What is Masculinty

[CJD]

(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 rapists when 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).