Idea regarding removal of women's bathrooms in favor of unisex/men's

uwubunny · 2020-07-29T01:46:55+00:00

I support this.

It'd create a lot of publicity, and that's all you need for now.

uwubunny · 2020-07-23T09:14:13+00:00

Should be renamed to r/TwoXChromosomesPerTwoMods

uwubunny · 2020-07-23T09:08:38+00:00

Counterpoint: I don't see a problem with homosexuals (or anyone, really) saying they prefer to be referred to with the opposite sex pronoun, provided they aren't trying to gaslight everyone that they are actually the opposite sex. Pronouns are, as TRAs never tire of pointing out, language conventions, and the reason I oppose TRA pronoun fuckery is that they use it in service to a regressive misogynist ideology. But if you're a woman who for some reason really wants to be referred to as "he", I don't think that's so terrible.

uwubunny · 2020-07-22T23:14:29+00:00

I don't think we should discourage them, to be honest. Take all month off! Every month!

uwubunny · 2020-07-22T22:13:12+00:00

What TRAs really want is to distract you from talking about their obvious sexual proclivity for getting into women's spaces. That is something the public can understand.

They'd much rather you waste time on biology flapdoodle gambits about women who can't menstruate than point out they're men with a fetish - often a fetish for tampons and shoving frozen tomato juice up their behinds so they can pretend they can menstruate.

uwubunny · 2020-07-22T19:22:57+00:00

"My bicycle is a car."

"Don't be silly, cars have engines."

"What about cars in the garage being fixed that have their engines removed?"

uwubunny · 2020-07-22T14:37:26+00:00

It's the new name for being GNC

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T22:04:52+00:00

People will naturally use upvotes to reward opinions they like and punish those they don't. How do you make fora robust to the tendency?

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T21:36:55+00:00

The only way to have a meeting you can be certain will only be attended by women is to have a meeting for trans men and make it men-only.

But by definition, aren't all women who play rugby on the trans spectrum anyway? It's pretty GNC.

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T12:06:26+00:00

Transgender activists are authoritarian assholes, so I refuse to use any kind of pronoun to validate the idea that human beings can literally change sex or negate sex out of principle. It might have been okay before this foolishness started, but not any more. Sorry to the Blaire Whites of the world and other sane transgenders, but I can't make an exception for you. I'm not going to use pronouns to validate the "good trans" like some kind of patronizing reward, so it's just a blanket ban from me. If pronouns aren't a courtesy for me, then they aren't for you, either.

That doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the fact that even TRAs can feel real anguish at being called the opposite sex pronoun from the one they want, but most of the time it's possible to remain equivocal on sex and avoid being specific with pronouns.

That said, there's no particular reason to use "he" for males and "she" for females other than custom and common understanding, like all language. English could in theory switch to a sex neutral pronoun and be comprehensible. I don't like "they" because it mixes singular and plural. If a sex nonconforming person prefers to be called a pronoun that the opposite sex uses and isn't doing it because they want me to pretend they've changed sex, I don't think I'd be against it. I'm okay with "he/him lesbians".

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T10:19:28+00:00

Heterosexuality is a big inherent difference between men and women. You really can't get around this one.

your argument means that homosexuals would somehow be inherently closer to their opposite sex straight counterparts and that's simply not true.

Not necessarily; it might be that homosexuality is a different thing entirely. But it's also not obvious that it isn't true that homosexuals are closer to the opposite sex in certain ways. Gay men do tend to be more feminine.

That brain sex argument is very old and should have stayed where race brain theory went too, and bio essentialism is a poor theory based on bad science that's been discredited over and over again.

Just because you don't like the fact that men and women are different doesn't mean the science is "discredited" or justify racism. Another TRA trope.

By believing what you say to be true then obligatorily you agree with their theory that it's all about personality, which is inherent and thus that they really are the sex they identify with because of their "brain sex".

This doesn't make any sense. Your sex doesn't depend on anything in your brain. If you're a man with a brain that is like a woman's, this doesn't make you a woman, any more than if you're a man with a face that is like a woman's, or a man with a height that is like a woman's. It just makes you an unusual man. In fact, you're making the TRA argument that your sex is your personality, whereas I'm saying that your sex is simple a fact about your body.

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T10:03:29+00:00

What is sexuality if it isn't a kind of personality difference? I don't understand why "who you want to fuck with" should get ringfenced off from all other personality traits. Men and women literally have different brains. Heterosexuality is the proof. If they have different brains in one department, why not other departments that are equally important for what evolution had in mind for men and women?

As for TRA comparisons... who's denying that biology has consequences in this argument? Not me.

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T09:58:33+00:00

It literally does. Sexuality is a psychological difference. If you agree that men and women have ONE psychological difference that's adapted for their natural roles, why not others?

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T09:36:40+00:00

Do you agree that men tend to like women and women tend to like men?

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T09:35:17+00:00

We can do that with a HN-type algorithm that weights new posts up to determine their value ("multi armed bandit").

But I also want to point out that I don't want to just show people posts that they like and agree with. It seems to me that leads to an unhealthy political climate. It's about what we think the function of a forum ought to be. We ought to be exposed to opposing views. That's why the image board structure can be more democratic and reflects public opinion better. Public opinion does have racism, extreme nationalism, hatred, and lots of other things we find unpleasant in it. That's life.

uwubunny · 2020-07-21T00:02:39+00:00

I would read the article, if I were you. It's lengthy, subtle, and extremely good.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T23:09:42+00:00

Has anyone built a forum with a random or stochastic sort order? Plus, it's not clear to me how it would work in a threaded conversation.

It's about incentives. The reason I'm replying to you is that I believe that people will read it - chasing the dopamine hit of getting interaction, upvotes and replies, and ultimately the belief that I'm influencing other people by some absolutely tiny amount. If you think internet points are better, you should design to maximize the chance that I'll vote your comment up. If you think replies are better, design to maximize the chance that I'll reply.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T22:20:17+00:00

Very much Web 1.0 person here.

The sort ordering matters a lot on Reddit-like fora. Whatever you sort by, you incentivize. If you sort by old, you incentivize hair trigger, low-effort replies. If you sort by New, you incentivize trying to get the last word in. If you sort by Best, you incentivize trying to appeal to lowest common denominator. What I want to explore is how to get away from the groupthink that murdered Reddit.

On image boards, if posts have a lot of replies, you'll find them quickly by scanning the thread. They don't discriminate between posts that get positive or negative attention, and I don't think that's a bad thing - provided you've got some tolerance for controversy.

If your site encourages people to just read the top posts in any meaningful ordering, you're putting repliers and people who make late, thoughtful posts, at a disadvantage. Ordering by old forces everyone to at least skim everything. That additional work that everyone has to do to interact with the board is what encourages everyone else to contribute. It also doesn't work for anything over a few hundred posts.

If you're determined to sort by "what people agree with", the best way to do this would be to treat it like a multi-armed bandit problem, with an algorithm to boost new comments to determine how good they are. I think HN does this.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T21:56:17+00:00

Without an understanding of the neurological mechanisms we can only speculate, but consider these facts:

Autism involves difficulties in forming relationships with or understanding other people
Autogynephilia involves forming a pseudo-relationship, with a fictitious female persona which you yourself try to embody
Transgenders are a lot more likely to be autistic

This suggests to me at least that the same basic pathway might be disrupted in both these conditions.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T20:52:19+00:00

Ah, it's our old friend Aimee "Sure my dad's a pedophile torturer, and my husband's an admitted pedophile, but I'm OK to moderate kiddy fora" C

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T20:48:38+00:00

I'd bet this is because you're now the internet's major venue for the most controversial and detested political view in the history of the human race:

Women exist.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T20:07:21+00:00

Good comparison. There is a weird nexus between extreme leftist politics and transgenderism, as all the transgenders in antifa show. And since we seem to be in a rerun of 1968 the left in the US have quite a relevant history of violence. The number of people murdered by a very small population of transgenders is also alarmingly large. Walter Miller and Dana Rivers were both MtF murderers of women, and the Zodiac Killer and Ed Gein were both obviously AGP among others. There have also been several spree killings by FtMs. With the violent anti-feminist rhetoric on Twitter spiralling into new heights of paranoia and hatred I'm worried it's just a matter of time before someone from the uwu brigade tries to massacre women like the dangerous mentally ill incels they are.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T12:04:29+00:00

I believe it's a combination of a totalitarian world view and power.

For groups that are as illiberal as fundamentalists and transgender activists, free speech is just a tactic to propagate themselves if they're out of power, to be discarded as soon as they get the upper hand. The Nazis used free speech to defend themselves until they gained power, and then it was lights out on their enemies.

If every university, corporation, state government, etc supported Westboro, I've got no doubt they'd be as bad as the TRAs.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T11:27:42+00:00

There are important differences.

First, there are very few if any religions which find the existence of anyone who doesn't believe integrally offensive to them. Even medieval Christians tolerated the existence of Jewish people (between pogroms). Even fucking ISIS didn't forcibly convert Christians when they took over towns. However, transgenders do. Anyone who doesn't believe and say the pronouns is the enemy. So transgender people are less tolerant than any current religion in the world, and intolerant on a par with the worst of medieval Christianity.

Second, transgenders are the most misogynistic group of people in human history, and it's not close. The Taliban have more respect for the existence of women as an ontological category than transgenders do. So does ISIS. Transgenders are the only group of people who are not just anti-feminist, but against the notion of even having language to describe feminism.

So there is a solid case to be made for transgenders being the least tolerant and most misogynist people, ever.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T11:07:47+00:00

Gender dysphoria was always bullshit, though. It's a condition that psychiatrists made up because they were sick of hyper-macho AGPs memorizing the criteria for the diagnosis of transsexualism and pretending to be "classic" homosexual transsexuals.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T10:04:14+00:00

It's not factually wrong that men and women are different and like different things.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T00:04:28+00:00

Autism spectrum. This is a reach, but maybe inability to understand the feelings of other people makes you more likely to try to turn yourself into your own girlfriend.

uwubunny · 2020-07-20T00:03:31+00:00

AGP is a paraphilia with dramatic and life changing effects.

They don't go around permanently aroused while they're pretending to be women just like men don't have permanent erections even if they are in love.

Anne Lawrence, an AGP MtF researcher, estimated 85% of MtFs are AGP.

uwubunny · 2020-07-19T22:40:23+00:00

Is Reddit not going to realize these people are an ever-growing disease that will destroy their revenue model? There's no point to a forum where there's no room for dissent.

uwubunny · 2020-07-19T19:44:56+00:00

Just because my opinion offends your egalitarian conviction that nature ought to have made men and women identical does not mean that it is false.

uwubunny · 2020-07-19T11:12:03+00:00

Wait, so the person I was replying to saying that all men should be castrated isn't sexist enough for you to complain, but saying that men seem to be better suited to some essential jobs than women, is?

uwubunny · 2020-07-19T09:14:31+00:00

Men aren't complaining, so that's moot. The feminists who believe male violence is a problem that needs to be solved are women. We can give them what they want by segregation. Indeed, if men are violent as a result of competing for women, segregation might also lower male violence.

A look around heavily male dominated jobs shows many of importance, from essential infrastructure maintenance and resource extraction to farming to creative technical jobs to leadership. Women might simply not be willing or capable of stepping up in the numbers required. It's hard to even think of a moderately large corporation that's ever been solely run by women. Some kind of patriarchy might be essential for any recognisable civilization to exist. Moreover, the kind of jobs and roles that women have are important, too, and society might also need women who do them not to be diverted to male type jobs.

There's no more reason to think men can reduce male violence to the level of women than there is to think women can reduce female gossip and bullying to the level of men, and no real reason to restructure society around doing either of these things.

uwubunny · 2020-07-19T02:35:50+00:00

Societies might not exist without the male sex drive, and besides, it would be wrong to systematically harm a whole sex. Although a surprising number of men voluntarily opt for a kind of mild castration - not trans, but finasteride.

However, societies can easily have a very high degree of sex separation, so why not simply plan around separating men and women nearly all the time? Women could have their own offices, hospitals, gyms, parks, city blocks, clubs, transport systems, cities... in fact, it gets easier as you scale up. Of course, they'd want to interact with men at times to find mates or socialize, but that would be done with strict zoning for sex mixing. In other places, women can wander as they like without seeing a man.

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T19:54:48+00:00

You might as well ask what we dislike about, say, sharks. Sharks harm certain animals by existing, a bit like the male sex drive is inherently dangerous to women, but the first step has to be accepting that we're seeing a natural process here. Ideally, nobody would harm anyone, and the obvious way to do that in the matter of sexual harm, is to separate men and women from one another as far as possible.

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T19:46:29+00:00

Sure there are sex stereotypes, but my point is that they're largely accurate and don't seem to be heavily enforced. I've been to school. I don't remember the boys having classes on how to be violent, or anything. I'm sure we would have noticed.

It might be that the enforcement is the other way around. Maybe part of the way adults bring kids up is trying to make boys less boy-like. Children are pretty nasty selfish creatures by default.

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T19:41:10+00:00

Even if we're dealing in stereotypes peculiar to white American culture, men aren't thought of as odd for crying when their football teams win or in other intense situations.

How do you know that isn't just the way that men tend to be? There are plenty of reports that when men transition and take estrogen they tend to cry a lot more.

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T19:33:30+00:00

Could you give an example?

People use "gender" as a euphemism for sex. You fill in a form that says gender, you reply male or female.

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T19:27:26+00:00

I do disagree. I don't think anyone can define "gender", or say what "the genders" are without creating circularities, and I don't think we're assigned anything.

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T19:17:25+00:00

It was the mods and it was the forum structure. It's poison to a large site to bury unpopular opinions.

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T19:16:21+00:00

What if we don't accept the premise that we're assigned anything?

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T17:20:38+00:00

It isn't a penis because it doesn't satisfy the basic notion of what a penis is: a male organ, which like all organs developed, well, organically, which has the function of penetrating and inseminating the female with sperm. A neophallus is a surgically constructed fake penis attached to a human female who wants to resemble a human male. A neophallus is a surgical construction which is created to look like the penis. If you define a neophallus as a penis, then it has no sensible definition any more, since there's no answer to what it emulates, just as if you define a transman as a man, then transman has no sensible definition any more, because there's no answer to what a transman is trying to emulate.

Can you explain why a prosthetic leg is not a leg?

If a man is something with a penis, then if a man removes all of his genitals in surgery, why will he still remain a man after surgery?

If a car is something that can drive, then if my car breaks down, why is it still a car?

uwubunny · 2020-07-18T14:24:31+00:00

As long as you include neo-phallus disasters. At least the neo-vagina only fucks up one part of your body.

uwubunny · 2020-07-17T23:03:39+00:00

If Google file sharing links are set to public, your information should not be visible to others if you browse.

With that said it's good practice to avoid letting Google know your personal interests anyway.

If I'm wrong I'll delete this comment.

uwubunny · 2020-07-17T17:08:38+00:00

In the beginning were the transvestites.

First they came for the transsexuals, and called them truscum and said they all had to be transgender.

Then they came for the lesbians, and called them hateful TERF bigots and destroyed their events and bars and told them they had to suck dick to be inclusive.

Then they came for all women, and destroyed their language, rights, spaces and ability to talk about their own bodies.

Then they came for the gay men...

uwubunny · 2020-07-17T16:01:28+00:00

Well, that's silly; of course there are similarities. Gay men are attracted to men like women are, they find masculine men more attractive, like women do, and moreover, gay men are often feminine like women are. Gay men have more sex than women do, in general, but that could be socio-cultural, or it could be that they have a male-typical libido. They are also more visually oriented than women, like men are; gay men like porn more than women do, and aren't into erotic novels like women are. But that doesn't mean there aren't ways we can compare gay men with women. Finally we can get into the neuroscience and point out that gay men do indeed have brains that have some features that are like straight women's.

uwubunny · 2020-07-17T13:53:05+00:00

Most ironically named subreddit is surely a tossup between ActualLesbians and TwoXChromosomes

uwubunny · 2020-07-17T01:05:07+00:00

Yes. It's been the same conflict for the last fifty years. Nobody's said anything fundamentally new about it since Janice *Raymond. Transvestites want to pretend to be women for sexual kicks and invade their spaces, and women are justifiably creeped out and want them to leave. Men either don't care or see supporting the TVs as a plausibly sneaky way to get back at women. Doctors see it as a way to play God on little kids and show off their surgical skills.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T22:19:20+00:00

They're really just saying we cannot talk about sex unless it's on terms transgenders feel comfortable with.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T21:31:18+00:00

There are so few transwomen, but so many dangerous sex offender transwomen.

I think it may be time to admit that the problem with transwomen in women's spaces is not that they are as dangerous as men.

They're a lot worse.

If trans-activists win, women may be safer just using the men's.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T17:42:02+00:00

Anti-feminist is a label, so I reject it. I am indifferent to feminism, like I'm indifferent to any ideological position. If particular feminist claims seem sound to me then I'll accept them to the extent they are based on evidence. Feminism is the name for various womens' liberation movements, which is a political view premised on women being a coherent political bloc, having common interests, and rejecting anti-feminism. Since I don't believe women always have common interests, and I don't always reject anti-feminist ideas, then I can't call myself a feminist, and I can't call myself an anti-feminist. Moreover, particular second and third wave feminist claims seem to contradict observed facts of evolution, so I reject them.

And what's the difference between you and a trans activist who says that people not believing in their gender identity have caused them extreme distress? Why should it matter if it causes you distress? Reality doesn't care. The universe can be a distressing place.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T16:52:58+00:00

What you're saying is extremely similar to TRAs - if I step outside certain parameters of the debate then I should be silenced.

I don't subscribe to any ideology or ideological world view. I am a minority of one in any debate. I refuse to be categorised. If calling yourself a feminist is a mandatory part of being on this sub, then the moderators should ban me, because I refuse to call myself a feminist.

I know that human beings are evolved animals, and I try to form beliefs about humans, human behavior and human society based on that. I recognise that human society is about unending political conflicts and zero-sum games. I recognise "red pillers" and feminists both have valid points to make from their own lived experience, but their beliefs coming from limited perspectives are unlikely to hold universally, and not everything they say is guaranteed to be sincere, since they are political activists.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T10:41:48+00:00

QT: I don't genuinely have an opposing view. I simply say anything that I believe will manipulate other people into pretending that I have changed sex in order to satisfy my absolute core inner desire that I should be a beautiful woman. I can never directly admit that I'm doing this, and I have absolutely no shame in lying, gaslighting, and using power games to silence you. So while it might look inconsistent to say that gender identity is innate while gender is a social construct, or claiming to be feminine while giving terrorist threats to lesbians, remember that none of this is ideological. It's just an expression of a serious mental illness. If the trans online community decides that saying something completely different tomorrow will be a more effective tactic in getting what we want, then we will all instantly switch to saying it, and deny we ever said anything different.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T09:55:08+00:00

There are cultures where all women have shaved heads. Long hair is social, not biological.

That doesn't mean there's no biological reason women usually show their long hair as a sex display, especially women from ethnic groups with naturally straight hair. A small number of exceptions doesn't refute the trend throughout all cultures.

Sexual attraction is inherently objectifying. Women are sex objects to men just as men are sex objects to women. Most young women want to look beautiful and desirable.

That all we're good for is being submissive helpmeets and fuck toys.

Women aren't seen as inferior to men at all. Society places much more value on attractive young women than anyone else. Attractive women can pick and choose which men to date. If you were being objective, you'd be talking about the way that male life is devalued. Men will instinctively sacrifice their own lives to protect women. The murder of an attractive woman causes much more shock and horror than the murder of a man. In a rape accusation, a woman's word is believed over a man's. You can't deny that women have certain privileges.

I'd transition to male or leave society altogether.

Funny how you're saying the same thing MGTOWs say. Have you seen r/transmaxxing?

I do blame women for perpetuating the patriarchy.

Doesn't really sound like a "patriarchy" at all, then, does it? It's almost like it's really just sexual competition tips that their moms are passing down, hoping to make sure their daughters attract the best mates.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T09:41:44+00:00

Are you male or female? Your perspective seems quite odd for a radical feminist.

Why would you assume I'm a radical feminist?
Why would my sex have any bearing on my conclusions about human nature? Sounds almost... biologically essentialist.

That's biological essentialism.

Is it biological essentialism to think that women are in general naturally attracted to men and men are in general naturally attracted to women?

You seem to believe that what women naturally want is to stay home and take care of children.

What men and women naturally want to do has little bearing on what we actually do in a modern neoliberal society. But we do have natural preferences within that society. I do think women will be happier than men to raise children, just as men will be happier than women to compete in high-powered careers or do technically skilled jobs with mechanical objects. That's a consequence of our evolved nature. Don't you believe in evolution?

If that's your perspective, we're too far apart ideologically to continue any type of discussion.

And the difference between you and a TRA is?

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T02:53:39+00:00

The sexes aren't identical, so it's nonsensical to say they should be equal, really. Men and women are different. It's not a valid objection to say that you don't like the consequences of them being different; facts are what they are. Unless you want to go Brave New World on everyone, women are always going to invest much more time in child care than men, because that's what most women find fulfilling. If you're different, that's fine.

Social conservatives believe that men and women ought to always behave in different ways to make Jesus happy. Second-wave feminists believe that for some reason, a magical field surrounds the brains of men and women which makes their brains (a) identical and (b) immune from evolution. The third-wave feminist movement extended this magical science-proof field to their entire bodies, thus making men and women mysterious ethereal and indefinable entities. Reasonable people might think that all of the preceding claims are a load of bullshit and that human beings are simply a kind of animal with evolved variation between and within the sexes, but reasonable people didn't get a look in to politics.

However, there is a truly equal solution that you might be happy with: we just inject high doses of testosterone into every female fetus and induce artificial CAH across the population. That will produce a crop of girls with much more male-typical interests (including women), who will be just as career-focussed and uninterested in child rearing as the men you think women ought, for some reason, to emulate.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T02:40:20+00:00

One's level of masculinity or femininity has nothing to do with fertility.

Wrong. Long hair in good condition is a sign of high estrogen and good health and fertility. So are large breasts and wide hips and small feet and hands. So is looking youthful and having a feminine face and little to no body hair (low testosterone). The fundamental reason for all of this is mate competition. Women compete for the best men, men compete (to a much greater extent) for the best women. If you go up against a woman of similar natural attractiveness who is doing all these things to signal beauty, you'll lose. Nothing to do with not being a "valid partner"; you just aren't as attractive. Your bare face isn't as sexy as a face enhanced by makeup. Why doesn't it work as well for men? Because men and women respond to different stimuli. Men like high-contrast between lips, eyes and the rest of the face.

The beauty industry exists because women will do nearly anything to be more attractive than other women - exhibits number one and two being, high heeled shoes and plastic surgery. Men aren't forcing women into this. Women inflict harm on themselves with sexual competition. At least you aren't murdering each other like men do over women. None of this is about subordination. Biology doesn't give a shit if you're subordinated. This is a product of heterosexuality. Lesbians don't bother with the immense effort of looking hot for obvious reasons. Young girls are shown how to present themselves in a sexually attractive way - that's why they have long hair and wear dresses. If you don't like the creepy implications, blame their mothers.

uwubunny · 2020-07-16T01:04:37+00:00

I've argued with trans activists so many times that I could do a pretty good LARP of one.

"Uwu, you're literally killing me with this argument, transphobe!" stomps off to cabal of trans reddit mods to get you banned

uwubunny · 2020-07-15T23:16:10+00:00

Basically that. Long hair, make up, jewelry, dresses, all designed to signify a woman's "role" as decorative objects for men.

What purpose would that serve? And why do women put so much energy and enthusiasm into decorating themselves if the decoration just subordinates them? And why so little variety in the decoration compared to what could be imagined?

What's wrong with saying that these specific things here make women more attractive to men, and women generally do want to look attractive to men? Just as men generally also want to attract women, but do so in different ways.

The view of reproduction being put forward here is negative. In nature, things don't work like that. The sexes compete with others of the same sex for the best mates, and with members of the opposite sex to establish which is the best mate. Neither sex is intrinsically oppressed by the fact of having to mate.

uwubunny · 2020-07-15T21:26:25+00:00

Going by the current content of r/GenderCynical, they really do just follow people around and complain about them even after they get them banned.

uwubunny · 2020-07-15T17:47:42+00:00

This isn't a serious comment, it's a false dichotomy you're setting up. Understanding that men and women tend to have different interests and abilities doesn't mean we force women back in the kitchen and prevent them from voting. It means we should be asking why corporate careers were built for men to put unrelenting decades of work into, which exclude women who want to raise kids. It means we should have women represented in politics, law and media so that women's distinct stories and lives are being represented. It means we should value and pay for female-coded careers such as childcare and social work and nursing. It means we should include women's enhanced needs for safety from men in planning public spaces and buildings. Finally, it means we should respect the individual, and not restrict men who want to do female-coded things, or women who want to do male-coded things. In short, it means we recognise that humans are genuinely diverse, and we should restructure society on that basis.

Feminism does not need to be an anti-biology pretence that women and men are the exact same animal. Feminism is any movement that seeks women's liberation. The Temperance movement was one kind of feminism. So was the Suffrage movement.

uwubunny · 2020-07-15T13:41:05+00:00

If a black kid in a racist society decided that he wanted to look whiter in order to avoid racist expectations, would it be appropriate for doctors to prescribe a skin bleaching treatment, or would we see this as an issue of social injustice and racism that medicine shouldn't support harming individuals over? And would the treatment in fact be doing harm to the entire black community?

I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to be similar in important ways.

uwubunny · 2020-07-15T13:17:12+00:00

Femininity and masculinity are not coherent as concepts unless heterosexuality is the driving force behind both.

OK, break this down a little more: sexuality means attraction to men or attraction to women. The sexes compete with one another to be the most attractive to attractive members of the opposite sex. That's where "femininity" and "masculinity" come from.

Homosexuals are the same, they just have "swapped" attractions. Gay men compete with each other for the hottest guys like women do. That's why gay men have woman-like patterns of eating disorders.

Without normative heterosexuality literally nothing that men or women do makes any sense.

uwubunny · 2020-07-13T19:35:33+00:00

If there's no difference between the brains of women and men, how come most women are attracted to men, but most men are attracted to women?

Do you not think it undermines the GC claim that transwomen should be considered as dangerous as men if men are not innately a lot more dangerous than women, as sex crime stats show?

uwubunny · 2020-07-13T12:11:51+00:00

My claim is that the existence of innate heterosexuality implies that men and women generally have different brains from one another.

No more evidence is needed. That doesn't necessarily imply anything about what scientists can see. It might be a difference that's so subtle that it can't be seen with our current technologies. Nonetheless, we know it exists because men and women have different sexual behaviors, and it's generally believed these behaviors are innate.

uwubunny · 2020-07-13T12:05:54+00:00

Do you think most people are innately attracted to the opposite sex? Do you think sexual attraction resides in the brain?

If so, I don't see how you avoid concluding that men and women do generally have some brain differences from one another.

uwubunny · 2020-07-13T10:11:37+00:00

But there isn't a difference between the brain of a man and the brain of a woman (if you disagree, I want actual evidence).

Most people being heterosexual.

uwubunny · 2020-07-13T10:04:26+00:00

You're so blinded by your idea of what feminism is that you can't see what trans-activism is doing to women.

Many women here are not recognizably feminist. They simply want to have language to describe their own bodies and the way in which society needs to be organised around recognising that. "GC feminism" is an entirely new type of femininism, which is a reaction to the oppression of women caused by trans-activism.

Sure, you can draw a line from second wave feminism to trans-activism. So what? Most women in GC space had nothing to do with that. Academic feminism was an elite project, certainly in the United States.

If you don't want to live in something like a Maoist dystopia, you should probably move on from crowing about how these feminists had it coming, or whatever, and realize that the destruction of language has no natural stopping point. They'll come for you, too.

uwubunny · 2020-07-11T21:19:12+00:00

Pantomime horses are horses.

uwubunny · 2020-07-03T17:07:56+00:00

While this isn't a GC sub, can I make a plea for r/detrans?

uwubunny

MODERATOR OF

Women exist.