Human Aggression

[IcakethereforeIam]

I read this article in the Critic and thought how well it reflected the conflict between tras and gcs. Or how the glee in proactive aggression is displayed by some of the tra posters on these boards. I rarely see the same from the gc side, but I would think that wouldn't I .

If anyone else wants to take the time to read it, do you think I'm right? If yes, why? Sense of humour, awareness of lack of approval from our own side, something else? Or am I wrong?

thecritic.co.uk/the-distinctiveness-of-human-aggression/

Interesting article although I admit I didn't get all the way through it! The way I see the difference between gc and tra in terms of violence is that tra are extreme. Any extreme ideology has to use violence to achieve it's aims because most people do not want it. Saying biology is the absolute determinant in how people live their lives is extreme - see what is happening in Afghanistan right now. Saying biology is irrelevant is also extreme, which is why tra are often aggressive. Gc beliefs are not extreme. They are the absolute middle ground. Biology is a fact and plays an important role in how society is organised, but it does not dictate everything about how we live our lives. The middle ground is generally what most people want, but because it is based on consensus rather than force it is by it's nature, peaceful, slightly flexible and accommodating. The problem is when it comes up against an extreme which is prepared to use force.

Sorry if I'm missing the point of the article.

You're not wrong.

I think neuro divergence plays a part too.....

Although it can work both ways. Some people can be easily manipulated, for example as has been said, a lot of autistic people are trans because they have been lead to believe certain traits are female so they must be female despite their body ( or vice versa. ) But at the same time other autistic people are vulnerable to being accused of transphobia because they say what they see and so misgender or state the obvious in this debate. Many autistic people are perfectly able to discuss and look critically at the situation. I don't think the people driving this whole thing are autistic, they are just caught up in it as we all are.

It was a long article, summarising an even longer book. Apparently, compared to humans, chimpanzees are extraordinarily aggressive, particularly male chimps towards females, 100% will experience male violence. Even bonobos (considered peaceful) are much more aggressive than we are. The author says we have amended our behaviour so that we are well-behaved towards others within our social milieu, but can be dreadfully violent towards the 'other'. They posit two kinds of aggression, reactive and proactive, which seem pretty self explanatory.

I think the 'othering' is what we see in tras towards gc women, and perhaps wider in much male violence towards women. The proactive aggression is something that is planned and worked-up towards. I think it's on twitter atm re. KJK in Bristol later this month.

I don't think it's seen in gc because we don't 'other' tras so much.

Any road, I'm going to reread because I'm probably misremembering.

I would imagine there’s no simple GC v TRA type of distinction to be made out of any of this.

what particularly interests me in it is this but about proactive aggression:

As the psychologist Jonathan Haidt has observed in the context of university campuses:

A funny thing happens when you take young human beings, whose minds evolved for tribal warfare and us/them thinking, and you fill those minds full of binary dimensions. You tell them that one side of each binary is good and the other is bad. You turn on their ancient tribal circuits, preparing them for battle. Many students find it thrilling; it floods them with a sense of meaning and purpose.

Inter-group conflict can take on different forms.

That speaks volumes to why this sort of moralised thinking and urge to eliminate anyone who thinks the wrong way has taken off so enormously on university campuses and among younger people on social media.

Even where the teaching of this stuff has problematised the binary logic, what seems to have come out if it is a kind of moralised meta binary around the concept of ‘nonbinary’ in relation to gender. People who reject gender as an organising concept become the out group who must be eliminated. But it’s not merely reactionary aggression; it’s proactive aggression intended to control the moral
code within which in and out groups can be determined at all.

There’s a positive emotional pay off for many people in defining their witches and then chasing them down to burn them. Ironically, these people believe themselves to be open minded and tolerant but only for towards those who fit the norms of their in group. That makes the demonisation and elimination of the gender rejecting outgroup so much more thrilling for them.

It works both ways, of course. You can see evidence of cooperating to eliminate the gender-enthusiastic outgroup among GC people.

But, the structural dynamics and some aspects of human biology, make this much less effective. It is to a large extent groups of male humans who are most commonly and effectively engaging in this kind of proactive aggression to get what they want.

You see it everywhere in human behaviour; football teams, brexit, scone/scone. But there was a bit about wanting to fit in, a hangover from when everyone you met would be someone you knew. Standing out would not be good, is emotionally painful. Which makes me sympathise, again, with gender nonconforming people and is another layer of why some are desperate to normalise it, aggressively so.

It's not just about 'othering', though. TRA aggression towards GCs might be explained in part by the 'othering' theory, but does not explain why GCs at the same way towards TRAs.

I think there are three reasons why GC people tend not to be aggressive:

1. Biology. The trans ideology is a male supremacist ideology, driven by males and modelled by males. Males-testosterone-aggression. The link is known. The GC position OTOH is driven by women and modelled by women. Female-minimal testosterone-less aggression.

1. The difference between feminine and masculine socialisations. Need I say more?

1. The objectives of GC people. The trans ideology is all about certain men getting what they want. What others, with different needs, want is irrelevant. The GC position is about women's rights, but it is also about safeguarding the vulnerable. It is about equity, rather than supremacy. It supports freedom of speech, rather than coerced speech. It supports a plurality of views, rather than strict adherence to ideology. These perspectives are incompatible with the sort of aggression displayed by TRAs.

...does not explain why GCs do not act the same way towards TRAs.

Well put Jelly and interesting article. I think I'd add to your list the absolute need of the TRAs to be validated, particularly by women. This isn't about the freedom of one group to do what they want to do, the overwhelming majority of GCs are pretty tolerant. If someone wants to wear heels, make up and push up bra they can go right ahead. TRAs require the absolute and total submission of GCs to TRA beliefs and a regular public acknowledgment of that submission. There is no pluralism here. Reading that article I do suspect the author oversimplifies this urge to batter, dominate and kill. I suspect that heretics (of whatever kind) were also frequent targets. After all, in penalising GCs TRAs are not aiming at the strong and aggressive, they are focusing on heretics.