Anyone have an Ovarit code?

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2022-03-03T19:53:35+00:00

Thanks for the rundown on the climate there! I lurk there, but it's hard to get a real feel for it without being a poster. It's good to hear things like that can at least be discussed.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2022-02-28T00:17:13+00:00

Hey, do you still have any codes? I'm looking for one.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-08-02T01:04:35+00:00

I don't like pushing my credentials online because it's usually not relevant, but to put things in perspective, I'm a mathematician, and am far from the only radical feminist I know who holds a PhD in a relevant area and likes doing the type of measured analysis you're talking about. And it's tiring for me to try and engage with people who don't understand what I'm saying---but think they do, and surprise, surprise, it's always something devoid of nuance & easier to argue with than what I actually said---or who have the impression that radical feminists are angry extremists, so much so that I often have to go months without commenting.

Being a mathematician doesn't give you authority, training, or credibility in this area of discussion beyond the simple ability to evaluate the basic credibility of a journal article ("basic" because a mathematician would lack training in certain areas that are relevant to the social sciences and medicine). Why did you bring it up?

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-07-12T07:11:41+00:00

I had the impression radical feminists are generally not on board with woke feminism's embrace of Islam. We may be seeing a lot more otherwise-woke/liberal feminists with GC views these days, and that group might be more positive toward Islam.

That's just a guess. Anyone who's been more involved over the years, feel free to correct me if that sounds wrong.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-07-08T21:15:27+00:00

What evidence are you referring to for Cluster B personality disorders? Last time I looked, it didn't seem very strong to me. Maybe I missed something.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-07-08T21:13:16+00:00

It's worth noting that any studies on trans people in Iran are probably not applicable to trans people in most other places.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-09T03:47:09+00:00

Do they?

In my experience, yes, but it's interesting to hear that some don't! Thanks, I'll have to look into that further.

I would say, as a tentative definition, that a phenotype is an evolved body type that develops according to an organism’s internal logic. Seeking a medically created female body as an adult has a very different social significance to being born and growing up female.

Could be, but what's stopping someone else from defining it differently?

A very androgynous-looking male child who is treated as a girl from toddlerhood, who goes on blockers early, who goes on to take estrogen, who has SRS early, and who passes well might not experience much male socialization. I fully realize that would be an extreme minority case, but thinking about a scenario like that and knowing I'd still consider that person a boy/man leads me to realize that I (like you, if I'm understanding correctly) differentiate between a female-appearing body that developed naturally and one that was acquired through some sort of intervention, and I apparently make that differentiation no matter what the social circumstances surrounding that person are. I suppose when it comes down to it, I'm trying to find out if there's a good argument out there for why characteristics that developed naturally are fundamentally different (and more important to the reality of who/what someone is) from characteristics that one wouldn't have acquired without intervention, rather than distinguishing between them because of their effects (e.g. different socialization).

Sorry for that word dump. I'm having a hard time processing my own thoughts about this but didn't want to keep putting off responding.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-09T03:02:32+00:00

There's no need to be hostile. I know what this sub is; I was on /r/gc for years. I'm using those terms that you pointed out because I'm not strictly GC, not because of the reasons you assumed.

Edit: Since you asked:

How would YOU classify people with CAIS in this very binary pair of reproductive categories?

I don't know. That's why I asked the question here instead of somewhere where I would get answers about people with CAIS's identities or something. If I go by the definitions of male and female that I've learned in GC spaces, like I said, I would have to say male. That is a problem because I see them as women. Either I'm being inconsistent with my definition of "woman," or I'm wrong about whether XY people with CAIS are women. I don't want to be inconsistent or wrong, so I'm trying to figure this out.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-08T05:04:33+00:00

How does it affect your everyday life in specific ways, though? Believing "man" and "woman" are social constructs has a clear impact on what you believe about trans women and trans men, how you spend some of your time (interacting on this forum), and many of your choices about your clothing, medical care, identity, and other aspects of life if you are trans yourself (I got the impression you are but not sure). It leads you to think of these two groups (man and woman) in a vastly different way from the majority of humanity throughout history and to act accordingly. Since it has such a profound impact on your understanding of two words that most people take for granted, what about nominalism leads you to interact with the world differently in other ways? I'm asking because I doubt a philosophy like that would have radical effects in one subject area and not others. I wouldn't say not generalizing, trying to be humble, and being a Buddhist are particularly associated with nominalism, so that's why I'm digging a bit here.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-07T19:29:04+00:00

All categories are social constructs

I'm new here, so pardon if you've answered this before. Does this view affect how you live life in ways unrelated to gender identity? If I understand correctly, you don't just think "man," "woman," "male," and "female" are social constructs; you would also say the same about "human," "barn," "oxygen," etc. How does this cause you to interact with the world differently from someone who is not a nominalist?

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-04T13:02:52+00:00

It is impossible to come up with perfect necessary and sufficient conditions for almost all of our important concepts.

That's true, but GC claims "woman" does have necessary and sufficient conditions and bases core arguments on that. That's the issue.

Personally, I would say that for the female external phenotype is most socially relevant, and therefore people with CAIS should be treated as female and women for most purposes, except in medical situations where their genetic maleness could be relevant.

Is this different from the trans-affirming position, which says the same about trans women? At the bare minimum, you could make the same argument for trans women who typically pass.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-04T05:20:31+00:00

Thanks, I will do that!

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-04T03:25:14+00:00

I don't believe it's true that all people with CAIS have testes, but if they had functional ones, they would be male.

For information's sake, they do have functional testes if they are XY (which is the only time it is considered clinically significant anyway).

the definition of women created for edge cases

Thanks for posting this! Do you happen to remember where you heard these criteria? It's interesting to know that there are criteria like this, and I'd like to look into them further. My concern is with whether they draw boundaries in a biologically and philosophically supportable way (since one could list a set of criteria that are affirming just as easily but that we wouldn't agree are true regarding who is a woman), so I'd like to read up on the reasoning behind them.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-03T19:13:59+00:00

I'm late but here goes. I sometimes enjoy looking attractive even if I'm alone, and I can see how someone might think that's roughly analogous to AGP or how it might turn up looking like AGP in a study that doesn't differentiate well, but it seems qualitatively different to me from the way I've heard AGP described. Most importantly, it's not physically arousing. It's a psychological boost to feel attractive, and I might enjoy how I look aesthetically in a similar to way to how I find a beautiful woman pleasing to look at as a straight woman, but it's not physically arousing like the self-reports of trans women who become aroused when wearing feminine clothes.

Aside from all that, it makes sense that a woman would conceptualize herself as a woman who is being desired in ways that women are typically desired. That is entirely different from someone becoming aroused at putting on a skirt or being recognized as a woman, and I'd be shocked if you found a female human anywhere who experiences that. Being recognized as female and wearing standard women's clothing are day-to-day aspects of life for most women, and most men do not typically sexualize women specifically based on those characteristics, so males becoming aroused at things happening to them that are so mundane to women and not typically considered sexual sounds like its own category to me.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-06-02T18:47:55+00:00

I know you said you don't want opinions, but this needs saying: like you've said, publishing something non-affirming about trans people could be career suicide, but at least in most fields, it would also be a serious risk to your career to publish something that isn't rigorous. Your research-minded peers are not going to take anecdotal reports seriously, and using them in this way is a major risk to your credibility, even if your format is a non-peer-reviewed book. No matter how much analysis and theorizing you do about those reports, they are worthless unless you can demonstrate (statistically) that you haven't handpicked some anomalies from an otherwise normal community---especially since people are likely to suspect you are biased and possibly cherry-picking your examples since you were stalked yourself. I'm not aware of any research on that, so I can't pass any along; if you aren't able to find some yourself, you may need to do actually do that research yourself, and you're going to need funding and a longer timeframe than you're probably considering if that's the case. I mention all this because the way you've described your topic in this post does not sound rigorous enough for something you're billing as a publication by an academic. If you don't intend for it to be that way and are going for more of an exploration of anecdotes, the credentials you've mentioned will not be particularly relevant, and the book shouldn't be marketed based on them.

If you don't typically do research (as in the sort you'd publish in an academic journal), it would be wise to seek out someone in your field who is familiar with your topic and has lots of research experience who can give you feedback on your idea. If you do research regularly, send this around to sympathetic colleagues like you might with anything else to get opinions and make sure your argument is as airtight as possible. Trying to make something look academic (making it known that the author has the degrees you have, etc.) and falling short of the standards expected for something like that will probably make the hit to your reputation much worse, and it will reflect poorly on the non-affirming side of things in general.

Finally, consider that the outcome of this could be that you have very few sales, reach very few people, and still lose your job and standing in your field, especially if you have to self-publish. That might not be worth it, and you may find that doing other types of activism is more worthwhile.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-03-19T17:44:06+00:00

Snopes is saying that there may be a mix-up about what organization he was involved with. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/drag-queen-story-hour/

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-02-04T17:46:17+00:00

Nobody seems to care about that unarmed woman who was murdered by a Capitol policeman. I get it, she was trespassing. That sounds to me like you pay a fine, not get a bullet to the neck.

No, she was not just trespassing. She was part of a group of hundreds that broke into a federal building during a joint session of Congress, and she breached what appeared to be the last barrier between the rioters and an area where multiple members of Congress were sheltered.

That cop had no way of knowing whether or not she was armed, so that could not have factored into his decision even if he wanted it to. On top of that, I believe I've read the woman was wearing a backpack, which is not exactly something that cop would be able to ignore if he saw it -- multiple explosives were found that day.

I don't know what I think about the use of lethal force in that situation because it's a complex ethical issue, but the way you're portraying it is not accurate.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-02-02T20:00:55+00:00

The J&J agent claimed that suicide was heigher for trans children before they were transitioned, but it's really higher after transition.

Do you have a source on this?

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-01-30T03:40:54+00:00

I definitely see the concern. I think it would be wiser for us to focus on arguing that those statements are not hate speech/literal violence than arguing against censoring illegal content, though, especially since all of us (hopefully) believe there are forms of illegal content that must be censored (e.g. child porn and revenge porn). Trying to differentiate between shades of illegal that companies like AWS, social media sites, etc. should and shouldn't be able to censor gets very complicated, especially when those companies don't want to open themselves up to questions about how legally responsible they are for that illegal activity.

I don't think the majority of the US believes words = literal violence, and I doubt most of them are even aware of that belief. A loud and influential part of the left believes that, but they aren't the majority of the country or even of people who vote. I think most people could be convinced to disagree with them with some well targeted education about what these people really believe.

And it's not just the Far Right that are concerned by Big Tech censorship: many on the Left, the Middle, and the Center-Right have expressed public concern about Big Tech allied with government censorship since the storming of the US Capitol.

I don't think people are truly aware of what was being posted on Parler. I saw a post that was basically equivalent to someone with an online audience who hates the company you work for posting that it would be a shame if someone bombed your workplace. Anyone would want that taken down.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-01-30T03:06:17+00:00

I think we need to be careful to explicitly differentiate between unpopular philosophical/political beliefs (GC) and terrorist activity if we're going to talk about this. The right is up in arms about Big Tech censorship right now because they're upset Parler was taken down, but allegedly that site was hosting death/terror threats and was used to plan the Capitol attack. I agree that censorship of unpopular beliefs is an issue, but we need to be really careful to distinguish between that and what recently happened to Parler because it isn't the same issue at all if the accusations toward Parler are true. We really don't want to align or even appear to align with insurrectionists/terrorists and their sympathizers.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-01-29T03:07:05+00:00

Then why is Twitter repeatedly allowed to get away with illegal content? Why is Facebook? Reddit?

That isn't an argument against Parler being taken down. It's up to those sites and whoever hosts their data to deal with whatever is being posted on them. This is about Parler and whether it was hosting illegal content and/or content that broke its host's ToS. Parler is responsible for following the ToS it agreed to, and that doesn't depend on Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit adhering to any contracts they signed.

Amazon claims Parler did break their ToS, like you mentioned. From what I saw of what was being posted on Parler before it was taken down, I have a hard time waving Amazon's claim away.

What they did wrong was refuse to bow to demands to remove Trump.

That is far from the worst thing that was posted on Parler. The worse issues have been well documented.

Extremist conspiracy theory groups do not gain 100k+ followers.

How do you know one can't?

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-01-22T09:14:37+00:00

Parler was allegedly hosting a number of illegal threats and not moderating them well. At some point companies contributing to its existence had to think about their own reputations and legal protection. No one should be required to host illegal content.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-01-22T08:59:02+00:00

I realize this is old, but I just want to say that Holocaust jokes are not okay, period. I'm really concerned about the direction this sub could go based on some things I've seen recently, and titles like this don't help. We should not normalize joking about something as horrible as the Holocaust, especially as in relation to wiping out a group of people. Keep in mind that a lot of alt-right men got drawn in through memes that are supposedly jokes. Trans people are people, and I would hope GC people want them to live happy lives even if they disagree about what it means to be a particular gender or what political rights are up for grabs.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-01-22T08:52:33+00:00

gropey gramps Biden

Please, let's not have the tone of this sub to turn in this direction.

they'll just vote dump any close election in a red state with a major city that is blue, and you cannot ask any questions about 140,000 votes coming in at 3:40 am at 90 plus percent for one side.

Are you talking about Michigan? It came out very quickly after that happened that it was a simple error. It was corrected. The man who originally posted about it updated to say it was a typo.

It's not cool to spread this kind of thing unless you have evidence.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2021-01-22T08:42:15+00:00

It's pretty clear at this point in US history that criticism of Trump is far more legitimate than "Orange Man Bad," which is just a meme that people use to dismiss it.

YES, Trump is an ASSHOLE! This was a FEATURE, not a BUG!

No, it isn't. This is very shortsighted. If you think this about someone, there's no reason to trust them to act in your interests. I'm not even going to argue about whether it's true; it doesn't matter. The fact is that if you believe someone's terrible to others, there's no reason to think they won't eventually be terrible to you.

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2020-12-02T04:53:30+00:00

erased

whoamiwhowhowhowho · 2020-12-02T01:36:05+00:00

erased

whoamiwhowhowhowho