We've spent a lot of time discussing what defines a woman and if transgendered woman qualify. Though, as usual, the topic of transgendered men is mostly ignored
Senator Josh Hawley has written a book "Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs" because apparently the left has masculinity and Hawley has the prescription to fix it.
So I'm curious since most of those who post on this board are of the masculine persuasion...how do you define it?
Most women, by the way, start off the definition with "don't be a jerk"
Sen. Josh Hawley:If you want to change America for the better, get men to be strong again. pic.twitter.com/AcGgN6YAOB
(05-15-2023, 03:01 PM)pally Wrote: We've spent a lot of time discussing what defines a woman and if transgendered woman qualify. Though, as usual, the topic of transgendered men is mostly ignored
Senator Josh Hawley has written a book "Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs" because apparently the left has masculinity and Hawley has the prescription to fix it.
So I'm curious since most of those who post on this board are of the masculine persuasion...how do you define it?
Most women, by the way, start off the definition with "don't be a jerk"
Sen. Josh Hawley:If you want to change America for the better, get men to be strong again. pic.twitter.com/AcGgN6YAOB
Sadly, for most of the people like Hawley and the "alphas" on line they want men to be lumberjacks who keep their women in line. The MEN are in charge (like the "good old days") and women know their role is to be subservient and produce babies while never getting old or fat.
We've had plenty of discussion around these part about what it takes to be a "real man". Suggestions ranged from taking your son to a prostitute to teach how to bond with women, to getting into fist fights so you knew how to take a punch to treating any group other than men as second class citizens who must conform to what the men believe if they want to participate in society.
It's much like how those groups only consider a person successful if they have lots of money vs being happy, having a good home life, loving family, etc.
"Masculinity" is just another buzz word for the right now. Designed to make all the Chads grab a cigar and a real beer and bare their chests...lol.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Or that is what conservatives have led me to believe.
Well....sometimes.
Other times, they have a very long and exhaustive list of things you must do if you want to be considered "masculine" or "manly." And almost none of them are biological.
Hawley is full of crap, even for a politician. Have you seen his opponent? I don't think Hawly can 'out man" this guy.
The "manly" stuff seems like it focuses on men and not on women, as per usual. Hunting, and guns, and eating meat are "manly" things, insofar as a man who doesn't do them is seen as less "manly" but you don't see people saying that a man who let's his daughter eat a burger and teaches her how to shoot a gun is grooming her to be trans or sexually confused, do you? Or maybe you do. I can't keep up with what people think.
(05-15-2023, 04:21 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Not sure to be honest.
But I know for most "alphas" it's fragile as f**k.
I will say that the whole hive mind where you have to do X, Y, and Z to be manly but never do 1, 2, or 3 or they'll point it out and laugh at you is just so damn "mean girls" that the irony is...well, ironic. It's just like a bunch of supposedly straight guys decided to borrow and alter the playbook of teen girls or the fashion police.
Protect weaker people, own your responsibilities, be self reliant (as in not needing other people to pay your bills and the like), admit when you've made an error, i.e. don't make excuses or pass the buck, and treat people the way you'd want to be treated.
I do find your comment on the absence of discussion of transgender men interesting. Why do you think they generate little to no conversation? Why aren't we referring to biological man as inseminating people, like women are birthing people? We aren't we hearing about transgender men dominating men's sports, using men's restrooms or men's locker rooms? This is an excellent topic of conversation.
(05-15-2023, 04:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I will say that the whole hive mind where you have to do X, Y, and Z to be manly but never do 1, 2, or 3 or they'll point it out and laugh at you is just so damn "mean girls" that the irony is...well, ironic. It's just like a bunch of supposedly straight guys decided to borrow and alter the playbook of teen girls or the fashion police.
The world would be a lot better off if instead of focusing on "what does it mean to be a dude" or "what does it mean to be a woman" we just nailed down "what does it mean to be a good person?"
The definition of "masculinity" is like any other subjective quality, it's fluid and has changed throughout history.
(05-15-2023, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do find your comment on the absence of discussion of transgender men interesting. Why do you think they generate little to no conversation? Why aren't we referring to biological man as inseminating people, like women are birthing people? We aren't we hearing about transgender men dominating men's sports, using men's restrooms or men's locker rooms? This is an excellent topic of conversation.
I'm taking an overly simple look at it, but it always seemed to me like men dealing with perceptions of sexual aggression from other men is a triggering point. We've always had that comedic aspect of straight men accidentally going into a gay bar, or inadvertently hitting on a trans person. The notion that gay men are leering at you the way you leer at women is pretty triggering, and then there is always the idea that you're going to be duped into a Crying Game-style scenario.
Men have a hard time being treated by men the way they as men treat women. I'll admit I've been asked by women if I was gay and it was more of a thing to laugh at than anything, but the times when gay men expressed interest in me I felt, even as a relatively open minded liberal type, like I had to get angry and express that they needed to back off. It's a bit humiliating to admit that, but that's reality.
I'd imagine the prevalence of domestic violence as well as the fact that the most likely person to kill a woman is her domestic partner would indicate that sexuality and violence are pretty linked in the male population. Gay men find you attractive, and a trans M to F could lead to a situation where you inadvertently express sexual interest in a biological man. Triggering stuff for many, sadly.
Lesbians and women who transition to men aren't on your radar and don't make you emotional because there is no sexual component to it (that involves you, the only type you care about), I'd assume.
(05-15-2023, 05:46 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The world would be a lot better off if instead of focusing on "what does it mean to be a dude" or "what does it mean to be a woman" we just nailed down "what does it mean to be a good person?"
The definition of "masculinity" is like any other subjective quality, it's fluid and has changed throughout history.
It is rather amusing how we either can't or won't define stuff anyways. Doing yoga for an hour is more strenuous than sitting on your ass and drinking beer, but I bet we all know which one is perceived as being manly and which is totally ghey chick stuff. Side note, I recall during the post 9/11 era a lot of toxic masculine dudes having a hard time squaring that women were joining the armed forces while they sat on their barstools and talked about how much ass they'd kick if they "had to go over there."
I knew one guy who went so far as to say the US Army wouldn't stand a chance against PA hunters. Fun times.
(05-15-2023, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do find your comment on the absence of discussion of transgender men interesting. Why do you think they generate little to no conversation? Why aren't we referring to biological man as inseminating people, like women are birthing people? We aren't we hearing about transgender men dominating men's sports, using men's restrooms or men's locker rooms? This is an excellent topic of conversation.
I think it has a lot to do with a form of misogyny (or perhaps patriarchal structuring, if you prefer) that is kind of baked into our society. To many people, men are "predators" or "hunters" and women are "prey" or "the hunted." Look at the dating environment. There are literally entire communities built around "getting sex" from women with as little engagement (time, money, effort etc) as possible. They're often called "pick up artists" or, as they refer to themselves, "the seduction community."
In our society, women are generally viewed as the givers (and therefore protectors) of sexual interaction between men and women and men are generally viewed as those who seek or desire sex from women, at whatever cost that may come.
It goes much deeper than that, in many cases due to historical gendered roles (women did not work, so therefore needed a man's support, so the man needed to "prove" he could support her, incentivizing men to court, spend money, spend time etc on gaining a woman's "gifts" in exchange for his support and protection), but that's the basic gist of how men and women view sex in our society.
This is also, incidentally, why a man's rape of women is taken so much more seriously than a woman's rape of men. In the rape of a woman, it is viewed as a man "taking" something from a woman that he has no right to take whereas, in the rape of a man, many people will retort "but I bet he enjoyed being "given" the gift of this woman's sex, right?" (Admittedly, they probably don't say it quite like that...)
Luckily, this is slowly turning around, as more female rapists (especially those in a position of power like a teacher and student) are at least being arrested, but the same general "but I bet he enjoyed it" notion still largely remains.
So, with that backing environment, trans women would be considered, for lack of a better term, "wolves in sheep's clothing." If women are the hunted and men are the hunters, a man who "pretends to be a woman" could be doing it just so he could get in close to his prey to rape them or maybe just to view them naked or in a compromised position.
Or beat them in a swimming competition, I suppose...
But no one is scared of a sheep in wolves' clothing. In fact, some may even look at that sheep and ask why they are putting themselves in danger by being around the wolves.
The most vitriolic reaction you are likely to see regarding a trans man would be bemoaning a woman "ruining her body" which is viewed as a commodity in this society. But rarely will you ever see hatred for them, as their change is not viewed as "deceit" or "a lie" in order to gain some sort of advantage.
Which is pretty ironic, in my opinion, because if I were to chart the advantages that men or women get in society, it makes a whole lot more sense to me that someone would prefer to transition from the lesser privileged group (women) to the more privileged group (men) if all they were after was some form of preferential treatment.
Of course, one of the bases of the manosphere (where a lot of transphobia originates or exists) is that, in reality, women are now more privileged than men in our society. Which is pretty silly, if you ask me, but that's a whole other conversation.
The other aspect of why trans women are discussed so much more than trans men, in my opinion, is homophobia that is also baked into our society.
If a straight, cis woman goes off to college and "experiments" sexually with another woman, hardly anyone would bat an eye if she still went on to identify as straight and that just being "an experiment" or "a phase."
If a straight, cis man goes off to college and "experiments" sexually with another man, many people would consider him gay. Forever. It doesn't matter if he goes on to date only women from then on, the moment he was sexually involved with a man, he was stamped with "gay" forever (at least to those who know about it). I've even heard that having a sexual experience with a man in the past is a major deal breaker for a lot of women. I don't think many men have that same standard for women (It's even fetishized in a lot of cases, where a threesome with two women is considered the ultimate prize for a man).
So, with that in mind, trans women may be viewed as "traps" to straight, cis men. If you are a straight, cis man and you are attracted to a trans woman (thinking she were a cis woman), and then you find out about it later (either through word of mouth, from the person herself or during a sexual encounter with that woman), you may feel like you've been "deceived" or "tricked" into being gay. And that is the basis of a legal defense that has actually been used in court multiple times known as "gay panic" or, more recently, "trans panic."
Again, I don't think you're going to hear about many women who beat a trans man to death after finding out he was trans.
And the reason for this is, to many in our society, once you're gay, you're never not gay. It's like a mark that follows you for the rest of your life, whether you were intentionally attracted to men or not. And this mark makes you inherently less manly and due for shunning.
It's so extreme, that a lot of men can't even compliment another man's appearance without prefacing it with "I'm not gay, but..."
It's really sad, but it's just a reality in our society.
And, to be clear, I am not endorsing or agreeing with any of the viewpoints in this post, I'm just saying they largely exist in our society and reasons why I believe they persist. I don't consider gay or trans panic as a legitimate defense for a violent crime, nor do I think it's fair to view men and women as predators and prey. It's my attempt at a descriptive approach to our society rather than a prescriptive approach.
(05-15-2023, 06:38 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think it has a lot to do with a form of misogyny (or perhaps patriarchal structuring, if you prefer) that is kind of baked into our society. To many people, men are "predators" or "hunters" and women are "prey" or "the hunted." Look at the dating environment. There are literally entire communities built around "getting sex" from women with as little engagement (time, money, effort etc) as possible. They're often called "pick up artists" or, as they refer to themselves, "the seduction community."
In our society, women are generally viewed as the givers (and therefore protectors) of sexual interaction between men and women and men are generally viewed as those who seek or desire sex from women, at whatever cost that may come.
It goes much deeper than that, in many cases due to historical gendered roles (women did not work, so therefore needed a man's support, so the man needed to "prove" he could support her, incentivizing men to court, spend money, spend time etc on gaining a woman's "gifts" in exchange for his support and protection), but that's the basic gist of how men and women view sex in our society.
This is also, incidentally, why a man's rape of women is taken so much more seriously than a woman's rape of men. In the rape of a woman, it is viewed as a man "taking" something from a woman that he has no right to take whereas, in the rape of a man, many people will retort "but I bet he enjoyed being "given" the gift of this woman's sex, right?" (Admittedly, they probably don't say it quite like that...)
Luckily, this is slowly turning around, as more female rapists (especially those in a position of power like a teacher and student) are at least being arrested, but the same general "but I bet he enjoyed it" notion still largely remains.
So, with that backing environment, trans women would be considered, for lack of a better term, "wolves in sheep's clothing." If women are the hunted and men are the hunters, a man who "pretends to be a woman" could be doing it just so he could get in close to his prey to rape them or maybe just to view them naked or in a compromised position.
Or beat them in a swimming competition, I suppose...
But no one is scared of a sheep in wolves' clothing. In fact, some may even look at that sheep and ask why they are putting themselves in danger by being around the wolves.
The most vitriolic reaction you are likely to see regarding a trans man would be bemoaning a woman "ruining her body" which is viewed as a commodity in this society. But rarely will you ever see hatred for them, as their change is not viewed as "deceit" or "a lie" in order to gain some sort of advantage.
Which is pretty ironic, in my opinion, because if I were to chart the advantages that men or women get in society, it makes a whole lot more sense to me that someone would prefer to transition from the lesser privileged group (women) to the more privileged group (men) if all they were after was some form of preferential treatment.
Of course, one of the bases of the manosphere (where a lot of transphobia originates or exists) is that, in reality, women are now more privileged than men in our society. Which is pretty silly, if you ask me, but that's a whole other conversation.
The other aspect of why trans women are discussed so much more than trans men, in my opinion, is homophobia that is also baked into our society.
If a straight, cis woman goes off to college and "experiments" sexually with another woman, hardly anyone would bat an eye if she still went on to identify as straight and that just being "an experiment" or "a phase."
If a straight, cis man goes off to college and "experiments" sexually with another man, many people would consider him gay. It doesn't matter if he goes on to date only women from then on, the moment he was sexually involved with a man, he was stamped with "gay" forever (at least to those who know about it). I've even heard that having a sexual experience with a man in the past is a major deal breaker for a lot of women. I don't think many men have that same standard for women (It's even fetishized in a lot of cases, where a threesome with two women is considered the ultimate prize for a man).
So, with that in mind, trans women may be viewed as "traps" to straight, cis men. If you are a straight, cis man and you are attracted to a trans woman (thinking she were a cis woman), and then you find out about it later (either through word of mouth, from the person herself or during a sexual encounter with that woman), you may feel like you've been "deceived" or "tricked" into being gay. And that is the basis of a legal defense that has actually been used in court multiple times known as "gay panic" or, more recently, "trans panic."
Again, I don't think you're going to hear about many women who beat a trans man to death after finding out he was trans.
And the reason for this is, to many in our society, once you're gay, you're never not gay. It's like a mark that follows you for the rest of your life, whether you were intentionally attracted to men or not. And this mark makes you inherently less manly and due for shunning.
It's so extreme, that a lot of men can't even compliment another man's appearance without prefacing it with "I'm not gay, but..."
It's really sad, but it's just a reality in our society.
And, to be clear, I am not endorsing or agreeing with any of the viewpoints in this post, I'm just saying they largely exist in our society and reasons why I believe they persist. I don't consider gay or trans panic as a legitimate defense for a violent crime, nor do I think it's fair to view men and women as predators and prey. It's my attempt at a descriptive approach to our society rather than a prescriptive approach.
This is an excellent post, and I can't find much to disagree with. I absolutely believe there's a huge dollop of misogyny involved as you said. But, there is an interesting element you didn't touch on. Why the "controversy" over Mother's Day or the labeling of woman as "birthing people?" You absolutely do not see any movement or push for men to be described as "inseminating people." Someone raised an interesting point on Twitter (Yes, it was bound to happen at some point) in this regard and wondered aloud if this isn't an expression of the misogyny present in the trans female community. Look at the absolute hatred and vitriol JK Rowling has faced for having such, IMO, uncontroversial opinions such as people with a penis shouldn't be housed in a woman's prison. Look at the physical attacks against women who oppose this type of thing., e.g. Posie Parker and Riley Gaines. Opposing their position is fine, expressing your disgust with their position is fine, but the ease and frequency in which people are assaulted in these situations makes you wonder.
You'll note that I think these attackers are a very small percentage of the trans movement, but they exist and they aren't condemned the way they should be. In fact, it often seems that their behavior is excused or considered even justifiable. An extreme example would be the odious labeling of the trans shooter in Tennessee as the "seventh victim." Personally I think this does more damage to the trans movement than any ant-trans activist or movement. Also, it sadly has to be added that one can observe these things and be appalled by them without being anti-trans. This point seems to be lost on many.
(05-15-2023, 05:53 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm taking an overly simple look at it, but it always seemed to me like men dealing with perceptions of sexual aggression from other men is a triggering point. We've always had that comedic aspect of straight men accidentally going into a gay bar, or inadvertently hitting on a trans person. The notion that gay men are leering at you the way you leer at women is pretty triggering, and then there is always the idea that you're going to be duped into a Crying Game-style scenario.
Men have a hard time being treated by men the way they as men treat women. I'll admit I've been asked by women if I was gay and it was more of a thing to laugh at than anything, but the times when gay men expressed interest in me I felt, even as a relatively open minded liberal type, like I had to get angry and express that they needed to back off. It's a bit humiliating to admit that, but that's reality.
I'd imagine the prevalence of domestic violence as well as the fact that the most likely person to kill a woman is her domestic partner would indicate that sexuality and violence are pretty linked in the male population. Gay men find you attractive, and a trans M to F could lead to a situation where you inadvertently express sexual interest in a biological man. Triggering stuff for many, sadly.
Lesbians and women who transition to men aren't on your radar and don't make you emotional because there is no sexual component to it (that involves you, the only type you care about), I'd assume.
You raise some interesting points, and thank you for the extreme honesty. I've been hit on by gay men numerous times, it's never bothered me. But I grew up in CA since 1986 so our environments have been very different. Also, most of these happened at a gay bar called Akbar in Silverlake, so I'd have to be the worst kind of moron to be offended in that situation. Before you ask, Akbar has a huge dance floor, so the girls always wanted to go there. Plus I used to go to arts and crafts night (I think Wednesdays) with my little brother and his/our friends. Fun place. As an aside I used to see Zachary Quinto there all the time way before he came out. Quite a testament to that community that no one ever outed him.
(05-15-2023, 07:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is an excellent post, and I can't find much to disagree with. I absolutely believe there's a huge dollop of misogyny involved as you said. But, there is an interesting element you didn't touch on. Why the "controversy" over Mother's Day or the labeling of woman as "birthing people?" You absolutely do not see any movement or push for men to be described as "inseminating people." Someone raised an interesting point on Twitter (Yes, it was bound to happen at some point) in this regard and wondered aloud if this isn't an expression of the misogyny present in the trans female community. Look at the absolute hatred and vitriol JK Rowling has faced for having such, IMO, uncontroversial opinions such as people with a penis shouldn't be housed in a woman's prison. Look at the physical attacks against women who oppose this type of thing., e.g. Posie Parker and Riley Gaines. Opposing their position is fine, expressing your disgust with their position is fine, but the ease and frequency in which people are assaulted in these situations makes you wonder.
You'll note that I think these attackers are a very small percentage of the trans movement, but they exist and they aren't condemned the way they should be. In fact, it often seems that their behavior is excused or considered even justifiable. An extreme example would be the odious labeling of the trans shooter in Tennessee as the "seventh victim." Personally I think this does more damage to the trans movement than any ant-trans activist or movement. Also, it sadly has to be added that one can observe these things and be appalled by them without being anti-trans. This point seems to be lost on many.
The birthing people thing is an interesting topic. My experience of it has only been from the inclusive side, rather than an exclusive use of it. For example, if someone were to say "we need to protect the right to abortion for all birthing people." They are saying "birthing people" instead of "women" because trans men could still be a "birthing person" whose right to abortion would still be something to protect, but obviously, by their own identification, are not a woman.
I don't think anyone has ever walked up to a woman and referred to them as a "birthing person" in a singular case. I think it's only used as a "wide net" to be inclusive as possible.
If there were ever legislation that was meant to limit the rights of a person with a penis (men or trans women), you may see the term "inseminating people" take hold, but you can't know for sure until said legislation is created (and I honestly am not even sure what that legislation might look like).
Of course, that has only been my experience. Maybe it is used in some negative connotation (towards cis or trans women/men) and I just can't speak to that because I have not seen or read about it.
----------
I understand how you feel about trans women in women's prison and I think we've had this conversation before. In my opinion, rapists should be treated the same regardless of what prison they're in. Men rape men in prison and we aren't talking about trying to essentialize the "alpha" prisoners from the "beta prisoners." We, instead, just punish the rapistswhen they rape.
At the same time, I understand the anxiety associated with being around a trans woman if you are a woman in prison where you are, potentially, treated rather inhumanely by the guards and establishment in general. If you feel like there would be no recourse if you were raped in prison, it tracks that you would be unwilling to be around a person who has a penis (as penetration and the physical domination that is associated with penetration is a sizeable part of what makes rape so traumatizing)
There's a subreddit called "r/wouldyourather" and it's just people posing hypothetical situations and seeing how people respond in a public poll of the scenario. There was one recently that I thought was interesting. "You are locked in a room with another person. You do not know this person, you do not know why you are in this room with this person, if they are involved with this imprisonment or if they are also a victim like you. You are told that, after 24 hours, you will be released. Would you rather be in a room with someone of your own biological sex or someone of the opposite biological sex" and the 4 options were "man (I'm a woman)," "woman (I'm a woman," "man (I'm a man)," and "woman (I'm a man).
The 4th option was resoundingly the highest option chosen (mostly because it's reddit, so it's majority men). The second choice was the second option. I chose the third option.
A lot of reasoning was surrounding potential for violence. The men who chose option 4 said things like "I don't know what this person's motives are, but I'd be more likely to take a woman than a man, so I'll go with woman." And the women who chose option 2 had a similar motive.
Option 1 was almost entirely empty.
My reasoning was "I am a man of fairly stout proportions (6'1", 260 lb). I am not afraid of being locked in a room with another man because, at worst, I think I could most likely take any given man if they were aggressive towards me. But, most likely, they will just be on their side and I'd be on mine. Maybe we talk, maybe we don't, but the threat of violence doesn't seem very likely to me. In addition, I'd choose this because I think there's a certain anxiety associated with a woman being in a man's presence. Whether it's warranted or not (I don't personally prescribe to the hunters and hunted narrative between men and women, but a lot of women do, so it's something to take into account), I would not choose to put a woman in that situation where they may be afraid of being locked in a room with me, so I'd rather just avoid that entirely. I'm not comfortable making someone else uncomfortable."
So I get the whole social aspect of "locking a man in a prison with a bunch of women" (from the opposed viewpoint).
But then, a cis woman could rape another cis woman with a bottle or whatever anyway, so I think the trans woman's inclusion in the equation is partially based in that "wolves in sheep's clothing" societal view that I talked about earlier. If there were a study done, I imagine the risk of a trans woman raping a cis woman is probably higher than a cis woman raping a cis woman, but I imagine they'd both be very small numbers, if the sample size is even big enough to be representative of anything. On top of that, I imagine there are protocols in place to "Weed out" trans women who they believe may be more likely to commit rape in prison. Violent (especially sexually violent) offenders and the like.
I'd land on "take it on a case by case basis rather than banning it outright."
But regardless, I understand that people would likely be called out as transphobic for having the viewpoints that you detailed, so maybe this was just a long, pointless tangent to you...
----------
This may be a controversial take for you, but I view all mass shooters as victims in their own way. No one of sound mind would go and shoot multiple people they do not know. That person must be suffering from something rather severe in order to take that drastic of a step. Whether it was a white man who was convinced that his kind were being replaced and the fear and anxiety he suffered from in order to murder a bunch of black and brown people or if it was a trans person who felt oppressed by their Christian or Catholic upbringing going back and killing people from the school that they attended (The manifesto has not been released so we can't know -for sure- that this was the motive, but it seems like a logical leap, at least).
It's just that once you take other people's lives into your own hands, you can no longer claim the title of victim in that specific scenario. You are now the victimizer, enacting your trauma on those around you.
If every mass shooter, instead, just killed themselves, I think they would absolutely be viewed as victims in some way (for the most part).
(05-15-2023, 03:01 PM)pally Wrote: We've spent a lot of time discussing what defines a woman and if transgendered woman qualify. Though, as usual, the topic of transgendered men is mostly ignored
Senator Josh Hawley has written a book "Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs" because apparently the left has masculinity and Hawley has the prescription to fix it.
So I'm curious since most of those who post on this board are of the masculine persuasion...how do you define it?
Most women, by the way, start off the definition with "don't be a jerk"
Sen. Josh Hawley:If you want to change America for the better, get men to be strong again. pic.twitter.com/AcGgN6YAOB
No idea what masculine has ever meant because everyone makes up their own notion, which makes it kind of meaningless,, but if Josh Hawley is the definition, then it's even more meaningless than I thought.
(05-15-2023, 07:46 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The birthing people thing is an interesting topic. My experience of it has only been from the inclusive side, rather than an exclusive use of it. For example, if someone were to say "we need to protect the right to abortion for all birthing people." They are saying "birthing people" instead of "women" because trans men could still be a "birthing person" whose right to abortion would still be something to protect, but obviously, by their own identification, are not a woman.
I don't think anyone has ever walked up to a woman and referred to them as a "birthing person" in a singular case. I think it's only used as a "wide net" to be inclusive as possible.
If there were ever legislation that was meant to limit the rights of a person with a penis (men or trans women), you may see the term "inseminating people" take hold, but you can't know for sure until said legislation is created (and I honestly am not even sure what that legislation might look like).
Of course, that has only been my experience. Maybe it is used in some negative connotation (towards cis or trans women/men) and I just can't speak to that because I have not seen or read about it.
----------
You may be correct here, but when you couple this with the assaults you see on biological women who protest against things like transwomen in woman's spaces, i.e. shelters, support groups, prisons, it make me wonder. You do raise some good points though.
Quote:I understand how you feel about trans women in women's prison and I think we've had this conversation before. In my opinion, rapists should be treated the same regardless of what prison they're in. Men rape men in prison and we aren't talking about trying to essentialize the "alpha" prisoners from the "beta prisoners." We, instead, just punish the rapistswhen they rape.
I've worked in a detention facility, just under four years total. I can tell you that rape being punished is a very rare occurrence. For one it's not done right in front of staff, and if you snitch your troubles are only beginning. You are correct in that we've discussed this before. I honestly don't understand why this is even a topic of discussion though. If you have male genitalia you get housed with men, you have female genitalia you get housed with women.
Quote:At the same time, I understand the anxiety associated with being around a trans woman if you are a woman in prison where you are, potentially, treated rather inhumanely by the guards and establishment in general. If you feel like there would be no recourse if you were raped in prison, it tracks that you would be unwilling to be around a person who has a penis (as penetration and the physical domination that is associated with penetration is a sizeable part of what makes rape so traumatizing)
There's a subreddit called "r/wouldyourather" and it's just people posing hypothetical situations and seeing how people respond in a public poll of the scenario. There was one recently that I thought was interesting. "You are locked in a room with another person. You do not know this person, you do not know why you are in this room with this person, if they are involved with this imprisonment or if they are also a victim like you. You are told that, after 24 hours, you will be released. Would you rather be in a room with someone of your own biological sex or someone of the opposite biological sex" and the 4 options were "man (I'm a woman)," "woman (I'm a woman," "man (I'm a man)," and "woman (I'm a man).
The 4th option was resoundingly the highest option chosen (mostly because it's reddit, so it's majority men). The second choice was the second option. I chose the third option.
A lot of reasoning was surrounding potential for violence. The men who chose option 4 said things like "I don't know what this person's motives are, but I'd be more likely to take a woman than a man, so I'll go with woman." And the women who chose option 2 had a similar motive.
Option 1 was almost entirely empty.
My reasoning was "I am a man of fairly stout proportions (6'1", 260 lb). I am not afraid of being locked in a room with another man because, at worst, I think I could most likely take any given man if they were aggressive towards me. But, most likely, they will just be on their side and I'd be on mine. Maybe we talk, maybe we don't, but the threat of violence doesn't seem very likely to me. In addition, I'd choose this because I think there's a certain anxiety associated with a woman being in a man's presence. Whether it's warranted or not (I don't personally prescribe to the hunters and hunted narrative between men and women, but a lot of women do, so it's something to take into account), I would not choose to put a woman in that situation where they may be afraid of being locked in a room with me, so I'd rather just avoid that entirely. I'm not comfortable making someone else uncomfortable."
So I get the whole social aspect of "locking a man in a prison with a bunch of women" (from the opposed viewpoint).
But then, a cis woman could rape another cis woman with a bottle or whatever anyway, so I think the trans woman's inclusion in the equation is partially based in that "wolves in sheep's clothing" societal view that I talked about earlier. If there were a study done, I imagine the risk of a trans woman raping a cis woman is probably higher than a cis woman raping a cis woman, but I imagine they'd both be very small numbers, if the sample size is even big enough to be representative of anything. On top of that, I imagine there are protocols in place to "Weed out" trans women who they believe may be more likely to commit rape in prison. Violent (especially sexually violent) offenders and the like.
You're actually making a good argument for my position here. Rape in custodial settings is an obvious problem. I don't understand why you'd do anything to exacerbate that.
Quote:I'd land on "take it on a case by case basis rather than banning it outright."
But regardless, I understand that people would likely be called out as transphobic for having the viewpoints that you detailed, so maybe this was just a long, pointless tangent to you...
In such a setting that's just not feasible. Someone will always have an argument for why they should be housed with the women. You'll note that housing trans men in a male prison is never a topic of discussion, much like most other issues of this type. Once you make the criteria subjective you've opened up a Pandora's box. Yes, transwomen being housed in a male prison are more likely to be raped than an average man. But so is a guy who's slight of build, or has more feminine features.. You'd get to the point that you'd need separate prisons for strong and weak men, likely with categories within those categories.
----------
Quote:This may be a controversial take for you, but I view all mass shooters as victims in their own way. No one of sound mind would go and shoot multiple people they do not know. That person must be suffering from something rather severe in order to take that drastic of a step. Whether it was a white man who was convinced that his kind were being replaced and the fear and anxiety he suffered from in order to murder a bunch of black and brown people or if it was a trans person who felt oppressed by their Christian or Catholic upbringing going back and killing people from the school that they attended (The manifesto has not been released so we can't know -for sure- that this was the motive, but it seems like a logical leap, at least).
It's just that once you take other people's lives into your own hands, you can no longer claim the title of victim in that specific scenario. You are now the victimizer, enacting your trauma on those around you.
If every mass shooter, instead, just killed themselves, I think they would absolutely be viewed as victims in some way (for the most part).
I actually get where you're coming from and don't totally disagree. The key difference here is that you've never seen sympathetic coverage of a mass shooter before that one. This person murdered children and you actually had people defending them or trying to make them sympathetic. I can't think of a single other such incident in which the response was even close to this. Honestly, I found it nauseating. As someone who's seen these types of scenes first hand I can't bring myself to sympathize with the person who caused them. I'd be willing to bet you'd feel the same, if not more similar, with the same experience.
![[Image: Fb-Hj-Tzi-UEAAGOI5.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/tgs48LNv/Fb-Hj-Tzi-UEAAGOI5.jpg)
![[Image: FYx-ELc-WXo-AE9spo.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/bv4wP36y/FYx-ELc-WXo-AE9spo.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
