my own taste actually changed.

When you say you changed? What changed?

I guarantee you, the reason so many women like this sort of thing is simply because of societal influence.

That's the big question to me.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-30T23:15:40+00:00

sure. but I gotta go to bed now

certainly up for returning to this.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-30T23:01:35+00:00

OK then I'll leave it there.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-30T21:47:47+00:00

harsh. I don't think that would happen on the old sub.

I thought masculinity, femininity and essentialism were central topics to Blanchardian Autogynphilia.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-29T22:17:38+00:00

But there are paraphilias associated with women and women's sexuality isn't generally the same as males.

I can look at erotica popular with women think they reflect female desires. What's unreasonable about that?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-27T20:03:37+00:00

In the sprawling metro U.S. region I grew up in pre-Disney-Princess-era, no. In the unis I've attended here and abroad in the West, no. YMMV.

To be clear you are saying in these environments there is no relationship between gender expression and sexual orientation?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-26T20:42:50+00:00

Gender conformity is rewarded, while gender non conformity is punished. So obviously some men and women will happily chose conformity.

But all men and women who conform don't consider themselves choosing to conform to avoid punishment.

Masculinity isn't freedom, but it is associated with more freedom.

This point I kind of agree on. Traditionally men the masculine role is associated with a higher degree of power and freedom.

Where it comes into problems is trying to apply the traditional situation in modern times. More freedom has not meant an end to gender.

I would take essentialist reasons for that.

You are failing on causality again. Heterosexual women are liking masculine men not because they are liking masculinity, but because masculinity is associated with men, masculinity is promoted as something that is attractive. Previously masculinity was wearing make-up and tight leggings - today it will be called feminine. Same with different cultures, masculine american may be recognized as feminine somewhere in India or Oceania, and masculine indian man in dress can be considered as feminine in USA. However, heterosexual women are still loving them, even thought they are looking the opposite.

Gender expression and roles change but gender remains.

And they can only change within limits.

When heels were popular with men they associated with the power of owning a warhorse an expensive thing connected to power. I can't deny that relationship still exists in masculinity today. To power and violence.

And in some complications heels today can be associated with power and wealth.

So I do think gender expression does vary it never goes away. I think of it as a kind of sexual display like animals do. That explains a lot to me.

All the different cultures still have gender expression and gender norms. Plus a minority of gender non conforming people associated with same sex attraction.

I said in another answer to you this - gay men do not need to attract women, so they do not forced to follow more masculine presentation, as it becomes useless to them in this case. And they may want to attract male gazes, so they will more likely to have feminine presentation.

But gay men find masculine men attractive. This places all the desire on the men. Gay women can kind find feminine women attractive.

All of femininity is not down to male desire.

What you are saying that social masculinity and femininity is some genetical part of human behaviour. This makes no sense - as why then different cultures have different view on visual presentation of femininity and masculinity if it is innate?

I think language is innate but completed by culture. The same with gender.

I think gender expression is related to sexual display. That seems a perfectly natural parallel to sexual orientation.

I can't imagine sexual display would be the same.

No. Otherwise all cultures would had universal beauty standarts and universal femininity/masculinity descriptions.

Different but never the same.

I am asking why you may have such urge to dres and look like a woman (which is not the same as to perform femininity). I am interested what can be a reason to conform to gender stereotypes of opposite sex when not being transgender, not being fetishist (as femininity is entangled with "being sexually attractive") and other similar reasons.

It's a mix of expression and eroticism. You might call that a fetish but I have different interpretation than gc. I don't think you can disconnect gender expression from sex. If you take erotic popular with straight women and flip the sexes that would work for me.

But that would be described as fetishistic.

I am not denying that there are other reasons for this, but I don't know them. And if you are one of those cases - I am interested to hear your position.

I think this is part of the problem that gc can't imagine healthy reasons for straight male gender non conformity. If it sees sexualization of femininity it's always going to see that as wrong. Where as it doesn't see the sexualization of masculinity as a problem.

But to me masculinity and femininity are naturally sexual.

They are also not perfect mirrors of each other.

You mean feminine gay women can't be attractive to gay women?

???

Women can find the femininity of women attractive.

That's natural.

Elaborate this point.

Autogynephilia is part of Blanchards model.

It relies on an essentialist model that is as odds with gender critical.

"Male attracted trans women are naturally feminine"

"Female attracted trans women are attracted to themselves"

It's usually extended to women to say

"Female attracted trans men are naturally masculine"

"Female attracted trans men are attracted to themselves"

Gender expression in this model is natural.

So you want to escape this, but escape by going into opposite oppressive group?

That's more political than where my desires starts. The desire to crossdress started before I was a teenager. I never used porn growing up. I was mostly disconnected from sexuality.

I want to express femininity and I'm attracted to dominant women.

I'm not choosing that to escape. I'd rather not have this identity.

Yes, the one without sexual fetishes, and without being gender non conforming most of the time (as cross-dressing implies it is part-time activity, not permanent).

I mean not being able to express yourself as you wish is source of distress.

Not really, I went fully FEBFem way. I can find men attractive, but I would not want to date any, or any to give me attention.

AH right I see what you mean.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-26T09:06:53+00:00

No. They acknowledged that men still hold onto misogyny and masculinity even when they claim they're women.

Well I was asking what they meant.

This is a tired debate that GC has had countless times already: we acknowledge masculinity and femininity as social factors that the sexes are inevitably saddled with as a result of their upbringing.

GC often isn't a single stable position.

There are different beliefs.

A person who truly felt alienated by gender norms wouldn't go out of their way to follow them.

Where does truly felt alienation from gender norms come from? Is it "natural" ?

Society does begrudgingly allow a degree of flexibility in regards to gendered presentation, but male trans people usually don't make use of that at all, because it's not about freeing yourself from gender norms, it's about imitating a caricature of inferior womanhood.

I'm still never clear what you're idea of "good male trans people" are.

It comes back to this issue of femininity being bad for everyone and masculine being seen as the "true natural norm."

It seems to amount to "Gender will be abolished when everyone is masculine." Seems the implied message.

What is wrong with this understanding?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-25T21:48:39+00:00

I wasn't meaning Steve had changed as well, I was theorising instead Jane had come out.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-13T10:01:07+00:00

There are behaviours, looks and activities which are either gender neutral, or not explored at all.

You mean androgyny?

Man can wear male-specific dress, for example. Not dress that was made for female, but dress that was made specifically for a male body type. It will be gender nonconforming and not following gender stereotypes about women.

But a male specific item is masculine.

Man can put white powder like samurai's on his face instead of using sexualized lipstick and pink powders.

Is this gender non conformity or cultural non conformity?

Samurais are masculine figures associated with power and violence.

So yes if the majority of men decided that Samurai make up was the thing then it would become a masculine norm and still associated with swords and fighting.

Changes in norms are not the end of norms.

Same with behaviour. Just not acting as is expected from a man is enough,

Not expected of a man implies expected of a woman.

What else would it mean?

just ignoring silently already can be gender nonconforming.

What does this mean?

There are many ways of not conforming to stereotypes.

How?

What are the many ways for a person to be gender non conforming

theory_of_this · 2021-05-13T08:54:45+00:00

Your claim is femininity is bad and a construction of the patriarchy.

I don't think that's how the majority of women view it. You disagree.

I don't see who you can have "good gender non conforming males" if you condemn femininity.

I'd also add the majority of women are attracted to masculinity.

Doesn't seem much point in deny these things.

theory_of_this · 2021-05-11T22:49:18+00:00

OK but that's still quite general in regard to gender or feminism.

Obviously I understand liberal and feminism can mean different things. I'd see you cannot identify as a liberal feminist because of it's common relationship to trans politics.

But why not radical feminist?

How essentialist are you?

theory_of_this · 2021-05-11T21:22:07+00:00

I'm a liberalist

Do you have any links to a definition?

Does this mean you do or don't identify as a feminist? What have you got against gender critical feminism?

theory_of_this · 2021-04-27T08:38:42+00:00

Fiction and drama might be slightly more open.

Sure there's fiction, but popular fiction is surely more narrow?

Whether you see them in regular life probably does depend on where you live.

theory_of_this · 2021-03-12T14:25:36+00:00

hi worried

I think it will be super gender conforming. I expect it will be super manipulated by the Right. It doesn't make for a working alliance that people might think it would be. They guys there will be ultimately super socially conservative and not down with the female gender non conformity espoused here.

theory_of_this · 2020-08-07T15:38:28+00:00

I think gender is like language. It's naturally triggered but completed by culture. It can vary but it always has to act within natural norms. Physical strength is always going to be seen as more masculine, smooth skin is always going to be associated with feminine. All societies have masculinity and femininity even if they vary.

theory_of_this · 2020-07-12T15:38:02+00:00

yeah I mean I'm not sure how Spinster would take to literally the man in the dress arguing with them.

There is a general issue here on this sub on saidit that it might not draw enough trans, truscum, qt people in general.

But...I have a background notion that both sides actually want to debate. There will be enough on both sides drawn to want to talk it over with the "other side." But it does need to be policed. I guess over time people will find a place to argue again.

I still think of some debates I had with you, worried19, :) that we never got to finish. Sometimes it's taken too much of my time. But in other ways I could debate this all the time. Because it's so interesting and personal.

One of the things I'm annoyed about is I'd actually written personal things on gcdebatesqt myself that I referred to. That I used in other arguments to defend my arguments. It's all annoyingly lost now. I'll need to check the archives.

theory_of_this · 2022-11-26T11:18:15+00:00

Regarding the facts around what is going on rather what ought to be done I'm pretty confident social aspects of gender are not all a social construct.

All societies have social forms of gender. Masculinity and femininity. Men are masculine and attracted to feminine women and women are feminine and attracted to masculine men.

Biology makes men and women differently, that is likely to include behaviours to utilise the differences. But humans being as flexible as they are the exact forms are completed by culture.

There are a constant minority percentage of people across all societies who do not strictly fit that pattern. Which implies a natural trigger not a pure social construct.

Is it mental illness? It depends on your definition of mental illness. So in a sense defying social norms is mental illness. But people in this category are not necessarily disconnected from reality.

I have less evidence for, but guess at a component hybrid model of gender. That some parts are associated with a sex but the combinations do not create perfect averages or perfect mirrors. For example I think same sex attraction IS from an opposite sex behaviour, however the combination does not always result in the same behaviour.

theory_of_this · 2022-07-27T07:34:11+00:00

How would you classify them?

theory_of_this · 2022-07-27T06:54:29+00:00

That they don't identify as a feminist? A lot of it reads like toxic masculinity.

theory_of_this · 2022-01-15T10:41:15+00:00

That's true. It would probably be deleted in qt spaces.

In regular spaces the invite is going to attract the far right. I don't think gc are the far right. I think there is a relationship with social conservatism though.

theory_of_this · 2022-01-14T09:30:35+00:00

yeah you probably need to advertise in qt spaces for qt users really

theory_of_this · 2021-12-04T10:23:24+00:00

ooh I'd rather avoid twitter. not my platform

theory_of_this · 2021-12-03T09:22:31+00:00

Masculinity and femininity are things. Nobody is really denying that are they?

How it's handled, what it means, what can change is up for debate.

She says she has an affinity for the masculine, I was wondering how she explained that affinity. That is all. I wanted to understand her.

theory_of_this · 2021-10-27T11:07:07+00:00

It's a bad idea.

But I do find it ironic this coming from gender critical where Sheila Jeffreys is a leading figure.

Sheila Jeffreys supports political lesbianism as does Julie Bindel. "I think it's time for feminists to re-open the debate about heterosexuality, and to embrace the idea of political lesbianism."

theory_of_this · 2021-10-08T08:04:48+00:00

You care about the gender expression then right?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-24T13:03:01+00:00

I was of course meaning GC there not "QC."

theory_of_this · 2021-07-24T12:53:05+00:00

I agree with everything there. That's pretty much one of my basic opinions here.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-24T12:05:46+00:00

The point that went over your head is that you often seem to be tilting at windmills.

I think that depends on the particular point and the particular person. GC isn't all one position, neither is qt.

If it looks like I'm arguing only against one false, unclaimed position. But I see positions I disagree with.

You tend to debate & disagree not with what other posters here have actually said or what we believe, but with what you'd like to think or pretend we've said & believe.

I think think I can make the same arguments back.

I asked you before what is your general take on gender? How should things be done? I was genuinely interested, didn't assume you had to take a "party position," wanted to know where you were coming from.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-24T08:40:02+00:00

Well we debate with people we disagree with. We're likely to see things differently. If you aren't going to have people with different points of view there isn't gong to be much debate here.

What would agreement from me look like? Stop being a crossdresser?

EDIT Also I'd explicitly believe there are more than one take on both sides. There are in fact many positions. I'd like to see more positions categorised.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-23T10:45:23+00:00

I would think you are wanting to prevent it but don't seem to be interested in any understanding that might help that.

You want a man not to be submissive in order to prove that straight women are on average not attracted to dominant men?

Or the other trait.

You want a man not express femininity in order to prove that straight women are on average not attracted to masculinity?

Why can't you say yes they are attracted to those things, because of society, that a man breaking those norms is a good thing. You'd say it's because I am demonstrating a connection between dominance and masculinity. But I don't think society is taking lessons from crossdressers, mildly dominant or submissive. At all.

You have no real interest on what women may think about and you want to naturalise abuse by using euphemisms like "erotic play".

Of course I have an interest.

To be honest, I have no idea why you come here to discuss about this stuff if you're so conviced that you know far better what women want than we do.

Well you're convinced of your ideas too right? It's enjoyable to chat about this.

Funny how you said nothing about what we said in the thread about sex stereotypes in the bedroom.

I commented there. I'm commenting here.

I'll respond there.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-23T10:26:55+00:00

I don't think men and women are behaviourally the same but I think the differences have to be limited. It has to be down to one or two things. I think the differences would be more like bi modal preferential desires.

For example, women were often employed as "human computers." Doing the maths for larger projects.

Why did computing and those roles become more male dominated? Because the pay went up and men sought that pay. The male power aggression aspect edged women out. Nothing to do with cognitive ability. Men in competition with other men feel they need the money.

Even a slight average difference might have effects on a larger scale. So not a big difference between the sexes, nothing to do with ability, only that average slight aggression power dynamic.

The singular power aggression dynamic might explain a lot of common differences we see across cultures, the crime difference, male propensity for organised violence and sex crime.

Not an absolute difference but an average which is more clear in larger populations.

This does not mean "patriarchies" are stable or the only system. Societies can find that bias in male behaviour has to be better managed. It has to be controlled for greater good of society.

I'm speculating here as are we all because the science is not clear.

There are people who identify as "trans women" saying outrageous sexist things. I'm not justifying them. They are frankly absurd.

I still can't see men and women on average behaving innately identically. Sex is one of those things they have different behaviour on.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-21T13:46:16+00:00

I not purely into anything, I believe what makes sense to me. I don't call myself a radfem as I don't believe in the blank slate. I don't believe everything in Blanchardianism either.

Fair enough I sympathise with not being able to accept one side completely. Part of the story here is the science is not complete which leaves us open to debate. We have to speculate as we best know.

I don't see that as bad thing per se, if something is erroneous then it should be corrected. And if the theory starts not making sense at all, then it should be replaced with a better theory. And we if think Blanchardianism does a fairly good job at getting things right but has holes, and we have no better theory, and the other theories are worse, then I don't really see a problem with Blanchardian model being tweaked into a better model. Theories don't get born perfect.

It's not that it's completely inaccurate in some of the things it records but I don't think it ultimately holds together.

I do think the science will move on.

It's not uncommon for people to be romantically attracted to those they are sexually attracted to. I would imagine many paraphilias, including AGP, also have romantic components. I think such a component would be easy to create an identity around. Many trans people (who I suspect are AGP/AAP) talk about their gender identity in with what I perceive as some type of romantic longing. But I am an outsider though, so I can't say for sure if it's like that. Maybe you could describe.

I really don't relate to the romantic idea of it. It's more like it puts me in the mood. So I would think it unusual behaviour but not unrelated to the rest of sexuality going on. I can read and see women putting themselves in the mood for sexual play through gender expression. It's not absolutely common but it looks more related than not.

A couple points I'd add. I wasn't fixated on one aspect. I didn't masturbate endlessly. I didn't masturbate at all. I just knew it was vaguely sexual, as well as the interest in some form of dominant women. It didn't make sense until a few years into adulthood. That's not from seclusion but from it making no sense in a regular heterosexual world. I knew of gay men in dresses or transwomen but I never saw myself as those.

I am saying what i said before, I think there might be a biological mechanism to self-socialization and that early hormones could perhaps influence who we are more likely to imitate as children. You are free to interpret that as essentializing if that is essentializing to you.

I'm probably in agreement on that.

I often compare gender to language and we do have a natural ability as children to learn language.

It feels like my personality, I assume feminine women often feel their femininity is just their personality too (if we don't count things people only do reluctantly because they feel they have to). I am assume I was socialized, I didn't invent a new gender expression, I was probably imitating other people unconsciously. And I was seen as a girl, so I was treated like a girl. I was quite intensely bullied by girl gangs for many years for being a tomboy (they wanted to teach me being more feminine and were angry at me for not complying), and that was social experience I probably wouldn't have had had I not been a girl, and it probably affected me somewhat.

That makes sense to me.

Though there is a question in gender that goes like this. It does look cultural, or maybe like we most have a natural talent for learning gender. Sometimes that can vary. But how much is innate? How much of the canvas is blank?

Like masculine women such as yourself. Are you learning the language of masculinity or are you expressing innate elements of masculinity as well as cultural aspects? I hope we learn the science on this.

I will probably have to get back to this another day, as I'm a bit short on time right now.

About the masculinity and femininity. I think people can find masculinity and femininity in men or women sexually appealing. Would you agree?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-21T09:12:08+00:00

So where are you on how things ought to be?

Do you think surgery and hormones are "where it all went wrong" ?

Who is treating "gender correctly" as a culture or an individual, as it ought to be done?

theory_of_this · 2021-07-19T23:20:39+00:00

Here is where I think you misunderstand me, as I don't believe that gender expression is only personality for most trans people. I believe in blanchardianism (not everything though).

OK.

Partial blanchardianism ?

Isn't that where gc takes the bits it likes about calling men paraphiliacs and rejects the bits about essentialising gender? Would be my expectation.

I'm not a blanchardian. I think aspects of the behaviours are true but I don't find it overall workable. I'll get to that.

I think some transition due to being very GNC, but I don't think most transition for being very GNC in the west.

I really don't know the numbers these days.

I think among transitioners AGP/AAP is very prevalent, and usually they are more concerned about the body they want to have, not everyone though.

You think the "hsts" don't care about their bodies? They have less physical disphoria?

Just as some gynephilic people might be more attracted to femininity than biological females, I think some people with autogynphilia might be more into femininity than desiring a female body.

Females can be gynephilic. Isn't that a lesbian? Lesbians can be attracted to femininity in others.

Do you mean men might be more attracted to femininity than biological females?

I think you mean autogynephilia?

What are you trying to say here? You mean males who identify as women are more likely to be masculine and attracted to females than the average female?

Yes.

But then women who identify as same sex attracted are more likely to be gnc.

I agree with that, many of these male transitioners are "transbians" as you say, way more than we would expect had they truly been "female". But that seems like a weird argument for you to make.

I think it points to three traits, orientation, expression and gender identity being related.

I know gc would not accept the words gender identity.

But it is a thing people are identifying here. So that trait then.

So are you actually trying to say that unusually many of the males who transition are homosexual and GNC?

If there was no relationship to sexuality it would the same as the gay straight ratio.

In blanchardian terms "HSTS" are over represented.

I agree with that too, homosexuals and GNC people are over represented among transitioners,

Compared to what though?

but I think the AGP group is an even greater group. AGPs might be same-sex attracted too though (but usually not exclusively) and GNC (some crossdressed for sexual/gender euphoric reasons before transition). Note, this not a judgement of people with AGP/AAP, I don't really care if someone has AGP/AAP, I just don't think it makes someone the opposite sex.

I more like to get to the theory and meta reasons of what's going on.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-19T22:35:30+00:00

But you just confirmed my perception.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-19T22:27:49+00:00

Isn't this a pattern of gender critical? GC say they are for gender non conformity. But they really just mean female non conformity. Males being non conforming are everything gc doesn't like about female conformity.

theory_of_this · 2021-07-19T21:31:21+00:00

I was thinking of something like a strong physical obsession. Like the porn which is very anatomical with little else.

I'm not sure. This is speculation because it would have to be a society under constant analysis about personal sexual thoughts.

theory_of_this