Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

Many people here - the majority, I think - support the rights of men who want to do so to wear dresses and makeup and behave in what might be called a traditional feminine way.
But men who do, do so as men and in spite of being male, rather than as an expression of being women, which they are not.

Whilst women & men certainly share behavioural expressions, there's no denying some are more common to one sex than the other hence the GC desire to exclude men from women's private spaces because of an increased propensity to violence.

When trans women say they are women they are saying in essence their inclinations/behaviours are more associated to the more common/typical behaviours women than men & as such identify with them more rather than saying certain behaviours are sex exclusive as in stereotypical.

You can't have it both ways.

I think you've misunderstood. Trans people co-opt, utilize and leverage stereotypes in order to claim - for the purpose of claiming - they are the opposite sex. That's a rather different matter. Look at me - I'm wearing a frock therefore I'm a woman. No, you're not. You're a man in a frock.

So on one hand you affirm the sexes share behavioural expressions but on the other any shared expressions by trans people are 'fake'/copied & purely motivated by a desire to claim they are the opposite sex rather than an organic inclination that's commonly aligned with the opposite sex? That's incoherent.

This is what I mean about the GC blank slate blind spot. It's anti science in that it is not at all scientifically controversial that gendered expressions are influenced by genes & hormones. The idea that people don't have any intrinsic capacity for gendered coded expression is false as is the idea that common gendered behaviours don't exist as a result of this that has implications on how individuals might classify/associate themselves more with.

Yes, certain characteristics are more common in one sex but there is a huge amount of variance at a population level.

The tail ends are irrelevant to the point here of how human categorisations work. When an overwhelming majority of a group adopts certain behaviours they become associated to them. This isn't stereotyping this just a fact of how human categorisation works because in no way does saying that typical behaviours associated with a group exist mean that less typical one's don't exist. Its as silly as say people can't hold two different thoughts in their heads at the same time.
Dismissing an overarching pattern or valid phenomenon simply because a few minority variations don't fit the rule indeed leads to deeply flawed, incompetent evaluations.

I think you are bordering on some rather radical suggestions that for example butch lesbians have male gender expressions and therefore should be considered men if you are to suggest that men in skirts that 'feel' like women should be considered women.

An is is not an ought. Recognising some groups have a commonality with others doesn't mean they require the same treatment. Both minors & adults being an example. It's as if you would like people to pretend there are no parallels between groups when there clearly are. And in any case self determination encompasses the right to individual values. In other words its up to the butch natal female what defines them more when it comes to gender: Their reproductive or behavioural traits.

As per my previous post, it all comes down to the fundamental question which is that makes us male or female?

Yes, certain characteristics are more common in one sex but there is a huge amount of variance at a population level. This is true for virtually every human trait and it is often impossible to unpick the impact of socialisation, biology and how they intertwine. What we are often left with is a bunch of stereotypes which are harmful and counterproductive.

Hormones will have a biological impact on all of us and they will drive certain traits and behaviours in some cases but again there is huge variance. For example women with PCOS can have high levels of androgens but this doesn't make them men. It is ludicrous to suggest this. Even if a woman is highly aggressive and this is more commonly associated with males, it doesn't make this woman a man. It makes her a highly aggressive woman.

I think you are bordering on some rather radical suggestions that for example butch lesbians have male gender expressions and therefore should be considered men if you are to suggest that men in skirts that 'feel' like women should be considered women. It's non sensical and ultimately rooted in BS stereotypes. We have clear biological tests that in the vast majority of cases can definitively prove what sex you are. We don't need to manufacture other mechanisms because we don't like biological reality.

Best educate yourself of your ideological 'limitations' first. There are a couple of reasons why you are failing to grasp her post.

Firstly, you don't seem to understand the guiding principle of feminism which is self determination that isn't limited by reproductive biological characteristics. Principles retain their legitimacy only when they are consistently held. One simply can't demand self determination for one's self (women) & deny it to others (trans people). Reducing trans people's identity to deluded 'performers' of the opposite sex is an attack on their self determination which ironically mirrors MRA's who reduce feminism to simply 'man envy' rather than recognise their inherent psychological interchangeability with men. See the parallels between trans & women's struggles?

The second reason you are struggling to understand her post is gender critical ideology is underpinned by blank slatism. That is, they don't believe feminine & masculine expressions are organic inclinations rather imposed culturally as Germaine Greer explains below all while she is ironically 'performing' stereotypical femininity with her feminine presentation.

What gender critical's & GG seem to miss is humans don't blindly replicate one another. We don't do monkey see monkey do. There's usually what's called a 'missing link' where 'copying' is preceded by an organic inclination to a preference. Our inclinations often have deep roots in genetic & hormonal influences that form our personality traits. Again, feminism wasn't about 'copying' men because there was nothing to copy. We women already had within us the same psychological traits that legitimised equal treatment.

Another example of transphobia being rooted in misogyny is how much more trans women are demonised & dehumanised than trans men particularly as being motivated by sexual deviancy & predation.

The common refrain we hear from GC talking points is 'trans people promote stereotypes by claiming the are the opposite gender' but even if they didn't claim they were the opposite gender we all know that despite what a natal male who expresses feminine presentation calls themselves it would still be socially unacceptable but not so for a butch natal female. Clearly there's misogynist social expectations regarding gender expression that is unrelated to what trans people call themselves & yet trans people are accused of being the enablers of it.

Now some might say that trans people promote sexist stereotypes by expressing traditional /feminine behaviours but don't cis women too? Aren't they 'promoting' misogyny too? Or are they 'let off the hook' for 'not knowing any better' as hapless 'victims' lacking autonomy? Or might it be both these groups like what they like because of internal inclinations that just so happen to be aligned with social expectations but still have every right to self determination just like everyone else.

Best educate yourself of your ideological 'limitations' first. There are a couple of reasons why you are failing to grasp her post.

Firstly, you don't seem to understand the guiding principle of feminism which is self determination that isn't limited by reproductive biological characteristics. Principles retain their legitimacy only when they are consistently held. One simply can't demand self determination for one's self (women) & deny it to others (trans people). Reducing trans people's identity to deluded 'performers' of the opposite sex is an attack on their self determination which ironically mirrors MRA's who reduce feminism to simply 'man envy' rather than recognise their inherent psychological interchangeability with men. See the parallels between trans & women's struggles?

The second reason you are struggling to understand her post is gender critical ideology is underpinned by blank slatism. That is, they don't believe feminine & masculine expressions are organic inclinations rather imposed culturally as Germaine Greer explains below all while she is ironically 'performing' stereotypical femininity with her feminine presentation.

What gender critical's & GG seem to miss is humans don't blindly replicate one another. We don't do monkey see monkey do. There's usually what's called a 'missing link' where 'copying' is preceded by an organic inclination to a preference. Our inclinations often have deep roots in genetic & hormonal influences that form our personality traits. Again, feminism wasn't about 'copying' men because there was nothing to copy. We women already had within us the same psychological traits that legitimised equal treatment.

Another example of transphobia being rooted in misogyny is how much more trans women are demonised & dehumanised than trans men particularly as being motivated by sexual deviancy & predation.

The common refrain we hear from GC talking points is 'trans people promote stereotypes by claiming the are the opposite gender' but even if they didn't claim they were the opposite gender we all know that despite what a natal male who expresses feminine presentation calls themselves it would still be socially unacceptable but not so for a butch natal female. Clearly there's misogynist social expectations regarding gender expression that is unrelated to what trans people call themselves & yet trans people are accused of being the enablers of it.

Now some might say that trans people promote sexist stereotypes by expressing traditional /feminine behaviours but don't cis women too? Aren't they 'promoting' misogyny too? Or are they 'let off the hook' for 'not knowing any better' as hapless 'victims' lacking autonomy? Or might it be both these groups like what they like because of internal inclinations that just so happen to be aligned with social expectations but still have every right to self determination just like everyone else.

Best educate yourself of your ideological 'limitations' first. There are a couple of reasons why you are failing to grasp her post.

Firstly, you don't seem to understand the guiding principle of feminism which is self determination that isn't limited by reproductive biological characteristics. Principles retain their legitimacy only when they are consistently held. One simply can't demand self determination for one's self (women) & deny it to others (trans people). Reducing trans people's identity to deluded 'performers' of the opposite sex is an attack on their self determination which ironically mirrors MRA's who reduce feminism to simply 'man envy' rather than recognise their inherent psychological interchangeability with men. See the parallels between trans & women's struggles?

The second reason you are struggling to understand her post is gender critical ideology is underpinned by blank slatism. That is, they don't believe feminine & masculine expressions are organic inclinations rather imposed culturally as Germaine Greer explains below all while she is ironically 'performing' stereotypical femininity with her feminine presentation.

What gender critical's & GG seem to miss is humans don't blindly replicate one another. We don't do monkey see monkey do. There's usually what's called a 'missing link' where 'copying' is preceded by an organic inclination to a preference. Our inclinations often have deep roots in genetic & hormonal influences that form our personality traits. Again, feminism wasn't about 'copying' men because there was nothing to copy. We women already had within us the same psychological traits that legitimised equal treatment.

Another example of transphobia being rooted in misogyny is how much more trans women are demonised & dehumanised than trans men particularly as being motivated by sexual deviancy & predation.

The common refrain we hear from GC talking points is 'trans people promote stereotypes by claiming the are the opposite gender' but even if they didn't claim they were the opposite gender we all know that despite what a natal male who expresses feminine presentation calls themselves it would still be socially unacceptable but not so for a butch natal female. Clearly there's misogynist social expectations regarding gender expression that is unrelated to what trans people call themselves & yet trans people are accused of being the enablers of it.

Now some might say that trans people promote sexist stereotypes by expressing traditional /feminine behaviours but don't cis women too? Aren't they 'promoting' misogyny too? Or are they 'let off the hook' for 'not knowing any better' as hapless 'victims' lacking autonomy? Or might it be both these groups like what they like because of internal inclinations that just so happen to be aligned with social expectations but still have every right to self determination just like everyone else.

The point you are missing is that if principles (as self determination) aren't applied consistently they aren't going to survive socially. It's like saying 'only our group deserves rights'. When principles are applied selectively, they lose their integrity and become mere preferences. This unequal application triggers a breakdown in social trust, fairness, and accountability ultimately causing the founding principles to fail in practice.

That triangley thing. There are some good memes of it. It goes something like this:

Conservatism: change your personality to match your body.
Transgenderism: change your body to match your personality.
Feminism: both your body and your personality are just fine the way they are.

Maybe see if you can find a nice cartooney version?

This is silly. The context here isn't about policy/how society should be structured as a result of a conflict in rights. The context is the right to self determination of identity.

Yes quite right, there should be no selective application of rights. Adults should be allowed to attend primary school, able bodied people should use the disabled parking spots, otherwise society will fall apart.

The point you are missing is that if principles (as self determination) aren't applied consistently they aren't going to survive socially. It's like saying 'only our group deserves rights'. When principles are applied selectively, they lose their integrity and become mere preferences. This unequal application triggers a breakdown in social trust, fairness, and accountability ultimately causing the founding principles to fail in practice.

This is silly. The context here isn't about policy/how society should be structured as a result of a conflict in rights. The context is the right to self determination of identity.

Best educate yourself of your ideological 'limitations' first. There are a couple of reasons why you are failing to grasp her post.

Firstly, you don't seem to understand the guiding principle of feminism which is self determination that isn't limited by reproductive biological characteristics. Principles retain their legitimacy only when they are consistently held. One simply can't demand self determination for one's self (women) & deny it to others (trans people). Reducing trans people's identity to deluded 'performers' of the opposite sex is an attack on their self determination which ironically mirrors MRA's who reduce feminism to simply 'man envy' rather than recognise their inherent psychological interchangeability with men. See the parallels between trans & women's struggles?

The second reason you are struggling to understand her post is gender critical ideology is underpinned by blank slatism. That is, they don't believe feminine & masculine expressions are organic inclinations rather imposed culturally as Germaine Greer explains below all while she is ironically 'performing' stereotypical femininity with her feminine presentation.

What gender critical's & GG seem to miss is humans don't blindly replicate one another. We don't do monkey see monkey do. There's usually what's called a 'missing link' where 'copying' is preceded by an organic inclination to a preference. Our inclinations often have deep roots in genetic & hormonal influences that form our personality traits. Again, feminism wasn't about 'copying' men because there was nothing to copy. We women already had within us the same psychological traits that legitimised equal treatment.

Another example of transphobia being rooted in misogyny is how much more trans women are demonised & dehumanised than trans men particularly as being motivated by sexual deviancy & predation.

The common refrain we hear from GC talking points is 'trans people promote stereotypes by claiming the are the opposite gender' but even if they didn't claim they were the opposite gender we all know that despite what a natal male who expresses feminine presentation calls themselves it would still be socially unacceptable but not so for a butch natal female. Clearly there's misogynist social expectations regarding gender expression that is unrelated to what trans people call themselves & yet trans people are accused of being the enablers of it.

Now some might say that trans people promote sexist stereotypes by expressing traditional /feminine behaviours but don't cis women too? Aren't they 'promoting' misogyny too? Or are they 'let off the hook' for 'not knowing any better' as hapless 'victims' lacking autonomy? Or might it be both these groups like what they like because of internal inclinations that just so happen to be aligned with social expectations but still have every right to self determination just like everyone else.

Yes quite right, there should be no selective application of rights. Adults should be allowed to attend primary school, able bodied people should use the disabled parking spots, otherwise society will fall apart.

Many people here - the majority, I think - support the rights of men who want to do so to wear dresses and makeup and behave in what might be called a traditional feminine way.
But men who do, do so as men and in spite of being male, rather than as an expression of being women, which they are not.

Whilst women & men certainly share behavioural expressions, there's no denying some are more common to one sex than the other hence the GC desire to exclude men from women's private spaces because of an increased propensity to violence.

When trans women say they are women they are saying in essence their inclinations/behaviours are more associated to the more common/typical behaviours women than men & as such identify with them more rather than saying certain behaviours are sex exclusive as in stereotypical.

You can't have it both ways.

I think you've misunderstood. Trans people co-opt, utilize and leverage stereotypes in order to claim - for the purpose of claiming - they are the opposite sex. That's a rather different matter. Look at me - I'm wearing a frock therefore I'm a woman. No, you're not. You're a man in a frock.

So on one hand you affirm the sexes share behavioural expressions but on the other any shared expressions by trans people are 'fake'/copied & purely motivated by a desire to claim they are the opposite sex rather than an organic inclination that's commonly aligned with the opposite sex? That's incoherent.

This is what I mean about the GC blank slate blind spot. It's anti science in that it is not at all scientifically controversial that gendered expressions are influenced by genes & hormones. The idea that people don't have any intrinsic capacity for gendered coded expression is false as is the idea that common gendered behaviours don't exist as a result of this that has implications on how individuals might classify/associate themselves more with.

The point you are missing is that if principles (as self determination) aren't applied consistently they aren't going to survive socially. It's like saying 'only our group deserves rights'. When principles are applied selectively, they lose their integrity and become mere preferences. This unequal application triggers a breakdown in social trust, fairness, and accountability ultimately causing the founding principles to fail in practice.

Best educate yourself of your ideological 'limitations' first. There are a couple of reasons why you are failing to grasp her post.

Firstly, you don't seem to understand the guiding principle of feminism which is self determination that isn't limited by reproductive biological characteristics. Principles retain their legitimacy only when they are consistently held. One simply can't demand self determination for one's self (women) & deny it to others (trans people). Reducing trans people's identity to deluded 'performers' of the opposite sex is an attack on their self determination which ironically mirrors MRA's who reduce feminism to simply 'man envy' rather than recognise their inherent psychological interchangeability with men. See the parallels between trans & women's struggles?

The second reason you are struggling to understand her post is gender critical ideology is underpinned by blank slatism. That is, they don't believe feminine & masculine expressions are organic inclinations rather imposed culturally as Germaine Greer explains below all while she is ironically 'performing' stereotypical femininity with her feminine presentation.

What gender critical's & GG seem to miss is humans don't blindly replicate one another. We don't do monkey see monkey do. There's usually what's called a 'missing link' where 'copying' is preceded by an organic inclination to a preference. Our inclinations often have deep roots in genetic & hormonal influences that form our personality traits. Again, feminism wasn't about 'copying' men because there was nothing to copy. We women already had within us the same psychological traits that legitimised equal treatment.

Another example of transphobia being rooted in misogyny is how much more trans women are demonised & dehumanised than trans men particularly as being motivated by sexual deviancy & predation.

The common refrain we hear from GC talking points is 'trans people promote stereotypes by claiming the are the opposite gender' but even if they didn't claim they were the opposite gender we all know that despite what a natal male who expresses feminine presentation calls themselves it would still be socially unacceptable but not so for a butch natal female. Clearly there's misogynist social expectations regarding gender expression that is unrelated to what trans people call themselves & yet trans people are accused of being the enablers of it.

Now some might say that trans people promote sexist stereotypes by expressing traditional /feminine behaviours but don't cis women too? Aren't they 'promoting' misogyny too? Or are they 'let off the hook' for 'not knowing any better' as hapless 'victims' lacking autonomy? Or might it be both these groups like what they like because of internal inclinations that just so happen to be aligned with social expectations but still have every right to self determination just like everyone else.

Now some might say that trans people promote sexist stereotypes by expressing traditional /feminine behaviours but don't cis women too?

Many people here - the majority, I think - support the rights of men who want to do so to wear dresses and makeup and behave in what might be called a traditional feminine way.

But men who do, do so as men and in spite of being male, rather than as an expression of being women, which they are not.

The common refrain we hear from GC talking points is 'trans people promote stereotypes by claiming the are the opposite gender'

I think you've misunderstood. Trans people co-opt, utilize and leverage stereotypes in order to claim - for the purpose of claiming - they are the opposite sex. That's a rather different matter. Look at me - I'm wearing a frock therefore I'm a woman. No, you're not. You're a man in a frock.

She seems lovely. And entirely correct.

Transphobia solves nothing, endangers women's rights and is a gateway drug for fascism.