>Radical feminists believe gender is 100% a social construct

>>8652541
TERFs complain that trans women's existence devalues theirs. It's good old masculine-protest insecurity.

>>8652541
>The existence of Trans men and women suggests that there are many elements of gender that a human develops naturally without and or despite external influences
No it doesn't tho.

>>8652541
As with all feminist theory, they formulate the conclusion to fit their hypothesis and then look for reasoning and proof to connect the two while discarding any information that call the connection into question.

Rad fems start with the hypothesis that men are evil and the conclusion that men are forcing women to be subordinate to them. The existence of men who feel like or desire to be women goes counter to their conclusion because no one would actually choose to be subordinate or inferior when they were born into being the superior gender.

Instead of facing the possibility their their hypothesis or conclusion could be wrong, they instead form a new hypothesis that transwomen are actually just men trying to infiltrate the women's movement and transmen are actually just brainwashed or are traitors to the female cause. A little bit of mental gymnastics mixed with a good helping of hatred of men gives them all the proof that they need to see transgender people as tools of the patriarchy.

>>8652541
They are just cishons.

>>8652541
Blanchardianism is compatible with radfem.

>>8652779
Not really, blanchard only really sees AGPs as dysfunctional fetishists. His theory still seems to indicate that HSTS and transmen are valid which radfems definitely do not. They see any transwoman as a male trying to subvert female spaces by posing as a woman and see any transman as a victim of the patriarchy telling her she can't be happy unless she's a man or just a straight up gender traitor out to put women back in the kitchen as their male overlords' personal rape toy and baby factory.

>>8652541
Yes. Yes, that is absolutely the reason.

For a brief while, it was actually more conservative people who were more likely to accept their children being trans. No joke, I read about this when I was coming out as a kid. Some therapists found that more conservative people accepted it more easily if it meant that their child would be a hetero trans person instead of gay, since they could then view it as their child having an intersex disorder (a mere illness, not their fault) rather than being homosexual (sin).

It was the left that strongly objected the most at first, because they were so wedded to the idea of gender being a social construct,

With the emergence of the Third Wave of feminism, the left decided to embrace trannies as the newest form of identity politics. But they never actually RESOLVED their original conflict with trans people, hence why their rhetoric on the issue is so confused. This also pushed the right to the stance of being rabidly anti-trans.

>>8652641
This too.

>>8652627
It does, though. Not necessarily in and of itself; but in tandem with other evidence we have about how gender identity develops, it sure does.

If nothing else, we'd need a really robust theory otherwise to explain why some people are so driven to SRS if it's not biological. Radfem theory is really lacking to explain, for example, heterosexual trans women.

>>8652798
>blanchard only really sees AGPs as dysfunctional fetishists
AGP is a sexual orientation no different to homo or heterosexuality.

>>8654079
Not what Blanchard says, as he is not isenough to try and OVERTHROW LE SEXUALITY BINARY like you retards are.

>>8652541

There are many, many news articles where trans people justify their identity by saying they played with certain toys as a child. It's sexist.

Back in the 70s when this all started separatism was en vogue. How far away can you get from men when some of them insist changing their pronouns makes them women? So mtfs are a threat to separatist values.

There's plenty more to discuss, but yes, part of it IS that trans people will say their interests, hobbies, and behaviors make them men or women. They're a sexist bunch.

>>8654079
Reminder that this person has never bothered to prove his wild claim.

>>8654097
>Not what Blanchard says
Except you're wrong.

>>8654120
>trans people will say their interests, hobbies, and behaviors make them men or women
I don't think that trans people mean that the interests/hobbies/behaviors are what make them a man or a woman. It's more that those are used as evidence of the underlying gender identity.

>>8654120
None of us think that playing with those toys is what makes us men/women. We are, as >>8654880 said, attempting to illustrate how our gender identity has always been contra our birth sex, and that it has been stable all our lives.

Is this a good way to illustrate it? No. In fact, it's an absolutely terrible way. I realized that when I came out in high school. Several of my friends were queer girls. When I told them I'm an FtM, some asked me, "How do you know you're a boy?" I also initially tried to explain it in terms of having played with boys toys as a kid, having been a tomboy, etc. I was brought up short when some of them then said, "But I did too, and I'm not a boy."

Of course them saying so didn't magically make me stop being an FtM, since I didn't decide I was trans in the first place on the basis of being sexist and thinking only boys play with trucks. However, I realized that they were correct, and that this was a terrible way to explain it; so I began to search for OTHER ways to explain it.

Unfortunately, there aren't any. We have no real way to explicate the experience of having a cross-sex gender identity. Virtually any way I could put a voice to it was questionable on some grounds of being sexist, etc. That's not a failure of my experience, that's a failure of the limitations of language.

>>8655633
[cont]

>>8654120
Imagine you were asked to describe a color to someone who couldn't see, or a flavour to someone who couldn't taste, etc. You couldn't. Initially, the best anybody would likely be able to do is list "things" that were that color, e.g. red is...apples. But listing red things still doesn't tell you what red looks like. That is the impulse trans people are falling into when trying to describe the indescribable, e.g. listing off things that are "girl-colored."

In theory, even if you CAN see, you don't know that you experience "red" EXACTLY like other people do. In fact, you likely don't. Still, you can observe that you react to the presence of red the way others do, think red looks good or bad with other colors in a similar way to other people, etc. and that gives you a hint that you are seeing a similar thing, having a similar experience. We also know, on a biological level, that most seeing people have similar physical apparatus FOR seeing.

I "know" I am a guy partially out of a visceral disconnect with the sex-differentiated areas of my body and partially because of how I see myself and the world and how I compare that experience to those expressed by males. I also know that science is increasingly supporting that my brain probably looks more like a male brain than a female brain. That's the apparatus, that's the shared and compared experience, etc.

My "boy/man," like my "red," is probably different from other people's; but it's also close enough, imo. It's certainly far closer than attempting to be a "girl," which made me miserable.

That's the best answer I have to the anti-trans feminists: I am happier this way. If you have a problem, tough. Whether or not I can describe to you what I am in a way you deem acceptable is irrelevant.

>>8655633
>We have no real way to explicate the experience of having a cross-sex gender identity
This right here. It's such a subjective experience and there's no way to communicate what you're feeling is real. Even *I* don't know why I feel this, I just know I do. I feel like Jon Snow explaining the White Walkers sometimes.

>>8655633
>We are, as >>8654880 said, attempting to illustrate how our gender identity has always been contra our birth sex, and that it has been stable all our lives.
what about those of us for whom it hasn't?

>>8655715
Uh, then how I explain it doesn't apply to you? What kind of special snowflake ARE you that you'd expect me to somehow conceive you exist and explain YOU to someone else in the course of explaining me...for no good reason? Literally what?

If you weren't aware of it until you were a bit older, than say that. If you're some Tumblr trender, I don't care WHAT you say, nigga.

>>8655734
i guess i'll ust do what other trannies like me do and say i've always be stably trans even though i haven't

>>8655638

Honestly if i was trans I bet I could explain it better than you can. All this "muh feelings" shit is, imo, stupid as fuck.

You sexist morons are brainwashed by gender therapists and you'll cling to any explanation that doesn't make you sound like a lunatic. Whether it's "I played with these toys" or "it's brain sex brah," it doesn't really matter. You'll move on to something else once it's proven brain sex isn't a cut and dry thing.

>My "boy/man," like my "red," is probably different from other people's

This is so annoying. Social classes aren't subjective. Gay men are men exclusively attracted to other men. Women are adult human females. Etc. Your experience of dysphoria or liking "boy things" happens in some women, and not every one of those women transition.

It would be better if you just said "I REALLY, REALLY want to be a trans man! This is something I WANT to be valid!"

>Whether or not I can describe to you what I am in a way you deem acceptable is irrelevant.

Your people are trying to convince lesbians that disliking penis is bigotry and unnatural. The way trans people talk up their gender absolutely matters. The more holes in your arguments, the less men in women's spaces, and the less women like yourself waste time, money, and other things in the pursuit of utter sexist stupidity.

>>8656811
>once it's proven brain sex isn't a cut and dry thing.
Humanity will eventually reach a point where we can even reconfigure our brain, but at that point we will no longer be so bothered by the idea of gender or sexuality. In this state of freedom the concepts such as trannies and TERFs will be extinct because everyone is truly free to be who and what they want to be.

But we aren't there yet, so let's minimize pain by not invalidating people whose configuration of body doesn't match the configuration of their brain, especially when the mismatch is so extreme.

>>8657056

>Humanity will eventually reach a point where we can even reconfigure our brain, but at that point we will no longer be so bothered by the idea of gender or sexuality. In this state of freedom the concepts such as trannies and TERFs will be extinct because everyone is truly free to be who and what they want to be.

haha, no. "TERF" exists because 1) men treated women like shit 2) in the 1970s the feminist movement that responded to this shittery created the radical branch. The radical branch posits that men treat women like shit because women can make babies and men can't. 3) Around the 1950s men legalized and medicalized "transition," assuring feminine men and masculine women that they can fix their "dsyphoria" by going on drugs and chopping themselves up 4) a couple of cases got famous 5) radfems like Raymond got mad as fuck because men (posing as women) started pretending they gave a damn about sexism and infiltrated the lesbian separatist movement, like Sandy Stone at Olivia Records. Not to mention it took a place where a woman could have been instead.

This is not "everyone is free to be who they want" because men can't be women. And TERFs do not trust mtfs and they have no reason to.

>But we aren't there yet, so let's minimize pain by not invalidating people whose configuration of body doesn't match the configuration of their brain, especially when the mismatch is so extreme.

"Let's be nice" doesn't work because once you're nice to these idiots they start saying penis is female. Or women shouldn't talk about vaginas too much. Or abortion isn't a women's issue. That's exactly what happened when liberal feminists (not radicals, there are pretty much zero radical feminists who support trans people and absolutely zero radical trans feminists) started including trans people in the 90s and early 2000s. Had libfems practiced exclusion, mtfs would have never gotten as bold as they are today.

>>8656811
>Honestly if i was trans I bet I could explain it better than you can.
You clearly cannot.

>You'll move on to something else once it's proven brain sex isn't a cut and dry thing.
Never claimed it was cut and dry. I get reductive if necessary when dealing with idiots. The neuroimaging research is still new; nevertheless, the BULK of it is in agreement that trans people average results significantly different than the averages of our natal sex and often far closer (though not identical) to the averages of our transitioned sex. This, in tandem with other research on traumatic brain injury causing changes to gender identity, is strongly suggestive that yes, gender is largely hard-wired. Additionally, the few genes associated with our disorder so far affect how sex hormones are processed by the body, which could have implications for pre-natal brain development.

There are other aspects to the research that are rarely mentioned on this board, though. The link between gender dysphoria and eating disorders, for example, is pretty unclear and poorly understood. Also, areas of the brain involved with self-perception have been found in some neuroimaging studies on trans women to differ from cis people...but not in the way you'd predict (e.g. basically "backwards" from the way it's seen in, say, body dysmorphic disorder). And no, nobody knows what that means.

>Social classes aren't subjective.
I'm not discussing social classes. I'm discussing your decidedly subjective sense of gender - which everyone has. (See above about traumatic brain injury altering it - the subjects of those studies were originally cisgender.) If you don't accept or grasp that I'm not using your socially Marxist lens when I describe these things, I can't help you here.

>Your experience of dysphoria or liking "boy things" happens in some women, and not every one of those women transition.
I quite literally wrote two replies on this topic. You've merely reiterated something I already said.

>>8657388
[cont]

>>8656811
>It would be better if you just said "I REALLY, REALLY want to be a trans man! This is something I WANT to be valid!"
It IS "valid." My explanation of the nature of this disorder is at LEAST as logical (and in some respects, more logical) than any explanation for why people are homosexual.

Also, no, I do not "REALLY REALLY" want to be a trans man. I would really rather not be, actually, but I'm essentially stuck with it.

But your wording is reflective of the idea that I "decided" to be trans, and that my disorder is some immature whim. I didn't choose it, and it's not.

>Your people are trying to convince lesbians that disliking penis is bigotry and unnatural.
Nobody who does this is "my people." Rapists aren't "my people."

>The more holes in your arguments, the less men in women's spaces, and the less women like yourself waste time, money, and other things in the pursuit of utter sexist stupidity.
I'm not a woman. My self-perception and way of relating to the world isn't "sexist." If you're waiting for me to agree that I'm a woman, you are going to be waiting a long fucking time.

>>8657196
>3) Around the 1950s men legalized and medicalized "transition," assuring feminine men and masculine women that they can fix their "dsyphoria" by going on drugs and chopping themselves up
It's statements like this that really undermine any argument you could make. "Drugs," as in sex hormones? We all need those to be healthy, they aren't morphine. And reconstructive surgery isn't "chopping up" anyone, and your reactive language insults the hard work of good surgeons.

>Sandy Stone
Sandy Stone's "crime" was to help run a feminist record label while being a trans woman. Other women were willing to defend her against Raymond's baseless attacks, but she resigned rather than see Olivia Records be hurt by Raymond's call for a boycott.

>and absolutely zero radical trans feminists
Ironically, there definitely are radfem trans people. For some reason.

>>8652541

People's minds are tied to their bodies. In a very real way, with think with our nerves. The line between muscles merely being machines that the brain controls, and being actual extensions of our emotions is blurred.

So, a person with a penis will experience unique stimuli, and thus emotions, that a person with a vagina can only guess at or find analogues to. And vice versa.

In this way, a cis male and a cis female raised and socialized in the exact same way will still develop subtle personality differences in the long run even before factoring in hormones, simply because their bodies are different. When the body experiences unique stimuli, the mind is trained. When the mind doesn't

The exception is trans people, who are unable to relate to their bodies. There also exist people who are completely adaptable, and perhaps feel they lack something from one extreme but also want to keep elements of what they already have.

>>8657196
>le patriarchal infiltrators
Someone should make a /leftypol/ where left-winger conspiracy theorists can spew their BS 24/7 without bothering anyone else.

>>8654120
>There are many, many news articles where trans people justify their identity by saying they played with certain toys as a child. It's sexist.

Because back in the gatekeeper era when cis-straight male therapists controlled the narrative, trans women were forced to say that they played with girl toys and enjoyed girly things as a child. I agree that the gender binary is bullshit, but let's put the blame where it belongs.

But what do you care? You're a fucking TERF.