Jaicee said:
I believe we've reached an impasse. When it comes to defining feminism, it doesn't get more basic than one's definition of what a woman is. If we cannot agree on that much, we cannot go forward on this particular subject. The crux of the issue here is that in essence you're defining womanhood culturally while I'm defining it biologically. The problem with embracing a cultural definition is that we live in a male-dominated culture; a culture where men define what it is to be masculine and feminine respectively. You're asking me to accept the validity of the Victorian-era theory of the gendered brain: the theory that men are this way and women are that way, and so if you behave "the wrong way" then on some level or other you have somehow crossed over from being male to being female or vice versa. The biological definition of womanhood, by contrast, offers limitless possibilities for how women (and men for that matter) might think and act. It is hence far more broad-minded, I would argue, to say nothing of more intellectually honest (as it better explains the nature of patriarchy, etc.). I understand that rates of depression and suicidal inclinations are high among trans-identifying people, but if you break down the survey data not just by self-identification, but also by sex, a clearer picture emerges. The demographic commonality of depressive and suicidal tendencies (thoughts, attempts) breaks down in this order: 1) Biological females who identify as male. It breaks down principally along biological lines, in other words. Trans-identifying men objectively are NOT more miserable than "cis" women in aggregate. The fact that the ordering is this way also illustrates the importance of recognizing trans-identifying women as women because that group is the most in need of help. A disproportionate percentage of women who identify as men today previously identified themselves as "butch" lesbians specifically. You can see why there's a disproportionate tendency for "masculine-expressing" lesbians (and for that matter "effeminate" gay men as well) to change to a trans identity. Butch lesbians are demeaningly referred to as "basically men" or "wannabe men" all the time for their whole lives. You don't think that messaging gets internalized at all? Yeah, I understand exactly the psychological place that transgendering comes from. In Iran, the country with the largest number of gender transition surgeries, homosexuality is a criminal offense punishable by torture. That's not a coincidence. Gay people transgender in Iran in order to avoid legal prosecution, and it's made easy by the fact that the state provides the surgery for free. It's mainly a way of quietly disappearing homosexuality from the public consciousness. |
"The crux of the issue here is that in essence you're defining womanhood culturally while I'm defining it biologically. The problem with embracing a cultural definition is that we live in a male-dominated culture; a culture where men define what it is to be masculine and feminine respectively. You're asking me to accept the validity of the Victorian-era theory of the gendered brain: the theory that men are this way and women are that way, and so if you behave "the wrong way" then on some level or other you have somehow crossed over from being male to being female or vice versa. The biological definition of womanhood, by contrast, offers limitless possibilities for how women (and men for that matter) might think and act."
this is odd... you are simultaneously embracing biological determinism while at the same time denying what logically has to follow
" The biological definition of womanhood, by contrast, offers limitless possibilities for how women (and men for that matter) might think and act."
and how do you figure that? you truly believe that there's no link between physiology and psychology?
ok, for example, you told me previously that were it not for social conditioning that women would be just as aggressive as men... but how can that be the case if you accept that men have stronger bodies and 99% of the time would win physical confrontations with women?
you don't think that this obvious fact results in women opting to repress their aggression or express it through different means?
you can't go for a biologically deterministic argument and then divorce that from psychological differences like temperment
"For the Marxist feminist, similarly, it is of first importance to break down the interests of women sectionally (what about black women? What about young women? What about poor women? What about women with disabilities? Etc.) before even considering the shared interests of women as an entire group. The result of this type of thinking having become dominant in the women's movement over the last few decades has been heavy infighting -- women becoming focused on fighting each other rather than mobilizing around shared interests -- and that has turned the younger generation of women off to the movement, I believe, and understandably so! Radical feminists prioritize the general interests of women as a group over those of individuals or sections."
and suppose you as an individual who is said to be a part of a certain group does not like the policies of that group? is your argument that your standpoint doesn't matter? that ultimately what the group decides is good for the individual?
sounds just as oppressive as the patriarchy to me but whatever
"The logical conclusion of this type of postmodernist thinking has been well-articulated to me by one purveyor thereof: "Women do not exist." You can quite easily see how that mentality will render it utterly impossible to discern what our shared interests are and to mobilize as an oppressed class for the advancement of those interests! That is the intellectual place where this is all headed!"
i'll commend you for this... you obviously see where the current narrative is heading and as i have been saying its not at all in women's favour despite that being the stated aim
"That's why the discrimination against women has alternatively been referred to as sexism: because it is based on hatred of our sex (perhaps for its exclusive reproductive capacity)!"
human females can reproduce without male involvement?
"The "born gay" argument is a defensive one that psychologically closes off the community and keeps it small. We need to go back to recognizing that lesbianism is an option available to all women!"
yes for one generation... and then the human race would die
"before even considering the shared interests of women as an entire group. The result of this type of thinking having become dominant in the women's movement over the last few decades has been heavy infighting -- women becoming focused on fighting each other rather than mobilizing around shared interests"
well that was the goal from the very beginning.... to divide the population constantly into groups and pitch those groups against each other
but regardless you speak of mobilizing around shared interests... what would those be? how would you like to see society be changed to accommodate those interests?
