Very, very sorry to hear that individuals are being sent hate mail and threats. Those people sending threats and hate speech are awful. Hopefully the site admins will do something about these out-of-control individuals.
However, I can't help but be glad that we're being discussed more generally on Reddit because it means that people are becoming aware that there is a coherent, non-conservative, non-right-wing criticism of the transgender cult.
The more people talk shit about us on other subs, the more people will come by to lurk and check out what we have to say. A lot of people are deeply concerned about the medical treatments currently being given to children, but they have no place to express it. This is that place.
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are not conservatives. There may be tourists from conservative subs that go there because they agree with their ideas on trans, but for the most part TERFs are far-lefties.
Not really. They hate transgender people because they hate men and think gender doesn't exist, not because it's a perversion against God or against science or whatever.
They tend to be the types that are all about getting rid of the idea of gender entirely but simultaneously gatekeeping the shit out of the female gender.
No, they're just really committed to the notion that gender is purely a social construct. You can't square that with the existence of transgender people.
I give them credit for ideological consistency, at least. More than you can say for almost any other group on this site.
I am very, very sorry to hear that individuals are not being sent hate mail and threats. Those people not sending threats and hate speech are awful. Hopefully the sub mods will do something about these out-of-control individuals.
However, I can't help but be glad that we're being discussed more generally on Reddit because it means that people are becoming aware that there is a coherent, semi-retarded, crayon eating criticism of the seriousposting.
The more people talk shit about us on other subs, the more people will come by to lurk and check out what we have to say. A lot of people are deeply concerned about the lack of bussy currently being withheld from children, but they have no place to express it. This is that place.
(seriouspost) It's interesting because I'm pretty skeptical of the transgender situation (I'm not one to be hateful towards them directly because I don't really see the point, they seem to be generally very severely psychologically affected people who woudn't benefit from it) but I have a disdain for the "if you don't 100% believe the transgender movement's every opinion, you're a bigot" position. I think it's very up in the air as to what the best remedy for them is.
However, I'm a man, and boy do you guys hate men too.
LMAO they think this hurts us? They think we care? FFS we get this, and worse, fucking daily. Like, there is nothing that can be said to me that will hurt my feelings. I'm not so incredibly emotionally fragile that a stranger's words on the internet have an actual effect one me.
They think that vile PMs actually mean something, because the internet is really really important to them. Their entire world is built online, so this is real to them. It's so fucking sad.
I can just walk outside and they literally don't exist anymore. I can go hangout with friends I made in college, because they don't exist purely on a message board. Like, are these guys 12? I imagine that's how juvenile you'd have to be to think this mattered, or was "badass" in any way.
Males cannot be feminists. If they could, then it would be 100% acceptable to have an all male group of feminists gather to decide how they should enact their activism and which policies they should draft and support.
It's like saying it's perfectly acceptable to have an all white group of BLM activists deciding important policies for the group.
People not belonging to the specific oppressed class the group represents can only ever be allies. They do not have the required life experiences and firsthand knowledge to understand how things affect that group and what should be done about it.
All the studying and rally attendance in the world cannot compete with being born into that group and suffering from day one. There is absolutely no way an outsider could have their best interests at heart at all times; there are so many hundreds of micro aggressions that occur on a daily basis that it cannot be fully, effectively communicated
Basically the alter ego of comedian Jim norton. He does a lot of truly awful puns and shitty jokes but he's developed into a comedic character in it's own right
You gotta make it a borderline case. Too obvious and it’s not fun and if nobody gets it it’s no fun. I don’t blame anyone in r/drama for not getting do to their mental conditions.
LMAO they think this hurts us? They think we care? FFS we get this, and worse, fucking daily. Like, there is nothing that can be said to me that will hurt my feelings. I'm not so incredibly emotionally fragile that a stranger's words on the internet have an actual effect on me.
They think that vile PMs actually mean something, because the internet is really really important to them. Their entire world is built online, so this is real to them. It's so fucking sad.
I can just walk outside and they literally don't exist anymore. I can go hangout with friends I made in college, because they don't exist purely on a message board. Like, are these guys 12? I imagine that's how juvenile you'd have to be to think this mattered, or was "badass" in any way.
behold how much u/18505-7427 dies not care. The lack of fucks given is impressive
Funny.. I literally had a run in with one of the guys from that sub the other day. He had an awful post history, you can see it in one of my recent comments. Ironically full of transphobia too.
Jesus H. Christ, here's the run-in she's referring to:
You're laughable... you have the words of a predator up there, and then claim that you would be the victim? I doubt you're in relationships with older women, simply because you're laughably immature and would have mentioned it much sooner as a counter point... not in all this ad hominem.
My post history isn't a hate filled mess... criticising certain things such as the undisclosed effects of puberty blockers isn't hate... I don't post hmm... let's see...
Misogyny [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Rape Culture [1] No withdrawal of consent hm? [2] A lot of rapists worry about accusations too... hmm...
Transphobia [1] [2] [3]
Pedo Culture [1]
Ableism [1] [2] [3] [4]
Incest defence (with a side of more ableism) [1]
Homophobia [1] [Gay is not an insult]
General nastiness as expected from your previous replies to me: [1] [2] [3] [4]
All this in literally 5 minutes of searching through your history... 5 minutes...
EDIT:
Even more and even worse... you're really not worth talking to are you?
Transphobia and misogyny [1]
Weird hang ups about white women??? [1] [2]
More misogyny [1] [2]
More (worse) homophobia [1] [2]
More issues with consent [1]
Jokes about rape [1]
Transphobia in regards to trans men [1]
Racism and misogyny[1]
Arguing for the sexulisation of children [1]
She literally constructed a dossier complete with links.
Weird tgey can label something transphpbia the original thread in tgere that spawned tgis was saying people against the new trans senator were homophobic. The logic of course being as repeatedly stated in the thread the "woman" is a man ( will always be so) and being feminine as a man is gay I guess.
Naw, 5 min to screen shot the others post history on my phone. I didn't need to go through it all just a few pages to get that lot. Writing and uploading 20 min, with the edit, 30 min total at most.
you mean r/drama? Unfortunately, its real. Its basically r/subredditdrama's edgy younger brother, with almost zero moderation and an actively hostile attitude. If drama doesn't come to them, they're aren't above making some themselves.
They're unabashedly terrible, and love to harass the people featured there with username call-outs and constant mockery. If someone is foolish enough to get into an argument with them twice, they'll make them an 'honorary' mod.
Yeah, drama is so fucking weird. It seems that its community is a loose coalition of malicious trolls who say stuff that goes over poorly in a certain community in that community and then post a link in drama to their comment or post elsewhere. Are they inviting others to "come watch this drama I'm creating" or linking as a low-key trigger for others to come brigade the thread? Or any of a dozen other possible norms... It's a double-reflection wrapped in 26-dimensional irony. The post titles even get weird, ambiguously mocking some group of people and simultaneously mocking people who'd mock that group in those terms. Can't even tell for sure what's real, what's mocking the real, and what's mocking the mockery of the real.
I mean that sub is just pretending to be 4chan circa like 2008 and forgetting that that mentality stopped because only tweens think being bitchy and edgy is actually clever in any way. Things that are mean can be funny-but being a nasty snatch is not inherently funny and also just fuck off, mate.
Drama is a significantly better sub when they're bitching about something inconsequential rather than when they're arguing that a woman has no value or w/e for being 'ugly' and then being alll OH IT DOESN'T MATTER IT'S JUST A JOKE GUIIIZZZ.
drama Is an absolute lesson of what happens when you have too much time and just barely enough intelligence on your hands without any ambition. You all are the quintessential rebellious edgy millennials without any direction. You all post about other people's misfortunes and mental breakdowns while struggling to deal with your own. You feel for people like Colby Klaus in the middle of his psychotic episode about gamergate, because you're one step away from being there yourself. If you all just applied yourselves, your parents wouldn't be as disappointed as you think they are. All it takes is a little discipline, but instead you all turn your talents into shitposting and finding lolcows. At least these lolcows have found passion in life to care enough about any topic that they are willing to put their crazy on the internet. All you people care about are terrible memes and party parrots. Imagine what your grandmother would think if she saw the shit you were posting. Do you think she would love how you spend your days laughing at the misfortune of others? If you all just applied yourself, maybe, just possibly, one day you will reach the potential that all your elementary school teachers talked about. Until then, keep shitposting your life away, and try to feel secure in the knowledge that at least you don't lose your shit on the internet.
r/drama is literally the last sub that should ever criticize another, especially for lack of intelligence. They only exist in the first place as a release valve for the people who like doxxing, death threats, reactionary politics and popcorn-shitting too much to be on r/subredditdrama, and that sub sucks in the first place
/drama is a cancerous pile of fetid sewage. It's amazing that such similar named subs can foster such radically different communities. I laugh my butt off at /r/subredditdrama all the time since my hubby showed me, but r/drama is just teenage boys whining about social justice and making fun of people different than themselves.
Like just go back to squabbling over Kathy Griffin.
I got that too. I completely fail to understand it. I assume it's written in incelese. I got: "Kindness is threatening women for having opinions. Much progression, me so virtuous." About right?
The only reason GC hates trannies is that if men can be women it's completely game over for them. The only thing standing between them and having their faces eaten by cats at age 80 is banning trannies.
Plus (and I think a lot of people miss this) can you imagine what it would feel like to go to an all woman festival and then realize in the next bathroom stall is a swinging dick?
Fucking terrifying, and I agree with the TERF position 100%.
Plus (and I think a lot of people miss this) can you imagine what it would feel like to go to an all woman festival and then realize in the next bathroom stall is a swinging dick?
Same thing as a heterosexual male tbh. The thought of all those dicks swinging wildly in the stalls around me makes me disgusted and terrified.
That's the whole thing tbh. They're worried that if trans people aren't ridiculed then someone might think straight white middle class women aren't the most oppressed class in the world.
You silly boy. The only reason trans women think GC hates trans women is because we don't think male people can be women, not even if they identify as such. And nothing is going to stand between me and having my face eaten by cats at age 80.
Males can't be women if you believe even a little in physicalist, but that doesn't change the fact that GC is retarded enough to think Butler has a point in saying gender (and sex) is a social construct.
Sex isn't a social construct, but gender is. Gender is the expectations attached to sex. It varies throughout history and across different cultures. It's definitely a social construct. Most trans people don't even deny that there is a social aspect to gender (for example they acknowledge things like social dysphoria and gender roles).
The disagreement between GC feminists and trans activists is over whether or not gender can be a personal identity and the extent to which that identity should be respected in feminist theory/general society. I don't want to "ban trannies", I respect their rights as adults to apply whatever modifications they wish to make on their bodies with informed consent. However, I don't think they can change their sex, and I don't think I should be required to pretend they can. For some trans people, that's a direct attack on the beliefs they've torn their lives apart for.
If you're going to run your mouth, at least try to make some semblance of sense. The cats-eat-face thing is the only thing that's on point, and "trannies" don't even have anything to do with it.
Gender by definition is the state of being male or female not just the expectations. Gender expectations are socially constructed but gender itself isn't. Hell they've even seen monkeys performing gendered actions and you see gendered preferences in children so small they can't even differentiate between sexes. It's most definitely not a social construct and no feminist has ever been able to empirically prove that. The lack of empirical proof should be good enough reason for you to abandon that idea, especially since if it was true it could be easily proven.
It varies throughout history and across different cultures.
Citation needed. Gender roles have varied but gender itself never has. Again, we see proof in study after study that gender comes from sex yet feminists refuse to accept that because it'll kneecap a lot of talking points.
whether or not gender can be a personal identity
It's part of personal identity, no one but dropkicks make it their entire identity. When you think of yourself your gender does play a part of that. Ask a small kid to draw a picture of themselves and see if they omit gender.
I don't think they can change their sex, and I don't think I should be required to pretend they can.
I agree with you there. They just aren't born that sex and until the day comes where we can print new bodies and transfer consciousness into them they won't be.
If you're going to run your mouth, at least try to make some semblance of sense.
Says the person who believes unsubstantiated claims from Butler on gender. On the one hand we have proof of gender as seen even in nature and on the other there are claims that gender is social because gender roles and expectations are.
There isn't a right or wrong way to be a man or woman but you're stupid as fuck if you think the very idea of a man or woman is entirely socially constructed. That claim has always been unsubstantiated and it will always be. You're better off to criticize gender expectations and roles than try and throw away the very concept of it.
The researchers watched male and female monkeys play with plush and wheeled toys, suggesting a link between sex and preferences for wheeled vs. plush toys in that species of monkeys which could possibly translate to humans. It's highly speculative as is typical of this sort of research and even within the article it states:
"There can be little doubt that boys and girls learn that some activities are socially more appropriate for males or for females and this is likely reflected in the sex-stereotyped toys they choose. "
aka gender as a social construct.
children so small they can't even differentiate between sexes
Socialization begins at birth. We gender babies, it's almost ritualized. 9 months is not small enough to be not gendered.
Gender roles have varied but gender itself never has. Again, we see proof in study after study that gender comes from sex yet feminists refuse to accept that because it'll kneecap a lot of talking points.
Gender is the expectations placed on sex, so it's linked to sex and sex based oppression, but it's socially constructed. Certain behavior considered acceptable for one sex in a culture might be unacceptable in another. This behavior enforced over sex is gender.
That claim has always been unsubstantiated and it will always be.
People are beaten and killed for being gender non-conforming. There is plenty of evidence for the social enforcement of gender. The question is not whether or not it is socially constructed, the question is whether it's entirely socially constructed. The most you have right now that could suggest gender being in part biological aren't even studies involving humans.
I don't see gender as anything beyond the expectations and the socialization, and those are the things I wish to abolish. Every single gender expectation being applied to women have been done to limit and confine us (I can't speak for men, but I have heard it is similar). Besides, what exactly do we have to lose by abolishing the association of non-sex-based stereotypes with sex? Is the idea of asking a kid if they want a plush or wheeled toy really that terrible?
Anyhow, I don't believe acting a certain way or feeling a certain way will make a man a woman, because I think a woman is a female adult human, not behavior or feelings. That's the core of my disagreement with trans people.
People are beaten and killed for being gender non-conforming. There is plenty of evidence for the social enforcement of gender. The question is not whether or not it is socially constructed, the question is whether it's entirely socially constructed. The most you have right now that could suggest gender being in part biological aren't even studies involving humans.
So your opinion is that gender is mostly socially constructed (and therefore arbitrary), and that's why mtf trans people aren't really women?
The more arbitrary and less biological gender is, the less you can attack the notion that self-identifying as some gender is not enough to "really" make you that gender. And the less one's biological sex influences their socially constructed gender expression, the less justified is your insistence that the word "woman" applies to that insignificant detail rather than to the actually important thing.
By the way, for your information, most radical feminists are transmen in denial. That's why you look at men, notice that there's no psychological differences between you and them and conclude that "male" and "female" brains don't exist. Also, why you can't effortlessly switch between denying "biotrufs" and believing that transwomen have female brains like third-wave feminists do, because you have the characteristic male focus on objective truth instead of empathy. And that's why your ideas are not and will never be supported by the majority of normal women, sorry!
So your opinion is that gender is mostly socially constructed (and therefore arbitrary), and that's why mtf trans people aren't really women?
No, "mtf" aren't women because they're male, and male people aren't women.
"mtf"s like the idea of gender (gender identity, gender expression, gender fluidity) because it allows them to validate their feelings and provides an easy way to address their dysphoria without actually challenging the system.
Male and female brains don't exist because they've shown that brains are a mosaic of characteristics. I think the idea that you have any more of a grasp on empathy than me is laughable. And don't worry, feminism isn't a popularity contest.
No, "mtf" aren't women because they're male, and male people aren't women.
The more arbitrary and less biological gender is, the less you can attack the notion that self-identifying as some gender is not enough to "really" make you that gender. And the less one's biological sex influences their socially constructed gender expression, the less justified is your insistence that the word "woman" applies to that insignificant detail rather than to the actually important thing.
All this is a red herring, what you really are upset about is:
"mtf"s like the idea of gender (gender identity, gender expression, gender fluidity) because it allows them to validate their feelings and provides an easy way to address their dysphoria without actually challenging the system.
In other words, you deny that transgenderism is a thing because that implies for example that the dream of abolishing gender is misguided, seeing how apparently a lot of people, maybe most people, would get upset to the point of killing themselves if denied the ability to perform their hard-wired gender, and what kind of utopia is that? And also validates turbonerds who say that women are biologically hardwired to be in the kitchen, and throws doubt on the idea that the male gender role is that of a privileged oppressor, etc.
And as we all know, ideological reasoning has an absolutely stellar record of determining answers to factual questions about the world.
Again tho I'm sorry for your kind, trapped in the intersection of toxic femininity and masculinity. You were indoctrinated by female feminists saying that there are no male and female brains, with no regard for factuality because who cares, and ended up believing in that simple picture with all the zeal of a male autist.
Gender isn't biological. Gender is social. Sex is biological.
I'm not against the idea of people doing as they like, I'm against the idea of expecting people to behave a certain way because of their sex. Again, I don't want to "ban" trans people or (gender-conforming behavior), I don't care what they do, except they're not the sex they want to be, because it's not possible to change sex. I'm not against the action, I'm against the expectations, because it's restrictive.
2D:4D
I never figured out how to measure those things. It changes when I hold my hand differently.
Again, I don't want to "ban" trans people or (gender-conforming behavior), I don't care what they do, except they're not the sex they want to be, because it's not possible to change sex.
They are not saying that they belong to female sex, they say that they belong to female gender.
And again, you have a self-defeating argument here where you say that sex doesn't determine gender expression pretty much at all, it's all socially constructed, but then turn around and say that we must define the words "woman" and "man" to refer to this entirely inconsequential sex thing.
This doesn't make any sense on its own and you only argue for that because of ideological consequences.
I never figured out how to measure those things. It changes when I hold my hand differently.
Internet tells me that it's supposed to be measured from the basal crease, that is from the bottom of those frown lines at base of each finger, palm-side.
Which I am trying abolish. Do you see the problem here?
sex doesn't determine gender expression pretty much at all, it's all socially constructed, but then turn around and say that we must define the words "woman" and "man" to refer to this entirely inconsequential sex thing.
Well, um, sex isn't inconsequential. Sex matters. Gender doesn't matter. Gender is an unreliable generalization at best, and we have not much to lose and far more to gain from shedding these ridiculous prejudices.
notorious alt-right blog
You're going to need a more reliable source. At least the other guy is trying with the scientific studies.
Internet tells me
You want my horoscope, MBTI, and Hogwarts house while you're at it? My basal creases are jagged and criss-crossed. Given how small the ratio difference is, you'd think they would have more precise instructions for measurement.
Which I am trying abolish. Do you see the problem here?
Yeah, I see the problem perfectly well, it's just that I don't agree with the reasoning that goes "but if that fact were true then my plan for building an utopia would be extremely misguided, therefore that fact must be false".
Well, um, sex isn't inconsequential. Sex matters. Gender doesn't matter.
How does sex matter if in your genderless utopia it would have no more influence on people's lives than their blood type?
I guess the incongruity I'm getting at is this: imagine India fifty years ago, with a bunch of people seeking to eliminate the caste system. And then there are some people who say, like, I know that I was born as a Vaishya, but feel like I more identify as a Brahmin.
You'd expect the caste abolitionists to be like, yeah, sure, whatever, identify as whatever you want, it's all made up anyways, so all you trans-caste, caste-queer, and caste-liquid folks are furthering our work of dismantling the system imposing those roles.
What you definitely never in your life wouldn't expect is those supposedly anti-caste people to REEEEEEEEEE IF YOU WERE BORN VAISHYA THEN YOU'RE FOREVER A VAISHYA YOU CAN'T JUST IDENTIFY AS SOMETHING YOU REALLY ARE NOT GENETICALLY! You can smell that something is very rotten in the kingdom of Denmark when you see this shit. Because it makes absolutely zero sense at the face value and so must be a manifestation of some different, obscured and hidden reasoning. Chthonic.
notorious alt-right blog
You're going to need a more reliable source.
You also have a low language ability, also characteristic for extreme levels of testosterone exposure.
My basal creases are jagged and criss-crossed. Given how small the ratio difference is, you'd think they would have more precise instructions for measurement.
How does sex matter if in your genderless utopia it would have no more influence on people's lives than their blood type?
You'd expect the caste abolitionists to be like, yeah, sure, whatever, identify as whatever you want, it's all made up anyways, so all you trans-caste, caste-queer, and caste-liquid folks are furthering our work of dismantling the system imposing those roles.
Because blood type still has an influence on people's lives. You know that, right? It's not just "made up" like caste? People's blood type and biological sex matter in a medical sense and have an actual, perceivable effect on our lives? Did you know that donated AB+ blood cannot be given to an O- patient? Did you know that women can get pregnant, unlike men? I can't tell if you're being ironically idiotic or if you actually believe this crap you're typing. I'm a gender abolitionist, not a sex abolitionist because you can't "abolish" scientific facts.
So why don't we say that men are people with A group and women with B then?
There's literally no and can't possibly be a scientific fact that says that our definition of gender should be tied to biological sex. It's a question of definitions and definitions can't be factually wrong, just not very useful (see http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/ for a detailed explanation with many examples, and no, it's not an altright blog). If you understand that then you can try to make a proper argument, like that it's very useful to have both "female" and woman to mean the same thing, and not useful to have a word that means "expresses traditionally female gender role".
There's literally no and can't possibly be a scientific fact that says that our definition of gender should be tied to biological sex.
Gender is a social construct and should be abolished, like caste systems are a social construct and should be abolished. But biological sex is not a social construct and cannot be abolished. I mean, you can be silly and argue that we can actually call sex gender and pretend gender has to do with biology, but no matter how you slice it, male people are not female and this distinction has a basis in reality whether your feelings agree with it or not. Trying to redefine words and obfuscate definitions so trans women could be occasionally confused with women is ridiculous and only making life more difficult for people who want to discuss sex-based oppression. You're trying to reach an unattainable goal. Trans people need to find a more productive way to address their feelings and mental issues.
I mean, you can be silly and argue that we can actually call sex gender and pretend gender has to do with biology
That's literally the exact opposite of what trans people argue. They say that we should call sex sex, and also have gender that has nothing to do with biology or sex.
In slow motion replay:
I mean, you can be silly and argue that we can actually call sex gender
No, let's have those two things separate.
and pretend gender has to do with biology
No, your gender has nothing to do with biology.
Do you realize how frustrating it is to have this discussion with you?
You literally took two core TERF talking points, that gender and sex are the same, and that gender is determined by biology, then put them in my trans-activist mouth, and then disagreed with them!!! What am I supposed to do even!
I'm reconsidering my previous assertion that as a TERF you probably have a male brain. Not reconsidered yet, since I've seen ridiculous males like you wouldn't believe, but reconsidering.
I'm saying that gender as a concept "that has nothing to do with biology or sex" is a pointless, irrelevant concept. The only value in keeping gender is if it had any basis in biology. In your definition of gender, it doesn't, hence it is as pointless and as irrelevant as the caste system.
We are using the word "biology" differently here, I think.
You mean it in the usual fedora-wearing redditor kind of way, meaning having either XY or XX chromosomes. And then by fiat declare that that's what determines sex and gender.
The above comment where you contradicted yourself silly should be understood as using the same definition of "biology" as you do.
I have a more nuanced and informed view: let's have a definition of sex as sex-assigned-at-birth that's relevant to gynecologists etc. Then let's have a definition of gender that's relevant to people who perform this or that or whatever gender role.
And let's say that psychological gender affinity seems to have some biological determinants, not limited to what chromosomes you have or how your genotype was expressed in your genitals. Because there's those 0.1% of the cases where it was expressed differently in the brain.
I'm saying that gender as a concept "that has nothing to do with biology or sex" is a pointless, irrelevant concept.
Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer? It shows that naturally cisgender people raised as opposite gender at least sometimes experience a strong gender dysphoria. So gender is not an irrelevant concept.
You mean it in the usual fedora-wearing redditor kind of way
Ah yes, I've gone from closeted FtM to hysterical woman to fedora-wearing redditor. It's almost like you know nothing about me. It's sad that you rather throw more stereotypes at me than make an effort to actually understand my perspective, but stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
meaning having either XY or XX chromosomes. And then by fiat declare that that's what determines sex and gender.
That's what determines sex, usually, yes. In very, very rare cases, an individual is born intersex, but trans people who are biologically male or female are not intersex. Gender is a social construct applied to people based on how we feel someone ought to act based on how they were born, just as the caste system is a social construct applied to people based on how they were born. You cannot change your sex, but this social construct, whether it is caste or gender, serves no purpose.
I have a more nuanced and informed view
You have a view that you've built around your feelings. Feeling like a woman doesn't make you one. Sorry not sorry.
And let's say that psychological gender affinity seems to have some biological determinants
We can't, because there's no scientific basis for this "psychological gender affinity" you're talking about. Those are just feelings. Your feelings. They might seem real to you, but they don't necessarily apply to other people and we shouldn't be required to play along. You need to stick to facts if you want to have a functional discussion.
And Reimer was sexually abused by his psychologist as a child. We can't draw any conclusions from him, except we shouldn't sexually abuse children.
It's almost like you know nothing about me. It's sad that you rather throw more stereotypes at me than make an effort to actually understand my arguments, but stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
You have a view that you've built around your feelings. Feeling like a woman doesn't make you one. Sorry not sorry.
We can't, because there's no scientific basis for this "psychological gender affinity" you're talking about. Those are just feelings. Your feelings. They might seem real to you, but they don't necessarily apply to other people and we shouldn't be required to play along.
Heh heh heh. I'm a cishet male. But those two paragraphs of yours are delicious together.
And Reimer was sexually abused by his psychologist as a child. We can't draw any conclusions from him, except we shouldn't sexually abuse children.
Yeah, sexually abusing male children by trying to instill the bottom bitch gender role in them is likely to end up with them strongly identifying as male. This was sarcasm, FYI.
Anyways, reflect on the fact that less than 1 in 5 of the US women identifies as a feminist, and a vanishingly small portion of those identify as radical feminists. This is because you guys are really guys in your heads, and normal women get that immediately, and they sort of intuitively understand that they don't want to experience gender dysphoria if you're allowed to abolish gender.
Yeah, sexually abusing male children by trying to instill the bottom bitch gender role in them is likely to end up with them strongly identifying as male. This was sarcasm, FYI.
Um, sexually abusing children will make them traumatized adults. That's the most we can conclude from it, imo.
reflect on the fact that less than 1 in 5 of the US women identifies as a feminist
That's ok. I'm not a feminist for the popularity. If I only bothered to educate myself on what other people cared about, I wouldn't get very far in life. Intuition is useful, but not infallible, and I wouldn't trust other people's intuition anyway.
What is the meaning of this? Are you trying to solicit dickpics in a roundabout way? ;^)
Um, sexually abusing children will make them traumatized adults. That's the most we can conclude from it, imo.
I mean, if we didn't have any other evidence, then yeah, but David Reimer's case is mostly useful as a psychological device, people tend to have trouble identifying with trans-gender people directly, but have a much easier time if asked to imagine that they were raised from birth as the opposite gender and whether they really are sure they would be entirely comfortable with that.
On the other hand, what evidence do you have that gender is entirely socially constructed? Or is it pure wishful thinking?
Also by the way, do you think that lesbians aren't real as well? That society for some reason brainwashes some women into being attracted to women? Because it's really unlikely that attraction to a certain gender expression is hard-wired, but the gender-expression is socially constructed and just accidentally matches what people are hard-wired to be attracted to, lol.
That's ok. I'm not a feminist for the popularity.
Or maybe you're actually different, maybe where you'd answer "yeah, I guess I'd be perfectly happy if I were raised as a man" most women won't, where you find your assigned at birth gender role uncomfortable and restricting, they don't. That's upsetting, but what really gets you is when some men choose to be restricted by your hated gender role, so while that doesn't affect you personally in any way, it feels like a slap in the face, so you have a community specifically dedicated to hating them.
By the way, if you hate the woman gender role so much, why don't you declare yourself agender, adopt they/them pronouns, and be done with it? Seems to make much more sense as a step towards abolition of gender than preserving, enshrining, and rabidly defending the word "woman" as applicable to people with vaginas.
It's in the spirit of this sub to tag unwilling participants into pointless conversations. You don't understand why GC and "trannies" disagree, I'm taking you along for a ride. Think of it as a learning moment.
You don't understand. I don't care if I'm a "good woman" or not, the matter of fact is that I am one. Men can't be women because they're male. These are all just facts.
Seems like you're insecure about dying alone or not being man enough. Those are common male insecurities, but female people don't usually share the same problems. I'm not going to defend my femininity the way a male person defends their masculinity (I'm not very feminine anyway). I'm not particularly afraid of being alone and I will probably die alone due to my circumstances. These are all things I've already made peace with. These aren't the things that are driving this conversation.
I'm not worried about what men think. (That's you.) I'm worried about what men will do because they can be unreasonable and violent when they don't get their way.
Of course you're worried what men think. If you weren't worried about it then you wouldn't be trying this hard to convince people here that you're not as unfeminine as a tranny.
Nah, I'm here because I feel like taking my shit out on you from the safety of my home. You were the third top level response in this thread and I didn't like the first two because I didn't feel like reading three paragraphs or getting into a political discussion. I don't expect to convince you of anything, and I'm less feminine than most "trannies" anyway.
The researchers watched male and female monkeys play with plush and wheeled toys, suggesting a link between sex and preferences for wheeled vs. plush toys in that species of monkeys which could possibly translate to humans. It's highly speculative as is typical of this sort of research
We see literally the same behavior in monkeys as in human children too young to tell the differences in gender, yet somehow this is more speculative than saying gender is entirely socially constructed.
Seriously though, you have no empirical proof to back up the claims that gender is socially constructed. All you have are claims that it is with absolutely no backing aside from literal speculation. If you were right we wouldn't see any difference in children's or monkeys choices in toys. We do see differences, repeatable differences but because they don't support your point of view you just refuse to accept it.
The fact is you can't force gendered ideals on people. David Reimer wouldn't have committed suicide or felt he was always a man if there was no biological, physical root for gender. Artificially imposing ideals will always lead to large amounts of resistance, as we saw with the problem with no name.
Again, people enforcing gender norms isn't the same thing that gender is just all fake.
Socialization begins at birth. We gender babies, it's almost ritualized. 9 months is not small enough to be not gendered.
So monkeys are doing the same socialization that we do? Weird.
Gender is the expectations placed on sex,
That's gender roles and expectations. Gender is just the state of being a man or woman and is best understood through generalizations rather than absolute truths. You're redefining words outside their common useage.
I don't see gender as anything beyond the expectations and the socialization
It doesn't matter how you see it, it matters what it actually is. Expectations and socialization aren't the entirety of gender.
Is the idea of asking a kid if they want a plush or wheeled toy really that terrible?
You really didn't read that study did you? They presenting babies with options, nothing more. The babies chose themselves which ones they wanted. There was no coercion or guidance, it was a self driven choice. A choice that is seen both in monkeys and humans, something that shouldn't be possible at all if gender was 100% social.
you have no empirical proof to back up the claims that gender is socially constructed
For example, blue used to be a girl's color while red/pink was a boy's color. For more example, lustfulness and wantonness were considered a woman's thing in medieval europe, where as in contemporary american society, men are generally expected to be more promiscuous and interested in sex.
you can't force gendered ideals on people
But that's the exact opposite of what I am doing.
So monkeys are
Monkeys also fling shit. Like, I'm not against research, but you need to have more than video tapes of baby monkeys playing with a toy car.
Gender is just the state of being a man or woman and is best understood through generalizations rather than absolute truths.
And that's where I disagree. I don't think it's best to understand anything through generalizations, especially when those generalizations have been using to control and limit women. Generalizations and stereotyping lies at the heart of prejudice. It's a harmful and unreliable system and we're better off treating people as individuals instead of assuming they must have a certain personality/hobby/preference because of their sex. Sex is real, but gender is just stereotypes and generalizations.
You really didn't read that study did you?
I wasn't talking about the study there, I was asking why you need generalizations to understand something that you can find out by just talking to the kid.
Funny how you can't actually bring up any peer reviewed proof that gender is entirely social. It's especially strange since you seem so convinced that it is, yet somehow you have a hard time finding empirical proof of that.
Talking about the colour blue or the desire for sex isn't proof of jack shit. Even if it was, you cited nothing and just claimed shit without any supporting evidence.
This is exactly why these sort of claims aren't taken seriously. They're just pulled out of the air and aren't based in anything aside from begging the question. Gender is apparently social because gender is social.
Butler claimed gender was social because of her understanding of Aristotelian substance and accident, not because of any actual evidence.
But that's the exact opposite of what I am doing.
Did you seriously not get the point? The point was that if gender was 100% social we'd see widespread problems like the problems with no name and Dana Reimer. We don't though, which should tell us something since no artificial ideal can be this embraced by people.
If gender was 100% social then David Reimer should never have had an issue. But he did not didn't he, and that can't be accounted for if what you say it true. Yeah
I don't think it's best to understand anything through generalizations, especially when those generalizations have been using to control and limit women.
Yeah that's mistaking artificial gender expectations and roles with general interests. It's also assuming that self determined gendered interests don't actually exist and that the reason you don't want to be a lumberjack is because society tells you that you shouldn't be instead of you just having no interest in that. Again, generalizations work better since women generally aren't interested in working in extremely physical jobs.
It's a harmful and unreliable system and we're better off treating people as individuals instead of assuming they must have a certain personality/hobby/preference because of their sex
No shit you should treat people as individuals but you can't deny that as a woman you have certain interests that most men don't share and vice versa. Sure it's wrong to gatekeep people out of career paths but you can't honestly say that the reason more women go into social work than men is because of goddamn socialization. I haven't met one woman in social work whose parents haven't warned them about how bad of an idea that was.
I wasn't talking about the study there, I was asking why you need generalizations to understand something that you can find out by just talking to the kid.
You can't talk to an infant you dip. The point of the study was that children so small they can't understand shit have very real and repeatable gendered preferences. The whole point was to make sure the kids weren't being socially conditioned to act one way and to see if there was a biological root for gender. Turns out there is a biological root, one that can also be seen in monkeys, but you refuse to accept that because you instead just want to believe random and unsupported claims instead.
Point is that therapy didn't help him identify as a woman. The abuse drove the suicide but his personal identity didn't change even with very aggressive therapy and attempts at social conditioning. This shouldn't have been possible if the feminist argument that gender is socially enforced through coercive means is correct. In fact, if it was correct Reimer should have accepted being a woman.
Once again reality doesn't match ideology but there is an odd refusal to abandon the problematic ideology.
Most women are interested in jobs that aid others and are emotionally rewarding rather than thankless and emotionally and physically demanding. Again, it's not a 100% rule but if you look at breakdowns in career paths it becomes pretty obvious.
The therapy was abusive because he believed that gender was social just like you do. He thought that if he just pushed enough Reimer would accept being a woman. That didn't work out, which is exactly the opposite of what feminist writers on gender say would happen. Don't they claim that gender is coercively forced on people and enforced by society? If so then Reimer should have had no issue being a woman and never required therapy in the first place.
Jobs like in the automotive field or general trades. Granted there is sexism there but in high school we had different shop options and the girls always avoided them like the plague. They were briefly forced to take it but it was very clear most did not want to be there. The teacher would gladly teach anyone, it's just they had no internal desire to be there. How many little girls are dreaming of being a pipe fitter and taking trades programs in college? It's not many, I know a couple but they're the exception and not the rule.
The therapy was abusive because he believed that gender was social just like you do.
The "therapy" was abusive because he asked David to imitate sex acts with his twin brother and for the two of them to examine one anothers' genitalia. Dr. Money used his power to force David and his brother to engage in activities that they were uncomfortable with that overstepped his boundaries as a therapist.
Jobs like in the automotive field or general trades.
How are those emotionally demanding?
Granted there is sexism there but in high school we had different shop options and the girls always avoided them like the plague.
Because women are socialized out of it, and most are aware of the type of sexism that exists in those industries. Plus, I daresay most middle to upper class young adults, both male and female, aren't dreaming of taking a trades programs in college. It's unfortunate, but the trades have a stigma attached to it that goes beyond sex.
Yes but didn't exceed the social coercion described as supposedly being the reason for why people conform to genders.
If gender was all social then Reimer would have been successfully coerced into being a woman. The fact he wasn't should tell you something about how gender isn't all social.
How are those emotionally demanding?
Long hours, stuck parts, cold weather far away from home.
Oh, so you have some secret desire to be a pipe fitter?
Reimer lived under the impression that he was a woman until his parents revealed to him that he wasn't. He was also suffering from years of childhood sexual abuse that his therapist tried to pass off as "therapy". There's so much wrong with his situation that it's not really accurate to draw any sort of conclusions from it. What happened to him was terrible but also unique.
Long hours, stuck parts, cold weather far away from home.
In the automotive field? In trades? Isn't trades usually local, being the whole point of the thing?
Oh, so you have some secret desire to be a pipe fitter?
I have applied to work in the automotive industry but wasn't hired. I've also applied to work in mining that are 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off in cold weather far away from home, but they weren't interested. They have a specific idea on the type of candidate they were looking for and I didn't fit the profile, despite having the qualifications. Just so you know, I'm not personally upset about it. I'm not owed a job, and they should go with the candidate that they feel best suit their work culture, but I think there's more to it than "women aren't interested".
Because he was sexually abused by his therapist, because they were going to perform further surgeries on him that he was uncomfortable with, because he was angry at being lied to all his life. There were a lot of things going on in his life, it's hard to draw any conclusions.
It's not at all hard to draw a conclusion. Feminist philosophy tells us that gender is socially constructed and enforced through coercive social structures. Reimer faced extreme coercion yet that couldn't change him.
If feminist philosophy was correct he would have successfully become a woman because of the social pressure he faced. He always felt that wasn't correct which spawned the vile practices the Dr committed to try and force the gender on him. Again, if feminist philosophy is correct then this should have worked. It didn't work, ergo gender cannot be 100% socially created.
You keep trying to salvage the idea that gender is social while denying both empirical evidence and case studies that show that's not the case. Butlers understanding of Aristotle is not more proof than empirical evidence and you'd have to be stupid to think it could be.
Reimer faced extreme coercion yet that couldn't change him.
Reimer faced sexual abuse as a child and people respond differently to CSA and trauma. It's an unusual case and not the norm.
I'm rejecting one case of CSA. There actually are other cases of male children being raised as girls and women, but I don't care enough about this conversation to go dig it up. You're free to present it if you find it.
Ah yes the old "I have tons of proof but you find it."
Reimers sexual abuse happened because you fucktards believe that gender is social and the good Dr tried to beat a new one into him. This literally is proof that it can't be the case that gender is 100% social but you refuse to believe it because some feminist wrote that it is and they can never be wrong.
Actually, the studies are pretty divided down the middle, favoring you, even. I've had this argument before with men who are better researched than you. But I'm not going to make your arguments for you, so nah.
Not going to work? The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive claim. I supported why it wasn't social, you never supported empirically why it would be purely social. You just begged the question by saying gender is social because gender is social and claimed there is a bunch of proof but you apparently can't find any.
He eventually admitted to having a small dick, being a furry and that trans males were literally too weak to fight against our movement. Like, I can't even compete with those massive amounts of self burn.
anyone happen to recognize which pasta(s) /u/TossingLobster fell for? it sounds familiar but there arent quite enough clues for me to place it
Sounds like a play on that /r/anarchy post from not long ago about a trans anarchist complaining they were too weak to fight the power and only getting by because of a few rap artists then got crossposted here and threw a shit fit about people saying mean things about them.
LMAO they think this hurts us? They think we care? FFS we get this, and worse, fucking daily. Like, there is nothing that can be said to me that will hurt my feelings. I'm not so incredibly emotionally fragile that a stranger's words on the internet have an actual effect on me.
They think that vile PMs actually mean something, because the internet is really really important to them. Their entire world is built online, so this is real to them. It's so fucking sad.
I can just walk outside and they literally don't exist anymore. I can go hangout with friends I made in college, because they don't exist purely on a message board. Like, are these guys 12? I imagine that's how juvenile you'd have to be to think this mattered, or was "badass" in any way.
164 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-11
Jews did this
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-11
Very, very sorry to hear that individuals are being sent hate mail and threats. Those people sending threats and hate speech are awful. Hopefully the site admins will do something about these out-of-control individuals.
However, I can't help but be glad that we're being discussed more generally on Reddit because it means that people are becoming aware that there is a coherent, non-conservative, non-right-wing criticism of the transgender cult.
The more people talk shit about us on other subs, the more people will come by to lurk and check out what we have to say. A lot of people are deeply concerned about the medical treatments currently being given to children, but they have no place to express it. This is that place.
1 scatmunchies 2017-11-11
Is this from their sub?
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-11
Yep. https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/7c8h60/were_being_brigaded/dpo3q24
1 Swineflew1 2017-11-11
Is this one of those things where they call themselves progressive, but are right leaning in nearly everything?
1 RarePepeAficionado 2017-11-11
They're conservative but don't want people to call them Nazis anymore.
Just own it.
1 SDIHTD 2017-11-11
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are not conservatives. There may be tourists from conservative subs that go there because they agree with their ideas on trans, but for the most part TERFs are far-lefties.
1 RarePepeAficionado 2017-11-11
Anyone who hates trannies is welcome to hold a tiki torch next to me at the next /r/Drama rally.
1 FucksGuysWithAccents 2017-11-11
Trannies are batshit crazy.
But drag queens are fucking awesome.
1 Namenamenamenamena 2017-11-11
If by nearly everything you mean hating trannies, sure.
1 alexmikli 2017-11-11
Not really. They hate transgender people because they hate men and think gender doesn't exist, not because it's a perversion against God or against science or whatever.
1 wtfuxlolwut 2017-11-11
But traps are hot..
1 alexmikli 2017-11-11
And /r/gendercritical users are not. Henc the hate.
1 Ripped_cunt 2017-11-11
It's gotta be tough when you're enough of an unfuckable legbeard wobblegoblin that you feel threatened by fucking dudes in fishnets and make-up
1 LordZedd84T 2017-11-11
They tend to be the types that are all about getting rid of the idea of gender entirely but simultaneously gatekeeping the shit out of the female gender.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-11-11
Ahahahaha what the fuck is this shit get out
1 LordZedd84T 2017-11-11
Are you gatekeeping r/drama?
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-11-11
Yes. Also, I changed my mind. You are stuck here.
1 ChateauJack 2017-11-11
I don't think their reasonning goes any further than
tits=good
balls=bad
1 alexmikli 2017-11-11
They hate transmen too because they're traitors.
1 ChateauJack 2017-11-11
Tbh, they kind of are though
1 Awayfone 2017-11-11
No they just realize the truth, men are better
1 still_futile 2017-11-11
A man legitimately won "woman of the year" so the facts are there
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-11
No, they're just really committed to the notion that gender is purely a social construct. You can't square that with the existence of transgender people.
I give them credit for ideological consistency, at least. More than you can say for almost any other group on this site.
1 liquidm 2017-11-11
"aktually I'm not a nazi, I believe that you'll find I am actually a Classical liberal"
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
I am very, very sorry to hear that individuals are not being sent hate mail and threats. Those people not sending threats and hate speech are awful. Hopefully the sub mods will do something about these out-of-control individuals.
However, I can't help but be glad that we're being discussed more generally on Reddit because it means that people are becoming aware that there is a coherent, semi-retarded, crayon eating criticism of the seriousposting.
The more people talk shit about us on other subs, the more people will come by to lurk and check out what we have to say. A lot of people are deeply concerned about the lack of bussy currently being withheld from children, but they have no place to express it. This is that place.
1 Burial 2017-11-11
sure is a lot of seriousposting on 4chan-lite lately
1 ltedt 2017-11-11
Dang it, i was gonna comment this
1 Mort_DeRire 2017-11-11
(seriouspost) It's interesting because I'm pretty skeptical of the transgender situation (I'm not one to be hateful towards them directly because I don't really see the point, they seem to be generally very severely psychologically affected people who woudn't benefit from it) but I have a disdain for the "if you don't 100% believe the transgender movement's every opinion, you're a bigot" position. I think it's very up in the air as to what the best remedy for them is.
However, I'm a man, and boy do you guys hate men too.
1 FucksGuysWithAccents 2017-11-11
Fuck anyone who gives life changing hormone therapy to children.
Let them make their own decisions as adults. For every success story of this treatment, there are 5 that are miserable and wish they never did it.
People need to stop inventing ways for their children to fulfill their meaningless, boring, pathetic lives.
1 wokeaspie 2017-11-11
Trannies, porn and the Jews. Anywhere else the horseshoe tips touch?
1 JohnTheOrc 2017-11-11
9/11 was an inside job
1 DoubleCheekedUp 2017-11-11
WE'RE BREAKING THE CONDITIONING!
1 PoorLilMarco 2017-11-11
NGRARGH
1 ffbtaw 2017-11-11
Free speech is bad
1 wokeaspie 2017-11-11
That's a good one
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-11
Similar: political violence is justified, you're really, really sure you're right.
1 Awayfone 2017-11-11
Or sure they are
1 still_futile 2017-11-11
As long as you call your enemies nazis you're in the clear.
1 OniTan 2017-11-11
It's only gay if the tips touch.
1 still_futile 2017-11-11
When two gay men have sex, how do they know whose penis will open up to accept the other person's penis?
1 Talonek 2017-11-11
Pffft, it's only gay if you dock.
1 wokeaspie 2017-11-11
Yet another reason why I miss my foreskin. FUCK YOU MOM AND DAD
1 YallFolksProblematic 2017-11-11
/u/BoozeBabe No need to be a dick about it.
1 neveryousay3 2017-11-11
" Wow, those people have no lives at all" - posts on Gendercritical🤔
REALLY.....I MEAN REALLY?
1 Gusfoo 2017-11-11
I didn't read your comment but I'm going to assume it was funny and DM you pictures of anuses as a thank-you.
1 neveryousay3 2017-11-11
Thanks...in short: it's the " they targeted gamers" copypasta, but about terfs.
1 FulfilledOxyuranus 2017-11-11
LMAO they think this hurts us? They think we care? FFS we get this, and worse, fucking daily. Like, there is nothing that can be said to me that will hurt my feelings. I'm not so incredibly emotionally fragile that a stranger's words on the internet have an actual effect one me.
They think that vile PMs actually mean something, because the internet is really really important to them. Their entire world is built online, so this is real to them. It's so fucking sad.
I can just walk outside and they literally don't exist anymore. I can go hangout with friends I made in college, because they don't exist purely on a message board. Like, are these guys 12? I imagine that's how juvenile you'd have to be to think this mattered, or was "badass" in any way.
1 wokeaspie 2017-11-11
I wonder if /r/MealPrepSunday/ would accept that post? There's enough pasta in there for a week at least 🍝👌
1 baaaaby 2017-11-11
its saturday tho
1 wokeaspie 2017-11-11
Lots of posts in there from today and before, I doubt anybody cares. This is inspiring me to stop spending $20+ every couple of days for delivery tho
1 baaaaby 2017-11-11
but.......... its saturday.....
1 wokeaspie 2017-11-11
Can't hear you, ordering pizza with my fat sausage fingers.
1 snallygaster 2017-11-11
that sub makes me wanna eat glass
1 wokeaspie 2017-11-11
For a whole week, though? Wouldn't you get sick of it? 🤔
1 giroth 2017-11-11
Why?
It just looks like regular food...x7
1 snallygaster 2017-11-11
it's always soooooo bland
1 SmugSocialistTears 2017-11-11
/u/18505-7427
Proceeds to type an angry three paragraph reply
1 Greatpointbut 2017-11-11
permalinksavecontextfull comments
Males cannot be feminists. If they could, then it would be 100% acceptable to have an all male group of feminists gather to decide how they should enact their activism and which policies they should draft and support.
It's like saying it's perfectly acceptable to have an all white group of BLM activists deciding important policies for the group.
People not belonging to the specific oppressed class the group represents can only ever be allies. They do not have the required life experiences and firsthand knowledge to understand how things affect that group and what should be done about it.
All the studying and rally attendance in the world cannot compete with being born into that group and suffering from day one. There is absolutely no way an outsider could have their best interests at heart at all times; there are so many hundreds of micro aggressions that occur on a daily basis that it cannot be fully, effectively communicated
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
/u/18505-7427
1 UniversityDaniel 2017-11-11
Holy shit are you the real Chip Chipperson?
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
Wassat
1 UniversityDaniel 2017-11-11
You're a cool guy, Chip, but that Jim Norton guy is a total fag
1 umar4812 2017-11-11
Can I ask a question
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
Maybe
1 metallica_fan_420 2017-11-11
Ok here goes: how dig is your bick?
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
If you have to ask you'll never know
1 umar4812 2017-11-11
Who is Chip Chpperson?
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
Basically the alter ego of comedian Jim norton. He does a lot of truly awful puns and shitty jokes but he's developed into a comedic character in it's own right
https://youtu.be/iwjBM5PJ-YQ
1 Br00ce 2017-11-11
Hey Chris
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
Heh, forgot about that guy
1 Br00ce 2017-11-11
That was me you dope
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
Lol fuck, you even made a post claiming it was me who was gentellotus. Well played
1 Br00ce 2017-11-11
haha thanks. I should bring that guy back, that was fun
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-11
Fuck man you got a smile on my face, I had no idea, but looking past on the post history I should have realized it was a troll.
1 Br00ce 2017-11-11
You gotta make it a borderline case. Too obvious and it’s not fun and if nobody gets it it’s no fun. I don’t blame anyone in r/drama for not getting do to their mental conditions.
1 Awayfone 2017-11-11
They think that vile PMs actually mean something, because the internet is really really important to them. Their entire world is built online, so this is real to them. It's so fucking sad.
I can just walk outside and they literally don't exist anymore. I can go hangout with friends I made in college, because they don't exist purely on a message board. Like, are these guys 12? I imagine that's how juvenile you'd have to be to think this mattered, or was "badass" in any way.
behold how much u/18505-7427 dies not care. The lack of fucks given is impressive
1 aqouta 2017-11-11
Yay
1 grotesquecel 2017-11-11
i don't know how to feel about that placeMuco-Cutaneious Cyst
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-11-11
Jesus H. Christ, here's the run-in she's referring to:
She literally constructed a dossier complete with links.
1 Chicup 2017-11-11
I was hoping it was me because my post history is awful too.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Too many generic dudes, too few feminists . You gotta really work it if you want to stand out. Step it up.
1 Awayfone 2017-11-11
Weird tgey can label something transphpbia the original thread in tgere that spawned tgis was saying people against the new trans senator were homophobic. The logic of course being as repeatedly stated in the thread the "woman" is a man ( will always be so) and being feminine as a man is gay I guess.
1 xjapxn 2017-11-11
/u/RoboticRed Ooh! Ooh! Do me! Do me!
1 RoboticRed 2017-11-11
:)
1 Mort_DeRire 2017-11-11
That genuinely must have taken her over an hour.
1 RoboticRed 2017-11-11
Naw, 5 min to screen shot the others post history on my phone. I didn't need to go through it all just a few pages to get that lot. Writing and uploading 20 min, with the edit, 30 min total at most.
1 giroth 2017-11-11
This is amazing, I would feel honored.
Why aren't we maintaining dossiers like this on our top lolcows?
Our leadership has failed us once again.
1 jewdanksdad 2017-11-11
I posted a link to that thread the other day. No one commented. Sad!
1 Johnny_Is_Truant 2017-11-11
AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
1 ItsHeathenSeason 2017-11-11
you mean r/drama? Unfortunately, its real. Its basically r/subredditdrama's edgy younger brother, with almost zero moderation and an actively hostile attitude. If drama doesn't come to them, they're aren't above making some themselves.
They're unabashedly terrible, and love to harass the people featured there with username call-outs and constant mockery. If someone is foolish enough to get into an argument with them twice, they'll make them an 'honorary' mod.
Yeah, drama is so fucking weird. It seems that its community is a loose coalition of malicious trolls who say stuff that goes over poorly in a certain community in that community and then post a link in drama to their comment or post elsewhere. Are they inviting others to "come watch this drama I'm creating" or linking as a low-key trigger for others to come brigade the thread? Or any of a dozen other possible norms... It's a double-reflection wrapped in 26-dimensional irony. The post titles even get weird, ambiguously mocking some group of people and simultaneously mocking people who'd mock that group in those terms. Can't even tell for sure what's real, what's mocking the real, and what's mocking the mockery of the real.
I mean that sub is just pretending to be 4chan circa like 2008 and forgetting that that mentality stopped because only tweens think being bitchy and edgy is actually clever in any way. Things that are mean can be funny-but being a nasty snatch is not inherently funny and also just fuck off, mate.
Drama is a significantly better sub when they're bitching about something inconsequential rather than when they're arguing that a woman has no value or w/e for being 'ugly' and then being alll OH IT DOESN'T MATTER IT'S JUST A JOKE GUIIIZZZ.
drama Is an absolute lesson of what happens when you have too much time and just barely enough intelligence on your hands without any ambition. You all are the quintessential rebellious edgy millennials without any direction. You all post about other people's misfortunes and mental breakdowns while struggling to deal with your own. You feel for people like Colby Klaus in the middle of his psychotic episode about gamergate, because you're one step away from being there yourself. If you all just applied yourselves, your parents wouldn't be as disappointed as you think they are. All it takes is a little discipline, but instead you all turn your talents into shitposting and finding lolcows. At least these lolcows have found passion in life to care enough about any topic that they are willing to put their crazy on the internet. All you people care about are terrible memes and party parrots. Imagine what your grandmother would think if she saw the shit you were posting. Do you think she would love how you spend your days laughing at the misfortune of others? If you all just applied yourself, maybe, just possibly, one day you will reach the potential that all your elementary school teachers talked about. Until then, keep shitposting your life away, and try to feel secure in the knowledge that at least you don't lose your shit on the internet.
r/drama is literally the last sub that should ever criticize another, especially for lack of intelligence. They only exist in the first place as a release valve for the people who like doxxing, death threats, reactionary politics and popcorn-shitting too much to be on r/subredditdrama, and that sub sucks in the first place
/drama is a cancerous pile of fetid sewage. It's amazing that such similar named subs can foster such radically different communities. I laugh my butt off at /r/subredditdrama all the time since my hubby showed me, but r/drama is just teenage boys whining about social justice and making fun of people different than themselves.
Like just go back to squabbling over Kathy Griffin.
1 Sarge_Ward 2017-11-11
You stole my meme how fucking dare you. I spent like 5 minutes compiling all those drama copypastas together.
1 TheButtholeOfBravery 2017-11-11
YOU TOOK MY ONLY MEME
NOW IM GONNA STARVE
1 satanismyhomeboy 2017-11-11
All of this is true
1 strathmeyer 2017-11-11
"That moment you troll so hard you become a pro-transgendered subreddit."
Sounds like everyone boy-period (or beriod) has synced up. See yinz next month.
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-11
/r/drama has the best NP css
/u/Fedupofthisterfbs do you know how much shit this sub gives incels?
1 imguralbumbot 2017-11-11
Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image
https://i.imgur.com/Ii7R8e7.png
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis
1 twinkletoes232 2017-11-11
bad bot
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
The only reason GC hates trannies is that if men can be women it's completely game over for them. The only thing standing between them and having their faces eaten by cats at age 80 is banning trannies.
1 shallowm 2017-11-11
Not to mention the "well, trans women aren't real women and this takes away from my oppression points if we count them as women" reasoning as well.
1 giroth 2017-11-11
Plus (and I think a lot of people miss this) can you imagine what it would feel like to go to an all woman festival and then realize in the next bathroom stall is a swinging dick?
Fucking terrifying, and I agree with the TERF position 100%.
1 shallowm 2017-11-11
🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
Same thing as a heterosexual male tbh. The thought of all those dicks swinging wildly in the stalls around me makes me disgusted and terrified.
1 Protect_Me 2017-11-11
That's the whole thing tbh. They're worried that if trans people aren't ridiculed then someone might think straight white middle class women aren't the most oppressed class in the world.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
You silly boy. The only reason trans women think GC hates trans women is because we don't think male people can be women, not even if they identify as such. And nothing is going to stand between me and having my face eaten by cats at age 80.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Males can't be women if you believe even a little in physicalist, but that doesn't change the fact that GC is retarded enough to think Butler has a point in saying gender (and sex) is a social construct.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Sex isn't a social construct, but gender is. Gender is the expectations attached to sex. It varies throughout history and across different cultures. It's definitely a social construct. Most trans people don't even deny that there is a social aspect to gender (for example they acknowledge things like social dysphoria and gender roles).
The disagreement between GC feminists and trans activists is over whether or not gender can be a personal identity and the extent to which that identity should be respected in feminist theory/general society. I don't want to "ban trannies", I respect their rights as adults to apply whatever modifications they wish to make on their bodies with informed consent. However, I don't think they can change their sex, and I don't think I should be required to pretend they can. For some trans people, that's a direct attack on the beliefs they've torn their lives apart for.
If you're going to run your mouth, at least try to make some semblance of sense. The cats-eat-face thing is the only thing that's on point, and "trannies" don't even have anything to do with it.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Gender by definition is the state of being male or female not just the expectations. Gender expectations are socially constructed but gender itself isn't. Hell they've even seen monkeys performing gendered actions and you see gendered preferences in children so small they can't even differentiate between sexes. It's most definitely not a social construct and no feminist has ever been able to empirically prove that. The lack of empirical proof should be good enough reason for you to abandon that idea, especially since if it was true it could be easily proven.
Citation needed. Gender roles have varied but gender itself never has. Again, we see proof in study after study that gender comes from sex yet feminists refuse to accept that because it'll kneecap a lot of talking points.
It's part of personal identity, no one but dropkicks make it their entire identity. When you think of yourself your gender does play a part of that. Ask a small kid to draw a picture of themselves and see if they omit gender.
I agree with you there. They just aren't born that sex and until the day comes where we can print new bodies and transfer consciousness into them they won't be.
Says the person who believes unsubstantiated claims from Butler on gender. On the one hand we have proof of gender as seen even in nature and on the other there are claims that gender is social because gender roles and expectations are.
There isn't a right or wrong way to be a man or woman but you're stupid as fuck if you think the very idea of a man or woman is entirely socially constructed. That claim has always been unsubstantiated and it will always be. You're better off to criticize gender expectations and roles than try and throw away the very concept of it.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
We refer to 2b when we discuss gender abolition. It is useful to have a word that differentiates the social from the biological.
The researchers watched male and female monkeys play with plush and wheeled toys, suggesting a link between sex and preferences for wheeled vs. plush toys in that species of monkeys which could possibly translate to humans. It's highly speculative as is typical of this sort of research and even within the article it states:
aka gender as a social construct.
Socialization begins at birth. We gender babies, it's almost ritualized. 9 months is not small enough to be not gendered.
Gender is the expectations placed on sex, so it's linked to sex and sex based oppression, but it's socially constructed. Certain behavior considered acceptable for one sex in a culture might be unacceptable in another. This behavior enforced over sex is gender.
People are beaten and killed for being gender non-conforming. There is plenty of evidence for the social enforcement of gender. The question is not whether or not it is socially constructed, the question is whether it's entirely socially constructed. The most you have right now that could suggest gender being in part biological aren't even studies involving humans.
I don't see gender as anything beyond the expectations and the socialization, and those are the things I wish to abolish. Every single gender expectation being applied to women have been done to limit and confine us (I can't speak for men, but I have heard it is similar). Besides, what exactly do we have to lose by abolishing the association of non-sex-based stereotypes with sex? Is the idea of asking a kid if they want a plush or wheeled toy really that terrible?
Anyhow, I don't believe acting a certain way or feeling a certain way will make a man a woman, because I think a woman is a female adult human, not behavior or feelings. That's the core of my disagreement with trans people.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
So your opinion is that gender is mostly socially constructed (and therefore arbitrary), and that's why mtf trans people aren't really women?
The more arbitrary and less biological gender is, the less you can attack the notion that self-identifying as some gender is not enough to "really" make you that gender. And the less one's biological sex influences their socially constructed gender expression, the less justified is your insistence that the word "woman" applies to that insignificant detail rather than to the actually important thing.
By the way, for your information, most radical feminists are transmen in denial. That's why you look at men, notice that there's no psychological differences between you and them and conclude that "male" and "female" brains don't exist. Also, why you can't effortlessly switch between denying "biotrufs" and believing that transwomen have female brains like third-wave feminists do, because you have the characteristic male focus on objective truth instead of empathy. And that's why your ideas are not and will never be supported by the majority of normal women, sorry!
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
No, "mtf" aren't women because they're male, and male people aren't women.
"mtf"s like the idea of gender (gender identity, gender expression, gender fluidity) because it allows them to validate their feelings and provides an easy way to address their dysphoria without actually challenging the system.
Male and female brains don't exist because they've shown that brains are a mosaic of characteristics. I think the idea that you have any more of a grasp on empathy than me is laughable. And don't worry, feminism isn't a popularity contest.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
The more arbitrary and less biological gender is, the less you can attack the notion that self-identifying as some gender is not enough to "really" make you that gender. And the less one's biological sex influences their socially constructed gender expression, the less justified is your insistence that the word "woman" applies to that insignificant detail rather than to the actually important thing.
All this is a red herring, what you really are upset about is:
In other words, you deny that transgenderism is a thing because that implies for example that the dream of abolishing gender is misguided, seeing how apparently a lot of people, maybe most people, would get upset to the point of killing themselves if denied the ability to perform their hard-wired gender, and what kind of utopia is that? And also validates turbonerds who say that women are biologically hardwired to be in the kitchen, and throws doubt on the idea that the male gender role is that of a privileged oppressor, etc.
And as we all know, ideological reasoning has an absolutely stellar record of determining answers to factual questions about the world.
Again tho I'm sorry for your kind, trapped in the intersection of toxic femininity and masculinity. You were indoctrinated by female feminists saying that there are no male and female brains, with no regard for factuality because who cares, and ended up believing in that simple picture with all the zeal of a male autist.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Gender isn't biological. Gender is social. Sex is biological.
I'm not against the idea of people doing as they like, I'm against the idea of expecting people to behave a certain way because of their sex. Again, I don't want to "ban" trans people or (gender-conforming behavior), I don't care what they do, except they're not the sex they want to be, because it's not possible to change sex. I'm not against the action, I'm against the expectations, because it's restrictive.
I never figured out how to measure those things. It changes when I hold my hand differently.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
They are not saying that they belong to female sex, they say that they belong to female gender.
And again, you have a self-defeating argument here where you say that sex doesn't determine gender expression pretty much at all, it's all socially constructed, but then turn around and say that we must define the words "woman" and "man" to refer to this entirely inconsequential sex thing.
This doesn't make any sense on its own and you only argue for that because of ideological consequences.
Also, if you are confused about this whole thing because "what do you mean "how we define "woman", it has a definition?", I recommend this post from a notorious alt-right blog: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/, it has entertaining whale metaphors and everything else a discerning reader might desire!
Internet tells me that it's supposed to be measured from the basal crease, that is from the bottom of those frown lines at base of each finger, palm-side.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Which I am trying abolish. Do you see the problem here?
Well, um, sex isn't inconsequential. Sex matters. Gender doesn't matter. Gender is an unreliable generalization at best, and we have not much to lose and far more to gain from shedding these ridiculous prejudices.
You're going to need a more reliable source. At least the other guy is trying with the scientific studies.
You want my horoscope, MBTI, and Hogwarts house while you're at it? My basal creases are jagged and criss-crossed. Given how small the ratio difference is, you'd think they would have more precise instructions for measurement.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
Yeah, I see the problem perfectly well, it's just that I don't agree with the reasoning that goes "but if that fact were true then my plan for building an utopia would be extremely misguided, therefore that fact must be false".
How does sex matter if in your genderless utopia it would have no more influence on people's lives than their blood type?
I guess the incongruity I'm getting at is this: imagine India fifty years ago, with a bunch of people seeking to eliminate the caste system. And then there are some people who say, like, I know that I was born as a Vaishya, but feel like I more identify as a Brahmin.
You'd expect the caste abolitionists to be like, yeah, sure, whatever, identify as whatever you want, it's all made up anyways, so all you trans-caste, caste-queer, and caste-liquid folks are furthering our work of dismantling the system imposing those roles.
What you definitely never in your life wouldn't expect is those supposedly anti-caste people to REEEEEEEEEE IF YOU WERE BORN VAISHYA THEN YOU'RE FOREVER A VAISHYA YOU CAN'T JUST IDENTIFY AS SOMETHING YOU REALLY ARE NOT GENETICALLY! You can smell that something is very rotten in the kingdom of Denmark when you see this shit. Because it makes absolutely zero sense at the face value and so must be a manifestation of some different, obscured and hidden reasoning. Chthonic.
You also have a low language ability, also characteristic for extreme levels of testosterone exposure.
Measure from the bottom of the crease.
1 imguralbumbot 2017-11-11
Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image
https://i.imgur.com/YzPtmk6.png
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Because blood type still has an influence on people's lives. You know that, right? It's not just "made up" like caste? People's blood type and biological sex matter in a medical sense and have an actual, perceivable effect on our lives? Did you know that donated AB+ blood cannot be given to an O- patient? Did you know that women can get pregnant, unlike men? I can't tell if you're being ironically idiotic or if you actually believe this crap you're typing. I'm a gender abolitionist, not a sex abolitionist because you can't "abolish" scientific facts.
/u/MegaSeedsInYourBum, this why I don't agree with trans rhetoric.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
So why don't we say that men are people with A group and women with B then?
There's literally no and can't possibly be a scientific fact that says that our definition of gender should be tied to biological sex. It's a question of definitions and definitions can't be factually wrong, just not very useful (see http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/ for a detailed explanation with many examples, and no, it's not an altright blog). If you understand that then you can try to make a proper argument, like that it's very useful to have both "female" and woman to mean the same thing, and not useful to have a word that means "expresses traditionally female gender role".
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Gender is a social construct and should be abolished, like caste systems are a social construct and should be abolished. But biological sex is not a social construct and cannot be abolished. I mean, you can be silly and argue that we can actually call sex gender and pretend gender has to do with biology, but no matter how you slice it, male people are not female and this distinction has a basis in reality whether your feelings agree with it or not. Trying to redefine words and obfuscate definitions so trans women could be occasionally confused with women is ridiculous and only making life more difficult for people who want to discuss sex-based oppression. You're trying to reach an unattainable goal. Trans people need to find a more productive way to address their feelings and mental issues.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
That's literally the exact opposite of what trans people argue. They say that we should call sex sex, and also have gender that has nothing to do with biology or sex.
In slow motion replay:
No, let's have those two things separate.
No, your gender has nothing to do with biology.
Do you realize how frustrating it is to have this discussion with you? You literally took two core TERF talking points, that gender and sex are the same, and that gender is determined by biology, then put them in my trans-activist mouth, and then disagreed with them!!! What am I supposed to do even!
I'm reconsidering my previous assertion that as a TERF you probably have a male brain. Not reconsidered yet, since I've seen ridiculous males like you wouldn't believe, but reconsidering.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
You were the one arguing "biological gender" a few posts ago.
I'm saying that gender as a concept "that has nothing to do with biology or sex" is a pointless, irrelevant concept. The only value in keeping gender is if it had any basis in biology. In your definition of gender, it doesn't, hence it is as pointless and as irrelevant as the caste system.
/u/MegaSeedsInYourBum see the shit I have to put up with?
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
We are using the word "biology" differently here, I think.
You mean it in the usual fedora-wearing redditor kind of way, meaning having either XY or XX chromosomes. And then by fiat declare that that's what determines sex and gender.
The above comment where you contradicted yourself silly should be understood as using the same definition of "biology" as you do.
I have a more nuanced and informed view: let's have a definition of sex as sex-assigned-at-birth that's relevant to gynecologists etc. Then let's have a definition of gender that's relevant to people who perform this or that or whatever gender role.
And let's say that psychological gender affinity seems to have some biological determinants, not limited to what chromosomes you have or how your genotype was expressed in your genitals. Because there's those 0.1% of the cases where it was expressed differently in the brain.
Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer? It shows that naturally cisgender people raised as opposite gender at least sometimes experience a strong gender dysphoria. So gender is not an irrelevant concept.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Ah yes, I've gone from closeted FtM to hysterical woman to fedora-wearing redditor. It's almost like you know nothing about me. It's sad that you rather throw more stereotypes at me than make an effort to actually understand my perspective, but stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
That's what determines sex, usually, yes. In very, very rare cases, an individual is born intersex, but trans people who are biologically male or female are not intersex. Gender is a social construct applied to people based on how we feel someone ought to act based on how they were born, just as the caste system is a social construct applied to people based on how they were born. You cannot change your sex, but this social construct, whether it is caste or gender, serves no purpose.
You have a view that you've built around your feelings. Feeling like a woman doesn't make you one. Sorry not sorry.
We can't, because there's no scientific basis for this "psychological gender affinity" you're talking about. Those are just feelings. Your feelings. They might seem real to you, but they don't necessarily apply to other people and we shouldn't be required to play along. You need to stick to facts if you want to have a functional discussion.
And Reimer was sexually abused by his psychologist as a child. We can't draw any conclusions from him, except we shouldn't sexually abuse children.
/u/MegaSeedsInYourBum what's your psychological gender affinity?
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
Heh heh heh. I'm a cishet male. But those two paragraphs of yours are delicious together.
Yeah, sexually abusing male children by trying to instill the bottom bitch gender role in them is likely to end up with them strongly identifying as male. This was sarcasm, FYI.
Anyways, reflect on the fact that less than 1 in 5 of the US women identifies as a feminist, and a vanishingly small portion of those identify as radical feminists. This is because you guys are really guys in your heads, and normal women get that immediately, and they sort of intuitively understand that they don't want to experience gender dysphoria if you're allowed to abolish gender.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Ofc you are, Mister Egg.
Um, sexually abusing children will make them traumatized adults. That's the most we can conclude from it, imo.
That's ok. I'm not a feminist for the popularity. If I only bothered to educate myself on what other people cared about, I wouldn't get very far in life. Intuition is useful, but not infallible, and I wouldn't trust other people's intuition anyway.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-11-11
What is the meaning of this? Are you trying to solicit dickpics in a roundabout way? ;^)
I mean, if we didn't have any other evidence, then yeah, but David Reimer's case is mostly useful as a psychological device, people tend to have trouble identifying with trans-gender people directly, but have a much easier time if asked to imagine that they were raised from birth as the opposite gender and whether they really are sure they would be entirely comfortable with that.
On the other hand, what evidence do you have that gender is entirely socially constructed? Or is it pure wishful thinking?
Also by the way, do you think that lesbians aren't real as well? That society for some reason brainwashes some women into being attracted to women? Because it's really unlikely that attraction to a certain gender expression is hard-wired, but the gender-expression is socially constructed and just accidentally matches what people are hard-wired to be attracted to, lol.
Or maybe you're actually different, maybe where you'd answer "yeah, I guess I'd be perfectly happy if I were raised as a man" most women won't, where you find your assigned at birth gender role uncomfortable and restricting, they don't. That's upsetting, but what really gets you is when some men choose to be restricted by your hated gender role, so while that doesn't affect you personally in any way, it feels like a slap in the face, so you have a community specifically dedicated to hating them.
By the way, if you hate the woman gender role so much, why don't you declare yourself agender, adopt they/them pronouns, and be done with it? Seems to make much more sense as a step towards abolition of gender than preserving, enshrining, and rabidly defending the word "woman" as applicable to people with vaginas.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Are you fucking retarded bitch? Stop tagging me in shit.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
It's in the spirit of this sub to tag unwilling participants into pointless conversations. You don't understand why GC and "trannies" disagree, I'm taking you along for a ride. Think of it as a learning moment.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
I always assumed it was because both groups were destined to die alone but they only differed on the reason for why that would be.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
And now you've been shown that's purely projection on your part. Neither the trans activist nor I give a fuck about dying alone.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Well obviously you do if you're so worried about men being a better woman than you are
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
You don't understand. I don't care if I'm a "good woman" or not, the matter of fact is that I am one. Men can't be women because they're male. These are all just facts.
Seems like you're insecure about dying alone or not being man enough. Those are common male insecurities, but female people don't usually share the same problems. I'm not going to defend my femininity the way a male person defends their masculinity (I'm not very feminine anyway). I'm not particularly afraid of being alone and I will probably die alone due to my circumstances. These are all things I've already made peace with. These aren't the things that are driving this conversation.
I'm not worried about what men think. (That's you.) I'm worried about what men will do because they can be unreasonable and violent when they don't get their way.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Of course you're worried what men think. If you weren't worried about it then you wouldn't be trying this hard to convince people here that you're not as unfeminine as a tranny.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Nah, I'm here because I feel like taking my shit out on you from the safety of my home. You were the third top level response in this thread and I didn't like the first two because I didn't feel like reading three paragraphs or getting into a political discussion. I don't expect to convince you of anything, and I'm less feminine than most "trannies" anyway.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
We see literally the same behavior in monkeys as in human children too young to tell the differences in gender, yet somehow this is more speculative than saying gender is entirely socially constructed.
Seriously though, you have no empirical proof to back up the claims that gender is socially constructed. All you have are claims that it is with absolutely no backing aside from literal speculation. If you were right we wouldn't see any difference in children's or monkeys choices in toys. We do see differences, repeatable differences but because they don't support your point of view you just refuse to accept it.
The fact is you can't force gendered ideals on people. David Reimer wouldn't have committed suicide or felt he was always a man if there was no biological, physical root for gender. Artificially imposing ideals will always lead to large amounts of resistance, as we saw with the problem with no name.
Again, people enforcing gender norms isn't the same thing that gender is just all fake.
So monkeys are doing the same socialization that we do? Weird.
That's gender roles and expectations. Gender is just the state of being a man or woman and is best understood through generalizations rather than absolute truths. You're redefining words outside their common useage.
It doesn't matter how you see it, it matters what it actually is. Expectations and socialization aren't the entirety of gender.
You really didn't read that study did you? They presenting babies with options, nothing more. The babies chose themselves which ones they wanted. There was no coercion or guidance, it was a self driven choice. A choice that is seen both in monkeys and humans, something that shouldn't be possible at all if gender was 100% social.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
For example, blue used to be a girl's color while red/pink was a boy's color. For more example, lustfulness and wantonness were considered a woman's thing in medieval europe, where as in contemporary american society, men are generally expected to be more promiscuous and interested in sex.
But that's the exact opposite of what I am doing.
Monkeys also fling shit. Like, I'm not against research, but you need to have more than video tapes of baby monkeys playing with a toy car.
And that's where I disagree. I don't think it's best to understand anything through generalizations, especially when those generalizations have been using to control and limit women. Generalizations and stereotyping lies at the heart of prejudice. It's a harmful and unreliable system and we're better off treating people as individuals instead of assuming they must have a certain personality/hobby/preference because of their sex. Sex is real, but gender is just stereotypes and generalizations.
I wasn't talking about the study there, I was asking why you need generalizations to understand something that you can find out by just talking to the kid.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Funny how you can't actually bring up any peer reviewed proof that gender is entirely social. It's especially strange since you seem so convinced that it is, yet somehow you have a hard time finding empirical proof of that.
Talking about the colour blue or the desire for sex isn't proof of jack shit. Even if it was, you cited nothing and just claimed shit without any supporting evidence.
This is exactly why these sort of claims aren't taken seriously. They're just pulled out of the air and aren't based in anything aside from begging the question. Gender is apparently social because gender is social.
Butler claimed gender was social because of her understanding of Aristotelian substance and accident, not because of any actual evidence.
Did you seriously not get the point? The point was that if gender was 100% social we'd see widespread problems like the problems with no name and Dana Reimer. We don't though, which should tell us something since no artificial ideal can be this embraced by people.
If gender was 100% social then David Reimer should never have had an issue. But he did not didn't he, and that can't be accounted for if what you say it true. Yeah
Yeah that's mistaking artificial gender expectations and roles with general interests. It's also assuming that self determined gendered interests don't actually exist and that the reason you don't want to be a lumberjack is because society tells you that you shouldn't be instead of you just having no interest in that. Again, generalizations work better since women generally aren't interested in working in extremely physical jobs.
No shit you should treat people as individuals but you can't deny that as a woman you have certain interests that most men don't share and vice versa. Sure it's wrong to gatekeep people out of career paths but you can't honestly say that the reason more women go into social work than men is because of goddamn socialization. I haven't met one woman in social work whose parents haven't warned them about how bad of an idea that was.
You can't talk to an infant you dip. The point of the study was that children so small they can't understand shit have very real and repeatable gendered preferences. The whole point was to make sure the kids weren't being socially conditioned to act one way and to see if there was a biological root for gender. Turns out there is a biological root, one that can also be seen in monkeys, but you refuse to accept that because you instead just want to believe random and unsupported claims instead.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
The guy was sexually abused by his psychologist as a child.
Like what, exactly? (Radical feminism doesn't count because it's not shared by most men nor most women. As you've said, it's unpopular).
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Point is that therapy didn't help him identify as a woman. The abuse drove the suicide but his personal identity didn't change even with very aggressive therapy and attempts at social conditioning. This shouldn't have been possible if the feminist argument that gender is socially enforced through coercive means is correct. In fact, if it was correct Reimer should have accepted being a woman.
Once again reality doesn't match ideology but there is an odd refusal to abandon the problematic ideology.
Most women are interested in jobs that aid others and are emotionally rewarding rather than thankless and emotionally and physically demanding. Again, it's not a 100% rule but if you look at breakdowns in career paths it becomes pretty obvious.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Well, yeah, the "therapy" was abusive and fucked him up.
And which jobs are you referring to in these two categories? Are you actually implying traditional STEM jobs are emotionally and physically demanding?
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
The therapy was abusive because he believed that gender was social just like you do. He thought that if he just pushed enough Reimer would accept being a woman. That didn't work out, which is exactly the opposite of what feminist writers on gender say would happen. Don't they claim that gender is coercively forced on people and enforced by society? If so then Reimer should have had no issue being a woman and never required therapy in the first place.
Jobs like in the automotive field or general trades. Granted there is sexism there but in high school we had different shop options and the girls always avoided them like the plague. They were briefly forced to take it but it was very clear most did not want to be there. The teacher would gladly teach anyone, it's just they had no internal desire to be there. How many little girls are dreaming of being a pipe fitter and taking trades programs in college? It's not many, I know a couple but they're the exception and not the rule.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
The "therapy" was abusive because he asked David to imitate sex acts with his twin brother and for the two of them to examine one anothers' genitalia. Dr. Money used his power to force David and his brother to engage in activities that they were uncomfortable with that overstepped his boundaries as a therapist.
How are those emotionally demanding?
Because women are socialized out of it, and most are aware of the type of sexism that exists in those industries. Plus, I daresay most middle to upper class young adults, both male and female, aren't dreaming of taking a trades programs in college. It's unfortunate, but the trades have a stigma attached to it that goes beyond sex.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Yes but didn't exceed the social coercion described as supposedly being the reason for why people conform to genders.
If gender was all social then Reimer would have been successfully coerced into being a woman. The fact he wasn't should tell you something about how gender isn't all social.
Long hours, stuck parts, cold weather far away from home.
Oh, so you have some secret desire to be a pipe fitter?
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Reimer lived under the impression that he was a woman until his parents revealed to him that he wasn't. He was also suffering from years of childhood sexual abuse that his therapist tried to pass off as "therapy". There's so much wrong with his situation that it's not really accurate to draw any sort of conclusions from it. What happened to him was terrible but also unique.
In the automotive field? In trades? Isn't trades usually local, being the whole point of the thing?
I have applied to work in the automotive industry but wasn't hired. I've also applied to work in mining that are 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off in cold weather far away from home, but they weren't interested. They have a specific idea on the type of candidate they were looking for and I didn't fit the profile, despite having the qualifications. Just so you know, I'm not personally upset about it. I'm not owed a job, and they should go with the candidate that they feel best suit their work culture, but I think there's more to it than "women aren't interested".
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Because he didn't accept that, because gender being 100% social is wrong.
Damn how many times can you beg the question?
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Because he was sexually abused by his therapist, because they were going to perform further surgeries on him that he was uncomfortable with, because he was angry at being lied to all his life. There were a lot of things going on in his life, it's hard to draw any conclusions.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
It's not at all hard to draw a conclusion. Feminist philosophy tells us that gender is socially constructed and enforced through coercive social structures. Reimer faced extreme coercion yet that couldn't change him.
If feminist philosophy was correct he would have successfully become a woman because of the social pressure he faced. He always felt that wasn't correct which spawned the vile practices the Dr committed to try and force the gender on him. Again, if feminist philosophy is correct then this should have worked. It didn't work, ergo gender cannot be 100% socially created.
You keep trying to salvage the idea that gender is social while denying both empirical evidence and case studies that show that's not the case. Butlers understanding of Aristotle is not more proof than empirical evidence and you'd have to be stupid to think it could be.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Reimer faced sexual abuse as a child and people respond differently to CSA and trauma. It's an unusual case and not the norm.
I'm rejecting one case of CSA. There actually are other cases of male children being raised as girls and women, but I don't care enough about this conversation to go dig it up. You're free to present it if you find it.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Ah yes the old "I have tons of proof but you find it."
Reimers sexual abuse happened because you fucktards believe that gender is social and the good Dr tried to beat a new one into him. This literally is proof that it can't be the case that gender is 100% social but you refuse to believe it because some feminist wrote that it is and they can never be wrong.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Actually, the studies are pretty divided down the middle, favoring you, even. I've had this argument before with men who are better researched than you. But I'm not going to make your arguments for you, so nah.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Ah yeah that "I have proof, lots of proof, the best proof. But you find it because there is so much proof" just like conspiracy theorists.
1 just_lesbian_things 2017-11-11
Not gonna work, son. I'm not nearly stupid enough to fall for that one. And Trump isn't even my president.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-11-11
Not going to work? The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive claim. I supported why it wasn't social, you never supported empirically why it would be purely social. You just begged the question by saying gender is social because gender is social and claimed there is a bunch of proof but you apparently can't find any.
1 Chicup 2017-11-11
Wow they seem to be in a frothy mess over there, what perceived slight did /r/drama do to them this time?
1 Chicup 2017-11-11
Lol...
/u/18505-7427
I feel I won autism points.
1 glmox 2017-11-11
okay, they have a point here
1 glmox 2017-11-11
anyone happen to recognize which pasta(s) /u/TossingLobster fell for? it sounds familiar but there arent quite enough clues for me to place it
1 Awayfone 2017-11-11
Self burn? Are they both body and kink shaming now , gross
1 Curgan1337 2017-11-11
Sounds like a play on that /r/anarchy post from not long ago about a trans anarchist complaining they were too weak to fight the power and only getting by because of a few rap artists then got crossposted here and threw a shit fit about people saying mean things about them.
1 shallowm 2017-11-11
Funny that they're complaining about brigading when they brigaded the fuck out of the post that this post was about.
1 Matues49 2017-11-11
LMAO they think this hurts us? They think we care? FFS we get this, and worse, fucking daily. Like, there is nothing that can be said to me that will hurt my feelings. I'm not so incredibly emotionally fragile that a stranger's words on the internet have an actual effect on me.
They think that vile PMs actually mean something, because the internet is really really important to them. Their entire world is built online, so this is real to them. It's so fucking sad.
I can just walk outside and they literally don't exist anymore. I can go hangout with friends I made in college, because they don't exist purely on a message board. Like, are these guys 12? I imagine that's how juvenile you'd have to be to think this mattered, or was "badass" in any way.
1 shallowm 2017-11-11
/u/TossingLobster
So you people say shit like that, and then complain when people say stuff like
Nice hypocrisy there.
/u/terfs_of_a_feather
I especially like how they say that you are off your estradiol and hysterical because of it.
So original. Such science.
And not transphobic at all. Amirite.
1 Metal_Guitarist 2017-11-11
Just when I thought western feminism couldn't get more retarded
1 storejet 2017-11-11
Post this on r/subredditdrama. See whose side they take.
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-11-11
no u
1 FalmerbloodElixir 2017-11-11
Feminists and trannies both deserve the rope. Are we done now?
1 AnnArchist 2017-11-11
lol they brigaded us
1 cuteman 2017-11-11
Jesus christmas that took a lot of clicks to get to the OP and I'm not even sure what I'm looking for.