Welcome to the Fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The "Sinfest Did A Regressive Feminism" thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
netsplit



Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Draculaura wrote:
I mean it looks nice but was it really worth it

Even made a little header

Sam's heart's really in this


Could make a spreadsheet formula spit it out in less than a minute
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nobody Important



Joined: 18 Jan 2016
Posts: 801

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just in case they come back here's a reddit thread that I found yesterday titled Comprehensive Defense Against Anti-Trans Talking Points which tackles common misconceptions such as "Transgender identities are a delusion" and "Gender is merely a social construct. There is no evidence that you can have a female brain in a male body or vice versa" and many others. The person who made it sites many sources in the thread. I actually learned some new stuff reading this.

Also if you want even more evidence against Blanchard's autogynephilia theory specifically Contrapoints put out a video thoroughly debunking it. In the description she sited academic criticisms of Blanchard's theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
d5xtgr



Joined: 06 Mar 2013
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobody Important wrote:
Comprehensive Defense Against Anti-Trans Talking Points


Nice find. I think to some extent it falls into a language-prescriptivist trap of saying, "Well, these are the meanings experts have adopted for these terms," (e.g. points 1, 2, 10) and ignoring the meanings in common use among the public, but is otherwise pretty reasonable.

Point 5 is especially interesting, and it got me thinking about an alternative interpretation of the findings. The references indicate that gender-specific brain differences are the result of the concentration of sex hormones during development, which in turn is a function of the gonads (primary sexual characteristic). Wouldn't it make sense, then, to consider gender "just" another secondary sexual characteristic? So transgender people would fit in alongside bearded ladies, men who develop breasts, etc., as people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are mismatched.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TinT



Joined: 20 Aug 2014
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leohan wrote:

So, social binaries are not to be maintained and respected...

You DO realize that you have been arguing towards binaries, don't you? All of the forum regulars are saying that physiology doesn't define identity. You say otherwise.

...Go status quo?

Keep at it if you want. Just don't call it a part of feminism because you are hurting a lot of people.


You're still not making sense. I'm not arguing anything about "binaries" as something in itself. Are we supposed to hate the very concept of any binary in any context? Smash the computers? Abolish coin flips? Acknowledging the physical reality of dimorphic sexual physiology says NOTHING about whether one should apply rigid and widely scoped cultural expectations based on that dimorphism--especially when the behavior demanded by those expectations have nothing to do with the physiological differences, though which expectations get applied to which people is, socially, driven by those differences.

Similarly, it is a material reality that some people have white skin tones, and some people have black skin tones. Accepting that reality does not mean we also have to accept the social construct of race or its manifestation in white supremacism. In fact, denying the physical reality (AKA "I don't see color") is itself recognized as a racist statement: the speaker is denying the internalized bias perpetuated by systemic racism. But when it comes to womanhood, nah, that's just what you feel like. The omnipresent oppression of vagina-havers by penis-havers is probably just coincidence--in fact, we can't even talk about it, because girls have penises too, right? We'll be outraged about transracial appropriation, but transgender appropriation is just fine in today's left.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leohan



Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1853

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TinT wrote:
Similarly, it is a material reality that some people have white skin tones, and some people have black skin tones. Accepting that reality does not mean we also have to accept the social construct of race or its manifestation in white supremacism. In fact, denying the physical reality (AKA "I don't see color") is itself recognized as a racist statement: the speaker is denying the internalized bias perpetuated by systemic racism. But when it comes to womanhood, nah, that's just what you feel like. The omnipresent oppression of vagina-havers by penis-havers is probably just coincidence--in fact, we can't even talk about it, because girls have penises too, right? We'll be outraged about transracial appropriation, but transgender appropriation is just fine in today's left.

Appropriation is the wrong word... But basically, yeah. Nothing wrong with it because, and you can say it with me...

TinT wrote:
rejects the idea that there is any innate essence of gender, because gender is a social construct

Oh, there it is. Your very last post, even!

It's like you are making it easy for me.



...You know what, I think you are romanticizing the concept of being oppressed and can't stand the idea of there being gender groups more oppressed than yours, so you have to deny their existence (or validity, as it were) because you feel like it invalidates your own oppression, is that it? You don't have male privilege so you can't have cis privilege because God forbid you run in life with any form of advantage?
_________________
Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

Now featuring around 40 pages about non-sentient toasters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Professor_Frink



Joined: 21 Oct 2014
Posts: 690

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Acknowledging the physical reality of dimorphic sexual physiology s


Harry Potter and the Deathly Irony of TinT Demanding We Acknowlege Sexual Physiology While Continuing To Deny And Ignore The Mounting Evidence Of Neurological Studies Presenting A Complex Picture of Physiological Gender (And Snape Does Some Stuff Too).
_________________
The Great and Powerful Sow of a Comic Strip Forum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Imry



Joined: 16 Aug 2017
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

d5xtgr wrote:
Point 5 is especially interesting, and it got me thinking about an alternative interpretation of the findings. The references indicate that gender-specific brain differences are the result of the concentration of sex hormones during development, which in turn is a function of the gonads (primary sexual characteristic). Wouldn't it make sense, then, to consider gender "just" another secondary sexual characteristic? So transgender people would fit in alongside bearded ladies, men who develop breasts, etc., as people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are mismatched.
I mean, I guess it's why you're dividing people up. If you're dividing people up into who gets checked for ovarian cancer and who gets checked for testicular cancer, then yeah, it makes sense to group most cis men with most trans women but exclude most trans men.

But if you're dividing people up based on a social construct, then you should do it by social factors. Y'know, how people look and act, and how they form emotional bonds, and what kinds of friendships they have, and who they hold as heroes (i.e. I have not met one cis man who holds Ada Lovelace as a personal hero, but I know many trans and cis women who do), and even superficial factors like what clothes people wear/whether they use make-up/hair styles and length. For all of these things, trans women belong with cis women.
TinT wrote:
The omnipresent oppression of vagina-havers by penis-havers is probably just coincidence--in fact, we can't even talk about it, because girls have penises too, right?
I kinda addressed this with my post on the last page, which I guess you overlooked because of its unfortunate place at the bottom right before the page split. Basically, from my own experience and from listening to the experiences of other women, trans women are facing the same female oppression that cis women face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cleocatra



Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 269
Location: Cave

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Money is a social construct ergo it means nothing ergo give me all of it via paypal please
_________________
- explanation of feminism -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cleocatra



Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 269
Location: Cave

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Imry wrote:
d5xtgr wrote:
Point 5 is especially interesting, and it got me thinking about an alternative interpretation of the findings. The references indicate that gender-specific brain differences are the result of the concentration of sex hormones during development, which in turn is a function of the gonads (primary sexual characteristic). Wouldn't it make sense, then, to consider gender "just" another secondary sexual characteristic? So transgender people would fit in alongside bearded ladies, men who develop breasts, etc., as people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are mismatched.
I mean, I guess it's why you're dividing people up. If you're dividing people up into who gets checked for ovarian cancer and who gets checked for testicular cancer, then yeah, it makes sense to group most cis men with most trans women but exclude most trans men.

But if you're dividing people up based on a social construct, then you should do it by social factors. Y'know, how people look and act, and how they form emotional bonds, and what kinds of friendships they have, and who they hold as heroes (i.e. I have not met one cis man who holds Ada Lovelace as a personal hero, but I know many trans and cis women who do), and even superficial factors like what clothes people wear/whether they use make-up/hair styles and length. For all of these things, trans women belong with cis women.
TinT wrote:
The omnipresent oppression of vagina-havers by penis-havers is probably just coincidence--in fact, we can't even talk about it, because girls have penises too, right?
I kinda addressed this with my post on the last page, which I guess you overlooked because of its unfortunate place at the bottom right before the page split. Basically, from my own experience and from listening to the experiences of other women, trans women are facing the same female oppression that cis women face.


always a funny thing is when you see TERFs use a post from a trans woman who they don't ID as such in a way such as, "Look at what this woman is experiencing! Men wouldn't know that!" in a way such to deny trans women their own identities.

Like there was a tweet from a trans woman who was all, "While getting scanned by the TSA a guy kept asking me for my number"
_________________
- explanation of feminism -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Taemon



Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 2153
Location: Europe

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TinT wrote:
Acknowledging the physical reality of dimorphic sexual physiology says NOTHING about whether one should apply rigid and widely scoped cultural expectations based on that dimorphism--especially when the behavior demanded by those expectations have nothing to do with the physiological differences, though which expectations get applied to which people is, socially, driven by those differences.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing?

As for that "physical reality", want me to post the next real sciency article? I got it from a post that says "Drag this article out next time someone tries to argue that biology supports their simplistic version of a discrete sexual dichotomy".
_________________
Common sense is the enemy of science
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
d5xtgr



Joined: 06 Mar 2013
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Imry wrote:
But if you're dividing people up based on a social construct, then you should do it by social factors. Y'know, how people look and act, and how they form emotional bonds, and what kinds of friendships they have, and who they hold as heroes (i.e. I have not met one cis man who holds Ada Lovelace as a personal hero, but I know many trans and cis women who do), and even superficial factors like what clothes people wear/whether they use make-up/hair styles and length. For all of these things, trans women belong with cis women.


Isn't the whole point that gender isn't merely a social construct, but a physiological phenomenon, though? Excerpts reproduced here from Nobody Important's Reddit link, emphasis mine:

Chung and Wilson wrote:
Gender-dependent differentiation of the brain has been detected at every level of organization -- morphological, neurochemical, and functional -- and has been shown to be primarily controlled by sex differences in gonadal steroid hormone levels during perinatal development.

Swaab and Bao wrote:
Gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), sexual orientation (hetero-, homo-, or bisexuality) ... are programmed into our brain during early development. There is no evidence that postnatal social environments have any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Serkan Karaismailoğlu and Ayşen Erdem wrote:
In human males, we show that variation in fetal testosterone (FT) predicts later local gray matter volume of specific brain regions in a direction that is congruent with sexual dimorphism observed in a large independent sample of age-matched males and females from the NIH Pediatric MRI Data Repository.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eiden



Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 540

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Eiden wrote:
2. If other people in a community are telling someone like TinT to shut the fuck up, don't be the person who objects to that. See everything above.

I don't know how much I don't know about this, so I'm not sure if this is a bad question or not, but... it seems to me that in some places, a united "shut the fuck up" front is correct, and in others, arguing against the hateful is correct. How do I know which kind of place this is? Would the transfolk here prefer a blanket refusal to engage? I've always gotten the impression that Sinfest was an argument place.


That's SO far from a bad question. And the answer is that Sinfest IS an argument place, and a "shut the fuck up" place. And that's a significant part of what kept it from being total garbage for a long time even prior to any semi-consistent moderation.

If the community of marginalized people which is subject to the marginalized speech does come to the conclusion that they want a blanket refusal to engage ... at that point, I think everyone should follow that request. Without that, I think the answer is really "It's both"... you can argue and say shut the fuck up at the same time. The part I strenuously argue against is solely being the person who walks into a situation like this and objects to that people are telling the bigots to shut the fuck up. After that, I am glad so many people in places like this are adamantly willing to engage and throw as much intellectual fuel onto the fire as possible.

I am dredging up some repetition here but I know you would appreciate the full-form explanation behind this. There are fundamental and pertinent elements of the issue of intersectionality in dialogue -- and the necessity of prioritizing anti-hatred as a fundamental component of any worthwhile online space -- that brought about the nazi comparison, and meant that a nazi and a trans exclusionist will share certain components related to what responses to them should be predicated on the intolerance of their views, and that a community is forced to choose between a community fostering a platform for bigots versus a community fostering inclusion for the targets of that bigotry.

With someone like TinT, you have isolate the fact that they are a bigoted ideologue here to market their bullshit. You just tell them to get the fuck out, eventually.

With someone like Zhuinden, it's more complicated, because with him you are dealing with a person who acts insufferably because they are fairweather in practice, an individual who holds to a specific bigoted presentation of views and expresses a constant garish sense of entitlement to have everything be explained to him, to his satisfaction, no matter what level of good faith debate he is offering and no matter the threshold he will change his views at. Zhuinden is essentially like the people we argued with a hundred times going "Well you still haven't explained to me why gays should be allowed to get married, because I still think that's icky". They feel entitled to a continual expectation on behalf of trans inclusionary people and trans identified people to cater to his expectation that someone should keep working to change his mind, even when the position he is working from is not anything that resembles due diligence. Someone like that you aren't necessarily shouting at to get out of the community right away, but you eventually make them a persona non grata who neither deserves nor will receive further dialogue, clarification, or accommodation.



And whether you're talking about punching nazis or telling terfs to shut the fuck up and go away, there will always be people who clutch their pearls and say something like “But if you punch the nazis, aren’t you as bad as them?? What about fostering a dialogue?? Don’t you believe in free speech???” ... these complaints reveal a fundamental failure to understand the realities of expression in fora, as (you guessed it) mentioned above.

Which all ultimately comes down to the reason why you can't really have the marketplace of ideas:you ultimately cannot do both. Your community will be forced to choose one way or another between 'everyone gets to speak their opinion and we should just let them speak' or 'people from marginalized identities flee en masse and you become an ex-intersectional rallying ground for the fash'... often times, the ‘choice’ is one of inertial pressures, which can only be interrupted by authoritative acts. Without them, this decision will occur through natural, unscripted inertia, where one or another dominant trend will win. The more active and coordinated people are in influencing this outcome, the more likely they will be able to direct the trend to one direction or another. But you will never have a magic unicorn fairydust forum where nazis speak openly without reprisal and people of color feel comfortable and don't leave the community over time (leaving you with a white environment that is hostile to people of color and selects new participation or lack of participation on this trend.) Similarly, this will not turn out to be a magic unicorn fairydust forum. If trans exclusionists start to mass and speak openly without reprisal, participation by individuals in marginalized communities including transgendered individuals will drop off over time, perniciously, whether or not there's stubborn holders-on.

 At a certain threshold beyond a handful of persistent isolated posters, bigots will either face reprisal, or take the space for themselves. This community is mostly dead, so it doesn’t have much of a needle to move back and forth, but it’s still there.

There was a statement that someone came up with here years ago, when they said about a particular argument, something along the lines of "It's like they're lining up to be the next person to market the exact same sad bullshit". It might have been about gay marriage or global warming or whether or not Obama was literally a Kenyan suicide bomber screaming passages from the Quran at us on live television or bitcoin or organ donation or anything at all, but the principle reverberates. The argument you have against TinT is never an argument you have just once. It keeps going forever and ever and ever. Sometimes the only reason it ever stops is because they're being harried with a lot of "shut the fuck up" while they're busy barraging the forum with the same old shit that has already been addressed something like 17 times by now. Before it becomes the 18th, and then the 19th, and the 20th.

I have been part of communities that try the whole idea that every viewpoint should be handled with a specific level of decorum, and every viewpoint should be given room to be argued because, after all, the marketplace of ideas something something. In each one I was no longer part of the community in under a year because you can only take so much of the Marketplace of Ideas challenging your core personhood and constantly arguing against basic affordances towards your decency and equality. Around the hundredey billionth time someone is "just asking questions" about some component of your personhood or lived experiences, you're gone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Taemon



Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 2153
Location: Europe

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Eiden. That was a very good piece.
_________________
Common sense is the enemy of science
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
d5xtgr



Joined: 06 Mar 2013
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eiden wrote:
With someone like TinT, you have isolate the fact that they are a bigoted ideologue here to market their bullshit.


I'm still not getting this part. I'm pretty sure you can think someone is factually wrong (and even be skeptical of arguments designed to change your mind) without being a bigot. For instance, I believe that Mohammed was not the Seal of the Prophets, but that doesn't make me an Islamophobe - even if you quote the relevant Qur'an verses at me and I don't change my belief. This is where I see TinT: he thinks that transwomen are factually wrong about being women, and accordingly that their advancement isn't feminism's object. I have yet to see him portray transgender people as inferior, advocate for violence against them, or advance other actual bigoted positions.

Eiden wrote:
I have been part of communities that try the whole idea that every viewpoint should be handled with a specific level of decorum, and every viewpoint should be given room to be argued because, after all, the marketplace of ideas something something. In each one I was no longer part of the community in under a year


Different priorities, I guess. To misquote xkcd, I don't engage in this sort of discussion to prove I'm right; I do it to become right and I value fora accordingly. Ones where I don't learn anything new, where people aren't willing to challenge my understanding and make me refine my reasoning, are the communities in which I lose interest and stop participating. Ad hominem attacks don't contribute to this value, and to the extent they drive away participants with whom I disagree, they actively detract from it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 21234
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

d5xtgr wrote:
Eiden wrote:
With someone like TinT, you have isolate the fact that they are a bigoted ideologue here to market their bullshit.


This is where I see TinT: he thinks that transwomen are factually wrong about being women, and accordingly that their advancement isn't feminism's object. I have yet to see him portray transgender people as inferior, advocate for violence against them, or advance other actual bigoted positions.


except saying that transwomen have no right to participate in women-only things just because _he_ believes they are not actually women is kinda bigoted.

i think it comes down to whether people actually show any growth/change/learning, or not. there have been many arguments about many things on this forum, and the people who tend to get told to get the fuck out tend to be the people who repeatedly argue the same thing, despite all the arguments that are advanced against them. like TinT, who is not willing to give an inch on his notion that trans women benefit from past experience as males, despite actual trans women telling him that this does not conform with their past or present experience. his theory is failing to explain actual facts, and yet he keeps beating us over the head with it.

at some point you just have to say that this is not getting us anywhere, and the arguing has to stop. because it's just irritating and exhausting everyone, and no one is learning anything.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 10 of 29

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group