Posie Parker's latest - Glasgow

[TheShadowyFeminist]

I wilted in the heat so missed the pub afterwards. But PP's comments on the 'fawning' I'm finding interesting. Because even at a meeting of women who are fighting for their rights, and the right to say no to any male, irrespective of identity, being given access to female only services/space/provision/sport etc. it seems that female socialisation kicks in when a male wears a dress.

I've been involved in this fight for a number of years now, and I've witnessed how the inclusion of males, irrespective of claimed gender identity, often shifts the tone, the balance, the atmosphere for women & limits what they will say/do to further their cause. It also means that some women who really need that female solidarity can't access it.

I think the 'fawning' is something that we al need to reflect on & work out why this is how some of us behave over someone who (as far as I'm aware) has failed to acknowledge their part in writing guidance for schools that breach female children's rights under the UNCRC.

I think we all need to 'be more Posie' in life & activism.

Signalling to oneself that one is sexually available to one's self

This would all be very well if we didn't have thousands of posts on this board from women coerced into participating.

I found Carole Hooven's book very helpful in identifying and explaining the difference between male-pattern and female-pattern behaviour in both humans and other species. The reason we do it is to facilitate the continuation of our species. Just like other sexually dimorphic species.

As previously cited, parapillias are known to be male-pattern behaviours /offending. These have nothing to do with facilitating the continuation of the species. Men have autonomy to make choices and have sole responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Ibid.
"What are causes and risk factors for paraphilia?
Biological issues thought to be risk factors for paraphilias include some differences in brain activity during sexual arousal, as well as general brain structure. Mental health professionals have found that male pedophiles have lower IQ scores on psychological testing compared to men who are not pedophiles. Research has also determined that they tend to have a history of earning lower grades in school than their non-pedophilic counterparts, regardless of intellectual abilities and learning styles.

There are a number of psychological theories about how paraphilias develop. Some view these disorders as a manifestation of arrested psychosexual development, with the paraphilic behaviors defending the person's psyche against anxiety (defense mechanisms). Others believe paraphilias are the result of the sufferer associating something with sexual arousal and interests, or by having unusual early life sexual experiences reinforced by having an orgasm. Some view these disorders as another form of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Psychologically, pedophiles who act on their urges by sexually offending tend to engage in grossly distorted thinking, in that they use their position of power and view offending as an appropriate way to meet their needs, think about children as equal sexual beings to adults, and consider their sexual needs as uncontrollable.

Another theory about paraphilia risk factors is that they are linked to stages of childhood psychological development like temperament, early relationship formation, trauma repetition, and disrupted development of sexuality, as follows:

Temperament : a tendency to be overly inhibited or uncontrolled with emotions and behaviors
Early relationship formation : a lack of stable self-awareness, trouble managing emotions, and in seeking help and comfort from others
Trauma repetition : People who are the victim of sexual or other forms of abuse, especially if it occurs during childhood, may identify with the abuser such that they act out what was inflicted on them by victimizing others in some way. They may also act out the trauma by somehow harming themselves.
Disrupted development of sexuality : The patterns of what brings one sexual pleasure tend to form by adolescence. People raised in a household that is either excessively sexually permissive or inhibited are at higher risk for developing a paraphilia. (continues)
www.medicinenet.com/paraphilia/article.htm

Because the target location is inward, I'm signalling to myself. The Unherd piece gives more detail on that, though there is scope for a fuller account. I'm working on that at the moment.

So not about reproduction at all.

Got it.

Because the target location is inward, I'm signalling to myself. The Unherd piece gives more detail on that, though there is scope for a fuller account. I'm working on that at the moment.

Which implies that it's something done in private. Not in public, involving people in general, and women in particular.

I watched Karen's videos, and from what I remember, this is all just making her points for her.

Which implies that it's something done in private. Not in public, involving people in general, and women in particular.

The involvement of children or non-consenting people is a key feature in the definition of paraphillia (DSM-IV):

“recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving i) non-human objects, ii) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or iii) children or other non-consenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months”

@Datun

Because the target location is inward, I'm signalling to myself. The Unherd piece gives more detail on that, though there is scope for a fuller account. I'm working on that at the moment.

Which implies that it's something done in private. Not in public, involving people in general, and women in particular.

I watched Karen's videos, and from what I remember, this is all just making her points for her.

It only affects women if we think that male transsexuals are women. I dont think we are (and I think we might agree on that point), rather we are expanding the bandwidth of what it means to be a man (to reverse something that Alex Drummond once said).

But I sense we might disagree with the concept that men can signal in a way typical of females. This is really interesting, but few people talk about it. when we signal our sex we also signal to members of our own sex. It's linked to social status within the group.

It only affects women if we think that male transsexuals are women.

What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? The obvious interpretation is that you're saying that males being transsexual doesn't affect women. I'm sure that's not what you meant, since you being transsexual obviously affects your wife (as well as other women you come into contact with), so can you clarify?

But I sense we might disagree with the concept that men can signal in a way typical of females.

As you have discounted gendered expressions it would be useful if you could clarify specifically what you believe women and girls do to 'signal sex' that is also done by male transsexuals. Are we to assume this concerns having breasts?

Yes, sex signalling is a reproductive strategy. Evo psych attempts to explain how this has evolved in humans, often with reference to the great apes.

However, Debbie seems to have cherry picked the bits that suit Debbie. Sex signalling may signal either availability (for reproduction) or non availability. Since human men are fertile all the time, they will attempt to signal availability all the time. "Good quality sperm available here!" as it were.

But since human women are not fertile all the time and have to spend more and longer resources on pregnancy and post pregnancy childcare, they will signal available - "Good quality eggs available here!" - for short times and unavailable - "Go away, please, I'm not ovalating/am pregnant/am involved in childcare!"

This is slightly more complicated to interpret in human women because we have concealed oestrus: no swollen monkey bums or strong and obvious pungent pheromones. Which is why when we say no, men should assume we actually do mean no.

Debbie appears to be under the impression that men who transition are like women because they try to signal "Good eggs available here!" 24/7. But it seems to me that this is acting far more like men, who are indeed signalling reproductive availability24/7 when women really aren't.

Few feminists credit evo psych, but this argument of Debbie's seems to fail on the grounds of evo psych itself, let alone its feminist rebuttals.

@WhatKatyDidNot

Yes, sex signalling is a reproductive strategy. Evo psych attempts to explain how this has evolved in humans, often with reference to the great apes.

However, Debbie seems to have cherry picked the bits that suit Debbie. Sex signalling may signal either availability (for reproduction) or non availability. Since human men are fertile all the time, they will attempt to signal availability all the time. "Good quality sperm available here!" as it were.

But since human women are not fertile all the time and have to spend more and longer resources on pregnancy and post pregnancy childcare, they will signal available - "Good quality eggs available here!" - for short times and unavailable - "Go away, please, I'm not ovalating/am pregnant/am involved in childcare!"

This is slightly more complicated to interpret in human women because we have concealed oestrus: no swollen monkey bums or strong and obvious pungent pheromones. Which is why when we say no, men should assume we actually do mean no.

Debbie appears to be under the impression that men who transition are like women because they try to signal "Good eggs available here!" 24/7. But it seems to me that this is acting far more like men, who are indeed signalling reproductive availability24/7 when women really aren't.

Few feminists credit evo psych, but this argument of Debbie's seems to fail on the grounds of evo psych itself, let alone its feminist rebuttals.

That should say:

"unavailable - "Go away, please, I'm not ovalating/am pregnant/am involved in childcare!" for much longer times.

@WhatKatyDidNot

Yes, sex signalling is a reproductive strategy. Evo psych attempts to explain how this has evolved in humans, often with reference to the great apes.

However, Debbie seems to have cherry picked the bits that suit Debbie. Sex signalling may signal either availability (for reproduction) or non availability. Since human men are fertile all the time, they will attempt to signal availability all the time. "Good quality sperm available here!" as it were.

But since human women are not fertile all the time and have to spend more and longer resources on pregnancy and post pregnancy childcare, they will signal available - "Good quality eggs available here!" - for short times and unavailable - "Go away, please, I'm not ovalating/am pregnant/am involved in childcare!"

This is slightly more complicated to interpret in human women because we have concealed oestrus: no swollen monkey bums or strong and obvious pungent pheromones. Which is why when we say no, men should assume we actually do mean no.

Debbie appears to be under the impression that men who transition are like women because they try to signal "Good eggs available here!" 24/7. But it seems to me that this is acting far more like men, who are indeed signalling reproductive availability24/7 when women really aren't.

Few feminists credit evo psych, but this argument of Debbie's seems to fail on the grounds of evo psych itself, let alone its feminist rebuttals.

Indeed. And I'm still not sure how a male superficially presenting as a woman is exhibiting female sexual availability!

A male with AGP is not only not a fertile woman, they're almost going out of their way to tell you they're not.

Hi Debbie,

You must have missed my question. My interest in the transgender issue is how it affects women and girls.

I am fine with you doing whatever surgery you wish and dressing how you wish provided it's decent and appropriate for the occasion.

None of that changes your sex or makes you a woman though. I think you now also understand that you are, and always will be, a man.

So, given this, can you answer this question:

Hi Debbie, just want to check, I understand you helped write the NASUWT guidelines which said that male teachers could use women's toilets etc. Do you still support those guidelines?

@R0wantrees

But I sense we might disagree with the concept that men can signal in a way typical of females.

As you have discounted gendered expressions it would be useful if you could clarify specifically what you believe women and girls do to 'signal sex' that is also done by male transsexuals. Are we to assume this concerns having breasts?

I'd say that breasts and height are the two key signals of sex in humans. But there are others: hips to shoulder ratio for example. Facial hair is another obvious secondary sex characteristic but less useful in societies where most men clean shave.

These are things we accentuate to signal to the opposite sex and to our own. Sexual signals not just about securing partners of the opposite sex, they also mark status within our own sex.

Breasts are a sign of social status amongst women??

I wouldn't know because I'm not a woman. But I do know that height, and shoulders mark out status and position among men.

It's men who fetishise women's breasts, not women.

@DebbieInBirmingham

I wouldn't know because I'm not a woman. But I do know that height, and shoulders mark out status and position among men.

You were asked to clarify specifically what you believe women and girls do to 'signal sex' that is also done by male transsexuals.

It seems we have correctly identified that this concerns preoccupation with breasts.

It seems we have correctly identified that this concerns preoccupation with breasts.

Which also appears to confer social status.

I mean, obviously, I hang around with an awful lot of women, and I can confidently testify that being in possession of breasts does not determine hierarchy.

Boob Jobs R Us! Deary me.

No, I'm sorry, Debbie. But you wrote an article in which you attempted to use evo psych theory to explain how medical and surgical interventions were in some way palliative to transsexuals because they enabled sex signalling in a way congruent with the wished-for sex. Boob jobs do not enable female sex signalling even on evo psych grounds. This just plain wrong about the theory you yourself are claiming. Physical attributes that differ between sexes are not sex signalling in the way you are implying. They are simply physical attributes that have evolved differently due to reproductive role. Breasts are for breastfeeding children. They are not monkey bums, which swell at oestrus.

Maybe we can all say what our bra size is and then we can establish who is and isn't mumsnet royalty.

My boobs are huge. That's why I'm a Queen around here.

I think there's confusion between signals and 'super signals'. Super signals are irresistible if they are attractors (or terrifying if they are threats). Some men find breasts to be super signals.

Its very odd to assume heterosexual women would have the same response to breasts as heterosexual men do.

I mean, obviously, I hang around with an awful lot of women, and I can confidently testify that being in possession of breasts does not determine hierarchy.

Ranking women and girls based on their breasts is a uniquely male behaviour. It's the very objectification that contributes to many girls and young women wanting to wear large school jumpers, bind their breasts, identify out of being a woman and even consider having a mastectomy.

@TinselAngel

My boobs are huge. That's why I'm a Queen around here.

I don't want to brag, but mine touch my knees.

Well now we all know or tit size, the Board Status Board has to be rearranged.
I'm not fucking doing it.