Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Pickman's model]

This is a complex question where, for example, acts of violence by trans males are recorded and reported as acts by females, where such crimes by the latter are small enough in number that the addition of the former distorts the reported numbers.

yeh right chuck you'd never ever do that

don't you mean trans women? or do you mean trans men? or do you know what the fuck you mean?

 

[pengaleng]

you contribute to ALL of the problems you say transwomen cause so how to remedy that?

confusion about the self is never easy is it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I used that piece to support the argument made.

i'm looking for a piece which mentions gender and says 'no, animals know nothing of it'. not some vague round the houses shaggy dog are we nearly there yet argument.

 

[smokedout]

Julia Serano, Andrea James, Zinnia Jones and a bunch of 'rationalists' (LOL) do exactly that:

The real "autogynephilia deniers" | Whipping Girl
Autogynephilia: a disputed diagnosis
Alice Dreger, autogynephilia, and the misrepresentation of trans sexualities (Book review: Galileo’s Middle Finger)
Autogynephilia - RationalWiki

Please define 'gender essentialism' and how this relates to Blanchard's ideas?

I can't be bothered to look at rationalwiki and only note it because it shows how desperate you are for sources. None of the other three links deny that autogynephilia exists in the sense that some trans people have experienced arousal at the thought of themselves in their aquired gender. What they criticise is Blanchard's extrapulation from this that: "All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually oriented toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. (Blanchard, 1989b)"

The essentialism comes from Blanchard's claim that the 'extreme homosexual' transsexuals possess a natural or innate femininity - and in fact this femininity is somehow intrinsically linked to homosexuality - the more gay you are the more likely you are to be trans. Of course his theses also denies bisexuality, there are 'heterosexual' trans woman purely attracted to their own bodies (who pair match with and fall in love with themselves according to Anne Lawrence's evidence free speculation) and there are men who are so gay they become women because their intrinsic or essential femininity is so strong.

So, we are taught to refer to motor cars, boats and other vessels as 'she' but calling an adult human male 'he' is taboo?

'Cronies'? Get a grip. Also, much transperbole: 'misgendering' puts nobody 'at risk'.

In a social setting, to continunously out and misgender someone does put someone at risk - first by identifying them as trans and outing them in every single social interaction when they might not want that, especially in the context of rising hate crimes against transpeople. And secondly because most people recognise that this is something upsetting and provocative, and that to encourage or normalise it excludes some trans people from social interactions and also creates an environment where it is normal and legitimate to be rude and offensive about and to trans people.

Transgender activism IS men's rights activism: it out of hand dismissed women's biology and lived reality.

No it is not, even if you accept the premise that transwomen are really men. Men's Rights Activism is an openly misogynist quite specific political movement which seeks to erode the gains made by women in society and create a society where women are subservient to men in every sphere of life. It is fundamentally anti-feminist in every possible manifestation. Most trans-activists call themselves, and work alongside feminists, oppose rather than apologise for male violence and seek gender parity. To conflate the two is yet another attempt to deliberately hurt individual trans women and to portray trans women to wider society as predatory misogynist men who support the aims of the MRA movement.

In the absence of credible governmental information, this website serves a function. And no, I do not believe trans males are more likely to commit crimes than other males.

This is it in a nutshell. Such an innocent explanation, and yet the only justification for this website on statistical grounds is either that crimes committed by the fraction of a percentage of people who identify and live in a gender different to their biological sex might dangerously skew government statistics on how many men or women commit crimes - or more perniciously that crimes by trans people should be specifically recorded in statistics in a way that no other group in society is. That in effect trans women should become a sub class that need special monitoring.

And the solution, in the absence of credible government information, is to start a website that records every single reported crime they can find committed by someone transgender (or quite often, just a man who in some way expressed some degree of gender non-conformity) by searching the archives of a couple of tabloid newspapers. A website that includes driving offences and people nicked for cannabis, and a significant number of people who were aquitted. A website that is statistically worthless as you well know as an amateur mathematician, but also a website that is very useful if your real aim is to generate fear and hatred of trans women and anyone else who doesn't confirm to rigid gender roles.

Like I said, the butter wouldn't melt routine doesn't wash, and if you can't tell what the people behind that website are doing then you aren't very bright.

 

[Wilf]

This is a complex question where, for example, acts of violence by trans males are recorded and reported as acts by females, where such crimes by the latter are small enough in number that the addition of the former distorts the reported numbers.

But why is that your first thought? Why isn't issue of sexual violence faced by trans people and women the focus?

 

[no-no]

we

 

[Wilf]

The problem is, unless terms are defined people won't know what the other person means, and instead of debate we talk cross-purposes. When I ask for definitions, it's to clarify; we need to know what we are discussing! A great example itself is the word 'gender':

• feminists say gender is a collection of stereotypes used to enforce hierarchy of men over women
• transgenderists say gender is their inner sense of being male or female
• most other people for whatever reason thing sex and gender are synomyms!

.

Oh and sorry for answering bits of your post at once, but I wanted to come back to this: yes, of course, definitions really are important. Really. But this - at least this phase of the debate - started as a punchy camera thing, followed by twitter storms and the like. It has escaped the definitional and the rational, become a battle of ownership, a battle around privileges. It's about emotions and power, a (not very productive) battle where definitions become insults and ways of denying other people's identities (on both sides). SNAFU of course, but definitions do very little to strip this back and stop it being anything other than an almost arcane theological battle (with rubbish inquisition thrown in). Whither the comfy chair etc.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I can't be bothered to look at rationalwiki and only note it because it shows how desperate you are for sources. None of the other three links deny that autogynephilia exists in the sense that some trans people have experienced arousal at the thought of themselves in their aquired gender. What they criticise is Blanchard's extrapulation from this that: "All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually oriented toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. (Blanchard, 1989b)"

This is presented as a hypothesis which a number of studies were devised to test. This context is important because it is part of a scientific enquiry:

• Blanchard (1985; 1988; in press) conducted three studies to test the hypothesis that the nonhomosexual gender dysphorias, together with transvestism, constitute a family of related disorders. This hypothesis, in the terminology used in the present paper, may be stated as follows. Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually orient- Classification of Gender Dysphorias 323 324 Blanchard ed toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. The latter erotic (or amatory) propensity is, of course, the phenomenon labeled by Hirschfeld as automonosexualism.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...beling-of-nonhomosexual-gender-dysphorias.pdf

The fundamental point Blanchard makes is that transsexuals are not a monolith, there are two apparent types, and the existence of this appears to be correct.

The essentialism comes from Blanchard's claim that the 'extreme homosexual' transsexuals possess a natural or innate femininity - and in fact this femininity is somehow intrinsically linked to homosexuality - the more gay you are the more likely you are to be trans. Of course his theses also denies bisexuality, there are 'heterosexual' trans woman purely attracted to their own bodies (who pair match with and fall in love with themselves according to Anne Lawrence's evvidence free speculation) and there are men who are so gay they become women because there intrinsic or essential femininity is so strong.

See my earlier comments about gender non-conformity in homosexuals. This appears to be supported by neurological evidence.

A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism

• Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b).
  A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism
  Antonio Guillamon,
  
  1,2 Carme Junque,3,4 and Esther Gómez-Gil4,5

This also supports the two-type hypothesis.

In a social setting, to continunously out and misgender someone does put someone at risk - first by identifying them as trans and outing them in every single social inetraction when they might not want that, especially in the context of rising hate crimes against transpeople. And secondly because most people recognise that this is something upsetting and provocative, and that to encourage or normalise it excludes some trans people from social interactions and also creates an environment where it is normal and legitimate to be rude and offensive about trans people.

I disagree. Further, I'd suggest that to insist that males are females is not just cruel to those affected, it is also creating an unsustainable environment for us by making acceptance of who and what we are based upon a lie.

No it is not, even if you accept the premise that transwomen are really men. Men's Rights Activism is an openly misogynist quite specific political movement which seeks to erode the gains made by women in society and create a society where women are subservient to men in every sphere of life. It is fundamentally anti-feminist in every possible manifestation. Most trans-activists call themselves, and work alongside feminists, oppose rather than apologise for male violence and seek gender parity. To conflate the two is yet another attempt to deliberate hurt individual trans women and to portray trans women to wider society as predatory misogynist men who supports the aims of the MRA movement.

Men's rights activism is any activism that seeks to support the rights of men. It does men, and men's rights activism, a disservice for you to say that it is inherently misogynistic: is men's rights activism for shelters for gay men battered by their partners misogynistic? Or that raising breast, prostate or testicular cancer awareness/resources misogynistic?

This is it in a nutshell. Such an innocent explanation, and yet the only justification for this website on statistical grounds is either that crimes committed by the fraction of a percentage of people who identify and live in a gender different to their biological sex might dangerously skew government statistics on how many men or women commit crimes - or more perniciously that crimes by trans people should be specifically recorded in statistics in a way that no other group in society is. That in effect trans women should become a sub class that need special monitoring.

No, it's more to do with the truth: having fact based research helps all of us. See for example this study:

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
(Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, Anna L. V. Johansson, Niklas Långström, Mikael Landén)

which shows trans people have a better post-surgical outcome when pre- and post-surgical somatic and psychological care protocols are combined. We cannot collate meaningful data to undertake studies like this if our stats aren't rigorous.

And the solution, in the absence of credible government information, is to start a website that records every single reported crime they can find committed by someone transgender (or quite often, just a man who in some way expressed some degree of gender non-conformity) by searching the archives of a couple of tabloid newspapers. A website that includes driving offences and people nicked for cannabis, and a significant number of people who were aquitted. A website that is statistically worthless as you well know as an amateur mathematician, but also a website that is very useful if your real aim is to generate fear and hatred of trans women and anyone else who doesn't confirm to rigid gender roles.

I don't know why you want me to defend the website. BTW the driving offence was dangerous driving whilst intoxicated. Again, if trans males have the same or greater risk of criminality, we need to know why. Class? Discrimination? Reaction to hormones? Untreated psychological issues?

Like I said, the butter wouldn't melt routine doesn't wash, and if you can't tell what the people behind that website are doing then you aren't very bright.

Please attack my arguments not me. Thank you.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

you're falling into miranda's trap - she doesn't in fact want to talk about oppression but to muddy the waters by going into the difference between oppression and discrimination.

They are different things, whether you like it or not.

 

[Treacle Toes]

They are different things, whether you like it or not.

Again, why not outline what you see the difference to be and give examples yourself?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Oh and sorry for answering bits of your post at once, but I wanted to come back to this: yes, of course, definitions really are important. Really. But this - at least this phase of the debate - started as a punchy camera thing, followed by twitter storms and the like. It has escaped the definitional and the rational, become a battle of ownership, a battle around privileges. It's about emotions and power, a (not very productive) battle where definitions become insults and ways of denying other people's identities (on both sides). SNAFU of course, but definitions do very little to strip this back and stop it being anything other than an almost arcane theological battle (with rubbish inquisition thrown in). Whither the comfy chair etc.

It's okay, thanks for engaging. The 'punchy camera thing' was an assault classified as actual bodily harm on a woman. Now, whereas for the sake of argument we could agree to disagree on what actually happened, three things happened in the aftermath which cause great concern for anyone opposed to the legitimisation of violence against women, or anyone else for that matter:

• trans organisations were told not to condemn the violence
• transgender activists actively condoned the violence
• transgender activists incited further violence ('punch a TERF')

What really worries me is the supporting of these positions by people who are not trans, in particular the willingness of many of the latter group to verbally and physically attack trans people they themselves disagree with on trans issues. This is not to say trans voices should be prioritised above everyone else in this debate (as it is a debate) rather that I am seeing a situation arise where trans allyship means to support one type of trans person only, and the trans people who transgress the dominant ideology are subjected to threats and abuse and physical assault and violence.

 

[Pickman's model]

They are different things, whether you like it or not.

yes, i know that. yes, i can tell the difference - i discriminate in the wines i drink, i do not oppress the wines i drink.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

But why is that your first thought? Why isn't issue of sexual violence faced by trans people and women the focus?

It is, because these acts are committed mainly by males, and reclassifying the perpetrator as female conceals he identity of the agent of violence.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is, because these acts are committed mainly by males, and reclassifying the perpetrator as female conceals he identity of the agent of violence.

but imposing your own views on the situation - 'miranda knows best' - sorts everything out. right.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Again, why not outline what you see the difference to be and give examples yourself?

Discrimination can be both positive or negative. With respect to our preferences and orientations, we are absolutely allowed to discriminate.

Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture, think of apartheid or other forms of racial segregation) and if far-reaching (think of the internment of Japanese US citizens in WW2). The oppressor derives a benefit from the oppression, this is usually economic (think slavery).

 

[Miranda Yardley]

but imposing your own views on the situation - 'miranda knows best' - sorts everything out. right.

You're welcome to challenge my views by reasoned meaningful argument.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're welcome to challenge my views by reasoned meaningful argument.

Yeh, if I saw some reasoned meaningful argument emanating from you I daresay I might

 

[Pickman's model]

Discrimination can be both positive or negative. With respect to our preferences and orientations, we are absolutely allowed to discriminate.

Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture, think of apartheid or other forms of racial segregation) and if far-reaching (think of the internment of Japanese US citizens in WW2). The oppressor derives a benefit from the oppression, this is usually economic (think slavery).

Oppression also very much a value-laden term, and curiously you don't seem to see power at the heart of it. There's something lacking from a view of oppression which doesn't mention power, and something that makes one wonder about the nous of the person proposing such a view.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Oppression also very much a value-laden term, and curiously you don't seem to see power at the heart of it. There's something lacking from a view of oppression which doesn't mention power, and something that makes one wonder about the nous of the person proposing such a view.

Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture

 

[Pickman's model]

Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture

Yeh like I said, no mention of the issue of power, no analysis of power. Repeating things in bold doesn't give them special status, you know

 

[Wilf]

It's okay, thanks for engaging. The 'punchy camera thing' was an assault classified as actual bodily harm on a woman. Now, whereas for the sake of argument we could agree to disagree on what actually happened, three things happened in the aftermath which cause great concern for anyone opposed to the legitimisation of violence against women, or anyone else for that matter:

• trans organisations were told not to condemn the violence
• transgender activists actively condoned the violence
• transgender activists incited further violence ('punch a TERF')

What really worries me is the supporting of these positions by people who are not trans, in particular the willingness of many of the latter group to verbally and physically attack trans people they themselves disagree with on trans issues. This is not to say trans voices should be prioritised above everyone else in this debate (as it is a debate) rather that I am seeing a situation arise where trans allyship means to support one type of trans person only, and the trans people who transgress the dominant ideology are subjected to threats and abuse and physical assault and violence.

I agree with you about the assault, I just went with camera punchy thing to save me digging out the names. I also agree with you about the apparent dragooning of people to say/not say things about it (at least from what I've heard, I've only seen bits on here about the aftermath). Regardless of your overall position, you should be able to call things what they are. It was a somewhat 'provoked' attack, but an attack still, from someone who had physical advantages regardless of any gender labels.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I agree with you about the assault, I just went with camera punchy thing to save me digging out the names. I also agree with you about the apparent dragooning of people to say/not say things about it (at least from what I've heard, I've only seen bits on here about the aftermath). Regardless of your overall position, you should be able to call things what they are. It was a somewhat 'provoked' attack, but an attack still, from someone who had physical advantages regardless of any gender labels.

I think as well it is clear that at least two of the males who participated in the assault had turned up ready for trouble. Again, this really does worry me.

 

[smokedout]

This is presented as a hypothesis which a number of studies were devised to test. This context is important because it is part of a scientific enquiry:

• Blanchard (1985; 1988; in press) conducted three studies to test the hypothesis that the nonhomosexual gender dysphorias, together with transvestism, constitute a family of related disorders. This hypothesis, in the terminology used in the present paper, may be stated as follows. Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually orient- Classification of Gender Dysphorias 323 324 Blanchard ed toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. The latter erotic (or amatory) propensity is, of course, the phenomenon labeled by Hirschfeld as automonosexualism.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...beling-of-nonhomosexual-gender-dysphorias.pdf

The fundamental point Blanchard makes is that transsexuals are not a monolith, there are two apparent types, and the existence of this appears to be correct.

And yet no other study have confirmed these findings. Lawrence claims that's because in all the other studies trans women were lying. Apparantly only Blanchard can get those devious transsexuals to tell the truth.

See my earlier comments about gender non-conformity in homosexuals. This appears to be supported by neurological evidence.

A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism

• Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b).
  A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism
  Antonio Guillamon,
  
  1,2 Carme Junque,3,4 and Esther Gómez-Gil4,5

This also supports the two-type hypothesis.

And yet here you say: I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different. Are you now arguing that gay men possess an essential femininity?

I disagree. Further, I'd suggest that to insist that males are females is not just cruel to those affected, it is also creating an unsustainable environment for us by making acceptance of who and what we are based upon a lie.

What's unsustainable about it. Trans people have been referred to by their aquired genders for decades. Is it causing global warming or something?

Men's rights activism is any activism that seeks to support the rights of men. It does men, and men's rights activism, a disservice for you to say that it is inherently misogynistic: is men's rights activism for shelters for gay men battered by their partners misogynistic? Or that raising breast, prostate or testicular cancer awareness/resources misogynistic?

Men's Rights Activism, capitalised as it usually is, refers to a specific strand of the alt-right movement as well you know.

No, it's more to do with the truth: having fact based research helps all of us. See for example this study:

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
(Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, Anna L. V. Johansson, Niklas Långström, Mikael Landén)

which shows trans people have a better post-surgical outcome when pre- and post-surgical somatic and psychological care protocols are combined. We cannot collate meaningful data to undertake studies like this if our stats aren't rigorous.

We've done this. The transcrime website is not scientific research, it is a hate site.

I don't know why you want me to defend the website. BTW the driving offence was dangerous driving whilst intoxicated. Again, if trans males have the same or greater risk of criminality, we need to know why. Class? Discrimination? Reaction to hormones? Untreated psychological issues?

I'm not asking you to defend it, I'm asking if you condemn it? In the way you have asked trans supportive people if they condemn the more extreme actions of trans rights activists. And if the transcrime website shows anything, given that they haven't actually found that much, it shows that trans women appear to commit hardly any crimes at all. Just 38 sexual offences committed by trans women over a number of years (one aquitted on appeal, one never charged, several male fetishists who didn't identify as trans, some over a decade old and at least one for sex work). Is that what the website is trying to tell us? Or is it serving another purpose?

 

[Pickman's model]

And yet no other study have confirmed these findings. Lawrence claims that's because in all the other studies trans women were lying. Apparantly only Blanchard can get those devious transsexuals to tell the truth.




And yet here you say: I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different. Are you now arguing that gay men possess an essential femininity?



What's unsustainable about it. Trans people have been referred to by their aquired genders for decades. Is it causing global warming or something?



Men's Rights Activism, capitalised as it usually is, refers to a specific strand of the alt-right movement as well you know.


We've done this. The transcrime website is not scientific research, it is a hate site.



I'm not asking you to defend it, I'm asking if you condemn it? In the way you have asked trans supportive people if they condemn the more extreme actions of trans rights activists. And if the transcrime website shows anything, given that they haven't actually found that much, it shows that trans women appear to commit hardly any crimes at all. Just 38 sexual offences committed by trans women over a number of years (one aquitted on appeal, one never charged, several male fetishists who didn't identify as trans, some over a decade old and at least one for sex work). Is that what the website is trying to tell us? Or is it serving another purpose?

That review Miranda produces doesn't sit very high on the medical evidence pyramid.

 

[Athos]

Please go ahead and show me where it's not materialist or metaphysical. (I know some talk about 'earth spirit' and 'women's energy', there are more personal interpretations of separate and unrelated spiritual beliefs).

The trans-inclusionary trend within radical feminism isn't materialist or metaphysical in way you appear to understand those terms.

I have some sympathy for some of what you say (albeit I think you do so in a crass way). But your crude attempts to deny that your position is as ideological as your opponents' is weak.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

And yet no other study have confirmed these findings. Lawrence claims that's because in all the other studies trans women were lying. Apparantly only Blanchard can get those devious transsexuals to tell the truth.

On the contrary a reading of Veale's 2008 paper says otherwise, contrary to the conclusion reached this paper suggests the sample chosen fell into populations of 'autogynepilic' and 'even more autogynephilic'. Read it!

Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals

And yet here you say: I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different. Are you now arguing that gay men possess an essential femininity?

What I actually said was:

• Being gender critical is incompatible with ‘Harry Benjamin Syndrome’ theories of transsexuality. I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different

which in this context means that:

• I do not accept the 'Harry Benjamin syndrome' interpretation which claims transsexualism is caused by having a female brain in a male body.

Trans people have been referred to by their aquired genders for decades. Is it causing global warming or something?

On the contrary, the whole 'trans women are women' and 'trans women are female' is a very recent phenomena. Although the genesis of this can be traced back to the early/mid-1990s, it only gained traction in the late 2000s/early 2010s. Hence the reason transvestites and cross-dressers have all but disappeared: they are subsumed by the transgender umbrella thus claim a 'womahood' of sorts.

Men's Rights Activism, capitalised as it usually is, refers to a specific strand of the alt-right movement as well you know.

I don't think you understand what either the alt-right of men's rights activism is. You're throwing out buzzowrds to poison the well.

We've done this. The transcrime website is not scientific research, it is a hate site.

Never said it was. Again, I'm not interested in making someone else's argument for them.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

The trans-inclusionary trend within radical feminism isn't materialist or metaphysical in way you appear to understand those terms.

I have some sympathy for some of what you say (albeit I think you do so in a crass way). But your crude attempts to deny that your position is as ideological as your opponents' is weak.

You are aware that even science has ideological vectors?

And you are aware I have never said I don't have an ideological position? Of course I do: it forms the framework of the arguments I make although I always try to support claims through evidence or reasoning.

The trans-inclusionary trend within radical feminism isn't materialist or metaphysical

I'm not sure what you are saying here, feminism is ideology and this is not a value judgement, it just is what it is.

 

[Athos]

You are aware that even science has ideological vectors?

And you are aware I have never said I don't have an ideological position? Of course I do: it forms the framework of the arguments I make although I always try to support claims through evidence or reasoning.



I'm not sure what you are saying here, feminism is ideology and this is not a value judgement, it just is what it is.

My point was that, earlier, you criticised your opponents on the grounds that they sought to impose their ideology, and have consistently implied that your position is different in nature (as well as content) by appeals to (sometimes questionable) 'science'. Whereas you seem to impose your ideology on them e.g. by misgendering. (And that's not a comment on the value of the content of those competing ideologies.)

 

[Miranda Yardley]

My point was that, earlier, you criticised your opponents on the grounds that they sought to impose their ideology, and have consistently implied that your position is different in nature (as well as content) by appeals to (sometimes questionable) 'science'. Whereas you seem to impose your ideology on them e.g. by misgendering. (And that's not a comment on the value of the content of those competing ideologies.)

I don't believe the science I have quoted is 'questionable', indeed I have yet to read a convincing repudiation of Blanchard's typology (including Moser, Serano, Veale and Nuttbrock). If you know of one I'd love to read it, I'm always open to have ideas challenged.

'Misgendering' is more a reflection of reality, however as I have said I view that identifying an adult male as a man is a now a revolutionary act. Acquiescing to pronouns is an act of submission.

 

[smokedout]

On the contrary a reading of Veale's 2008 paper says otherwise, contrary to the conclusion reached this paper suggests the sample chosen fell into populations of 'autogynepilic' and 'even more autogynephilic'. Read it!

Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals

In the abstract it says this, which somewhat demolishes Blanchard's typography.

In contrast to Blanchard’s theory, however, those transsexuals classified as autogynephilic scored higher on average on Sexual Attraction to Males than those classified as non-autogynephilic, and no transsexuals classified as autogynephilic reported asexuality.

What I actually said was:

• Being gender critical is incompatible with ‘Harry Benjamin Syndrome’ theories of transsexuality. I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different

which in this context means that:

• I do not accept the 'Harry Benjamin syndrome' interpretation which claims transsexualism is caused by having a female brain in a male body.

But you do appear to support Blanchard's claim that androphilic transsexuals possess an innate femininity. That is gender essentialism.

On the contrary, the whole 'trans women are women' and 'trans women are female' is a very recent phenomena. Although the genesis of this can be traced back to the early/mid-1990s, it only gained traction in the late 2000s/early 2010s. Hence the reason transvestites and cross-dressers have all but disappeared: they are subsumed by the transgender umbrella thus claim a 'womahood' of sorts.

Weren't we talking about pronouns?

I don't think you understand what either the alt-right of men's rights activism is. You're throwing out buzzowrds to poison the well.

Of course, it's me using buzzwords, when trans critical rad fems go on and on about Men's Rights Activists and transgenderism being a male sexual rights movement they mean a bit like prostate cancer charities and stuff. No attempt to smear at all, all perfectly innocent. You must think people are fucking idiots.

Never said it was. Again, I'm not interested in making someone else's argument for them.

Do you condemn it?