Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

Never cites a source for allegations, and has a Humpty Dumpty attitude to what words mean.

Pigeons are pretty though, and their courtship dances are very entertaining.

It's never a waste of time to assist Genderists get their thinking clearly laid out for all to see😃

What a waste of time. Can’t think straight, can’t express ideas with clarity, a fuck ton of whatabouteryand strawmanning.

What makes you think I don’t understand the link to stereotypes?

That’s completely obvious. In fact, I even used the word “parody” a number of times.

But what it does mean is that sneering at older women for having plastic surgery is NOTHING to do with the word “Womanface”.

As I have noted before, you do seem to have some very muddled up ideas.

There is an assumption being made which I find curious. Is there in fact any actual evidence (as opposed to internet scuttlebutt) that JK Rowling has had a facelift, or even botox treatment? I haven't actually seen any: lots of speculation, and use of the word speculation, no hard fact. Citation needed? (I mean actual evidence, as opposed to wild and whirling words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.)

I don't see that it matters a toss whether she has or hasn't, but I do find the personal vilification significant of a particular, rather ugly mindset.

And "one woman had a facelift therefore all women are hypocritical about male standards of femininity" seems essentially very silly indeed as an argument to propound.

The idea men can do things and women mustn’t try and guess their motive is stunning naive. Women spend our lives guessing the motive of men. Our survival depends on it.

Thankfully the police are no longer recording 'non crime hate incidents'.

In Scotland they are

I was replying to your post in which you claimed to have posted a link to evidence that large numbers of trans people were victims of violent crimes.

I said your 'evidence' was no such thing, and now you're saying I should just go and look for the evidence myself, even though it might not even exist.

If you have evidence, post a link. Otherwise I will simply assume it doesn't exist.

Exactly.

Single sex spaces are exactly that - spaces reserved for members of a certain SEX.

Gender has nothing to do with it. So waffling on about gender this or stereotypes and psychology that is a pointless waste of time.

Older women using more makeup than they used when they were younger is about ageism. Like older men making the choice between hair dye or a preemptive head shave, or growing a beard to shroud a sagging jawline. It's much less effort to look good when you are young. Sad but true.

That is still the bit I struggle with - even if gender identity is a belief protected in law. As a society we are still allowed to have single sex spaces. They are 2 separate things. We can split society in any way we choose. We could seperate spaces solely by age if we chose, we could separate by hair colour. We can do anything in society we so please - there just needs to be a rule. As a society we have chosen sex to be rule so I don’t understand why gender even comes into it or personality traits or whether you have had cosmetic surgery or whether your spirit is masculine or feminine. The rule is simply sex. No further discussion is needed.

Not as ignorant as you given you don't understand the association to stereotypes.

In the United States, the practice of blackface became a popular entertainment during the 19th century into the 20th. It contributed to the spread of racial stereotypes such as "Jim Crow", the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation", and "Zip Coon" also known as the "dandified coon"

Well, you seem to be very ignorant.

“Womanface” is derived from “blackface”.
Which, as I hope you know, is the practice of white actors/musicians “blacking up” in order to parody black performers.

“Womanface” is widely used to mean when a man puts on a parody of female presentation - exaggerated make up, big tits, tarty clothes, long hair and hair accessories.

They both contain the implication of presenting as something you are not in a parodic way.

No one is suggesting the sexes are determined by personality traits. But they are distinguished on a group level by behavioural differences

You should certainly suggest this argument to Stella Creasey or Zac Polanski.

ETA: wrong quote - that was to Bailey not Sheep

No one is suggesting the sexes are determined by personality traits.

I think that's exactly what you're suggesting. You want us to treat as women anyone with feminine traits.

@Baileyonice

I remember that post of yours about Greer et. al. I read it three times and didn't understand it. I still don't - I'm not clever enough. I have nothing else to say about it, sorry.

Beliefs get protection like religion. Gender identity is no different from this.

We accord rights to people who believe in Gender Identiy. That's not in question. We just don't accord rights according to the beliefs of Gender Identity.

"I'm not going to search this thread for you. I'm not aware of any particular hypocrisy on this matter, and if you want me to examine and acknowledge some you'll pay me the respect of bringing it directly to my attention."

Basic courtesy/respect dictates if one wants to insert themselves into an already active conversation on a thread they bother to make an effort to read it to save repetition & bumbling about. But since you clearly can't 'cope' with this simple social convention here's the conversation that starts page 10 with:

"Ahhh the curious case of Germaine Greer's 'metamorphosis' from gender non conforming dungaree wearing, unruly hair sans make up to feminine coifed stylised dyed hair, make up, jewellery, glasses & pretty dresses in her eighties?What 'dark cultural forces' could possibly have 'brain washed' someone who already knew & lived better about feminine stereotypes for much of their younger adult life?
The same 'dark forces' that 'brain washed' elite GC's JK Rowling, Helen Joyce & Maya Forstater into a blind worship for injected made up faces, long dyed hair & dresses but somehow bizarrely just like Greer wax lyrical about trans people single handedly maintaining feminine stereotypes?
Or maybe they like what the like because of their personal sensibilities?
We are to believe that they 'know' but yet 'don't know' about misogynistic sex stereotypes that 'caricature' women? The incoherence i breathtaking."

We don't accord rights to groups that rely on commonalities.

Yeah we do like anti discrimination laws based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion etc.

"We don't ascribe rights to "Ingestive hydration mammals." We ascribe rights to people and not to dogs. A dog that drinks water doesn't get some of the rights of people. It has all of the rights of dogs. And none of the rights reserved to people."

That's an example of how categorisations are made not rights made because you didn't seem to know how. Dogs aren't human so they don't get human rights. Beliefs get protection like religion. Gender identity is no different from this.

The sexes aren't determined by personality traits. A dog isn't defined by the fact that it barks. When I bark, I don't become a dog. If my dog didn't bark but could talk, it would be a talking dog, not a person. And we still wouldn't let it vote.

No one is suggesting the sexes are determined by personality traits. But they are distinguished on a group level by behavioural differences.

I'm not going to search this thread for you. I'm not aware of any particular hypocrisy on this matter, and if you want me to examine and acknowledge some you'll pay me the respect of bringing it directly to my attention.

The problem with this opinion is that group categorisations rely on commonalities.

We don't accord rights to groups that rely on commonalities.

But it does make you associated to the class of Ingestive Hydration Mammals or 'drinker mammals' as common gendered personality inclinations are associated to one sex more than the other.

We don't ascribe rights to "Ingestive hydration mammals." We ascribe rights to people and not to dogs. A dog that drinks water doesn't get some of the rights of people. It has all of the rights of dogs. And none of the rights reserved to people.

Biology begs to differ given gendered personality traits are shared by the sexes but more common to one sex than the other.

The sexes aren't determined by personality traits. A dog isn't defined by the fact that it barks. When I bark, I don't become a dog. If my dog didn't bark but could talk, it would be a talking dog, not a person. And we still wouldn't let it vote.

and I don't know who "GC thought leaders" that you have in mind are. If you want me critically to examine what someone else has said for hypocrisy, tell me who and point to the offending statements. I'm not shy.

I have clarified who & what on this thread repeatedly. Either you haven’t bothered to read it or you re being disingenuous.

This is nonsense. Who cares if trans-identifying people are faking their inclinations or feel them very genuinely. It's irrelevant. Common inclinations don't mean anything in respect of identity.

The problem with this opinion is that group categorisations rely on commonalities.

Both I and my dog have an inclination to drink water in hot weather. It doesn't make me a dog nor her human.

But it does make you associated to the class of Ingestive Hydration Mammals or 'drinker mammals' as common gendered personality inclinations are associated to one sex more than the other.

On leveraging identity to obtain rights, and men wearing makeup to leverage female identies: People are welcome to the rights that belong to their own identities. But for trans-identifying men it's not their own identities that they're leveraging. They are leveraging an identity that they don't hold and to which they are not entitled.

Biology begs to differ given gendered personality traits are shared by the sexes but more common to one sex than the other.

I'm not lead in thought by anyone, and I don't know who "GC thought leaders" that you have in mind are. If you want me critically to examine what someone else has said for hypocrisy, tell me who and point to the offending statements. I'm not shy.

The flawed assumptions here are:

1. That trans people are 'faking' their common inclinations with the opposite sex & as such is not a legitimate identity
2. That these inclinations are purely cultural & not organic &
3. That everybody doesn't 'leverage' their identity to obtain rights

This is nonsense. Who cares if trans-identifying people are faking their inclinations or feel them very genuinely. It's irrelevant. Common inclinations don't mean anything in respect of identity. Both I and my dog have an inclination to drink water in hot weather. It doesn't make me a dog nor her human.

On leveraging identity to obtain rights, and men wearing makeup to leverage female identies: People are welcome to the rights that belong to their own identities. But for trans-identifying men it's not their own identities that they're leveraging. They are leveraging an identity that they don't hold and to which they are not entitled.

"Anyone who wears feminine makeup upholds sexist stereotypes. Women and trans identifying men, alike."

So you admit that GC thought leaders are hypocrites? That's progress.

My complaint about trans-identifying men is not that they were upholding sexist stereotypes. My complaint is that they are leveraging sexist stereotypes to persuade others or themselves that they are women.

The flawed assumptions here are:

1. That trans people are 'faking' their common inclinations with the opposite sex & as such is not a legitimate identity
2. That these inclinations are purely cultural & not organic &
3. That everybody doesn't 'leverage' their identity to obtain rights

In society and the workplace, asserting one’s identity is often the only way to trigger specific legal protections like anti discrimination.

"It's not smashing the patriarchy for a trans-identifying man to wear a face full of "feminine" slap because, patriarchy-wise, it's no different to a woman wearing a face full of "feminine" slap."

Can you further explain what this means? I don't follow,.

Anyone who wears feminine makeup upholds sexist stereotypes. Women and trans identifying men, alike.

My complaint about trans-identifying men is not that they were upholding sexist stereotypes. My complaint is that they are leveraging sexist stereotypes to persuade others or themselves that they are women.

It's not smashing the patriarchy for a trans-identifying man to wear a face full of "feminine" slap because, patriarchy-wise, it's no different to a woman wearing a face full of "feminine" slap.

If you want to smash the patriarchy with make up you'd want to look something like Ziggy Stardust. Neither particularly feminine nor masculine.

Trans-identifying men don't want to smash the patriarchy when they wear makeup, and they don't generally look like Ziggy Stardust. Allowing that people are individuals, and that there's a range of different behaviour, Jonathan "India" Willoughby, Dylan Mulvaney and Steph what'shisname all want to engage, support, and use patriarchal ideas of what feminine makeup is.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not "complaining" nor am I suggesting she "isn't allowed to". It's simply inconsistent on one hand to say trans people uphold sexist stereotypes by enjoying feminine attire & on another revel in them your self as a cis woman.

No, no I haven't. I haven't said anything close to that.

What I've said is that the clothes and other "upgrades" (?) that are considered feminine are those that, on the whole, appeal to men. That's different to saying that appealing to men is what is in a woman's mind when she "upgrades".

What's your point about JKR? She wants to look more feminine. So what? If you're complaining that she's propagating patriarchal ideas about men and women, then sure, she is. She's allowed to. We're all allowed to.

You tell me. You're the one's claiming that's it's the patriarchy imposing 'unnatural' beauty 'upgrades' to a woman's body to please them not me.