You also think every man should be assigned a woman sex partner so incels don’t go shooting up schools. You’ll have to forgive us if nobody gives AF about your silly little opinions.

wat

Like, I have zero idea who you’re fooling with your concern trolling for feminism. Lmfao.

Seriously.

I don’t mean it to be, sorry

According to kelhus, women in the work place are ruining the middle class and family structures of this country.

I couldn’t make this **** up. Lmfao.

I just want to clue in everyone responding to him in good faith without being aware of some of the positions he’s posted in the politics forum. The guy is a clown; don’t waste your time.

I’m not sure

I probably have the same biases as you

I’m not sure there is much to do beyond acknowledging they exist and doing our best to understand how such a society may affect people who are not cis.

The idea of fixing something so ingrained in society likely requires we fix a lot of other underlying stuff first—like i think at that point we are talking about a post-gender society

I’m more concerned with just understanding those biases and trying to combat anti-trans things where we can easily do so

Like I don’t think “make everyone be attracted to all genitals” is a super important battleground atm

but it’s worth at least understanding how those preferences might affect how we relate to trans people and the issues

I’m having some trouble parsing these two posts

I’m not trying to intentionally ignore them

if you want to add further clarification to what you mean i can try to respond

And more to the point brought up about JK Rowling, I think it’s super important to understand how representations of trans people or “trans adjacent”(in the case of a cis man dressing as a woman) in popular media carry a power over people’s perceptions and impacts the actual lives of trans folks. See: the Netflix doc I recommended earlier.

agreed

i tried to make a similar point with my earlier post

he is definitely a concern troll and for some reason doesn’t what to just say what he really feels even though it seems pretty obvious where he stands

Crossnerd is not accurately representing the argument (big shocker, I know), and in fairness I am not that smart to come up with something like that.

I was presented an argument (with a small amount of my own commentary) laid out by Elizabeth Warren (yes that Elizabeth Warren) in a book she published in 2004 (The Two-Income Trap) explaining some downstream (negative) consequences on economic stability due to women entering the workforce.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...th-warren-book

--Since I don't think anyone is going to buy the book, Mat Yglesias summarizes it fairly well in the above article.

100% chance everyone should just put kelhus on ignore until he leaves

lol big shocker

anyone here surprised by this?

hey everyone, this whole time Kelhus actually just though all that anti-trans stuff that JK Rowling said wasn't actually anti-trans

anyone surprised this is what he thought all along?????

obviously not and obviously we should just move along

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about racist beauty standards?

Like if you were specifically attracted to something that was a beauty standard caused by white supremacy, would you feel the same way about that?

Yeah they're obviously bad and no I don't feel the same way. We've had this discussion several times offline and I don't disagree with you - not really.

And this may be super transphobic of me, or whatever - but do you really think that if society were different, and beauty standards and such were completely different, that you could find yourself attracted to penises - if that was what society was trying to make you attracted to? Like, do you really think you could?

Is it the vagina that you’re attracted to? And breasts, I guess? We can also talk about this irl another time. It just seems odd to me that genitals are so important when you see people everyday and can only assume what is in their panties. You might date someone, never get in their pants, and like them just fine without knowing they have a penis (or had been born with a penis as the case may be).

The attraction is to secondary sexual characteristics that are an honest indicator of genetic fitness/fertility.

This is Ev Bio 101, and is pretty much the same for humans as every other species.

—I actually think the human software package is malleable enough with an extreme amount of conditioning and enforced norms society could dramatically manipulate sexual preference, eg. doubling the amount of men attracted to other men. But the second the conditioning and enforcement was alleviated, most people would quickly revert to a more natural paradigm.

Yeah, it's a difficult thing to explain, and it's entirely possible that I'm just completely wrong. If people whose opinions I trust tell me that my beliefs are wrong, then that's fine.

In my head I was basically thinking that I assume that people that "look like" women have female sexual organs, and vice versa (which of course is transphobic) - but the point is that my attraction to them is in part based upon what I expect to be there, if I saw them without clothes on. And if someone who I believed to have female genitalia ended up having something else, yes - it probably would affect my attraction to them. For better, or (most likely) for worse.

Just so you guys know who you’re talking to

Hmmm, phrasing it as biological or sociological is establishing a false dichotomy, maybe. It could be some of each. Others would probably disagree but I'd probably say race is "real", but not very real, and gender is more real than race.

The second part of the first post was me remembering from the past that you are one of those who believes approaching ideals as needing to be strictly logically consistent is unnecessary, and possibly sub-optimal. So posting something where there is a need for logical consistency seems somewhat dis-congruous.

The second post is that obviously people are going to react poorly to being called racist and transphobic, because these are considered socially undesirable traits. Some people have even been fired for being (or being called) either or both of those, which I think you would agree counts as "violence" under your concept of violence and is something people should try to safeguard against. One may say the best way is to "not be these things " but that's not even possible apparently and possibly not enough, anyway. Admitting you are racist or transphobic is something people should be very hesitant to do.

There was also a sort of addendum to that post that while you are normally pretty good about not calling people racist in an inflammatory way, I don't think you were that way in the trans discussion. So that is an additional reason people would react poorly to that discourse. Maybe you're more passionate about it or some junk, whatever.

Rereading this some isn't as clear as I meant but don't feel like cleaning it up.

I will add a couple unrelated points. People have this perception that when they move from viewpoint A to viewpoint B, they now believe something correct, but that isn't necessarily the case. So theoretically if I believe whatever social norm isn't transphobic and you used to think that but now think it is transphobic you'll tend to think I'm wrong and even understand why I'm wrong, obviously, and are probably less likely to question your new mode of thinking even though there is some chance you came to believe it incorrectly because of (various reasons). And it could also be viewpoint C or AB or whatever is actually correct.

I also feel there is some sort of unequal expectation in these cases where the people who believe B think they are entitled to the people who believe A being reflective on if they are correct, but the people who believe B are not going to rereflect on if A is correct.

And finally what if I'm an A person and I'm as reflective as I can be and I still believe A, what then?

Yeah, it's literally the Jordan Peterson argument.