The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Stellar Colonies]

-Amazon feminism. Just national rights and culture.
-Analytical feminism. Bourgeois individualism.
-Anarcha-feminism. Anarchist.
-Atheist feminism. Denounciation of machismo in religions.

Ethnic, they're not real trends just how they relate to ethnicities:
-Black Feminism, Chicana feminism.

Religious feminism based in theology, they're provable false religions, but if they were real their gods should still have to be overthrown for being socdems/liberals/conservatives, that means, they didn't seek to program a free world and relied on the "free will" of the people to justify their divine nature:
-Islamic feminism, Jewish feminism, Christian feminism, Mormon feminism, Sikh feminism, New feminism.

-Conservative feminism. When your uncle calls himself feminist to "integrate" in the family as a last resource to hide his machismo.
-Cultural feminism. Essentialism.
-Cyber feminism. Futuristic gender abolitionism with morphological freedom.
-Difference feminism. Essentialism, strenghtens gender roles as natural.
-Ecofeminism. Idealist, they just mix two concepts together and try hard to reconciliate them.
-Equity and Gender Feminism. Just rightism, antifeminism, denying oppression of women.
-Fat feminism. Ill-informed people about fatness, the problem isn't accepting fat people here, the problem if glorification of bad habits with pseudoscience.
-French feminism. No comment.
-Global feminism. No comment.
-Hip-hop feminism. Not a real trend, how can we call a trend just because the message is spread through a genre of music?
Individualist feminism. Rightism, but to the right of socdem individualism, extreme capitalist liberalism.
-Lesbian feminism. Unrelated.
-Lipstick feminism. No comment.
-Liberal feminism. Reformism, individualism, old, unfinished critique, idealist and even "ancap sex tendencies".
-Material feminism. Taken by revisionists.
-Marxist feminism. Taken by eurocommunist revisionists.
-Networked feminism. There are better uses of collective organization.
-Neofeminism. Conservatism, strenghtens essentialism and gender roles.
-Postcolonial feminism. Not a real trend.
-Postmodern feminism. Catch-all label.
-Post-structural feminism. It needs to recognize that discrimination based in body is real independently of if we know it's false or shouldn't exist.
-Pro-feminism. The identitarian pitch enhances conservative women "just because they're women".
-Pro-life feminism. Rightism.
-Radical feminism. TERFism.
-Separatist feminism. Impatience and hopelessness for the goals.
-Sex-positive feminism. The problem is that both sex negative and sex positive feminism are bad in their own way. The reason is that they isolate the industrial sex practices from capitalism, thus they either reach to permissive conclusions of aggression (sex positive) or oppressive conclusions of voluntary and harmless acts (sex negative).
-Socialist feminism. Taken by revisionists.
-Standpoint feminism. Sometimes it can enhance conservative women through identitarianism.
-State feminism. Not a real trend.
-Structuralist feminism. Underplays the role of leaderships.
-Third Wave Feminism. Catch-all label.
-Transfeminism. It'd need to be mixed with class struggle and national liberation, but class is still the principal one because it determines the whole ideological structure which "trickles down" to all society. Some of them also reject abolitionism, after looking at those who look for their "services" it's clear it's just liberalism and "economically planned women" would be an old mentality and weird to propose in a classless society.
-Transnational feminism. Downplays the importance of class equating it with other axes. Partialization of struggle.

The thread spreads bourgeois feminism and it can be seen in such names of the orgs like "business", "financial", etc. They just seek to enrich themselves like men do but it's the same selfish mentality that keeps this system of exploitation going on. This isn't surprising, the sufragettes, the feminist movement emerged as bourgeois and we're still capitalism, some want to deceive the people to fight for exploiter queens and the rich. Actually the feminist term emerged as derogatory because "women were trying to benefit women more than men" in the eyes of Alexandre Dumas instead of Fourier.

The bourgeoisie distorts the 8 day, saying "women's day". But actually it's the working women day, proposed by the leninist Clara Zetkin.
Capitalism consisted in making woman a complement of men in the house, subjugating intellectually women to the will of men and economically too through this division of work.

MRAs negate the historical structure of capitalism and its ideological masks in their role of subjugating women. They then point out individual cases of abuses against men and even structural ones like the deaths in the army. But all those "deaths" were created by the same structure inherited by a development of religion as ideology and the power of men, they created all those, the "men don't cry" is still an issue of being putting down the oppressive structure against women and not just a "men association against abuses". So, the role of MRAs is rightist and conservative even if they try to paint themselves as "pro-feminist"; because radicals already address that and know it originates from the same system which says women should do chores and "be flowers" while men have "to be tanks". Both the sanctification of toxic masculinity and "female weakness" are just faces of conservatism and rightism. If the male has been abused there's no need to push a whole "movement" and which is reserved only to men. A comrade of any kind, no matter the gender, can support the abused male; as well as if the abused one was a women, but the role of association in the latter is still "progressive" so to speak, even if it delays revolution through partialization of struggle, since the historically subjugation of women still exist, and that subjugation includes marking men as weak, it's inside the same struggle.

Sounds like what I told my friends. All these young black and brown youth wanna get the money to get power but that perpetuates the capitalist system. I on the other hand want to equalize society. Fuck "the first woman wallstreet executive" because the goal should be a more equal society for all and not a ruling class that looks a little more diverse.

Yep, can't fix oppression by having some of those part of groups repressed by their own form of it have the opportunity to be on top.

Doesn't solve the underlying problem of oppression by those on top harming men, women, non-straights, blacks, whites, all the different groups which have brown skin, etc.

[Ostroeuropa]

On feminist terminology and stuff like "Toxic masculinity";

Some groundwork to try and break through to "Real feminists" here. There are people who hate men and are "Feminists", but you claim they are not "Real" feminists, this is an important thing to keep in mind for this point.

If the term isn't harmful, and the excuses used in favor of it are right, then why are so many people who want to hurt men eager to use those excuses too and like using the term, and why don't men seem convinced?

It's like if there was a project to end racism that just so happened to contain a bunch of neo-nazis working alongside people who genuinely wanted to end racism, and it kept coming up with terms like "Black Thugitude" to spam everywhere.
I know you think you have a reasonable definition of that word. It largely doesn't matter, because you're still associating with a bunch of people you know are hateful, and they seem to like your movement and enjoy being in it just as much as you do.

Have you ever wondered why that's the case?

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using a bunch of terminology people who I know for a fact hate black people also use with glee, while multiple black people routinely told me it was offensive. Most "Real" Feminists who 'don't hate men' for some reason seem to routinely lack this basic level of self-awareness of how they are behaving.

https://zenodo.org/record/3871217#

(Study showing that men are almost universally offended by this term and think it is harmful).
Maybe side with men instead of being on the same side as people you know are trying to hurt them for once. Believe men.

This problem expands out to a number of other feminist excuse making for their terminology and praxis. The question you need to ask yourselves is, if it was really an equality movement, and if you acknowledge there are feminists who hate men, why do both you and they agree on so much? Why do they enjoy repeating the same excuses you do? Why do people who hate men decide "I will use feminist arguments, feminist terminology, call myself a feminist and so on, to enact my hatred of men.".

What is it about what you do that appeals to that sort of person and makes them want to emulate you? Have you ever bothered to wonder? Or might that get uncomfortably close to realizing that people who keep telling you you are being sexist were right, and the only difference between "fake" feminists and "real" feminists, is the fake ones have self-awareness?

Like the difference between someone who earnestly believes in racist biology, and someone using it as a means to harm minorities. The former writing off the latter as "Obviously just a racist, because their mask keeps slipping and the keep using the N word.".

…

Right.

But why are the racists copying you? Why is that what they decided was a good idea?

For misandrists, it's because they want to hurt men, are aware of this, and can see what you're doing just like the rest of us can. You're being sexists, because feminism is a sexist framework to view the world through. The only people who don't understand this, is you.

Anti-feminists get it, and so do "fake" feminists.

Again. The people who set out to find a way to hurt men, who you acknowledge hate them, are copying you.

That should immediately cause some self-reflection, but doesn't appear to have.

You are still ultimately "Doing Sexism", even if you're not aware of it, and maybe you should reflect on that possibility and what it says about how you behave that people who you acknowledge have "Sexist souls" copy your behavior. If you find yourself in that position, maybe listen to the MRM more on why what you are doing is harmful without resorting to a cycle of excuse making and rationalizations.

Like, to drive this home,

Imagine your spouse is telling you you are abusive, but you refuse to accept that is true, because you always have *reasons* and *excuses* for the way you behave, and those *reasons* and *excuses* make sense to you afterall, and that's what matters, right?

Maybe you're right, maybe you're right.

Now imagine someone who openly abuses their spouse and says they enjoy it. Now imagine they take a liking to you, and start treating their spouse the same way you do, while still occasionally admitting they enjoy hurting their spouse. You don't like their company, because after all, you're not an abuser like them. It doesn't stop them actively taking notes from observing your treatment of your spouse.

Does this raise alarm bells? Does it perhaps suggest that you were in fact abusive, and it was your own ego and fear of changing your attitude that prevented you from confronting that fact about yourself?

Apparently not. Nothing to worry about at all.

[Auze]

I’ll be honest, was half expecting there to just not be a fourth feminism thread. Glad to be proven wrong, I guess.

[Ostroeuropa]

I’ll be honest, was half expecting there to just not be a fourth feminism thread. Glad to be proven wrong, I guess.

I long for the day when there are no more feminism threads, anywhere.

[Rojava Free State]

Iran's sure been having a lot of honor killings recently. I'll tell you this, I can't believe there are places on this earth so barbaric and twisted that women's lives dont matter enough to ban women murdering.

"But it's for honor" they say. They lack so much self awareness that they don't even realize that to the rest of mankind and probably to many of the people within their own country, there is no honor in murdering a young woman for bullshit reasons.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

Whooh, I can already tell where this is going.

[Ostroeuropa]

Between 2000 and 2018, the number of men having no sex aged between 18 and 24, and 25 to 35 increased sharply. The number of women aged 18 to 24 who have no sex decreased.

What are the causes?
What are the implications?

[Giovenith]

Iran's sure been having a lot of honor killings recently. I'll tell you this, I can't believe there are places on this earth so barbaric and twisted that women's lives dont matter enough to ban women murdering.

"But it's for honor" they say. They lack so much self awareness that they don't even realize that to the rest of mankind and probably to many of the people within their own country, there is no honor in murdering a young woman for bullshit reasons.

That's the obvious reaction.

The things in dispute are the origins of this behavior and what we can, or more commonly should, do about it.

[Prosa]

Between 2000 and 2018, the number of men having no sex aged between 18 and 24, and 25 to 35 increased sharply. The number of women aged 18 to 24 who have no sex decreased.

What are the causes?
What are the implications?

This is likely because of the rise of dating and ‘hookup’ apps such as Tinder. Though I myself am a woman, I will admit that we have many advantages over men while using those services.

[Ostroeuropa]

Between 2000 and 2018, the number of men having no sex aged between 18 and 24, and 25 to 35 increased sharply. The number of women aged 18 to 24 who have no sex decreased.

What are the causes?
What are the implications?

This is likely because of the rise of dating and ‘hookup’ apps such as Tinder. Though I myself am a woman, I will admit that we have many advantages over men while using those services.

That doesn't explain why the results are skewed. I have a more cynical take, but give your own if you want.



Well, the findings suggest women are sleeping with a smaller subset of men.

There's also studies on how women, including feminists, find traditionally masculine men more attractive as well as studies showing that more and more millennial men are more feminine and comfortable with femininity.

I'll consider these studies in conjunction, and cover several perspectives.

The implications relate to the rise of red pill and incel philosophies, and the suggestion that women are essentially gaslighting men, to separate those stupid enough to pay attention to what women say from those who won't, using the ones who listen to women as resources and sleeping with the ones who don't. Essentially the theory revolves around women engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to enact a societal wide cuckoldery of western men.

This is obviously ridiculous when the "deliberate" part is examined.

The more relevant question is whether the underlying dynamics remain the case even if women aren't consciously aware they are doing this, and the secondary question of whether that ignorance is in some sense deliberate. (Like refusing to understand they are hurting people because it benefits them to be in denial of it).

In terms of the common kneejerk response from women trying to save their ego from dealing with this criticism, that men are not entitled to sex, the grievance leveled here is that women are instructing men to be feminine, and then sleeping with men who don't do this. Essentially, the crux of the anger is the decades long gaslighting campaign women have engaged in.

In effect, sleep with who you want, but shut up about feminism, don't pretend to us that you don't find masculinity attractive. The problem there being that if women agreed to that, most men would stop paying attention to them and revert to masculine behaviors and attitudes. It is argued that this is against womens material interests, that they benefit socially and financially from feminine men existing and are fine with using a small group of masculine men for their sexual needs, and this is why they keep up the current dynamic, in effect sacrificing mens wellbeing and happiness for their own benefit, because to admit the truth means they could no longer gaslight and con men into being feminine when it is not in mens interests. (And men place a great deal of value on sex. Awareness of these dynamics would adjust many mens behaviors).

The underlying dynamic there is ultimately true. If a man cares about sex, he should understand that he should not pay attention to the things women say on this topic, that they are setting him up for failure and so on. It is argued that women are on some level aware of this, and so gaslight men in order to continue to have feminine men around, even though they find them less attractive. It's from this that the sense of anger in these communities arises. That the men are essentially being mentally abused into standing by and letting other men, men who don't put up with that abuse and internalize it, sleep with women, before eventually those women settle down with the first man.

We'll get onto womens "Awareness" in a bit.

A secondary examination is whether this phenomanae is due to womens biological nature, or a result of the way they have constructed their identity and how they view men.

In terms of biology, several studies indicate that when women are ovulating, their attraction to masculine men increases. There's good evidence for biological correlations, but they are not conclusive. However, this also ignores the fundamental source of grievance articulated, the gaslighting element. Whether women are biologically more attracted to masculine men is not relevant compared to the question of whether they are biologically inclined to deception of this kind, and I don't think the evidence there is anywhere near as compelling.

So then, it comes down to sociology.

I would suggest that feminism has been wholly inadequate in deconstructing womens sexism to men, and has in many ways entrenched and expanded it. This is why despite men being more feminine, women do not consider them viable partners, and on some level, do not even really consider them viable human beings. I would suggest that feminists and women, when they have articulated the need for men to be more feminine, have only really done so because they feel it benefits women materially to do so, not for mens interests, and not because women will actually like them more as people. They on some level dislike men or view them as lesser for being feminine. It is not out of a desire to see more feminine men for its own sake therefore, but rather, because they believe that having more feminine men will benefit women. This is hardly egalitarian in spirit.

Onto "Awareness.".

It is very difficult to make someone acknowledge something if it is in their interests not to acknowledge it. The drive to find alternative explanations, excuses, or lash out is often there. Further, the damage to womens view of themselves and their ego prevents acknowledging it. Criticism of womanhood and femininity and how feminism has distorted it into giving women blind spots of the way they are damaging others is often not tolerated, and noting how feminism is *measurably and provably inadequate, since feminists still find masculine men more attractive* is not something women are prepared to hear, again because of the aforementioned problems of the fragile feminine ego.

So what is feminism? It is a series of rationalizations, excuses, and so on to advance womens interests. Not equality. This is why women who internalize it nonetheless still view feminine men as lesser.

Onto the question of what we do it about it.

Frankly, I am beyond caring about reaching out to women or getting them to change. They're not going to when it isn't in their interest to, and the pretense at wanting equality rather than the ruthless pursuit of their own interest is just that, a pretense, a lie they tell themselves to protect their egos and identities, bolstered by that set of rationalizations, double standards, and nonsense about how their own self-interest is the same thing as equality which we call feminism. Only a minority will be able to come to terms with it and change.

The persistent lie men have been told in order to benefit women has generated a considerable amount of anger in these communities.

It's why I don't really care if incels or red pillers are misogynist to women.

And once again, to deflect the kneejerk ego saving response of "You're not entitled to sex", right, but you're entitled to be angry at people who lie to you for their own benefit, sacrificing your happiness for theirs. However their suggestion that men should adopt masculinity in response ignores the downsides of masculinity and how destructive it is for mens wellbeing.

(Incidentally, for all the shit feminists throw out about how the male sexuality is terrible, think about how womens sexuality essentially finds men self-destructing to be arousing.).

So then, the MRM solution for men is to have private male spaces where we can engage in feminine behavior, to understand that we need to perform masculinity in front of women to get sex, to understand that when women say they like feminine men they are often trying to rig the social environment in their favor and will not sleep with those men, and be done with it.

Does anyone disagree?

[Tahar Joblis]

I don't think she is becoming TERF, I think she has been TERF all the time, she just express her views now more.

Probably. Probably now that trans issues have become so prominent, that side of people can't help but come out.

Hopefully though, I think that TERFs will eventually go the way of the "lavender menace" from the second wave, back when the feminist mainstream thought that lesbians were the big "threat to womanhood." Ironically, a lot of TERFs that I encounter are proud lesbians themselves, the kind of radical, holier-than-thou, "our love is not tainted with the filth of man" types. Just goes to show that unfortunately, being oppressed yourself doesn't necessarily make you empathize with the oppression of others, as most people seem to hope. Humans will grab onto anything to make themselves feel superior to others, even if it's painfully ironic or hypocritical.

Makes you wonder though, who's going to be the next target once TERF'ing goes out of style? *big think*

I think TERFs are going to come back very shortly.

Not because they were right in the first place, but because ideological activism related to transgender issues has reached a truly weird - and toxic - place.

J.K. Rowling is largely correct in what she says is true in her essay. It's worth noting, double-underlining, and triple-underlining the fact that she is not taking the kind of position that Robin Morgan did.

This is what Robin Morgan said about a transwoman musician at a feminist conference:

I charge him as an opportunist, an infiltrator, and a destroyer—with the mentality of a rapist. And you women at this Conference know who he is. Now. You can let him into your workshops—or you can deal with him.

Morgan literally incited violence against a transwoman for political purposes. Now, compare.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

Now, what Rowling wants here isn't actually that controversial if we break it down.

She wants women's private spaces, e.g., bathrooms, changing rooms, et cetera to maintain restricted access. She doesn't want a man to simply say "I identify as a woman now" and walk in; that's one thing that motivates her ire:

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one.

And, to be perfectly blunt, unless we actually provide individually locked bathrooms, changing rooms, et cetera (which, frankly, I like, but would cost a bit in renovations), she has a real point with that. There are people who will cheerfully declare themselves to be a man, woman, or pineapple in order to have unfettered access to naked people in a vulnerable position, and the main point of having things like separate changing rooms, bathrooms, et cetera for men and women is to preserve gendered privacy. Self-identification is not an effective barrier to bad actors.

She also has a real point when she says that teens are being encouraged to transition on the basis of shoddy science.

Most of the older science on transsexuality is extremely limited by the small sample size and questionable methodology.. Most newer science is extremely limited by political considerations (c.f. the controversy over Tuvel's paper in Hypatia on transracialism), still fairly small sample sizes, and questionable methodology.

The fact that there's been a huge and dramatic escalation in teen trans identification is alarming, in that we have very little understanding of what's actually going on.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

It's not at all clear that the new wave of teen girls transitioning socially into boys (or genderfluid or androgynous identities) has much in common with previous individuals identified as trans, as a population.

It is not at all clear that early medical transition of teens is beneficial. Or even early social transition of teens. What's worse, we aren't allowed to do the science to figure this out. Trans activists are at this point vigorously opposed to any finding that calls their current preferred narratives into question, which has presented real obstacles to publication, evaluation, and even funding of research.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

Right now, we're in a situation where trans policy activism has run far ahead of available science, and we are effectively performing an uncontrolled experiment on minors.

The scientist in me cringes at the fact that we aren't even at least collecting good data during this natural experiment; the philosopher in me cringes at the fact that we haven't collectively considered the consequences carefully before forging ahead into uncharted territory with human subjects.

Then we have the wing of trans activism dedicated to shaming people for having genital preferences in partners, which ultimately represents an incorrect refutation of the idea of the existence of people who are in fact heterosexual or homosexual and not capable of choosing what they are sexually attracted to. This is a situation where trans activists can be seen visibly engaged in a lot of bad behavior.

When we're in a situation where trans activists - as opposed to transpeople themselves - are forging ahead into highly questionable territory, both by obstructing scientific investigation, pushing inadequately investigated treatment on minors with permanent effects, and denying the existence of uncontrolled sexual orientation, it's probably inevitable that violently intolerant TERFs like Robin Morgan will be buoyed back up.

I, too, once thought that TERFs were doomed. Today, i think that TERFs are probably coming back.

[Minskiev]

This looks more like a summer reading project than a geopolitical messaging site...

Not to hate, or whatever. You are all just...dedicated. Good luck?

[Giovenith]

This looks more like a summer reading project

Well, maybe we that would do us all some good. Especially during the lockdowns.

[New haven america]

Between 2000 and 2018, the number of men having no sex aged between 18 and 24, and 25 to 35 increased sharply. The number of women aged 18 to 24 who have no sex decreased.

What are the causes?
What are the implications?

Causes: The average woman has an easier ability to get sex than the average man.
Implications: The average man is viewed as less attractive, in demand, or perceived as possessing a greater risk factor than the average woman.

This isn't new, OKQupid released this data almost a decade ago...

[Minskiev]

This looks more like a summer reading project

Well, maybe we that would do us all some good. Especially during the lockdowns.

Yeah, rereading and rewatching will probably be a good chunk of my spent time.

[Giovenith]

Well, maybe we that would do us all some good. Especially during the lockdowns.

Yeah, rereading and rewatching will probably be a good chunk of my spent time.

I like to use GoodReads to keep track of my reading progress and personal challenges. Very useful site.

[Minskiev]

Hmm. I know this definitely isn’t the right thread, but how come some people’s Founded: Date say Antiquity even though you’ve been here longer and yours doesn’t?

And never mind, I misread 2012 as 2002. Is there a date though?

[Giovenith]

Hmm. I know this definitely isn’t the right thread, but how come some people’s Founded: Date say Antiquity even though you’ve been here longer and yours doesn’t?

And never mind, I misread 2012 as 2002. Is there a date though?

Better to ask Technical.

[Minskiev]

Alright, it’s before late November 2003. Wow.

[Ostroeuropa]

Between 2000 and 2018, the number of men having no sex aged between 18 and 24, and 25 to 35 increased sharply. The number of women aged 18 to 24 who have no sex decreased.

What are the causes?
What are the implications?

Causes: The average woman has an easier ability to get sex than the average man.
Implications: The average man is viewed as less attractive, in demand, or perceived as possessing a greater risk factor than the average woman.

This isn't new, OKQupid released this data almost a decade ago...

The data from those was dating apps and so on.
This is from population surveys, slightly more rigorous and includes all dating contexts.

Why do women have sex easier than men? + Why did they start sleeping with fewer men between those years?

Implications: Yes, but why, and what impact will this have on society?

[VVerkia]

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

Not male but AMAB, Not girl, but AFAB

It's not at all clear that the new wave of teen girls transitioning socially into boys (or genderfluid or androgynous identities) has much in common with previous individuals identified as trans, as a population.

Not girl, but AFAB

It is not at all clear that early medical transition of teens is beneficial. Or even early social transition of teens.

It can be good in term of "better life". It can be bad in term of "reproduction" (until "human" wouldn't can choose own sex dimorphism and not have chosen by biology, society, computers or other kind of "power". Just like some kind of animals, that can change own sex during lifetime). Some teens can resign from "reproduction" and regret in later time, that they can't do it. Others can resign without regret. Others can have problem with that choice. That's why education on this topic is necessary to that peoples. (I was in regret, that i can't "reproduce" (because in past i just wanted to live with family, as wife, as mother, starting it with other people,), but i just can't do it with that body without hurting myself. In marriage i run away from sex activity. I have mentality (that i can bare being hurt in some ways), that at least, i could try, but for me it was awful and i couldn't even understand how "males" can do it and like it. If i have female body since start of my life, then i wouldn't have big problem with that kind of activity. Now i just don't want "reproduce" etc. stuff.)

It's not at all clear that the new wave of teen girls transitioning socially into boys (or genderfluid or androgynous identities) has much in common with previous individuals identified as trans, as a population.

It is not at all clear that early medical transition of teens is beneficial. Or even early social transition of teens. What's worse, we aren't allowed to do the science to figure this out. Trans activists are at this point vigorously opposed to any finding that calls their current preferred narratives into question, which has presented real obstacles to publication, evaluation, and even funding of research.

J. K. Rowling wrote:
The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans

I don't identify as trans, it's just label of my story. I identify as female. And i can't be persuaded to not be female.

Possible variations that can be applied to any individual, but it's not answer, that "all teens are from group 1 or x". Some teens can be in 1 group, some, can be in x group.
1. Someone isn't cis and not identify as society see or frame that S.
2. S. isn't sure about ownselve and search for answer
3. S. is sure about ownself, but seek for acceptance of group or make it because it is trendy
4. S. just trolling or rebel

Why it could be massive?
1. Knowledge about it is more popular
2. Lgbt topics isn't as scary as earlier
3. Other factors

Describing it as contagion, plague can be "imaginative" but also dehumanizing someone experiences of ownself. Feminism, that free women from "patriarchal societes" can also be seen as "contagion". But analogical, when some females don't wont to make standard "social roles" that society "requires" from her, from "traditional pov" it can be seen as dangerous, risky, destroying order etc. From my pov, both traditional and not traditional "roles" are valid, as long, as they are matching they feeling, thoughts, choices. I'm not either conservationist nor revolutionist.

Right now, we're in a situation where trans policy activism has run far ahead of available science, and we are effectively performing an uncontrolled experiment on minors.

The scientist in me cringes at the fact that we aren't even at least collecting good data during this natural experiment; the philosopher in me cringes at the fact that we haven't collectively considered the consequences carefully before forging ahead into uncharted territory with human subjects.

I don't like experiments on humans.
I choose longer road instead of easiest and faster. I try "living as opposite gender" - which mean, i hide myself, and do nothing, not say a word about my trans problems until 2017. It was constant harming, cowardice, fear, internal lgbtphobia. I do it in hope, that "in afterlife" or "if i reborn", then maybe i can be normal girl, not imprisoned with that kind of body in which i reside. Then i regret lost years. After i come out, i choose "full diagnosis" instead of starting taking hrt from source, that i recognized somehow as not legal or not that moral as i feel.

At first month, i don't understood terminology, new words etc. I was insecure if i'm trans (having label trans isn't same as identifying as female) or not and did i "have rights" do change sex. What i only know that i have bad past, that i struggle with that problems since childhood, i don't like being seen as "male" and wanting to be seen as "female", and simply be "normal female". I have blockade in myself, and simply i never could accept "male", "man" as me, because it's horribly false (I felt bad, when i accept roman catholic marriage, but i don't had that kind of blockade in that time, because it had nothing with myself. In religious terms i simply agreed with others even, if i don't feel myself in it - again, because of fear and some kind of "external manipulations" eg. i can't be part of some kind of religion if i truly don't believe in it and i don't make conscious decision (child's baptism isn't conscious choice and i even can't tell did i really was baptised:P) - yeah, i'm horrible someone).

It took me 1,5 year of official diagnosis way to obtain receipt and finally 1,7 year of official diagnosis, when i started taking hrt. It was 2 years after i come out. I was horribly stressed, that it took so many month, and after 1,5 y after come out, i was literally in crisis that i must do another examinations and still can't take hrt. So after that 2 y since coming out, i regret, that i lost another months. During "court time" episode i also chose rather hard way, and made own writ based on online template, instead of hiring lawyer. I don't regret it, but maybe i will regret it in future, because i don't know and understand "laws" so someone can have advantage on me if someone have evil intentions.

Then we have the wing of trans activism dedicated to shaming people for having genital preferences in partners, which ultimately represents an incorrect refutation of the idea of the existence of people who are in fact heterosexual or homosexual and not capable of choosing what they are sexually attracted to. This is a situation where trans activists can be seen visibly engaged in a lot of bad behavior.

I can see problem from not ts pov. Some peoples can have sex with other person, who have same kind of genital and not accept nb, or trans without operations. Others can would have relations with other person AND be almost sure, that they could procreate and with ts peoples sometimes it isn't possible. I don't shame if someone doesn't want to make relationship due to that kind of complications. It's just sad for me, that two peoples could fall in love and that relation could be destroyed on that basis. However it doesn't make sense in situations, when someone fall in love not recognizing someone as ts, destroy relation, because with ts, that someone don't make child - because that someone can't be even sure if with cis it could be possible due to complications either that someone or cis. In that way that someone could search and change and destroy relations with anyone if child is priority.

[Ostroeuropa]

So we can start off with this if you want Purgatio.

https://www.academia.edu/33839193/Thirt ... _Treatment


This is one example of how it is misandry that has caused the erasure of male victims of domestic violence from statistics.

[Purgatio]

So we can start off with this if you want Purgatio.

https://www.academia.edu/33839193/Thirt ... _Treatment


This is one example of how it is misandry that has caused the erasure of male victims of domestic violence from statistics.

Okay thanks, let me just outline why I think the concept of VAW is both fair, and necessary in light of the official statistics on DV and rape/sexual violence (in the next post).

[Ostroeuropa]

So we can start off with this if you want Purgatio.

https://www.academia.edu/33839193/Thirt ... _Treatment


This is one example of how it is misandry that has caused the erasure of male victims of domestic violence from statistics.

Okay thanks, let me just outline why I think the concept of VAW is both fair, and necessary in light of the official statistics on DV and rape/sexual violence (in the next post).

Okey doke. I'll be gone for about 15 mins though.

[Purgatio]

Rape and Sexual Violence

According to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv/SV-factsheet_2020.pdf), "sexual violence", which it defines as non-consensual sexual activity, is a problem that disproportionately affects women compared to men. 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 4 men. When you narrow it down to rape specifically, the gender-disparity widens. 1 in 5 women suffer attempted or completed rape, compared to just 1 in 38 men. Even when you add in the category of being coerced to penetrate (since rape is typically defined in law as being sexually penetrated against your will), only 1 in 14 men have been forced to penetrate in their lifetime (or attempted thereof), still far smaller than the proportion of women who have suffered rape or attempted rape.

The same gender disparity is observable when you look specifically at sexual violence in the form of human trafficking, where according to the UNODC, the overwhelming majority of human trafficking victims - 71% - are women and girls (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/12/report-majority-of-trafficking-victims-are-women-and-girls-one-third-children/).

Turning to the UK, according to CSEW statistics, 20% of women have suffered sexual assault, compared to 4% of men (https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/). Moreover, in the year ending in March 2017, 3.1% of women experienced sexual assault, compared to 0.8% of men. 2.7% of women experienced indecent exposure and unwanted sexual touching, compared to 0.8% of men. And 0.9% of women suffered rape or assault by penetration (including attempts), the percentage fell to 0.1% amongst men (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017).

I'm gonna make another post about domestic violence after this, so we can debate the issues separately. And wanted to post this earlier so you could respond to it as you wish as I type out my DV/IPV post.