mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Probably not what God had in mind when he started the universe either
The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General
- Thread starter padraig (u.s.)
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 44 pages of prepubescent pharmacological blockers 45 pages of prepubescent whining 67 pages of prepubescent pharmacological blockers absurd contortions benny and benny drinking benny b still butthurt by maridonna bisque denoncement conversations cotton ceiling doesn't even know who totnumb are dogging has no gender handwaving women's rights hm govts mask dom fetish i identify as a knobhead jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 maxi celibacy men's rights to women's bogs nonce biscuits and his moral high grooming ground oh here we go again 18 paragraphs about communism padrage phallusy political male lesbianism sanctimonious man really hates misogynists shed ted utd simple cancer insult skunk+internet casualty=as serious as cancer take a bite of peach there is no such thing as society what gender is the hand of god? world's worst dinner party
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
Do you think we should make a separate thread? That will be the epic fight of the femboys: is sex binary or non-binary? Do you think the topic warrants its own thread? I bet Jenks does because he's a mark anthony and Mad maxipad does because he's sipping dat RAGEAHOL!!!!
This debate has been a long time coming.
Remember, Thirdform is the referee.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Soaring T levels from a bullish malelesbian
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I would confidently bet everything I own on @malelesbian being able to handily beat @mixed_biscuits at arm wrestling.
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
LMAO it's those darned blasted red-pillers who defend ad populum arguments. I've argued againsst popular opinion my whole life, how do you think I came up with femboy feminism/male lesbianism? LOL
I'd love to know where I begged the question. Yes I assume a lot, I'm a metaphysician like Butler and Nietzsche, but my arguments are sound as always!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
For the last time, I reject transracialism!
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
That's a pretty unprincipled exception you've got there!
Of course, should your prorg masters issue an update to the firmware, you'll start finding post-hoc rationalisations lickety-split.
There is no fundamental difference: in both cases there is a feeling of the wrong body being inhabited. Take the progressive step that logic and justice demand.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Just noticed we neglected to add the "Jamaican VooDoo Gang from Predator 2" tag, but I remedied it so theres nothing to worry about. As you were.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
What in the world is a prorg? Have you ever heard of Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man? It's literally the first novel written by a black man, over a century ago. The idea of transracialism has been around for over a century and it never gained any traction because as an idea, it sucks.
Yes, race is a social construct. Society constructs race so that a person's race depends on their parents' race. So race is innate while gender is not.
But riddle me this my brother (can you handle it?): why is it that black people can and do act white, or atleast people consider them as doing so? Is there such a thing as acting white or acting black or acting asian? Because if there isn't then there you too must make an exception, for you denied that a person can act like a man or woman. But if a person born white can't act black, then transracialism can't occur. It's not like Dolezal could change her white genes!
Not even dude. Dolezal didn't claim she was born in the wrong body, she claimed that she contributed to black culture.
Remember that black people in America do sometimes try to identify as white, but their idenfications, their speech acts, fail. Remember when That's So Raven did this a few years ago? Said she was only American, not African-American. Her attempt at transracialism failed. Because at least in America, race is an innate classification. Maybe it shouldn't be, but if it ever does, I welcome the day when people can choose their own race. My friends in Brooklyn love that Dave Chappelle sketch about the racial draft.
Seems to me the alternative to transracialism is to claim that either race is innate, whether a social construct or not, or to claim that, though race is an, in principle, changeable, social construct, our current society has yet to actualize the social conditions necessary to enable people to change their races in their lifetimes. But like I said, I don't care if our society will one day progress to the point where people can change their races like they can change their genders right now. I don't care if transracialism will succeed in the future, I know that it has failed up to now.
And while I haven't read the article you linked to, let me add that I oppose gender abolitionism in the following way: although I believe that society will one day progress to a gender-equal state which I call the androgynarchy, we still live in a patriarchy today. Even mist bisque must admi(s?)t this. Since we live in a hierarchy, we should pursue gender equality, not gender abolitionism. A gender-blind solution to gender inequality fails just like a race-blind solution to racial inequality fails. We don't live in a post-racial or post-gender society right now. Until we do, I pursue gender equality rather than the elimination of gender.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The Prorg is the Progressive Borg. The members of the Borg are part of a hive mind and think no more or no less than what is directed.
Yo, brother, wassup
Transgender's only recently got traction. For quite a while anti-slavery didn't have much traction. You're literally appealing to the hive mind in saying that - don't act because there's traction, act because it's right!
It's not about acting it's about how you feel inside. That's what self-identification suffices.
Genes are by the by: the whole point is that you feel that you're in the wrong body and genes are precisely part of that body!
Also, that's a super-essentialist thing to say.
Dolezal is irrelevant. The pivotal cases are those who experience racial dysphoria. Dolezal is only important in that, as a society that respects gender dysphoria has opened up transgenderism for the non-dysphoric, her choice would be accepted by a society that catered for race dysphoria.
If you think that 'innate' is an arbitrary cultural label then there is no good reason not to help to hasten this shift in perception to your preferred system of cultural labelling.
Amen
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
Trans identity gained traction because of Judith Butler, baby! And yes, of course we should do what's right. I believe in universal morality, just like Butler. Sure, the popular opinion doesn't justify our opinions. But what justifies transracialism? Not the claim that we should respect all people's identifications, that's for sure. Why does that justification fail? Simply put, because an identification is a behavior, not an innate quality and innate qualities define race. That identifications partially define gender is simply a special rule when it comes to the ontological constitution of gender. Furthermore, you already denied that it's possible to act like a woman or man. You reject gendered behavior outright, meaning not even identifications can define my gender, since, according to you, no behavior can define my gender. So you would also need to deny racial behaviors as well, meaning no one could act black either. So racial self-identifications wouldn't matter to you either. Your view is radically self-undermining.
Here's another puzzle for you (you still ain't done shit about my other one): when an interracial couple gets married, does this change each partner's race? Do I become part black now that I have a black woman and even soon perhaps a half-black child in my family? Remember the American "one drop" rule under which all mixed kids are considered black -- if my wife and kids are black does that make me black? I say no. I remain white even though I have black people in my family. Why? Because I was born white, not black. What stops a mixed race relationship from changing the races of the partners involved on your view?
Actually, it's almost entirely about acting. The feeling inside simply motivates my action. All we know about my gender we know publicly: we only know I am a feminine man because I act feminine and manly, I do feminine things while also acting like a man. My intutition that I affirm my gender simply grounds my belief that my gender is authentic, a belief which furthermore justifies any other person's trust in my gender self-identification. Our culture doesn't accept an inner feeling as a reason to support our belief that a person counts as a member of a particular race. We require a person's parents to be black to justify our belief that this person is black. You have given no reason to believe that a person's inner feelings should justify our acceptance of their racial self-identification.
But why should we accept that your feeling that you should have been born black means that you are black? I understand why we should accept a person's gender self-identifications: after all a man transitioning to a woman may have many manly qualities at the beginning of her transition, but we still should accept that she's a woman, because we trust her identification as a woman, and we accept that it might take people a lot of time to change. It really does come down to what facts we allow to justify our acceptance of a person's identity, let's call it their identity-conditions. It should not surprise us that two different kinds require two different identity-conditions. You feign incredulity at this fact because you like to TROLLLLL
LOL again, most biologists are anti essentialists and they don't believe a person's genes can change within their lifetime.
So you accept that race is a social construct? Alright, we're making some progress. But the question is, why should society cater for race dysphoria?
This sentence is very unclear. I deny that innateness is an arbitrary cultural label. The race of my parents is not an arbitrary label, it is an empirical fact. I see no good reason to shift my perception to a preferred system of cultural labelling. Obviously I already prefer the system of cultural labelling that classifies people as members of their race based on their birth parents' race and classifies people as members of their gender based on their behavior. It's true that I lack an argument for basing race on innate qualities, but just because I don't have an argument doesn't mean there is no argument for my belief. On the other hand, you also lack an argument for basing race on behavior. If anything, I would just argue that alongside race we have a similar kind of racial or ethnic behaviors that don't define one's racial or ethnic identity. But I see no reason for behavior to define race.
After all, I've already accepted that sex is innate, even though -- and this is a key point you missed -- despite the fact that sex is innate, gender reassignment surgery can still change your sex. So sex even differs from race in that while both are innate, sex can change during a person's lifetime while race can't. That's a pretty good reason to believe that the logic of sex differs from the logic of race!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
@malelesbian you're all over the place and keep giving me these tangled cat's cradles of incoherence
Bear in mind that what I personally think is going on is within dualism (within idealism), reincarnation and subconscious memory; what I've been doing is using your frame to discuss it and showing you why you should be more inclusive within that frame, applying your own arguments.
The problem with applying your arguments tho is that you have more than one line and that they disagree with each other!
Bear in mind that what I personally think is going on is within dualism (within idealism), reincarnation and subconscious memory; what I've been doing is using your frame to discuss it and showing you why you should be more inclusive within that frame, applying your own arguments.
The problem with applying your arguments tho is that you have more than one line and that they disagree with each other!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
@malelesbian You are using a moving target of an argument that alternates between saying that a) there are no decisive behaviours that define a gender and that self-identification suffices and b) its opposite.
You seem mightily confused as to what 'essentialism' means and your views on what it takes to belong to a race - as well as the reality of the concept - are no different to the far right's.
As are your views on what constitutes male and female behaviour.
ie. very conventional/traditional
You seem mightily confused as to what 'essentialism' means and your views on what it takes to belong to a race - as well as the reality of the concept - are no different to the far right's.
As are your views on what constitutes male and female behaviour.
ie. very conventional/traditional
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
It's really quite simple. Society determines the behaviors that define a gender. If you want to know what behaviors define a gender, ask society. But it doesn't matter whether or not identification defines gender. Identification does define gender but only in a very trivial way.
What is more important is that for moral reasons, we should always trust a person to authentically identify as their own gender. Notice how your view cares very little for morals?
If a person identifies as a woman but performs many manly actions, I will still accept that she endeavors to act like a woman. Since a person's gender can change at any moment, we need to assume that a person at least tries to behave like the gender they identify as, because we trust the authenticity of the person's gender identification.
While self-identification partially defines gender, it is arguably the least important quality that defines gender. If a person identified as a man, but never performed any manly actions and only ever performed womanly deeds, I would still accept him as a man, but I could understand why people might mistake him for a woman. You can't imagine such examples. I argue your theory suffers from its inability to account for such examples. Furthermore I don't see the benefit to your argument of denying that gendered behaviors exist.
Remember, you rejected gendered behaviors, not me.
I define gender essentialism as the view that all members of the same gender must share the same quality in common. No one can find any citations of me claiming that all women must share the same commonality. On my view, even all feminine people need share no single feminine quality in common in order to count as feminine. So I never affirmed essentialism of any kind. NOT EVEN ESSENTIALISM ABOUT SEX.
This is totally ridiculous. Everyone, left or right or center, believes race is an innate quality. I affirm that race has a social reality, it is socially constructed. Social constructionism about race is a historically left-wing view.
Your failure to distinguish between social constructionism about race and race realism (which IS a far-right view) shows that you haven't thought through the metaphysics underlying identity politics.
Male and female behavior are irrelevant. I'm talking about male and female anatomies and manly and womanly behaviors. But just because I argue that manly behaviors must conform to social conventions in order to define a person as a man, the fact still remains that I constantly endorse non-traditional masculine and feminine behaviors. You don't.
I am a non-traditional male. Always have been, always will be me. I like non-traditional females. I allow for the continual reinterpretation of feminine qualities. You don't. Let's say supportive behavior is traditionally considered feminine. Here's an example of a non-traditional reinterpretation of this quality: what if a feminine person supported their community, rather than their family? What if they supported they country through participation in government? Traditionally, feminine people don't participate in government. The point is you have never given any such non-traditional intepretation of masculine or feminine behavior.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Which part of society? Or which society? If I decolonise and ask the people who wrote the Swahili wikipedia entry on these matters I'd get a very different response! This point of view is fundamentally anti-progressive anyway, because the whole point is to believe in one's own current minority position with a view to making it a majority position. 'Ask society' is pure conservatism.
Your morality is just social etiquette, hence the 'ask society' stance. As for self-identification, you already problematised gender self-ID yourself, as well as rejected without principle other kinds of trans identification.
If you accept that their identification is authentic, then any of their behaviour belongs authentically to that gender...you'd be giving out gold stars to your daughter for making the effort to wear pink at this rate.
You still haven't told us what female behaviour a man can't perform or vice versa.
Just a few sentences ago you said that people's genders can be determined by their behaviour, against their own identification - this is essentialism.
You're a race realist because you just said race is an innate quality!
No, you don't. You see them in extremely conventional terms, and where they coincide in a person you create an amalgam e.g. 'malelesbianism'
In my opinion there is no behaviour that necessarily compromises one's status as a man or as a woman, whereas you think the opposite. Can't stay, it's Jane Austen on the phone - she's asking whether she can satirise your view on the sexes ;-)
malelesbian
Femboyism IS feminism.
A particular society understood at the most general, metaphysical level.
I tend to focus on America.
African people act in accordance to gender norms...
Nope. I support counter-culture. I don't care if my view remains a minority position, I just want to represent femininity in culture.
I doubt you understand what conservatism is. The fact that I listen to actual society's regulations for what behaviors count as womanly or manly is far from conservative!
But why is your ettiquette so deficient?
I never problematized gender self-identification, and I had principled objections to transracialism and transspeciesism that you never addressed.
This non-sensical claim showcases your intellectual ineptitude. An person's authentic identification as a woman just means that a person tries to act like a woman as much as she can. If she acts like a man sometimes, we still accept her as a woman because we respect her self-identification. Why is respect so foreign to you?
Traditionally, a masculine, mainstream, gender conformist man cannot practice emotional availability, as society classifies that as a feminine behavior.
I already defined essentialism. The claim that behavior defines gender doesn't count as a essentialist argument on my definition of essentialism. Either provide an alternative definition of essentialism, or admit you're wrong. Again, I accept that only an essentialist can claim that actions define gender, then I render anti-essentialism an untenable position because I prohibit anti-essentialism from defining gender at all. I want an anti-essentialist definition of gender. Either give an alternative anti-essentialist definition of gender, or argue that anti-essentialists can't define gender.
You can't use my view that race is innate to support any racist arguments. The problem with race realism is that it supports racist arguments.
What's conventional about my views on masculinity and femininity?
I already gave you one example, and you ignored it.
Here's another example: women find a man masculine when he makes them feel safe. But many women fear traditionally masculine behaviors like aggression. So a man might make a woman feel safe because he behaves in way that makes her feel that he will never hurt her or abuse her.
Let's not forget, you've given no non-traditional interpretations of gendered behavior yet.
Then can you just admit you reject gender altogether? If behavior flat out doesn't define identity in a way that yields distinct identity categories, the there are no men and women, there are only males and females and their actions.
If men can't act girly, then why do you even care about trans-people? All trans women want is the right to act a certain way while living in either a male body or a surgically altered post-op trans-female body.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
@malelesbian you're mega-conventional, repeating yourself, coming up with some really bizarre factual claims and redefining terms idiosyncratically to suit your own purposes now so we'll continue this in a couple of years.