all 19 comments

[–]grixit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Looks pretty complete to me. And well laid out too.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks! Since posting I was thinking about adding:

• Felt gender is undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential

in third to last place, but don't know if that's overkill, since the current third to last place sort of covers it:

• Distinguishing between the sexes is justified, distinguishing between transgender-males who identify as women & transgender-males who identify as men is not, because differences in ideological beliefs are not material differences.

Also, in pursuit of using the most accurate terminology I have found that the term 'natal gender' exists & is more commonly used than 'socialised gender', so I'm considering amending the conspectus accordingly.

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The point about it being undetecable and inconsequential is very important. It is just a claim one makes, and even if they further claim some dysphoria as the cause: so what? A mental illness does not make something not real suddenly more real.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How about this, to really hit home the point:

• Felt gender is undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential, in some cases there isn’t even a superficial difference between transgender-males & men

A mental illness does not make something not real suddenly more real

You're forgetting:

• Being transgender is not a disorder, has no symptoms & doesn't require medical treatment, according to every culture throughout history outside the modern day West

Starting in 2022 "gender dysphoria" will cease to exist as a mental disorder. It'll be re-categorised as a "sexual condition" (like homosexuality) called 'gender incongruence', meaning there will be no basis to pathologise it anymore, not even in the West. Do you think I ought to mention that in the conspectus?

[–]FlippyKing 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know if all that should be mentioned because simply mentioning it leaves the many statements included in it open to petty attacks or leaves it open to assume that "something" exists in all this gender nonsense.

That it is undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential I think is a strong point you make. It amounts to nothing more than a claim.

But the claim is not made in a vacuum, it is made in a way that demands we change language, freedom of speech, and history. Women's health must be made obscure or overly verbose so as to include women who might be so stupid that they think because they claim to be a man they could have taken Ambien in the same way a man should take it, or that they might not realize their reproductive health concerns are those of women and not men.

I'm still sickened by the woman who was raped by her room mate and one of the things she said about it is that he knew she identified as a man as if that matters to a guy raping a woman. Her sense of identity did not matter at all.

The attack is on language and freedom of speech and on history. The idea that women bring all voters into the world, apparently a slogan used by suffragettes, makes no sense in a gender-drunk world. That women were forced into being only reproductive vessels too keep the labor pool flooded and keep labor cheap makes no sense in a gender-drunk world and pulls the rug out of a major underpinning of actual-left ideology. And it does this at the expense of the detectable (as in with one's hands groping) and definable (as in Adult human female) and consequential (as rape or Ambien or every other aspect of sexed medical differences), in favor of the indetectable and indefinable and inconsequential. Even when they claim pain over misgendering, it is a claim and can never be more than a claim unlike rape.

[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

For the question at the end: I don't know if anything was left out. I think it goes way beyond what needs to be said in some places. I don't like that because it is like in a war where one might allow an army to tread too deeply into enemy territory allowing victories in battles to over extend the army where it can be attacked and cut off from supplies. "Socialised gender > felt gender, according to sociology" does not matter so much to me in that one is a social construct and the other is just some crap in someone's mind on their own, but neither is physical reality. Men and women are men and women because of their reproductive organs and how we socialize ourselves or how we imagine ourselves does not and should not matter this debate. I do not care what someone thinks they are or claims they are and I dont' care of some guy thinks he can legitimately claim he was raised among women to be like a women.

I just absolutely do not care one bit about someone's sense of their own identity not in any way imaginable.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

A yes, at the start I list terms & their definitions, I should include a point defining 'natal/social gender', & then a separate point for the feminist understanding of 'felt gender'. I think it's important to distinguish between feminism's view of gender & those who believe it to be innate, in order for a conspectus on the topic to be complete.

"Socialised gender > felt gender, according to sociology" – is meant to highlight that it's backed by science. I feel I need to cover the topic of socialised gender, because of the evidence within sociology:

"Socialization theory offers a straightforward account of the acquisition of gendered identities. Infants are seen as blank slates, waiting to be written down on by their environment [...]

[...] Reinforcement (through rewarding gender-appropriate behavior and punishing what may seem as deviant behavior) socializes children into their genders [...]

[...] For example, are far more likely to engage with their sons in rough physical play than they are with their daughters, and it has been argued that long-term consequences may follow (in this case, a head start for boys in the development of physical violence and aggressiveness) [...]

[...] These types of influences can include parental attitudes and difference of treatment regarding male and female children [...]

[...] A study of infants aged 13 months found that when boys demand attention - by behaving aggressively, or crying, whining or screaming - they tended to get it. By contrast, adults tended to respond to girls only when they used language, gestures, or gentle touches; girls who used attention-seeking techniques were likely ignored. There was little difference in the communicative patterns at the start of the study, but by the age of two, the girls have become more talkative and boys more assertive in their communicative techniques"

as well as Simone de Beauvoir's central topic in The Second Sex:

"that formula [one is not born but made a woman] is the basis of all my theories & it's meaning is very simple: that being a woman is not a natural fact. It's a result of a certain history. There is no biological or psychological destiny that defines a woman as such. She is the product of a history, of civilisation, first of all, which has resulted in her current status. And secondary for each individual woman of her personal history in particular, that of her childhood. This determines her as a woman, creates in her something which is not at all innate, or an essence, something which has been called the "eternal feminine", or femininity. The more we study the psychology of children the deeper we delve, the more evident it becomes that baby girls are manufactured to become women [...] Long before a child is conscious, the way it is breastfed, or held, or rocked etc. inscribes in its body what might later appear a destiny"

I appreciate the criticism.

Still under construction:

• Felt gender is undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential (in some cases there isn’t even a superficial difference between transgender-males & men). Transgender-males desire to be female & feminine (even the most masculine-presenting ones will go by a feminine name & request feminine pronouns), but they say being female & feminine is separate from being a woman, so they lack a motivation for being a woman, since men can be female & feminine according to their ideology

• “Innate gender” is oxymoronic. Sex is innate, gender is cultural

• Natal gender/socialised gender refers to gender identity as a result of childhood socialisation. Family condition their children from birth by treating them in accordance with the cultural norms associated with their sex

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

My concerns are that all the social science-y stuff is open to change and interpretation and it is the thicket in which gender propagandists most easily muddy the waters. I don't think gender is real. At best it is socially constructed, but to me that just means its not real and I would allow them to try to argue against physical reality instead of wading into for them. I don't think the idea of a woman socially can be pulled from the reality of a woman physically. That a woman in not oppressed by her biological reality but is oppressed because of it by men does not make a "social" woman and a biological woman out of one woman.

I really never liked the "one is not born but made a woman" phrase. It isn't just hyperbole because it just isn't true. A woman is in fact born a woman, men and society treat her differently and that shapes her mind and her behaviors, but the implication is that if men and society didn't do that then she would not be a woman. This sounds too much like the genderists argument for my tastes. Sorry, but one is in fact born a woman or a man, or else we would have no problem with the NEJM opinion piece about changing birth certificates.

I don't mean to be criticizing what you are creating. Maybe I don't understand the purpose of it, the goals of it, and who the audience is. I just don't see any reason to discuss anything other than material reality. Gender may not be cultural. Heather Heyer uses a definition of gender that has it tied to biology, that it is not cultural and she sees gender in all species because it is the behavioral differences between the sexes. Male and female lions have different behaviors and roles, to her that's gender.

But especially considering the crisis in social sciences where so many supposedly well-established studies can not be reproduced, I see no need to even drift into anything than cold hard material reality.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The trans movement's main argument is that gender is innate, like homosexuality. That may be a more psychological focus, however, there is a major focus on the biological as well, which is why TRAs keep bringing up brains, intersex, hormones etc. while socialisation has always been integral to a demographic's social existence or class, which reflects a more Marxist approach, which (2nd wave?) feminism shares. Sex is the catalyst to whether someone benefits from male privilege or has sexism to deal with instead.

It's not just sociology, but also biology that comes down to averages, for instance the average man is taller & stronger than the average woman, but that doesn't mean the shortest, weakest man is still taller & stronger than the tallest, strongest woman – which is precisely the kind of exceptions pedants (who are ubiquitous in losing arguments) like to underscore. The trends tell us that trans-womxyn are men biologically, as well as sociologically. Theirs is an ideology of gaps, I think we can afford to cover all bases, leaving no stone unturned.

The trans movement is approaching this on all fronts: on the one hand trans-womxyn are naturally/biologically/neurologically women, on the other they acquire their female-status via hormones & surgeries, while they somehow also received feminine socialisation by osmosis (even though they just so happen to always embody male-gaze femininity & never the more domestic, caregiver role that most women find themselves in).

Male and female lions have different behaviors and roles, to her that's gender.

I think that's instinct, while gender is culture, which I believe is unique to humans

With all the Orwellian qualities of trans ideology, even the coldest, hardest, most material fact can just be re-classified as its opposite.

The conspectus is meant to address all the issues of trans ideology from a feminist perspective in the most succinct way possible. It's meant to give a quick, practical overview of the ideology while deconstructing it. It's a response to trans ideology monopolising the discourse. We haven't got as much time & space, so we've got to be concise & brief. I'll publish it as a medium article. It can either be copied & pasted, or either just parts of it whenever relevant. A sort of handy social media debate tool/aide.

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think Heather Heying (I called her Heyer earlier, sorry) describes sex as the hardware, gender as the software or operating system but that it is in her view tied to biology and I think she distinguishes that from socialized or psychological aspects of it. So, be it instinct or something else, "a rose by any other name" might apply here.

Trans arguments are literally all over the map, and all in bad faith and all committing so many logical fallacies and rhetorical trickery that cover all the bases will be very tough. I do not envy you as the task is daunting.

But, here is one thing we have on our side: at best all they can hope to do is produce a theory predicts things as they are and perhaps some thing yet discovered that explains the world better than our current reality based set of theories and models, though to call definitions of man and woman "theories" shows how far they have to go to create something worth using.

In Geology the "continental drift" theory was laughed at, especially in the US. As the ideas around it became more refined and it became better defined, it was called plate tectonics and predictions were made from it that the older theory, called Geosynclines, fell out of favor. In spite of that there were people who did not see the need for plate tectonics in their work and still used geosyncline ideas long after the theory stopped being useful and was no where near as useful as plate tectonics. There are still uncertainties about some of the mechanisms involved in tectonic processes, but the theory is vastly superior to geosynclines. Another theory that tried to usurp a dominant ideology was Intelligent Design which attempted to compete with Evolutionary Theory (which is wrongly called Darwin's Theory of Evolution by some today but the theory has come very far from Darwin's possible stolen ideas, much further than say the change from Continental Drift to Plate Tectonics). Where Plate Tectonics answered many questions better and provided clarity where there was little to none, Intelligent Design advocates most often relied on two fallacies: they argued from a conclusion and they argued for an irreducible complexity basically claiming there are things we can not know. Ultimately they did not put forth any actual theory that could be compared to evolution, they just tried to nit-pick away at some oddities and really leaned on a lack of understanding as if that proved something.

Gender propagandists do not have anything like a theory that answers any questions, where as gender critical critics of them do in the sense that the rapes of women by trans-identified males in women's prisons was predicted. There are recent crime stats that show trans-identifed males do in fact commit violent crimes at male rates and not female rates, I'm fairly certain this will fall into a prediction made by team GC and a failure by team gender.

As we understand it, a man has the possibility of impregnating a woman to them it is too complicated to know-- irreducible complexity. They may bring up men who do not produce viable sperm, arguing from the margins I guess you'd say, but we're not the ones saying that person is not a man instead we will go to other ways of classifying that person and that person will be classified a man probably very easily. But that man who is not producing viable sperm does not make someone who is producing viable sperm not a man and certainly does not make them a woman.

In the GC Debates QT sub, attempts were made to define woman. Team QT absolutely failed to even bring forth a workable definition. They hid behind a fake kind of speaking in set notation, but it was not workable. They tried to say a woman is a natal woman and anyone who identifies as a woman, and then tried to say that the were not using the word in its own definition. I wish I could say they were more artful than that but they were not artful but awful. They tried to argue that WOMAN is a set with members in that set that include natal woman and anyone identifying as a woman, then they claimed they defined the set and the words in the set were some how different than the name of the set. Maybe not "they" but one guy, I lose track of names on these places. Maybe I'm playing it safe and not mxgenderxng them.

So, if we accept some other definition for woman, how workable is that definition and what does it help us do? They can not give us a definition that does not allow the state of being a woman to be reduced down to a claim made by somenone, and they can not give a reason better than the defintion we use is definite in that it delineates what is and what is not a woman based on physical criteria. Even if the criteria is complicated and multivariate, to cover all the intersex and DSD conditions, and even if there are a very few (1 in 5000 I think is the number) who can not fit the male and female classification, that does not make an adult human female anything other than a woman and it does not make a trans identified person anything more than their physically determinable sex.

They can say that due to those factors and due to the concept of "passing" and anything else they might invoke, that we might not be able to discern a person's sex, and even if we grant them a momentary confusion someone might have over that and let them then imply that if you spent long periods of time with them that one might never know the persons's sex: they are arguing that deception is reality.

Colin Wright has a long twitter thread that I think he turned into an article somewhere that goes into the multivariate aspects of determining sex when dealing with DSDs or intersex conditions. He did it in the context of ripping apart science journals publishing things that fell for this irreducible complexity argument, he has a couple of specific names for the fallacy the use and one might be just The Multivariate Fallcy or the Univariate Fallacy, where since there are multiple factors involved the fact that there is no one factor that determines it every single time means the categories are insufficient. He says it better than I.

But, all of this is arguing intersex and DSD and then they argue from their conclusion and just say "so trans can be a thing". Nah.

I doubt any of this is helpful to you or your purpose, and I don't want to like slow you down or send you off in directions you're not planning on going in. Perhaps grouping their arguments by fallacy would help. There is no study that shows any of this, those all are just arguing from a conclusion, because there simply is no way to say some inner identity is "gendered" in a way that mimics or sexed differences. There is no part of the brain that behaves or reacts in such a way that it means anything about sex or gender that doesn't rely on the biological categories to first be established and then be added to by the trans people they want to add to it, and even if there were some part of the brain where it was a match between trans identified males and actual women, that does not mean these guys are women-- that is arguing from the conclusion.

I guess I'll end with this: I think establishing what we know to be true and unassailable, establishing the firm ground we are on the way Wright talks about defining men and women, and establishing the percent of humans this covers, all but 1 in 5000, would make all their arguments weaker just from the very start. All their arguments can be dealt with from those easy and clear physical facts. You might have to throw away the "one is not born but made" type rhetoric though as that seems to serve them far better than team GC even though she was team GC.

Good luck, I hope some of this helps, but I fear it is just pulling you away from your work on it and I apologize for that. Good luck!

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

sorry, I left out a big problem shared by Inteligent design and gender propagandists: they make untestable and unprovable claims. That some part of physiology was "designed" is untestable and unprovable even if we can not understand how something evolved. It is like ancient alien advocates who look at things and throw up their arms saying "no one could have built that". Even if true that does not mean aliens built it and that idea is untestable and unprovable. There is nothing that can test or prove the notion that J. Yaniv is a woman other than the claim made by that monster. It says things are independently discernible simply because people claim they are not what they actually are, and can only be known by asking. In so doing they reduce definitions to claims (and I'm repeating myself)

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So, I've split the conspectus into two sections. I'll post just section 1, for now, the sources will be at the end:

Section 1: Foundations of Gender

1) Gender is an umbrella term that either refers to male/female (e.g. ‘gender inequality’ refers to inequality between the sexes, i.e. men & boys’ privilege vs. discrimination against women & girls), or masculinity/femininity

2) Femininity is a construct, an ideology that promotes the sexual objectification/fetishisation, infantalisation, dehumanisation, subjugation of the female sex. Femininity is artificial secondary sex characteristics bestowed onto girls from birth. Femininity is sanctioned self-harm. Femininity is the opposite of freedom

3) A woman is an adult human female (not a construct), like a hen is a female chicken. A female, feral child may believe herself an animal, but she is a girl

4) A transgendered male’s sex is unambiguous & binary, not assigned, not intersex, not female, but male. Therefore excluding them on these grounds does not indirectly exclude any women

5) ‘Gender identity’ either refers to natal/socialised gender, which is axiomatic in sociology & related disciplines, & describes a social identity resulting from gendered socialisation (children receive separate upbringing styles based on their sex), or a transgender person’s cross-gender self-identification/felt gender.

6) Felt-gender is undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential

7) The trans movement conflates men’s cross-gender self-identification/preferred sex/felt gender, with women’s socialised gender, in order to a) erase transgendered males’ socialised gender & b) equate their felt-gender with women’s socialised gender

8) David Reimer was socialised a boy for the first 2 years of his life, then sexual abuse took its place under the guise of “re-socialisation”. So the major case purported to favour felt-gender theory, did the opposite. Conversely, the vast majority of infant males assigned female at birth & socialised accordingly did not desist

9) Trans people prove that socialised gender > felt-gender, otherwise they wouldn’t have to train themselves not to walk, talk, behave etc. in a gender-congruent way, nor would they have to put any effort in to emulating the gendered behaviours of their preferred sex

10) Transgender people’s gendered behavioural trends are consistent with their socialised gender & inconsistent with their felt gender e.g. positions of power, media representation, crime rates, HIV distribution are male-dominated, while attempted suicide is female-dominated, regardless of trans or not

11) All transgendered males present as feminine (names & pronouns, minimally) & most make their bodies appear female (e.g. tucking). The ideology of the trans movement claims men can be female & feminine, yet most transgendered males still prefer to be women, presumably because they know they are male, but crave the association with being female, which they believe feminine names & pronouns & female labels like ‘woman’ & ‘female’ will afford them, as these don’t just connote femaleness, the latter two even denote it. Therefore transgender-males themselves don’t actually believe the trans movement’s ideological claims (that the state of being female & feminine are separate from ‘woman’), but in fact agree with feminism that ‘woman’ is defined as female, otherwise they’d have no desire to be one. This is why ‘preferred sex’ rather than “gender identity” is a more accurate term to describe transgenderism

12) A man's cross-gender self-identification & preferred sex do not erase his socialisation, or his sex, respectively. Quite the reverse, his gendered socialisation & unambiguous male sex make his felt gender & preferred sex redundant, as he shares his biology, socialisation & privilege with men & lacks women’s biology, socialisation & the sexism that is universal to women’s experience, with nothing but a feeling to make up for it

Sources:

1) https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/masculinity

https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/femininities.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_of_domination#Benefits_among_gender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_of_domination#Wage_gap_among_gender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_of_domination#Representation_among_gender

3) https://www.oed.com/oed2/00286737

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_gender#Gender_and_socialization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization#Gender_socialization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3u1A0Mrjjw

8) https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/GenderIdentityOutcomeinFemaleRaised46XYPersonswithPenileAgenesisCloacalExstrophyoftheBladderorPenileAblation.pdf

9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACVM1BUY8tY

https://www.reddit.com/r/FTMMen/comments/cptx7d/what_i_learned_in_speech_therapy/

10) https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/amp34567467/election-2020-trans-winners/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender_characters_in_film_and_television

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_trans_characters

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/848759/hmpps-offender-equalities-2018-19.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.htmlhttps://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics

https://save.org/about-suicide/suicide-facts/

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20174218?sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

I posted it here the lazy way, but in the finished product the sources would be linked the way they are on Wikipedia. What do you think? Should I inlclude number 11? Should I refer to them as 'transgendered males'? Should they be numbered? Once I'm done, I'll publish the first edition on Medium. Ideally the second edition would be a collaborative effort by members of the GC sub.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

In 2, "Femininity is artificial secondary sex characteristics " I think "secondary sex characteristics" are like hips and breasts but, regardless of what specifically, I think that phrase already points to a biological thing, so I think you might want a different phrase. Any phrase that puts sex with gender will be seized upon to create the smoke screen of confusion the whole movement is built on, so maybe the phrase you start 2 with, that it is a construct is sufficient. Is "social construct" insufficient? If not maybe that could be used, if you're open to that. The last two sentences of 2 seem unneeded and kinda like hyperbole to me, or like part of a "polemic" I think might be the word. I think it would be easy to say "no they're not" for the genderists to those but not to the other ideas in 2. Consider if 2 might be finished before the last two sentences in it.

Five is interesting. I don't type this paragraph to counter it, but I really didn't know they ever pinned down what a gender identity is, or who has them and why some don't. I've seen bogus stuff saying if you don't have one then you're really non-binary, as if "no we're non-playing your game" is not good enough for them. Tactically, I think you are offering them ways of solving their problem for them. Gender identity makes no sense, and maybe I like the idea of seeing it as an aspect of one's sense of self that some how gendered in a way that mimics sex and is described by language stolen from the descriptors for social constructs of masculine and feminine but that does not roll of the tongue. Really, it makes absolutely no sense to me that this inner sense they claim to have of themselves makes them conflate themselves with people of the opposite sex and to do it while hiding being people with intersexed conditions. It sounds like a mental illness, not an actual sense of one's self.

Six seems to me to be more like what 5 'could' be or they overlap maybe. Gender is felt; and for anyone to know it, the person must state their claim of having a gender. This is quite different from sex which is observable. This difference is manipulated by gender activists where they pretend the recording of a person's sex at birth is actually an "assignment" of gender when it is not. If sex and gender are accepted by gender activists as different, then there is no reason other than being caught up in the throws of their own unchecked and uncontrolled mental illness to object to recording sex on a birth certificate and leaving it alone for all but the 0.02% of the population that is truly intersexed.

The rest I think allows too much to cross this inner/outer divide. Sex is observable, gender is only a claim made by someone to everyone except the one making the claim. Misgendering is not a real thing, as gender is not a real tangible thing, because it is simply correctly sexing someone.

I guess I want to add this thought: If there is a theory behind gender, then that theory has to serve our species better than our current and traditional and common-sense way of refering to observable sex. It does not. The simple fact that pronouns must be announced and can not be "assumed", shows the theory (if there is one) is already more like convoluted epi-cycles than a clearer understanding of observable reality requires. In the same way that epi-cycles were needed to make sense of a earth-centered solar system but not needed for a heliocentric solar system, the burden of learning people's pronouns only serves a self-centered person's view of those around them and is not needed if we recognize that pronouns are used seamlessly when we assume they correspond to someone's sex. Nothing about "gender" makes the world make more sense or simplifies anything. It explains and predicts nothing because it is at best based on lies and fake science. Mark Rippetoe has a couple of videos on his youtube channel going into deep detail about sports performance. The one that jumps out is that world records setting women's performances in track and field are common among male high school athletes. Gender as an identity is at best irrelevant, but mostly likely it is just a lie or a result of a mental illness.

I worry that wiki will change the definitions you are using and change what you are referring to. Maybe, and this is me saying "do more work" so I agree I should not do that, go to the sources and quote them and cite them directly and see wiki as quoting a book that is quoting something else-- we would always want to go to the actual source to make sure the quote is accurate and not out of context anyway.

This thought became clearer to me as I read this version: that gender identity is a stupid idea worth tackling in the manner you are trying but that it is separate from Radical Feminism's issues with femininity. But I see some aspects of femininity as analogous to tactics used by people who are less large or less powerful than those they are competing with or directly fighting with or negotiating with. There's a yielding aspect to femininity that is subservient but there is also an aspect of it that is like judo. Some things labeled as being feminine where things I would label as just not being an asshole, and similarly things called masculine that I saw as just being an asshole. What is feminine or masculine differs by social class. I know when I started traveling in middle class social circles, the ideas of what "being a man" is were not what I saw growing up working class. There's nothing "inner" about any of that, it's all socialized and it's all adapting to one's environment with one's resources and capabilities.

Numbering is good, it makes it clear and easy to deal with. I think you'll find it allows you to pare down your thoughts and really make a tight and clear finished product.

Good work!

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with your point about the drawbacks of linking a Wiki page & that I should instead link the source itself. Here is yet another updated version, just the first half again (without any sources this time though), Im hoping it clears up more on the subject of gender:

The different uses & meanings of gender & correcting common errors:

1a) Gender (synonym for sex): male/female

1b) Gender (construct): masculinity/femininity

2a) Gender identity: a social identity, not naturally occurring, but shaped by gendered upbringing in accordance with the norms associated with a child’s sex, not their preferred sex

2b) Cross-gender self-identification/felt-gender (almost exclusively incorrectly referred to as ‘gender identity’, & usually shortened to: ‘gender’): one of many, usually temporary phenomena collectively referred to as ‘childhood gender nonconformity’ that typically affects underage homosexuals.

• In the West this identity transition is considered proper medical treatment, indirectly pathologising homosexuality & making transgenderism into a method of conversion therapy

• Recently, the definition has stretched to include non-homosexual men with a paraphilia called autogynaephilia

3) Gender role (often shorted to ‘gender’): a traditionally masculine, or feminine social role, or performance

4) Woman (not a construct): an adult human female

5) Transgender men are adult human male transsexuals who present as feminine (names & pronouns, minimally) & most make their bodies appear female (e.g. tucking), but they share their sex, their gender identity & their privilege with men, which makes their preferred sex, felt gender & strong desire to appropriate women redundant:

a) Transgender men’s sex is unambiguous & binary, not on a spectrum, not assigned, not intersex, not female, but male. Therefore excluding them on these grounds does not indirectly exclude any women

b) Transgender men’s felt-gender is undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential:

• David Reimer was socialised a boy for the first 2 years of his life, then sexual abuse took its place under the guise of “re-socialisation”. So the major case purported to favour felt-gender theory, did the opposite. Conversely, the vast majority of infant males assigned female at birth & socialised accordingly did not desist

• Transsexuals prove that gender identity > felt-gender, otherwise they wouldn’t have to train themselves not to walk, talk, behave etc. in a gender-congruent way, nor would they have to put any effort in to emulating the gendered behaviours of their preferred sex

• Transsexuals’ gendered behavioural trends are consistent with their gender identity & inconsistent with their felt gender e.g. positions of power, media representation, crime rates, HIV distribution are male-dominated, while attempted suicide is female-dominated, regardless of trans or not

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have to stress that I do not envy the task you set for yourself. I do not know if the epicycles used to describe the solar system's movements in a geocentric model had a complicated and confusing vocabulary to it but I imagine it did just based on the how the standard model of particle physics has grown in complexity while parsing what is truly minutia. Similarly it still seems to me that you are arguing on their territory.

You may see your way through all this clearly and see a straight line of clear reason as you read through it all. That I struggle to is probably more on me than anyone else. But, if you find yourself ripping your hair out as you organize this and cover all their bases, realize their baselines (I hope you get baseball references) seem like pretzel lines to more and more bases because they rely on confusion. Perhaps start with men and women, perhaps move on to boys and girls who must grow close to their full size before they enter puberty, and how sexual reproduction between two sexes is how it is done on Earth by all species that use sexual reproduction. For all but a very small number of people, around 0.02%, male and female are accurate description of their bodies and which one (and only one) of the two (and only two) roles they can potentially play in reproduction.

Maybe you will find it easier to swat away their arguments by starting with your own reality based argument instead of diving right into their mud.

The history of the word gender, somewhat spelled out by Paul Cockshott in one of his writings on gender on his blog (the name of it is his name) shows that the earliest uses of the word in peer reviewed journals was as a polite substitute for sex.

David Reimer: do tras claim that his ordeal proves trans is real? How? There can be no logic to any defense of what happened to that kid.

[–]peakingatthemoment 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Transgender-males benefit from male privilege

Can you explain this one for transsexual males who pass? Beyond like not having to fear pregnancy if raped or possibly having had male privilege earlier in life, it’s hard for me to understand.

Transgender behavioural trends are consistent with their socialised gender & inconsistent with their felt gender

If you are just speaking about trends, I feel like this is true. Individuals may be different though and don’t all behave one way.

Agree with everything else.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Male privilege just means lack of sexism, which as the name suggests is based on sex. If the sex of a person is assumed to be female they may receive superficial sexism, but they can opt out of it any time they want, they choose not to, possibly because it isn't that bad & the fact that it's affirming is probably even soothing in a way. It's the difference between signing a contract & having a contract signed for you before you were born. At least you had a 'before' to compare the experience to.

Caitlyn Jenner is living off the largess of Bruce Jenner (not saying she is inexplicably stealth now, but you know what I mean, privilege can be far reaching). It's like if you started out rich, but then left that life to live on a farm or something. You're there because you fit in better there, it was your calling, but it was also your choice, despite it's drawbacks, which you had time to weigh up beforehand. It's like the difference between a sex worker who started at 14 out of economic desperation & a woman with a respectable degree deciding her true calling is sex work.

In your rape scenario the attack of a transgender person who passes might have been initiated because of sexism, but at some point they wouldn't pass anymore. If the attacker continues after finding out then can we be sure it wouldn't have happened had the victim not passed?

I've revised it to this (it's still under construction though):

• Transgender-males benefit from male privilege (like homophobia, transphobia does not offset male privilege), the ones who pass benefit from "cis privilege", meaning they are never more oppressed than women. Women in their natural, unfeminised state are “GNC” too

I've added this one since:

• Trans people prove that socialised gender > felt gender, otherwise they wouldn’t have to train themselves not to walk, talk, behave etc. in a gender-congruent way, nor would they have to put any effort in emulating others

And will probably add a version of this one (related to the socialised gender section):

• David Reimer was socialised a boy for the first 2 years of his life, then sexual abuse took its place under the guise of “re-socialisation”. So the only case purported to favour felt-gender theory, did the opposite. Conversely, the vast majority of infant males assigned female at birth & socialised accordingly did not desist

It's getting a bit too long at this point I think (it's over 1K words currently).