rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:06 pm**

Brainpanhandler, I assume you still have yet to read my later posts on the subject, in which I present evidence outside my field?

Re: policies are in place to prevent discriminatory hiring practices, these are in place to correct the problems of a generation ago. Maybe they still need to be in place, but from my perspective, these policies represent a working solution to the problem, i.e. the problem has been solved (in my field) and no more is necessary at this point. I am not disagreeing that there were past problems that required first and second waves of feminism to correct. My contention is that the latest wave of feminism is mostly overshoot, and that it is now damaging relationships between men and women. It has veered into faith-based theoretical assertions that can't be proved or disproved by evidence, and that these faith-based theories lead to narratives that are actually damaging.

On the subject of narratives: there are evidence-based narratives and faith-based narratives. The latter should not serve as a driver of social policy, although they may serve as motivation for individual actions. In the latter regard, I view the influence of third-wave feminism as destructive. As an anecdotal example: one of the most strident feminists I know well is a female-family member; her life is a mess, and her feminism does not arise because of her unhappiness, rather her feminist narrative has caused her to make choices that have resulted in her current unhappy state. I see this same dynamic among die-hard feminists who I know less well. I have observed it within myself: I was raised as a feminist, and once I dispensed with it I was able to love myself as a man, and love other men as men, and I became a happier person. My ultimate problem with third-wave feminism is that it is making both women and men less happy.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:18 pm**

slomo » Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:06 am wrote: My contention is that the latest wave of feminism is mostly overshoot, and that it is now damaging relationships between men and women.

So if the hiring/promotion rules were lifted everything would be fine from here on out?

Sexism has been conquered in a few short generations?

Like racism isn't really a problem anymore. I hear people say that too.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:19 pm**

American Dream » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:11 am wrote:Here is my experience, admittedly my experience but it certainly does shape my view of things;

The vast majority of the trans people I know/have known could be called womyn by some- not because they are transwomen ala RuPaul and Caitlin Jennings but because they were born and raised as women- feminists all- and now bend their gender in one way or another. Most I know don't have much if any surgery and don't even do much hormones either.

Sometimes I do see what you might call "transwomen" or "transmen"- people who do try to "pass" on the binary- and I would strongly guess (or know) they do hormones. I have no idea what they have in their pants and I feel it is really none of my business anyway.

What I do know is that the vast majority of "trans" people I interact with are gender non-conformists and are generally very left oriented- into Prison Abolition, anti-Zionism, Women's Studies, Gender Studies, Organic Gardening, Black Liberation, and all kinds of things.

That is what I see.

Your mileage may vary.

What I've heard again and again is that these non-binary/transmasculine queers essentially get a free pass in terms of violence against women and questioning this/calling them out for it is the equivalent of social suicide in many urban areas, i.e. it may be unacceptable to speak out against a violent "cis" man but much more risky to speak about one of these folks being violent. I've had queer women tell me this over and over again.

I don't say this to paint a certain group with a broad brush and frankly I find it a little gross the way that is being done elsewhere in this thread. Eyebrow raising that you of all people would use RuPaul and Jenner to characterize trans women, AD...

I'm wondering what PW and Agent Orange Cooper think about this.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:27 pm**

tapitsbo » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:19 pm wrote: What I've heard again and again is that these non-binary/transmasculine queers essentially get a free pass in terms of violence against women and questioning this/calling them out for it is the equivalent of social suicide in many urban areas, i.e. it may be unacceptable to speak out against a violent "cis" man but much more risky to speak about one of these folks being violent. I've had queer women tell me this over and over again.

I don't say this to paint a certain group with a broad brush and frankly I find it a little gross the way that is being done elsewhere in this thread.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:29 pm**

Does anybody understand what the bold means? All I'm getting from it is an intention to distract/derail - it would be great if somebody would respond to the post AD is hijacking, even to present some sort of tangible issue with the questions I am asking

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:57 pm**

slomo » 03 Dec 2015 06:46 wrote: PW, this is a non-falsifiable claim. Basically, no matter how much evidence I provide, the answer will always be "because misogyny".

There are decades of scholarship on this stuff, I'm not pulling it out of my ass. Go and do a little research. You may have to read a number of texts by feminists, but I have confidence you will survive. And blaming women for propping up an inequitable system because their choices are limited by said system is nonsensically circular.

slomo » 03 Dec 2015 06:46 wrote: The idea that all labor should be monetized in the marketplace plays right into the capitalist system you seem to hate. There is also, beneath the surface of the assertions you make, an assumption of zero-sum conflict between men and women.

You are arguing with a chimera of your own creation, the figment of a "feminist" you have in your head. I did not say that all labor should be monetized, I used the words, "you have to imagine" in order to point out the historical and structural inequity of the current system, the effects of which have not evaporated. It was a thought exercise, not an argument for capitalism. Highly critical to outright anti-capitalist stances are central to radical feminist discourses.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:13 pm**

Project Willow » Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:48 am wrote: No, I'm not being dismissive, I just don't find any aspect of this conversation novel or surprising,

This is a very similar comment to one made by slomo over at the "masculine right" thread, a few days back:

slomo » Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:41 am wrote: there's nothing yet in this thread or the other one on gender that I haven't heard before, considered, and ultimately rejected.

My experience at this thread (until lately) has been one of continuous surprise and novelty; and since I haven't been living in a bubble, I can only suppose that this feeling of "heard it all before" has to do with not really hearing what others are saying, but instead only interacting with one's own patterns as they are triggered, and all the ideological beliefs that get stirred up by that.

I know I have expressed things which I've never fully considered before at this thread, deepening my own understanding by trying to express what I feel to others; so there's no way anyone can tell me they've heard it all before. Or rather, you can tell me that, but the result is that I then feel like I have been wasting my breath, that I have been stonewalled by ideology and reduced to a set of meaningless beliefs. Dehumanized. Perhaps it's an immature (overly emotional) response, but there it is, take it or leave it. The direction this convo has taken lately doesn't interest me much, anyway, so this will probably be a non-sequitur to most.

My guess is that anyone who has been in a long-term & monogamous relationship with the opposite sex is, or at least has been at one time, painfully aware of the seemingly uncrossable gulf between the sexes, how men have no real understanding of the pain that women suffer, and vice versa. We may want the same thing (intimacy, love, respect, understanding), but we want it (experience and express it) in fundamentally different ways. I guess this (personal testimony) underscores the, to me, absurdity of suggesting that a man can become a woman, or vice versa, through surgery. Biology is not just a machine that can be refurbished to suit its owner's whims; and we are so much more than biology.

Project Willow » Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:48 am wrote:and it's as tiring as it always is, like having to explain yet again that I don't hate men, which colored my reaction to the misandry question. Arguing with a group of men about what it's like to be female is..., I'll just say, it touches more than one nerve.

Anyway, carry on.

I am sure it does touch many nerves, for many people. My interest in a thread like this is not in thrashing out intellectual ideas or tweaking ideologies, but in discovering ways to bridge the gulf of difference ~ the agony of otherness ~ between myself and others, most especially other-y others. Using words, sure, yet at the same time, calling upon something more than merely intellectual ideas.

Anyway, carry on.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:29 pm**

Eyebrow raising that you of all people would use RuPaul and Jenner to characterize trans women, AD...
.

Indeed. Especially since RuPaul does not claim to be trans at all.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:57 pm**

‘Transabled’: A New Group Emerges That Wants To Be Medically Disabled
"Doctors urged to amputate healthy limbs"

When many of us thought we had seen and heard it all, now comes an emerging group of individuals known as the ‘transabled.’ They are physically healthy people who desire to be disabled in some way. Each person possessing this very strong urge to be incapacitated or mutilated in a particular manner has a different vision for their future.

Some of these folks want to be paralyzed, others want to be blind. There are people who now seek to have a perfectly healthy limb surgically removed. Some desire to have their leg or arm amputated, others just a foot or hand. There are additional types of disabling and self-mutilation which are too unspeakable to mention in this article. The common denominator among them all is that they ardently seek to become ‘transabled’.

It’s clear that each person who harbors such strong desires is suffering from various psychological problems and/or emotional imbalances. There often seems to be haunting memories from childhood which have fueled this highly abnormal desire to be disabled or mutilated.

Of course, there are those who simply want the attention that comes with being severely disabled. Wanting to be served by others all the time reveals a mental condition which should not be indulged, however. The constant outpouring of sympathy, which is often evoked from a loss of limb or function, can even be addictive for some.

Here’s how one author described this unique psychological condition.

“He said being ‘transabled’ is not a lifestyle choice but is ‘very much a deep felt need to become this way because their bodies are wrong.’

‘So people for example want amputations, or they want to be paralyzed or they want to be blind or deaf. And that misalignment can be very distressing for people.'”

There are now various mental health professionals throughout society who feel that prospective ‘transableds’ ought to be accommodated. Because of the duration of time that they have harbored such a highly consequential desire, some feel that they should be allowed to have their wishes to come true. In other words, they should be enabled and supported by the medical system.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/transabled-a- ... z3tIUxSrM0

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:24 pm**

First, there is no naturalized gendered body. All of our bodies are modified with regard to gender, whether we seek out surgery or take hormones or not. All of us engage in or have engaged in processes of gender body modification (diets, shaving, exercise regimes, clothing choices, vitamins, birth control. etc) that alter our bodies, just as we’ve all been subjected to gender related processes that altered our bodies (being fed differently because of our gender, being given or denied proper medical care because of our gender, using dangerous products that are on the market only because of their relationship to gender norms, etc). The isolating of only some of these processes for critique, while ignoring others, is a classic exercise in domination. To see trans body alteration as participating and furthering binary gender, to put trans people’s gender practices under a microscope while maintaining blindness to more familiar and traditional, but no less active and important gender practices of non-trans people, is exactly what the transphobic medical establishment has always done.

--Dress to Kill, Fight to Win, Dean Spade

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:26 am**

brainpanhandler » 03 Dec 2015 08:18 wrote:
slomo » Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:06 am wrote: My contention is that the latest wave of feminism is mostly overshoot, and that it is now damaging relationships between men and women.
So if the hiring/promotion rules were lifted everything would be fine from here on out?

Sexism has been conquered in a few short generations?

Like racism isn't really a problem anymore. I hear people say that too.

FFS, talk about strawmen!

I've very carefully stated my position and delivered citations to evidence, which has basically gone ignored. Meanwhile, I'm given the whole imperious "it's not my job to educate you" dissembling (or as PW says, "go and do your research"). I could of course easily say the same thing, go and do your research: there's plenty of it out there, but of course you won't look at it. AD-style, I could dump one article after another on the ways women have it easier (no military conscription in most countries, lighter sentencing, the mortality gap, etc.) but it's a waste of time: each citation I give will go ignored because it doesn't support your narrative. The narrative that every human problem is misogyny and only misogyny is utterly faith-based and supported by nothing resembling an actual fact.

I've never said that specific instances of misogyny do not exist. In fact, I've repeatedly admitted the opposite: it can be found (although with lower frequency now than 50 years ago). My main contentions have been,throughout this thread, that (1) the totalizing narrative (everything is misogyny, PW's position, which she absolutely has strongly implied even though she claims she has not) has no basis in reality, and (2) that feminism in the 21st Century has overshot its goal. Maybe not completely, not in every area, but taken as a whole it has. Even worse, feminism is becoming increasingly toxic, and it's not hard to find examples of toxic manhating in the feminist canon, unless of course you exclude Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin under the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Honestly, I expected as much (ignoring evidence and carefully stated positions, circular appeals to the same old canards that have never actually been supported with data), as that's what happens on every forum (that is, if you don't get banned outright simply for calmly stating a position contrary to feminism and supporting it with facts). It's very clear to me that you refuse even to engage in this discussion in the way of any intellectually honest discussion (i.e. with citations and evidence to back up claims, and refuting evidence either by disputing its factual basis or else disputing its implied significance). That's fine, it's the usual feminist strategy: "I'm a woman, my feelings are evidence enough, I'm not obligated to provide you with facts."

You certainly are not going to convince me, and I'm sure you realize that already. But I'll finish up my activity on this thread with the following observation: you're going to lose. I was programmed with feminist ideology from a very young age, and it almost destroyed my life; subsequently, I've worked for over a decade to undo the damage. I'm relatively old, but every younger generation of men is waking up earlier. Men in their 20s and 30s, who have been raised under feminist ideology from their mothers or even grandmothers, are increasingly rejecting it as anti-male and ultimately anti-human. The pendulum has reached its farthest point to the left, and it's starting to swing backwards. I hope, for all of our sakes, the swing to the right is not as violent as people like AD are predicting.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:35 am**

Even assuming this is a simplistic right-left or men-women story, which I certainly don't, the pendulum could definitely go very much further in directions I doubt you'd like, slomo, and those trajectories could involve violence that dwarfs the insurrectionary fantasies of AD's right-rebel pin-ups on a mammoth scale.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:54 am**

guruilla » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:57 pm wrote:
‘Transabled’: A New Group Emerges That Wants To Be Medically Disabled
"Doctors urged to amputate healthy limbs"

When many of us thought we had seen and heard it all, now comes an emerging group of individuals known as the ‘transabled.’ They are physically healthy people who desire to be disabled in some way. Each person possessing this very strong urge to be incapacitated or mutilated in a particular manner has a different vision for their future.

Some of these folks want to be paralyzed, others want to be blind. There are people who now seek to have a perfectly healthy limb surgically removed. Some desire to have their leg or arm amputated, others just a foot or hand. There are additional types of disabling and self-mutilation which are too unspeakable to mention in this article. The common denominator among them all is that they ardently seek to become ‘transabled’.

It’s clear that each person who harbors such strong desires is suffering from various psychological problems and/or emotional imbalances. There often seems to be haunting memories from childhood which have fueled this highly abnormal desire to be disabled or mutilated.

Of course, there are those who simply want the attention that comes with being severely disabled. Wanting to be served by others all the time reveals a mental condition which should not be indulged, however. The constant outpouring of sympathy, which is often evoked from a loss of limb or function, can even be addictive for some.

Here’s how one author described this unique psychological condition.

“He said being ‘transabled’ is not a lifestyle choice but is ‘very much a deep felt need to become this way because their bodies are wrong.’

‘So people for example want amputations, or they want to be paralyzed or they want to be blind or deaf. And that misalignment can be very distressing for people.'”

There are now various mental health professionals throughout society who feel that prospective ‘transableds’ ought to be accommodated. Because of the duration of time that they have harbored such a highly consequential desire, some feel that they should be allowed to have their wishes to come true. In other words, they should be enabled and supported by the medical system.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/transabled-a- ... z3tIUxSrM0

Disgusting. As much as I hate the right wing, some of this bizarre new left is just in outer space to me. I am happy trans issues are finally being addressed. And Blacklivesmatter is addressing the fact the majority of the two dozen trans people killed this year have been in black communities.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:18 am**

How is that "left"?

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:20 am**

slomo » 04 Dec 2015 05:26 wrote:FFS, talk about strawmen!

.....typical.....what about the staw women....?

rigorousintuition.ca

Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?

Re: Which gender are you?