6 ms·

Your comment was better when it was strictly informational. I didn't know Soapbox originated from Gab. That's interesting... As to your other assertion, the au

by aorth 4y ago

Your comment was better when it was strictly informational. I didn't know Soapbox originated from Gab. That's interesting... As to your other assertion, the author's view on sex and gender would have been considered liberal ten years ago. The section on his views in this post below is definitely not right wing or conservative at all. https://blog.alexgleason.me/trans/ https://blog.alexgleason.me/trans/ At most you can say the author speaks without thinking, or perhaps is just rude. Maybe he's just fed up, I've never heard of him before today so I can't say.

wut42 4y ago
I mean, it is strictly informational. I'm just pointing out a fact, that also made a couple of core devs go away.
- aorth 4y ago
  Calling someone a "transphobe" is not strictly informational. What does that even mean? There are trans people who are against the trans self identity movement. And there are trans people who think that gender != sex. On that note, why does the trans activist movement require that trans people must LITERALLY be the sex they self identify as? Why is that the one criteria?
wizzwizz4 4y ago
> As to your other assertion, the author's view on sex and gender would have been considered liberal ten years ago. I feel the need to address this.[0] The page you linked displays incredible ignorance of the past century of feminist thought (including that of the radical feminism movement). > If we really cannot tell a man from a woman, then how is it possible that women are even oppressed? Because a patriarchal society views femininity and womanhood as lesser, rightful targets for abuse. People are oppressed on many other lines which are, similarly, not rooted in some fundamental biological reality (e.g. race, social class) and are similarly punished for attempting to breach these boundaries (e.g. refusing to appropriately signal their group membership; acting in a manner not permitted to those of their station). The patriarchy is a social construction, and it can be dismantled. The passage of Julia Serano he's paraphrased is not saying "we really cannot tell a man from a woman". I'll quote a few paragraphs,[1] for context: > Claims that trans women are not women often rely on essentialist (and therefore incorrect) assumptions about biology. For instance, people might argue that trans women are not “genetically female,” despite the fact that we cannot readily ascertain anybody’s sex chromosomes. Indeed, most people have never even had their sex chromosomes examined, and those that do are sometimes surprised by the results. > Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant. > Claims about genitals are similarly problematic: Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters. If you and I were to meet, should I refuse to recognize or refer to you as a woman unless you show me your genitals? And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end? > I would argue that all of these appeals to biology are inherently anti-feminist. Sexists routinely dismiss women by pointing to real or presumed biological differences. Feminists have long challenged the objectification of our bodies, and have argued that we are not limited by our biology. So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women. It's saying (among other things) that nobody – not even Alex – uses his standards to distinguish men from women; which is true. This is something feminists have been saying since at least the 1940s; and it's unsurprising it doesn't make much sense when reframed in Alex's preferred ontology. > If it's true that privilege is determined by gender identity and not sex, Privilege is, among other things, determined by gender expression. History is rife with women pretending to be men in order to benefit from the patriarchy in some way; usually to get a job that they would otherwise have been barred from. Part of masculine expression is putting (other) women down, by the way.[2] Women often have to wear business suits (express themselves in a "traditionally masculine" manner) in order to be taken seriously, despite the pushback they often get for exactly that presentation. A businessman wearing high heels and a skirt (enforced office attire for women, in many places) would be ridiculed, and would experience a reduction in respect – a partial loss of male privilege, plus a punishment for stepping outside his box and violating social norms. Femininity = bad, weak; masculinity = good, powerful. This is basic, basic stuff. > Transgender ideology takes us a step backwards. A man who wears a dress must be a woman. "Feminists hate men! Hah! QED." By Brandolini's Law,[3] this doesn't even bear rebuttal. Read, maybe, a single transgender feminist thinker? This section even contradicts itself later on: > Trans advocates will deny this. […] To that I say: then what does it mean to be a woman? This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. Karl Popper's criticism of Sigmund Freud comes to mind. There's nothing else worth discussing on this page. It's a mixture of low-substance bullshit, not-even-wrong, appeals to "urgh, weird", and misrepresented statistics. (Seriously: even when the cherry-picked stats are relevant, click through to the sources. They don't say what he says they say.) These are not the words of a truth-seeking feminist. [0]: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ [1]: https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-trans-women-are-not... [2]: See "toxic masculinity". [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "then what does it mean to be a woman? This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument." It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. In the reference to Danielle Muscato, who looks like a man, acts like a man and has the biological sex of a man, but identifies as a woman and wants to be seen as a woman. I mean, I really do not care that much about gender and yes, otherwise the page is quite filled with ideological self righteous references, but to me it does seem like a valid point. Also the comparison to transspecies people. So a person who feels like a lion, is still a human, or not? So why can a person who feels like a woman change their biological sex then? To be clear, I have no problem adressing people by their new names or alike, but I do feel that at some point the topic reached the realm of absurdity. There are biological differences and I don't think acknowledging that, has anything to do with supporting patriachat power structures, which undoubtly still exists.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. It is a legitimate question. But it's a legitimate question answered in 978 pages in the late 1940s[0] – and that answer's validity is questionable, considering how much it leans on the experience of upper-middle-class French women from the 1940s. I think it's fair to say that a more complete answer would be longer. Expecting somebody to answer this question, in the context people like Alex are asking it, is like saying "if red isn't Fe₂O₃, then what is red?" (and then refusing to listen to answers like "apples are also red" or "red is a kind of visual perception" or "photons can have different energy levels"). It's so much easier to pose the question than answer it; you basically have to be an academic philosopher to even understand why the question is meaningful. > Also the comparison to transspecies people. So a person who feels like a lion, is still a human, or not? This, likewise, probably requires a book to answer. I'm not aware of anyone having written one; if there are academic treatises, they'd probably start by distinguishing between species concepts[1] and work from there. (I'll give the tentative answer "Yes, but it requires you to decouple some of your notions about what human is." – provided you don't quote me on that.) A good rule of thumb to use is the principle of charity: nobody's claiming anything absurd. > So why can a person who feels like a woman change their biological sex then? Empiricism. Like with species, there are several different ways to define biological sex; most can be altered, in humans. Endocrinological sex, secondary sex characteristics, primary sex characteristics… Reproductive capacity, even, though that's not legally available for humans yet, and I doubt it's practically available either. But, as you noticed, "change their biological sex" isn't the point of being transgender. (Not that there's really "a point" in the first place, but semantics.) It might be worth making the distinction between transgender and transsexual, while observing there's a decent overlap… though there's an extent to which that's just a model, too. The best description of reality is reality itself. > There are biological differences and I don't think acknowledging that, has anything to do with supporting patriarchal power structures, which undoubtedly still exists. There are many biological differences – but our society fixates heavily on certain differences (secondary sex characteristics, "race"-associated phenotypical variations) to the detriment of everybody involved. It's fine to acknowledge them, but try not to categorise people by them without their consent, and don't sanctify them as immutable when they're very clearly not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept
_cenw 4y ago
[flagged]
- kompor 4y ago
  [flagged]

by aorth 4y ago

wut42 4y ago

I mean, it is strictly informational. I'm just pointing out a fact, that also made a couple of core devs go away.

aorth 4y ago
Calling someone a "transphobe" is not strictly informational. What does that even mean? There are trans people who are against the trans self identity movement. And there are trans people who think that gender != sex. On that note, why does the trans activist movement require that trans people must LITERALLY be the sex they self identify as? Why is that the one criteria?

wizzwizz4 4y ago

> As to your other assertion, the author's view on sex and gender would have been considered liberal ten years ago. I feel the need to address this.[0] The page you linked displays incredible ignorance of the past century of feminist thought (including that of the radical feminism movement). > If we really cannot tell a man from a woman, then how is it possible that women are even oppressed? Because a patriarchal society views femininity and womanhood as lesser, rightful targets for abuse. People are oppressed on many other lines which are, similarly, not rooted in some fundamental biological reality (e.g. race, social class) and are similarly punished for attempting to breach these boundaries (e.g. refusing to appropriately signal their group membership; acting in a manner not permitted to those of their station). The patriarchy is a social construction, and it can be dismantled. The passage of Julia Serano he's paraphrased is not saying "we really cannot tell a man from a woman". I'll quote a few paragraphs,[1] for context: > Claims that trans women are not women often rely on essentialist (and therefore incorrect) assumptions about biology. For instance, people might argue that trans women are not “genetically female,” despite the fact that we cannot readily ascertain anybody’s sex chromosomes. Indeed, most people have never even had their sex chromosomes examined, and those that do are sometimes surprised by the results. > Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant. > Claims about genitals are similarly problematic: Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters. If you and I were to meet, should I refuse to recognize or refer to you as a woman unless you show me your genitals? And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end? > I would argue that all of these appeals to biology are inherently anti-feminist. Sexists routinely dismiss women by pointing to real or presumed biological differences. Feminists have long challenged the objectification of our bodies, and have argued that we are not limited by our biology. So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women. It's saying (among other things) that nobody – not even Alex – uses his standards to distinguish men from women; which is true. This is something feminists have been saying since at least the 1940s; and it's unsurprising it doesn't make much sense when reframed in Alex's preferred ontology. > If it's true that privilege is determined by gender identity and not sex, Privilege is, among other things, determined by gender expression. History is rife with women pretending to be men in order to benefit from the patriarchy in some way; usually to get a job that they would otherwise have been barred from. Part of masculine expression is putting (other) women down, by the way.[2] Women often have to wear business suits (express themselves in a "traditionally masculine" manner) in order to be taken seriously, despite the pushback they often get for exactly that presentation. A businessman wearing high heels and a skirt (enforced office attire for women, in many places) would be ridiculed, and would experience a reduction in respect – a partial loss of male privilege, plus a punishment for stepping outside his box and violating social norms. Femininity = bad, weak; masculinity = good, powerful. This is basic, basic stuff. > Transgender ideology takes us a step backwards. A man who wears a dress must be a woman. "Feminists hate men! Hah! QED." By Brandolini's Law,[3] this doesn't even bear rebuttal. Read, maybe, a single transgender feminist thinker? This section even contradicts itself later on: > Trans advocates will deny this. […] To that I say: then what does it mean to be a woman? This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. Karl Popper's criticism of Sigmund Freud comes to mind. There's nothing else worth discussing on this page. It's a mixture of low-substance bullshit, not-even-wrong, appeals to "urgh, weird", and misrepresented statistics. (Seriously: even when the cherry-picked stats are relevant, click through to the sources. They don't say what he says they say.) These are not the words of a truth-seeking feminist. [0]: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ [1]: https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c https://juliaserano.medium.com/debunking-trans-women-are-not... [2]: See "toxic masculinity". [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

hutzlibu 4y ago
"then what does it mean to be a woman? This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument." It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. In the reference to Danielle Muscato, who looks like a man, acts like a man and has the biological sex of a man, but identifies as a woman and wants to be seen as a woman. I mean, I really do not care that much about gender and yes, otherwise the page is quite filled with ideological self righteous references, but to me it does seem like a valid point. Also the comparison to transspecies people. So a person who feels like a lion, is still a human, or not? So why can a person who feels like a woman change their biological sex then? To be clear, I have no problem adressing people by their new names or alike, but I do feel that at some point the topic reached the realm of absurdity. There are biological differences and I don't think acknowledging that, has anything to do with supporting patriachat power structures, which undoubtly still exists.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. It is a legitimate question. But it's a legitimate question answered in 978 pages in the late 1940s[0] – and that answer's validity is questionable, considering how much it leans on the experience of upper-middle-class French women from the 1940s. I think it's fair to say that a more complete answer would be longer. Expecting somebody to answer this question, in the context people like Alex are asking it, is like saying "if red isn't Fe₂O₃, then what is red?" (and then refusing to listen to answers like "apples are also red" or "red is a kind of visual perception" or "photons can have different energy levels"). It's so much easier to pose the question than answer it; you basically have to be an academic philosopher to even understand why the question is meaningful. > Also the comparison to transspecies people. So a person who feels like a lion, is still a human, or not? This, likewise, probably requires a book to answer. I'm not aware of anyone having written one; if there are academic treatises, they'd probably start by distinguishing between species concepts[1] and work from there. (I'll give the tentative answer "Yes, but it requires you to decouple some of your notions about what human is." – provided you don't quote me on that.) A good rule of thumb to use is the principle of charity: nobody's claiming anything absurd. > So why can a person who feels like a woman change their biological sex then? Empiricism. Like with species, there are several different ways to define biological sex; most can be altered, in humans. Endocrinological sex, secondary sex characteristics, primary sex characteristics… Reproductive capacity, even, though that's not legally available for humans yet, and I doubt it's practically available either. But, as you noticed, "change their biological sex" isn't the point of being transgender. (Not that there's really "a point" in the first place, but semantics.) It might be worth making the distinction between transgender and transsexual, while observing there's a decent overlap… though there's an extent to which that's just a model, too. The best description of reality is reality itself. > There are biological differences and I don't think acknowledging that, has anything to do with supporting patriarchal power structures, which undoubtedly still exists. There are many biological differences – but our society fixates heavily on certain differences (secondary sex characteristics, "race"-associated phenotypical variations) to the detriment of everybody involved. It's fine to acknowledge them, but try not to categorise people by them without their consent, and don't sanctify them as immutable when they're very clearly not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept

_cenw 4y ago

[flagged]

kompor 4y ago
[flagged]