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?

GC: Who are we going to argue with here? by levoyageur718293 in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

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

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: "Trans women" at the Olympics by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

[–]theory_of_this 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But why do you think you are attracted to masculinity?

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

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

[–]theory_of_this 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OK thanks.

Though I think activism tends to attract loud voices.

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

GC: are there any QT/trans people that you like and admire and QT/trans: are there any GC people you like and admire? by questioningtw in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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.

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

[–]theory_of_this 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I can see you meeting more in that context.

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?

QT: Even by your own beliefs, sexuality can't be based on "gender identity" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

And masculinity goes with being a man right?

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

Was Jessica masculine?

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

GC (or even QT): Are trans men included in radical feminism? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

We really need term refinement or better political categories.

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

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

[–]theory_of_this 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

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

For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do probably need better political labels.

For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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

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.

For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

Both: Who do you identify with in public life, on gender? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

But do you see them elsewhere? Like online?

Both: Who do you identify with in public life, on gender? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

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

And there's gender divisions in that.

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

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

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.

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

[–]theory_of_this 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

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?

QT: Even by your own beliefs, sexuality can't be based on "gender identity" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

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

I think they do happen.

I think they tire of not being themeselves.

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

But you also say you are a straight gnc woman?

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 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

Non conforming people are tiny percent of the population.

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] 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

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?

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 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?

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?

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 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.

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 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: 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 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.

QT: Even by your own beliefs, sexuality can't be based on "gender identity" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

QT: Even by your own beliefs, sexuality can't be based on "gender identity" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

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

Well I was asking what they meant.

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

GC often isn't a single stable position.

There are different beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is wrong with this understanding?

QT: Even by your own beliefs, sexuality can't be based on "gender identity" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

You mean androgyny?

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

But a male specific item is masculine.

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

Is this gender non conformity or cultural non conformity?

Samurais are masculine figures associated with power and violence.

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

Changes in norms are not the end of norms.

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

Not expected of a man implies expected of a woman.

What else would it mean?

just ignoring silently already can be gender nonconforming.

What does this mean?

There are many ways of not conforming to stereotypes.

How?

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

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 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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

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

Doesn't seem much point in deny these things.

For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

But why not radical feminist?

How essentialist are you?

For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm a liberalist

Do you have any links to a definition?

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

Both: Who do you identify with in public life, on gender? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

Fiction and drama might be slightly more open.

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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

This is the nature of purity spirals.

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

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

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

I can understand that.

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

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

QT: Is not dating people due to beliefs bigotry? by wokuspokus in GCdebatesQT

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

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

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

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

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

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

I think there is evidence that humans are not blank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately I think that at this point it's unknowable

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

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

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

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

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

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

You are again conflating differences with innate differences.

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

Even if it is slight in some traits.

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

I don't think evolutionary psychology explains everything.

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

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

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

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

Proof that all recorded sex conflict is down to patriarchy.

The science of sexual conflict by theory_of_this in GCdebatesQT

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

You think a pop psych book is science

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

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

think actual sources are irrelevant to discussing biology,

I think they are relevant.

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

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

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

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 - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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: 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 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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

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

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

I would take essentialist reasons for that.

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

Gender expression and roles change but gender remains.

And they can only change within limits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of femininity is not down to male desire.

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

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

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

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

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

Different but never the same.

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

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

But that would be described as fetishistic.

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

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

But to me masculinity and femininity are naturally sexual.

They are also not perfect mirrors of each other.

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

???

Women can find the femininity of women attractive.

That's natural.

Elaborate this point.

Autogynephilia is part of Blanchards model.

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

"Male attracted trans women are naturally feminine"

"Female attracted trans women are attracted to themselves"

It's usually extended to women to say

"Female attracted trans men are naturally masculine"

"Female attracted trans men are attracted to themselves"

Gender expression in this model is natural.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AH right I see what you mean.

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 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

It comes across as a list of accusations.

For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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

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

OK thanks I think I get the idea now.

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

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

That there would be no "stereotypes" ?

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

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

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

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

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 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My question was meant to progress the debate. To find out what you 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 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What male gender non conformity is acceptable to you?

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 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

GC (or even QT): Are trans men included in radical feminism? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]theory_of_this 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

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

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

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 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 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 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.

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] 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

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: 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.

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.

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 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?

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 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.

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 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 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: 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.

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 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 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?