Any recommended genderist writers?

That you wish to interpret disappointment in a lack of openness to different experiences as 'shame' & 'pressure' on others is an overreaction to say the least & not what this is about. That others are disappointed when their views aren't shared hardly should invoke shame & pressure. It has a kind of censorship/silencing flavor to suggest others can't express disappointment without being accused of shaming & pressure.

'I'm disappointed you didn't enjoy my favourite ice cream'

'STOP SHAMING ME AND PRESSURING ME!!!!'

You don't sound very secure in your argument when you need to misrepresent words to get a fake 'gotcha'.

The context was about the disappointment Serrano felt because she assumed lesbians would be more open to challenging their preferences given their disposition. Again its no different from GC's who are disappointed in women supporting trans people.

When I was referring to biased priors that was in reference to the OP's comment of not being able to find any explanations that justified gender identification which is different from the point you seem to be making that I assume is about the necessity for women's private spaces. I don't consider it a biased prior to support gender critical views due to the safety & equality of women because clearly there's much evidence for concern as you have pointed out.

Apologies for the confusion. I thought you were suggesting trans gender identification had no basis because of male violence.

The sex reproductive system is binary as in gamete design. Sex traits are not. Individuals may possess different combinations of chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level & morphology.

So context is important.

I’m not saying every trans woman behaves this way, just as I wouldn’t say every man, Muslim, or any other group behaves the same way because of a minority.

That isn’t my argument.

What I’m pushing back on is the idea that women who become gender critical must have arrived there because of “biased priors.” Some of us arrived there after direct experiences that changed how we understood certain dynamics.

Also, there’s a difference between prejudice against an immutable characteristic and recognising recurring patterns of behaviour that many women associate with male socialisation or entitlement. If a woman repeatedly experiences boundary crossing, sexualised, intrusive, or intimidating behaviour from people asking to be treated as women, it’s not irrational for that to affect how safe she feels in female spaces.

You compare it to judging Muslims by terrorists, but that analogy doesn’t really fit because women aren’t discussing random unrelated crimes, they’re discussing behaviours directly relevant to access to women’s spaces, boundaries, safeguarding, and social expectations around sex and gender.

And importantly, I didn’t start from hostility. I started from sympathy and openness. My views changed because reality conflicted with what I had previously assumed. Dismissing that as merely “biased priors” feels less like curiosity and more like telling women that their own experiences are invalid if they lead to the “wrong” conclusion.

‘Biased priors’ here means ‘can spot red flags’.

I appreciate that's how you arrived at your skepticism but anecdotal evidence of a few instances isn't enough to generalise about the majority & doing so forms a bias in reasoning. It's like saying because some muslims practice FGM or are terrorists that implicates all muslims. The sad truth is that just about all groups have a minority of abusers within them that don't represent the majority & to make judgements based on the minorities actions is therefore flawed.

I don’t think “biased priors” explains everything at all. I actually started from a very open-minded position and actively mixed with tw’s because I assumed we’d have common ground as women, even if we differed politically or personally.

What changed my perspective was experience, not prejudice. I’ve had encounters that made me feel genuinely unsafe and deeply uncomfortable in ways I never expected. One leered at me repeatedly while calling me “young lady.” Another followed me into the women’s toilets, left the cubicle open, and exposed himself to me. While visiting my dying mother in hospital, a tw we didn’t know came into the room and began graphically discussing complications from their sex surgery. These are just some of my experiences with tw. Sadly I have others.

Those experiences were shocking, intrusive, and upsetting. So when people insist that women who become gender critical must simply have “biased priors,” it erases the possibility that some women arrived at their views because of things they actually experienced first hand.

People can begin from openness and empathy and still conclude that some behaviours they encountered felt male, entitled, boundary crossing, or unsafe.

And this is exactly what I mean about one's biased priors limiting understanding that the OP is struggling with….& myself to be honest.

I wish to thank the commenter who linked the initial excerpt by Julia Serrano because they proved my point about biased priors. You see, I too was shocked when I first read that it disappointed Serrano that lesbians wouldn't date a trans woman because I strongly believe personal dating preferences aren't about bigotry as people can't help what characteristics they are attracted to. But Julia's point wasn't about that. She was making the point that people who should know better via their experience of being excluded should be more open to having their beliefs challenged. It's not unlike my being disappointed with immigrants or who stereotype & outright reject immigrants supporting political parties who enable this who should know better because I benefited myself from my families immigration. This doesn't mean these people don't have a right to their preferences or views but rather its disappointing for them not to be more open given their similar experiences & personal benefit.

It's interesting that an often complaint from GC's is how disappointed they are with women who support trans people claiming they are enabling misogyny & therefore should know better. You would think that Serrano's point wouldn't be lost on them given their own experience. But somehow because it came from the mouth of a trans person this obvious simple point got 'lost in translation'….aka known as biased priors. Instead the reaction is to nit pick & be insulted for people not being desired due to weight preferences. The irony of lesbians rejecting trans women over their preferences being completely lost on them.

Priors. It's all about priors.

My interpretation of it is that JS assumed that because he is attracted to lesbians, lesbians would be attracted to him.

When he was rejected, he put it down to a personality flaw of lesbian women, rather than a fault with his reasoning. He's saying these women would be better people if they open up more, and should be more like the straight men who didn't reject him outright.

I dont know how to politely describe a man who expects women, especially lesbians, to behave exactly like men regarding sex and relationships?

And this is exactly what I mean about one's biased priors limiting understanding that the OP is struggling with….& myself to be honest.

I wish to thank the commenter who linked the initial excerpt by Julia Serrano because they proved my point about biased priors. You see, I too was shocked when I first read that it disappointed Serrano that lesbians wouldn't date a trans woman because I strongly believe personal dating preferences aren't about bigotry as people can't help what characteristics they are attracted to. But Julia's point wasn't about that. She was making the point that people who should know better via their experience of being excluded should be more open to having their beliefs challenged. It's not unlike my being disappointed with immigrants or who stereotype & outright reject immigrants supporting political parties who enable this who should know better because I benefited myself from my families immigration. This doesn't mean these people don't have a right to their preferences or views but rather its disappointing for them not to be more open given their similar experiences & personal benefit.

It's interesting that an often complaint from GC's is how disappointed they are with women who support trans people claiming they are enabling misogyny & therefore should know better. You would think that Serrano's point wouldn't be lost on them given their own experience. But somehow because it came from the mouth of a trans person this obvious simple point got 'lost in translation'….aka known as biased priors. Instead the reaction is to nit pick & be insulted for people not being desired due to weight preferences. The irony of lesbians rejecting trans women over their preferences being completely lost on them.

Priors. It's all about priors.

And this is exactly what I mean about one's biased priors limiting understanding that the OP is struggling with….& myself to be honest.

I wish to thank the commenter who linked the initial excerpt by Julia Serrano because they proved my point about biased priors. You see, I too was shocked when I first read that it disappointed Serrano that lesbians wouldn't date a trans woman because I strongly believe personal dating preferences aren't about bigotry as people can't help what characteristics they are attracted to. But Julia's point wasn't about that. She was making the point that people who should know better via their experience of being excluded should be more open to having their beliefs challenged. It's not unlike my being disappointed with immigrants or who stereotype & outright reject immigrants supporting political parties who enable this who should know better because I benefited myself from my families immigration. This doesn't mean these people don't have a right to their preferences or views but rather its disappointing for them not to be more open given their similar experiences & personal benefit.

It's interesting that an often complaint from GC's is how disappointed they are with women who support trans people claiming they are enabling misogyny & therefore should know better. You would think that Serrano's point wouldn't be lost on them given their own experience. But somehow because it came from the mouth of a trans person this obvious simple point got 'lost in translation'….aka known as biased priors. Instead the reaction is to nit pick & be insulted for people not being desired due to weight preferences. The irony of lesbians rejecting trans women over their preferences being completely lost on them.

Priors. It's all about priors.

You don't sound very secure in your argument when you need to misrepresent words to get a fake 'gotcha'.

The context was about the disappointment Serrano felt because she assumed lesbians would be more open to challenging their preferences given their disposition. Again its no different from GC's who are disappointed in women supporting trans people.

You don't sound very secure in your argument when you need to misrepresent words to get a fake 'gotcha'.

The context was about the disappointment Serrano felt because she assumed lesbians would be more open to challenging their preferences given their disposition. Again its no different from GC's who are disappointed in women supporting trans people.

The fact that women are somehow still being shamed and pressured when they state ‘I don’t have sex with men’ either by using those words or by saying ‘I’m a lesbian’ is so shocking, so offensive. ‘Priors’ indeed.

It is still violently shocking to me to hear a man state that he’s a lesbian. The homophobic arrogance of it. Do you really not see that, Emily?