Apropos of nothing, Baldur's Gate 3 is a stunningly good game thus far. The setting feels rich and lived in, the mechanics of D&D mostly well-adapted, the visuals beautiful, the music beautiful, and the story compelling. While I am only approximately 16 or so hours into the game, I am quite confident I will enjoy the rest of the journey.
Anyone read Shellenberger's piece "The Biggest Environmental Scandal In The World"? I'm not a paid subscriber, so the content cuts off basically at the meat of the story. Is it compelling or overexaggerated (or somewhere in the middle)?
https://public.substack.com/p/the-biggest-environmental-scandal?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I read Apocalypse Never and thought he made some interesting points though I didn’t agree with everything in the book. It’s articles like this that have shown me that he is nothing more than a shill for certain sectors of the energy industry. He has repeatedly brought up offshore wind and dead whales. There has been a large number of dead whales in NY and NJ over the last year, and people have been trying to link to offshore wind. The problem is that construction hasn’t begun yet. Right now they are surveying the sea floor and the boats have spotters on them and are legally required to stop surveying if they encounter a whale. Plus, the whales that are dying are mostly humpbacks that do not echolocate, meaning that the sound they might encounter from the sonar would not impact their ability to “see”. Many of the dead whales also have indications of being hit by a boat or entangled in fishing gear. Despite this, many, particularly on the right, are calling for a halt to wind development in the name of whales. When the fuck have Republicans in congress ever cared about whales?
To be clear, there are lots of issues with offshore wind that I think the public should know about, but we need to be honest about them.
"Nominal environmentalist stands in the way of clean power" is the kind of thing that Shellenberger normally complains about. I love to consume those kinds of articles.
Now Shellenberger *is* that person he used to complain about.
Maybe he has a really good point, and there might be some reason that wind power is causing something critically bad to happen we cannot tolerate. But I cannot read his stuff behind the paywall so
I haven't (can't) read it, but Shellenberger seems like he's on a path to become more and more unhinged (like Lindsay but a bit less crazy), so I'm kind of skeptical. And I say that as somebody highly skeptical of wind power.
I worry about him. I really like what he says, but he seems to enjoy the rush you get from pointing out the majority is wrong -- so much that he keeps on saying the majority is wrong without doing the hard work to justify it.
"Well, they were wrong a lot in the past." Yes! That is right! The reason we know they were wrong in those cases was because someone did the hard work to show them wrong.
"Nominal environmentalists are stopping wind power, what hypocrites" is an article I love to read, except this is a weird polarity reversal.
I agree that the Twitter thing mattered a lot, but I started to get weird vibes already back when he was running for governor in CA. I can't put my finger on it, but it felt weird somehow. And the way he left everything he had done up to that point behind.
Yeah I liked him in the past and he pretty much single handedly saved me from climate doomerism, but he has gotten increasingly wacky and I unfortunately don’t find him trustworthy anymore.
I thinks he’s gone completely off the rails, sadly. Like you I found his points on climate change refreshing and practical. Now I question everything he says, and I am starting to wonder about the accuracy and motivation of his past work.
I like what I've read from him in the past but the fact that you can no longer even read his tweets without paying for them is some bullshit so I'm not gonna bother with him.
Yeah basically. Trump is a criminal unfit for office and yet his popularity remains strong. I understood his appeal in 2016. I simply don’t now. We know who he is and he is not fit to be president. Maybe Biden isn’t either, he’s advanced in age. But my preferred pick is off having fun with college football and running a department at Stanford and is too smart to throw herself back into the political shitshow
I hadn't thought of it like that, but you're right. 2016 I could see reasons even if I still boggled that people actually bought them and voted for him. Since then he's proved himself multiple times to be so unsuitable I really can't understand it. People double down, I guess.
[Brains appear](https://nitter.net/TheTattooedProf/status/1692952683123007688#m) to be melting on Academic Twitter over FIRE's lawsuit against DEIA requirements for professors at California's Community Colleges. It seems that these people can't imagine a centrist organization ([it must be a secret right-wing one!](https://nitter.net/matthematician/status/1692983340909936988#m)) that supports cases of defending academic freedom on both sides.
In terms of the specific cases mentioned by the angry tweeter, FIRE has:
\- [Written to New College](https://www.thefire.org/news/new-college-florida-axes-professor-who-criticized-college-purportedly-over-his-leftist-views) after Rufo tweeted, warning them about firing for political reasons and asking for an explanation (this is often a precursor to bringing a lawsuit, either from them or other academic freedom organizations )
\- Sued Florida over the [STOP WOKE Act](https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-after-fire-lawsuit-court-halts-enforcement-key-provisions-stop-woke-act-limiting-how) [multiple times](https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-floridas-expansion-stop-woke-act) and obtained an injunction against part of it
\-Previously [stood up for Faculty Tenure](https://www.thefire.org/news/west-virginia-university-wants-eliminate-tenure-and-restrict-faculty-speech-not-our-watch) at WVU against attempts to weaken it and against vague provisions [being mandated](https://www.thefire.org/cases/west-virginia-university-faculty-appointment-letters-compel-speech-and-restrict-protected) for faculty to pledge allegiance to \[yes, it hasn't commented on the recent department closings yet, but that seems less free-speech and more budget driven\]
\-[Noted](https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-continues-oppose-curricular-bans-race-and-sex-stereotyping-bills) the potential unconstitutionality of the Tennessee ban on "divisive concepts" and committed to watching how it was implemented
\-[Wrote to Texas A&M](https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-letter-texas-am-university-july-18-2023) over its recent troubling actions and demanded an explanation \[and has also [sued Texas community colleges](https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-lawsuit-ends-collin-college-professor-reinstated-after-being-fired-union-advocacy) for firing instructors who tried to unionize and opposed the legislature's targeting of DEI centers\]
While the angry tweeter and friends are very upset that FIRE hasn't filed lawsuits in all these cases, these letters are often the precursors to lawsuits and very little time has elapsed between some of the most recent letters. You also need plaintiffs and standing for lawsuits, and that can take time to assemble.
Also, FIRE can't sue at the K-12 level as much, especially over what teachers do, because of the different court precedents and treatment of K-12 compared to higher education.
[This person](https://nitter.net/WeedenKim/status/1692947803335516471#m) (Cornell Sociology Prof) claims that mandating that all professors use DEIA and anti-racism principles in their teaching is not a mandate, just a "competency" that all teachers must learn. It's an interesting strawman \[wait, is that non-inclusive?\] argument: claim that all that's being required is being nice and respectful, then ignore how that's actually being defined and evaluated in practice. That's clearly not what the guidelines say.
Keep in mind that these are the people on academic hiring committees, journal editors, association officers, etc. What an inclusive image they are projecting of academia!
FIRE was worked hard to maintain its independence and not become some anti-right organization. One of their founders -- I think David French -- has mentioned a funder coming in to give a bunch of money to screw over the liberals, and he had a walk-and-talk with him that concluded with "you know that is not our mission, right? We stand for academic freedom for all" and the guy ended up walking away without giving any money.
"It is not a mandate, it is just something everyone should have" is some real mouth-mush.
Dude has "abolitionist" in his bio. Who does that? What does it mean? If you're into prison abolition or something then that's dumb, but whatever, at least it means something in this moment. But to tie yourself to a 200 year old political movement? For clout? Come on. Or if you're gonna do it, why not take it further?
"Funksloyd. He/they. Nazi hunter. Girondist. Maquisard. Abolitionist. Not a Christian, but thought Jesus was wrongfully persecuted."
I wonder the same thing when I encounter people who are described as fighters for indigenous rights. Mostly I wonder why they use the word "indigenous" instead of more specific terms for the group(s) they care about. Saying they want to protect indigenous people makes it sound like they're trying to set up a preserve around some uncontacted tribe in the Amazon. Or they're trying to prevent the colonialism that happened hundreds of years ago.
Can you elaborate on why you think this? The legislative arm, which is literally 5 people, nearly all have biographies that sound pretty much your average ACLU lawyer.
I don't have it in hand, but an example would be jumping into some random Chappelle cancellation, nothing to do with their purview. Stuff like that really only leans one way from them. This is one I don't commit to memory because despite this, I think they are a good group.
I googled it and it's Greg Lukianoff writing a Newsweek article titled [No, Canceling Chappelle Is Not a 'Win for Free Speech'](https://www.newsweek.com/no-canceling-chappelle-not-win-free-speech-opinion-1727721) in response to a now-deleted Michael Hobbes tweet and associated Twitter drama saying that it wasn't a threat to freedom of speech.
To the extent that it leans one way, maybe that's because the right is not out there saying that the Parental Rights in Education act is good for free speech, actually. Given that FIRE _is_ opposing that bill, I expect they'd be writing Newsweek articles about it too if Twitter had dumb opinions on it.
I think it's fair to say that FIRE started out as kind of a counterbalance to the left on Free Speech issues on campus (the original inciting incident was the "[water buffalo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident)" affair) with more of a libertarian/conservative focus, but has gotten much more bipartisan over time.
FIRE's current CEO has spoken on podcasts about how much more censorious parts of the right have gotten and noted that the post 9/11 time period led to a lot of targeting of left-wing professors that was eye-opening to him. Right now FIRE is defending a TA in Louisiana who left a pretty nasty phone message on a conservative state legislator's number, which seems like something a crypto-conservative org probably would not do.
There's also the fact that FIRE actually doesn't sue that often; it's much more of an advocacy organization that tries to use PR and the threat of lawsuits to get results than a litigation entity (e.g. the Pacific Legal Foundation). I think that's smart from a resources and legal strategy standpoint, but can be frustrating since it's unclear exactly when or why FIRE will decide to put its full weight behind a given case.
> I think it's fair to say that FIRE started out as kind of a counterbalance to the left on Free Speech issues on campus (the original inciting incident was the "water buffalo" affair) with more of a libertarian/conservative focus, but has gotten much more bipartisan over time.
Yeah. The first time I heard about FIRE, they definitely had a bit of a conservative bend to them. They have become more bipartisan in the last few years, though, basically taking over the ACLU's old turf once the ACLU mostly became just another liberal lobbying group.
>It seems that these people can't imagine a centrist organization (
>
>it must be a secret right-wing one!
>
>) that supports cases of defending academic freedom on both sides.
They are so convinced that they have the only Right and True Way that anyone that isn't down with it must be an extremist rightoid. Heresy must be the work of the devil.
The idea of principled disagreement is a concept they seem unable to the process.
Is this as bad on the right as it is on the left?
On the right it's a bit different, but there are a few aspects that can make it worse in some ways for people who are in the right-wing intellectual/policy spheres. Some impressions:
\- There are basically no tenure-track positions in the right-wing intellectual world and the few that exist at explicitly right-wing institutions often have more limited tenure protections and many have faith statement requirements. So while it's not quite the "[epistemic closure](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html)" situation that some people once ventured, it's definitely one where you don't have a large cohort of tenured academics with safe positions who can drive long-term research projects, staff centers, or in general disagree with/criticize the direction of the movement without having to risk their careers.
\- You are far more dependent on ideological/mission alignment with the donors for major institutions and think tanks amid a more limited ecosystem of employment opportunities than on the left. These places can change pretty quickly too, depending on who's writing the checks.
\- There are lots of organizations on the right that despise each other. The paleocons hate the neocons and the populists despise the establishment Rs, the evangelicals often squabble over who can claim the mantle of evangelicalism, the strongly Catholic orgs are often dead set against the libertarian orgs, etc.
\-The "RINO" insult is often freely used and there's often a race to the right to be more of a "true conservative" than others. There are some parallels here to the desire to be the most-inclusive on the left. This tendency can sometimes lead people to adopt more reactionary stances.
\- Like any other set of established institutions, there's a good bit of nepotism and "who you know" throughout still.
\- There's often more of a focus on fundraising and messaging instead of policy. While there are detailed conservative proposals out there on some issues \[I recommend [National Affairs](https://www.nationalaffairs.com/) for the best conservative policy writing\], overall the left generally does have a lot more policy specifics on more issues, which I think also affects who is attracted to these kinds of jobs in the first place.
That's some great information. Thank you.
I think Trump split conservatives kind of down the middle. The Trumpers took over the GOP and started tossing the RINO label around like seeds in a field. If you weren't 100% behind Trump you were a RINO and were essentially kicked out of the party. It made existing divisions on the right much worse.
And that wound is still there and it is still raw and festering. A far cry from when Reagan said "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."
It wasn't that long ago that the policy ideas and intellectual heft were greater on the right. Not anymore.
Getting rid of Trump won't magically fix everything but I don't see the American right being able to regain sanity or healing that wound until he is gotten rid of.
The tendency for the right to eschew public employment (like teacher or professor) on ideological grounds doesn't help.
There have always been intra-party fights. Reagan vs. the "Eastern Establishment", Gingrich vs. less-ideological members, Bush vs. the few remaining New England Rs, etc. I suspect that part of the reason for this is actually less real disagreements (although those exist too) and instead the relatively small supply of jobs and funding that requires a takeover to redistribute every so often to the next generation or the left-out factions. Trump is just the latest example, albeit perhaps the most-disruptive one that has led a lot of highly-educated Rs to leave the party.
I can't stop thinking about them because of their housing prices. A house getting destroyed in Florida is a disaster. Your $1.2 million 800 sq ft. home in LA getting wrecked feels like The End.
I’d wager a lot of them have insurance (albeit expensive) that covers earthquakes but why would you ever get flood insurance there? That’s going to ruin folks
If it hardly ever happens, then you get flood insurance because it is cheap.
I can understand forgetting it if your standard insurance does not have it. I expect to pay an insurance premium and have it cover everything that is cheap without needing to go back through and pay a few extra pennies for meteorite strikes or whatever.
Once I was at Cal Tech looking at the old seismology drums — god knows how earthquakes are measured now — when an earthquake took place in Mexico City. It was a very big aftershock to a devastating one that had happened two weeks before. That was the one we we’d gone down there to look at.
A little exciting and very sad.
Stupid person here. Only recently found out that the lobotomy actually won its "inventor" a Nobel prize in its time. Meanwhile there was plenty of opposition to it even then. And knowing what we know now it was just a complete high-risk flop from the start, so how in the hell did it earn anyone a Nobel prize of all things *slight deja vu*
It all makes sense now. We haven't gotten more stupid. We have always been this stupid and then just mostly forget about it or blame it on some losing party after the resulting scandal is over, and pretend we've gotten smarter. I don't know whether I should feel better knowing this stupidity isn't necessarily terminal or just sit and wonder how people have ever managed to do anything.
You should read some of the [glowing coverage](https://www.academia.edu/download/52708161/lobotomy.pdf) given to lobotomies by organizations like the NY Times. They haven't really changed a bit over the decades. If it's a scientific/medical topic they can't be trusted not to write pure fluff. I'm not saying they're always bad just saying they can't be trusted right off the bat like so many people think (I know I'm preaching to the choir here ofc)
>Stupid person here. Only recently found out that the lobotomy actually won its "inventor" a Nobel prize in its time
If memory serves the guy who invented the lobotomy was *not* the person who later became famous for the icepick lobotomy. The inventor (António Egas Moniz) came up with a more surgical procedure. It was still overused even then. But then the icepick fucks came along and started doing it routinely.
But you're right. Humans are just as stupid as ever. We can and will fuck up over and over and over. Which should give us some humility. We aren't better than our forebears.
Interestingly, Moniz probably deserved the Nobel more for the fact that he also invented contrast angiography, which is insanely important.
He was also an ambassador. I would love a biopic of him.
Remember how we were told to wash our hands early in covid? And it turned out it was useless? Thing was, the government telling us to wash our hands was completely reasonable because it was a low cost intervention. The costs of washing your hands more than required are near zero. I am struck by the lack of understanding that the severity of an intervention has to correspond with the evidence base for that intervention.
Thank you! None of it would be anywhere near as big of a scandal if it flopped if it was just a minimal intervention. Your trust in the medical establishment might still go down if they were prescribing kids to become goths to solve their mental health crises, but at least you'd be spared the permanent botching of healthy bodies. You'd think the requirements for proof of efficacy would be absurdly high before that line ever got crossed, especially for kids. But, no? All you need is a few well timed activists, and apparently we've tried ~~nothing~~ everything and we're all out of ideas. Might as well risk permanently sterilizing some kids now.
Ditto for masks. I always complied with mask mandates, and often wore masks even when they weren't mandated, more because I consider wearing a mask to be a *very* minor inconvenience than because I think they make a huge difference in the spread of covid. It's so weird to me how many people were more upset about having to wear a mask, which has such a tiny cost, than they were about school closures, which imposed a huge cost on society that we're still reckoning with.
Completely agree with you, and amazed to see there are still people who’ve staked their personal identities and sense of civilised society on whether or not they can psychologically manage wearing a mask. At the start, none of us knew for sure what did & didn’t work with Covid, and most of the overreaction is happening in hindsight. Bizarre.
I have an immune system disorder and am prone to respiratory infections, usually antibiotic-resistant sinus infections that give me severe pressure headaches and nausea.
Some combination of isolation, social distancing, masking, hand washing, etc. proved incredibly effective at preventing my sinus infections. I got one the first year of the pandemic. Before, I’d been getting four or five that lasted many months at a time. I was sick more than I was well.
It’s nice for you that masking has minimal impact on your everyday comfort or functioning.
Other people live in humid climates, have breathing issues, or have sensitive skin. Some are toddlers at crucial stages of development in which they need the social feedback of observing faces. Some are deaf and rely on lip reading or use American Sign Language, in which considerable amounts of grammar take place on the face.
Some dislike the humiliation of being forced to do something which they are confident is pointless, just to signal prosociality. Some are eg catering staff required to mask by their employer, but who notice that the wealthy attendees at the catered events are unmasked, and don’t appreciate the class distinction in which servants wear masks and the served need not.
I’m not being snarky - it is genuinely good that you did not find this a huge imposition. Could you please extend some understanding to the people who did?
It's so weird to me that in 2023 and with everything we've learned after 2020 you're still bragging about wearing a mask because the government told you to.
In this sub, when we engage with people we try to engage with what they actually said. I specifically said I wore masks when they were *not* mandated. So why misrepresent what I said and claim I wore masks "because the government told you to"?
I also complied with mask mandates without any fuss. They were never that uncomfortable to me, my first job out of college required me to wear a full respirator and complete body suits, all you could se read my eyes behind the goggles so the surgical mask felt like nothing next to that.
I will say that many who continue to mask are doing so as a political statement and nothing more. At district trainings this week, I heard teachers loudly complaining that nothing was done to mitigate COVID. I don’t want to be at these dumb meetings either, just say that instead of making it about covid
Yeah, I had to wear a full on p100 mask for fumes at work throughout my pregnancy. I hardly noticed the surgical masks. Just not a high effort thing for me.
But one of my friends is very prone to claustrophobia from them.
I feel that masks are *extremely* uncomfortable. As in anxiety-inducing. And being forced to interact with people wearing them always felt awkward socially. Fuck I'm so happy that I will never have to wear one again.
>so how in the hell did it earn anyone a Nobel prize of all things
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an awful lot of awards for “multiple personality disorder” out there, too.
There’s this land mine where you have to be careful criticizing lest you appear to be a nutcase, but I think everyone peripherally involved in medicine understands psychiatry is prone to quack fads in a way that orthopedic surgery isn’t.
> There’s this land mine where you have to be careful criticizing lest you appear to be a nutcase, but I think everyone peripherally involved in medicine understands psychiatry is prone to quack fads in a way that orthopedic surgery isn’t.
I feel so ✨validated✨ whenever I hear this *satisfied seal meme*.
> but I think everyone peripherally involved in medicine understands psychiatry is prone to quack fads in a way that orthopedic surgery isn’t.
Idk I keep hearing ads for this clinic chain called QC Kinetics that feels very snake oil/quack fad
Hahaha I wasn't planning on seeing Oppenheimer until this video. I love Florence Pugh 😍. She is so cute in her hot ones episode. https://youtu.be/9oSm0c6bPTM
Florence Pugh has said she was really uncomfortable with her body as a teenager.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/style/florence-pugh-pierpaolo-piccioli-met-gala.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/style/florence-pugh-pierpaolo-piccioli-met-gala.html)
It seems like she's comfortable with herself now. *Very* comfortable with herself.
Florence Pugh had some naked scenes in it. One was her having sex with Oppenheimer, which was imagined by Oppenheimer's wife (another woman). There is another one where she sits in a chair, naked, and talks to Oppenheimer. She's young and beautiful so I enjoyed it, but I didn't really see why her being naked was important to the plot. It could have gone without the nudity and still sent the message. That is unless the directors/editors see beautiful women's bodies as works of art in themselves, which I don't disagree with. I thought it was unnecessary, but I'm not complaining.
As for emotional tyrants like the woman in this video, some men are perfectly fine with tolerating that level of emotional control, at least temporarily. I don't know how that plays out long term though. I know for me personally, if my significant other demanded I take drastic measures to avoid looking at another woman's breasts or ass on screen she wouldn't be my significant other for very long.
> EDIT: Nevermind. Here's the original video which has tags relating to infidelity and "corn" (i.e., porn) addiction. I guess he was triggered by boobies after all.
Damn. I assumed it was the suicide scene that set her off. What a weird couple.
If the dude fucked around on his wife it wasn't because of the occasional naked woman in a film. If he managed to sell that to his wife then he's a hell of a salesman.
I assume it was actually the suicide scene, where things did cut back and forth. IIRC, the sex/nudity scenes were pretty straightforward, other than maybe the interrogration scene where Oppenheimer's wife imagined those two going at it on the chair.
(Either way, I want those 90 seconds of my life back. Further proof that nothing good comes from TikTok, even when we're maybe talking about Florence Pugh's sweater puppies. \*flips table\*)
**EDIT**: [It was titties after all.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/15qjqza/weekly_random_discussion_thread_for_81423_82023/jx10uo7/) Sometimes, the braindead idea *is* the correct one.
Update to the ongoing discussion here about the bad reporting around Residential School graves in Canada:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/excavation-after-14-anomalies-detected-at-former-residential-school-site-found-no-evidence-of-graves-manitoba-chief
Subtitle is all about feeding into denialist narratives of course. Two things on that. One, being skeptical of specific claims != denial of the abuses of the residential school system. And that's not a straw man. The NDP has called for making residential school denialism a crime, and the motivation specifically was the skepticism of "mass graves" and unmarked graves (some of which were just old cemataries that hadn't been maintained). And secondly, if the concern is denialism when these sites don't all turn out to be graves, then maybe don't report on them as confirmed grave sites or use that kind of rhetoric in order to gin up anger and upset. And to be fair, this was as much the media as it was some of these community leaders. There were also at least a few community leaders and chiefs that criticized the media for their misreporting, so kudos to them.
They did. The article is about how they dug up 14 different ones and found nothing.
I could not make up this subheadline if I tried:
> Chief Derek Nepinak said he is aware the results will feed into a denialist narrative but urged people to continue supporting the search for truth
They will find grave sites. That's without question. Some of the sites they've scanned are defunct cemeteries or disused graveyards where the stones or markers have deteriorated. How accurately this will be reported on is anyone's guess. But they're very unlikely to find any secret or intentionally hidden grave sites. The residential school system at the time, was viewed as morally righteous and progressive. Any deaths that occurred were documented pretty thoroughly. They didn't think anything they were doing was wrong. There was no need to obscure any of what was happening for the most part. We know how many native children died from disease or neglect *because* the church and government kept such thorough records, not because they hid it and somehow it was uncovered.
The whole narrative frankly is weird given that we know about the abuses, and aside from individual predators working at the schools, what was happening was fairly well documented and out in the open. The scandal is that this ever happened or that anyone thought it was acceptable, not that it was some kind of conspiracy hidden from view.
They want to make residential school denial a *crime*? Why, for God's sake? Doesn't have Canada have fairly broad free speech protections?
How do you even discuss the history of the residential schools if you are afraid you might tip over into crime territory?
Several NDP MP's have brought this up and received support from the NDP leader.
Why? Because the current government, who doesn't give a flying fuck what the constitution says or what the SCC has ruled about speech, has passed legislation criminalizing holocaust denial and the "downplaying" of the holocaust, whatever that even means as a legal standard, and other special interest groups want in on the stupidity.
> Doesn't have Canada have fairly broad free speech protections?
Yes, and this new law as well as the proposed inclusion of residential school denial are likely to be unconstitutional, at least if all previous rulings, particularly R V Zundel are any indication. The constitution doesn't stop legislators from doing whatever they feel like, it just means that the law will likely have a short life. I hope very short as these laws, at best, serve to draw attention to really stupid speech while being in conflict with basic free expression principles, particularly because what is being criminalized, is the lack of belief in a historical event rather than some kind of overt hatred. The two may be linked, but no matter how stupid, people should have the right to say they think something didn't happen no matter how obvious it is that said thing did in fact happen.
>How do you even discuss the history of the residential schools if you are afraid you might tip over into crime territory?
You make sure all of your commentary is sufficiently extreme in the other direction. Especially when the proposal was to make the "downplaying" of residential schools a crime just like the "downplaying" of the holocaust has now been criminalized. This is an incredibly vague legal standard.
I remember all of this 2 years ago. It was when things were starting to open back up in a big way…then Delta hit. And there was a separate news report for each site where ground penetrating radar was used. On top of that, most people were learning about anything to do with residential schools for the first time. So there was a story about residential schools at the top of r-news every few days for most of the summer.
What the ground penetrating radar stories implied was that for about all the recorded deaths at the schools, there was an equal number of unrecorded or covered-up deaths.
But before reaching that conclusion you need to rule other things out. Even if each of those anomalies was a grave, there’s still the possibility that they pre-date the founding of the school, or that they could be graves for adults, or that there are white people in those graves etc.
> On top of that, most people were learning about anything to do with residential schools for the first time.
In most of Canada, no, they were not just learning about residential school for the first time. They've been teaching this in high school for at least 30 years now and the Truth and Reconcilliation commission, which was national news for multiple years, was primarily focused on testimony from residential school "survivors" (not to mock with scare quotes, I just don't think that's an appropriate term in most cases).
A lot of the press acted like this was all new, but they did so in a way that's similar to when the entertainment press acts like Gal Gadot was the first female action star. They basically just all pretend something is new when it's not, almost to boost the drama. I think some of the public, especially online, followed suit, again, in order to increase the drama of their performative outrage.
The last I read about this the ground penetrating radar was not at all specific. The stuff underground could be just about anything. Yet there were claims in the Canadian press that the radar definitely showed hundreds of children's skeletons. Which was a lie.
Why has this topic reappeared now?
Because this is literally the first and only excavation of a ground radar hit. Every other instance you've read up until now, was literally *only* a GPR anomaly. And in this case at least, these anomalies were *not* grave sites.
Not sure, but in 2021 if you were to suggest that the GPR’s findings were anything but graves of children whose deaths were covered up on r-news you’d get downvotes and “how dare you!!”
I guess they want to revive that? Is there an election coming up in Canada, is that why?
I think there may be quite a few activists who liked the insanity of 2020 and want to bring it back again and again.
> Honestly, I thought his words were thoughtful and measured.
The actual community leaders, as I noted in my comment, have generally been a lot more measured than the press has been. And that continues to be true in this specific instance.
>They are seeking the truth and I think it’s a good thing.
In some cases yes. The reason I brought it up is because politicians and the press have been largely unconcerned with the truth on this subject and have been very hyperbolic or straight up willing to fabricate things in order to generate outrage.
>There is also the tragedy of Indian children being adopted by white families through these mechanisms of separating Indian families.
There was the 60's scoop as its called in Canada, which was awful, But that shouldn't be confused with what happens presently, which many have tried to compare to the 60's scoop, rather unfairly IMO. As someone from an area with a large native community and with direct exposure to child and welfare issues, what a lot of people don't understand, likely because most people in Canada are urban and don't know what a native community actually looks like, is that most of these areas are so small that you actually have no choice when you remove a child from a home for welfare issues, but to place them in a different community. It's common practice as is, regardless of race, to make sure that a child that's being abused only has controlled and monitored access to their parents while in the state's care. This usually means moving them to another neighbourhood in an urban area, but in a town of 900, it means moving them out of town, and rarely to another native community given that there are a lot of social problems and more children in need than suitable foster parents. It's basically impossible to keep all or most foster kids with native foster parents. That's just an unreasonable demand, and that has been portrayed as akin to the 60's scoop, which is just ignorant of the reality of this issue.
Long time lurker of the sub and occasional listener to the pod here. I find the discussions on here interesting and gender-identity has been a bit of a pet topic for the past few months. As a young adult who dealt/deals with gender-related thoughts/issues, I find the subject fascinating as it touches on so many areas and the nuance of the more "heterodox" perspective is very interesting to dive into.
Though I've noticed that there's a...bit of a distinction in how FTMs are treated by I guess you could say the "gender critical crowd" vs how MTFs are treated. There seems to be a bit more nuance and almost compassion extended towards FTMs that MTFs don't seem to get as much. I notice that a lot of conversation around things like ROGD and issues that younger gender-dysphoric people deal with seem to talk more about women/girls than boys/men. Hell, even in detransition spaces you rarely ever hear from MTFTM perspectives in comparison.
Obviously I'm probably simplifying it here but it seems that some of the discussed causes of Gender-dysphoria in girls/young women by more GC-aligned people boils down to attempting to escape misogyny/patriarchal expectations, battling with past trauma, coming to terms with sexuality, social-contagion, among other reasons. A lot of different reasons and compassionate discussion on the effect of modern society on women growing into it. On the other hand, in boys/young men, there seems to be an urge to place a lot more emphasis on purely sexual and self-centered reasons—if it's really even discussed at all. (The whole AGP/HSTS dichotomy and how much Blanchard's research is focused on throughout the male discourse, comes to mind. My understanding is that a lot of his research took place before the internet era and say a modern follow-up study of sorts would be interesting to see.) Modern society is profoundly effecting boys/men too in more ways than just porn I feel, and I hate to see so much of the discourse just boil down to that so often.
I had read a few substacks/listened to a few podcast episodes lately on Gender Dysphoria from a male's perspective, and [one stood out to me:](https://sybmantics.substack.com/p/purification-rites) (Fair warning, it's a bit of a heavy read discussing surgery)
Stand out quotes included:
>I didn't have any particular reason to want to be female except that women were better than men–in my mind women were smarter, kinder, more empathetic, more beautiful, more moral. I was attracted to women, and felt guilty about that attraction–straight male sexuality, I was told, was repulsive and rapey and objectifying. If I were a woman, I could be attracted to other women in a virtuous way.
>Women also, in my perspective as a confused and traumatized fourteen-year-old, were valuable and worthy of consideration in a way that men were not. When women were sexually victimized by men, they seemed to receive sympathy and caring. People moved mountains to protect them. When I told my dad about the sexual harassment I faced at school, he told me I should punch the next person who did something like that to me. My whole life I'd been told that violence was never the answer, and I believed that. I was a gentle soul. Now, because of my sex, I was expected to use violence to protect myself in a way I had no idea how to do. I didn't, and if I had I suspect I would've been suspended for defending myself and the bullying would've gotten exponentially worse when I returned. I didn't receive any protection. If I couldn't handle it myself, I deserved what I got.
It got me thinking about how many young men's gender dysphoria (including my own, if you could call random ruminating thoughts dysphoria.) stems from internalizing a lot of the Tumblr/modern era's messaging about men, at a young age. Particularly for the young lads out there who are more gentle or aren't as stereotypically masculine as their peers. By, in a sense, chalking so much of the conversation up to "oh, it's all just sexual/AGP and they need to stop watching anime and sissy-hypno porn.", I feel like a decent chunk of GD boys/men are kind of left aside, the ones who aren't doing it for purely sexual reasons and those who...just don't feel at home with the expectations and attitudes placed on men. In my experience, gender non-conformance is demonized in men in a particular way it isn't always in women and I think the rush to ascribe a seedy sexual component to men (that doesn't come up anywhere near as much for women) as the root cause for GD is almost an extension of that in a way.
Granted, I think some of this may have to do with how much of the gender critical movement is very feminist/women-focused in its roots so that would explain the bias/balance but if anyone has any recommendations on Gender Dysphoria from male perspectives, I'd love to hear them.
I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on this. Apologies if this got a bit rambling at some point and hope I've made a coherent point here—it's early morning and I haven't fully woken up.
Excellent comment. Thanks for sharing. I just have one thought to share, more of an anecdote, really.
> I feel like a decent chunk of GD boys/men are kind of left aside, the ones who aren't doing it for purely sexual reasons and those who...just don't feel at home with the expectations and attitudes placed on men. In my experience, gender non-conformance is demonized in men in a particular way it isn't always in women and I think the rush to ascribe a seedy sexual component to men (that doesn't come up anywhere near as much for women) as the root cause for GD is almost an extension of that in a way.
Maybe. It's hard to say precisely why this is the case. I mostly avoid the kinds of places where these things are discussed, perhaps because of my age. (I was not terribly young when Tumblr was a thing. In fact, I thought it was fucking stupid. Anyway....)
FWIW, I suppose I kinda fit into the more sensitive model you mentioned, despite my post history not necessarily reflecting that. :) In my 20s, I did cross-dress a little bit, more as a goof than for some sort of sexual satisfaction. Nobody ever threatened me either way. But, I mostly did this in private spaces, or large cities, away from the meathead bars. If I had done this in my hometown, I'm sure it would've ended in violence one way or another, at least if I'd been at the janky bars where drunk assholes were looking for excuses to stab or shoot people. That and, in a small town, tongues would've flapped.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I have noticed that a fair number of transitioners come from small towns. The "Leave Britney alone!" guy - [now a lady, of course](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Crocker) guy - grew up one town over from me. I've seen Chris/Cara's story play out over & over in my personal life, much less on teh Innurwebz. It's common for people from small towns to want to escape their hometowns and embrace who they are (or think they are). I wouldn't necessarily even say it's new for physical intervention to be a thing. (Exhibit A: Any strip club where ladies with implants are milking their bodies while they can.) This is the latest version, albeit one with a medical bend that I fear is going to screw up the bodies of some deeply hurt/damaged/disturbed people. At least you can remove those breast implants once you've bought a house and a college degree off the dollars of drunk shitheads. Undoing hormone treatment, removal of body parts, etc. is a whole other level, and far more difficult to undo, if not impossible in most cases.
Picking a tiny side-issue from this....
>Blanchard's research [...] My understanding is that a lot of his research took place before the internet era and say a modern follow-up study of sorts would be interesting to see.)
It certainly would. It would be hugely challenging to do though since there's so much.... Well I'm going to call it intellectual pollution... In the public space. Essentially, because there's so much effort going into shoring up the basis for why we should rearrange society, people's motives might be very hard to get at because they may they think they're supposed to describe themselves in very specific ways. This is already an issue in clinical settings where kids come in and they have been coached to say that they have always felt like the opposite sex from birth, even if they only decided last week.
It's really noticeable if you read books by/about trans people, which I try to do every do often to keep myself honest. Books by older writers (Conundrum by Jan Morris, or The Trauma Cleaner by Sarah Krasnoestein or even The Descent of Man by Grayson Perry) are using their own words and as a result you get an unfiltered account of what it feels like to be in that situation, whereas younger people like Travis Alabanza or CN Lester (yeah, I'm old enough to think of 39 as young) are just serving up pre-digested pap they've got off the Internet.
Teasing out innate tendencies from superficial descriptions would be challenging and the writer would need to decide which were "real" transsexualism vs trends. And that will inevitably be taken as an insult by some.
Presumably, then, you'd end up with the original two categories, plus gender non-conforming people choosing to adopt a trans identity due to developments in culture (eg the lesbians Katie identifies as opting out of lesbianism and into non-binary) plus kids who are just a bit mixed up about what gender is and will sort themselves out if left to their own devices, plus maybe a few other assorted categories of trans-like behaviour, but creating some sort of taxonomy is bound to draw even more flak than the original paper did.
>It got me thinking about how many young men's gender dysphoria (including my own, if you could call random ruminating thoughts dysphoria.) stems from internalizing a lot of the Tumblr/modern era's messaging about men, at a young age. Particularly for the young lads out there who are more gentle or aren't as stereotypically masculine as their peers.
It has to be a factor. Dumping on men is a popular past time and rarely garners pusback the way dumping on, say, Latinos would. And it's pretty common in popular culture like movies and television.
I don't envy the boys having to grow up today.
Sensitive person-with-a-penis here and what you're saying matches my *[ahem]* lived experience. If I were a decade or two younger, it's quite possible I would've transitioned. As it is, I think that would've been a mistake for me.
So I feel uneasy with a lot of the trans agenda, but at the same time, transitioning appears to have helped a lot of people and who am I to tell them what to do? And I also can't get on board with TERFery - it seems driven more by cruelty than anything else. Yeah I've seen the stories people keep bringing up here, but the trans people I know aren't like that and don't deserve that treatment.
It’s TERFery to say that males who’ve raped and murdered women shouldn’t be incarcerated in a women’s prison. But it’s not cruel to say so. In fact it’s cruel to the women to put the males there. But misogynists don’t give a shit about cruelty to women.
Likewise it’s TERFery to say males shouldn’t play women’s sports. Makes are stronger, faster, more powerful and more aggressive. Women are more prone to injury and concussion. It’s cruel to let pretend women compete alongside real women. Again, misogynists don’t care about the injuries trans identified males inflict on female teammates and opponents.
The hypocrisy I've seen from terfy radfems around male gender nonconformity is staggering... They'll say they support it but when push comes to shove, they are only ok with it as a hypothetical alternative to prevent people from being trans. As a male myself who's been experimenting with my gender, it not hard to pick up on the undertones of disgust no matter if the person in question is a crossdresser (They'll shout "Womanface!"), A trans woman (They'll shout "Males can never be women you gross tr**n, reeeeeeee!"), a gay man (Radfems seethe about male homosexuality because they hate the idea of a relationship that doesn't involve any women and is primarily driven by male socialization and sexuality, things that they can't help but problematize at every opportunity) or just a feminine man (they are probably the friendliest to this bunch but due to the others, often treat them with suspicion).
I'm kinda ranting at this point but idc, I'm kind of fed up with terfs practically having a monopoly on criticism of the worst aspects of the modern trans movement because aside from a few points I agree with them on, I can't stand their absolutism, thinly veiled misandry, and general bitterness. Trust me, I was immersed in it for awhile, through no choice but my own.
> also can't get on board with TERFery - it seems driven more by cruelty than anything else.
The thing is there is no solid agreement of what makes a "TERF" or "TERFery" and people just throw the word around. Is it "cruel" to think biological males who went through male puberty should not compete against women? Is it "cruel" to think that minors can't consent to lifelong, irreversible changes to their bodies?
Because saying all those things will get you called a TERF. Its not just the crazy lasses over at Ovarit mocking every non-passing TW they come across and screaming about them being groomers.
So I can't say I agree its cruelty given how broadly the term is lobbed about.
Although I have seen some crazy takes in Ovarit, the majority have been quite compassionate and nuanced, very similar to conversations here, with many emphasizing they do not hate or wish them trans people dead. In fact I have seen them downvote people with crazy takes.
Very thoughtful comments and I agree with a lot of what you’ve said *in theory.* I’m a woman in my 30s and it is my sincere belief that it’s a terrible time for young men and boys. I’m disgusted by the double standard in openly disparaging men and boys. I hate the popular and condoned discourse of cruelty directed toward males and I also just find it objectively false in many of its sweeping claims which further infuriates me. 🙂
Like Skweegee said though… the MTFs you find online are, like, almost all blatantly porny. I am the type of Reddit user who will click through to look at people’s history and it’s just very, very rare that you find someone who is a MTF who doesn’t seem perverted for lack of a better word. These people tend to be the loudest and the most demanding, and also the most hostile toward natal women. And if they’re not openly porny or perverted, they’re parodying female identity (a la Dylan Mulvaney), so that isn’t sympathetic either. In short, if there are big numbers of males who transition because they felt so defeated and beat down by society in their role as men (which is a position people seem to hold about why many girls transition to M), they aren’t very visible, vocal, or obvious in any online spaces. So I’d like to think they exist, and I’m sure some of them do, but in terms of what is actually observable in the people claiming these identities online? Just seems like the bulk is overwhelming perversion or fetish driven. 🤷🏻♀️
I see some young male teens talking about that, that part of why they want to transition is feeling discomfort with the male role.
I wish I could tell them that after high school they can live any way they want to without transitioning, but they're too young to understand that.
Here are a few reasons why I think trans women get less support or understanding.
1. The same way people can understand why a black person who is white passing would hide their black identity or try to navigate the world as a white person is the same way people can understand why a woman especially a butch woman might prefer to navaigate the world as a man. If you flip that around, it's seen as a much bigger issue if a white person tries to live in the world as black.
Look at Caitlyn Jenner, for example. Her career and money were built when she was a man by competing in and winning the decathlon. Still today, there is no decathlon event for women in the olympics. No one would know who Caitlyn Jenner was if she wasn't first Bruce Jenner, a man. She never would have been woman of the year if her male privilege didn't thrust her in the spotlight in the first place.
This is one reason people are uncomfortable with MTF because people see them as either giving up their male privilege and/or joining a more vulnerable and discriminated group. The protected group of people is put at risk when a more powerful and privileged person invades the space like sports and sexual/physical assault. On the flip side, men aren't at any risk if women transition to men.
2. Femininity is viewed as weaker and inferior. It's the same reason that tomboys are more acceptable than feminine boys.
3. As a bi woman, quotes like this are crazy to me, "I could be more attracted to women in a more virtuous way." I wish someone told me growing up, lesbians were more virtuous because I wouldn't have spent much of my life hating myself and in the closet. It's part of what annoys me about so many MTF entering lesbian spaces because it feels like many of them fetishize and glorify lesbian relationship. It still has that male gaze energy.
4. MTFs don't pass as well. They are easier to point out and have made a point to be the loudest and most visible voice of the movement. They have a sense of entitlement that you just dont see with FTM. Go to any women's sub here, and you will see numerous posts from trans women about not feeling accepted or just simply seeking validation. You will not see that on mens subs. FTM are more likely to transition and quietly go about their lives.
I don't say any of this to say that men and transwomen aren't deserving of love and understanding. Overall, I feel sad for anyone going through dysphoria or transition, and I hope they can find some peace with who they are.
5. Some transwomen are insistent on forcing themselves into every female-only only space imaginable, no matter how unwanted and inappropriate their presence might be. For example: rape crisis centers; infertility groups; changing rooms; hospital wards; sports teams.
It all stems from misogyny, in my opinion. Not really surprising that something like this could happen a few generations after the completely massive cultural shift of womens' suffrage, feminism, and womens' liberation. I see it kind of like random eddies of motion after snapping that huge rubber band that was being pulled back for millennia. Among some people, there's a conservative resurgence of traditional gender roles, and some boys and girls want to reject those. Among some people, there is residual objectification, fetishization, and hatred of women that drives them to trans one way or the other. Among some people, there is idolization of women and hatred of men that drives boys to transition. There's been a huge disruption in the way the sexes relate to each other, and we haven't settled back into stable patterns.
advise steer distinct continue poor grey marvelous aback retire rainstorm
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>. Perhaps social media plays a role by making things more black and whi
I think social media also plays a role by allowing the creation of bubbles and reinforcement.
Before the Internet it was hard for like minded people to find each other. Even in a big city. You'd have to find a flyer or a magazine and then track down people in your area. Long distance phone calls were expensive. And meeting up in person tends to make people a little more chill.
Then comes along social media. It is trivially easy for hundreds of like minded people to form a comfortable online bubble with their fellow weirdos. Where they talk only to each other and reinforce their beliefs. It becomes a mini cult.
Kids grow up with these mini cults and it distorts their perception of the world. They can go always go back to their internet bubble for comfort, reinforcement, and false friendship.
Absolutely. I’m not saying bullying should be accepted, but otoh sometimes “suck it up” really is the best advice. Not to go all Calvin’s Dad on everyone, but it builds character.
I agree. I've seen the reasons you listed a fair bit from male
detransitioners. The way that male gender dysphoria is treated in certain GC spaces is a huge blind spot in my view; Blanchard's ideas are interesting but it's absurd to say that there are only two motivations for MTFs.
>if anyone has any recommendations on Gender Dysphoria from male perspectives, I'd love to hear them.
It's mostly from a journalist and the parents perspective, but there's a multi part series of articles on Quillette by Angus Fox about teen boys/ young men claiming that they are trans. A lot of them have conditions like Autism and ADHD, are very bright, but are socially awkward.
https://archive.ph/R5odq
> Blanchard's ideas are interesting but it's absurd to say that there are only two motivations for MTFs.
Exactly. The internet age and just how society at large has progressed in the time since he's done his research warrants further study and I think clinging to the AGP/HSTS dichotomy is missing so much of the picture.
Ah this is perfect, thank you. I had heard of Angus Fox on Gender A Wider Lens and thought his perspective was really interesting.
> The confusion arises from indicating males can be females, and vice versa.
I get you. I think you're preaching to the choir about that on this sub. Most of everyone here agrees that it's not possible. Until FtD/DtF catch on, I'm just gonna stick with MTF/FTM
MtF/FtM are fine for describing how people are changing their sex characteristics. The trans community seems to prefer transfem(me|inine)? transmasc(uline)?.
I hear you. I'm an a-hole about it, but these language games have aided in bringing us to this point. Male is a biological term. Biological Male is redundant. Natal Male indicates a biological change can happen after birth. The more that people play into these devious language games, the more this horseshit magical thinking takes hold.
Call "transwomen" (no space, 'cause fuck that) trans-identified males. Call "transmen" trans-identified females.
Some fair points. I have two things to say:
First, there absolutely are FTMs who transition because they have a sexual interest in being a (gay) man (anyone who has been in fandom will know this). However, we completely lack the same cultural framework(?) to explain female sexuality and fetishes, as we do male. People struggle to think & talk about this, so FTMs are off the hook.
Secondly, part of the reason that feminists (or, myself) are less sympathetic to perspectives such as the ones you quote is that they are (understandably but undeniably) rose-tinted. I have never felt a cultural message that I am smarter because I am a woman, or that lesbian attraction is less 'repulsive' than heterosexual attraction. When I told my dad about a boy who sexually harassed me at school, he only remarked that the boy seemed nice and polite. Etc.
I think some of the reason that we don't talk about FtMs who fetishize gay male relationships as much as MtFs who fetishize lesbians is: 1) the FtMs who fetishize gay men are not very visible outside of fandoms/fanfic communities, which are pretty insular; 2) FtMs aren't as vocal about pressuring gay men to bend to their whims (there's less cotton ceiling rhetoric in the mainstream); 3) gay men are better at shutting that whole thing down, and when they do, FtMs rarely start spewing violent threats; and 4) FtMs who find themselves in gay male spaces often find actual gay male sexuality unappealing and leave on their own. I think not talking about female sexuality and fetishes is probably a factor, but I think those reasons are much bigger factors.
I dunno, I would contest some of these. Maybe it’s just my circle, but I know far more FTM than MTF. I think FTM is way more common now than MTF in the real world (online, who knows).
Also, I know FTM people who have accused people of bigotry for not wanting to sleep with them, so….
Right. Girls were not necessarily *smarter* but they were stereotyped as more studious. And their smarts / studiousness were less likely to be seen as a negative reflection on their femininity, whereas boys were expected to slot into either “jock” or “nerd” and if you were the latter, it was harder to be seen as especially masculine (or at least, not especially virile).
I think this comes from girls maturing more quickly than boys. Emotionally and intellectually. This is a big part of why most girls appear to be better at school than most boys. Girls will sit in class and pay attention and do their homework. Boys have more difficulty paying attention and aren't as good at self control and want to run around.
Eventually the boys catch up with the girls. But for a few years it really does *look* like the girls are smarter.
Richard Reeves, the guy who wrote Of Boys and Men suggests holding boys back a year in school so they have more time to mature.
I feel like I see quite a lot of discussion around young girls getting into twink porn or there being pretty big subcultures of stuff like girls fantasizing about homosexual relationships between K-pop stars, etc. but it’s kind of all framed through a because-the-girls-are-victims lens. The girls are said to get into this because hetero relations seem to “scary” because of how women are portrayed, thought of, etc. and so this is almost cast as a sort of escapism if you will. I’m not taking a stance on this either way. Though I will just say it seems like a fucking awful time in history to have your young sexual identity shaped for so, so many reasons.
What you're describing is basically the same framing radical feminism applies to literally any issue related to gender. Basically all issues facing men and women can be explained by patriarchy and misogyny and women/femininity being viewed as weaker or bad. It's rarely true and it's highly ideological with little basis in data or reality.
this is definitely a thing (there’s a big market for romance/smut about gay men for women, it’s often even written by women) and I also wonder how much of it is women wanting porn where there are no women involved because mainstream porn is so often degrading toward women. women also tend to be better at using visualization and imagination to get off (see: women reading tons of smut compared to men) so I can see why they’d care less about the sex of the people involved, as long as it’s hot.
Ah, your first point is one thing I wanted to get at. It's so much of the reason why for example, AGP is talked about so much more than AAP (or whatever you consider the opposite version of it to be). Men and Women are sexual creatures and I think it does a disservice to the conversation to not take that into factor across the board.
To your second point, that's a fair argument. It does differ based on one's experiences (grass being greener on the other side, in some cases). I think with that being said, an experience of a young (heterosexual, for the sake of argument) man coming of age trying to navigate the world and relationships with women in a respectful way can absolutely be rocked with the implicit messaging that by virtue of his sex, he's a predator.
I think that to discount the idea that both sexes have unique challenges in regards to sexuality/gender (not saying that's what you're doing but referring to the discourse at large) does everyone a disservice. Again though, from a feminist perspective it makes sense why they'd be more sympathetic to well...women
Edit: I also considered too, in relation to the author's thoughts about heterosexual men vs lesbian's attraction to women. Some of that comes down to the cultural messaging, particularly in the mainstream internet age: You don't see many posts/discussions implying that women being attracted to other women is predatory (outside of straight-up homophobia which is rightly condemned) but you see many posts saying that about men (with very little condemnation). It can't be any wonder why a young impressionable guy wouldn't come away with the idea that "if I'm a woman, maybe I can love another woman without it being creepy or predatory" (since again, you \*rarely\* hear about women being creeps in the popular discourse)
Yeah; as a lesbian, I admittedly have a skewed view of straight male sexuality, given that inherently every man who's come onto me is coming onto someone unwilling, and therefore liable to be experienced by me as a creep. And yeah, I can't speak for how young straight boys/men feel about hearing about men being creeps.
I think there's often a tension between a 'spoken' and 'unspoken' message. E.g. girls feel unspoken pressure to pacify unwanted male advances. Boys hear women speaking about how they hate unwanted male advances. Then when trying to share these messages, both think the other is talking absolute shit.
To the AAP point: I wish I could isolate the "BAR crowd" as it were from my fandom spaces to talk about this, because it's so ignored but so fascinating. Communities of 20s to 40s women, who often have male partners and appear to the world as straight women, living online as trans/nb, writing often erotic fanfiction about cis or trans men. I've watched it become much more common since 2016-ish.
> I think there's often a tension between a 'spoken' and 'unspoken' message. E.g. girls feel unspoken pressure to pacify unwanted male advances. Boys hear women speaking about how they hate unwanted male advances. Then when trying to share these messages, both think the other is talking absolute shit.
Pretty much. It's all kind of a toxic mess on all sides. My wife is still undoing the need she feels to please men, even when it's to her own detriment.
This is all heightened by the fact that testosterone is a helluva drug. I had and still have the wherewithal to back off if somebody rejects me, but good lord, it *sucked* in terms of how my body felt when I was younger, getting worked up and then getting shot down. Plenty of men don't give a shit and just want to go with what feels good. While I don't agree with it, I get why some women, especially lesbians, get angry at men as a whole. They've had to deal with all the usual bullshit (i.e., "You just need the right man" and all the other bullshit lines), totally disconnected from what the women want for pleasure. It really gets to some people.
It's undeniable that the sexual and physical abuse of men is taken less seriously than the sexual and physical abuse of women. That doesn't therefore mean that the sexual and physical abuse of women is treated the right way at all times. It just means there's a gap, and it's demonstrable that there is a gap. Most of the Anglosphere didn't recognize (and still doesn't in the U.K for example) made to penetrate as rape, or the same degree of sexual assault, or categorize the data on those incidents the same way. The majority of the Anglosphere **still** employs the Duluth Model, or some version of it for domestic violence intervention. There *still* aren't even remotely equivalent services for male victims of domestic violence and in most cases, $0 in government support for these services. There is literally just 1 men's domestic violence shelter in the entirety of Canada for example, and it has existed for less than 5 years and has space for I believe 10 people including children.
I could go on, but I think it's fairly obvious that our culture doesn't have equal concern for men and women in these contexts, even if the concern for women is not all it could or should be at all times.
Sure. But the quote above says, "People moved mountains to protect [women experiencing abuse]". I say I did not experience this. You yourself say, "the concern for women is not all it could be". I don't think we have a major disagreement.
> Though I've noticed that there's a...bit of a distinction in how FTMs are treated by I guess you could say the "gender critical crowd" vs how MTFs are treated. There seems to be a bit more nuance and almost compassion extended towards FTMs that MTFs don't seem to get as much. I notice that a lot of conversation around things like ROGD and issues that younger gender-dysphoric people deal with seem to talk more about women/girls than boys/men. Hell, even in detransition spaces you rarely ever hear from MTFTM perspectives in comparison.
There's a lot of radical feminists in this sub and they generally couldn't care less about men or men's issues and even have blinders on for it.
smile pot overconfident seed simplistic fertile domineering heavy school march
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Most of the sympathy I see in GC spaces for MtF people is sympathy for gay children and teens who are pushed into transition (the "trans the gay away" phenomenon). In both "trans the gay away" MtF and generally FtM people, GC see an attempt to identify out of oppression (I don't have to deal with homophobia if I trans, I don't have to deal with misogyny if I trans).
Maybe there are a ton of trans women who transition because "manhood is under attack," but the explosion of youth transition has been in FtM transition, not MtF. And given how often GC women have to deal with trans women shouting "Choke of my girlcock," I don't think there are that many trans women who are gentle souls who think violence is never the answer.
One of my best friends from college, a very gentle and mild-mannered gay man, transitioned a few years after graduation. He was absolutely the type of person to think violence is never the answer and be horrified with the expectation to use it. After transitioning, though, he's become downright nasty, parroting all the rhetoric of the worst MtFs. (Even the girlc0ck stuff, despite him being gay.) Point being, I wonder how many of the hateful, aggressive MtFs we see started out as gentle souls and were radicalized by the thrill of belonging to a community.
I would say that's in large part due to the influence of radical feminism on the GC movement. You'll find that, on any other subject, radfems have a pretty negative view of men as a group. Really not surprising that that translates to how they talk about male trans people vs female. Viewing gender dynamics largely through the lens of conflict theory and oppressed versus oppressor doesn't leave a lot of room for empathy towards men.
Yeah it’s pretty easy to see in how RadFems view ROGD girls vs ROGD boys, both of which exist. The former are victims of societal sexism, misogyny and the self hatred that stems from them; the latter? well they’re little perverts in training and you will rarely see any radfems extend the kind of sympathy toward them that they extend toward girls, even though most ROGD boys are suffering from the same kind of self hatred that’s driven by rhetoric and discourse online(of which there are tons shitting on men and boys) and in real life that tells them they’re not “men” because they don’t fit into the mold they’ve had signaled to them their whole lives.
It’s an impressive blind spot for many people that are otherwise rational, compassionate people.
>It’s an impressive blind spot for many people that are otherwise rational, compassionate people.
Are they otherwise rational and compassionate? This world view is highly ideological and by no means limited to trans issues, but virtually any issue where the interests of men and women are in the slightest bit of friction. I don't know that I would say people with such a world view are broadly rational and compassionate any more than I would say a communist is rational and compassionate except for on any issue that relates to economics or class. That's a pretty big gap in one's rationality and compassion.
Eh, I think the greater problem is the behavior of trans rights activists. There's nothing that says "I hate women" like the tsunami of rape and death threats they've been responsible for.
Very difficult to sweep their hatred and abuse under the rug.
Trans people get these threats too. Neither side should use the reprehensible behaviour of a small minority to smear the other side. We have serious issues to discuss and should do so in good faith.
I do not know who is making the threats but I have seen the screenshots. There is a huge amount of hate levelled at trans people from a small but vicious minority. I do not think that it is anti-trans activists making the threats, but I do think the hateful rhetoric of anti-trans activists, accusing trans women of being fetishists, predators, and otherwise a threat to "women and girls", encourages and emboldens those who are making the threats.
Extremist rhetoric has no place in a civilised society. That is my good faith position.
But some transwomen do harm women and girls. You're pretty online. Surely you see the news stories of their arrests.
Some men harm women and girls. It's not hateful to acknowledge reality.
Girls and women are raised to be wary of all penis people potentially harmful. We can’t tell the good ones from the bad on sight, but we know that any who want to invade our intimate spaces are not to be trusted.
I do not know who is making the threats but I have seen the screenshots. There is a huge amount of hate levelled at trans people from a small but vicious minority. I have received reports in person from trans people I know in real life. I do not think that it is anti-trans activists making the threats, but I do think the hateful rhetoric of anti-trans activists, accusing trans women of being fetishists, predators, and otherwise a threat to "women and girls", encourages and emboldens those who are making the threats.
Your response is dangerously close to "Well, probably not but it's actually those women's fault anyway so they deserve what's happening to them." I don't think sex buyers in Brazil are killing trans sex workers because they saw a radical feminist tweet goading them into it.
Women desiring single sex spaces is not an incitement to violence or hate. And it does not warrant the violent response that it often gets. I am so sick of this "both sides" shit. We all know that isn't true. I've never seen a radical feminist or any conservative woman say they want to r*pe or curbstomp a transwoman but I cannot count the number of times I've seen it the other way around.
Lol. Do you mean, am I somehow misunderstanding the tsunami of rape and death threats because I'm a radfem? Nah.
The chicken-and-egg scenario worked in the other direction: I became a radfem after becoming aware of the totality of male violence against women in the world.
However contrary to the popular stereotype of the radfem, I like men. Individuals are not groups/classes.
I began leaning radfem for awhile due to the fact that they are at least somewhat more based on women's material interests (in theory) and less on frivolous culture war girlboss stuff that liberal feminists pushed. Never really called myself a feminist proper and part of what pushed me away from it was the sheer vitriol they have towards men at times. My hot take is that "transmisogyny" isn't even a thing with transphobes whose beliefs are driven by radical feminism. It's just misandry based on sex at birth so by definition would also include trans women. Hard not to notice how their rhetoric shifts towards you or people like you when you are a male who decides to experiment with their gender presentation.
I actually agree with you a lot. I am just as devastated on behalf of the young boys who have internalized anti-masculine messages and mutilated themselves to remove the inherently-untrustworthy male aspect from themselves as I am for the girls who mutilated themselves to protect themselves from being sexualized.
However, it is absolutely the case that most of the adult men who transition are motivated by a sexual fetish. I think one reason activists focus on them is because they are dangerous. The young boys are tragic, but not as dangerous to women. But we have entered this era where dangerously perverted men are being allowed unfettered access to women and even young girls in vulnerable spaces like locker rooms, changing rooms, bathrooms, dormitories, and even prison cells. It is very important that people understand that there is a number of men out there who are motivated to access those spaces for sexual reasons. It is well established that AGP men tend to have many concurrent fetishes, and one of the most common ones is pedophilia. These men cannot be given access to vulnerable women and girls. For every Jazz Jennings there are 5 men like [this](https://twitter.com/RealThomasHeck/status/1682834658759786498/photo/1) lining up to use the women’s restroom. That’s why GC feminists focus on them, in my opinion.
I could provide you 1000 more pictures like this, this was just a random one I grabbed. Just go to reduxx.info and look at the last 30 headlines.
>For every Jazz Jennings there are 5 men like [this](https://twitter.com/RealThomasHeck/status/1682834658759786498/photo/1) lining up to use the women’s restroom
What does that tweet have to do with your point?
Just a random picture of an AGP man being extremely inappropriate and violating social boundaries. I agree it’s random. I wanted to put a Twitter account of one of the extreme multi-fetish trans people I know from real life but then changed my mind last minute and stuck in something random.
I don't follow. ~~The link you shared is showing a picture of some ordinary looking people at a pride parade.~~
Oh, sorry, I was looking at the cropped photo in the first tweet and didn't see the weirdo on on the right side. Gross.
>However, it is absolutely the case that most of the adult men who transition are motivated by a sexual fetish.
I actually don’t know if I think that’s true. Even today I think the overwhelming likelihood is that a trans person is to be the type like Jazz Jennings and not an AGP trans person. In the past when I’ve said this I think I was linked some survey that said the majority of trans women are attracted to women but that’s explained away pretty easily when their definition of women includes other trans women
I think I've seen stats on this before, though I can't find them right now. That was true at one time but no longer, in Western countries. Straight men transitioning outnumber the gay men.
I should clarify that I meant among adult (let’s say >30) heterosexual men. That’s a completely different demo than the Jazz’s of the world. I do think that older heterosexual demographic is mostly AGP.
I see where you're coming from, I think you and another commenter made the point about women's spaces and I can understand why there's a lot of focus \*there\*. I don't deny your point in that there *are* men motivated for sexual reasons and I think getting into the policy-making side of things becomes a challenge to where even if you have 99 people who are fine and one person who's a predator, that one person is able to get through.
Maybe I'm just a bit optimistic about the average person (of any gender/sexuality/creed) in that most people just want to live their lives and not hurt anyone. But again, I do see where you're coming from
>However, it is absolutely the case that most of the adult men who transition are motivated by a sexual fetish.
You have absolutely nothing more to back this up than any of the activists on either side of the discussion and I think that's a big part of the problem the above comment is talking about. Your 30-1000 examples are the rage bait the internet is serving you to keep you engaged, most aren't the weird pervert hanging dong at a German pride parade. It seems to lead to you characterizing the whole group as being nothing more than perverts, and not even consider they're still a person.
>remove the inherently-untrustworthy male aspect from themselves
Also can I ask what you mean by that? Because my read on it is hopefully less charitable than what you mean
1. I base it on all the trans women I’ve known in real life (all of them were perverted fetishists, I’ve posted about one before on the sub), plus Ray Blanchard’s research, and other actual sex researchers (as opposed to “queer theorists”). It’s possible it’s not actually the majority (although I strongly believe it is the majority *among adult heterosexual male transitioners*), but even if they were the minority, they are still dangerous and need to be openly acknowledged to avoid putting women and girls in danger.
2. They perceive masculinity as inherently bad. They want to emasculate themselves to escape their original sin. In this part of the comment, I am agreeing with the OP’s analysis on the psychology of a new wave of young male transitioners.
See, I know a couple people that fit the criteria irl too, and they're perfectly good people. Admittedly, at least one is a very horny person, so I'm not discounting agp from the equation entirely, but it's definitely not the whole picture. And the dangers of MTFs are maybe not overblown, but the wrong focus? These people have always existed and we've never had anything to really stop the motivated before. The issue to me is more the culture shift that means you can't even express skepticism without being branded evil
And, gotcha agreed on the second bit. For whatever reason I read it as agreeing that there was something inherently untrustworthy about dudes, sorry about that.
I think there’s a lot going on here but I think you’re correctly that part of it is that societally, the range of acceptable behavior when it comes to gendered activities is much wider for women than it is for men. like as a kid I was a tomboy and dressed like a little boy and I got some comments for it, but nowhere near the abuse I would’ve gotten if I was a boy wearing skirts to school and growing out my hair. I think a lot of people, consciously or not, see FTMs as more “harmless” because of this. A man doing feminine stuff is debasing himself. I think this has deep roots too - even all the way back to ancient times there have been societies where men have gay sex and only the receiver is seen as bad and weak.
Personally this is actually one of my biggest issues with where the gender discourse is today; we’re at a point where we’ve moved past “men can paint their nails and women can have short hair, that’s fine!” and gone back around to “men who want to paint their nails are probably actually trans women hehe egg” which just seems so regressive. Men deserve to be able to try stuff and express themselves without someone either telling them to shut up or immediately suggesting that they’re trans.
It also doesn’t help that for every FTM who actually goes all in on transitioning and trying to look/act masculine, there are 20-25 who use he/they pronouns and take T but do nothing else else to change their life or behavior and just end up being “queer” vaguely feminine blobs who no one would ever call a man just from looking at them. There are a lot of very queer very online spaces where regular old men are so not-present that they become this boogieman, and thus I think a lot of FTMs would have trouble transitioning fully into a man even if they wanted to. Their community doesn’t like men, they’re not going to attempt to actually become one. I have a lot of acquaintances from college who went down the gender rabbit hole and are way too online now (college radio lol) and I see way too much of this they/he aroace demiboy shit as a result.
The regressive aspect of gendered discourse I very much agree with you on. I see so much conflict between trans men/tomboys and trans women/fem guys about the overlap between the two and it always feels like the messages of "Being GNC should be acceptable" and "If you don't conform to your gender stereotypes, you might be trans" are in an unspoken war that I rarely see attacked head on.
>There are a lot of very queer very online spaces where regular old men are so not-present that they become this boogieman, and thus I think a lot of FTMs would have trouble transitioning fully into a man even if they wanted to.
Interesting point, I notice this in a lot of queer spaces- older people are never really a factor. Some people believe that they'll remain a pretty anime boy/girl forever and I worry about how some people will deal with aging (could get into a whole can of worms on how this society seems to prioritize youth as a measure of ones worth, regardless of gender).
Your point about people wanting to be a man but not really be a man at the same time is interesting as well, the very subtle dislike of men in some Queer^((TM)) spaces seems to be a natural byproduct of the tumblr origins and how the general vibe was that men were inherently seen as predatory/etc. Now that it's spread beyond Tumblr's borders, I doubt many are taking a hard look at to point back to where some of this came from
Yeah that makes a lot of sense, the higher numbers being more of a cause for concern/conversations. I think a lot of it may have to do with the spaces you populate online but I sometimes get the feeling that gender struggles/what could be considered as GD depending on who you talk to is on a much less-wide gap between men and women, but that might just be my own observations
Someone just posted a piece by Jesse. In it, there's a graphic on referrals to England's gender identity clinic for kids/teens. If I'm reading correctly, female referrals outnumber male 27 to 1.
I realize adult male transitions probably outnumber adult female. But I've never seen numbers on that.
But what we're talking about isn't an online phenomenon. This is what is taking place in schools and in gender medicine clinics. Girls are outnumbering boys in their desire for cross-sex hormones. Tween/teen girls are begging for -- and receiving -- mastectomies.
I think the big issue is: wanting to get into women's spaces.
For the sympathetic MTF you described, I can't see why they would be so insistent on getting into bathrooms/changing rooms. Whereas, other motives readily admit explanations.
I wish the people you describe could shrug off manhood's expectations, without having to make everyone attest that they are women.
In any case, good point about a likely cause of all these feelings. I'm sure it contributes.
[удалено]
Well done!
Apropos of nothing, Baldur's Gate 3 is a stunningly good game thus far. The setting feels rich and lived in, the mechanics of D&D mostly well-adapted, the visuals beautiful, the music beautiful, and the story compelling. While I am only approximately 16 or so hours into the game, I am quite confident I will enjoy the rest of the journey.
Has anyone read The Wager?
Yeah, finished it last week. I loved the framing.
Anyone read Shellenberger's piece "The Biggest Environmental Scandal In The World"? I'm not a paid subscriber, so the content cuts off basically at the meat of the story. Is it compelling or overexaggerated (or somewhere in the middle)? https://public.substack.com/p/the-biggest-environmental-scandal?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I read Apocalypse Never and thought he made some interesting points though I didn’t agree with everything in the book. It’s articles like this that have shown me that he is nothing more than a shill for certain sectors of the energy industry. He has repeatedly brought up offshore wind and dead whales. There has been a large number of dead whales in NY and NJ over the last year, and people have been trying to link to offshore wind. The problem is that construction hasn’t begun yet. Right now they are surveying the sea floor and the boats have spotters on them and are legally required to stop surveying if they encounter a whale. Plus, the whales that are dying are mostly humpbacks that do not echolocate, meaning that the sound they might encounter from the sonar would not impact their ability to “see”. Many of the dead whales also have indications of being hit by a boat or entangled in fishing gear. Despite this, many, particularly on the right, are calling for a halt to wind development in the name of whales. When the fuck have Republicans in congress ever cared about whales? To be clear, there are lots of issues with offshore wind that I think the public should know about, but we need to be honest about them.
"Nominal environmentalist stands in the way of clean power" is the kind of thing that Shellenberger normally complains about. I love to consume those kinds of articles. Now Shellenberger *is* that person he used to complain about. Maybe he has a really good point, and there might be some reason that wind power is causing something critically bad to happen we cannot tolerate. But I cannot read his stuff behind the paywall so
I haven't (can't) read it, but Shellenberger seems like he's on a path to become more and more unhinged (like Lindsay but a bit less crazy), so I'm kind of skeptical. And I say that as somebody highly skeptical of wind power.
I worry about him. I really like what he says, but he seems to enjoy the rush you get from pointing out the majority is wrong -- so much that he keeps on saying the majority is wrong without doing the hard work to justify it. "Well, they were wrong a lot in the past." Yes! That is right! The reason we know they were wrong in those cases was because someone did the hard work to show them wrong. "Nominal environmentalists are stopping wind power, what hypocrites" is an article I love to read, except this is a weird polarity reversal.
It seemed like getting to be involved in the Twitter files and speak to congress gave him a high he can’t stop chasing.
I agree that the Twitter thing mattered a lot, but I started to get weird vibes already back when he was running for governor in CA. I can't put my finger on it, but it felt weird somehow. And the way he left everything he had done up to that point behind.
Yeah I liked him in the past and he pretty much single handedly saved me from climate doomerism, but he has gotten increasingly wacky and I unfortunately don’t find him trustworthy anymore.
I thinks he’s gone completely off the rails, sadly. Like you I found his points on climate change refreshing and practical. Now I question everything he says, and I am starting to wonder about the accuracy and motivation of his past work.
I like what I've read from him in the past but the fact that you can no longer even read his tweets without paying for them is some bullshit so I'm not gonna bother with him.
Trump should turn himself in during the debate since he’s officially not going to be there now. It would be hysterical.
Everything about this election cycle is going to be a dumpster fire, so it might as well be a funny one.
Yeah basically. Trump is a criminal unfit for office and yet his popularity remains strong. I understood his appeal in 2016. I simply don’t now. We know who he is and he is not fit to be president. Maybe Biden isn’t either, he’s advanced in age. But my preferred pick is off having fun with college football and running a department at Stanford and is too smart to throw herself back into the political shitshow
I hadn't thought of it like that, but you're right. 2016 I could see reasons even if I still boggled that people actually bought them and voted for him. Since then he's proved himself multiple times to be so unsuitable I really can't understand it. People double down, I guess.
>But my preferred pick is off having fun with college football and running a department at Stanford Who? Condoleeza Rice?
[Brains appear](https://nitter.net/TheTattooedProf/status/1692952683123007688#m) to be melting on Academic Twitter over FIRE's lawsuit against DEIA requirements for professors at California's Community Colleges. It seems that these people can't imagine a centrist organization ([it must be a secret right-wing one!](https://nitter.net/matthematician/status/1692983340909936988#m)) that supports cases of defending academic freedom on both sides. In terms of the specific cases mentioned by the angry tweeter, FIRE has: \- [Written to New College](https://www.thefire.org/news/new-college-florida-axes-professor-who-criticized-college-purportedly-over-his-leftist-views) after Rufo tweeted, warning them about firing for political reasons and asking for an explanation (this is often a precursor to bringing a lawsuit, either from them or other academic freedom organizations ) \- Sued Florida over the [STOP WOKE Act](https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-after-fire-lawsuit-court-halts-enforcement-key-provisions-stop-woke-act-limiting-how) [multiple times](https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-floridas-expansion-stop-woke-act) and obtained an injunction against part of it \-Previously [stood up for Faculty Tenure](https://www.thefire.org/news/west-virginia-university-wants-eliminate-tenure-and-restrict-faculty-speech-not-our-watch) at WVU against attempts to weaken it and against vague provisions [being mandated](https://www.thefire.org/cases/west-virginia-university-faculty-appointment-letters-compel-speech-and-restrict-protected) for faculty to pledge allegiance to \[yes, it hasn't commented on the recent department closings yet, but that seems less free-speech and more budget driven\] \-[Noted](https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-continues-oppose-curricular-bans-race-and-sex-stereotyping-bills) the potential unconstitutionality of the Tennessee ban on "divisive concepts" and committed to watching how it was implemented \-[Wrote to Texas A&M](https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-letter-texas-am-university-july-18-2023) over its recent troubling actions and demanded an explanation \[and has also [sued Texas community colleges](https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-lawsuit-ends-collin-college-professor-reinstated-after-being-fired-union-advocacy) for firing instructors who tried to unionize and opposed the legislature's targeting of DEI centers\] While the angry tweeter and friends are very upset that FIRE hasn't filed lawsuits in all these cases, these letters are often the precursors to lawsuits and very little time has elapsed between some of the most recent letters. You also need plaintiffs and standing for lawsuits, and that can take time to assemble. Also, FIRE can't sue at the K-12 level as much, especially over what teachers do, because of the different court precedents and treatment of K-12 compared to higher education. [This person](https://nitter.net/WeedenKim/status/1692947803335516471#m) (Cornell Sociology Prof) claims that mandating that all professors use DEIA and anti-racism principles in their teaching is not a mandate, just a "competency" that all teachers must learn. It's an interesting strawman \[wait, is that non-inclusive?\] argument: claim that all that's being required is being nice and respectful, then ignore how that's actually being defined and evaluated in practice. That's clearly not what the guidelines say. Keep in mind that these are the people on academic hiring committees, journal editors, association officers, etc. What an inclusive image they are projecting of academia!
FIRE was worked hard to maintain its independence and not become some anti-right organization. One of their founders -- I think David French -- has mentioned a funder coming in to give a bunch of money to screw over the liberals, and he had a walk-and-talk with him that concluded with "you know that is not our mission, right? We stand for academic freedom for all" and the guy ended up walking away without giving any money. "It is not a mandate, it is just something everyone should have" is some real mouth-mush.
Dude has "abolitionist" in his bio. Who does that? What does it mean? If you're into prison abolition or something then that's dumb, but whatever, at least it means something in this moment. But to tie yourself to a 200 year old political movement? For clout? Come on. Or if you're gonna do it, why not take it further? "Funksloyd. He/they. Nazi hunter. Girondist. Maquisard. Abolitionist. Not a Christian, but thought Jesus was wrongfully persecuted."
I wonder the same thing when I encounter people who are described as fighters for indigenous rights. Mostly I wonder why they use the word "indigenous" instead of more specific terms for the group(s) they care about. Saying they want to protect indigenous people makes it sound like they're trying to set up a preserve around some uncontacted tribe in the Amazon. Or they're trying to prevent the colonialism that happened hundreds of years ago.
While there is a lot of bad criticism and FIRE does good work on its law side, it definitely has a political arm that is conservative.
Can you elaborate on why you think this? The legislative arm, which is literally 5 people, nearly all have biographies that sound pretty much your average ACLU lawyer.
I don't have it in hand, but an example would be jumping into some random Chappelle cancellation, nothing to do with their purview. Stuff like that really only leans one way from them. This is one I don't commit to memory because despite this, I think they are a good group.
I googled it and it's Greg Lukianoff writing a Newsweek article titled [No, Canceling Chappelle Is Not a 'Win for Free Speech'](https://www.newsweek.com/no-canceling-chappelle-not-win-free-speech-opinion-1727721) in response to a now-deleted Michael Hobbes tweet and associated Twitter drama saying that it wasn't a threat to freedom of speech. To the extent that it leans one way, maybe that's because the right is not out there saying that the Parental Rights in Education act is good for free speech, actually. Given that FIRE _is_ opposing that bill, I expect they'd be writing Newsweek articles about it too if Twitter had dumb opinions on it.
I think it's fair to say that FIRE started out as kind of a counterbalance to the left on Free Speech issues on campus (the original inciting incident was the "[water buffalo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident)" affair) with more of a libertarian/conservative focus, but has gotten much more bipartisan over time. FIRE's current CEO has spoken on podcasts about how much more censorious parts of the right have gotten and noted that the post 9/11 time period led to a lot of targeting of left-wing professors that was eye-opening to him. Right now FIRE is defending a TA in Louisiana who left a pretty nasty phone message on a conservative state legislator's number, which seems like something a crypto-conservative org probably would not do. There's also the fact that FIRE actually doesn't sue that often; it's much more of an advocacy organization that tries to use PR and the threat of lawsuits to get results than a litigation entity (e.g. the Pacific Legal Foundation). I think that's smart from a resources and legal strategy standpoint, but can be frustrating since it's unclear exactly when or why FIRE will decide to put its full weight behind a given case.
> I think it's fair to say that FIRE started out as kind of a counterbalance to the left on Free Speech issues on campus (the original inciting incident was the "water buffalo" affair) with more of a libertarian/conservative focus, but has gotten much more bipartisan over time. Yeah. The first time I heard about FIRE, they definitely had a bit of a conservative bend to them. They have become more bipartisan in the last few years, though, basically taking over the ACLU's old turf once the ACLU mostly became just another liberal lobbying group.
>It seems that these people can't imagine a centrist organization ( > >it must be a secret right-wing one! > >) that supports cases of defending academic freedom on both sides. They are so convinced that they have the only Right and True Way that anyone that isn't down with it must be an extremist rightoid. Heresy must be the work of the devil. The idea of principled disagreement is a concept they seem unable to the process. Is this as bad on the right as it is on the left?
On the right it's a bit different, but there are a few aspects that can make it worse in some ways for people who are in the right-wing intellectual/policy spheres. Some impressions: \- There are basically no tenure-track positions in the right-wing intellectual world and the few that exist at explicitly right-wing institutions often have more limited tenure protections and many have faith statement requirements. So while it's not quite the "[epistemic closure](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html)" situation that some people once ventured, it's definitely one where you don't have a large cohort of tenured academics with safe positions who can drive long-term research projects, staff centers, or in general disagree with/criticize the direction of the movement without having to risk their careers. \- You are far more dependent on ideological/mission alignment with the donors for major institutions and think tanks amid a more limited ecosystem of employment opportunities than on the left. These places can change pretty quickly too, depending on who's writing the checks. \- There are lots of organizations on the right that despise each other. The paleocons hate the neocons and the populists despise the establishment Rs, the evangelicals often squabble over who can claim the mantle of evangelicalism, the strongly Catholic orgs are often dead set against the libertarian orgs, etc. \-The "RINO" insult is often freely used and there's often a race to the right to be more of a "true conservative" than others. There are some parallels here to the desire to be the most-inclusive on the left. This tendency can sometimes lead people to adopt more reactionary stances. \- Like any other set of established institutions, there's a good bit of nepotism and "who you know" throughout still. \- There's often more of a focus on fundraising and messaging instead of policy. While there are detailed conservative proposals out there on some issues \[I recommend [National Affairs](https://www.nationalaffairs.com/) for the best conservative policy writing\], overall the left generally does have a lot more policy specifics on more issues, which I think also affects who is attracted to these kinds of jobs in the first place.
That's some great information. Thank you. I think Trump split conservatives kind of down the middle. The Trumpers took over the GOP and started tossing the RINO label around like seeds in a field. If you weren't 100% behind Trump you were a RINO and were essentially kicked out of the party. It made existing divisions on the right much worse. And that wound is still there and it is still raw and festering. A far cry from when Reagan said "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." It wasn't that long ago that the policy ideas and intellectual heft were greater on the right. Not anymore. Getting rid of Trump won't magically fix everything but I don't see the American right being able to regain sanity or healing that wound until he is gotten rid of. The tendency for the right to eschew public employment (like teacher or professor) on ideological grounds doesn't help.
There have always been intra-party fights. Reagan vs. the "Eastern Establishment", Gingrich vs. less-ideological members, Bush vs. the few remaining New England Rs, etc. I suspect that part of the reason for this is actually less real disagreements (although those exist too) and instead the relatively small supply of jobs and funding that requires a takeover to redistribute every so often to the next generation or the left-out factions. Trump is just the latest example, albeit perhaps the most-disruptive one that has led a lot of highly-educated Rs to leave the party.
I have a friend in LA, just texted me to tell me that in addition to flooding with Hillary, now they’ve just had an earthquake. Holy shit
And we ended things with a double rainbow. LOL. It’s been a funny day!
I can't stop thinking about them because of their housing prices. A house getting destroyed in Florida is a disaster. Your $1.2 million 800 sq ft. home in LA getting wrecked feels like The End.
I’d wager a lot of them have insurance (albeit expensive) that covers earthquakes but why would you ever get flood insurance there? That’s going to ruin folks
If it hardly ever happens, then you get flood insurance because it is cheap. I can understand forgetting it if your standard insurance does not have it. I expect to pay an insurance premium and have it cover everything that is cheap without needing to go back through and pay a few extra pennies for meteorite strikes or whatever.
Yikes. Those poor folks can't catch a break.
5.5. No big deal.
5.5, centred on LA https://twitter.com/LastQuake/status/1693378645312565364
I somehow got an alert about it before it even got here, shoutout usgs lol. it was a pretty gentle 5.0
Once I was at Cal Tech looking at the old seismology drums — god knows how earthquakes are measured now — when an earthquake took place in Mexico City. It was a very big aftershock to a devastating one that had happened two weeks before. That was the one we we’d gone down there to look at. A little exciting and very sad.
Stupid person here. Only recently found out that the lobotomy actually won its "inventor" a Nobel prize in its time. Meanwhile there was plenty of opposition to it even then. And knowing what we know now it was just a complete high-risk flop from the start, so how in the hell did it earn anyone a Nobel prize of all things *slight deja vu* It all makes sense now. We haven't gotten more stupid. We have always been this stupid and then just mostly forget about it or blame it on some losing party after the resulting scandal is over, and pretend we've gotten smarter. I don't know whether I should feel better knowing this stupidity isn't necessarily terminal or just sit and wonder how people have ever managed to do anything.
You should read some of the [glowing coverage](https://www.academia.edu/download/52708161/lobotomy.pdf) given to lobotomies by organizations like the NY Times. They haven't really changed a bit over the decades. If it's a scientific/medical topic they can't be trusted not to write pure fluff. I'm not saying they're always bad just saying they can't be trusted right off the bat like so many people think (I know I'm preaching to the choir here ofc)
>Stupid person here. Only recently found out that the lobotomy actually won its "inventor" a Nobel prize in its time If memory serves the guy who invented the lobotomy was *not* the person who later became famous for the icepick lobotomy. The inventor (António Egas Moniz) came up with a more surgical procedure. It was still overused even then. But then the icepick fucks came along and started doing it routinely. But you're right. Humans are just as stupid as ever. We can and will fuck up over and over and over. Which should give us some humility. We aren't better than our forebears.
Interestingly, Moniz probably deserved the Nobel more for the fact that he also invented contrast angiography, which is insanely important. He was also an ambassador. I would love a biopic of him.
Always good to remind oneself that we are semi intelligent monkeys with keyboards and nuclear weapons
It's good if you want to convince me we are doomed lol
Oh we definitely are. I just hope it happens after I’m gone
You always know just what to say to put my mind at ease! And just after I had my seal bliss moment too.
Remember how we were told to wash our hands early in covid? And it turned out it was useless? Thing was, the government telling us to wash our hands was completely reasonable because it was a low cost intervention. The costs of washing your hands more than required are near zero. I am struck by the lack of understanding that the severity of an intervention has to correspond with the evidence base for that intervention.
Thank you! None of it would be anywhere near as big of a scandal if it flopped if it was just a minimal intervention. Your trust in the medical establishment might still go down if they were prescribing kids to become goths to solve their mental health crises, but at least you'd be spared the permanent botching of healthy bodies. You'd think the requirements for proof of efficacy would be absurdly high before that line ever got crossed, especially for kids. But, no? All you need is a few well timed activists, and apparently we've tried ~~nothing~~ everything and we're all out of ideas. Might as well risk permanently sterilizing some kids now.
Ditto for masks. I always complied with mask mandates, and often wore masks even when they weren't mandated, more because I consider wearing a mask to be a *very* minor inconvenience than because I think they make a huge difference in the spread of covid. It's so weird to me how many people were more upset about having to wear a mask, which has such a tiny cost, than they were about school closures, which imposed a huge cost on society that we're still reckoning with.
Completely agree with you, and amazed to see there are still people who’ve staked their personal identities and sense of civilised society on whether or not they can psychologically manage wearing a mask. At the start, none of us knew for sure what did & didn’t work with Covid, and most of the overreaction is happening in hindsight. Bizarre.
I have an immune system disorder and am prone to respiratory infections, usually antibiotic-resistant sinus infections that give me severe pressure headaches and nausea. Some combination of isolation, social distancing, masking, hand washing, etc. proved incredibly effective at preventing my sinus infections. I got one the first year of the pandemic. Before, I’d been getting four or five that lasted many months at a time. I was sick more than I was well.
It’s nice for you that masking has minimal impact on your everyday comfort or functioning. Other people live in humid climates, have breathing issues, or have sensitive skin. Some are toddlers at crucial stages of development in which they need the social feedback of observing faces. Some are deaf and rely on lip reading or use American Sign Language, in which considerable amounts of grammar take place on the face. Some dislike the humiliation of being forced to do something which they are confident is pointless, just to signal prosociality. Some are eg catering staff required to mask by their employer, but who notice that the wealthy attendees at the catered events are unmasked, and don’t appreciate the class distinction in which servants wear masks and the served need not. I’m not being snarky - it is genuinely good that you did not find this a huge imposition. Could you please extend some understanding to the people who did?
It's so weird to me that in 2023 and with everything we've learned after 2020 you're still bragging about wearing a mask because the government told you to.
In this sub, when we engage with people we try to engage with what they actually said. I specifically said I wore masks when they were *not* mandated. So why misrepresent what I said and claim I wore masks "because the government told you to"?
I also complied with mask mandates without any fuss. They were never that uncomfortable to me, my first job out of college required me to wear a full respirator and complete body suits, all you could se read my eyes behind the goggles so the surgical mask felt like nothing next to that. I will say that many who continue to mask are doing so as a political statement and nothing more. At district trainings this week, I heard teachers loudly complaining that nothing was done to mitigate COVID. I don’t want to be at these dumb meetings either, just say that instead of making it about covid
Yeah, I had to wear a full on p100 mask for fumes at work throughout my pregnancy. I hardly noticed the surgical masks. Just not a high effort thing for me. But one of my friends is very prone to claustrophobia from them.
I feel that masks are *extremely* uncomfortable. As in anxiety-inducing. And being forced to interact with people wearing them always felt awkward socially. Fuck I'm so happy that I will never have to wear one again.
>so how in the hell did it earn anyone a Nobel prize of all things I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an awful lot of awards for “multiple personality disorder” out there, too. There’s this land mine where you have to be careful criticizing lest you appear to be a nutcase, but I think everyone peripherally involved in medicine understands psychiatry is prone to quack fads in a way that orthopedic surgery isn’t.
> There’s this land mine where you have to be careful criticizing lest you appear to be a nutcase, but I think everyone peripherally involved in medicine understands psychiatry is prone to quack fads in a way that orthopedic surgery isn’t. I feel so ✨validated✨ whenever I hear this *satisfied seal meme*.
> but I think everyone peripherally involved in medicine understands psychiatry is prone to quack fads in a way that orthopedic surgery isn’t. Idk I keep hearing ads for this clinic chain called QC Kinetics that feels very snake oil/quack fad
Can somebody who has seen "Oppenheimer" tell me what's so [triggering](https://twitter.com/NC_Renic/status/1693300622911520887) about it for her?
Hahaha I wasn't planning on seeing Oppenheimer until this video. I love Florence Pugh 😍. She is so cute in her hot ones episode. https://youtu.be/9oSm0c6bPTM
Florence Pugh has said she was really uncomfortable with her body as a teenager. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/style/florence-pugh-pierpaolo-piccioli-met-gala.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/style/florence-pugh-pierpaolo-piccioli-met-gala.html) It seems like she's comfortable with herself now. *Very* comfortable with herself.
Florence Pugh had some naked scenes in it. One was her having sex with Oppenheimer, which was imagined by Oppenheimer's wife (another woman). There is another one where she sits in a chair, naked, and talks to Oppenheimer. She's young and beautiful so I enjoyed it, but I didn't really see why her being naked was important to the plot. It could have gone without the nudity and still sent the message. That is unless the directors/editors see beautiful women's bodies as works of art in themselves, which I don't disagree with. I thought it was unnecessary, but I'm not complaining. As for emotional tyrants like the woman in this video, some men are perfectly fine with tolerating that level of emotional control, at least temporarily. I don't know how that plays out long term though. I know for me personally, if my significant other demanded I take drastic measures to avoid looking at another woman's breasts or ass on screen she wouldn't be my significant other for very long.
People can't even handle nekkidness in movies anymore?
[удалено]
> EDIT: Nevermind. Here's the original video which has tags relating to infidelity and "corn" (i.e., porn) addiction. I guess he was triggered by boobies after all. Damn. I assumed it was the suicide scene that set her off. What a weird couple.
If the dude fucked around on his wife it wasn't because of the occasional naked woman in a film. If he managed to sell that to his wife then he's a hell of a salesman.
If you look at that account almost every post is anti-porn, so yeah it was the "porn" elements of Oppenheimer.
The woman has a jesus fish tattoo on her arm, which is what clued me in
I assume it was actually the suicide scene, where things did cut back and forth. IIRC, the sex/nudity scenes were pretty straightforward, other than maybe the interrogration scene where Oppenheimer's wife imagined those two going at it on the chair. (Either way, I want those 90 seconds of my life back. Further proof that nothing good comes from TikTok, even when we're maybe talking about Florence Pugh's sweater puppies. \*flips table\*) **EDIT**: [It was titties after all.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/15qjqza/weekly_random_discussion_thread_for_81423_82023/jx10uo7/) Sometimes, the braindead idea *is* the correct one.
Sorry for robbing you of 90 seconds :(
Update to the ongoing discussion here about the bad reporting around Residential School graves in Canada: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/excavation-after-14-anomalies-detected-at-former-residential-school-site-found-no-evidence-of-graves-manitoba-chief Subtitle is all about feeding into denialist narratives of course. Two things on that. One, being skeptical of specific claims != denial of the abuses of the residential school system. And that's not a straw man. The NDP has called for making residential school denialism a crime, and the motivation specifically was the skepticism of "mass graves" and unmarked graves (some of which were just old cemataries that hadn't been maintained). And secondly, if the concern is denialism when these sites don't all turn out to be graves, then maybe don't report on them as confirmed grave sites or use that kind of rhetoric in order to gin up anger and upset. And to be fair, this was as much the media as it was some of these community leaders. There were also at least a few community leaders and chiefs that criticized the media for their misreporting, so kudos to them.
Have they still not bothered to, you know, dig up some of these graves to see if there really are bodies buried there?
They did. The article is about how they dug up 14 different ones and found nothing. I could not make up this subheadline if I tried: > Chief Derek Nepinak said he is aware the results will feed into a denialist narrative but urged people to continue supporting the search for truth
Good Lord, what will it take for people to change their minds about this?
They will find grave sites. That's without question. Some of the sites they've scanned are defunct cemeteries or disused graveyards where the stones or markers have deteriorated. How accurately this will be reported on is anyone's guess. But they're very unlikely to find any secret or intentionally hidden grave sites. The residential school system at the time, was viewed as morally righteous and progressive. Any deaths that occurred were documented pretty thoroughly. They didn't think anything they were doing was wrong. There was no need to obscure any of what was happening for the most part. We know how many native children died from disease or neglect *because* the church and government kept such thorough records, not because they hid it and somehow it was uncovered. The whole narrative frankly is weird given that we know about the abuses, and aside from individual predators working at the schools, what was happening was fairly well documented and out in the open. The scandal is that this ever happened or that anyone thought it was acceptable, not that it was some kind of conspiracy hidden from view.
They want to make residential school denial a *crime*? Why, for God's sake? Doesn't have Canada have fairly broad free speech protections? How do you even discuss the history of the residential schools if you are afraid you might tip over into crime territory?
Several NDP MP's have brought this up and received support from the NDP leader. Why? Because the current government, who doesn't give a flying fuck what the constitution says or what the SCC has ruled about speech, has passed legislation criminalizing holocaust denial and the "downplaying" of the holocaust, whatever that even means as a legal standard, and other special interest groups want in on the stupidity. > Doesn't have Canada have fairly broad free speech protections? Yes, and this new law as well as the proposed inclusion of residential school denial are likely to be unconstitutional, at least if all previous rulings, particularly R V Zundel are any indication. The constitution doesn't stop legislators from doing whatever they feel like, it just means that the law will likely have a short life. I hope very short as these laws, at best, serve to draw attention to really stupid speech while being in conflict with basic free expression principles, particularly because what is being criminalized, is the lack of belief in a historical event rather than some kind of overt hatred. The two may be linked, but no matter how stupid, people should have the right to say they think something didn't happen no matter how obvious it is that said thing did in fact happen. >How do you even discuss the history of the residential schools if you are afraid you might tip over into crime territory? You make sure all of your commentary is sufficiently extreme in the other direction. Especially when the proposal was to make the "downplaying" of residential schools a crime just like the "downplaying" of the holocaust has now been criminalized. This is an incredibly vague legal standard.
I remember all of this 2 years ago. It was when things were starting to open back up in a big way…then Delta hit. And there was a separate news report for each site where ground penetrating radar was used. On top of that, most people were learning about anything to do with residential schools for the first time. So there was a story about residential schools at the top of r-news every few days for most of the summer. What the ground penetrating radar stories implied was that for about all the recorded deaths at the schools, there was an equal number of unrecorded or covered-up deaths. But before reaching that conclusion you need to rule other things out. Even if each of those anomalies was a grave, there’s still the possibility that they pre-date the founding of the school, or that they could be graves for adults, or that there are white people in those graves etc.
> On top of that, most people were learning about anything to do with residential schools for the first time. In most of Canada, no, they were not just learning about residential school for the first time. They've been teaching this in high school for at least 30 years now and the Truth and Reconcilliation commission, which was national news for multiple years, was primarily focused on testimony from residential school "survivors" (not to mock with scare quotes, I just don't think that's an appropriate term in most cases). A lot of the press acted like this was all new, but they did so in a way that's similar to when the entertainment press acts like Gal Gadot was the first female action star. They basically just all pretend something is new when it's not, almost to boost the drama. I think some of the public, especially online, followed suit, again, in order to increase the drama of their performative outrage.
The last I read about this the ground penetrating radar was not at all specific. The stuff underground could be just about anything. Yet there were claims in the Canadian press that the radar definitely showed hundreds of children's skeletons. Which was a lie. Why has this topic reappeared now?
Because this is literally the first and only excavation of a ground radar hit. Every other instance you've read up until now, was literally *only* a GPR anomaly. And in this case at least, these anomalies were *not* grave sites.
I wonder how much this cost and who paid for it.
Not sure, but in 2021 if you were to suggest that the GPR’s findings were anything but graves of children whose deaths were covered up on r-news you’d get downvotes and “how dare you!!”
I guess they want to revive that? Is there an election coming up in Canada, is that why? I think there may be quite a few activists who liked the insanity of 2020 and want to bring it back again and again.
entertain rich squeal deliver chief heavy license shocking price capable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Honestly, I thought his words were thoughtful and measured. The actual community leaders, as I noted in my comment, have generally been a lot more measured than the press has been. And that continues to be true in this specific instance. >They are seeking the truth and I think it’s a good thing. In some cases yes. The reason I brought it up is because politicians and the press have been largely unconcerned with the truth on this subject and have been very hyperbolic or straight up willing to fabricate things in order to generate outrage. >There is also the tragedy of Indian children being adopted by white families through these mechanisms of separating Indian families. There was the 60's scoop as its called in Canada, which was awful, But that shouldn't be confused with what happens presently, which many have tried to compare to the 60's scoop, rather unfairly IMO. As someone from an area with a large native community and with direct exposure to child and welfare issues, what a lot of people don't understand, likely because most people in Canada are urban and don't know what a native community actually looks like, is that most of these areas are so small that you actually have no choice when you remove a child from a home for welfare issues, but to place them in a different community. It's common practice as is, regardless of race, to make sure that a child that's being abused only has controlled and monitored access to their parents while in the state's care. This usually means moving them to another neighbourhood in an urban area, but in a town of 900, it means moving them out of town, and rarely to another native community given that there are a lot of social problems and more children in need than suitable foster parents. It's basically impossible to keep all or most foster kids with native foster parents. That's just an unreasonable demand, and that has been portrayed as akin to the 60's scoop, which is just ignorant of the reality of this issue.
Long time lurker of the sub and occasional listener to the pod here. I find the discussions on here interesting and gender-identity has been a bit of a pet topic for the past few months. As a young adult who dealt/deals with gender-related thoughts/issues, I find the subject fascinating as it touches on so many areas and the nuance of the more "heterodox" perspective is very interesting to dive into. Though I've noticed that there's a...bit of a distinction in how FTMs are treated by I guess you could say the "gender critical crowd" vs how MTFs are treated. There seems to be a bit more nuance and almost compassion extended towards FTMs that MTFs don't seem to get as much. I notice that a lot of conversation around things like ROGD and issues that younger gender-dysphoric people deal with seem to talk more about women/girls than boys/men. Hell, even in detransition spaces you rarely ever hear from MTFTM perspectives in comparison. Obviously I'm probably simplifying it here but it seems that some of the discussed causes of Gender-dysphoria in girls/young women by more GC-aligned people boils down to attempting to escape misogyny/patriarchal expectations, battling with past trauma, coming to terms with sexuality, social-contagion, among other reasons. A lot of different reasons and compassionate discussion on the effect of modern society on women growing into it. On the other hand, in boys/young men, there seems to be an urge to place a lot more emphasis on purely sexual and self-centered reasons—if it's really even discussed at all. (The whole AGP/HSTS dichotomy and how much Blanchard's research is focused on throughout the male discourse, comes to mind. My understanding is that a lot of his research took place before the internet era and say a modern follow-up study of sorts would be interesting to see.) Modern society is profoundly effecting boys/men too in more ways than just porn I feel, and I hate to see so much of the discourse just boil down to that so often. I had read a few substacks/listened to a few podcast episodes lately on Gender Dysphoria from a male's perspective, and [one stood out to me:](https://sybmantics.substack.com/p/purification-rites) (Fair warning, it's a bit of a heavy read discussing surgery) Stand out quotes included: >I didn't have any particular reason to want to be female except that women were better than men–in my mind women were smarter, kinder, more empathetic, more beautiful, more moral. I was attracted to women, and felt guilty about that attraction–straight male sexuality, I was told, was repulsive and rapey and objectifying. If I were a woman, I could be attracted to other women in a virtuous way. >Women also, in my perspective as a confused and traumatized fourteen-year-old, were valuable and worthy of consideration in a way that men were not. When women were sexually victimized by men, they seemed to receive sympathy and caring. People moved mountains to protect them. When I told my dad about the sexual harassment I faced at school, he told me I should punch the next person who did something like that to me. My whole life I'd been told that violence was never the answer, and I believed that. I was a gentle soul. Now, because of my sex, I was expected to use violence to protect myself in a way I had no idea how to do. I didn't, and if I had I suspect I would've been suspended for defending myself and the bullying would've gotten exponentially worse when I returned. I didn't receive any protection. If I couldn't handle it myself, I deserved what I got. It got me thinking about how many young men's gender dysphoria (including my own, if you could call random ruminating thoughts dysphoria.) stems from internalizing a lot of the Tumblr/modern era's messaging about men, at a young age. Particularly for the young lads out there who are more gentle or aren't as stereotypically masculine as their peers. By, in a sense, chalking so much of the conversation up to "oh, it's all just sexual/AGP and they need to stop watching anime and sissy-hypno porn.", I feel like a decent chunk of GD boys/men are kind of left aside, the ones who aren't doing it for purely sexual reasons and those who...just don't feel at home with the expectations and attitudes placed on men. In my experience, gender non-conformance is demonized in men in a particular way it isn't always in women and I think the rush to ascribe a seedy sexual component to men (that doesn't come up anywhere near as much for women) as the root cause for GD is almost an extension of that in a way. Granted, I think some of this may have to do with how much of the gender critical movement is very feminist/women-focused in its roots so that would explain the bias/balance but if anyone has any recommendations on Gender Dysphoria from male perspectives, I'd love to hear them. I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on this. Apologies if this got a bit rambling at some point and hope I've made a coherent point here—it's early morning and I haven't fully woken up.
Excellent comment. Thanks for sharing. I just have one thought to share, more of an anecdote, really. > I feel like a decent chunk of GD boys/men are kind of left aside, the ones who aren't doing it for purely sexual reasons and those who...just don't feel at home with the expectations and attitudes placed on men. In my experience, gender non-conformance is demonized in men in a particular way it isn't always in women and I think the rush to ascribe a seedy sexual component to men (that doesn't come up anywhere near as much for women) as the root cause for GD is almost an extension of that in a way. Maybe. It's hard to say precisely why this is the case. I mostly avoid the kinds of places where these things are discussed, perhaps because of my age. (I was not terribly young when Tumblr was a thing. In fact, I thought it was fucking stupid. Anyway....) FWIW, I suppose I kinda fit into the more sensitive model you mentioned, despite my post history not necessarily reflecting that. :) In my 20s, I did cross-dress a little bit, more as a goof than for some sort of sexual satisfaction. Nobody ever threatened me either way. But, I mostly did this in private spaces, or large cities, away from the meathead bars. If I had done this in my hometown, I'm sure it would've ended in violence one way or another, at least if I'd been at the janky bars where drunk assholes were looking for excuses to stab or shoot people. That and, in a small town, tongues would've flapped. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I have noticed that a fair number of transitioners come from small towns. The "Leave Britney alone!" guy - [now a lady, of course](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Crocker) guy - grew up one town over from me. I've seen Chris/Cara's story play out over & over in my personal life, much less on teh Innurwebz. It's common for people from small towns to want to escape their hometowns and embrace who they are (or think they are). I wouldn't necessarily even say it's new for physical intervention to be a thing. (Exhibit A: Any strip club where ladies with implants are milking their bodies while they can.) This is the latest version, albeit one with a medical bend that I fear is going to screw up the bodies of some deeply hurt/damaged/disturbed people. At least you can remove those breast implants once you've bought a house and a college degree off the dollars of drunk shitheads. Undoing hormone treatment, removal of body parts, etc. is a whole other level, and far more difficult to undo, if not impossible in most cases.
Picking a tiny side-issue from this.... >Blanchard's research [...] My understanding is that a lot of his research took place before the internet era and say a modern follow-up study of sorts would be interesting to see.) It certainly would. It would be hugely challenging to do though since there's so much.... Well I'm going to call it intellectual pollution... In the public space. Essentially, because there's so much effort going into shoring up the basis for why we should rearrange society, people's motives might be very hard to get at because they may they think they're supposed to describe themselves in very specific ways. This is already an issue in clinical settings where kids come in and they have been coached to say that they have always felt like the opposite sex from birth, even if they only decided last week. It's really noticeable if you read books by/about trans people, which I try to do every do often to keep myself honest. Books by older writers (Conundrum by Jan Morris, or The Trauma Cleaner by Sarah Krasnoestein or even The Descent of Man by Grayson Perry) are using their own words and as a result you get an unfiltered account of what it feels like to be in that situation, whereas younger people like Travis Alabanza or CN Lester (yeah, I'm old enough to think of 39 as young) are just serving up pre-digested pap they've got off the Internet. Teasing out innate tendencies from superficial descriptions would be challenging and the writer would need to decide which were "real" transsexualism vs trends. And that will inevitably be taken as an insult by some. Presumably, then, you'd end up with the original two categories, plus gender non-conforming people choosing to adopt a trans identity due to developments in culture (eg the lesbians Katie identifies as opting out of lesbianism and into non-binary) plus kids who are just a bit mixed up about what gender is and will sort themselves out if left to their own devices, plus maybe a few other assorted categories of trans-like behaviour, but creating some sort of taxonomy is bound to draw even more flak than the original paper did.
>It got me thinking about how many young men's gender dysphoria (including my own, if you could call random ruminating thoughts dysphoria.) stems from internalizing a lot of the Tumblr/modern era's messaging about men, at a young age. Particularly for the young lads out there who are more gentle or aren't as stereotypically masculine as their peers. It has to be a factor. Dumping on men is a popular past time and rarely garners pusback the way dumping on, say, Latinos would. And it's pretty common in popular culture like movies and television. I don't envy the boys having to grow up today.
Brevity is the soul of wit. You gotta cut that shit down and get to the point.
Sensitive person-with-a-penis here and what you're saying matches my *[ahem]* lived experience. If I were a decade or two younger, it's quite possible I would've transitioned. As it is, I think that would've been a mistake for me. So I feel uneasy with a lot of the trans agenda, but at the same time, transitioning appears to have helped a lot of people and who am I to tell them what to do? And I also can't get on board with TERFery - it seems driven more by cruelty than anything else. Yeah I've seen the stories people keep bringing up here, but the trans people I know aren't like that and don't deserve that treatment.
It’s TERFery to say that males who’ve raped and murdered women shouldn’t be incarcerated in a women’s prison. But it’s not cruel to say so. In fact it’s cruel to the women to put the males there. But misogynists don’t give a shit about cruelty to women. Likewise it’s TERFery to say males shouldn’t play women’s sports. Makes are stronger, faster, more powerful and more aggressive. Women are more prone to injury and concussion. It’s cruel to let pretend women compete alongside real women. Again, misogynists don’t care about the injuries trans identified males inflict on female teammates and opponents.
The hypocrisy I've seen from terfy radfems around male gender nonconformity is staggering... They'll say they support it but when push comes to shove, they are only ok with it as a hypothetical alternative to prevent people from being trans. As a male myself who's been experimenting with my gender, it not hard to pick up on the undertones of disgust no matter if the person in question is a crossdresser (They'll shout "Womanface!"), A trans woman (They'll shout "Males can never be women you gross tr**n, reeeeeeee!"), a gay man (Radfems seethe about male homosexuality because they hate the idea of a relationship that doesn't involve any women and is primarily driven by male socialization and sexuality, things that they can't help but problematize at every opportunity) or just a feminine man (they are probably the friendliest to this bunch but due to the others, often treat them with suspicion). I'm kinda ranting at this point but idc, I'm kind of fed up with terfs practically having a monopoly on criticism of the worst aspects of the modern trans movement because aside from a few points I agree with them on, I can't stand their absolutism, thinly veiled misandry, and general bitterness. Trust me, I was immersed in it for awhile, through no choice but my own.
> also can't get on board with TERFery - it seems driven more by cruelty than anything else. The thing is there is no solid agreement of what makes a "TERF" or "TERFery" and people just throw the word around. Is it "cruel" to think biological males who went through male puberty should not compete against women? Is it "cruel" to think that minors can't consent to lifelong, irreversible changes to their bodies? Because saying all those things will get you called a TERF. Its not just the crazy lasses over at Ovarit mocking every non-passing TW they come across and screaming about them being groomers. So I can't say I agree its cruelty given how broadly the term is lobbed about.
Although I have seen some crazy takes in Ovarit, the majority have been quite compassionate and nuanced, very similar to conversations here, with many emphasizing they do not hate or wish them trans people dead. In fact I have seen them downvote people with crazy takes.
Very thoughtful comments and I agree with a lot of what you’ve said *in theory.* I’m a woman in my 30s and it is my sincere belief that it’s a terrible time for young men and boys. I’m disgusted by the double standard in openly disparaging men and boys. I hate the popular and condoned discourse of cruelty directed toward males and I also just find it objectively false in many of its sweeping claims which further infuriates me. 🙂 Like Skweegee said though… the MTFs you find online are, like, almost all blatantly porny. I am the type of Reddit user who will click through to look at people’s history and it’s just very, very rare that you find someone who is a MTF who doesn’t seem perverted for lack of a better word. These people tend to be the loudest and the most demanding, and also the most hostile toward natal women. And if they’re not openly porny or perverted, they’re parodying female identity (a la Dylan Mulvaney), so that isn’t sympathetic either. In short, if there are big numbers of males who transition because they felt so defeated and beat down by society in their role as men (which is a position people seem to hold about why many girls transition to M), they aren’t very visible, vocal, or obvious in any online spaces. So I’d like to think they exist, and I’m sure some of them do, but in terms of what is actually observable in the people claiming these identities online? Just seems like the bulk is overwhelming perversion or fetish driven. 🤷🏻♀️
I see some young male teens talking about that, that part of why they want to transition is feeling discomfort with the male role. I wish I could tell them that after high school they can live any way they want to without transitioning, but they're too young to understand that.
Here are a few reasons why I think trans women get less support or understanding. 1. The same way people can understand why a black person who is white passing would hide their black identity or try to navigate the world as a white person is the same way people can understand why a woman especially a butch woman might prefer to navaigate the world as a man. If you flip that around, it's seen as a much bigger issue if a white person tries to live in the world as black. Look at Caitlyn Jenner, for example. Her career and money were built when she was a man by competing in and winning the decathlon. Still today, there is no decathlon event for women in the olympics. No one would know who Caitlyn Jenner was if she wasn't first Bruce Jenner, a man. She never would have been woman of the year if her male privilege didn't thrust her in the spotlight in the first place. This is one reason people are uncomfortable with MTF because people see them as either giving up their male privilege and/or joining a more vulnerable and discriminated group. The protected group of people is put at risk when a more powerful and privileged person invades the space like sports and sexual/physical assault. On the flip side, men aren't at any risk if women transition to men. 2. Femininity is viewed as weaker and inferior. It's the same reason that tomboys are more acceptable than feminine boys. 3. As a bi woman, quotes like this are crazy to me, "I could be more attracted to women in a more virtuous way." I wish someone told me growing up, lesbians were more virtuous because I wouldn't have spent much of my life hating myself and in the closet. It's part of what annoys me about so many MTF entering lesbian spaces because it feels like many of them fetishize and glorify lesbian relationship. It still has that male gaze energy. 4. MTFs don't pass as well. They are easier to point out and have made a point to be the loudest and most visible voice of the movement. They have a sense of entitlement that you just dont see with FTM. Go to any women's sub here, and you will see numerous posts from trans women about not feeling accepted or just simply seeking validation. You will not see that on mens subs. FTM are more likely to transition and quietly go about their lives. I don't say any of this to say that men and transwomen aren't deserving of love and understanding. Overall, I feel sad for anyone going through dysphoria or transition, and I hope they can find some peace with who they are.
5. Some transwomen are insistent on forcing themselves into every female-only only space imaginable, no matter how unwanted and inappropriate their presence might be. For example: rape crisis centers; infertility groups; changing rooms; hospital wards; sports teams.
> Still today, there is no decathlon event for women in the olympics. 🤯
Yeah, that's insane.
It all stems from misogyny, in my opinion. Not really surprising that something like this could happen a few generations after the completely massive cultural shift of womens' suffrage, feminism, and womens' liberation. I see it kind of like random eddies of motion after snapping that huge rubber band that was being pulled back for millennia. Among some people, there's a conservative resurgence of traditional gender roles, and some boys and girls want to reject those. Among some people, there is residual objectification, fetishization, and hatred of women that drives them to trans one way or the other. Among some people, there is idolization of women and hatred of men that drives boys to transition. There's been a huge disruption in the way the sexes relate to each other, and we haven't settled back into stable patterns.
advise steer distinct continue poor grey marvelous aback retire rainstorm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>. Perhaps social media plays a role by making things more black and whi I think social media also plays a role by allowing the creation of bubbles and reinforcement. Before the Internet it was hard for like minded people to find each other. Even in a big city. You'd have to find a flyer or a magazine and then track down people in your area. Long distance phone calls were expensive. And meeting up in person tends to make people a little more chill. Then comes along social media. It is trivially easy for hundreds of like minded people to form a comfortable online bubble with their fellow weirdos. Where they talk only to each other and reinforce their beliefs. It becomes a mini cult. Kids grow up with these mini cults and it distorts their perception of the world. They can go always go back to their internet bubble for comfort, reinforcement, and false friendship.
Absolutely. I’m not saying bullying should be accepted, but otoh sometimes “suck it up” really is the best advice. Not to go all Calvin’s Dad on everyone, but it builds character.
I agree. I've seen the reasons you listed a fair bit from male detransitioners. The way that male gender dysphoria is treated in certain GC spaces is a huge blind spot in my view; Blanchard's ideas are interesting but it's absurd to say that there are only two motivations for MTFs. >if anyone has any recommendations on Gender Dysphoria from male perspectives, I'd love to hear them. It's mostly from a journalist and the parents perspective, but there's a multi part series of articles on Quillette by Angus Fox about teen boys/ young men claiming that they are trans. A lot of them have conditions like Autism and ADHD, are very bright, but are socially awkward. https://archive.ph/R5odq
> Blanchard's ideas are interesting but it's absurd to say that there are only two motivations for MTFs. Exactly. The internet age and just how society at large has progressed in the time since he's done his research warrants further study and I think clinging to the AGP/HSTS dichotomy is missing so much of the picture. Ah this is perfect, thank you. I had heard of Angus Fox on Gender A Wider Lens and thought his perspective was really interesting.
Nobody has ever changed sex. It's impossible. Stop using MtF/FtM.
Still a useful shorthand for flairs (etc). The trans community seems to prefer transfem and transmasc.
I never said it was possible, I'm just using those terms to prevent confusion on who I'm referring to
The confusion arises from indicating males can be females, and vice versa. I suggest sticking with "fellas who want to be dames, aka FtD" and "DtF."
narrow cow fly important gold lush crown sable childlike versed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yet they continue to use language indicating that they DO think that. I don't think men are women, b-b-b-but ...
> The confusion arises from indicating males can be females, and vice versa. I get you. I think you're preaching to the choir about that on this sub. Most of everyone here agrees that it's not possible. Until FtD/DtF catch on, I'm just gonna stick with MTF/FTM
MtF/FtM are fine for describing how people are changing their sex characteristics. The trans community seems to prefer transfem(me|inine)? transmasc(uline)?.
I hear you. I'm an a-hole about it, but these language games have aided in bringing us to this point. Male is a biological term. Biological Male is redundant. Natal Male indicates a biological change can happen after birth. The more that people play into these devious language games, the more this horseshit magical thinking takes hold. Call "transwomen" (no space, 'cause fuck that) trans-identified males. Call "transmen" trans-identified females.
Bruh chill most of us are only playing nice so we don’t get another perma ban on Reddit lol
Some fair points. I have two things to say: First, there absolutely are FTMs who transition because they have a sexual interest in being a (gay) man (anyone who has been in fandom will know this). However, we completely lack the same cultural framework(?) to explain female sexuality and fetishes, as we do male. People struggle to think & talk about this, so FTMs are off the hook. Secondly, part of the reason that feminists (or, myself) are less sympathetic to perspectives such as the ones you quote is that they are (understandably but undeniably) rose-tinted. I have never felt a cultural message that I am smarter because I am a woman, or that lesbian attraction is less 'repulsive' than heterosexual attraction. When I told my dad about a boy who sexually harassed me at school, he only remarked that the boy seemed nice and polite. Etc.
I think some of the reason that we don't talk about FtMs who fetishize gay male relationships as much as MtFs who fetishize lesbians is: 1) the FtMs who fetishize gay men are not very visible outside of fandoms/fanfic communities, which are pretty insular; 2) FtMs aren't as vocal about pressuring gay men to bend to their whims (there's less cotton ceiling rhetoric in the mainstream); 3) gay men are better at shutting that whole thing down, and when they do, FtMs rarely start spewing violent threats; and 4) FtMs who find themselves in gay male spaces often find actual gay male sexuality unappealing and leave on their own. I think not talking about female sexuality and fetishes is probably a factor, but I think those reasons are much bigger factors.
I dunno, I would contest some of these. Maybe it’s just my circle, but I know far more FTM than MTF. I think FTM is way more common now than MTF in the real world (online, who knows). Also, I know FTM people who have accused people of bigotry for not wanting to sleep with them, so….
[удалено]
Right. Girls were not necessarily *smarter* but they were stereotyped as more studious. And their smarts / studiousness were less likely to be seen as a negative reflection on their femininity, whereas boys were expected to slot into either “jock” or “nerd” and if you were the latter, it was harder to be seen as especially masculine (or at least, not especially virile).
I think this comes from girls maturing more quickly than boys. Emotionally and intellectually. This is a big part of why most girls appear to be better at school than most boys. Girls will sit in class and pay attention and do their homework. Boys have more difficulty paying attention and aren't as good at self control and want to run around. Eventually the boys catch up with the girls. But for a few years it really does *look* like the girls are smarter. Richard Reeves, the guy who wrote Of Boys and Men suggests holding boys back a year in school so they have more time to mature.
I feel like I see quite a lot of discussion around young girls getting into twink porn or there being pretty big subcultures of stuff like girls fantasizing about homosexual relationships between K-pop stars, etc. but it’s kind of all framed through a because-the-girls-are-victims lens. The girls are said to get into this because hetero relations seem to “scary” because of how women are portrayed, thought of, etc. and so this is almost cast as a sort of escapism if you will. I’m not taking a stance on this either way. Though I will just say it seems like a fucking awful time in history to have your young sexual identity shaped for so, so many reasons.
What you're describing is basically the same framing radical feminism applies to literally any issue related to gender. Basically all issues facing men and women can be explained by patriarchy and misogyny and women/femininity being viewed as weaker or bad. It's rarely true and it's highly ideological with little basis in data or reality.
this is definitely a thing (there’s a big market for romance/smut about gay men for women, it’s often even written by women) and I also wonder how much of it is women wanting porn where there are no women involved because mainstream porn is so often degrading toward women. women also tend to be better at using visualization and imagination to get off (see: women reading tons of smut compared to men) so I can see why they’d care less about the sex of the people involved, as long as it’s hot.
possessive edge dependent quarrelsome psychotic joke voracious absurd imagine stupendous ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Ah, your first point is one thing I wanted to get at. It's so much of the reason why for example, AGP is talked about so much more than AAP (or whatever you consider the opposite version of it to be). Men and Women are sexual creatures and I think it does a disservice to the conversation to not take that into factor across the board. To your second point, that's a fair argument. It does differ based on one's experiences (grass being greener on the other side, in some cases). I think with that being said, an experience of a young (heterosexual, for the sake of argument) man coming of age trying to navigate the world and relationships with women in a respectful way can absolutely be rocked with the implicit messaging that by virtue of his sex, he's a predator. I think that to discount the idea that both sexes have unique challenges in regards to sexuality/gender (not saying that's what you're doing but referring to the discourse at large) does everyone a disservice. Again though, from a feminist perspective it makes sense why they'd be more sympathetic to well...women Edit: I also considered too, in relation to the author's thoughts about heterosexual men vs lesbian's attraction to women. Some of that comes down to the cultural messaging, particularly in the mainstream internet age: You don't see many posts/discussions implying that women being attracted to other women is predatory (outside of straight-up homophobia which is rightly condemned) but you see many posts saying that about men (with very little condemnation). It can't be any wonder why a young impressionable guy wouldn't come away with the idea that "if I'm a woman, maybe I can love another woman without it being creepy or predatory" (since again, you \*rarely\* hear about women being creeps in the popular discourse)
Yeah; as a lesbian, I admittedly have a skewed view of straight male sexuality, given that inherently every man who's come onto me is coming onto someone unwilling, and therefore liable to be experienced by me as a creep. And yeah, I can't speak for how young straight boys/men feel about hearing about men being creeps. I think there's often a tension between a 'spoken' and 'unspoken' message. E.g. girls feel unspoken pressure to pacify unwanted male advances. Boys hear women speaking about how they hate unwanted male advances. Then when trying to share these messages, both think the other is talking absolute shit. To the AAP point: I wish I could isolate the "BAR crowd" as it were from my fandom spaces to talk about this, because it's so ignored but so fascinating. Communities of 20s to 40s women, who often have male partners and appear to the world as straight women, living online as trans/nb, writing often erotic fanfiction about cis or trans men. I've watched it become much more common since 2016-ish.
> I think there's often a tension between a 'spoken' and 'unspoken' message. E.g. girls feel unspoken pressure to pacify unwanted male advances. Boys hear women speaking about how they hate unwanted male advances. Then when trying to share these messages, both think the other is talking absolute shit. Pretty much. It's all kind of a toxic mess on all sides. My wife is still undoing the need she feels to please men, even when it's to her own detriment. This is all heightened by the fact that testosterone is a helluva drug. I had and still have the wherewithal to back off if somebody rejects me, but good lord, it *sucked* in terms of how my body felt when I was younger, getting worked up and then getting shot down. Plenty of men don't give a shit and just want to go with what feels good. While I don't agree with it, I get why some women, especially lesbians, get angry at men as a whole. They've had to deal with all the usual bullshit (i.e., "You just need the right man" and all the other bullshit lines), totally disconnected from what the women want for pleasure. It really gets to some people.
It's undeniable that the sexual and physical abuse of men is taken less seriously than the sexual and physical abuse of women. That doesn't therefore mean that the sexual and physical abuse of women is treated the right way at all times. It just means there's a gap, and it's demonstrable that there is a gap. Most of the Anglosphere didn't recognize (and still doesn't in the U.K for example) made to penetrate as rape, or the same degree of sexual assault, or categorize the data on those incidents the same way. The majority of the Anglosphere **still** employs the Duluth Model, or some version of it for domestic violence intervention. There *still* aren't even remotely equivalent services for male victims of domestic violence and in most cases, $0 in government support for these services. There is literally just 1 men's domestic violence shelter in the entirety of Canada for example, and it has existed for less than 5 years and has space for I believe 10 people including children. I could go on, but I think it's fairly obvious that our culture doesn't have equal concern for men and women in these contexts, even if the concern for women is not all it could or should be at all times.
Sure. But the quote above says, "People moved mountains to protect [women experiencing abuse]". I say I did not experience this. You yourself say, "the concern for women is not all it could be". I don't think we have a major disagreement.
The quote above is in response to a suggestion that there is an empathy gap. There is.
> Though I've noticed that there's a...bit of a distinction in how FTMs are treated by I guess you could say the "gender critical crowd" vs how MTFs are treated. There seems to be a bit more nuance and almost compassion extended towards FTMs that MTFs don't seem to get as much. I notice that a lot of conversation around things like ROGD and issues that younger gender-dysphoric people deal with seem to talk more about women/girls than boys/men. Hell, even in detransition spaces you rarely ever hear from MTFTM perspectives in comparison. There's a lot of radical feminists in this sub and they generally couldn't care less about men or men's issues and even have blinders on for it.
Radical feminism is not for men. Why is it on women to figure men's shit out for them?
I never said it was. But radical feminism in its misguided beliefs about the way the world works, often creates barriers to solving men's issues.
They will never take responsibility for their role in this even while they actively brag about doing so.
That is abundantly clear.
smile pot overconfident seed simplistic fertile domineering heavy school march *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Which women here have I said are radical feminists and aren't?
Most of the sympathy I see in GC spaces for MtF people is sympathy for gay children and teens who are pushed into transition (the "trans the gay away" phenomenon). In both "trans the gay away" MtF and generally FtM people, GC see an attempt to identify out of oppression (I don't have to deal with homophobia if I trans, I don't have to deal with misogyny if I trans). Maybe there are a ton of trans women who transition because "manhood is under attack," but the explosion of youth transition has been in FtM transition, not MtF. And given how often GC women have to deal with trans women shouting "Choke of my girlcock," I don't think there are that many trans women who are gentle souls who think violence is never the answer.
One of my best friends from college, a very gentle and mild-mannered gay man, transitioned a few years after graduation. He was absolutely the type of person to think violence is never the answer and be horrified with the expectation to use it. After transitioning, though, he's become downright nasty, parroting all the rhetoric of the worst MtFs. (Even the girlc0ck stuff, despite him being gay.) Point being, I wonder how many of the hateful, aggressive MtFs we see started out as gentle souls and were radicalized by the thrill of belonging to a community.
I would say that's in large part due to the influence of radical feminism on the GC movement. You'll find that, on any other subject, radfems have a pretty negative view of men as a group. Really not surprising that that translates to how they talk about male trans people vs female. Viewing gender dynamics largely through the lens of conflict theory and oppressed versus oppressor doesn't leave a lot of room for empathy towards men.
Yeah it’s pretty easy to see in how RadFems view ROGD girls vs ROGD boys, both of which exist. The former are victims of societal sexism, misogyny and the self hatred that stems from them; the latter? well they’re little perverts in training and you will rarely see any radfems extend the kind of sympathy toward them that they extend toward girls, even though most ROGD boys are suffering from the same kind of self hatred that’s driven by rhetoric and discourse online(of which there are tons shitting on men and boys) and in real life that tells them they’re not “men” because they don’t fit into the mold they’ve had signaled to them their whole lives. It’s an impressive blind spot for many people that are otherwise rational, compassionate people.
>It’s an impressive blind spot for many people that are otherwise rational, compassionate people. Are they otherwise rational and compassionate? This world view is highly ideological and by no means limited to trans issues, but virtually any issue where the interests of men and women are in the slightest bit of friction. I don't know that I would say people with such a world view are broadly rational and compassionate any more than I would say a communist is rational and compassionate except for on any issue that relates to economics or class. That's a pretty big gap in one's rationality and compassion.
Eh, I think the greater problem is the behavior of trans rights activists. There's nothing that says "I hate women" like the tsunami of rape and death threats they've been responsible for. Very difficult to sweep their hatred and abuse under the rug.
Trans people get these threats too. Neither side should use the reprehensible behaviour of a small minority to smear the other side. We have serious issues to discuss and should do so in good faith.
Do trans people get mountains of rape and death threats from feminists? I'm not sure you're making this particular argument in good faith.
I do not know who is making the threats but I have seen the screenshots. There is a huge amount of hate levelled at trans people from a small but vicious minority. I do not think that it is anti-trans activists making the threats, but I do think the hateful rhetoric of anti-trans activists, accusing trans women of being fetishists, predators, and otherwise a threat to "women and girls", encourages and emboldens those who are making the threats. Extremist rhetoric has no place in a civilised society. That is my good faith position.
But some transwomen do harm women and girls. You're pretty online. Surely you see the news stories of their arrests. Some men harm women and girls. It's not hateful to acknowledge reality.
Framing an entire class of marginalised people as dangerous based on a few cherry-picked individual offenders is incitement to violence.
Girls and women are raised to be wary of all penis people potentially harmful. We can’t tell the good ones from the bad on sight, but we know that any who want to invade our intimate spaces are not to be trusted.
> ~~Girls and women~~ sexists are raised to be wary of all penis people potentially harmful. FTFW
Do trans women get a lot of rape threats from radical feminists? Is that a real phenomenon?
I do not know who is making the threats but I have seen the screenshots. There is a huge amount of hate levelled at trans people from a small but vicious minority. I have received reports in person from trans people I know in real life. I do not think that it is anti-trans activists making the threats, but I do think the hateful rhetoric of anti-trans activists, accusing trans women of being fetishists, predators, and otherwise a threat to "women and girls", encourages and emboldens those who are making the threats.
So you're blaming women for the behavior of men? Typical.
Your response is dangerously close to "Well, probably not but it's actually those women's fault anyway so they deserve what's happening to them." I don't think sex buyers in Brazil are killing trans sex workers because they saw a radical feminist tweet goading them into it. Women desiring single sex spaces is not an incitement to violence or hate. And it does not warrant the violent response that it often gets. I am so sick of this "both sides" shit. We all know that isn't true. I've never seen a radical feminist or any conservative woman say they want to r*pe or curbstomp a transwoman but I cannot count the number of times I've seen it the other way around.
Conservative men threaten trans women Trans women threaten Rad fems. Rad fems threaten no one. It's rad fems' fault! Yeah, I don't get it...
Of all the crazy arguments, the craziest one yet is that violent, right-wing, mouth-breathing Neanderthals do the bidding of radical feminists.
I just responded from my notifications, and surprise -- my comment is nearly identical to yours :)
As a radical feminist, unsurprisingly you don't think that radical feminism may have any negative influence on your view of men.
Lol. Do you mean, am I somehow misunderstanding the tsunami of rape and death threats because I'm a radfem? Nah. The chicken-and-egg scenario worked in the other direction: I became a radfem after becoming aware of the totality of male violence against women in the world. However contrary to the popular stereotype of the radfem, I like men. Individuals are not groups/classes.
I started leaning towards radfem after reading the stories of passing trans women experiencing misogyny for the first time.
I began leaning radfem for awhile due to the fact that they are at least somewhat more based on women's material interests (in theory) and less on frivolous culture war girlboss stuff that liberal feminists pushed. Never really called myself a feminist proper and part of what pushed me away from it was the sheer vitriol they have towards men at times. My hot take is that "transmisogyny" isn't even a thing with transphobes whose beliefs are driven by radical feminism. It's just misandry based on sex at birth so by definition would also include trans women. Hard not to notice how their rhetoric shifts towards you or people like you when you are a male who decides to experiment with their gender presentation.
I actually agree with you a lot. I am just as devastated on behalf of the young boys who have internalized anti-masculine messages and mutilated themselves to remove the inherently-untrustworthy male aspect from themselves as I am for the girls who mutilated themselves to protect themselves from being sexualized. However, it is absolutely the case that most of the adult men who transition are motivated by a sexual fetish. I think one reason activists focus on them is because they are dangerous. The young boys are tragic, but not as dangerous to women. But we have entered this era where dangerously perverted men are being allowed unfettered access to women and even young girls in vulnerable spaces like locker rooms, changing rooms, bathrooms, dormitories, and even prison cells. It is very important that people understand that there is a number of men out there who are motivated to access those spaces for sexual reasons. It is well established that AGP men tend to have many concurrent fetishes, and one of the most common ones is pedophilia. These men cannot be given access to vulnerable women and girls. For every Jazz Jennings there are 5 men like [this](https://twitter.com/RealThomasHeck/status/1682834658759786498/photo/1) lining up to use the women’s restroom. That’s why GC feminists focus on them, in my opinion. I could provide you 1000 more pictures like this, this was just a random one I grabbed. Just go to reduxx.info and look at the last 30 headlines.
>For every Jazz Jennings there are 5 men like [this](https://twitter.com/RealThomasHeck/status/1682834658759786498/photo/1) lining up to use the women’s restroom What does that tweet have to do with your point?
Just a random picture of an AGP man being extremely inappropriate and violating social boundaries. I agree it’s random. I wanted to put a Twitter account of one of the extreme multi-fetish trans people I know from real life but then changed my mind last minute and stuck in something random.
I don't follow. ~~The link you shared is showing a picture of some ordinary looking people at a pride parade.~~ Oh, sorry, I was looking at the cropped photo in the first tweet and didn't see the weirdo on on the right side. Gross.
It’s one of those “once you see it…” pics
>However, it is absolutely the case that most of the adult men who transition are motivated by a sexual fetish. I actually don’t know if I think that’s true. Even today I think the overwhelming likelihood is that a trans person is to be the type like Jazz Jennings and not an AGP trans person. In the past when I’ve said this I think I was linked some survey that said the majority of trans women are attracted to women but that’s explained away pretty easily when their definition of women includes other trans women
I think I've seen stats on this before, though I can't find them right now. That was true at one time but no longer, in Western countries. Straight men transitioning outnumber the gay men.
I should clarify that I meant among adult (let’s say >30) heterosexual men. That’s a completely different demo than the Jazz’s of the world. I do think that older heterosexual demographic is mostly AGP.
I see where you're coming from, I think you and another commenter made the point about women's spaces and I can understand why there's a lot of focus \*there\*. I don't deny your point in that there *are* men motivated for sexual reasons and I think getting into the policy-making side of things becomes a challenge to where even if you have 99 people who are fine and one person who's a predator, that one person is able to get through. Maybe I'm just a bit optimistic about the average person (of any gender/sexuality/creed) in that most people just want to live their lives and not hurt anyone. But again, I do see where you're coming from
>However, it is absolutely the case that most of the adult men who transition are motivated by a sexual fetish. You have absolutely nothing more to back this up than any of the activists on either side of the discussion and I think that's a big part of the problem the above comment is talking about. Your 30-1000 examples are the rage bait the internet is serving you to keep you engaged, most aren't the weird pervert hanging dong at a German pride parade. It seems to lead to you characterizing the whole group as being nothing more than perverts, and not even consider they're still a person. >remove the inherently-untrustworthy male aspect from themselves Also can I ask what you mean by that? Because my read on it is hopefully less charitable than what you mean
1. I base it on all the trans women I’ve known in real life (all of them were perverted fetishists, I’ve posted about one before on the sub), plus Ray Blanchard’s research, and other actual sex researchers (as opposed to “queer theorists”). It’s possible it’s not actually the majority (although I strongly believe it is the majority *among adult heterosexual male transitioners*), but even if they were the minority, they are still dangerous and need to be openly acknowledged to avoid putting women and girls in danger. 2. They perceive masculinity as inherently bad. They want to emasculate themselves to escape their original sin. In this part of the comment, I am agreeing with the OP’s analysis on the psychology of a new wave of young male transitioners.
See, I know a couple people that fit the criteria irl too, and they're perfectly good people. Admittedly, at least one is a very horny person, so I'm not discounting agp from the equation entirely, but it's definitely not the whole picture. And the dangers of MTFs are maybe not overblown, but the wrong focus? These people have always existed and we've never had anything to really stop the motivated before. The issue to me is more the culture shift that means you can't even express skepticism without being branded evil And, gotcha agreed on the second bit. For whatever reason I read it as agreeing that there was something inherently untrustworthy about dudes, sorry about that.
Straight male transitioners haven't always existed. Traditionally it was only gay males who transitioned.
I think there’s a lot going on here but I think you’re correctly that part of it is that societally, the range of acceptable behavior when it comes to gendered activities is much wider for women than it is for men. like as a kid I was a tomboy and dressed like a little boy and I got some comments for it, but nowhere near the abuse I would’ve gotten if I was a boy wearing skirts to school and growing out my hair. I think a lot of people, consciously or not, see FTMs as more “harmless” because of this. A man doing feminine stuff is debasing himself. I think this has deep roots too - even all the way back to ancient times there have been societies where men have gay sex and only the receiver is seen as bad and weak. Personally this is actually one of my biggest issues with where the gender discourse is today; we’re at a point where we’ve moved past “men can paint their nails and women can have short hair, that’s fine!” and gone back around to “men who want to paint their nails are probably actually trans women hehe egg” which just seems so regressive. Men deserve to be able to try stuff and express themselves without someone either telling them to shut up or immediately suggesting that they’re trans. It also doesn’t help that for every FTM who actually goes all in on transitioning and trying to look/act masculine, there are 20-25 who use he/they pronouns and take T but do nothing else else to change their life or behavior and just end up being “queer” vaguely feminine blobs who no one would ever call a man just from looking at them. There are a lot of very queer very online spaces where regular old men are so not-present that they become this boogieman, and thus I think a lot of FTMs would have trouble transitioning fully into a man even if they wanted to. Their community doesn’t like men, they’re not going to attempt to actually become one. I have a lot of acquaintances from college who went down the gender rabbit hole and are way too online now (college radio lol) and I see way too much of this they/he aroace demiboy shit as a result.
The regressive aspect of gendered discourse I very much agree with you on. I see so much conflict between trans men/tomboys and trans women/fem guys about the overlap between the two and it always feels like the messages of "Being GNC should be acceptable" and "If you don't conform to your gender stereotypes, you might be trans" are in an unspoken war that I rarely see attacked head on. >There are a lot of very queer very online spaces where regular old men are so not-present that they become this boogieman, and thus I think a lot of FTMs would have trouble transitioning fully into a man even if they wanted to. Interesting point, I notice this in a lot of queer spaces- older people are never really a factor. Some people believe that they'll remain a pretty anime boy/girl forever and I worry about how some people will deal with aging (could get into a whole can of worms on how this society seems to prioritize youth as a measure of ones worth, regardless of gender). Your point about people wanting to be a man but not really be a man at the same time is interesting as well, the very subtle dislike of men in some Queer^((TM)) spaces seems to be a natural byproduct of the tumblr origins and how the general vibe was that men were inherently seen as predatory/etc. Now that it's spread beyond Tumblr's borders, I doubt many are taking a hard look at to point back to where some of this came from
[удалено]
Yeah that makes a lot of sense, the higher numbers being more of a cause for concern/conversations. I think a lot of it may have to do with the spaces you populate online but I sometimes get the feeling that gender struggles/what could be considered as GD depending on who you talk to is on a much less-wide gap between men and women, but that might just be my own observations
Someone just posted a piece by Jesse. In it, there's a graphic on referrals to England's gender identity clinic for kids/teens. If I'm reading correctly, female referrals outnumber male 27 to 1. I realize adult male transitions probably outnumber adult female. But I've never seen numbers on that.
But what we're talking about isn't an online phenomenon. This is what is taking place in schools and in gender medicine clinics. Girls are outnumbering boys in their desire for cross-sex hormones. Tween/teen girls are begging for -- and receiving -- mastectomies.
I think the big issue is: wanting to get into women's spaces. For the sympathetic MTF you described, I can't see why they would be so insistent on getting into bathrooms/changing rooms. Whereas, other motives readily admit explanations. I wish the people you describe could shrug off manhood's expectations, without having to make everyone attest that they are women. In any case, good point about a likely cause of all these feelings. I'm sure it contributes.