J.P.C Investigations

Gonna throw in some sources. 

Here is some current science discourse (stuff that discusses neurological and biological research being done on gender, sex, transgender, inter-sex, and non-binary.): 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/22/transgender-brain-scans-promised-study-shows-structural-differences/

“Although more research is needed, we now have evidence that sexual differentiation of the brain differs in young people with GD, as they show functional brain characteristics that are typical of their desired gender.”

https://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html

“Gender refers to the cultural differences expected (by society / culture) of men and women according to their sex. A person’s sex does not change from birth, but their gender can.“

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/nov-24-2018-accidental-domestication-an-electric-airplane-the-science-of-gender-identity-and-more-1.4916481/scientist-refutes-notion-that-gender-identity-is-an-unscientific-liberal-ideology-1.4916508

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-brains-of-transgender-people-different-from-those-of-cisgender-people-30027

Dick Swaab of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience is a pioneer in the neuroscience underlying gender identity. In the mid-1990s, his group examined the postmortem brains of six transgender women and reported that the size of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc or BNSTc), a sexually dimorphic area in the forebrain known to be important to sexual behavior, was closer to that of cisgender women than cisgender men.2 A follow-up study of autopsied brains also found similarities in the number of a certain class of neurons in the BSTc between transgender women and their cisgender counterparts—and between a transgender man and cisgender men.3 These differences did not appear to be attributable to the influence of endogenous sex hormone fluctuations or hormone treatment in adulthood. In another study published in 2008, Swaab and a coauthor examined the postmortem volume of the INAH3 subnucleus, an area of the hypothalamus previously linked to sexual orientation. The researchers found that this region was about twice as big in cisgender men as in women, whether trans- or cisgender.4

https://slate.com/technology/2018/11/sex-binary-gender-neither-exist.html

Despite my posting on research being done on non-binary, intersex, and trans people; I don’t even buy half the stuff I just peddled. My point was that even the scientific community doesn’t think gender is a binary. I don’t think Gender can be defined by the medical, or the biological fields. 

https://xkcd.com/1102/

https://www.xkcd.com/985/

As the article goes, it is evident that it’s main goal is to stoke fear of adolescent “transitioning”. 

To add a bit of nuance to it all:

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/3/8/17096462/sarah-mcbride-trans-youth-activist-military-ban

“ But I also think we too often try to medicalize trans identities. We focus too much on whether it’s a medical transition or the potential scientific forces of gender identity. The reality is that, for whatever reason, transgender people exist. They’re part of the natural diversity of humanity — and a beautiful part, at that. “

I wholeheartedly disagree. The most PC way to go about feminism nowadays is to tell lesbians that we are wrong and not inclusive enough because we are homosexual. Then turn around and tell black women (as well as other woc) that we have succumbed to “white feminism” by acknowledging the biological reality of being female.

@mecha-nismo​

The current wave and intersectional theory have been written by WOC and lesbians, they are integral to feminism. I cannot find, or know of Academic writing of feminist theory that has claimed that “ lesbians are wrong” and claimed that homosexuality makes one not inclusive enough. 

“acknowledging the biological reality of being female” I think most feminists are reticent because to create a rubric of “being female” because it would push out/away many who are female, but do not meet some sort of strict criteria that others force upon them.  

https://www.mediafire.com/file/buja0d9t8laliuq/Sespursongles_2016-2018.pdf/file

This pdf has the writings of a very knowledgable lesbian poster (who’s since deactivated). She covers how liberal feminism, radical feminism, and other political groups (such as trans activists) have affected lesbian women.

Idk if either of you are homosexual women. But there’s plenty of us who have blogs detailing why current sociopolitical groups are not welcoming to lesbians. As in, actual homosexual females who are exclusively attracted to the same sex and are not obligated to force an attraction to males for the sake of being inclusive and open.

On racism and diminishing the experience of being a black female:

This isn’t about how a black woman created the concept of intersectionality. It’s about black women and other woc are being silenced (just like white women) when we speak on being women (i.e. female). It is primarily liberal feminists who support this since they, along with trans activists, do not like to acknowledge the differences between existing as a male vs existing as a female in a heteropatriarchal world.

For example, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a black feminist, was ridiculed for simply pointing out that being biologically female is a different reality than being a male who identifies as a woman. People claimed that she was speaking from a Western, first-world point of view. As if millions of WOC within and outside of Western countries don’t face oppression due to our femaleness.

I skimmed a 160 page document; reading choice chapters. 

Lets start here; from your previous post: “who are exclusively attracted to the same sex and are not obligated to force an attraction to males for the sake of being inclusive and open.“

I don’t think anyone should be forced to be attracted to anyone they aren’t. It begs the question: who is doing the forcing? I genuinely don’t understand…legislation? If one doesn’t want to engage with someone romantically or sexually than they don’t seek engagement? We are not talking about sexual assault in this case or rape; we are only discussing this claim that online liberal feminists shame or harass Lesbian women who don’t want to date trans women? 

I find it interesting that you are apposed to feminism; or view it’s historical infractions as indefensible; but so much of the “Ses purs ongles” reads like views similar to Second-wave feminism. 

Correct me if I’m wrong; but is this not Gender Essentialism? The author does place a lot of emphasis on a rigid taxonomy of gender. This is very inline with Social conservative thinking? It feels quite inline with gender views expounded by fundamentalist religious groups.

I mean, despite your feeling towards the trans community; I’m making some assumptions because of the literature your promoting; but, I don’t think I know any trans people who don’t believe Lesbians exist; but the other seems to attack the very existence of Trans people; a lot this cuts phenomenologically.

I mean I have great respect for Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. It needs to be said though: Trans-women, those assigned male at birth, can’t be reduced or dismissed because they might have received male-privilege before transitioning…do you know many transwomen? Because if you knew the transwomen I know, I can’t imagine anyone claiming that they have reaped the benefits of male privilege. And, I mean, the systemic facts are there; however much of this abstract privilege is horded; it would evaporate the moment transitioning occurs… I find it very ironic that Chimamanda promotes an idea of a multifaceted narrative, not one story; but talking about transwomen she seems unable to get past this idea of transwomen male privilege, it is her log line when addressing the topic. 

If you feel attacked because of your views; I would ask you then to think of all the transwomen doxxed by Cathy Brennan. Discourse is ugly on the internet. And this has been very educational for me, but I did read the majority of a manifesto thinking I would find something more nuanced and interesting than basically a Lesbian version of Ben Shapiro’s talking points, you know his whole “facts don’t care about your feelings.”

Secondly, I’m not in a panic state. I have no personal issue with trans women or men. However, I’m not going to ignore the constant ‘terf’ callouts directed at lesbians because we are not attracted to trans women. If the trans people you know aren’t pushing this rhetoric, then wonderful. I cannot say the same, online or “in real life”.

When I made my original post, I was mostly thinking of how second wave feminism supported political lesbianism, a homophobic concept. Radfems also have a history of policing lesbian women for not being ideologically pure enough, as if female homosexuality is a political stance.

Liberal feminism went on to do similar things. Turing the lesbian sexuality into an identity anyone can try on, and meanwhile vilifying us for not accepting males into our dating pools. Therefore, both movements are guilty of treating female homosexuality not like a legitimate sexual orientation, but a measure of political correcteness.

To deny that trans women posses some level of male privilege (before and/or after transition) is to equate them with biological women. And our experiences are just not the same. Just like how biological men and trans men do not share the same experiences across the board. Trans men have experienced the sometimes harsh reality of being biologically female.

I do appreciate your forth-rightness in discussing your point-of-view; but I do feel like discourse is almost impossible to be had. 

The language would not be agreed upon, so the discussion would be cyclical and silly. 

But, it does perturbed me, that you feel as though your identity is being controlled or manipulated by others (“Turning the lesbian sexuality into an identity anyone can try...”) but you are willing to “police” Trans people’s identity, your literature will refer to them as “mutilated men” and other slurs; controlling their ontology. 

Is this not the similar problem you have the Radfems? They would police you for not being “ideologically pure enough”? creating a criteria for your identity? 

“Feminist history is rife with racism and homophobia, but so many feminists still act confused when women who are informed on sociopolitical issues refuse to be associated with it.” was your initial post, which caught my eye because as a Feminist, who is well aware of the history from which feminism came from but can still take value from it’s evolution, I was worried I had missed something? 

I wholeheartedly disagree. The most PC way to go about feminism nowadays is to tell lesbians that we are wrong and not inclusive enough because we are homosexual. Then turn around and tell black women (as well as other woc) that we have succumbed to "white feminism" by acknowledging the biological reality of being female.

@mecha-nismo​

The current wave and intersectional theory have been written by WOC and lesbians, they are integral to feminism. I cannot find, or know of Academic writing of feminist theory that has claimed that “ lesbians are wrong” and claimed that homosexuality makes one not inclusive enough. 

“acknowledging the biological reality of being female” I think most feminists are reticent because to create a rubric of “being female” because it would push out/away many who are female, but do not meet some sort of strict criteria that others force upon them.  

https://www.mediafire.com/file/buja0d9t8laliuq/Sespursongles_2016-2018.pdf/file

This pdf has the writings of a very knowledgable lesbian poster (who's since deactivated). She covers how liberal feminism, radical feminism, and other political groups (such as trans activists) have affected lesbian women.

Idk if either of you are homosexual women. But there's plenty of us who have blogs detailing why current sociopolitical groups are not welcoming to lesbians. As in, actual homosexual females who are exclusively attracted to the same sex and are not obligated to force an attraction to males for the sake of being inclusive and open.

On racism and diminishing the experience of being a black female:

This isn't about how a black woman created the concept of intersectionality. It's about black women and other woc are being silenced (just like white women) when we speak on being women (i.e. female). It is primarily liberal feminists who support this since they, along with trans activists, do not like to acknowledge the differences between existing as a male vs existing as a female in a heteropatriarchal world.

For example, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a black feminist, was ridiculed for simply pointing out that being biologically female is a different reality than being a male who identifies as a woman. People claimed that she was speaking from a Western, first-world point of view. As if millions of WOC within and outside of Western countries don't face oppression due to our femaleness.

I skimmed a 160 page document; reading choice chapters. 

Lets start here; from your previous post: “who are exclusively attracted to the same sex and are not obligated to force an attraction to males for the sake of being inclusive and open.“

I don’t think anyone should be forced to be attracted to anyone they aren’t. It begs the question: who is doing the forcing? I genuinely don’t understand...legislation? If one doesn’t want to engage with someone romantically or sexually than they don’t seek engagement? We are not talking about sexual assault in this case or rape; we are only discussing this claim that online liberal feminists shame or harass Lesbian women who don’t want to date trans women? 

I find it interesting that you are apposed to feminism; or view it’s historical infractions as indefensible; but so much of the “Ses purs ongles” reads like views similar to Second-wave feminism. 

Correct me if I’m wrong; but is this not Gender Essentialism? The author does place a lot of emphasis on a rigid taxonomy of gender. This is very inline with Social conservative thinking? It feels quite inline with gender views expounded by fundamentalist religious groups.

I mean, despite your feeling towards the trans community; I’m making some assumptions because of the literature your promoting; but, I don’t think I know any trans people who don’t believe Lesbians exist; but the other seems to attack the very existence of Trans people; a lot this cuts phenomenologically.

I mean I have great respect for Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. It needs to be said though: Trans-women, those assigned male at birth, can’t be reduced or dismissed because they might have received male-privilege before transitioning...do you know many transwomen? Because if you knew the transwomen I know, I can’t imagine anyone claiming that they have reaped the benefits of male privilege. And, I mean, the systemic facts are there; however much of this abstract privilege is horded; it would evaporate the moment transitioning occurs... I find it very ironic that Chimamanda promotes an idea of a multifaceted narrative, not one story; but talking about transwomen she seems unable to get past this idea of transwomen male privilege, it is her log line when addressing the topic. 

If you feel attacked because of your views; I would ask you then to think of all the transwomen doxxed by Cathy Brennan. Discourse is ugly on the internet. And this has been very educational for me, but I did read the majority of a manifesto thinking I would find something more nuanced and interesting than basically a Lesbian version of Ben Shapiro’s talking points, you know his whole “facts don’t care about your feelings.”

I wholeheartedly disagree. The most PC way to go about feminism nowadays is to tell lesbians that we are wrong and not inclusive enough because we are homosexual. Then turn around and tell black women (as well as other woc) that we have succumbed to "white feminism" by acknowledging the biological reality of being female.

@mecha-nismo​

The current wave and intersectional theory have been written by WOC and lesbians, they are integral to feminism. I cannot find, or know of Academic writing of feminist theory that has claimed that “ lesbians are wrong” and claimed that homosexuality makes one not inclusive enough. 

“acknowledging the biological reality of being female” I think most feminists are reticent because to create a rubric of “being female” because it would push out/away many who are female, but do not meet some sort of strict criteria that others force upon them.  

“ Individual white women who had attempted to organize the movement around the banner of common oppression evoking the notion that women constituted a sexual class/caste were the most reluctant to acknowledge differences among the women, differences that overshadowed all common experiences females shared. Race was the most obvious difference.” 

“When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word “oppression” is being stressed to meaninglessness...”   

“Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer.” 

“...it becomes obvious that not everything which frustrates or limits a person is oppressive, and not every harm or damage is due to or contributes to oppression.” 

From an intersectional lenses, a sis, straight, able-bodied, neuro-typical, white, male has been privileged from the sheer fact that the systems where made by them, for them. They are not an oppressed group, there isn’t legislation passed to reduce their autonomy.