'One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.'
We're all trans, friends.
Who's read this?
Especially interested in what MtFs think of her works.
MtFs what feminist and gender theory have you read, and do you consider yourselves feminists? Why/ why not?
Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy.
The common erotic project of destroying women makes it possible for men to unite into a brotherhood; this project is the only firm and trustworthy groundwork for cooperation among males and all male bonding is based on it.
This quote is always taken severely out of contest by trans people. Simone de Beauvoir believed in biological oppression and gender as a vertical hierarchy, with men at the top and women at the bottom, and not a horizontal structure that you could identify in and out of because you can't identify in and out of having societal power. If you're not up for reading The Second Sex, this quote can be more quickly understood by replacing woman with black. "One is not born, but rather becomes, black." What would this mean? In this context, we can more easily understand the message that you are born a human being, and through your life you learn that you are less than that and a second hand citizen. You become Black instead of a regular, unlabeled human being. Likewise, Simone de Beauvoir meant in this quote that "woman" is a social status of the oppressed based in biology. You BECOME a woman through socialization and trauma. You learn that you are a specific, disliked type of human being and a commodity.
She would have scoffed at "brain sex" and "always felt like a woman," because the only way to feel like a woman is to feel the sting of all the consequences that comes with having a vagina. "Woman" is an external experience that becomes internal, not the other way around. She would have absolutely been a radical feminist (or "TERF") and this quote is a great example of why.
you are the worst kind of person
there is nobody worse than you
at least murders and rapists are working in their own self-interest
I kind of agree with this. Like I'm sure there are some good, wholesome forms of male bonding, but I've definitely seen that a large part of it is unfortunately built on misogyny (or at least the system of values and norms that gives rise to misogyny).
Uh, just going by the lgbt youth homelessness and sexual assault stats, effeminate boys are far more likely to be out of social power and suffer violence for liking guys and being too effeminate.
Statistically straight girls are orders of magnitude better off when it comes to living free of sexual violence and homelessness. Your 'oppression' boils down to nothing more than a Protocols of the Elders of Zion type myth you've constructed to justify demonizing minorities.
And as for the neurology, it's odd how the moment the scientific consensus and only effective medical therapy offends your ideology, it's suddenly an evil project.
No patients and the doctors who are keeping them alive aren't criminals and no they don't need to apologize for offending your religion.
>You learn that you are a specific, disliked type of human being
So that's any different from lgbt how? Asides from the part about how society approves of women being attracted to men and being way less likely to beat them for it. Your fake oppression Olympics don't justify mistreating others. Hypocrite.
I don't think they're necessarily saying they agree with that, I think they're just describing Beauvoir's views. And, just because cis privilege exists, doesn't mean male privilege doesn't, they're on two different axes, and that's why transmisogyny exists.
>And, just because cis privilege exists, doesn't mean male privilege doesn't,
If by every one of the benchmarks feminism claims to stand for, lgbt youth are worse off than straight girls, then the former certainly has none of the 'male privilege' you say makes them evil. That whole privilege argument is statistically ridiculous in the west where you're far better off than lgbt. "Privilege" as a whole just seems to be your way to justify eliminating anyone you've 'othered'.
Glad they posted it. It's best everyone get to see fundamentalist religions like this are incompatible with the existence of anyone they deem different.
>If by every one of the benchmarks feminism claims to stand for, lgbt youth are worse off than straight girls, then the former certainly has none of the 'male privilege' you say makes them evil.
Having male privilege doesn't mean you're evil, it just means you have male privilege, which means you have advantages in life over females, all other things being equal. Cis privilege and heterosexual privilege are both enormous privileges, but it doesn't mean male privilege doesn't exist. If you want to disprove male privilege, you must compare two groups that differ ONLY in gender, and otherwise have the same social class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Of course LGBT youth have less privilege than the average straight girl, but that's because straight girls still benefit from straight privilege, even though they lack male privilege. If you want to argue that male privilege doesn't exist, try comparing straight girls to straight guys, or something along those lines, so that the ONLY difference is their gender. I mean, that's basic scientific principles - you have to control extraneous variables and isolate the one variable you're investigating. Which in this case is the effect of gender on privilege.
But by your own admission there isn't the slightest bit empiric about the category, you might lump them in with the fat cats but they receive none of the benefits and are treated all the worse because of their social classes.
At this point the numbers say your calling others "privileged" is bullshit. Privilige is just a buzzword you've coined to justify vilifying minorities and the vulnerable.
>suffer more across the board
When in raw numbers alone there are more homeless lgbt youth than there are homeless girls despite the later being a dozen times more numerous, when they are far more likely to be murdered or suffer sexual assault, and people like you justify it by saying they're faggots, then yes.
>entire world is the west
So now you're appropriating the actual violence women in the third world suffer from and using it to justify doing the same to minorities you dislike? Yeah, I'm sure a few extra dead faggots will make them feel better.
As if your sick ideology could get any more morally bankrupt.
So much for helping them. No wonder millennials want nothing to do with your religion. Hopefully whatever takes it's place will actually use it's influence to help people, not purge the weak.
>effeminate boys are far more likely to be out of social power
I can understand the struggle for effeminate guys, but it's the same for women, whatever their sexual orientation or personnality trait
Rest is true I gotta say, but please don't deny the fact that being born a woman (aka with a vagina, aka without a dick) means you're going to have to worry about more things than if you were born male
LGBT youth are NOT privileged compared to the average person; being LGBT causes a severe loss of privilege. No one's claiming they have a high level of privilege or are particularly well off. However, they are not oppressed BECAUSE they are male, they are oppressed because they're LGBT. "Male privilege" does not mean no male can be oppressed, it means GENDERED oppression is directed towards females. All other things being equal, men are more privileged than women. But if you're comparing cishet women to LGBT men, there's multiple factors involved. You're veering awfully close to that tired old MRA meme that says white male privilege can't exist because there are white males living in poverty. It shows a misunderstanding of how privilege works. It's the equivalent of claiming women tend to be stronger than men by comparing a female weightlifter to a 95 year old man who can't even stand without assistance. Sure, that woman is stronger than that man, just as cishet women are more privileged than LGBT men. But in neither instance is the disparity BECAUSE of gender, if anything, it's in spite of it.
Do you have any evidence that the person you're talking to has advocated violence against LGBT people? It's the equivalent of accusing a random white person of being responsible for all the deaths that occurred under Hitler and Stalin.
>but it's the same for women, whatever their sexual orientation or personality trait
Really? Society sanctions their sexuality and behavior when the exact same actions from a boy warrant a beating and that's condoned because they're boys. The consequences of a girl in the west transgressing orientation or gender aren't as severe and rarely as violent.
>born a woman (aka with a vagina, aka without a dick) means you're going to have to worry about more things than if you were born male
Lets see, so if you're a faggot you're more likely to suffer assault physical and sexual and society encourages that. More likely to suffer homelessness and disownall too. Once again society considers that semi acceptable. Unless your women are from third world shitholes it's not comparable.
Given how his moment actively smeared lgbt as pedophiles and sex predators for the HERO referendum, yes. It's the exactly the same as accusing a fundie of getting people killed with his drivel.
>People being too effeminate or having control of their bodies is a sin
>It's sinful to point out that they are more likely to be victims than anything
Yeah, well it was your call, and it's your movement that's telling the public they're predators out for children.
TERF is a stupid term when your moment is opposed to anyone different existing, anyone who by just being transgresses your rules.
Again, I'm not a TERF, and I'm not entirely convinced the other radfem in this thread is either. I personally don't think living as a gay or trans person is wrong, and I don't in any way deny that they're far worse off than straight cis people. And indeed, if TERFs did indeed adhere to their alleged agenda of destroying gender roles (what they call "gender"), they shouldn't have any problems with men being effeminate. The way I see it, transphobia and homophobia are largely driven by the same patriarchal norms that cause misogyny and restrictive gender roles.
Then maybe your categories just don't make sense. Maybe if you went by who they are and individual circumstances rather than some broad politically convenient way of creating an other to blame for everything.
I don't need to say anything else about how you say it's wrong to say that minorities suffer or that your stuffing everyone into arbitrary and broad categories is bullshit. Hell your only response to that is to start claiming lgbt is some agent of your boggiemen.
>Feminist groups openly support Islam and migration
>/lgbt/ supports feminism
>/lgbt/ get harrassed and murdered by muslims
>Then maybe your categories just don't make sense. Maybe if you went by who they are and individual circumstances rather than some broad politically convenient way of creating an other to blame for everything.
No, I recognize that everyone is an individual and that every situation is different. Privilege is just a way of acknowledging that in general, certain groups are given advantages denied to others. Male privilege is hardly the only or most significant form of privilege.
>I don't need to say anything else about how you say it's wrong to say that minorities suffer
I don't say that, nor do I agree with that sentiment.
>Hell your only response to that is to start claiming lgbt is some agent of your boggiemen.
No, I mean there are some INDIVIDUAL members of LGBT who support an anti-feminist, pro-patriarchy agenda, but as a whole the LGBT group is largely a victim of the patriarchy, rather than an agent of it.
Doesn't really matter what you call yourself and TERF a bad term that reduces everything wrong with radicalism down to just one symptom of it's inability to accept anyone deemed different. Destroying the freedom people have to express themselves won't bring the utopia you want either.
>transphobia and homophobia are largely driven
By groups othering anyone they deem different, the same reason women have been mistreated in the past. There isn't a distinction between radical feminism and the things you complain about.
>Doesn't really matter what you call yourself and TERF a bad term that reduces everything wrong with radicalism down to just one symptom of it's inability to accept anyone deemed different. Destroying the freedom people have to express themselves won't bring the utopia you want either.
As I understand it, radical feminism is at least allegedly about destroying the gender roles that are used to RESTRICT people's freedom of self-expression. Of course, many gender-critical radfems do the exact opposite, they seem severely short-sighted in their interpretation of radical feminism.
>Privilege is just a way of acknowledging that in general, certain groups are given advantages denied to others. Male privilege is hardly the only or most significant form of privilege.
Meaningless when transgressing means the group is striped of anything it could have gained, and the sanctions for females transgressing are less severe. Then if because their effeminacy and homosexuality, boys who don't fit in are abused and abused with the sanction of society, then how is that a privilege? As is you're just saying it's a privilige to have suffered sexual assault.
> INDIVIDUAL members of LGBT who support an anti-feminist, pro-patriarchy agenda
Still kinda seems like a boogie man way to reduce people's motivations. There are many many people lgbt and normal women who might believe in feminism's key principles but want nothing to do with the movement after watching it vilify people for being different.
>As is you're just saying it's a privilige to have suffered sexual assault.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I mean, by that reasoning, people who claim that straight females are privileged (such as yourself, if you're the one I was speaking to earlier in this thread) must think that being raped is a privilege. Which I'm pretty sure isn't what you mean to be claiming. Again, the existence of male privilege does not mean men cannot be oppressed, but men are NOT oppressed simply for being men.
And yes, gender-role transgression is an unusual example of where privileges aren't just linearly additive; being gender non-conforming causes a greater loss of privilege for males than for females. This is an important part of the concept of "intersectionality", that different sources of privilege or oppression can interact in ways that produce a result greater than the sums of their parts.
>Still kinda seems like a boogie man way to reduce people's motivations. There are many many people lgbt and normal women who might believe in feminism's key principles but want nothing to do with the movement after watching it vilify people for being different.
I wouldn't consider those people anti-feminists. I'm more talking about the types who say women are only good for sex, every woman should be a stay at home mother, women shouldn't have been given the right to vote, etc. Agreeing with the basic principles of feminism but taking issue with the specific implementation in no way makes one an anti-feminist.
>people who claim that straight females are privileged must think that being raped is a privilege
At least its taken seriously and prosecuted. Do that with boys and they'll just say they brought it on themselves by being fags. Society condoning your sexual assault is certainly a privilege.
And if you yourself admit they loose all benefits by transgressing, then isn't it utterly pointless to claim lgbt benefits from male "privilege" not only did they not gain anything but they were mistreated for it "You learn that you are a specific, disliked type of human being". Its senseless, and just a lazy way to claim minorities are part of the problem. The whole concept of privilege isn't any more than bad demagoguery.
> I'm more talking about the types who say women
Those hardly have anything to do with lgbt unless you're talking about people like Milo and in that case radfems actively collaborate alongside him because they'd rather pick their animosity over their principles.
>I wouldn't consider those people anti-feminists
Well don't the radfems insist that anyone who's critical their actions is a MRA, you were kinda going that way over the privilege bs.
It doesn't matter if I believe in what it's supposed to stand for, I wouldn't use the label and I don't want anything to do with a movement that attacks anything different. That's the case for many disillusioned with it.
>And if you yourself admit they loose all benefits by transgressing, then isn't it utterly pointless to claim lgbt benefits from male "privilege" not only did they not gain anything but they were mistreated for it "You learn that you are a specific, disliked type of human being". Its senseless, and just a lazy way to claim minorities are part of the problem. The whole concept of privilege isn't any more than bad demagoguery.
The only ones who really actually benefit from male privilege are ftms who pass as cis men or gay/bisexual men living in societies where being gay is no longer seen as a major transgression of gender roles.
>Those hardly have anything to do with lgbt unless you're talking about people like Milo and in that case radfems actively collaborate alongside him because they'd rather pick their animosity over their principles.
Sure, I mean it's pretty obvious that many of the TERF type radfems place their transphobia over any sort of coherent feminist ideology.
>Well don't the radfems insist that anyone who's critical their actions is a MRA, you were kinda going that way over the privilege bs.
Again, I don't believe mere disagreement makes someone anti-feminist or a "MRA". I mean, sure, some radfems are quick to throw insults like that around but I personally don't consider it deserved unless the person you're talking to is engaging in behaviors like trying to have an argument or discussion and intentionally trying to misrepresent your views, etc.
>It doesn't matter if I believe in what it's supposed to stand for, I wouldn't use the label and I don't want anything to do with a movement that attacks anything different. That's the case for many disillusioned with it.
Male queerness is more threatening to the structure of heteronormativity than female queerness because men are tasked with upholding the system and enforcing it upon others. Women who dissent from the system aren't an ideological threat to a system which empowers men and privileges masculinity through the sexual oppression of women. If a man opts out of this system, it shatters the illusion that male heterosexuality is good and should be universally desired and held up above other sexualities. Coincidentally, this is the same reason why trans women are treated so much worse than trans men.
>Simone de Beauvoir
like all postmodern philosophies, especially those tied to "leftist" politics, it's pretentious pseudo-intellectual obscurantist nonsense rooted in circular logic, emotional appeals, and unverifiable 'data'
Just weak women using their precious feminism to drag the rest of us down to their level. This sort of shit is why I refuse to call myself feminist. No one has to be feminist to be for real equal rights for both sexes.
Bullshit. As a woman I've noticed men jump to help women, but I don't see women as often jump to help men. While a woman who is down on her luck is seen as in need of rescue, a man down on his luck is seen as a weak or degenerate deadbeat. Women definitely have it way better than men in terms of social safety nets and the willingness of society to be lenient on us when we make mistakes in life. Hell, there are dedicated charities and shelters that are exclusively for women in need, but not for men.
Seeing myself primarily as a human being for whom sex and gender are but aspects of my being, I can not understand nor abide by it. Both the treatment of men as expendable beasts of burden and the treatment of women as helpless, feeble of mind, and victims by virtue of nature, are equally offensive to my sensibilities.
How is gender defined? If it's not determined by your physical sex, and it's not determined by societal gender norms and roles, then what is it determined by? I'm looking for a non-spiritual explanation here, so don't say that people have male or female souls.
If gender really exists in its own right, then it has to *be* something. There needs to be either a physical or a sociological explanation for what it is. You can't just wave it around as this nebulous undefined concept that means whatever people want it to mean at any given time.
>How is gender defined?
There are two types of gender. Biological gender which is set by the brain, and gender roles which are societal norms for each gender. The first one, biological gender, is immutable and can't be changed. Sometimes it is different than the person's sex.
Actually women are more or less seen as women and then their purity is taken away, hence why women are shamed as sluts.
Men are born boys and then "become men" at some arbitrary stage. Hence "be a man", or a "a real man does x"
I think >>5577015 is on the right track. I think biological gender comes down to brain sex, the research on which is still in it's infancy. It seems so far that brain sex is determined in the womb, and that it determines how you instinctively understand your own reproductive organs and relate to the sexes of others. Sometimes brain sex ends up not matching physical sex and you wind up with people having dysphoria.
Our biology does not determine how we symbolically present our gender or what interests we have, however... societal norms developed earlier in human history when people had a lot less control over their lives and bodies, and survival was harder. It's become mostly obsolete.
How do you determine your social construct gender divorced from the expectations of society? You don't. You stop caring about that shit and do what you like, and dress how you like, and stop caring about whether or not you should based on chromosomes, like chromosomes have skirts and pants preferences programmed into them. If you're female and not dysphoric but tend to dress and behave in a masculine manner? Then you're just a masculine woman. Get what I'm saying?
If you have such a negative view of feminism, why would you be so surprised that transgender people SPECIFICALLY are feminists? Your post should have been
>tfw there are actual feminists
Unless you honestly think cis people enjoy wiping their asses with sandpaper or something.
Feminism is an anti male movement. Stop demonizing men for your own shortcomings. Sure most men are assholes but don't resort to dying your hair a funky color and eating menstrual blood cookies as you scream and shout for men to be made slaves.
The thing is, as a man, the vast majority of those specific gendered problems men face are perpetuated also by men. I personally don't see what you mean by social safety nets for women; sure, there are gendered homeless shelters and gender-based organizations, but I don't see a problem with having a few specific places where men aren't allowed, since obviously there'd be no good reason for a guy to want to be there.
Also, obviously male issues (especially wrt marginalized males) are often brushed off as non-existent, but I don't think there's any situation where all women, specifically, hold institutional power over all men.
>So you think a person born with a vagina can be a man?
I do happen to think that, or at least function in society as one to such an extent that calling them a woman rather than a man is rather pointless, as gender has many aspects other than anatomy. But, regardless, that is not actually what I claimed: I merely claimed that a newborn female is not a woman, but rather something that can become a woman. And if you think about it, that's not actually the same as claiming they can become a man - it's possible, for example, to die in childhood or infancy before becoming a woman.
>Feminism is an anti male movement.
Some feminists are misandrists, some feminists are PROUD misandrists. But that does not mean feminism is an anti-male movement; ironically, your reasoning is exactly the same that some feminists use to argue that men should be regarded as rapists.
>Sure most men are assholes
Isn't that a pretty anti-male statement itself, claiming that MOST men are assholes? I mean obviously some are, but I certainly wouldn't say most are.
>sure, there are gendered homeless shelters and gender-based organizations, but I don't see a problem with having a few specific places where men aren't allowed, since obviously there'd be no good reason for a guy to want to be there.
I think the issue they're getting at is that there are many shelters for homeless or abused women, and not many for men (either specifically for men, or available to both genders). I don't know how true it is, though I've definitely heard people use that argument before.
Yes, that is the definition of biological sex. It does NOT explain how being trans (i.e. having a gender identity that doesn't match your biological sex) prevents one from being a functioning member of society.
If you do not come to terms with your biological sex, that is a denial of reality. Once you deny one aspect of reality, every other aspect is subject to denial.
>If you do not come to terms with your biological sex, that is a denial of reality.
Thinking your biological sex is other than what it actually is would be denial of reality. Being uncomfortable with your biological sex is not. Otherwise you'd have to concede that all pain is delusion.
>Once you deny one aspect of reality, every other aspect is subject to denial.
I take it you've never heard of a slippery slope fallacy? There are plenty of people who deny some aspects of reality but otherwise remain completely functional. Their grasp on reality may be weakened, but it takes a lot more to truly make it break.
Posting a clickbait article about some crazy fetishist is supposed to convince me of what exactly? Unless you have actual statistics, you don't have an argument. Every group has its crazies. And most trans people do not identify as six year olds.
Being uncomfortable with your biological sex is a mental disorder. Have you ever heard of Body Integrity Identity Disorder? A person with this disorder believes that they would be better off chopping some of their limbs off. It is pain and discomfort classified as a disorder. Why shouldn't transgenderism be classified as a mental disorder?
>Being uncomfortable with your biological sex is a mental disorder.
Technically neurological, but I get what you're saying. That's why gender dysphoria is listed in the DSM. And HRT, often accompanied by gender role transition and possibly surgeries, is the prescribed treatment. And it's the most effective known treatment, actually "fixing" the brain to bring it in line with the body would require physically altering the brain in ways that are far beyond our current capabilities. We'd need a greater understanding of the brain itself, as well as surgical techniques precise enough to make such alterations without causing greater problems.
Around 1% according to the APA and WPATH
> Dr. Dhejne and colleagues shows that the regret rate for those having surgery from 2001-2010 is only 0.3%.
>The American Psychiatric Association and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health no longer view transgender identity as inherently pathological. Dr. McHughs views are stuck in the past.
>Dan Karasic, MD Health Sciences Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCSF Member, American Psychiatric Association Workgroup on Gender Dysphoria Member, Board of Directors, World Professional Association for Transgender Health
So 0.3% according to the doctors. Funny how the lunatics in your fringe sharia site say they know better.
Do you? Regret is very uncommon. And even if the 20% regret rate was accurate, transitioning would still be justified if the outcomes were more positive than not transitioning. That's the thing, too - most arguments against transition depend on claiming that post-transition people are still worse off than the general population, without even attempting to address whether they would have been better off not transitioning. Trans people may still have mental health issues after transitioning, but so far no one's suggested a treatment that actually works and has better results than transition.
>McHugh does cite one study from 2011, by Cecilia Dhejne, MD and colleagues at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. However, he misunderstands Dr. Dhejnes work. In the paper, Dr. Dhejne states that the study was not designed to draw conclusions on the efficacy of transgender surgeries, yet McHugh does exactly that. A closer reading of the paper shows that the increased mortality is in those who had surgery before 1989, and that mortality in trans people after 1989 is not statistically different from the general population. A recently published paper by Dr. Dhejne and colleagues shows that the regret rate for those having surgery from 2001-2010 is only 0.3%. Dr. Dhejnes work shows that outcomes for transgender surgery have improved tremendously in the past 30 years, which supports the HHS decision to remove trans exclusions.
The old crackpot cited a study that proved him wrong. All his former colleagues on the APA called him out on his academic fraud.
>But that does not mean feminism is an anti-male movement;
actually it's fairly simple to prove it.
you just have to take a look at what they actually achieved lately and what discussions did they try to utterly silence.
idk about the "good feminists" that did not partake in this recent bullshit because they are pretty much irrelevant if they can't or won't stop the crazies.
>idk about the "good feminists" that did not partake in this recent bullshit because they are pretty much irrelevant if they can't or won't stop the crazies.
That's pretty much the same argument the feminists themselves make though; they say it doesn't matter that most men believe rape is wrong if those "good men" are either unwilling or unable to stop rape from happening.
That doesn't even make sense. The men who rape aren't stopped from raping. Yes, it's good of those "good men" to not rape, but do they expect a reward for it? What do they actually do to stop other men from raping? Where are these "good men" when a rape happens?