Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[littlebabyjesus]

She says:

I suppose gender, although a social concept, is how biology (usually) makes us happy (enough) in our sex roles. That's how I interpret the first sentence in the quote above.

She also says this:

Studies suggest that gender dysphoria may have biological causes associated with the development of gender identity before birth.

The idea there would be approximately like that of language acquisition - the content of gender identities is shaped by the culture, but their existence and the child's predisposition towards searching for them have some biological basis.

 

[Jonti]

for the overwhelming span of human history prior to the creation of class women were not oppressed by men

If you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages.

Not the sort of thing women have ever been known to do.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages.

Not the sort of thing women have ever been known to do.

Where's that quote from? It's nonsense.

 

[kabbes]

There is another important facet of identity that has seemingly been overlooked, or at least downplayed, a lot in the talk in this specific thread. Identity is normally seen as the interplay of the assumed and the assigned, and you can't just divorce the two. As a gross oversimplification, the self is formed by its reaction to the assigned identity, and how it interprets this through its assumed identity. This is a key element of the TERF case, and it can't just be wished away even if the way that the TERFs react to it is frequently problematic in its own right.

 

[Jonti]

Where's that quote from? It's nonsense.

19force8, upthread

 

[bimble]

Where's that quote from? It's nonsense.

Yep complete nonsense, by 19force8.

 

[Jonti]

She also says this:



The idea there would be approximately like that of language acquisition - the content of gender identities is shaped by the culture, but their existence and the child's predisposition towards searching for them have some biological basis.

More than a disposition, surely it's a biological imperative for our species, like language, and yes, a sense of fairness.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Biology has these things called sex roles

More than a disposition, surely it's a biological imperative for our species, like language, and yes, a sense of fairness.

Ok yes. I don't think we are disagreeing. The fact that we're born predisposed to look for certain kinds of things in the world is itself a biological imperative.

 

[weepiper]

Patriarchy is the original class division. That's why I always felt cross at being accused of identity politics by being feminist. Women are a class beneath men and have been since forever.

 

[19force8]

If you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages.

Not the sort of thing women have ever been known to do.

Before slagging off a well established view of early humanity maybe you could familiarise yourself with some basic archaeological and anthropological research. [see below for suggested reading]

There is no evidence of any permanent settlement before 10,000 years ago. So that leaves somewhere between 60k and 240k years where there were no villages to raid from. Unless, of course, you count the small town of Bedrock. .

Furthermore, the evidence from first contact with hunter gatherer groups and from archaeology is overwhelmingly of complete equality between the sexes and lack of oppression.

So littlebabyjesus and bimble , not nonsense, and weepiper, not forever.

Engels' https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf is a quick read and despite being based on slightly dodgy evidence has stood the test of time for his insight.

Eleanor Burke Leacock's classic "Myths of Male dominance" might open you eyes to the reality of pre-class society.

I would also suggest Steven Mithen's "After the Ice" for an excellent survey of the archaeology available between 22k and 7k years ago.

Similarly, Marcus and Flannery's "The Creation of Inequality" does a similar job for anthropology.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Patriarchy is the original class division. That's why I always felt cross at being accused of identity politics by being feminist.

Feminism being dismissed as bad identitism is so shit I can't even laugh. So is support for BAME issues, so is support for LGBTQ+ issues... the gaze is the same...the power base is the same...the same people however educated, enlightened and progressive get to call this 'name' and as such mantain power, even within non-instutionialised, marginalised contexts.

 

[Treacle Toes]

The best example I can give is the EDL and nationalism generally being attractive to people looking for answers. Anyway, it was suggested that this discussion was off topic so I'm reluctant to continue it here.

Which strikes me as odd. This thread is awash with talk of how terrible ID politics is, how this incident only happened because of ID politics and how ID politics is pretty much the route of all left wing evil. Yet talking about where we as individuals interact with ID politics, what our individual experiences are and therefore how we make meaning of this particular incident isn't on topic?

 

[belboid]

Patriarchy is the original class division. That's why I always felt cross at being accused of identity politics by being feminist. Women are a class beneath men and have been since forever.

Well, not for the vast majority of human history. Only since the rise of the class system.

Also (not specifically addressed at you weepiper) just because we might well believe there is ultimately no such thing as gender and would like to see any notion of it abolished, it still exists de facto in our lives world. And that is what we must react to and make sense of.

In a similar vein, there are no such things as 'races' but this hardly meant there is no racism. But where would its material root come from in that case? It can ONLY be through the material reality of daily existence.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Which strikes me as odd. This thread is awash with talk of how terrible ID politics is, how this incident only happened because of ID politics and how ID politics is pretty much the route of all left wing evil. Yet talking about where we as individuals interact with ID politics, what our individual experiences are and therefore how we make meaning of this particular incident isn't on topic?

Because it's much wider and would shift the focus away from this incident.

 

[Athos]

Feminism being dismissed as bad identitism is so shit I can't even laugh. So is support for BAME issues, so is support for LGBTQ+ issues... the gaze is the same...the power base is the same...the same people however educated, enlightened and progressive get to call this 'name' and as such mantain power, even within non-instutionialised, marginalised contexts.

Isn't this a bit of a strawman? Who dismisses those things as identity politics per se? You really think any of the left wing critics of ID pol don't support these groups?

 

[Raheem]

Isn't this a bit of a strawman? Who dismisses those things as identity politics per se? You really think any of the left wing critics of ID pol don't support these groups?

If you resist going no-true-Scotsman about it, then yes, it's clear that there's a great deal of confusion on the left with regard to what "identity politics" means. In evidence, I submit this thread.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Before slagging off a well established view of early humanity maybe you could familiarise yourself with some basic archaeological and anthropological research. [see below for suggested reading]

There is no evidence of any permanent settlement before 10,000 years ago. So that leaves somewhere between 60k and 240k years where there were no villages to raid from. Unless, of course, you count the small town of Bedrock. .

Furthermore, the evidence from first contact with hunter gatherer groups and from archaeology is overwhelmingly of complete equality between the sexes and lack of oppression.

So littlebabyjesus and bimble , not nonsense, and weepiper, not forever.

Engels' https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf is a quick read and despite being based on slightly dodgy evidence has stood the test of time for his insight.

Eleanor Burke Leacock's classic "Myths of Male dominance" might open you eyes to the reality of pre-class society.

I would also suggest Steven Mithen's "After the Ice" for an excellent survey of the archaeology available between 22k and 7k years ago.

Similarly, Marcus and Flannery's "The Creation of Inequality" does a similar job for anthropology.

I might come back to this. It's a contested view. This article by Frans de Waal outlines bonobo behaviour and indicates something close to your idea. It still doesn't quite involve 'complete equality', but it certainly isn't male domination, very far from it, despite the fact that male bonobos are bigger than females. I like de Waal's suggestion that a way to understand our past may involve a three-way comparison between humans, bonobos and chimps. But he also includes an important point, which is that bonobos evolved in a very specific place, a sheltered and almost idyllic place for such a primate to live. The history of pre-agricultural humans is one of movement right across the world - you don't migrate from an idyll.

 

[Athos]

If you resist going no-true-Scotsman about it, then yes, it's clear that there's a great deal of confusion on the left with regard to what "identity politics" means. In evidence, I submit this thread.

Which is part of the reason it'd be good to have a specific thread to address some of these points. Not because they're not relevant to this issue, but because there of such wider importance.

 

[pengaleng]

oh ffs monkeys again?

 

[19force8]

oh ffs monkeys again?

Oi! Apes!

 

[19force8]

I might come back to this. It's a contested view. This article by Frans de Waal outlines bonobo behaviour and indicates something close to your idea. It still doesn't quite involve 'complete equality', but it certainly isn't male domination, very far from it, despite the fact that male bonobos are bigger than females. I like de Waal's suggestion that a way to understand our past may involve a three-way comparison between humans, bonobos and chimps. But he also includes an important point, which is that bonobos evolved in a very specific place, a sheltered and almost idyllic place for such a primate to live. The history of pre-agricultural humans is one of movement right across the world - you don't migrate from an idyll.

Wow, I think my head's going to explode. Bonobos FFS! [damn, pengaleng beat me to it, but only 'cos I was reading the darned article ]

I raised some serious points about current anthropology regarding human behaviour in pre-class societies, not bloody chimpanzees. Of course it's a contested area, it's science and a social science at that. All I ask is that you drop the "caveman clubbing a mate" concept and take a look at what we actually know.

Please.

[Edit] Went a bit off the deep end there. If what you're saying is that despite being smaller than the males, female bonobos aren't totally dominated by the males. And so there's no reason to assume that because in humans males are larger than females the males are dominant. Then yes it's a valid concept.

But I'd always urge caution in making comparisons based on human views of animal society. We tend to view animals through the prism of our own prejudices, for example:

1950s view - the lion king rules over a harem of lionesses.

1990s view - a collective of lionesses selects a stud for breeding and dumps him as soon as he's past his sell by date.

 

[pengaleng]

9/10

real talk.

 

[19force8]

I've just read this whole thread and my god, it is depressing. A whole heap of lefties appear to be either defending this shit, or taking the Donald Trump line of "bad people on both sides".

By the standards of political violence even in the UK this is small potatoes - we're certainly not talking vehicular homicide. Nonetheless the clear impression I have of the lefties on Urban is that while none of them think it was a good thing they aren't going to prostrate themselves and beg forgiveness of a group that enjoy persecuting a vulnerable minority.

This was a meeting which was open to all self-identified women, with a trans woman as a speaker. The original venue was intimidated into cancelling, the next venue had to be kept secret for safety reasons, and women met in public to ensure each others safety. Still a woman got punched and people on this thread seems to take the "she was asking for it" line.

For my part I regard no-platforming as an affront to democracy that can only be justified in the corner case of fascism. Once it becomes a more generalised tactic you risk everyone's liberties.

Now I'm home [finally!] and seen the video, I'm unimpressed with the "woman was punched" narrative as if that was all there was to it. When I heard she was taking photographs I hadn't realised she was actually standing over people pushing the camera (phone?) in their faces. That would have been bad enough in most circumstances, but when you're suspected of doxxing it's pure provocation. No wonder a fracas ensued. And what happens when there's a fracas? People overreact, it's wrong and regrettable, but storm in a teacup rather than Reichstag Fire.

There is a parasitic element within the trans community, people who conform to male behaviour patterns and who exhibit enormous amounts of male entitlement, but who self-define as women. If these people went to a shop and then you asked a random checkout assistant whether the person they just served was a man or a woman, they would almost certainly say "man". The only indicator that they are not a man is that the poor checkout assistant would then get "FUCKING TRANSPHOBE" screamed in her face (if the checkout assistant was a man of course, they would never do such a thing). These anti-feminist trans activists are often the loudest within much of the trans community, and from looking at the videos, I'd guess that at least two of them, possibly all, fit into that category.

Oh my, now you're just making stuff up.

But it's cute how you manage to hit so much of the Daily Mail bingo card in one paragraph.

"Feminazi" is an old MRA insult, yet you see it getting resurrected in the discourse here with comparison between "TERFs" and fascists. "Die in a fire" is the most beloved advice of anti-feminist trans activists, who want to burn the witches.

The trans community needs to condemn the misogyny in its midst, not facilitate it and excuse it. I'm pretty down with trans women, I think they have a great deal to teach feminists about gender and I wish that they would have more involvement in the feminist movement - but these misogynist pricks who self-define as women cos its politically expedient, but who still expect male levels of entitlement and attention from other women; exhibit toxic patterns of behaviour which are most commonly found in men, and consider it A-OK to carry on this toxic behaviour because they think that women can get away with it (info-note, they cant, women who use physical violence get harsher sentances) and who demand that lesbians suck their dicks, and sit around discussing how to get through their "cotton ceiling" can fuck right off.

I'm a bit confused here. You say you've read the thread. So how did you miss posts #627 & #636 which clearly show how the online trans community has condemned and disavowed the woman who threw the punch.

Or are you saying trans women aren't condemning the kind of toxic behaviour you describe? From what I know of trans women I'm pretty sure they be as much aghast at such behaviour as any other woman. I'm surprised the trans women you're down with haven't told you so.

BTW, you do know there are such things as trolls on social media, don't you?

Solidarity with trans women, except for self-entitled, rapey, violent misogynist ones, doesnt really seem that hard a concept for the left to grasp...but here we are.

So "the left" are supportive of "self-entitled, rapey, violent misogynists" now?

Was this whole post just an extended straw man riff?

 

[bimble]

Before slagging off a well established view of early humanity maybe you could familiarise yourself with some basic archaeological and anthropological research. [see below for suggested reading]

There is no evidence of any permanent settlement before 10,000 years ago. So that leaves somewhere between 60k and 240k years where there were no villages to raid from. Unless, of course, you count the small town of Bedrock. .

Furthermore, the evidence from first contact with hunter gatherer groups and from archaeology is overwhelmingly of complete equality between the sexes and lack of oppression.

So littlebabyjesus and bimble , not nonsense, and weepiper, not forever.

Engels' https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf is a quick read and despite being based on slightly dodgy evidence has stood the test of time for his insight.

Eleanor Burke Leacock's classic "Myths of Male dominance" might open you eyes to the reality of pre-class society.

I would also suggest Steven Mithen's "After the Ice" for an excellent survey of the archaeology available between 22k and 7k years ago.

Similarly, Marcus and Flannery's "The Creation of Inequality" does a similar job for anthropology.

Wow, you are a tiny bit arrogant aren't you. I did an anthropology degree in what was probably the most feminist department at the time so, you know, you're not the first person i've come across interested in the subject.
If you just wanted to say that patriarchy is basically about controlling women's reproductive capacity so as to be sure of the line of inheritance that'd have been fine. And you'd get no argument that pre-settled agriculture there was less stuff to inherit so less rigid control of women's bodies necessary.
But a single example of an unequivocally matriarchal society is a sort of holy grail that feminists have been looking everywhere for for about a century and it should at least cause you to pause for thought that nobody has so far succeeded in finding one.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

oh ffs monkeys again?

That brings us on to lizards. Some species are subject to temperature-dependent sex determination, which means we can blame global warming for the recent increase in gender confusion in humans.

 

[bimble]

Salamanders are the way forward, they can change sex halfway through their lives plus some females can reproduce just by 'stealing' bits of other species' dna that have been left lying around.

 

[redsquirrel]

Feminism being dismissed as bad identitism is so shit I can't even laugh.

Has someone on this thread, or others, done this? And if so for all feminism or for a particular body of feminist thought, and activities arising from such?

I certainly have no problem describing the WEP as crap identity politics nonsense for example. Do you? That doesn't mean I write off feminism as a whole as ID politics.

 

[belboid]

Isn't this a bit of a strawman? Who dismisses those things as identity politics per se? You really think any of the left wing critics of ID pol don't support these groups?

Plenty of people dismiss all those issues, or say we shouldn't talk about them at the very least (crude,economic determinism for the win!). A sneery attitude to 'identity politics' which now becomes the even sneerier 'ID pol' gives the game away. There are plenty of 'left wing' arse holes who don't give a shit about liberation politics - particularly regarding trans politics (it probably threatens their masculinity).

 

[Athos]

Plenty of people dismiss all those issues, or say we shouldn't talk about them at the very least (crude,economic determinism for the win!). A sneery attitude to 'identity politics' which now becomes the even sneerier 'ID pol' gives the game away. There are plenty of 'left wing' arse holes who don't give a shit about liberation politics - particularly regarding trans politics (it probably threatens their masculinity).

I don't see plenty of people doing that. And I doubt you could find plenty of examples. But, anyone who does, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And that shouldn't distract from the significant issues with ID pol.

 

[belboid]

I don't see plenty of people doing that. And I doubt you could find plenty of examples. But, anyone who does, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And that shouldn't distract from the significant issues with ID pol.

The op does. Magnus decided to make a start on a racist joke on another thread. That economic determinism is a real thing. It doesn't mean they're bigots, of course, just that they have crap politics.

Although there will be some who are simply anti-trans too. Quite a few I suspect.