All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

But it's absurd not to see that. Saying women (the majority) find masculinity attractive is gross?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

Sure, I'm not a woman but obviously I live with what women desire which is masculinity.

You accept you express a form of masculinity, does that include sexuality?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you bother engaging when you clearly just want to state your opinions and disregard what we say to you?

I can say the same right back.

I find it intellectually stimulating to be here. Don't you enjoy that on some level? I know you do.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

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.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

You think strongly gnc women are cartoonish mockery?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

(gender in this context)

I think that's a category error to ask if gender norms are necessary. It's like asking if sexual orientation or language is necessary. I think gender is a product of both emergent traits and social construction.

If conforming people are stereotypical then non conforming people are stereotypical towards the opposite sex.

Gender norms is perhaps a better term than stereotypes.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

No. I’m saying they are taught it as normalcy and propriety from birth.

Is this the argument that says conforming people are naturally blank but the non conforming naturally have a personality that matches opposite gender cultural norms?

I don’t know what they want, but I doubt the average woman wakes up and says I will wear a skirt because it is womanly.

I think women do generally want to express some form of femininity and men do want to express some form of masculinity.

The small percentage of non conforming people are not evidence the majority want to be non conforming.

It’s not ridiculous, what’s ridiculous is the idea of anybody being truly gender conforming. Nobody meets every norm assigned to their sex.

Well if everyone is non conforming what is the problem? How could we tell if gender was abolished if everyone is non conforming?

The non conforming can't face discrimination because there is no minority of non conforming people to discriminate against.

I just don’t think gender is innate or particularly meaningful when one doesn’t obsess over it like qt does.

I don't think popular qt ideas on gender are entirely accurate.

I often think it's a mess.

I disagree with gender relating to sexuality. How does sexuality translate to ideas like women are emotional, men are aggressive, girls are highly, boys are grubby etc? How does sexuality relate to gender at all?

Women are emotional is a bad idea. Both sexes are emotional. They may not overall on average express the same emotions over time.

I don't think that gender is entirely sexual it can also be about other utilitarian biological drives. On average men are going to be more useful in tasks that require strength, for example violence. Where as women on average are going to be better at breast feeding. I don't think natural behaviour would be indifferent to that.

Evolution isn't planned, schematic or strictly rational.

I do think men are on average more aggressive in all societies. That does not mean all men are aggressive and women never employ aggression.

Does aggression play a role sexuality, well it often does, even if society objects to it.

I agree anyone who presents as gnc and actively makes an effort to do so due to gendered thinking has not escaped gender.

Agreed then.

What about those of us who simply don’t assign a gender or sex to our preferences? Is that a lie we tell ourselves?

Well if a person is strongly gnc, expressing a lot of opposite gender norms, and they say it has nothing to do with gender I think they are wrong.

That does not mean they should or ought to take on a trans identity.

Does that somehow affect our sexuality if the two are linked?

What do you mean by affect?

I think strong gender non conformity will affect how others see the person sexually.

Most people act on the sexual expression of others.

This seems like a whole lot of odd and some sexist assumptions being presented as something like factual or given knowledge.

Sure. I'm arguing a position of how I see things and why they are the way the are.

Can I see the political problems of some of the positions? Very much so. I can often empathise with a political rejection of them.

But I can't unsee the patterns.

How does the oppression of women fit into innate gender? Is that oppression the natural order?

Politically I oppose the oppression of women. I can't honestly say "women are oppressed" in my country Scotland. That does not mean I think society or government is perfect for women but gender oppression seems like an inaccurate description and unfair on the good work done by previous politica1l activists and unfair compared to women in cultures that are explicitly oppressive. But that's besides the point of the natural order question.

Men being on average more aggressive does not make it an ought. There is more than one drive in humans and they can be conflicting. Society can be over all better for men and women if we work to mitigate that aggression.

For example if men or humans in general have a natural latent urge for violence, cultural or state policies that seek to suppress that will be more successful than an assumption that violence is not natural and policies should built around reaching society without violence.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Do most people who perform gender after being indoctrinated in the system since birth really desire performing it? I don’t think so.

You're saying most people actively want to be gender non conforming?

I don’t agree with the idea that people generally desire to perform gender, let alone desire to do whatever gender roles indicate they are supposed to do or like.

What do you think they want?

How does this gel with the narrative many trans people have that follows along the track of ‘I liked pink when told to like blue, therefore I’m a woman inside’ or vice versa?

I think masculinity and femininity are sexuality.

EDIT I think masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality.

Attraction to men is a natural desire that commonly appears in women. Attraction to women is a desire that commonly appears in men. Masculinity and femininity follow the same pattern.

So expressing either of these desires commonly feels like confirmation to those trans people. Even though they are both only indirectly related.

Do you think the average ‘gender conforming’ (ridiculous notion since nobody is properly conforming to all norms assigned) person truly wants to do it, or simply feels they must due to societal expectations?

I think saying gender conformity is a ridiculous notion is evasive. Most people are gender conforming and don't feel anxiety over it. They are often oblivious because it feels so natural. I would think because it is natural.

They may not like some aspects of "it" but they only want that aspect changed. They are not gender non conforming.

A background issue here is masculine non conformity and feminine non conformity do not express themselves the same way. The "genders" are not perfect mirrors.

Why do we need a flexible gender system? Why do we need gender at all?

It's emergent from human nature so you can't abolish it.

Gender non conforming people have not escaped gender.

We can have higher tolerance of minorities who are non conforming but a general population will never be indifferent to it.

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this[S] 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

I'm happy to use science and refer to science papers. Some will be good and some will be bad.

Over all I don't think the scientific community supports the blank slate or absolute behavioural gender equality.

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this[S] 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

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.

Both: Are sexual stereotypes about men and women in the bedroom true? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

hey

To add nuance to my own opinions...

Modestly, men and women are on average sexually and romantically different, even if there is overlap.

" This would be the stereotype that men are sexually dominant and women are sexually submissive and passive by nature."

On average, with opposite exceptions being rare.

But I would not confuse passivity, "submission" with zero sexual desire. It's not the same thing.

I think there is plenty social, scientific, cultural, cross cultural evidence that men and women are on average different when it comes to sexuality.

Both: Why does rejection of femininity in South Korea differ so much from how it is rejected in the West? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 7 insightful - 7 fun7 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

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

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

But you see yourself as a minority among women.

Sex is influenced by society, within limits, and I'm skeptical of purity.

I definitely don't think of myself as the norm within men.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know what it means to have a masculine sexuality.

But you do think men are prescribed sex roles by society? That their pleasure is put before a woman's and that the male is the dominant pursuer. That is part of the popular fantasy. Isn't that what gc would say and that sex roles are bad?

That the popular role of masculinity within erotic popular with straight women show a particular kind of masculine sexuality, no?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Well we're hear to discuss things, share opinions and experiences. I thought it was relevant.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

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?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

I have no scientific sources to back this up, but from being a woman for a long time, knowing lots of women and asking many women, I am pretty confident that masturbating in front of mirrors is not customary female behavior.

I mean it surprised me but it seems to go on more than I expected by all kinds of people.

https://www.reddit.com/r/sex/search?q=masturbation+mirror&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

https://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/kxql1p/i_got_turned_on_looking_at_my_nude_reflection_but/

Welcome Reddit refugees by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 11 insightful - 7 fun11 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

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?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

This has gotten silly. It really isn't the topic.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I think some masculine women can end up talking exactly like macho men who disparage femininity in men.

It goes with a hyper masculine territory. Any male sexuality that isn't macho is deviant, gay or straight. Masculinity is valorised. They're doing toxic masculinity even if they aren't identifying as men.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Finding femininity sexual is bad?

How about find masculinity erotic?

Also just because a man is going against sex roles or stereotypes it doesn't mean he is suddenly a renowned expert in womanhood like many of those men tend to believe.

Where can we find out what the average women like?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

But you just confirmed my perception.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

Well this was said to me recently.

I find it confusing because they claim to be very masculine but also that they are neutral.

That everyone should be neutral. I find the desire that everyone should be masculine more internally cohesive as an idea. But impossible for natural reasons not because it is beyond imagining.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I think it says something that I've been listening to you talk about this for like, four years and It only just hit me that you mean that you think most people get sexual pleasure from conforming to masculinity or femininity.

I wouldn't necessarily say most. I think it's mostly a pleasure in others expression.

The thing is I do thing food is often used as a great metaphor for sex. People are forever find erotic play in food. I think that's because there are indirect comparisons.

The sensual display of food is huge part of the pleasure of food. People fuss over the source, the story, the presentation, the ripeness, the colours, the textures. It is a given that the visual pleasure, a story of where they came from, aromas, presentation of food adds to the enjoyment of the flavour. It's a literal display that adds to the pleasure.

The entire idea of putting on a "sexual display," as you call it is actually incredibly repellent and stressful to me.

But that's what men and women do all the time.

What's the food equivalent of finding display repellent? ​Wanting it all ​mixed together in a paste? Completely utilitarian? Nice cutlery, a candle, beautiful plates would be too stressful. I mean I'm joking here but you seem my point.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Being "gender nonconforming" does not mean conforming "to opposite sex gender norms."

Can you give me an example of someone being gender non conforming without conforming to opposite sex gender norms?

I can see things can shift from one sex to another or become unisex or disappear but that does not mean everything will do that.

Gender norms will remain and gender non conformity will remain.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I guess like my less charitable answer would be it’s because TW are men and TM are women. More charitably, you could say that trans people, especially those who were able to be straight passing, were socialized as their natal sex and will always be more like their natal sex because of that.

I'm still not clear on why you think they are in those numbers though.

To be clear if there was no relationship between trans identities and sexuality it would be the same ratio as the gay to straight in the general population, no?

Maybe that's not the thing we are debating.

Why are there so many gnc (to their trans identity) trans people compared to the background population.

Transwomen are over represented in male dominated professions and underrepresented in female ones for instance and majority of TW are gynophillic even though less than 10% of women are. I just don’t know how people ignore those things and believe TWAW or TMAM.

So this is strong gender essentialism?

Transwomen who are androphilic and do female professions are the real women?

I'm not even getting into the TWAW or TMAM debate but you do see the implications of this. I say that as someone more on the essentialist side. I'm not sure you get all the implications here IMHO.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate. I have read many studies and I have also read Cordelia Fine's books where she criticize the studies, and I mostly agree with the criticisms. One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people, and that seems to be the case for pre-homosexuals too (i.e children who are more gender non-conforming seem to be more likely to be same-sex attracted later in life). There are many ways to try to explain away this but none of those explanations ever seemed that convincing to me. The self-socialization theory would explain it though, and the self-socialization theory doesn't support the inevitability of gender norms.

Agree with this.

There is bad gender science. But bad gender science does not mean there is no science to gender.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I find this too evasive. I don't think it describes the patterns.

Most people are gender conforming. They are not indifferent to gender expression in themselves or others.

I think the trans argument that gender expression is only "personality" doesn't play out.

There is a pattern of trans people being far more likely to identify as gay relative to their gender identity and far more likely to identify as gnc relative to their gender identity than the average population.

I don't think it's unrelated.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Would you say some women present cartoon versions of men?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

You're missing the point again. She is not saying that humans don't have sexual display, but that humans are driven for other things besides sex.

Of course.

You were the one who claimed that feminity and masculinity were sexuality,

I meant to write "Masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality."

It is not all of it but they are connected.

so why are you surprised that others think you view everything through sexual lens? And I think Juniperious is right: you seem to be extrapolating your own particular experiences to everyone else. You may not claim to be a woman, but you surely like to act as if you were an expert on women and you try to shield your views under the excuse of "evolution".

I don't think it is my experience alone that see masculinity and femininity as being deeply connected to the sex lives of humans.

That does not mean all of it is sexual.

And before you ask, no, I don't believe in the blank slate theory. I think differences between women and men are due to both nature and nurture.

Well I agree then. That would be my starting point and those differences are often connected to sexual behaviour.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Preference

But you agreed strong gnc people are not escaping gender.

When you say

I agree anyone who presents as gnc and actively makes an effort to do so due to gendered thinking has not escaped gender.

If they do not agree with gender theory but act on a strongly gendered pattern can they be said not be acting on gender?

They are acting on gender. They did not create that gender pattern.

When less value is placed on conformity it’s easier to break free. Society always has those who reject certain constraints.

This is part of the problem I have. The GC side ends up seeing femininity as a prison and masculinity as freedom.

Women doing masculinity isn't the end of gender unless all women do it.

Everyone being masculine is internally coherent. It makes sense. In that case gender would be abolished.

But people don't want that and gc has a problem justify why anyone would want to be feminine. GC correctly points out that femininity is a social construction associated with women. But it often sees masculinity as neutrality.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Male brute strength is only required for some kinds of violence that together constitute a minority of all violence, which Oxford defines as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Ever since weapons were first invented & men created hierarchies in which rulers & generals commanded other men in armies & gangs, a great deal of violence in the world has been done by & at the behest of men past the prime of life whose own physical strength wasn't impressive & didn't play a role in carrying out the violence they caused.

The disconnect between physical strength and weaponry only arrived with gunpowder. Even so soldiering still requires physical strength that gives males an advantage. I don't see any way round that. Otherwise we could have truly integrated sports. But that wouldn't make sense.

I don't think that aggression is entirely down to socialised advantages of physical strength. I think men are more aggressive on average that's why men on average carry on being more focused on weapons beyond the personal level. They are in an arms race. That does not mean the arms race is a good thing.

A breastfeeding woman is fulfilling a biological role, not a gender role.

Why would nature leave leave it to chance without even a tendancy?

Women don't think of BFing as "feminine," but as female.

I don't think even a majority of women in the West disconnect breastfeeding from femininity. OK it depends how you define it. But the relationship is hard to disconnect. I terms of gender norms it is going to be associated with women.

Gender ideology says that because women are the ones capable of breastfeeding children, then a woman's "natural role" in a heterosexual family is also to do all the tasks required to feed her entire family forevermore.

Well I can't see man's natural role as breast feeding. Even with some trans positions.

The natural position is not the ought but it can't break the tendency. The choice does not end the biology.

In some settings, this can mean spending hours each day gathering firewood & fetching water; hunting, trapping, fishing & gathering; tending to crops & livestock; milling grain; & serving her male partner & adult male relatives & making sure they are satiated before she & the kids get fed. In other settings, it means making grocery lists; doing the food shopping or arranging for food to be delivered; cooking breakfast & dinner every day; making & packing the kids' school lunches; throwing dinner parties; making sure the cupboards, fridge & liquor cabinet are always full of the food & drinks her male partner likes & always making sure that whenever she & her kids go out, she's got snacks, beverages & a sandwich tucked in her bag in case anyone gets hungry or thirsty.

Even in industrial societies women will on average continue to actively care more for children than men.

I think there are some natural behaviour biases, not absolutes, that create that trend. It is not an absolute, it is not a moral demand.

Also, when you claim that "women on average are going to be better at breast feeding" than men, you are suggesting that men can breastfeed - just not as well as women. This is not true. Men can't breastfeed children at all.

Well I agree. That's why I think men, naturally, are going to be on average less child focused, they literally cannot breastfeed and therefore probably naturally have desire in that particular associated role.

Something associated with women is going to be considered feminine. Even if not all women do it, or some men desire to.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

People who conform to opposite sex gender norms despite their environment is proof gender is bullshit?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

No. Nobody is arguing for the blank slate. Idk why you keep forcing points that aren’t made. I am saying humans experience sexed socialisation and we call it gender roles and nobody is raised without them.

So where does the cross conformity come from?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Oh! After all these years I think I get what you're saying. You think that masculinity and femininity are exhibitionism.

I do think sexual display are strong parts of masculinity and femininity.

It appears all societies link masculinity and femininity

Why wouldn't humans have sexual display? Humans especially of all animals would have a sexuality deeply meshed with culture which is seemingly a major human feature.

And you think that all humans are exhibitionists.

Sexual exhibitionism seems like a description of an excessive form.

But certainly human sexuality does work without sexual display. It's part of courtship.

In humans men and women both perform sexual selection. So it would be natural for them to perform sexual display. A super common thing in the animal world.

You think that practically all things that humans do, all the time, we do for sexual reasons.

Nope not at all. I do think we are natural animals and cannot escape natural desires.

We are not completely conscious of our desires. Even if we can learn them or consciously manage them we cannot choose our desires.

A sexual display is not always a conscious display.

And not even in a way that I would sort of recognize, like "I do this to attract a partner so I can have sex," but more like, "showing myself to people in this outfit is sex." I knew you were preoccupied with your particular kink, but it just clicked for me that you think everyone is, all the time. How Freudian! I think it must be kind of exhausting to live that way.

I'm not a Freudian, I don't think it's good science. Even if some ideas progressed into good ideas.

I don't think "everyone is like me" but I don't think I'm absolutely different from all other humans.

Do you recognize the existence of non-sexual drives?

Of course.

Do we do anything, want anything, enjoy anything, that doesn't have a sexual thrill at the bottom of it?

Of course.

A drive to learn new things, to accomplish something difficult? Non-sexual relationships with family members and friends? A desire to be in nature, to commune with something larger than the self?

Why are you thinking I think everything is about sex?

I do think humans are natural animals driven by unconscious uncontrollable desires.

Free will acts on those desires.

Are all displays sexual, in your eyes?

No but that depends on where in the chain you are stopping.

A display of loyalty can be natural but not strictly sexual.

In the context where I live it's very politically divided, and the culture wars are kind of everything. I'd say people are more interested in displays of tribalism than gender. If you only go by someone's clothes, cars with bumper stickers, wander through the house and see what they show on the walls and bookshelves, everything but the physical body in other words, you might have an easier time knowing whether they were "blue team" or "red team" so to speak than which sex they were. It could be different where you are, but your theory is no good if it has to pretend that your little corner of the world represents the whole of human nature.

I would think "tribalism" is another natural behaviour humans are prone to.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

So how exactly something subjective can be objective and "since birth", when during birth you are lacking cognition capabilities to understand that subjective in the first place? Especially considering that subjective about same objective fact is different for different people.

We can have innate tendencies, desires and thought patterns.

But language trait is not natural.

I think it is natural and I think most scientists on the subject believe language acquisition is innate. The absolute blank position is a minority. The debate it mostly over the degree.

That is why every language is so different, that is why we created languages like Mathemathics or Esperanto.

I would hold to the position that mathematics is discovered not created.

Language exist to communicaate better and it changes depending on what people in that place decided to use as communication - and why alphabets are so different in different language families (asian, arabic, slavic, latin, etc). Humans are not born with understanding or knowledge of languages, we are slowly learning it with our surroundings, kids who were neglected and not heard language from parents and missed classes - can't communicate and it is hard to them to learn language later in life - like those examples of kids who grew up among animals.

Humans are born with a natural ability to acquire language. Culture is a natural artefact of humans. Like a hive is to a bee. It is dysfunctional without it.

Just 200 years ago in Europe leggings were "male aristocracy" only. And even more years ago shoes with high heels were for rich men only as well. If poor man or any woman wore them - they could be punished by death.

I accept variations in cultural forms of gender. But all those cultures had gender forms.

In ancient Roman Empire - all men were wearing dresses, and pants/troucers were only for women and slaves.

Roman society very much had masculinity and femininity. They also had a minority of gender variant people also associated with same sex attraction.

Even nowadays in some ethnicities it is like that - one African tribe have tradition that men are wearing make up and dresses and dancing in front of women, so women chose who is the prettiest from them. On some Oceanic islands it is similar.

The Wodaabe still have gender norms. The Gerewol festival is a local expression of masculinity.

The women still express femininity.

Humans do express sexual selection. Men and women do choose.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

How can it be "by nature", if kid does not even know what is "feminine" and "masculine", or when "feminine" and "masculine" can change drastically during their lifetime?

Drastically? I'm not sure about that. It does change though.

Language can change in your lifetime. That's not evidence that the language trait isn't natural.

When I was young - leggings were for men only, and women were banned from wearing them as "only for prostitutes", now men in leggings are seen as gay or weird, and it is common for women to wear them. For example.

Weirdly I thought the were always coded female but have become more unisex these days. That's just my perception of them.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

The language trait is innate but varies over cultures and time.

The desire to do gender, masculinity and femininity, can be natural even if it is completed by culture.

Humans being adaptable flexible creatures, need to have a flexible gender system to deal with different environments. How flexible is debateable. But the system appears emergent.

In turn if "gender" was not innate why do all cultures across time have it?

GC: What should the limits be on erotic consumption and sexual behavior? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I do think there has to be hard limits.

But most this is fringe purity politics.

Also everything legal is not always right. A person can be emotionally cruel, a bad person, without it being illegal. Such is life. We can't institute laws for every moral failure.

Regarding the purity of feminists I think this gets at some of the fundamental issues with proper Radical Feminism, it's ultra exclusive and starts from an unrealistic model of the world. Even feminists who take time to join radical feminist debate can't agree on how pure it should be because it's so far from how most people function. This leaves only a tiny percentage of the population that can pass the purity test.

That model of the world doesn't hold up and the people can't live up to it.

Too many people at a basic level enjoy at least some porn, mild bdsm, entertain politically incorrect fantasies, enjoy fetishized gender models. That's just how people are. Most people in liberal nations recognise that. You can't police every consensual bedroom fantasy.

Also everyone engaging in these things aren't bad people. The men and women in these categories are essentially the majority and they aren't the monsters or agency free victims. They are average people.

Exiling people who have done anything "tainted" is classic cult purity spiral stuff.

But there has to be limits and a recognition of good and bad behaviour.

On a personal level I recall female friends quizzing me on porn use. But really me saying I didn't use porn was not for the reasons they were hoping for.

EDIT oops just realise this was GC only

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this[S] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this[S] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

You mean the News Statesmen is unscientific because it is not explicitly anti trans?

I thought they'd published gender critical people?

In fact they have, here's Sarah Ditum, https://www.newstatesman.com/writers/sarah_ditum

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this[S] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this[S] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

Both: Are sexual stereotypes about men and women in the bedroom true? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I expect trans people to be more gender conforming to the opposite sex norms "stereotypes" than non trans cis people.

I don't think stereotypes is a good word for it.

I don't think most straight GC people want to abolish those norms. Some do. OP thinks masculinity is the norm and femininity shouldn't be a thing.

Both: Are sexual stereotypes about men and women in the bedroom true? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I agree both GC and QT traditionally espouse absolute gender equality in theory.

In practice I think most straight GC and QT advocating people act on gender norms to some degree in regards to sexual behaviour and fantasy.

All: What do you miss about the old sub? by womanual in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I always feel fetish is a way of ending thinking about it. Well, a fetish has an origin of some type. We can still think about it while acknowledging it's a fetish.

Do you think gay people expressing gender non conformity as part of their sexuality are fetishists?

What about common female sexual fantasies? Are they fetishists?

I don’t feel like it’s entirely sexual for me. That's interesting. I was under the impression it was just something you only entertained in your erotic life. But there are aspects you enjoy that are totally non-sexual?

Well I enjoy the female aesthetic. It’s as simple as I look at female fashion and think I’d like to express that. But there are other aspects to my life that possibly are non conforming. In this way I genuinely don’t know. I never quite fit a lot of masculine territories. I was always kind of split.

But being a progressive person I accepted that “gender norms weren’t actual things.” I was always in two minds about it. I accepted masculinity and femininity were things that might be natural but really not to be taken that seriously. But then found in life they really did matter. You can’t act like they didn’t. You will be judged on it. You can’t have people making assumptions.

For example, I never got into sport, especially team sports, especially the fanatical tribal support. I enjoyed lots of Reality television.

Now I didn’t think these were particularly gender non conforming at all. Only later I realised how much I’d be judged on these things. It was too “gay.” That’s how people judge things, even people who consider themselves liberal. A gay man can do those things but straight men cannot.

I also dressed probably not conservatively enough. I had to remove that. For example something as simple as tiger pink stripe skater shoes were questioned. I assumed that was acceptable as a casual punk fashion thing. Not extreme at all, as casual as ripped jeans. Was it my crossdressing affecting my choice? Was I choosing them as a form of displacement? I don’t know, I don’t think it’s extreme. But it would be commented on. So dressing down becomes important. Maybe I’m being policed more than others because people made assumptions.

Obviously men discussing sex was an issue. Their aggressive experiences and desires weren’t something I related to. I wasn’t someone they’d share porn with, that goes on.

So it doesn’t matter what I think, why it is, I have to act on gender norms. I have to try and conform.

If it was simple as an event happened and that triggered it then it would be obvious for researchers to find and it would vary a lot more.

Well, it might not just be one event or one incident. There are many things we don't know about the human mind and how our sexualities develop. People can go through the same experiences and come out with different desires and urges.

But I just don’t see the pattern in the world. If it was entirely down to experiences the incidences would vary a lot. It would be significant. But we see the same patterns the world over.

You don’t accept a woman can naturally enjoy expressing femininity but you do enjoy expressing masculinity. I don't know if "enjoy" is the right word? It's just how I'm comfortable. I could not present feminine without wanting to kill myself. I realize that's extreme, but that's how I feel.

That does sound extreme. I think most women would find that quite alien. Even if they don’t think you don’t have the right to reject it.

But I don't take pleasure in cultivating my hair or clothes to be masculine. I just want to wear stuff that I'm comfortable in that doesn't draw undue attention to myself. I like to keep things simple.

This is the masculine as neutrality.

What about formal occasions?

Kind of a question I wonder. But seemingly I enjoy women more passionate than is assumed normal, than men like, than society deems normal. Um, like how? I guess specifics would be good.

I’m sure I’d given a description before.

“Making the moves. Tactile, sexual talk, lustful actions, sexual display, sexual fantasising, innuendo, sex game talk, dominant sexual talk.”

Pinning, forceful kissing, grabbing without asking or context.

I like to think I'm passionate in bed, but I don't think it makes me abnormal. My partner's last girlfriend was also really active in bed, so I don't think I'm abnormal in his experience either. We've talked about his previous partners. The first one was shy, so perhaps she fits more of your stereotype.

Sexually passive women are far more common.

That does not mean they are without desire. They desire that “dominant male” form. Don’t blame the messenger.

To be honest, I have no idea what a crossdresser would be like in bed and have no stereotypes in my head about it.

Ha well I’d think it wouldn’t be your thing.

Here’s a thing that’s done, putting on make up on each other. It’s intimate and sensual. Both creating visual pleasure and incense physical intimacy.

But what about sexually passive men?

Does that mean anything to you?

I like women who enjoy my femininity. It’s about matching, I want them to enjoy it. GC will take that as me imposing it. But it’s the opposite. I want honest inspired desire. In my experience it works better than way. That seems reasonable to me. No argument from me. You deserve to have sexual partners who are turned on by your crossdressing. I don't think there's anything wrong with crossdressing in bed as long as more problematic elements (like sissification and forced feminization) don't come into play.

A lot of that seems over the top. And a lot of it looks like “forcing” to enjoy something taboo that both parties enjoy.

I get the theory but I think it’s just how it is. Most women want that active male role and to be passive, it’s their validation. That’s my impression. Validation, like how? That sounds problematic. You don't think women engage sexually for their own physical pleasure?

Their pleasure is from being the “target,” the “prize,” the figure of maximum desire.

That IS their sexual pleasure.

I mean what do you think these women are enjoying about it?

Have you asked other women about this?

They can do. Yeesh, really? Even my partner's shy first girlfriend didn't act dead in bed. She was just more timid.

Have you discussed this with other women?

Eh, well, I only have a sample size of one man, so it's not like I'm an expert. 12 women is a lot.

If that number is higher than average it likely comes from dissatisfaction on my side. Not finding compatible partners. Which is understandable.

But I don't know, I can't help but feel like maybe you're putting too much emphasis on these roles because it's your main insecurity. Leaving aside the crossdressing, which I acknowledge would be problematic for most straight women. I don't think it's that hard for a man to find a woman who is active in bed.

I think you might be underestimating how rare it is.

“Top 10 ways to spice up your sex life.” It’s banal stuff because the ideas are so common and they work. Oh, that stuff. Well, I've done some of that, but not because I was bored. Just for variety. Erotic play doesn't have to be problematic. It doesn't have to be based in BDSM or power plays. My partner and I have done stuff like play with sex dice, sex toys, and have done role play. Those things can be wholesome, not depraved.

But the mild BDSM is common correct?

Well of course. We all are obsessed with it and femininity here on this sub. One way or another. Ha, well, you might be a little more obsessed than others.

Well of course I hope so, or I’ve been doing it wrong.

Of course. Conforming people take it all for granted. As it would be. Yeah, but an outer conforming appearance doesn't mean that a man is doing all the sexual stuff you seem to assume he's doing.

Oh I agree.

There is only an indirect relationship.

My partner isn't sexually dominant and it's never been a hindrance to him.

But he isn’t sexually passive either.

Ha well I don’t want to bring him to it. It’s bad enough you’re reporting back you’re talking to a self confessed crossdresser.

LOL, he knows that I talk about "gender stuff" online. I'm happy to pose specific questions if you have them. I did talk with him a little about masculinity. He doesn't seem to have any conflicts over it. The main thing for him was that his dad put a lot of pressure on him growing up and he didn't really feel like he lived up to his dad's ideal of the "perfect son." He's the oldest son. Not that my partner was ever effeminate, but that his dad didn't think he was enough of an academic or athletic achiever.

The male role of “doer” remains strong.

It’s like that thing about “women have to be, men have to do.” Which both have issues.

But in terms of sex, it doesn't seem like he's ever had a conflict. He's slept with three women. Me, and two prior girlfriends. He's handsome (I might be biased) and was popular with girls. He's a sweet guy, goofy, laid back, has a gentle nature. He's definitely not a dominant or a sadist and has never acted in that role. I asked him if he ever had any sexual insecurities, and he said not really, maybe his penis size when he was a teenager. He just wanted to know he was big enough to satisfy women. We're well matched in terms of libido and he says I'm his best sexual partner because of our chemistry and matching libidos.

Well I’m happy for you in a sincere way. I’m obviously not the poly kind.

I could ask him more if you wanted. I might also post a separate thread about whether sexual stereotypes of men and women are true.

That’s a good question.

Although I can enjoy this sub it can be less, general. Less proportional. The responses are going to be biased. Even my position is very rare.

QT: What rights don’t trans people have? by wokuspokus in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

But isn't femininity rooted in female oppression?

Surely people can't be naturally be for that?

QT: What rights don’t trans people have? by wokuspokus in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

But in an ideal world would there be feminine women?

QT: What rights don’t trans people have? by wokuspokus in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

Do you see any reason for femininity?

QT: What rights don’t trans people have? by wokuspokus in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

lol it's getting too long

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

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Part 2

I don’t feel like it’s entirely sexual for me. In that sense I empathise with women who are attracted to expressing masculinity, even if it is not sexual, even if they do not identify as transmen. I can empathise with a woman saying they are non binary, even if I don’t always agree with some of the ideology.

If it was simple as an event happened and that triggered it then it would be obvious for researchers to find and it would vary a lot more. Instead the rare is consistent in populations.

You don’t accept a woman can naturally enjoy expressing femininity but you do enjoy expressing masculinity.

You also don’t see what people find enjoyable about femininity.

That seems like naturalising masculinity and femininity.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes? What do you mean by "intensely sexual," just passionate? If you've had good sex with women without involving BDSM (by which I mean violence and power plays), then perhaps you just like women who are active in bed?

Kind of a question I wonder. But seemingly I enjoy women more passionate than is assumed normal, than men like, than society deems normal. I don’t like it when I go to bed with a woman and I’m expected to be the dominant eternal initiator. For many that seems part of their sexual mindset. But I’m not matched with it. That’s commonly how it is. It took me a while to realise that. Of course being a crossdresser seems to signal to some now a sign of my uncontrolled criminal sexual desire. Which is not what they’re going to get.

I like women who enjoy my femininity. It’s about matching, I want them to enjoy it. GC will take that as me imposing it. But it’s the opposite. I want honest inspired desire. In my experience it works better than way. That seems reasonable to me.

That's perfectly reasonable. I would never expect my partner to do all the work in a sexual relationship. That seems selfish. Sex is a two-way street. One person can't just lie there doing nothing. It's about sharing pleasure.

I get the theory but I think it’s just how it is. Most women whan that active male role and to be passive, it’s their validation. That’s my impression.

What's aggressive passion? I mean, there's passion, and then there's aggression. Passion in my book would be vigorous, lustful, active sex.

Making the moves. Tactile, sexual talk, lustful actions, sexual display, sexual fantasising, innuendo, sex game talk, dominant sexual talk.

Really, I mean do they just lie there like they're dead or something?

They can do.

I mean I’m sure you’ve read about it plenty on /r/sex.

If sexual columnists went by popular questions it would be pages of married men and women complaining of “lack of desire” mostly from women. This is true of couples who are otherwise happy with each other, they want to make it work.

Though I’m unsure how much is connected to “average desire” and how much is “sex role.”

I have never slept with a woman obviously, but that would creep me the fuck out. We have other straight women on this sub. I find it hard to believe most straight women are just non-responsive in bed. How many have you been with, if you're comfortable answering.

About a dozen, but I’m not really a good example. Probably fewer than average. So many sex roles are expected, I only learn a lot of this after living life. I realise how much overwhelming sexual desire is expected from men. As I said I was never “normal” so I live in a world where I have to learn second hand what people expect from men in bed.

There is at times a strong expectation that I’d be hitting on women I am friends with, that if I am friends I must be intent on hitting on them or that I’d take crazy risks for sex.

I was going to say people have an odd assumption that “men will hit on anything,” like a dog humping a cushion. But then yes, men probably are more often like this.

Well jewellery is popular, you can see the aesthetic appeal of it?

Not personally, no. I think it looks weird. All of it. But I understand some people like it for aesthetic reasons.

Ah well there you go.

But there is a pattern to these desires and expressions.

Patterns of masculinity and femininity.

But what do you mean by erotic play? You made a distinction between that and sex that is physically based.

What is erotic play? I mean you can see countless articles on the idea.

“Top 10 ways to spice up your sex life.” It’s banal stuff because the ideas are so common and they work.

So you basically just want attention in bed? Like you're passive, so that means you don't prefer to do anything to a woman's body, you just want her to do things to your body?

Not quite. But I’ve ended up in a situation where I do the work and I’m getting nothing much. Them doing the work doesn’t feel natural or work for them. Or ultimately me.

I’m not actively saying ”women ought to play this role” my desires chronologically came first and are seemingly essentially to me.

Do you think it would have inevitably turned sexual, if you had been allowed to explore femininity in preschool and have it normalized for you?

Unsure. I doubt it. To me my sexual feelings towards femininity aren’t that far from common popular feelings about femininity. Most of society see femininity, and masculinity, as deeply connected to sexuality.

You really seem obsessed with this idea of masculinity.

Well of course. We all are obsessed with it and femininity here on this sub. One way or another.

It seems like you just think of it constantly. Like is it insecurity, like you think other men have this quality that you don't have and feel inferior to them because of it? Is there some sexual component to it, like in cuckolding?

Eh no. Not for me.

It’s personal, yes, and intellectually interesting. Masculinity and femininity are interesting topics. Deeply connected to how we behave and think.

I bet a lot of men are totally oblivious to these types of thoughts you're having.

Of course. Conforming people take it all for granted. As it would be.

Some men really don't give a shit about this whole thing. I'll have to talk to my partner about this in greater detail, but he's never been tortured over masculinity like you seem to be.

Ha well I don’t want to bring him to it. It’s bad enough you’re reporting back you’re talking to self confessed crossdresser.

We have no idea what the mass population would want in an equal, non-patriarchal society. Everyone in this society has already been indoctrinated since birth.

Well to me it’s significant there isn’t a society without “gender.”

So we're back to you assuming little girls are born to naturally want to be dominated and abused by men, because "the desires seem too strong" for you to believe otherwise? Do you really not see how incredibly misogynistic this is?

No I can see the problems with it. Completely.

I don’t think it’s all healthy.

I think it can be healthier.

But I question how absolutely equal, gender free it can be if we do have some essential differences. I don’t see how that would work. That’s into another interesting question.

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

Thoughts on this thread? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you think I'm being specific? It's to ensure that you get your facts straight and you know what I'm talking about in the correct context. It's to reduce ambiguities.

No I completely agree. It matters to be specific on what we mean when we say gender.

When someone says they are gender critical, I think it's reasonable to assume that they mean they are opposed to gender norms, gender stereotypes, gendered expectation in general, from a feminist or radical feminist position.

Read what is "gender" and what is "gender stereotype". I never claimed anyone escaped "gender", that's you putting words in my mouth again.

I said this before, many people just don't live up to "gender stereotypes".

My problem is "not living up to stereotypes" is ambiguous. It's a denial rather a description of that they're doing.

Another lurking problem here is "neutrality" and "masculinity" are often synonymous.

This happens for complicated reasons. But there is a convergence of traditional societies being patriarchal and the femininity movement wanting women to take masculine roles.

After the emancipation movements it becomes more complicated to say what "not living up to stereotypes" means.

I don't speak for hypothetical lesbians, I speak for myself and other people like me, we just do whatever we want,

But that's always a complicated question.

Conforming people say the same. They can't all be wrong.

What do we mean when we say "we just want to do whatever." We are always acting within a culture.

we don't actually think about "oh I want to look more like a male", no we think "I want to look cool, not frilly or graceful".

But clearly people do act on those things. There clearly are patterns.

You seem to be mixing up personality for social statements.

Is this the claim masculinity and femininity are personalities?

If the personalities roughly match sexes does that mean "gender" is real. Forget about trans people.

Do you cross dress to try to perform woman? Do you cross dress just to "feel" feminine? Or do you just do it because it's fun?

Below conscious choice. Identity and eroticism. It feels like the right thing to do despite society. I see the expressions of femininity I think yes.

As illogical as it is. I can see all the issues with it. I have to explain it to myself and how it fits the world.

What are others drawn to expressions of gender?

Depending on your answer, you're either doing it because you just like that kind of fashion or because it's you're trying to be a woman.

The fashion argument I find unconvincing because that's something else.

They're not mutually exclusive but if you are doing it at any level just to resemble whatever society consider's feminine and change your behaviour once you make yourself look whatever society's version of a feminine woman, then you're a deliberate exaggeration of gender stereotypes.

Why?

I'm not saying I'm a woman. What's wrong with a man doing femininity? How hard does a man have to guard their masculinity?

Are you saying the same to women?

"If you wear men's clothes you better not be acting in a deliberately masculine way?"

What is the obsession with how other's are behaving regard to gender?

Keyword, "radical" feminism, not everyone is a radical feminist there, I'm not a radical feminist so I don't know what most of their views are aside from being anti-porn, anti-prostitution and anti-trans.

Sure I can see not everyone is radical feminist. Some are more conservative and anti trans. The category "gender critical" has come to mean that. The movement is hazy.

At this point, you seem to not understand what is gender non-conforming if you had to ask me that and in that way.

Sure. Well lets get back to basics. What do you think it means?

Can a person be gender non conforming with conforming to forms of the opposite sex?

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Well the literature in general isn't a mystery. It's not like me saying "you know this kind of thing has a lot of strong gender stereotypes" is something new.

We probably agree on the basics about what it contains. We might disagree on the implications and possibilities.

All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

You're going to have to show me this,

From the GenderCritical sticky.

Crossdressers/Drag Queens: Non-Transgender men who dress up as stereotypical women for entertainment or erotic purposes. GC are often critical towards this group because while touted as progressive they often use dehumanizing and negative stereotypes of women (Womanface).

https://saidit.net/s/GenderCritical/comments/55iq/the_peakening_read_this_if_you_are_new_to_gender/

I wish the old debate sub hadn't been banned because there was plenty more chat there.

But really it's not difficult to find.

I asked them what they thought of /r/crossdressing and the disapproved of it.

It's not all about the trans identifying people.

The rejection of crossdressers, drag and femininity in men by sections of feminists was there before the modern trans politics was there.

Meghan Murphy was complaining about Harry Styles in a dress only recently.

http://web.archive.org/web/20201208221302/https://www.feministcurrent.com/2020/12/08/a-man-in-a-dress-is-not-inspiring-he-is-simply-a-man-in-a-dress/

Sure I agree with Murphy on the problem of Yanniv.

But as a crossdresser I'm going to defend crossdressing and crossdressers.

You're going to have to show me this, because from what I've seen they care more about deluded insecure creepy males then a bunch of non-deluded ones who are feminine cross-dressers who like to infiltrate women only spaces and can see through the TRA bullshit. I've read a lot of their reddit pages and I have been on their saidit from the very start. I interact with fellow GC there. I don't agree nor disagree that there're GC who hate feminine males,

You mean there is a possibility that a good chunk of gc hate femininity in men?

This means crossdressers are fetishists, drag queens are mocking and other things can be called appropriation.

Here's a question is masculinity and femininity sexual? Is it deeply connected to sexuality of people?

If sexuality is gendered what does gender non conforming sexuality look like?

but I have yet to see a lot or any posts that reflects the attitudes GC as a whole, have about feminine males. I haven't seen a single post where someone who has held an account and have been a regular GC visitor who has expressed this type of sentiment there before. GC target males who try to make everyone else accept their delusions, penalise them for not using their pronoun choice of the day (because no one cares and they can see it's a male), request or demand special treatment and want to invade female spaces.

It's pointless to deny crossdressers are connected to transwomen and the trans arena.

It's like it's pointless to deny the overlap between dyke identities and trans men. People from both communities exist with the trans community. There is travel.

I can see what gc has against crossdressing, any kind, from it's position.

But to me the agenda "lets abolish gender" doesn't work.

Complaining about feminine stereotypes whilst embodying masculine stereotypes isn't a great place to argue from.

At most, I have seen a lot that just blatantly hate the male race in general.

There is an amount of that.

This is Sheila Jefferys area. Do you see here as a significant gender critical.

Do you need more links?

You seem to be mixing up "gender" with "gender stereotype".

Well this is some of the fundamentals.

We, on all sides, in English, tend to mix up what we mean when we say gender. What it means, for everyone, depends on the context.

"Gender" is either of the two sexes (male and female) and was used as an alternative to "sex" (as that can reference sexual intercourse), "gender stereotype" as I've said before, it is just something observed in a group population and in the context about gender non-conformity, to identify and communicate a diversion from the stereotype.

Though stereotype is a pejorative word implying it's something people should not be.

Most people are conforming. By this way of thinking that's wrong. Stereotypes are wrong.

I guess this takes us to the idea of abolishing gender. But what does that mean?

GNC people aren't doing "gender", "gender" is not performative,

How? How have they escaped gender?

it's just "gender". GNC aren't "performing" anything, they just happen to not alignwith many of their own gender's stereotypes and care very little about gender stereotypes.

They have not escaped gender norms.

What is "performative" are drag performances, deliberate, exaggeration of gender stereotypes performed for entertainment by the artist.

So is a butch biker woman a deliberate exaggeration norms?

You can say people are living up to their respective stereotypes of their OWN gender, there's no governing body to establish this, but from what I gather as a rule is if you don't act the same, dress the same as your respective gender stereotype, you're not conforming to the stereotype and therefore would be more accurately described as non-conforming.

But no one, outside radical feminism, thinks they have escaped gender norms. Most people thinking they are doing a version of masculinity.

For most people that is fine. But it's not beyond gender.

By this reasoning why shouldn't everyone be gender non conforming like some gender critical women are.

Including men, what would that look like? Masculine men.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

"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?

All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know where you get the whole "male non conformity is bad.",

What male non conformity does gc generally like? There are always large sections of gc who don't like the reality of male gnc behaviour.

Good male gnc ends up being either something very mildly gnc or a "magical gnc super state" that exists virtually after all the actual forms of it are rejected.

but GC just hate that the non-conformity is being used as the basis for transition and have stated a couple of times that transwomen explanations are not just stupid, but also deluded, sexist and is also pseudoscience. The fact the trans movement is using the whole "I like this typical gender stereotype hobby" or "I act like this particular gender stereotype" destroys one of the aims of the feminist movement, to make society see past the person's sex and to give them a chance and treat them with equality and equity.

Well sure I get the idea. But it that still doesn't get around the gnc issue. There isn't actually something being other than masculinity or femininity. It's a binary and spectrum at best.

Gender norms is whatever that is observed in the society and established by what the majority of target study groups profile (e.g. majority of females sew and many of them like sewing, not many males sew and a lot don't like sewing) Gender non-conformity is to describe a person's diversion fron the gender stereotypical profile of observed behaviours in their respective local culture. It does not "select", it does not have a will of its own, for it is a concept and a word a person would use to describe someone in relation to their own society. It is as dynamic as gender-norms and is used to communicate what the user thinks and want to say.

Right it's dynamic and emergent. Almost like people naturally want to do "gender." It doesn't go away.

Aren't gnc people doing "gender" as well? The more gnc they are the more they are doing "gender."

All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't call it "cross conformity", originally we used "non-conformity" to describe if we don't match our respect gender's stereotype and by extension, how society percieves the individual. It makes zero sense to create another terminology to basically say "you share features of something in another category", much similar to non-binary and agender existing as a list of valid genders.

Well sure. But sometimes gc can be rather partisan on gender non conformity.

It can deny female non conformity is aligning with masculinity.

It can say female non conformity is good and male non conformity is bad. Indeed male conformity is often everything gc feminists are wanting to get away from.

But gender non conformity always selects gender norms.

If everyone was gender non conforming we would still have gender norms. Gender would not be abolished.

If half of the population of both sexes were gnc that would be more like it. Or if an equal portion were androgynous.

But we still run into physical elements that are mixed into "gender."

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

What about the experiments in other animals?

But no one is doing this research. In fact, no one is even suggesting it. Coz that would take real work and might yield results that don't fit with the speculative ideas of the gender theorists & others from the "soft sciences" & humanities where these sorts of hypotheses tend to come from & where they gain so much credence.

I'm sorry you're claiming that this is suppressed science because of a political agenda?

I'm not quite following your understanding here.

I'll get accused of doing a Cathy Newman again.

You're saying the relevant scientific community has been avoiding doing a simple test on hormones in newborns because they know it will show that hormones don't have an effect, or do? This is because they are homophobic or pro trans. I'm not clear on your take here?

What is is that they are trying to avoid showing?

How long has the suppression been going on?

How simple is the test?

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Certainly it is possible for things to be complementary and not hierarchical. Your examples of individual vs. group work and guitar and drums are good illustrations of that.

But you explicitly link masculinity with dominance and femininity with submission, which is the precise definition of hierarchy: this person uses force to impose his will on that person, this person gets his way and that person is just acted upon like a non-sentient object.

Sure. I agree.

I am offering two aspects on this.

Gender as empty flag that is complementary and completed by culture.

Nothing to do with power but always emergent and always different. Would you think that possible?

A more awkward version means that it has innate behaviours or even slightly innate gendered tendencies.

Which might include that male trait for dominance and aggression.

Maybe, maybe not.

It's certainly there culturally across lots of cultures. Stronger or weaker.

I can see that would be politically difficult. It's not like it puts me in a good position.

I know kinksters have contorted themselves into thinking that the submissive person is actually in charge, but even if that's maybe sort of true in their little games, it's not how hierarchy works in the real world, and it's not how masculinity and femininity play out in the real world.

Right, so it isn't the real world.

Saying that women are put in an inferior position because of stupid and evil dominance bullshit means things like, if a man gets a better job in a different town, his wife may be expected to leave her life, home, and family to go with him, and not the other way around, because her silly little job doesn't matter like his big masculine job, and her will has to give way to his.

I'm not arguing against that to say it's a good thing. I'm not arguing for men to dominate women.

But I have to live with the world as it is.

For instance that US ebook erotica by popularity.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-Erotica/zgbs/digital-text/157057011/?tf=1

Sure they can keep things in the bedroom but there must be some interaction with the real world.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

The characters aren't transgressive then?

All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

The idea that femininity is wrong, created by men for men and unnecessary. There is no reason to enjoy it or express with that is not debasing, fetishizing and collaborating. That we should progress without it. If everyone was masculine then we wouldn't have masculine or feminine.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Hypotheses about "hormonal washes in the womb" are usually advanced by people who have no understanding of how human development occurs in utero. Moreover, such hypotheses originally were cooked up by homophobes who sought to blame mothers and their wonky wombs for doing things to their children in utero that would make the kids turn out to be gay or otherwise different.

But the hormones from the fetus are causing the effect? Is that the case?

Are you saying we have no evidence on the effects of hormones in the womb on development? I suspect we do have good evidence from other animals.

This is bait & switch. It's disingenuous. And it exploits people with DSDs. Please leave them & their medical conditions out of the convo.

Bait and switch? It's all on the topic. I'm following the evidence. Now you're saying things can't be mentioned.

If you are correct then CAH should point to there being no pattern. Evidence on the topics should confirm your position.

How are we supposed to discuss sex and gender if we purposefully avoid taking about DSDs? When you say don't look at this I'm immediately suspicious.

Does this mean you reject Marc Breedlove's work?

You seem more the expert. What is your take?

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Of course it is. If there's a hierarchy, then someone is the loser. Someone is the inferior one.

What's wrong with thinking things can be complimentary?

Sometimes individualism helps, sometimes group work is optimal.

Sometimes leading is best, sometimes following is optimal.

Everything isn't a hierarchy.

What's better drums or guitar?

Someone's at the bottom of the totem pole. And society has deemed that it be women. There's no way to argue that women just naturally want to be abused and then say they're not inferior to men. I mean, come on there. It's perfectly justified to rape and abuse women if that's what all women naturally want. That's what the incels and Red Pillers believe. I've seen dozens of different men on Reddit spouting those disgusting beliefs.

Oh I do think they spout those beliefs.

I do think lots of have dubious sexualities. I think they have to disconnect those desires from reality. Even if they meet women with those desires.

I would dispute that. I was not raised that way. There are millions of people around the world who have never heard of BDSM.

Of course but they still see the connection between power and sex.

Disagree. Maybe in unhealthy environments, but not in all environments. I'm a peaceful person. I have no tolerance for mind games in any aspect of my life.

I tend to think mind games are impossible to avoid.

It's not that all life is unhealthy social mind games but that we are always involved in games in social interactions. That is what regular onscreen drama is. The stuff of soaps.

That's not what I mean. The audience was not meant to get sexually turned on by the torture. They were meant to hate the character. And yes, that's why they cheered when Joffrey got poisoned or Ramsay was eaten by dogs. Anyone who was experiencing pleasure by witnessing the torture itself is a sick individual.

Isn't GoT knowingly teasing us by having us enjoy Ramsay suffering? We should not take pleasure in the pain of others but here we have the pleasure of revenge. That is onscreen extremism.

But you never take pleasure in small revenge in real life? The small games of life?

My line is disrespect.

I think the disrespect in bdsm is play. It should not be thought of as serious. It is theatre. That would be my interpretation.

I don't care if my partner wants to bed two women at once as long as he's not thinking of those women as inferior or wanting to hurt them in some way. I still don't get the group sex thing. It goes against my personal morals. But I don't think it's automatically an immoral act.

Group things aren't my thing either. I've actually had some personal trauma about that kind of thing. Being invited to an orgy without knowing it is an orgy is probably the best way to describe it.

Not really, haven't you heard that men will fuck anything? It's only partly a joke.

Well a couple things about that.

I think yes men possibly naturally do have a higher sex drive. That affects relations between the sexes.

They also have an order preference in that "fucking."

If all women shaved their heads and threw away their makeup and feminine clothes, heterosexual men would still deeply want to fuck women. There's no way to stop biology. There's always an urge to reproduce the species.

However they still have preferences. All the "culture of gender expression" isn't being thrown away.

They women too have preferences. All aspects of male gender expression would be thrown away too.

Both sexes use things other than their physical bodies to rise in the order. That seems a perfect natural activity.

Bodies are equally sensuous, at least in my book, depending on one's orientation. Masculinity and femininity are neither. I just don't get the appeal. So you want to wear dresses and makeup, okay, but I don't understand why.

Sure but, I in turn would say you are being the outlier case here. I of course say I am an outlier in my preferences in women and gender expression.

I would also say you might be taking masculinity for granted. You see it as the norm, the default. You don't see any point in anything else. Where as most people take both for granted.

But who cares if people assume you're gay? Everyone I meet must assume I'm a butch lesbian. It's not a big deal. You can be an effeminate straight guy. It doesn't have to be related to fetishes.

Well I thought we'd agreed that male gender non conformity is far more socially unacceptable?

You have to care not to appear gay, not to appear weak, not to appear feminine, not to appear that you might enjoy expressing femininity. Because it is socially toxic.

It's like "Yeah if you wear a dress you better not be enjoying it, you better still be a real man with real masculinity."

What's "them," in this context? I don't quite follow.

Ah I mean attracted to the elements of femininity.

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind sharing, have you ever had just normal sex with a woman without involving a fetish?

Yes with women who were intensely sexual. There seems to be overlap between dominant and intensely sexual maybe. Their sexual passionate aggression turns me on.

ha does that make it sound I am not a generous lover?

I enjoy pleasing partners but unless they can please me it becomes a turn off. That is not blame on anyone. It's about being a good match.

Or are you not capable of being aroused by regular sex without BDSM elements or crossdressing?

I feel like I need some element but like I said that element might be aggressive passion or that emotional link. "This person loves who I am." "We are linking on that." "I love who they are and they love me."

But the majority of women I find are passive and focused on masculinity.

Well, if jewelry itself turns you on even to look at it, that's obviously fetishistic. I mean, there's nothing wrong with liking jewelry. Lots of men do. But it's different to get an erection thinking about jewelry and have it put you in the mood for sex.

Well jewellery is popular, you can see the aesthetic appeal of it?

What's erotic play? I think I'm very erotically playful. I'm not shy about any aspect of my sex life, so I'm happy to go into detail, but I'm not some serious person in bed. I think sex should be joyful. I enjoy pleasing and being pleasured. I don't think I'm boring. My partner doesn't seem to think I am. It's not like we only do missionary in the dark or something. We're very active and even exploratory.

But it's a relative thing surely? There has to be good matches.

I wasn't thinking you were boring and as I understand the world. People enjoy different things. Some people are very focused on the body. Some people are very passive but want attention.

How old were you when you first became aware of your fetish, if you don't mind me asking?

Well I pre school I was interested in femininity. It was clear flicking something in me.

It became sexual as I grew up. Things fell in to place. But I wasn't masturbating instead I had a lot of awkward wet dreams. In retrospect I can see I didn't really understand myself. Why would I?

lol in fact I can remember shocking people by telling them I didn't masturbate. cringe. That was a mistake. People thought it was weird and it was.

I mean I did find crossdressing and dominant women erotic but those ideas are too outside normal life to make sense of. Crossdressing is also so strongly linked to homosexuality. I probably lost my virginity later than most. But then I wasn't focused on the masculinity that seems so important to heterosexuality. I was doing my own thing.

I think your idea of this mythical masculinity and the reality of female sexuality are not in alignment. If you think girls don't need to be taught to be attracted to toxic male figures, then you're really just saying that we're born inferior. I don't see what the purpose of feminism is in that case.

But isn't this back to the logic that leads to everyone needing to be masculine?

But you must see that isn't what the mass population wants?

I know you'll blame culture but the desires seem too strong to believe that.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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?

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

But the archetypes in this fiction aren't transgressive. They are traditional archetypes of masculinity.

"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?

Nothing particularly transgressive there in the characters. Apart from the gay figures. Of course there is criminality. But that's a bad guy male stereotype.

Sure a lot of feminism denounces them. But then women carry on enjoying them.

Is there horror and fantasy in that list too? sure. But often mixed with strong masculine and feminine types and iconography.

Horror and erotica is certainly a common mix.

I also presume there is an amount of gay male porn being enjoyed by a female audience here. Probably another debate.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

the pattern is going to be there and observed as such and as society changes, what is feminine or masculine also changes, in other words, femininty and masculinity is dynamic. "Gender" cannot be "removed", it's just a dynamic category.

I agree or at least I think I do.

Masculine and feminine is dynamic to a degree.

However they are always going to emerge, because humans have a desire to gender things. Also in that sense gender non conformity is cross conformity.

Also the genders can't be so dynamic that they contradict physical reality.

But there can be behavioural traits as well as physical traits.

For instance criminality seems to have a universal higher rate among men.

I'm at this point ready to say this person is a troll or some nutter who thinks that it has won an argument when a person stops posting. His logic has a lot more holes than a badly written plot

Well they do claim to be a woman and I believe them. I do think they might be traumatized person. But their arguments are consistent with some in gc. But then I think gc is more than one group but also that the different gc positions ought to be formalised to a degree.

Both "gc" and "qt" have different schools of thought.

All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

That was a typo. It meant to read "don't." I actually thought I'd fixed that.

Though the relationship is complicated in that I see some gc wanting masculinity only.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

That doesn't sound that radical though.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I think I met vampire women with sharpened incisors.

You think their popular because their transgressive? But a lot of the characters aren't transgressive, their actually traditional.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

At the same time, don't trust these kinds of studies 100%. I have a digit ratio correlated with being a lesbian, yet am very much not one.

But you do reject a lot of mainstream social roles as wrong for you.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I mean slight variations but your list still has plenty of kink tropes. But I am interested in the gender stereotypes in these.

What are your thoughts on these best sellers?

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Regarding Digit ratios.

Among non-human mammals, exposure to androgens during critical periods of development leads to gynephilia (attraction to females), whereas the absence or low levels of prenatal androgens leads to androphilia (attraction to males). However, in humans, retrospective markers of prenatal androgens have only been associated with gynephilia among women, but not with androphilia among men. Here, we asked whether an indirect indication of prenatal androgen exposure, 2D:4D, differs between subsets of gay men delineated by anal sex role (ASR). ASR was used as a proxy for subgroups because ASR groups tend to differ in other measures affected by brain sexual differentiation, such as gender conformity. First, we replicated the finding that gay men with a receptive ASR preference (bottoms) report greater gender nonconformity (GNC) compared to gay men with an insertive ASR preference (tops). We then found that Tops have a lower (male-typical) average right-hand digit ratio than Bottoms, and that among all gay men the right-hand 2D:4D correlated with GNC, indicating that a higher (female-typical) 2D:4D is associated with increased GNC. Differences were found between non-exclusive and exclusive same-sex attraction and GNC, and ASR group differences on digit ratios do not reach significance when all non-heterosexual men are included in the analyses, suggesting greater heterogeneity in the development of non-exclusive same-sex sexual orientations. Overall, results support a role for prenatal androgens, as approximated by digit ratios, in influencing the sexual orientation and GNC of a subset of gay men.

Differences in digit ratios between gay men who prefer receptive versus insertive sex roles indicate a role for prenatal androgen

A problem with the strict environmental explanations is that environments change a lot but the patterns remain the same.

If a lot of these sexual behaviours had obvious environmental causes then the pattern would be obvious within the population. By that I mean if they meet online and find they all share a similar history then the pattern is clear. But that doesn't happen. Even if some have a similar background some don't, and some who do, don't share the same preference. Meaning the pattern isn't established.

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Where were we?

Human sexuality exists within the framework of human society. And all human societies are unequal. So it's an uphill battle, but it's something we can strive for. I do not believe any girl or woman is born to want to be inferior.

yeah it's not about thinking a woman is inferior.

I think it is partly about a dynamic. But power dynamics can be complex. I know you're thinking "but sex isn't, shouldn't, and doesn't need to be about power." Sure. But sex and power are going to carry on being linked. Regular human relations are always tinged with power dynamics. Nothing to do with sex or bdsm. Just regular subtle power games. Social status. It's not that all power games in all relations are healthy but it's wrong to think they aren't going on. Often it's about finding a balance and trade in that.

If people are taking sadistic pleasure in what they see on Game of Thrones or cop shows, there's something wrong with them. I was a big GoT fan. There were plenty of evil characters. The audience wasn't meant to identify with the evil ones who were raping and torturing. They weren't meant to take pleasure in those scenes with Joffrey or Ramsay sadistically torturing people.

Right but the pleasure isn't there without the horror. The pleasure of the justice requires we witness the horror to know what goodness is. We need theatrical fight and chase, it's exhilarating. Rollercoaster rides, horror films are about pushed ourselves to be scared and then returning to a normality. Everything is now ok. Am I saying that's going on in bdsm? Not entirely sure. Though sex as theatre I think shares that.

People are going to go rock climbing and chasing dangerous pastimes, they need to do that safely.

I think there are a number of things going on in bdsm. Do I think they're all healthy? no. Do I think mild bdsm can be fun and healthy? yes. Literally nobody is being hurt. A lot of what works for people is theatre.

I don't agree with everything on /r/sex but calling them all broken is unrealistic.

Most of them are. Also, the mods expressly forbid dissenting opinions. You're not allowed to say anything against kink or BDSM there.

Well obviously I am fairly open to debate.

Orgies don't involve hurting other people. That would be against my personal moral code, but I don't find it immoral if other people think about it or do it. My partner told me he likes the idea of being with two women. Seems like a common male fantasy, even if I don't understand the appeal. It's not harmful. There's nothing inherently destructive or disrespectful about it.

Sure. Your line is physical harm?

But you still don't see how people can be attracted to gender?

Not really. I'm attracted to the male body. Male bodies are sexed, not gendered. I think the root of sexual orientation is sex. Everything else is window dressing and depends on what culture people are raised in and what they're taught as kids.

I think window dressing is incredibly important.

It certainly appears important to others.

I think men are only attracted to Western femininity because that's what's presented to them. If they were presented with bare-faced women with shaved heads, they'd want that instead.

One of my beliefs a lot of it might be flags. Flags for sex/gender. So yes Western men are presented with femininity, and Western women are presented with masculinity. The content might change in other cultures but there are always two flags. The two flags, of masculinity and femininity always emerge.

Within that masculinity, being stronger, are always going to be associated with strength. So even if the flags are essentially blank they can only be completed with the realm of physical reality.

Some of this is basic as a pink flag and blue flag. If it wasn't those colours it would be other symbols. Humans being obsessed with symbolism.

Both, I guess. In terms of what society expects, that's just how I'm comfortable. To me, it's the default. And no, I don't really get it. To me, attraction is about sex. Masculinity is not sex. It's not biological in the way that the male body is.

How about sensuousness?

I'm attracted to the sensuousness of femininity. I know this can seem strictly fetishistic. But there's also the whole "gay" inflection of this. It's annoying because I wrote a long item on this before the event on the old sub. I used to express a lot more things that were often coded gay but realised it was far too socially dangerous. People make assumptions. I mean often like those looks but then I'm a crossdresser.

There is a whole of tension in men not wanting to look gay because it is clearly bad for the heterosexual appearance. Which must be guarded. Just like bi men are more reluctant to admit their preference.

But back to sensiousness. They aren't quite coded in a power way. Maybe there is a relationship.

But am I attracted to them because I'm a crossdresser, because I like a passive role, because I like to express femininity?

Masculinity is now associated with rough utilitarian materials. Toughness. Practicality.

Yes masculinity can and sometimes is associated with very loud expression - rock stars, military parade uniforms, previous eras flamboyance. Though even the excess of those is associated with homosexuality.

But the aesthetic appear remains.

Like if I look at jewellery I think it looks beautiful and inviting. I'm not thinking about power or roles. It just appeals to me. I want to wear it. The same goes for a lot of other feminine coded items. Expressing it makes me feel erotic and in the mood for sex. It's like foreplay and an invitation. I don't have to say I am woman. It' s not on my mind. But femininity is. At least that expression of it.

Both, I guess. In terms of what society expects, that's just how I'm comfortable. To me, it's the default. And no, I don't really get it. To me, attraction is about sex. Masculinity is not sex. It's not biological in the way that the male body is.

Sure I mean I think sex can be very physically based. But that's not erotic play.

Sex didn't make sense to me. I was never focused on the in out. It just wasn't prominent in my mind. It still isn't. But with the right woman it works. I understood it more then. But sex didn't change my sexuality.

I think its interesting you say the default. Because I think that's how I think how gc often sees masculinity. But I don't think that's a popular feeling.

I don't think I was taught to find anything sexually attractive. I'm not sure. I was kind of oblivious to sex as a kid, and my media was restricted to age appropriate material only. I certainly wasn't exposed to porn or BDSM material, thank God. There was nothing in my environment that told me masculinity was sexual. I was more concerned with modeling myself on my dad and grandfather. There was nothing sexual about that, obviously.

But isn't that the same for most people?

Sure the internet and porn might be having an effect on people but the sexual variants all existed before the internet.

The link between masculinity and sexuality is a given.

It doesn't need to be taught because for most the pattern is innate. Teaching it wouldn't make any difference.

In that sense telling girls they ought to find masculinity attractive is redundant.

I mean, no offense, but you've got a fetish. Who do you think is more likely to attribute fetishes to other people? I was raised in a small town around conservative God-fearing people. Fetishes were not part of my upbringing. I had no idea they existed until maybe late high school but then only very, very vaguely. They were not considered something normal people in normal places had.

But people learn about the sexuality often after they already feel it.

More a case of "Oh that's what my feeling is called."

Natural anomalous behaviour is often only recognisable when looking at a larger number.

Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

checks hand ratio

Good question. To me the flat universal occurrence of the phenomena implies a natural cause. You can look at sexuality in Roman history and see sexual practices we recognise today but interpreted in different ways. There is an interaction between the environment and biology. Things that are universally found are highly likely to be natural even if they are dealt with differently.

Though the essentialist biological differences have to come down to few reasons rather than lots of reasons. That means lots of different apparent forms are triggered by a few elements rather than all having individual natural triggers. For instance linking the higher male numbers to a higher sex drive and/or a higher level of innate aggression.

In other words, sex drive fully accounted for the sex difference in paraphilic interests.

Paraphilic Interests: An Examination of Sex Differences in a Nonclinical Sample

Maybe.

Another aspect of the gender variation I wonder about is the active and passive element.

Sexual arousal by dominance and submission in relation to increased reproductive success in the general population

Results: Sexually dominant men aged 35-44 years had more biological male children. Both the sexually dominant men aged 35-44 years and sexually submissive women aged 35-44 years perceived themselves as being more attractive.

Conclusion: We suggest that sexual arousal by dominance is likely to be the means by which the mating strategy is accomplished.

Don't blame me for what this report says. I'm just looking things up.

I'm generally looking at popular erotic culture. Yes I agree that is culturally dependent. Again don't blame me for what is popular erotic work with women.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-Erotic-Fiction/zgbs/digital-text/362277031

I think it contains what are often classed as paraphilias. I often think the clinical paraphilias are extreme versions of preferences found in common sexual activity. It isn't a binary thing. Saying but they shouldn't like it is something else.

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

sure. but I gotta go to bed now

certainly up for returning to this.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

OK then I'll leave it there.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

If it isn't tied to society then why would changing society change sexual behaviour?

Surely there is a relationship but it's debatable what that is.

Would you say my deviancy is caused by society?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds good. I do have ideas. But it's more a matter of time use. I was lucky to get a break from reddit when the old sub was banned. But hey I love talking about gender.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

What is "natural?" Neurons and endogenous hormones are "natural." (Not being an asshole here, just keeping it Socratic.)

ha sure. It very much is the question.

Masculinity and femininity seem so pervasive, it looks natural. Attempts to deconstruct them and abolish them always seem to fail.

It's not that there are complete forms of masculinity and femininity inside people. But the desire to form them seems so strong. Linked into all kinds of behaviour.

People always seem to focus on them either towards one or the other. Not the extreme but a modal difference.

Loaded question. First we'd have to define "masculinity." I think that's way outside the OP's theme here.

But surely highly related to the topic?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know why men have more fetishes. If I were working that, I'd look at the biological-cognitive and socialization differences involved based on sex.

You don't think it's something natural?

Would you say women generally have a preference for masculinity as an erotic target?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know how I feel about the DSM as it is changeable.

I don't think either of us are going to agree with every social science piece on sexuality. I guess why we deabte.

But why do you think men have more "fetishes" ?

Erotic and fetishistic can also be a bit of spectrum. This also gets a bit akin to "You use porn I use erotica."

As I said heterosexual norms flipped are judged deviant.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

But there is gender differences in that? Or at least as a spectrum?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks I'll take a read. But a lesbian is surely going to have a different preference and experience of the erotic, no?

There will be some overlap and some differences, more than the basics of orientation.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

The latter, I don't think men and women are attracted to the same things. The things people find erotic separate from sexual orientations.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Sexualities or sexes?

Yeah I was meaning the sexualities common to the two sexes. I don't think men and women like the same things, generally.

Biological sexes have commonly enforced gender norms assigned to each.

Right but how far?

Oriented sexualities describe innate patterns of attraction.

So how much is innate?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

There possibly are a higher number of trans people on reddit.

I still think there are examples of women masturbating with mirrors. I do not believe they are all fake. What's going on? I don't have to equate that all with some kind of agp. It's just there.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Of course it does. Enact and repeat a behavior enough times under the influence of internal modulators and external stimuli and that behavior becomes a CNS-biased norm at a neuronal level.

But aren't non conforming people explicitly going against stimulus in their environments?

All kinds of sexual behaviour existed before porn and the internet.

A starting point to me is common sexualities have gender norms. Yes?

If those are reversed it's considered fetishistic and perverse.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

So what do you have against Blanchardianism? That's not a trick question or anything.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

So how come mirror masturbation has never been mentioned in any novels or memoirs written by women, or in any work about women's sexual behaviors like the Hite Report?

Indeed. How come I can find casual references to it very quickly when it isn't mentioned in academic work?

Are these people in reddit fake?

Or is there shortcomings in the work you are referencing?

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

You can break everything into binaries and hierarchies but they can be contingent.

It isn't a fact that masculinity is the best that is a subjective judgement.

People can sexually objectify masculinity. Is that a reason to abolish it?

I think attraction to masculinity or femininity is a perfectly natural part of human behaviour. Cultures without gender wouldn't be natural.

All attempts to make cultures without gender fail.

It's true radical feminism often is opposed to femininity as a concept. But the idea never becomes the mainstream idea within feminism because of rejection by women. This carries on not happening. When it carries on not happening you have admit that there might be an error in the theory saying it ought to happen.

Are you admitting there is value in not being so aggressive as the masculine trait often represents? That there is value in agreeableness.

All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women? by CRTmonitor in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

No, you see whenever the majority likes something it's just a coincidence that all their unique tastes just so happen to align with the status quo. Sarcasm aside, masculinity is not equivalent to femininity. "Masculinity" is broad & includes everything, except femininity, just like any norm vs other.

You understand this is an unusual and uncommon view.

You seriously can't think of any good things associated with femininity?

I already told you masculinity encompasses everything that our culture regards as positive, as well as everything it regards as neutral, as well as the polar opposite of femininity. While femininity is just 5 things, masculinity is everything else, like day vs. night.

I mean I'd say I now understand where you are coming from now.

Socially constructed binaries aren't true binaries, since they are never 50/50, they are more like 99/1, that's why they always seem hierarchical. They are neither binaries nor hierarchical. Every "binary" is just a synonym for normal vs. abnormal. Like normal, "masculinity" is just a placeholder, a retronym, the default. It has no real definition. The word femininity exists to distinguish itself from the norm, the reason the word masculinity exists is to refer to that which never needs to be referred to except to distinguish femininity from the norm, but from another angle. Treating masculinity as of it's the same as femininity would be upholding the pretence that a binary exists. It doesn't. We just like to pretend that it does.

I understand this idea. I just don't think the majority of people agree with it. They value femininity in the world rather than something that can be abolished. They don't see masculinity as the everything.