Why does /lgbt/ lose its shit whenever someone posts something that opposes the tumblr SJW style of gender identity activism that wants people to believe that trans people literally have a female/male brain?
Like what's so hard about accepting that e.g. a trans woman is simply a male person who, because of their innate personality, identifies with the social construction of femininity (being more submissive than dominant, more sensitive than blunt, etc., which have little to do with actually being female, unless you believe that sexist gender stereotypes are real/natural), and therefore chooses to live socially as a "woman" within the context of our society that divides people culturally into "men" and "women"?
Last thread someone started to lose their mind and spew crap about neo-nazi gay-killing hate groups when I posted this image. Is it just one mentally ill dude on the board who does it every time? Because they always post the same 2-3 images when they do it. I bet they'll appear in this thread too.
Trans women don't have female brains, they have a psychological disorder that makes them reject their masculinity.
>>5924682
>a psychological disorder that makes them reject their masculinity
Rejecting masculinity is not a psychological disorder. It's being sane.
>>5924685
Crazy people often think they are sane.
>>5924688
Yeah, like people who adopt masculinity probably think they're sane.
Anyhow, not the point of this thread.
>>5924685
>>5924692
Transgenderism is not about behavior. Its about dicks. Transpersons hate the masculine features of their body.
>>5924685
This.
Testosterone is the only mental illness here.
>>5924697
You're speaking of sex dysphoria. (At least I think that's the optimal term for that.)
If someone defines transgenderism as sex dysphoria, I'm fine with that, and AFAICT even most TERFs/real feminists are fine with that too. Problem is tumblr SJW style "gender identity" activists. Maybe they're the common enemy of trutrans and feminists?
>>5924704
Well I think I have normal T levels, being a fairly average dude, so not sure if T makes you stereotypically masculine, but point taken.
In general, men are the worst. I just believe it's mostly socialization and not nature. Hence supporting radfem.
>>5924708
Biology the the ultimate cause of all behaviors. Men have a higher propensity for masculine behaviors because of male biology.
The enemy of all rational persons are people who say that there is nothing to gender but performance and that you can choose to be whatever gender you like.
>>5924672
>the tumblr SJW style of gender identity activism that wants people to believe that trans people literally have a female/male brain?
Kek.
Social constructionism is the tumblr style of gender identity activism mate, not the other way around.
>>5924718
>Biology the the ultimate cause of all behaviors.
Stopped reading there.
>>5924723
The concept of social constructs is like sociology 101, mate. No tumblrism involved.
Ironically, biological determinism is normally the extreme other end of tumblr, like /pol/ style justification of patriarchal social structure, but now tumblr-SJW gender identity politics are basically eating themselves and are internally inconsistent so you get this ridiculous stuff where on one hand they try to be progressive w.r.t. feminist sociocultural critique and OTOH they speak of absurd notions of inborn/essential gender identity.
>>5924742
>The concept of social constructs is like sociology 101, mate. No tumblrism involved.
Tumblrism IS sociology 101. I.e. college education without deeper understanding and the critical thinking skills required to examine things you're taught is literally how tumblrites are born.
>absurd notions of inborn/essential gender identity
There's nothing absurd about those.
>>5924756
>Tumblrism IS sociology 101
I wish. Even most 101 classes are deeper than that. Tumblr is someone learning about social constuction from someone who read some parts of a wikipedia entry on it. Really, there is neither any nuance, complexity nor understanding of the material conditions that form social construction on tumblr. It's the worst parts of post-modernism filtered through teenage angst. I say this as someone with an actual PhD in sociology who on occasion has to try and teach these idjiots when they show up in actual 101 classes...
>>5924756
>There's nothing absurd about those.
There is if one tries to explain EVERYTHING having to do with gender through them, which is often the case in what the other anon was referring to. So it's not a case of claiming that there is some underlying biological basis for gender, but that ALL the differences we observe are due to that biology. The reason for it being absurd can be understood by simply looking at history, and seeing that across the different human societies and cultures there have been many different ideas about gender and gender roles and different ways of expressing them.
>>5924766
>>There's nothing absurd about those.
>There is if one tries to explain EVERYTHING having to do with gender through them
Yes, this.
The way I see it, "gender" is basically just how your unique personality is projected onto your culture's idea of how personalities are categorized, framed, etc. in relation to reproductive sex.
It's indeed an occasional TERF/real feminist slogan to say "there is no such thing as gender/gender identity, there is only personality".
>>5924775
>The way I see it, "gender" is basically just how your unique personality is projected onto your culture's idea of how personalities are categorized, framed, etc. in relation to reproductive sex.
Basicially, yes. There's a complex interaction going on at various levels both biological (chromosomal, endocrinological, phenotypical, neorological) and social (cultural, political, economic, phychological), and "gender" is the product/outcome. Reducing the gender phenomena to any one, or any few, of its constituent parts is simply bad analysis. When such simplification is done in order to advance a certain agenda, it becomes a fallacy.
>>5924766
there have been many different ideas about gender and gender roles and different ways of expressing them.
Most of them had a shitton of common elements though. More than enough to claim there is an innate element to it, and to claim trans is about that innate element. There is a reason trans people want to actually take hormones and not just dress up.
>>5924775
>It's indeed an occasional TERF/real feminist slogan to say "there is no such thing as gender/gender identity, there is only personality".
Too much 'il n'y a rien en dehors du text' for me. It is one thing to say that there is no one, coherent and universial thing called gender which is unassailable and can be reduced to certain specific attributes - but it is a completely different thing to claim that there is NO gender phenomena as such, because there clearly is and this can be observed at many levels both in our biology and society. The TERFs point was supposed to be a criticism of gender identities; i.e. that transwomen 'pass' as women (i.e. are socially accepted as women) by adapting many of the 'typical' female traits of which feminism is critical and considerers to be patiarchial social constructs. This point could easily have been made in a way that was sympathetic to transwomen, and considered that they essentially have to accept patriarchal oppression as a sort of 'rite of passage' into womanhood - Julia Serano makes this point in 'Whipping Girl' - but instead transwomen as a whole where attacked as "fake women", or worse, colonising males (while transmen where just traitors) and hating on transwomen became the essential aspect of TERF-feminism. It's ethically heinous and analytically faulty (for if there are no concrete and unchangeable gender roles, how can anyone's gender identity be more or less 'real' than anyone elses?), which is why TERFs are essentially done with. Today they are invoked mostly by transphobes who want to play a game of "well some feminists say it so it's totally a legit thing to say!". The fact that far-right conservaties and even MRAs sometimes use TERF arguments should be enough to understand this. Just put it in the trash already...
>>5924806
Indeed, but claiming that there are inate ELEMENTS that are then filtered through culture, society and individual personalities is not the same as claiming that there is an ESSENCE that defines the whole. The first is simply the acceptance of a material/biological reality - the second is biological essentialism. The first is scientifically valid, the second is 'scientism'; science-sounding but ultimatley a misuse of science. Consider the words of biologists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin:
"Like any other species, human beings clearly have certain biological properties of anatomy and physiology that both constrain and enable them, properties that are partly shared with other organisms as a consequence of being living systems, and that are partly unique as a consequence of the particular genes possessed by our species [...] No historical contingency or change in consciousness can remove those necessities. But at the same time, the central nervous system of human beings, combined with their organs of speech and manipulative hands, leads to the formation of social structures that produce the historical forms and transformations of those needs. Whereas human sociality is itself a consequence of our received biology, human biology is a socialized biology."
(In fact, I recommend reading any biologists that utilise a dialectical or systems approach to human biology to better understand gender as a phenomenon. Stephen Jay Gould for instance, who is also awesome and entertaining as fuck to read.)
>>5924833
I will respond when your post is not a wall of text next to a shitty meme.
2/10 try again.
(No joke though, I don't have the world's time to decipher a big wall of text.)
>>5924850
The meme was referring not toy your post but an aspect of TERF thinking I have issues with. But fine you fag, here's a better version:
Too much 'il n'y a rien en dehors du text' for me. It is one thing to say that there is no one, coherent and universial thing called gender which is unassailable and can be reduced to certain specific attributes - but it is a completely different thing to claim that there is NO gender phenomena as such, because there clearly is and this can be observed at many levels both in our biology and society.
The TERF point was supposed to be a criticism of gender identities; i.e. that transwomen 'pass' as women (i.e. are socially accepted as women) by adapting many of the 'typical' female traits of which feminism is critical and considerers to be patiarchial social constructs. This point could easily have been made in a way that was sympathetic to transwomen, and considered that they essentially have to accept patriarchal oppression as a sort of 'rite of passage' into womanhood - Julia Serano makes this point in 'Whipping Girl' - but instead transwomen as a whole where attacked as "fake women", or worse, colonising males (while transmen where just traitors) and hating on transwomen became the essential aspect of TERF-feminism.
It's ethically heinous and analytically faulty (for if there are no concrete and unchangeable gender roles, how can anyone's gender identity be more or less 'real' than anyone elses?), which is why TERFs are essentially done with. Today they are invoked mostly by transphobes who want to play a game of "well some feminists say it so it's totally a legit thing to say!". The fact that far-right conservaties and even MRAs sometimes use TERF arguments should be enough to understand this.
>>5924848
>the second is 'scientism'; science-sounding but ultimatley a misuse of science.
Nothing in this discussion is really science. The only research we have on brain gender is still inconclusive, gender studies as a whole are just observations with a lot of rethorics slapped onto them that neither prove nor disprove it (e.g. pretty much eveything you posted), and the relation of these concept to trans is yet another jump in logic OP is making, literally explaining themselves wiht "cuz why not?".
>>5924885
>'il n'y a rien en dehors du text'
What the fuck?
>it is a completely different thing to claim that there is NO gender phenomena as such
Who ever said there is no gender phenomenon? Gender is a social reality, because society is retarded. In a non-retarded society, there would be no concept of gender, only 1. unique personalities, 2. acknowledging the anatomical sex of people for medical and partly sexual attraction purposes. (The latter only partly because honestly, if there were zero homophobia, I think most men would have a substantive portion of men they would find attractive, and for every man there is a *very* big portion of women he doesn't find attractive at all, so yeah.)
>observed at many levels both in our biology
Sex is not gender. There's people with normal T or E levels who could not be farther from their respective gender stereotype, so I don't buy it that hormones have a deterministic effect either.
>This point could easily have been made in a way that was sympathetic to transwomen
And it is, up to where trans activists start spewing shit about "female brains", or start flaunting an incredibly pornified parody of femininity a la Paris Lees.
>but instead transwomen as a whole where attacked as "fake women", or worse, colonising males (while transmen where just traitors) and hating on transwomen became the essential aspect of TERF-feminism
You seem to be talking about a feminism that I literally never encountered yet, only heard about from trans activists.
>if there are no concrete and unchangeable gender roles, how can anyone's gender identity be more or less 'real' than anyone elses?
Nobody has "real" gender identity. People don't have gender identity. Women don't have "female gender identity", they have 1) reproductively female biology, 2) upbringing as a "girl" and "woman" in this society.
(cont. next)
(cont.)
>>5924885
>invoked mostly by transphobes who want to play a game of "well some feminists say it so it's totally a legit thing to say!"
Haven't seen this either yet, though given it would happen outside feminist circles, I could easily be missing it.
>The fact that far-right conservaties and even MRAs sometimes use TERF arguments
I've actually seen MRAs use gender identity activism terms, and call feminists TERFs. Also, the idea of a female brain is a conservative idea.
>>5924918
>the relation of these concept to trans is yet another jump in logic OP is making
That's not a leap me/feminists are making, it's the leap gender identity activists are making, which feminists criticize.
>>5924672
>Like what's so hard about accepting that e.g. a trans woman is simply a male person who, because of their innate personality, identifies with the social construction of femininity
While you may not consider it, the brain is directly connected to someone's personality/behaviour. If you physically altered someone's brain, those would change as well. This is documented. The rest is easy to see and you're kind of bad at intellectual thinking..
>>5924930
>trans people literally have a female/male brain
>trans people don't literally have a female/male brain and if you think they do it's because you're sexist
Both are huge leaps without nearly enough evidence.
>>5924921
Not that anon, but eh.
>only 1. unique personalities,
>Sex is not gender. There's people with normal T or E levels who could not be farther from their respective gender stereotype, so I don't buy it that hormones have a deterministic effect either.
Of course there's no determinism. But you can't deny a trend in personality due to biological factors, seen in the various, mostly separated until globalization, cultures.
People should only willpower through their natural tendency if they are harmful (eg link between T and aggression), but not when the tendency is a trait causing no harm, just differenciating between gender.
It's possible to disagree with your theory, and reject the idea that there could be 1 gender, yet not support the toxic aspects of the gender roles.
If sex dimorphism exists in nearly every part of the body, it surely exists in the brain as well. It'd be absurd to claim that sex hormones have literally no effect on a person's brain development.
>>5924918
Of course, but one can still make arguments of method. Precisely due to the reasons you mention, any kind of claim of 'scientific proof' is actually just scientism masquerading as proper science.
>>5924921
>'il n'y a rien en dehors du text'
It means "there is nothing outside the text" and is a quote misattributed to Derrida by Foucault (Derrida actually meant something else). It is usually taken as an example of the most extreme position of postmodernism; i.e. that there is no 'reality' as such but ONLY social constructs. I, being a materialist, instead argue that social constructions happen on top of (and in combination with) actual reality.
>Who ever said there is no gender phenomenon?
>"there is no such thing as gender/gender identity, there is only personality".
Look, I agree with you, I'm just clarifying for the sake of avoiding misunderstanding. Lots of people like to misunderstand your position as claming gender doesn't exist - when really it's about questioning why it exists as a social phenomenon.
>And it is, up to where trans activists start spewing shit about "female brains", or start flaunting an incredibly pornified parody of femininity a la Paris Lees.
I wish this where true of all, but it isn't. I agree on the "female brain" being oversimplification to the point of error (there ARE neurological differences but it's a bit more complex than that...). Yet there are anti-trans feminists, and TERFs are called that way for a reason.
>Nobody has "real" gender identity
The problem is how one defines "real". You argue that it is reproductively biology and upbringing - but why should this be the one true definition? This is my problem; it claims social construction of gender yet includes biology in the definition of what a "woman" is.
>>5924921
>You seem to be talking about a feminism that I literally never encountered yet, only heard about from trans activists.
Janice Raymond, feminist and professor of gender studies, author of 'The Transsexual Empire: The making of the she-male':
"Men have always fetishized women’s genitals. [...] Male-to-constructed-female transsexualism is only one more relatively recent variation on this theme where the female genitalia are completely separated from the biological woman and, through surgery, come to be dominated by incorporation into the biological man. Transsexualism is thus the ultimate, and we might even say the logical, conclusion of male possession of women in a patriarchal society. Literally, men here possess women.”
"All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves. However, the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist violates women’s sexuality and spirit, as well."
Also, I'm familiar with Katinka Ström, a Swedish feminist, because of the political impact her arguments have had in Sweden:
"Some of the oppression of women is also made up of all the ways men torturing the biological female body[...] Transsexuality is a part of the reactionary backlash against feminism, particularly against lesbian feminism."
"You can not change your gender/sex, just mutilate you body through surgery and hormone treatments."
"It's very threatening for men that women have their own organizations and women's refuges. Men want to invade these to get insight into, and thereby control and power, over them and also get physical access to lesbians."
It's not common, especially today, but it exists and has a real impact on policy. Especially since the old-timers who hold these beliefs are usually veterans of politics and academia and have lots of influence, even if they are few.
>>5924682
Neurological*
>>5924994
No you fucking oppressive sexist shitlord, women and men are completely physically different down to every cell and you disgusting sexist transfaggot agents of the patriarchy can NEVER be women but men and women are LITERALLY EXACTLY the same mentally and the only difference is sexist culture oppressing women!
If gender identity doesn't exist then why do so many people worry about unwittingly putting a kid through transition when they don't really want to be the opposite sex? What about David Reimer's case? The guy was basically given SRS at birth after a botched circumcision and raised as a girl from thereafter. Money's whole hypothesis was that someone's internal sense of gender was socially constructed and the entire experiment blew up in his face. And what about intersex people that are raised as one sex but transition into living as the one opposite to which they were born? Isn't it a big deal for them how "corrective" surgery to make their genitalia more male or female at birth should be avoided unless medically necessary?
>>5924955
"Trans people *have* female/male brains" lies on the implication that there *are* female/male brains, which carries the burden of proof.
>>5924978
>But you can't deny a trend in personality due to biological factors, seen in the various, mostly separated until globalization, cultures.
Virtually every culture around the globe has developed agriculture and a corresponding system of wealth-accumulation which gives rise to viewing women and children as property and therefore exploiting them.
>>5925002
>>Who ever said there is no gender phenomenon?
>>"there is no such thing as gender/gender identity, there is only personality".
The "gender identity" part is tacked on to disambiguate. Gender as a system of oppression exists; gender as part of a person's nature doesn't exist. In the context of "gender abolitionist feminism" I don't really see how anyone in their right mind could think that these feminists are saying that gender doesn't exist as a social reality.
>>Nobody has "real" gender identity
>The problem is how one defines "real". You argue that it is reproductively biology and upbringing - but why should this be the one true definition? This is my problem; it claims social construction of gender yet includes biology in the definition of what a "woman" is.
You're still conflating gender and sex. Even gender identity and sex.
Sex is a mammal's reproductive role; female or male.
Gender is a social system segregating people based on sex and expecting them to conform to constructed identities of womanhood and manhood; to "socially constructed gender identities" if you will.
(Innate) gender identity is the idea that people are born with an innate connection to a gender class, rather than being forced into one based on their sex and sometimes based on some key aspects of their personality.
>>5925010
>Janice Raymond
Firstly, I should have been more precise. The "fake woman" part is literally true. Trans women are males who live as women and make their bodies approach the appearance of a typical woman.
The colonizing males part is a social analysis, not an individual one. Even though I haevn't read her book, I'm pretty sure Janice Raymond does not mean that any individual trans woman is consciously and intentionally colonizing female sexuality; rather we're living in a culture where it's the *norm* for all men to feel entitled to define, own, etc. female sexuality. Medical institutions, mental disorders that develop "naturally" within this culture, etc. all work together to create this situation of male colonization of female sexuality. Look at Caitlyn Jenner or Paris Lees and tell me they are not the epitome of males appropriating and colonizing "femaleness", creating a pornified parody of what it is to be a woman.
>>5925042
>If gender identity doesn't exist then why do so many people worry about unwittingly putting a kid through transition when they don't really want to be the opposite sex?
Because it creates a shit ton of health issues to take hormones and have surgery done on you? I mean you literally castrate the child.
>David Reimer
They mutilated the poor boy in horrible ways. In no way did that child have a normal girl's socialization. Just read about the details on Wikipedia. It's incredibly absurd what they did with him and there's nothing unexpected with him rejecting the girlness they tried to force on him with him being aware that he was born a boy.
Now perform perfect SRS on an infant and make him swallow hormones without even realizing, and then see whether he has any problems developing as a girls that other girls don't have... That would be a true test of gender identity. This never happened yet.
>>5925041
Thank you for summarizing the TERF position for us, anon. Anyone not seeing the contradiction, please let me know, as I may have some magical beans to sell you.
>>5925042
Because it DOES exist but it is socially constructed to A DEGREE. "Socially constructed" does not mean "fake" or "imaginary" or even "it goes away if we don't believe in it!" - it just means something isn't set in stone like the laws of physics. It's still real, just that it is subject to change. As for Money's hypothesis and the rest of what you say, I think it just goes to show how little we really know about how gender as a phenomenon works on the whole. We know it isn't just biology, but we also know that it isn't just society - there's a complex interaction going on there that we're not sure about. Money oversimplified.
>>5925127
>Virtually every culture around the globe has developed agriculture ...
That is common but not universial. Firstly, there are still hunter-gatherer societies and secondly not all agricultural societies exploit women in the same way. Sure, no actual matriarchal society has existed but how women are treated clearly differs from societies to society.
Also, you ignore the view of what IS female/male. In some societies this is completely about what role in society you occupy: the Nuer people (to take a classical example from Anthro 101) for example allow biological women to take on male roles, including marrying a woman, becoming an (adoptive) father and inhereting land. The sworn virgins of the Balkans are women who take on male roles and are accepted as men by very patriarchal societies. Nīðings/Ergis of Norse society where effiminate men who would wear women's clothing, and where even believed to become physically women (socially, through dark magic and sometimes through castration - it's unclear wtf they actually believed). Also the bacha bazi. And so on.
>>5925042
>And what about intersex people that are raised as one sex but transition into living as the one opposite to which they were born?
Are there any intersex people who e.g. look like a normal female person, get raised as a normal female person, and are never told that they aren't a normal female, and still end up "identifying as the other gender"? That would be a true test of gender identity, but I doubt we have such tests.
The Reimer example and intersex examples don't offer a proper test of gender identity theory.
>>5925041
>>5925169
Are you fucking retarded, or can you just not read? How is it a contradiction to say "humans are sexually/reproductively dimorphic, but their sex has no deterministic effect on their personality"?
Only by distorting and exaggerating feminist position to a point they cannot be recognized anymore, can you claim that there's any sort of contradiction there.
Thanks for not contributing anything to the discussion, and raising the blood pressure of everyone involved in the thread.
>>5925181
Males on average are more aggressive than females because of both their biology and socialization, therefore their sex does have an effect on their personality. This is one reason why sex segregated spaces exist.
>>5925141
>Gender as a system of oppression...
This is an oversimplification that ignores how the social is internalised. It also ignores the psychology of gender identity rather than arguing that it is an internalisation of the social and hence also contructed and ought to be decontructed. It imagines the various aspects of the whole phenomenon "gender" as seperate and non-interfering layers: biological sex, social gender, personal gender identity (or lack thereof) whereas they are really intertwined and determine each-other. Think dialectically.
>You're still conflating gender and sex.
No, I am simply including 'biological sex' under the greater umbrella of "the gender phenomenon", which as I stated is the outcome of a complex interaction betweem the various levels of biological sex and the social/phsychological aspects of gender.
>Sex is a mammal's reproductive role; female or male.
Not that simple. You should read up a bit on biology. Even here, you have your different levels (chromosomal, endocrinological, phenotypical, neorological) and which one you use for your analysis depends on what kind of biology you're doing. Population biology? Reproductive role. Genetics? Genotype. Developmental biology? Phenotyope and endocrinotype.
None of them universially define "sex" as a category, they're all circumstancial and limited to the analysis at hand. They certainly have no bearing on society, since that would be a fallacy. So there is no "one true answer", no "correct scientific definition". People who know OF science rather than actually using it on a daily basis often misunderstand this.
>>5925150
> The "fake woman" part is literally true.
Except that cannot be true at the same time as "gender is completely a social construct" or "gender as part of a person's nature doesn't exist". Anon here >>5925041 summarizes it in a funny way. You cannot have gender be both so inflexible and so ingrained in our biology that one cannot change it ever, and also be a social construct that we can and should do away with. Now, believing that "gender" is the outcome of a complex interaction between the physical and social, that's another thing, but such a nuanced view does not allow one to dismiss the womanhood of some as "fake".
>Even though I haevn't read her book, I'm pretty sure
Stop right there. No. You don't get to say what the book says without reading it. It IS an individual attack, which is why Raymond and other TERFs are so universally reviled. It is not framed as transwomen being victims of this system themselves; no, they are each of them, as invidivual people, perverted rapist men. There is no analysis here, even though she imagines there is. Merely hatred. It's undeniable if one actually reads her work. But even if it wasn't the case, saying "your group is all rapist BUT IN THE ABSTRACT and not as individuals!" is not much better than the feminist stereotype of calling all men rapists.
>Medical institutions, mental disorders that develop "naturally" within this culture, etc. all work together to create this situation of male colonization of female sexuality.
She offers no evidence, making this a conspiracy theory. When one considered how transpeople have had to fight and suffer to get this "natural' developement to happen, and how it still has not developed in most of the world, it becomes downright ridiculous.
>>5925181
>How is it a contradiction to say "humans are sexually/reproductively dimorphic, but their sex has no deterministic effect on their personality"?
It isn't. But that's not what's being said. If that was what was being said, I'd be OK with it (even though it's a bit more complex than that - see this artilce in Nature: www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943)
>Only by distorting and exaggerating feminist position
Except I gave quotations of actual feminists. They didn't say anything about reproductive roles not having deterministic effects on inidivdual personalities, they said transwomen are "fake women" and rapists. You're systematically ignoring the fact that the moderate and rather nuanced views expressed by the feminist anon (you?) are not representative of TERFs, who are unashamedly bigoted.
>>5925169
>Firstly, there are still hunter-gatherer societies
So how much do we know about their cultures?
>and secondly not all agricultural societies exploit women in the same way.
Yet all do it in some way.
>Nuer people allow biological women to take on male roles
>The sworn virgins of the Balkans are women who take on male roles and are accepted as men by very patriarchal societies
>Nīðings/Ergis of Norse society where effiminate men who would wear women's clothing, and where even believed to become physically women
These all seem like examples of what we might call transgenderism within contexts of cultures in which a construction of gender around sex exists.
You talk of marrying a woman, becoming a father, and owning land, in Neur people. What else than patriarchy is that? So the role of the patriarch is allowed to some females, great; doesn't change the fact that they have a pre-existing notion of men being the land owners and holders of power in a family. Then you talk about sworn virgins in the context of a patriarchy. Again, a social system segregating people based on sex exists, and some exceptional individuals are allowed transition from one class to the other...
How any of that is any sort of proof of "trend in personality due to biological factors" is beyond me. You forcibly segregate people, and most obey, with the exception of a few whose personality is *so* much in conflict with their assigned class that they instead go over into the other.
>>5925223
>This is an oversimplification that ignores how the social is internalised.
Nowhere have I said that people don't internalize and come to believe to be natural their assigned gender. Obviously 90% of women and men think that their assigned gender role suits their personality; that's how patriarchy upholds itself.
>I am simply including 'biological sex' under the greater umbrella of "the gender phenomenon"
I don't see the point of muddying the terms. We can't have a meaningful conversation if we don't have clear terms to refer to natural facts vs. social constructions.
>Not that simple. You should read up a bit on biology.
Yes, it is literally that simple, because more than 99% of everyone is unambiguously reproductively female or male, meaning their chromosomal sex, hormonal sex, and phenotypal sex are congruent. (And there is no such thing as neurological sex.) The few remaining intersex conditions are boxed into female or male by society, and this doesn't invalidate any of the points made.
To repeat that, more than 99% of everyone has an unambiguous, congruent sex in terms of genetics, hormones, internal sex organs, and external sex organs. They are, simply, either male, or female. The few remaining intersex conditions are stuffed into either box either unintentionally (e.g. a CAIS male infant who simply looks fully female on the outside) or intentionally (surgical "correction" of intersex infant genitalia).
Then, based on people's real sex --and in *very* rare cases, their *perceived* sex-- they become a member of the oppressed female class or the oppressing male class and are raised accordingly.
>>5925248
I think you misunderstand my point, I'm in full agreement with this particulat post. Of course there is a gendered system of power (patriarchy); my point is that while gender differences and roles are ROOTED to some degree in phenotypical differences, they are not always DEFINED wholly by them as we can find examples of people crossing over. In fact, these roles are so commenly defined by social position (with no reference to biology) that a person can cross over without any physical alteration to themselves, but just by adopting a different set of behaviours.
>Yet all do it in some way.
I've read Engels, m8 :)
>>5925228
I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about the difference of sex and gender.
An adult female is a true woman. An adult male living socially as a woman is not a true woman, but a man living socially as a woman. (I.e. a "fake" woman, although the word "fake" carries a negative connotation so I wouldn't use it in general.)
>It IS an individual attack
The whole fucking point of radical feminism and radical politics more generally is sociocultural analysis, and it's no news that people confuse social analysis and generalizations with individual attacks.
I'll read Jeffrey's books eventually, but I'm already pretty sure that she's being viciously misrepresented. I trusted what people said to me about Dworkin before reading her books -- NEVER again.
>the feminist stereotype of calling all men rapists
And thanks for proving to me that indeed you cannot distinguish social analysis from individual attacks.
>evidence
You don't work with that sort of "evidence" in sociology. What do you expect her to do, measure the brain-waves of all males to locate the "colonize female sexuality" wave? People's acceptance of males flaunting a pornified parody of femininity as Real Women is all the evidence I need.
I can't wait for all the leftists to suddenly realize how idiotic they've been. Always bitching about Christian wedding cake shops yet giving islam a free pass. Maybe when the horde of third world muslims comes barging in, then the left will understand how bad their values are.
Any sane lgbt member should be a libertarian
>>5925238
>It isn't. But that's not what's being said.
That is LITERALLY what's being said, though. Did you ever even try to understand feminist critique of gender identity?
>They didn't say anything about reproductive roles not having deterministic effects on inidivdual personalities
That's because it's feminism/anti-sexism 101.
>the moderate and rather nuanced views expressed by the feminist anon (you?) are not representative of TERFs, who are unashamedly bigoted
Dude I follow dozens of textbook TERFs on Twitter. I'm pretty much one of them at this point (if you ignore that stuff about males not counting as feminists but only allies).
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/11/10/why-i-no-longer-hate-terfs/
Maybe, just *maybe*, TERF was a meaningful distinction some time ago. But I'm skeptical. It's always been in the roots of feminism not to accept the idea of a ladybrain, and that's what trans ideology tends to come down to in one way or another from what I can tell.
>>5925315
The original premise that I attacked was that there is a trend in personality due to biological factors.
Have you dropped that claim?
>>5925336
If you're privileged as fuck in other aspects of your identity, sure. Why should a middle-class white gay male not be a lolbertarian.
Otherwise, radical is the way to go.
>>5925351
>If you're privileged as fuck in other aspects of your identity, sure. Why should a middle-class white gay male not be a lolbertarian.
Otherwise, radical is the way to go.
I'm sorry, next time I'll be sure to be a fat, transgender black lesbian cripple with autism before I voice my concerns.
#feelthebern XD
>>5925287
>Nowhere have I said...
But you DID say the following:
>Nobody has "real" gender identity. People don't have gender identity. Women don't have "female gender identity".
and that
>gender as part of a person's nature doesn't exist
which, I am sorry to say, kind of sounds like you where neglecting the internalisation aspect. You should be more clear that when you say that it "doesn't exist" you actually mean that it isn't set in stone and defined by biology, but is socially constructed and subject to change and can even be abolised. This is not the same as "not existing". The form of appearance is reified and becomes real in the social context. Jesus Christ, read your Marx.
>I don't see the point of muddying the terms
I'm not 'muddying', I'm criticising the clear-cut separation of natural vs. social. You are ASSUMING that this is they way reality works without proving it. You cannot demand that I simply accept it and use your languange. I was clear from the start that I reject that view in favour of a dialectial relationship between the social and natural which, together, constitute the whole.
>Yes, it is literally that simple
It appears that simple, because the evolutionary process ensures the 99% result (since many forms of intersex would prevent reproduction). But again you are confusing the form of appearance with the actual reality, which is actually quite complex and in which 'biological sex' is more of a spectrum. I recommend again this Nature article (www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943) and also the book Evolution's Rainbow by evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden.
>>5924672
Because /lgbt/ is 80% trans, OP, duh.
>>5925368
should just be lgb. Trannies are a cancer upon this community
>>5925366
>But you DID say the following:
>>Nobody has "real" gender identity. People don't have gender identity. Women don't have "female gender identity".
Yes, and how is that a contradiction?
I EXPLICITLY explained that "gender identity" is a belief system claiming that people have an INNATE connection to their assigned gender, rather than a connection created through socialization. Here:
>>5925141
>and that
>>gender as part of a person's nature doesn't exist
>which, I am sorry to say, kind of sounds like you where neglecting the internalisation aspect
How does *internalizing* something make it part of your *nature*? You know what "nature vs. nurture" is?
(Innate) gender identity doesn't exist.
Gender as part of a person's NATURE (i.e. INBORN, ESSENTIAL aspect of them) does not exist.
Gender is a social construction, and people are socialized into a gender.
I don't see how much more clear I can possibly make this.
>I'm not 'muddying', I'm criticising the clear-cut separation of natural vs. social.
If you accept that there is a thing such as reproductive sex as a biological fact, why reuse the exact same word to mean totally different things? You very much are muddying terms.
You evidently *do* accept a conceptual separation between the social and the natural, since you speak of a relationship between them. Then why refuse to use clear, unambiguous terms to refer to these?
>>5925366
>It appears that simple, because [many words]
Do you accept that more than 99% of everyone is reproductively either male, or female, and that their genes, hormones, and internal and external genitalia are all of the same sex?
>>5925371
>implying bisexuals like me wants to be with gays and lesbians, who hates us.
>implying lesbians and gays don't hate each others.
>>5925321
>I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about the difference of sex and gender.
It's not hard to grasp, it's just that you argue by definitions. "This is the way it is because that's the way it is and if you don't agree you're dumb" is not a real argument, especially since my point is that I know and understand your definition but I'm kinda just questioning it and trying to see how firm it's foundation is. "An adult female is a true woman" is seemilgy such a simple and obivious statement, but when you think about it you're either making a circular argument or asserting that the definition of "female" used in population biology must be the universial definition with everything that deviates being "fake".
>The whole fucking point of radical feminism and radical politics more generally is sociocultural analysis,
And therefore feminsts cannot make mistakes? Therefore everything they way is sociocultural analysis, and never an attack even when it sounds just like an attack? I understand the POINT, I'm saying she FAILED to live up to it.
>sociology
Don' lecture me on sociology, I lecture people on sociology for a living. You need SOME evidence in SOME form. Or at least improved explanative power. Or at least something that doesn't fly in the face of other evidence (her theories contradict more or less everything else regarding transgenderism). She offers nothing. Just opinions passed of as analysis; it doesn't actually DO anything but make transpeople feel horrible.
>People's acceptance of males flaunting a pornified parody of femininity as Real Women is all the evidence I need.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftQNuv_MsjY
Haha are you even real?
>>5925341
>That is LITERALLY what's being said, though. Did you ever even try to understand feminist critique of gender identity?
Of course, and I DO understand it, but don't conflate "feminist critique of gender identity" with "transphobic shit TERFs say". They aren't the same. They really aren't. The later doesn't flow from the former in any way, shape or form - this is why most feminists aren't TERFs.
TERFs will sometimes rely on actual critique and try to pass it of as "this is all we're saying, really, stop being so mean!" but then there's the actual real quotes from leading TERFs I posted that show that nope, that critique is just an excuse for some good ol' bigotry.
A proper response to those who truly take the feminist critique of gender identity to heart is to, at the very least, be symphathetic to transpeople as victims of patriachal violence - no the perpetrators of the same. TERFs are literally taking one of the most marginalised and weakest groups is society and calling them co-conspirators of the very same system that is marginalising them. It's... shamefull, really.
>Dude I follow dozens of textbook TERFs on Twitter.
Well you're certainly not expressing their views here.
>that's what trans ideology tends to come down to in one way or another from what I can tell.
You tell wrong. Certainly there are SOME who believe that, esp. on tumblr, but it's not a representative view for transfeminists. I most certainly don't share it.
CIS-male checking in. Saw the thread on the front page.
How the fuck are you guys, uh, gal- you know- how are you not all getting along? Am I not repressing you hard enough? Should I repress you harder? Would it help if I oppressed instead?
[spoiler]To be honest, this discussion looks a little pointless to an outsider. I don't care if people are sane or not if they're not injuring others, so if you cut off the censorious edges of "SJW-ism" you can identify as a brick and I'll happily provide you with a large wall to be mortared into. Rational people don't get upset about this bathroom shit.[/spoiler]
>>5925460
>It's not hard to grasp, ...
Yet you are REPEATEDLY failing to understand how I use the words I use. You're saying that you understand the definitions I use and disagree with them, but all you've shown is that you don't in fact understand the definitions I'm using.
>but when you think about it you're either making a circular argument or ...
The justification of using femaleness as a basis of being a true woman lies in seeing women as a political group under patriarchy. People who are female --born female-- have a shared experience of oppression under this system, which trans women don't share.
(If you're wondering about intersex people, they share the oppression if they were perceived or declared to be female after birth, so those are some of the rare cases where someone who's biologically male in some ways can truly belong to the political class of women.)
>Therefore everything they way is sociocultural analysis, and never an attack even when it sounds just like an attack?
Social analysis frequently sounds like individual attacks. That's why you have so many men raging at feminism.
>it doesn't actually DO anything but make transpeople feel horrible
It provides women what they need to justify their exclusion of trans women from women's politics and safe spaces.
>[Simpsons video]
>Haha are you even real?
Is this an argument or what?
>>5925492
>don't conflate "feminist critique of gender identity" with "transphobic shit TERFs say"
Since "trans women are male" is "transphobic shit TERFs say", pretty much every feminist who criticizes gender identity is a TERF according to the current use of the word.
>>5925411
>How does *internalizing* something make it part of your *nature*?
You need to be more clear. You keep using these pre-defined terms and just assuming your definitions are univerisal. You are, I now see, refering to a core nature, apart from social contstruction. You are claming that gender is part of the social, and not the core. I agree - but only because I doubt that this "core" exists at all. There is a recieved biology, but it exists only as potential.
We are not only shaped by society but CREATED by it; feral humans have no understanding of their own individuality. Our "nature" is not a seperate thing that society adds to; there is not untainted essence - our 'natures' are our individual reflections of society. So if by *nature* one means the essential, core aspect of a person, that which is left when society's influence is stripped away, I must ask: what is a person then? What is left? In the words of Aristotle:
"Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to [...] is either a beast or a god.”
>You know what "nature vs. nurture" is?
A dumb oversimplification.
>I don't see how much more clear I can possibly make this.
I understand you perfectly fine, and I mostly agree. The problem is that you then turn around and say "transwomen are fake women because they haven't the right biology" which literally contradicts your own distinction between sex and gender.
>You evidently *do* accept a conceptual separatio...
Of course, it is necessary for analysis. But the concepts are contextual, valid only in that particular analysis, and are not universial. No single "clear, unambiguous terms" acutally exist; we must make due anyway.
>>5925411
>99% of everyone
Not sure about the exact number, but that is true of the majority, yes. Still one cannot ignore the rest, since they show that the underlying process in actually more complex.
>>5925492
>actual real quotes from leading TERFs I posted that show that nope, that critique is just an excuse for some good ol' bigotry
I will never accept Janice Raymond as a "bigot" when women are pretty much *the* class of people who have been oppressed for the longest time and most viciously throughout history and throughout the world, and when society is accepting as women men who lop off their dicks, wear dresses and high heels, and imitate what they see as "women" in pornified media.
This IS a colonization of womanhood on a social scale, and the fact that trans individuals themselves are suffering male violence, discrimination, etc. doesn't change that fact.
>at the very least, be symphathetic to transpeople as victims of patriachal violence
Feminists either ARE sympathetic to everyone who suffers under male violence, or for all I care they might be drained of any sympathy to pay for males since they've seen too much male violence against women to care about any males receiving violence by other males.
Would you coercively expect a Jew living in Nazi Germany to feel sympathy for a Nazi who was executed for not perfectly fitting into Nazi ideology? Somewhat exaggerated/shoddy analogy maybe, but I hope you get my point.
>Well you're certainly not expressing their views here.
Except I am.
>>5924742
Explain to me how in all cultures, in all places, and in all times men fight the wars, have a reputation for being more bold and risk taking, and are more inclined to violence.
Explain how among our closest kin in the animal Kingdom, the same traits are found in the males of the species.
Explain how among a single culture persons with higher levels of testosterone are more aggressive and engat in more risky behaviour.
To the TERF anon: is there ANTYHING, that ANYONE could say that could change your mind? I mean, really, is there any argument or amount of evidence that would dissuade you? You just keep repeating the same "true by definition" typical TERF statements peppered with appeals to emotion and logical fallacies, and when someone disagrees with your definition you insist they don't understand.
>>5925351
You missed that the original premise also stated not all dimorphic traits are morally-indifferent, and as for your example relations of domination (which probably arose from greater physical capacity at the beginning of the culture, so biology) are not neutral and should be eliminated. Which doesn't eliminate the existence of biological tendecies which are not detrimental, but just difference between males & females.
>>5925553
>You are, I now see, refering to a core nature, apart from social contstruction.
Took you a while.
>So if by *nature* one means the essential, core aspect of a person, that which is left when society's influence is stripped away, I must ask: what is a person then?
A blob of molecules is a fine definition by me, but I don't give a fuck whether one believes that personal identity arises PURELY out of socialization, or whether every person has *some* innate personality that arises from their brain structure (which in turn arises from their genes).
All I'm saying is that
1) people in general fit into two clear-cut categories based on reproductive sex
2) people's personalities DON'T fit into any number of clear-cut categories, let alone into two categories based on reproductive sex.
>The problem is that you then turn around and say "transwomen are fake women because they haven't the right biology" which literally contradicts your own distinction between sex and gender.
There is no contradiction. "Adult female" is the "true", purified definition of "woman." The social construct of a woman is a social reality, but one that we want to get rid of, and it doesn't help in getting rid of it when some people who aren't truly women, i.e. aren't female, insist that they are so because they adopt onto themselves the social construction of a woman. Doing that only serves to erase the true material reality of what it is to be a woman, which is to have female reproductive sex, which is the root of women's oppression under patriarchy. You are not only not challenging the social construction of womanhood/femininity by reinstating it in yourself, you are also stripping women of their political identity, of the words they need to describe and differentiate themselves as an oppressed class of people.
>>5925568
There was a great blog post about that but I probably won't be able to find it now.
Long story short, (possibly quite small) differences in *averages* between groups of people turn into generalizations and segregation through a snowball effect.
>>5925578
You could, you know, prove that gender identity exists?
Of course you can't practically do that since you would need to do something like
1) surgically alter a male infant to have female genitalia
2) give him hormones to make him also otherwise develop female
3) keep him and his environment oblivious to all of this
4) repeat this process for a couple hundred infants
5) see how many of them develop gender identity disorder for having the wrong body.
(God damn, that would be SO fucking interesting.)
And EVEN THEN, while that would prove some material basis for "gender identity", it would STILL not justify stripping an oppressed political group of their identity. That is, even IF there is such a thing as a female brain which some otherwise-male people possess, thus justifying to call them "true females" in that sense, that would still not make them a member of the oppressed class of people that is anatomically female-born people.
So evidence could change my mind to *some* degree, but not all, since some of my conclusions are not scientific, but rather philosophical if you will; as long as I know that anatomically female-born people are facing oppression as a class of people, I will defend their right to own a word to describe themselves, create safe spaces exclusive to them, reject members of the oppressor class into their groups, and so on and so forth.
Now I've gotten too tired to go on, and will leave the discussion here.
>>5925617
>And EVEN THEN ...
Oh and also, proving that being in the wrong body makes you develop dysphoria also doesn't prove that this has any relation to any other personality trait.
After all, a lot of trans people rely on stereotypes to decide on their gender identity:
http://transgenderreality.com/
So, another impractical study, in fact much more impractical than the other, would be: create a fully non-patriarchal society in a lab environment and see if female members of that society still tend towards "feminine" endeavors...
Sadly, we can't put societies into labs.
>>5925637
>tfw science has morals
Stupid science. New information >>> a little human suffering.
>>5924672
>I love watching transwomen like Paris Lees show women how "woman" is done!
lol she has so many stalkers. All these old bulldykes are really mad at her for being hot.
>Like what's so hard about accepting that e.g. a trans woman is simply a male person who, because of their innate personality, identifies with the social construction of femininity
I thought it was because we're sick fetishists who consume womens bodies to the extent that we want to become those sexualized images? So confused. Get back to us when you've worked out why you think we transition (But I'll note that dysphoria never comes up. It's always something other than "having a dick makes me want to kill myself")
>>5925341
>the danger of having a penis in a women's prison
Umm, dude? Do you have any clue what trans women go through in male prison? That's a guaranteed ticket to rape town. Look up Ashley Diamond, Zahara Green, or hey the study HRW just released yesterday on the treatment of trans asylum seekers in detention.
This is why I have no time for "radical" feminists. There is so much actual violence and terrible shit in the world, but they're so concerned about what trans women *hypothetically* imply for their safety and societal image. These coddled rich white girls need to invent things to trigger them. As their place of superiority over other women slips, they need to find new, acceptable Others to exert their power over. See:
>And now we don't even get to be the default woman.
Oh boo fucking hoo! Now you know how all the cultures you colonized feel. Or disabled, infertile, mentally ill women. In the scheme of things "I don't get to be the center of attention anymore, but i'm still educated and wealthy" is a really petty gripe. see also: feminist current/Meghan Murphy think their anxieties over sex work and its implications for non-sex working women, matter more than the safety of actual sex workers. This is like her core thing, hating on trannies and hookers (and tranny hookers).
>>5924672
Because it's impossible to truly live socially as a woman unless people refer to you as one and think of you as one.
>>5925562
>I will never accept Janice Raymond as a "bigot" when women are pretty much *the* class of people who have been oppressed for the longest time and most viciously throughout history and throughout the world
>I will never accept Mary I as a "tyrant" when women are pretty much *the* class of people who have been oppressed for the longest time and most viciously throughout history and throughout the world
>>I will never accept Margaret Thatcher as a "callous, imperialist mass murderer who destroyed Britain's working class" when women are pretty much *the* class of people who have been oppressed for the longest time and most viciously throughout history and throughout the world
etc
>>5925762
>see trans brigade fighting to allow a trans 'woman', who is in prison because he raped a woman, to attend a women's prison.
>tfw
>>5925562
>women are pretty much *the* class of people who have been oppressed for the longest time and most viciously throughout history and throughout the world
Okay now you're just straight up trolling bro.
Please tell me you are.
>>5925562
>and when society is accepting as women men who lop off their dicks, wear dresses and high heels, and imitate what they see as "women" in pornified media.
What they see is an illusion. Women hate wearing makeup and nice clothes. They would all be walking around in burlap sacks with bowl cuts, if it weren't for all the sick pornified males pulling their strings. Well either that or gross trannies aren't permitted to have sexualities or feel good about their bodies. Fucking gross, inhuman monsters. Tragic golems animated by misogyny. ps I'm not a bigot
>>5925287
>Yes, it is literally that simple
It isn't you deranged idiot, why do you want to criminalize the science?
>These discoveries have pointed to a complex process of sex determination, in which the identity of the gonad emerges from a contest between two opposing networks of gene activity. Changes in the activity or amounts of molecules (such as WNT4) in the networks can tip the balance towards or away from the sex seemingly spelled out by the chromosomes. “It has been, in a sense, a philosophical change in our way of looking at sex; that it's a balance,” says Eric Vilain, a clinician and the director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It's more of a systems-biology view of the world of sex.”
>According to some scientists, that balance can shift long after development is over. Studies in mice suggest that the gonad teeters between being male and female throughout life, its identity requiring constant maintenance. In 2009, researchers reported7 deactivating an ovarian gene called Foxl2 in adult female mice; they found that the granulosa cells that support the development of eggs transformed into Sertoli cells, which support sperm development. Two years later, a separate team showed8 the opposite: that inactivating a gene called Dmrt1 could turn adult testicular cells into ovarian ones. “That was the big shock, the fact that it was going on post-natally,” says Vincent Harley, a geneticist who studies gonad development at the MIMR-PHI Institute for Medical Research in Melbourne.
>>5925825
Never happened, I've seen your moment fighting to justify child rape though and it's disgusting.
>>5925637
>http://transgenderreality.com/
How does that nulify all the studies?
You are pushing fundamentalist sites who claim all the science is in on a conspiracy, how aren't you mentally ill. Go back to /pol/ you idiot.
>>5924672
And seriously, you keep insisting the science lies, keep telling people that /pol/ buzzwords prove you right and talk about liberal conspiracies. You've gone entirely far right.
Disgusting mouthbreather, acting like a poltard won't make all the women love a creepy thing like you.
>>5924672
>male person
That isn't true if you consider medicine though
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11085516
So really, you're demanding people ignore medical realities.
>>5925825
Who? What are you talking about? I'm just pointing out that it's rich to see radfems--who we can safely assume will probably never see poverty or the inside of a jail cell, since you need at least a Master's degree to participate in their "movement"--complain about hypothetical violent trannies, while ignoring the actual violent realities of incarceration for trans people. Do you really think any of these people give one solitary fuck about prison reform? lol.
>>5925762
>Oh boo fucking hoo!
This paragraph made my day. Thank you, comrade.
>>5925814
Oh, anon... I'm glad someone put that idiot in their place after I grew tired of arguing with a brick wall.
>>5925865
>Tragic golems animated by misogyny
I vow to publish an actual essay someday with that line worked into it.
>>5925874
>that balance can shift long after development is over
Happens in humans too. See: Guevedoces. Surprised they didn't mention it in the Nature article.
>>5925973
They were talking about recent stuff and experiments where they used RNAi to force that shift so I guess they skimped on old news.
At any rate, kinda sad that OP says we shouldn't be allowed to consider the scientific opinion.
>>5925974
>Radfem men
No such thing, most of them are conservative /po/tards who like to copy TERF's because they piss off one part of the LGBT community.
>>5925933
>>5924672
Why bother talking to OP?
He literally admitted to being some creepy man who fetishes women and thinks bashing enough lgbt people will get him some. Thinks his feminism justifies pol level bigotry who against lgbt and that all the girls will find him hot for it.
Radfem men truly make the creepiest fedoras.
>>5925982
>conservative /po/tards who like to copy TERF
Mostly, some /pol/tards actually think feminism makes it morally right to hate fags. Also think women will like them for hating.
Pretty much the same way some bashers cite Christianity to claim they're good people.
>>5925982
>>5925985
Also pic related.
>>5925999
Consider also
>>5925979
>kinda sad that OP says we shouldn't be allowed to consider the scientific opinion
Problem is that science, sadly unbeknownst to a lot of actual scientists, is a social process which we enter with all our preconcived notions and prejudices intact, even though the ideal is the opposite of that. But having an ideal doesn't just strip you of decades of social conditioning. So everyone winds up with their own version of science; some stuff supportive of transpeople and some stuff not. None of it is the actual ideal of science, but given the choice I'd rather have the one that rejects bigotry. As niologists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin put it:
"We should not pretend or aspire to a bland neutrality but proclaim as our working hypothesis: all theories are wrong that promote, justify, or tolerate injustice."
>>5925985
>muh bigotry
Stop using tumblr insults here hon.
OP is just another autistic retard.
>>5926006
>lot of actual scientists, is a social process which we enter with all our preconcived notions and prejudices intact
It isn't unless I'm literally switching out the sample for fraudulent duds, no matter how much I will something, my qPCR and Eliza tests won't lie
I might just be a baby in sci it who only just finished undergrad and ended up in some medical institute by freak luck, but I still know enough to say your conspiracy theories are baseless excuses to ignore the data.
>>5926006
>Use "biology" as evidence
>Get linked to biological consensus contradicting yours
>Scientists and liberal media are faking it with their evil liberalism
Typical pol fedora
>>5926007
>Call mouthbreathers creepy
>Tumblr
Hon pls
>>5926045
> creepy man who fetishes women
Tumblr as fuck, just call him a fat sperg.
>>5926053
There's docile fat spergs and then there's fedora level fat spergs.
He's the kind that think calling himself a feminist makes him an Adonis.
>>5926027
Uhm, what? I... I just quoted a couple of Marxists and you call me a "pol fedora"? I'm sorry I don't quite follow.
>>5926088
You talk just like them. Act entitled and claim you know better than legit doctors who contradict you. Think your philosophy justifies going after fags and that you're some sort of champion for women.
And that's not even getting into the other stuff on your creeper screenshots that others posted.
You're the very essence of a self righteous fedora.
>>5926133
I honestly think you might be confusing me with someone else, anon, because I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not OP, I have not said anything that contradicts doctors in this thread (quite the opposite), nor have I "gone after fags". I'm the guy who's been arguing AGAINST a radfem poster.
>>5924672
Because people don't like unintellectuals.
When something is on the verge of being scientifically proven, some ad hominem hypothesis really don't stand a chance against it, and people flooding those opinions, like spam bots spam, people get really annoyed.
Coming to 4chan to wine that someone on Tumblr has a different set of thoughts and feelings than you is never going to inspire much more than contempt. Why do you need our validation so badly?
>>5925955
>I vow to publish an actual essay someday with that line worked into it.
I probably ripped it from somewhere, idk
>>5925985
>Why bother talking to OP?
Boredom?
>Radfem men truly make the creepiest fedoras.
It inevitably devolves into them going "Woah little lady, you're a bad feminist!"
>>5925999
>Just realized I fit all these symptoms for SPD (well except the sex thing, getting nailed is fun)
O__O
Fuck. I don't wanna be a shut in
>>5924672
>why do people get upset when I deny facts verified in several double-blind studies?
I can also imagine a lawyer would get mad if you forcefully insisted that if you yell "objection" in a court of law, the trial ends right then and there. You're saying stuff that's verifiably false to someone who knows better.
