106
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
106 points (100.0% liked)
anti_cishet_aktion
2620 readers
1 users here now
A space for LGBTQIA+ people to express themselves.
RULES
-
Familiarize yourself with the site-wide Code of Conduct
-
Be nice to each other, no bigotry of any kind
Bigotry includes transphobia, homophobia, aphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. Hold each other accountable. If you see something, say something. -
Don't link to transphobia
Please don't link to transphobia (or other bigotry), even if your personal intent is to challenge the bigotry in some way. Provide a content warning label in the title of your post where applicable. -
Be dank; don't be not-dank
No liberalism, capitalist apologia, imperialism, etc. -
Harassment
Cyber-stalking, harassment, and all other forms of threatening another comrade will result in removal.
Threatening, inciting violence, and promoting harm to another comrade shall result in removal. -
No sexually explicit content
As badly as some of us want to get saucy here, do not post sexually-explicit content that could reveal your personal or confidential information. Until there is a way this could be safely executed, all sexually-explicit posts will be removed to keep our comrades safe. -
Do not post NSFL Content
It will be removed. -
We are not a crisis service
We can't guarantee an immediate response. This does not mean no one cares. If you need to talk to someone at once, you may want to take a look at this directory of Hotline Numbers.
If you need help but don’t feel comfortable making a post for any reason, please message the moderators. We will be glad to talk with you privately, or help in any other way that we can.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
That's just a matter of LGBT rights shifting from same sex attraction to gender stuff. A rationalist argument against homosexuality doesn't really work as well as a religious one and a religious argument against gender is flimsy at best.
Rationalism isn't rational. It's like race science - they come up with ideological/religious beliefs, conjure up a fake science to support it, and successfully trick everyone into believing them because it's science. Rationalist homophobia concerns itself with gay genes, the necessity of reproduction, and evolutionary sociology. Rationalist transphobia in the 21st century pretends that what human societies call sex is the same as what geneticists call sex. It also borrows a lot of sexist "sex science" if you will from the 20th and 19th centuries about male and female brains and physiques.
Do you have any book recommendations on the "rationalist" movement? I know too many people with EA/rational type brain works and I want to get some good books to counter their BS
No I don't sorry. Keep me updated if you find any.
wedgie
The distinction between sex in a biological context and sex in a social context is narrow enough for a convincing argument to be made and it's not hard how people fall into that line of thinking. It's less of 19th century "sex science" and more of modern science without looking too deeply at edge and corner cases.
They're not edge or corner cases. What we consider male and female is socially constructed around presumed reproductive roles. This is the biological component. Every human society in existence would presume my sex is female because I am phenotypically female. Only a geneticist would add the caveat that I'm karyotypically male (if I even am - who the fuck knows cause even in the 21st century we don't do chromosome testing at birth). Let me also remind you that the gender/sex distinction is historically new! Most human societies would agree that I have changed my sex. It's only in the 20th and 21st century that people would dispute that, because the idea that sociological sex and biological sexes (whether it's genetic or reproductice or something else) are the same has become widely accepted. Speaking of birth sexing, sexes are socially assigned at birth according to genitals. This is why intersex babies get "corrected." Yet not all intersex conditions are obvious by looking at genitals. What would you call a condition that causes "females" to have "male" secondary sex characteristics? That's an intersex condition. Yet PCOS does this in up to a fifth of some female populations yet society does not consider it an intersex condition. Because patriarchal society insists upon the sorting of everyone into a sex binary (an immutable one at that, nowadays - a clear reaction against transhood) despite it clearly being bimodal and malleable. The body is artificially sexed. Women are not naturally hairless, yet body hair is considered male. The everyday Mesoamerican woman was as ripped as a professional kayaker from all the corn grinding she did, but the female sex is seen as dainty. The anti-trans movement wants to ban trans women from chess, darts, and Jeopardy! What is this if not 19th century sex science claiming women have inferior intelligence and motor skills?! Finally, let me remind you that humans are capable of generalized labor, and are thus able to change their environment. As a result, we have created exogenous hormones and sex reassignment surgeries. Trans people could change their sociological sex centuries ago. Now they can change their phenotypical sex. It is only a matter of time before we start growing reproductive organs from our own cells and having them surgically implanted. Nature is unjust, but we can change our nature!
Trans people are edge and corner cases when it comes to current popular definitions of gender. For 99% of people there is no difference between their sex and gender which is my point. Most rationalist transphobia comes from people not looking at edge cases because a traditional definition of sex such as which gametes does someone produce or what genitals they have work for 99% people. With the chess case it's a little more complicated than that because women's cheese leauges started as a means to provide women a space with a smaller competitive pool and fast-track women to the upper echelons of the sport and then believing trans women threatened that pipeline; it didn't necessarily come from a belief that women were inferior and women's chess leagues were seen as a means to make the sport more popular to girls, like what motorsports are doing today. And yes, gender is a means of oppression and weaponized impractically.