What are
/r/GCdebatesQT's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/GCdebatesQT:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/GCdebatesQT:
Pastebin.com
Cambridge Dictionary
HuffPost
IPFS
WebMD
Mayo Clinic
Worldometers
Dictionary.com
Academia.edu
CssDeck
SemanticScholar
Meduza
TinyURL
Emojipedia
DocDroid
The most popular reviews in /r/GCdebatesQT:
There is an excellent book on sex selective abortion by Maria Hvistendahl called Unnatural Selection that covers this subject much more in depth. Everyone interested please read it or at least the Washington Post article about it. I would link if my phone would let me
Edit: I did watch the John Oliver episode but didn't feel he dived deep enough into the misogyny of it, especially as someone who has been invested in the genocide of female infants and the sex selective abortion issue for many years.
2nd edit: coming through with the links! Sorry for not formatting them
https://www.amazon.com/Unnatural-Selection-Choosing-Girls-Consequences/dp/1610391519
> What if a white American wore a bindi in an effort to establish themselves a space free from the punishing expectations and social constraints of western culture (i.e., to come across as less 'white') rather than to appropriate Indian culture?
> Of course, the fact you "know they are women" actually bolsters my argument. You looked at them, compared them to your internal idea of what a woman is supposed to look like, her various biological markers, et cetera. My point is, this is inherently sexist
Is it sexist when newborn human infants are able to discern male from female people from their faces? Are baby monkeys sexist for also possessing this ability?
> Similarly, suppose that a woman is fired because she is a lesbian. A lesbian is a woman who is sexually attracted to women, but presumably the same employer would not fire men who are sexually attracted to women. Thus, this woman was fired because she has desires that male employees are allowed to have.
The business could argue that they would treat a gay man who was attracted to men the same way as her, and voila, ergo, she was not discriminated on the basis of sex. She was not fired for being attracted to women, she was fired for being attracted to people of the same sex as her.
> (ThinkProgress) Supreme Court will decide if it is legal to fire someone for being LGBTQ thinkprogress.org
Holy clickbait title, Batman. Here's the title of an article on the same topic by the Huffington Post:
SCOTUS To Review Whether Federal Sex Discrimination Law Protects LGBTQ Workers
I like The Elements of Style, personally. Your absolute biggest problem here, even more than the word choices I didn't particularly like, is sentence structure. The book will help. I believe it kicks around as a free PDF?
Could you maybe pull out a sentence where you think it needed "complex language" as an example? I was about to but noticed you had deleted.
Your first step of this rewrite should be writing a one sentence summary of your argument. If you can't get it that short, you might yourself not fully understand what it is you want to say.
You forgot to look up the word malign. It means to to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame. What have GC people said that's demonstrably untrue? Please do delineate those untruths.
The sexual revolution isn't inherently a bad thing, however, it is naïve to think of its results as the ideal. Ideally the way to real sexual equality is to dismantle capitalism. I suggest you watch do communists have better sex
Fascism is very idealist and essentialist in a way. I don't know if it's entirely accurate to liken it to TRAs, given other aspects of fascism. Umberto Eco wrote a bit on this 'Ur-Fascism', and some may apply but definitely not most or all. I would argue that trans women do not typically align with men, and often do criticise men (Stephen Fry, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson etc.) but of course attacking women is much easier. Some in the left use this as an excuse to be openly misogynist, which is also a problem.
In some ways I think the term 'authoritarian' gets thrown around haphazardly, to the point where upholding any principle is seen as being authoritarian. Is it authoritarian when radical feminists believe we should ban the purchase of sex? Probably not.
In short I think we should steer away from accusing groups of fascism too readily, otherwise we risk the word losing impact or meaning.
Dude, you seriously used a porn pic with a woman with her legs behind her head?!?!?! AND you can still see only her labia and anus. There's NO vagina in that picture. Have you ever seen a naked woman in real life? Are you really that ignorant as to what a vagina is??
Learn some anatomy, PLEASE! https://www.webmd.com/women/picture-of-the-vagina
Take a close look and you'll see the vagina stops way before the visable part. The entire viable part is called a VULVA. The front part that normally has pubic hair is called the pubic mound. The fleshy parts that normally have pubic hair are called the labia majora. The parts inside them that don't have hair are called labia minora. The part inside that is called the hyman. PAST that is the vagina, which is INSIDE a woman's body.
That's where you put tampons and menstrual cups, and those aren't visible while in use either.
Please tell me your knowledge of female anatomy doesn't come entirely from porn! Because that's disturbing and boy do you need to learn a thing or two. Lol
Cis women benefit from female biology in that on average they will live ~5% longer (around 4-5 years) than men will.
Trans women don't have this benefit, partially since they're biologically male and partially since they're pumping their bodies full of unnatural hormone concoctions with no longterm investigation into repercussions on health. And considering that real women taking estrogen for even a short period of time to relieve menopause symptoms carries a risk of cancer, I can only imagine what havoc it will wreak on men taking it over periods of decades.
>Edit: also, when you speak of pain, do you mean physical, or psychological?
All pain is perceived in the brain and thus all pain is psychological.
Please look at the ethics of this topic before you rush to prejudgement.
You seem to think you have all the answers, but you don't understand how many times people have told me the same nonsense you just told me. Why is it so hard for people who share your thinking to grasp that you just don't get it? You said this:
>I have no idea if that could feasibly work to help...
Well let me give you an idea.
I TRIED ALL THAT AND IT DIDN'T HELP. If you told someone who was in chronic pain that they should learn to accept it, they'd rightly call you a fool. Surgery DID help. Surgery has profoundly changed my life. Why won't you listen when trans people tell you this? Why does your need for your theories to be right make you deaf to what the people who suffer from this are telling you?
And by the way, I am a woman. And I was never trapped in my body. The whole "trapped in a man's body" is bullshit, and most trans people are sick of that childish meme.
>I'm just curious what it is based on, is it just an average idea of what a woman should look like? Obviously this presents problems for women who don't fit these prerequisites. It fits the definition so it could be argued.
So is everyone just walking stereotypes then?
>I'm not really sure what your questions are, to be honest. I'm calling in to question how progressive it is to be enamoured with traditional gender roles and decide that is should be part of what being perceived as a woman is.
I have several times asked you simple direct questions that you have ignored. I'm not going to go through my comments and copy them here for you. You're a big boy.
>Perhaps you are right, and transwomen never enjoy mostly traditionally feminine things.
I have never stated this or even argued this. Did this strawman take all the hay you had to make or did you have to buy some?
I think, it's a fancy synonym for the word concept.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept?s=t
So no, the term concept is not interchangeable with the term gender. Frankly I'm not sure how you think those two terms are synonyms. Look up the term gender in a thesaurus if you want synonyms. I see these people
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/gender?s=t
have been taken over by Camp Trans, for they go on and on about the feelings and preferences of men in dresses for validating words while ignoring the feelings and preferences of radfems who excel in logic; and if that is not bad enough, they give synonyms for the term woman and they give synonyms for the term man, but they abjectly fail to provide even one synonym for the actual term gender.
At the end of the day, gender is referring to either bio sex or in the case of trans, one's desired target sex. You can deduce this factoid by noticing that when gender is at issue for other mammals, it is ONLY bio sex and neither behavior nor hopeful desire which is referenced. When a genderized term is applied to humans, it is still ultimately referring to bio sex. IE She is womanly. It's circular. What is a woman? Adult human female. Let's try another: That is so butch. Still circular. What is butch? Adult human female who displays behavior traditionally associated with adult human male. etc etc. You can do it with any term referring to masculine or feminine, and you still end up ultimately referencing biological sex.
Updated. Screenshot. Ping /u/snarky- and /u/worried19. It's still not necessarily the final version - I might make a fresh thread for everyone once I have that.
Well, yes according to the theory. That's just one reason why I think the theory is flawed, to say the least.
If you have a chance check out these links to read some really good critiques of Blanchard. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241
What has always bothered me about Blanchard's theory is the idea that someone can be attracted to themselves as a subject and an object at once. Attraction requires separation between the subject and the object. You can't attract 0 to 0. It's already at 0, and there's no space in between. No tension. Does that make sense? It does for me, and it fits my own experience. I had cross gender desire before it was sexual(As a kid). I identified as a woman in my fantasies when I was a teen and adult. The fantasies always involved another human. The fact that I identified as a woman seemed quite a neutral part of the fantasies. And now that my sex drive is pretty much nil on hormones, I still identify as a woman. That hasn't changed one iota. If Blanchard was right, at least in how I understand it, my desire to transition should have decreased significantly with a low libido. I just think he's describing effects and not causes. Some trans people have cross gender arousal. Not all do. The simple explanation is that cross gender desire arises and then maybe cross gender arousal arises if the cross gender desire is repressed in a particular way. At least that makes sense to me. It also would explain the reason why some HSTSs have cross gender arousal. The arousal is a result of repression of an underlying cross gender desire. It's not that they are aroused by the thought of being a woman. It's that they're aroused because of the taboo of it.
elder abuse, shrinking economy, smaller networks... there are plenty of ways it's complicated, not an easy answer.
But if you're talking to people in Europe or North America, it's also totally irrelevant: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#region We already have declining birth rates, plus combined we make up less than 15% of the world population.
Uh-huh, but the fact that non-White women were far less likely to vote for Trump makes me think that it did have a lot to do with race. (White men 62%, White women 52%, Latin American women 25%, Black women 4%; according to CNN exit polls.)
The discrepancy is even starker after you control for confounding variables (except, perhaps, the urban-rural divide).
> Does not gender theory posit that gender exists innately?
Not at all. Gender theory holds that gender is a social construct.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/international/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/gender-theory
If anything GC's are gender theorists.
>I presume lesbians at the march who didn't want a trans woman/drag queen on stage. This is just Rivera's allegation of course, I haven't looked for other sources on this incident.
Yea, I linked you to a video in a different comment of Jean O'Leary addressing this.
>That was from the interview with Johnson starting on page 21.
Oh, seems it was falsely attributed to Sylvia.
And yet Marsha decided against transition, and 10 days before his death said in an interview "I'm a man".
Here's a WIP HSTS/AAP variant.. You can click on the squares to mark them. Important to emphasize that it's very much not finished yet (it's missing HSTS spots and I haven't had Trent comment on it). If the link doesn't work properly, you can fill out this screenshot of it instead.
https://codepen.io/imprakash/pen/GgNMXO
That's the code for a pure CSS popup box.
As I said, disable subreddit styles and see what happens when you NP a link. Hint: Nothing. Because NP is the very definition of a paper shield. It's just an idea bunch of brigading subreddits invented to try and sell the admins they weren't brigading after a bunch of subreddits got banned for brigading. "look, here's this random protocol we invented that hacks country codes into the URLs and some of the major subreddits put in some CSS to hide the vote buttons and reply button if your URL has that country code". It's never actually done anything but occasionally mess you up if you browse Reddit after following a link someone has "helpfully" NPed.
That's one of the reasons I disabled subreddit styles, it's just irritating when you get that junk popping up randomly because you forgot to click back after following a URL rather than just clicking the reddit logo. Without the styles I can just ignore the NP disease.
>the trans are not letting me "choose" they're labelling me and assigning me to "cis"
🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔
>the cis are not letting me "choose" they're labeling me and assigning me to "man"
🤔
Think about what your saying......Careful you'll start to relate to the trans!
😱
I think completely ignoring any intense, persistent problem (and the emotional reaction to it) could possibly be considered in the 'emotional abuse' category of childhood mistreatment. (Thinking of the ACE quiz someone posted here a little while ago) However, I am a little bit confused about this, because sometimes people do advise to ignore things so as to not make them into a big deal and just let them pass.
It sounds like you weren't just talking about kids though. Is 'medical neglect' something doctors do? Or caretakers?
Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called Science of Horror, here are some Trailers
It's not rare.
Mayo Clinic notes several causes, and includes pregnancy, menopause and contraception all of which are really common.
That aside, even if it were uncommon, what difference does it make? I'm just pointing out that the infographic is way oversimplifying to the point of not being useful.
Among other things it's not just that we all get these messages, it's that we will get different responses if we don't "properly internalize them."
I'm on the autistic spectrum, I'm of above average but not exceptionally so intelligence. And therefore I won't generally be able to "woman" very well, even if I wanted to! I just don't function that way.
People respond to me very differently than they do in otherwise identical male who is also on the autistic spectrum, because he doesn't have the same expectations placed on him, even though I can actually social much better than most men, I don't social in accordance with what is expected of me as a woman.
semi-related, I'm listening to this podcast right now and it covers a lot of things touched on in this thread.
I'd suggests this whole thing, but the exact moment the commentary on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is relevant.
Also what is the point of making this woman class that is completely divorced from the reality of being female?
Shouldn't there be another word for this essence? That anyone can experience as it's divorced from female-ness?
I'm just curious what it is based on, is it just an average idea of what a woman should look like? Obviously this presents problems for women who don't fit these prerequisites. It fits the definition so it could be argued.
I'm not really sure what your questions are, to be honest. I'm calling in to question how progressive it is to be enamoured with traditional gender roles and decide that is should be part of what being perceived as a woman is.
Perhaps you are right, and transwomen never enjoy mostly traditionally feminine things.
From https://meduza.io/en/feature/2017/08/02/lose-a-leg-find-yourself:
> All 52 people told First that the goal of voluntary amputation was the desire to find their own identity.
>
>...
>
>The scholars spoke to 54 people who claimed to fantasize about amputating or paralyzing their own limbs in order to feel “more complete” and gain “inner body harmony.”
>
>...
>
>One way or another, all the patients in the study (who were, as with First’s research, overwhelmingly men) said their first amputation fantasies dated back to early childhood. Roughly half the subjects said these fantasies arouse them sexually.
I'm interested in discussing how the amputation of breasts or a penis to find an identity is different from amputating an arm or a leg. They're using the exact same language gender dysphorics use to describe why they seek surgery. They report the same sense of euphoria and "wholeness" after their amputations, though some of them ultimately regret what they have done to themselves.
Perhaps have a look at this defence of transracialism and see how it hangs for you.
Sure! This discussion was getting pretty cluttered anyway.
TL;DR: I think that "woman" is a social category assigned based on external phenotype. It came about to target the womb-bearers and fine-tune how much risk they were exposed to, in a form of cultural evolution. (In that societies with the "technology" of gender reproduced more, and so were better able to respond to and recover from crisis.)
It's no wonder that conservatives are for restrictive gender roles and against contraception - they're really good at surviving when the feces strikes the ceiling air movement generator. Conservative values are better for society...
...from the perspective of maximizing survival in a harsh environment, that is. Nowadays, minorities and freedom are more important than the tiny chance of civilization failing.
I want to clarify that I do not support this system. I do not like gender roles, I want to abolish gender, et cetera. But this is the best description, AFAICT, of modern society.
In case anyone missed it --
John Hopkins mapping of Corona Virus cases
These are confirmed cases of COVID-19, as determined by the CDC and the WHO. It's updated everytime there's a new case.
I do not think it is disputed that coercive sex is common in several species.
You can find several articles if you search the web
Most of them are on baboons, chimpanzees and orangutans. Some of them are interesting in that they examine how social structure adapts to that.
You can even find videos in youtube of seals raping penguins (and often not killing them or eating them afterwards).
I grew up in the countryside and this was kind of normality and common knowledge, especially with dogs and several species of birds (both in captivity and not). Ducks seem the worst of all in my experience.
You might want to read something on the topic before you so cavalierly discount the work of global feminists and the existence of many peoples outside your own culture.
I don't know what you mean by "based on," but you're welcome to just spit out the word you are fishing for.
> Can you give sources on gender identity's derivation of sexual functions?
It is philosophy of mind called functionalism. There are plenty of papers where authors claim that every feeling is derivation of functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)
>Your explanation doesn't really explain why the development of agp makes evolutionary sense.
Poiani in this book https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Homosexuality-Perspective-Aldo-Poiani/dp/0521145147 explained the role on self domestication and neoteny in the evolution of primate sexuality.
>Why would the development of hsts trans people be the same as the evolution of homosexuality?
Because HSTS are essentially homosexuals.
>What separates the two groups?
Social context. In one social context homosexuals are third gender, in another they are trans women, in another - gays, in another - abomination.
> Please do not "transplain" philosophy to me. I grouped them together only in reference to their being irrelevant to this discussion about biology. Go to a subreddit on philosophy if you really want to argue that either of their views change biological facts, and send me a link when you've posted the argument. I disagree, but this is not the place to discuss it.
There are already philosophical works which show how philosophy can influence biological studies and change intepretation of them. For examle https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X
Nature is brutal, there is no two ways about it. A fairly humorous look at some of the kinky stuff that exists in the natural world is this text. It was actually mandatory reading in an intro level bio class I took in college. The professor even briefly talked about how almost none of this type of scrutiny can be pointed towards humans, for obvious reasons. It is a really interesting topic to think about.