Jordan Levi
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
nice of you to hop back inz emma.
i’ve given references for quite a few statements already. i also have references in my essay for every statement i’ve made in this thread so far, but it’s not finished yet. but if there’s any specific statements i’ve said that you think i’m lieing about or something, please point them out so i can pull the references from my essay for you.
also, you asked me to give you my definition of a woman. i gave that yo you, along with the definition of a female. can you give everyone your definition of both, too? just so everyone sees both sides here
i forgot to add the fact again that discussing some of these gets you written off as a transphobe. i’ve only read about this, but you guys may be old enough to remember, but i guess there was this big pedophile acceptance movement at least in the UK back in like the 70s. i’ve read that the trans lobby uses a lot of the old pedo lobbies same tactics of writing off any dissent as phobia.
rob, you’re right about the original definition of gender. it was originally used as a grammatical term (in latin languages, -o or -a endings are the gender forms of certain words used for men and women, for example) or a synomym of sex.
i’m not sure if feminists started using the term gender to refer to social roles before or after him, but i do know that john money coined the term gender identity, which he also never gave a falsifiable definition of.
john money was a sexologist and documented pedophile. in debates, he advocated for the acceptance of pedophiles who had no bad intentions.
john money’s first patient who he tested out his gender theory with was named david reimer. doctors botched a circumcision of david’s penis after he was born, leaving him without one. david’s parents heard about john and thought he may be able to help them raise david as a girl. they all decided to lie to david and make him believe he was a girl. david had a twin brother, i believe his name was robert.
john would take pictures of david and his twin humping each other as children. david looked like a boy and obviously started looking moreso as he got older. he eventually found out the truth that he was actually a boy and tried to live his life normally afterward.
david and his twin both committed suicide within 2 years of each other in their 20’s. this group never mentions that this is the guy who originated this entire theory or the fact that he never gave a falsifiable definition of gender identity either. the entire theory is dogma.
i should again stress the fact that i do believe in gender dysphoria and i also believe some concessions should be made for dysphoric people who pass as the opposite sex. but this group doesn’t consider gender dysphoria to be the only criteria for being transgender. again, they call transgender people who think this “transmedicalists” and “truscum” and ostracize them. most trans people would consider “gender euphoria” — being happy or aroused at the idea of being the opposite sex (or “gender,” as they call it) — to also qualify someone as transgender. ray blanchard coined the terms autogynephilia (for TIMs) and autoandrophilia (for TIFs) to refer to these people. he theorizes that most “trans women” are actually autogynephiles. an early person who came out as a “trams women” recently admitted that they realized they were actually just an autogynephile
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/i-was-americas-first-nonbinary-person-it-was-all-sham/
after you find this out you get into some very odd kinks many of them defend and the fact that paraphilias usually come in clusters, but i honestly don’t even wanna go down that road, not even in the article, cuz it gets very dark lmao
this WHO definition pisses me off lmao they use the same definition of gender that a RadFem would use, but when some transgender people give you that same definition and you ask them “ok, so how can you have an internal feeling of sexist stereotypes or social constructs?” they usually retreat by saying that fulfilling those srereotypes is actually gender expression or gender roles and that even a person’s preferred pronouns aren’t even an indication of their gender or gender identity. so you literally have no proof of someone’s gender or gender identity in reality outside of their word. obviously dysphoria exists and should be dealt with, but many transgender people say dysphoria isn’t even needed to be transgender and call those who say otherwise transmedicalists or truscum. i’ve been dealing with this for years and it’s still so goddamn confusing when i try to explain it to people, it literally doesn’t make the least bit of sense.
WHO defines gender identity as “…a personâs deeply
felt, internal and individual experience of
gender…” but again, how tf can you possibly have an internal feeling of sexist stereotypes? they blatantly mean something else by gender in this context, something completely immaterial and idealistic like a soul or something.they’re never gonna give you a coherent response, robin lmao it’s not even worth your time. they can’t do it for the same reason that emma never gave a definition of a woman or female after i gave mine like they asked: they don’t have a coherent definition of key terms involved in this debate in the first place. as i said, i’ve been given 4 broad definitions of what a man or woman is by this group, and none of them srand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, which is why anyone gets written off as a TERF for asking even the most reasonable of questions.
oh, when i said “your argument,” i didn’t mean you specifically, thomas, i was speaking in reference to their group lol but also, they don’t use gender as a synonym of sex. so some will say there are only two sexes (most actually argue there’s an infinite amount by using intersex conditions to uphold the bs idea of there being a “sex spectrum”), but most will say there are infinite genders. there’s mfs on twitter with “fairygender” or “dragongender” in their bio lmaooo i interacted with a guy who literally thinks he’s rudolph the fuckin red-nosed reindeer. i swear to god. i got called a bigot for saying he’s not a goddamn fictional character lmaooo but yeah, this entire shit isn’t compatible with a materialist analysis, which marxism is built on. it’s all blatant idealism, which is why they can’t soundly define key terms, cuz it’s all built on sand. i appreciate that, it’s good to see someone else at least somewhat agrees!
thomas, that’s so ridiculous lmao i refuse to not gender mr. potatohead đ
aj, agreed, all wage slavery should be condemned and all discrimination should be opposed. but saying a dysphoric man isn’t a woman isn’t discrimination, especially if the other side can’t even offer a sound definition of what a woman is.
also, maybe you haven’t seen how nasty this group can get when they smell the slightest dissent, aj. there’s so many people on radtwitter that were exiled from the trans community for being “transmedicalists” or “truscum” or for simply asking questions or for detransitioning. they’ve gotten so many different subreddits and social media accounts deplatformed just for women, lesbians, detransitioners, etc. congregating there or just countering any bs they see online with facts. i literally never saw any hate on r/GenderCritical or r/GCdebatesQT, but those got shut down. but all these misogynistic porn subreddits are still up. transgender people openly talk about wanting to kill or harm “TERFs” every day and they never get deplatformed. it’s fuckin insane.
thomas again, AND THIS IS WHERE I GET SO PISSED! like ok, if your argument is that sex is a “social construct,” then do animals not have a sex either!? and is “gender” — w/e tf it is — something only humans experience!? if so, WHY!? i get so mf angry about this cuz there’s like MULTIPLE layers of dogma to this whole shit, but it’s passed off as tho it’s common sense lmao
and exactly, a man can be “feminine” without being a woman. but again, that’d bring us back to the “gender expression” motte-and-bailey they use, then back to the fact they can’t falsifiably define gender again.
yeah, too much focus on body image and individual agency, even tho definitions and social standards are a collective effort.
kajsa got back to me. i asked what she knew about Fuckförbundet and she said:
“Oh that is a lobby group for pro-prostitution people”
“Very small, how have they even heard about it?”
“It is insignificant”
so i explained why i asked, to which she said:
“Yes, that group is not a union or even only for people in prostitution, it’s like a small lobby group. The biggest group for women in prostitution here is Inte Din Hora, which is pro-Nordic model”
she’s from Stockholm, Sweden, by the way.
also, i’m not gonna put any names out there, but i’ve gotten a couple messages from members who said they generally agree with me on the trans issue, but are too afraid to say it cuz of how vitriolic the pushback always is. but i will say this thread has been mostly ok.
my bad for the late reply again, i went to sleep, ran some errands after i woke up, then had to read those articles and type up my impressions.
aj, regarding the dw article.
in the introduction they say “cis gender” means their gender identity matches their sex, but they also don’t define gender identity. i don’t think anybody will ever understand how frustrating it is to me for this group to speak of something so matter of factly without ever actually defining what it is.
right away, he associates RadFems with reactionaries for RadFems not believing in gender. this is such a lazy tactic. they literally can’t tell you what gender is. again, once you point out that “femininity” and “masculinity” are sexist stereotypes, they pull a motte-and-bailey and say that those are actually “gender expression.” so the only things you can see is “gender expression” or gender roles. you literally can’t see gender or gender identity. they never define it in any falsifiable way, just somebody’s “inner sense of gender.” you can see a Victoria, Australia bill that does exactly this here:
The Victorian Government is introducing a bill which criminalises the act of "suppressing" a person's gender identity https://t.co/JWJYsgtUKk
— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) December 14, 2020
they define gender identity as ‘someone’s gender-related identity.’ sorry to cuss, but this kinda shit literally makes me wanna fuckin cry lmao like they speak about it like it’s just common sense that this shit exists, but they can’t give you a falsifiable definition of it. i’ve been tryna find a sound definition for probably more than 4 years at this point and it seems to me like the emporer has no clothes.
he claims no one has numbers to back up claims that Trans-Identifying Males (TIMs) endanger women in prisons. as i’ve already shown, they retain male patterns of violence. the issue is also that there’s significant evidence, as i’ve also already shown, that rapists are lieing about being trans cuz they’ll be safer in women’s prisons.
he uses the term TERF, which is a slur. i’ve yet to come across a RadFem who could be considered trans-exclusionary by any reasonable definition.
they use the intersex scapegoat lmaooo i hate having to repeat this, but intersex conditions don’t disprove the sex binary, they’re all males or females with atypical development. exceptions literally prove the rule. i think most of you know i have one arm. this is like arguing i disprove that humans have 2 arms lmaooo this talking point is so mf trash đ
he says feminist fears haven’t materialized in europe. i only keep up with english-speaking social media accounts and sites that track crimes from people who at least allege to be transgender, so i honestly don’t have a rebuttal to this right now, but my guess is that there’s groups in those countries that’d disagree. but i acknowledge i could be wrong.
final comment on that article: i was hoping he’d cite some statistics, but he didn’t lmao
regarding the sex industry article: i can already tell where this going from the byline. feminists don’t want to criminalize sex workers, they want to decriminalize sex workers, but criminalize sex buyers, what’s called the Nordic Model. one time a guy sent me an article pointing out that some countries that claim to implement the Nordic Model don’t actually do this in practice, but the obvious rebuttal is that it’s not the Nordic Model then, so they should implement it properly.
the sex industry shouldn’t exist. 90%+ of the employees develop PTSD. they experience violence at mind-bogglingly higher rates than the general population. it shouldn’t exist.
there is no consensual sex work. there’s no consensual employment in general, but especially not sex work.
“…many carceral feminists operate under the misguided ideas that all sex work is inherently exploitative; that any sex in exchange for money or goods is rape;…”
all sex work is inherently exploitative. all work is, but especially all sex work.
kajsa ekis ekman did a great job of explaining this at a conference: 2 people who wanna have sex (or exchange nudes) don’t pay each other. if both don’t want to, then sex doesn’t happen. money only comes into the picture when only one person wants to have sex, but the other doesn’t. what do you call sex in which one of those involved doesn’t want to be?
“People have always sold and traded sex to surviveâââand to thriveâââand they will continue to do it long after we are all gone.”
there’s this girl merrick who went viral on twitter for a similar take where she basically said sex workers would still exist under the higher phase of communism to provide “sexual mutual aid” lmao over 90% of sex workers want to exit the industry. it’s extremely dangerous. nobody would do this w/o being coerced into doing so by poverty, but poverty obviously wouldn’t exist in the higher phase of communism.
she then gets into the Nordic Model and cites a couple papers, but i’m not gonna bother reading them tbh. what i do know is that kajsa mentioned in her book ‘being and being bought’ that the sex industry astroturfs sex worker unions. the girl who wrote this article cites a study by Fuckförbundet, which is a sex worker union. kajsa follows me on instagram, so i’m gonna hit her up and see if she knows anything about this union. but at first glance it seems sus.
it’s no problem, i at least skim almost everything thrown at me cuz i genuinely want to find out i’m wrong about things cuz i want so bad to be rigt lol
i guess you could say capitalism, money, political parties are real in a broad sense, but — if anything — i’d consider those things social constructs. not sex, as some transgender people argue. i think they’re confusing social acknowledgement with social construction.
i’d say adequate definitions can be hard to give sometimes, but you’ll never see “a banana is a banana” or “a socialist is someone who identifies as a socialist” in a dictionary. i’ve seen transgender people offer 4 broad definitions of what a man or a woman are, but none of them stand up to scrutiny to me. but that’s why i prefer people to give me their definitions themselves rather than assume which one they’ll give.
i just don’t like the idea of womanhood being equated with femininity, then everyone i would call a woman instead being referred to as a “breeder.”
aj, most trans people i’ve interacted with want to be treated as the opposite sex in every aspect (but what they call the opposite gender, even tho bathrooms, etc. have never been based on gender, only sex).
maybe there is a campaign to identify as X for “non-binary” ttansgender people, but most trans women want to identify as F in every context from what i’ve seen.
as i suspected, the first article is about a nonbinary person.
they say that intersex people make up 1.7% of the population. this is a misleading statistic first used by anne fausto-sterling. as i said earlier, 1.5% of this is CAH, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which only affects women. in the same paper, she suggested there are 5 sexes, even though the extra 3 produced no new gametes.
they bring up “sex assigned at birth.” again, it’s not assigned at birth, it’s unequivocally observed at birth in 99.982% of cases. even in the 0.018% of cases where they take a best guess, their sex isn’t assigned. they already have a sex at birth, it just might be marked wrong due to a wrong guess.
they imply intersex is a sex, but it’s not. it’s a group of 40 conditions, most of which are sex-specific. all intersex people are still either one of two sexes.
i’m not even gonna lie to you, AJ, i’m hella tired so i just skimmed through the rest of that first article and the entire second.
anyway: i also don’t believe brains have a “gender,” as they imply in the second article. evidence of differences between male and female brains is still very hotly debated. i’ve read that trans brains don’t moreso resemble those of the opposite sex, but i’ve read that other studies disagree and i’m no expert on that issue, so i’m honestly not prepared to debate the results of those studies.
they bring up third-genders that’ve existed in other cultures, but those cultures didn’t literally consider them the opposite “gender,” hence the third category. to be a hijra, for example, you have to be a male. there are no female hijras.
they mention principle 31 of the yogyakarta principles, which says: “Everyone has the right to change gendered information in such documents [JL: like birth certificates] while gendered information is included in them.” but birth certificates don’t deal with “gender,” they only deal with sex.
i’m not exclusive of trans people. i don’t want to alienate them. as you said, their status as trans is irrelevant. that’s none of my business. my issue is the redefinition of important terms and passing legislation regarding gender identity without even providing a falsifiable definition in that legislation. it just doesn’t make sense to me. i just want there to be an open discussion on this in the public sphere without feminists being deplatformed.
my bad for the late replies. i had to read 5 articles and type up rebuttals.
DJP, just finished reading all 3 artocles.
in the first paragraph of the first article, a quote from GLAAD says that J.K. Rowling “continues to align herself with an ideology which wilfully distorts facts about gender identity…” but they fail to define gender identity. besides that, the first article does a great job of laying out a rough sketch of the issue.
i have way more issues with the second article. i should clarify again that i worded my tweet wrong. i have no issue with trans people, i’m not trying to demonize people who actually have gender dysphoria. my issue is self-ID allowing anyone to gain the privileges of women.
one issue: he says he asked his mom if he could “go to school as a girl.” does he mean the sexist stereotype of “femininity,” that dressing “feminine” would be “going to school as a girl”? he seems to be dressed “feminine” in his picture. is this “dressing as a girl” to him? because not all the people i would call girls dress “feminine”. many dress “masculine.” are they not girls? also, some of his group would say that the way you dress is only “gender expression” and has nothing to do with your actual gender or gender identity, like i said earlier.
another: no one’s against their right to exist. we’re against the unfalsifiable redefinition of key terminology.
i appreciate that they say that they acknowledge that sex is real and not a social construct, but i disagree with the money analogy. money’s definitely a social construct. it’s not real. it didn’t exist before humanity. but sex has existed for 1.2 billion years.
he says something very wrong after this. as i said, being female can be explained by one thing: mullerian ducts developing inside you as a fetus. to say there’s no singular criteria of womanhood is ludicrous.
he then makes a terrible analogy between “presenting like a woman” vs adoptive parents. there is no way women universally present. womanhood isn’t based on clothing, it’s based on biology. it’s sexist to say otherwise.
another terrible point he makes is that women being defined as adult human females would make alien women not women. there is a specific name for the female sex of many species, for both the juvenile and adults in many cases. a female antelope is a doe. a young human female is a girl, an adult is a woman. we would probably have a specific name for the females of the alien species, but obviously this is irrelevant cuz we don’t even have irrefutable proof they exist yet.
he makes the point again about calling adoptive parents parents, but wearing a dress isn’t analogous to raising a child.
most RadFems don’t say trans women are a threat to “cis women.” again, the issue is the potential abuse of self-ID. most RadFems just want there to be a public discussion to see if a reasonable compromise can be made, but all that start to gain steam are immediately written off as transphobes and many are deplatformed.
he makes a point about transwomen who pass using women’s toilets. many RadFems don’t wanna make this concession. as a male, i obviously have no real stake in this specific scenario, but i’ve gone on record saying that i personally think it’d be ridiculous to have buck angel or blaire white use the bathrooms of their birth sex. i’m open to discussion on that, though. but most transgender people aren’t, even for those who don’t pass.
onto the third article.
they mention something about bathrooms as being in line with a person’s gender identity. bathrooms have always been sex-segregated. again, they don’t define gender identity.
noone’s assigned a gender at birth. sex is irrefutably observed at birth in 99.982% of cases.
one thing they don’t mention is that a GRC doesn’t affect inheritance, which is a clear case of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. if an eldest sibling wants to legally be marked as a woman, then any UK inheritance laws regarding eldest boys should follow suite.
Ummm correct me if Iâm wrong, but this law just confirms biological sex & gives rights to male people, packaged as a âprogressiveâ move?https://t.co/Pbl5VXBMTS
— Sall Grover (@salltweets) November 18, 2020
they go on a long tangent about male socialization, then say that trans women are different than cis men cuz they don’t feel like boys. there’s no feeling like a boy, you’re just born one. inner feelings can’t even be measured or independently verified, we just have to take people on their word. completely unfalsifiable.
they say gender identity could make a difference in how violent someone is, without defining gender identity.
they say there are no studies showing trans women are just as violent as “cis men.” this is false.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/
white women are a subset of women because of their mullerian ducts developing as a fetus. “trans women” are a subset of men, otherwise they wouldn’t be trans, they’d be “cis.”
lmao they argue that excluding trans women from women’s spaces even if they have higher rates of violence then other women would be like excluding other groups of women if the same were to be found for those. again, they’re glossing over the fact that “trans women” are men, otherwise they wouldn’t be trans, they’d be “cis.”
“It assumes, in other words, that women-only spaces ought, in fact, to be female-only spaces.”
this implies they understand that “trans women” aren’t female, which would get them cancelled among much of the transgender community. seriously.
they bring up trans women’s vulnerability to male violence. women spaces aren’t there to shield males from other males. they’re there for women.
what constitutes womanhood isn’t a political or ethical question. it’s 100% a scientific question.
they effectively forego offering a definition of what a woman is. not surprising.
there’s nothing ethical about honoring self-ID. we need safeguards.
trans women who pass are subject to misogyny because of their perceived womanhood.
they compare pointing out rare incidents of transgender crimes to be like pointing out muslim rapists even though most rapists are white. i don’t think transgender people are rapists, i think rapists and pedophiles have been lieing and saying they’re transgender to be sent to women’s prisons where they won’t be as brutally dealt with by the inmates, if at all.
âBetween 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 â an increase of 84%.â
https://fairplayforwomen.com/sex_data_wrong/
why?
“Police forces now record crimes based on self-declared gender and not birth sex.” (same article)
another from the same site:
“Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous category A inmates”
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/
either transgender people are sex offenders at much higher rates or impostor sex offenders are self-IDing themselves into safer prisons. which do you think is more likely?
transgender people aren’t a “profoundly disempowered group.” they have entire governments, universities, and corporations on their side.
they compare feminists getting mad about being called transphobic to people who voice concerns about immigrants getting maf about being called racist. but statistics show immigrants commit crime at much lower rates than US citizens. as i’ve already shown, they also show that trans women retain a male pattern of violence.
in the conclusion they suggest trans impostors are rare. as i’ve already shown, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
they use the “rapists don’t need self-ID laws to rape, cuz they already do it without them” argument, but this isn’t a sound reason to make it any easier.
they say it’s unlikely that a “cis man” will pose as a trans woman to win political elections, but i’m not sure i agree. melissa sklarz — who, to be clear, has publicly identified as trans for decades — lost an election against a man one year (i believe 2019) and won against a woman the next year (i believe in 2020). emilia decaudin won 2 elections against 2 separate black women the same year without even actively campaigning. these were both in new york.
gender dysphoria probably does have a psychological basis, i’m not arguing against that. the issue is that inner feelings aren’t independently verifiable. all we can go off of is someone’s word. if we define a woman as anyone who says they’re a woman — self-ID, which is what they all advocate for — then any man at any time can say they’re a woman and be afforded every right women have.
females are discriminated against because of their sex. if you’re using gender as a synonym for sex, then i agree with that statement, but again, most people in this group don’t. they explicitly argue that gender and sex are different without offering a falsifiable definition of gender or gender identity. i don’t believe in these things, descriptions i’ve gotten just sound like a personality or some roundabout way of describing a soul.
the house of representatives just passed the ‘Equality Act,’ which does have some good things in it, but the main problem is that it would give any man that says they’re a woman all the privileges women have. it does this by referring to womanhood or manhood as a ‘gender identity,’ without even attempting to define that term.
there are numerous peer-reviewed studies that show that trans-identifying men on average take a 5 – 10% dip in performance after taking estrogen for a year. this isn’t nearly enough of a loss in performance in certain sports categories. for example, i believe have a 30% advantage in upper body strength compared to women their same height and weight. i’ve seen one peer-reviewed study that gets thrown around a lot that argues otherwise, but a twittee user named Emma Hilton (@FondOfBeetles) made a great thread pointing out the issues with it.
they aren’t wanting to be accepted as a third gender, aj. they want to be treated as literal women in every sense. they call lesbians and heterosexual men who aren’t attracted to “trans women” bigots. many will tell you there’s an infinite number of genders — again, while having no falsifiable definition of it. some think your gender can be literally anything — ferociously steph, for example, who says they’re deergender. they “identify” as a female deer while wearing antlers, which only male deer have. i came across another who thinks he’s a fish. if you tell them they’re not, they call you a bigot. i should add that many transgender people don’t accept these “xenogenders” or “otherkin,” but i’ve never seen a good explanation of why.
i really, really didn’t want to go this deep without emma and i laying down our first principles. we’ll be running around in circles without explaining what we each mean by key terms.
aj, if you’re using gender as a synomym for sex, then no, you can’t change gender. surgery can only make a man look as though they’re female in some cases, but it can never actually make them female. motherhood doesn’t define being female. young girls and women who never have children are still female because they developed a mullerian phenotype — because their mullerian ducts developed along with their wolffian ducts regressing. regardless of any atypical development after gonadal differentiation, only one of these ducts develop in a human. clownfish are often brought up right now, but humans obviously aren’t clownfish.
i should mention though, that many in their group don’t use gender as a synomym of sex. by “gender” they mean some inner feeling. they refer to the way a person acts or dresses as gender expression or performing gender roles, so there’s actually no way to see someone’s gender or “gender identity.” i’m still trying to get a falsifiable answer from one of them about what “gender identity”is — obviously “a gender identity is the gender someone identifies as” is circular.
my issue isn’t with men dressing or acting “feminine.” that’s none of my business. my issue is when these men decide to warp the definition of womanhood to being completely unfalsifiable, then entering women’s sports and winning awards or take female political positions, awards, etc.
