I would disagree [idealworld]a subjective point of view doesn't ignore women, it takes into account each indiviudal persons position and respects that[/idealworld]

Fwiw re using "deny my existence."

I tend to read it as "you are denying the way I exist."

Thats open to being interpreted as saying folks have a choice on some of this, which has its own problems, but at least brings things back to what I think is trying to be argued, which is basically my lived experience is X, and you are saying it's Y.

And if you're saying its Y deliberately and repeatedly then, yeah, dick move. (lol)

To use a trivial example, before someone starts down the subjective/objective rabbit hole, we are having trouble with our ISP at home.

Telstra are telling us we have had a strict data limit for 2 years, and we're telling them we've had unlimited and something has changed because my missus phone contract finished.

That led to us explaining our data usage. Ie streaming every single thing we watch in hd and downloading games etc etc. And Telstra Muppet basically saying no, you've never come close to using 200gb in a month.

The white hot rage from both myself and Mrs face when the blatant reality of our data usage is questioned is palpable.

As I say, a trivial example. Now imagine someone is doing the equivalent, but in relation to your identity. Infuriating probably doesn't cut it as a description.

Facewon wrote:

Fwiw re using "deny my existence."

I tend to read it as "you are denying the way I exist."

Thats open to being interpreted as saying folks have a choice on some of this, which has its own problems, but at least brings things back to what I think is trying to be argued, which is basically my lived experience is X, and you are saying it's Y.

And if you're saying its Y deliberately and repeatedly then, yeah, dick move. (lol)

To use a trivial example, before someone starts down the subjective/objective rabbit hole, we are having trouble with our ISP at home.

Telstra are telling us we have had a strict data limit for 2 years, and we're telling them we've had unlimited and something has changed because my missus phone contract finished.

That led to us explaining our data usage. Ie streaming every single thing we watch in hd and downloading games etc etc. And Telstra Muppet basically saying no, you've never come close to using 200gb in a month.

The white hot rage from both myself and Mrs face when the blatant reality of our data usage is questioned is palpable.

As I say, a trivial example. Now imagine someone is doing the equivalent, but in relation to your identity. Infuriating probably doesn't cut it as a description.

Terrible analogy. Data use is in principle a physical fact, it is capable of objective determination.

Gender is a social construct. None of you, none of the young generation, have read Dworkin et Al. You should educate yourselves by deconstructing gender. You might learn something, and you certainly would see immediately how utterly inadequate this analogy is.

How you feel inside is a matter for you no one can deny. This debate is over a social fact, ie a construct. It is being deconstructed and reconstructed before our eyes. Gender critical feminists (ie the feminists - the real feminists with pedigree, who have studied and/or read stuff) reject gender as an essential feature of social identity. Others simply kneejerk against the trans women are women movement (which is an expression of social conservatism ie they want to keep the same existing construct - they are ignorant of the feminist critique)

On the other side, no one seems to understand the point about gender essentialism - and those critical of it. To my eyes, these people are uneducated, ignorant, and are blithely walking into a trap that egalitarians spent decades trying to expose.

None of you seem to get this simple fact but a pm exchange with someone tells me some do but are too polite to point out your ignorance. I'm not obvs. Have a nice day!

One could describe gender as a social construct and the conservatives controlling that definition. They own the current status quo and won't let go.

Which kind of enrages some of the more progressive thinking folk. The thing is what the left see as 'progressive' the right view as 'war' (Sun Tsu!). Socio-cultural war (because: trad. values) to be exact and conservatives take that shit very seriously. They need to plant their flaggs everywhere to show the deviants who's boss.

Almost everything is a social construct. Money is, yet it doesn't stop us slaving away in pursuit of it. Considering that we all exist within society, why is it helpful to view gender as only a social construct? And why would doing so lessen the perceived injustices/discrimination of those who feel they are being deliberately missgendered?

mistercrayon wrote:

You also have a paradoxical situation where ostensibly progressive people need those constructs to exist in order to demonstrate who they are (eg wearing make up) in contrast to other progressives who say that those constructs are bullshit (eg make up is bullshit)

I think this is what confuses simple folk like myself. The idea of gender being defined by society is perfectly reasonable, and makes sense.

But it conflicts with people who feel they are born in the wrong body and act in the gender role defined by society. I'm using broad strokes but I do know a child who was born a boy but acts very much in a stereotypical girl way. Plays with dolls in a maternal manner, likes to dress as a girl. It's caused a lot of stress for his family and himself as he gets older. It's not for show and it has been there since he was a toddler.

RedDave2 wrote:

It's caused a lot of stress for his family and himself as he gets older. 

Like, it shouldn't though.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Almost everything is a social construct. Money is, yet it doesn't stop us slaving away in pursuit of it. Considering that we all exist within society, why is it helpful to view gender as only a social construct? And why would doing so lessen the perceived injustices/discrimination of those who feel they are being deliberately missgendered?

If you read carefully, I already anticipated and addressed these points in my very first fucking post on this issue.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

Almost everything is a social construct. Money is, yet it doesn't stop us slaving away in pursuit of it. Considering that we all exist within society, why is it helpful to view gender as only a social construct? And why would doing so lessen the perceived injustices/discrimination of those who feel they are being deliberately missgendered?

If you read carefully, I already anticipated and addressed these points in my very first fucking post on this issue.

OK then, thanks, bye.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

One could describe gender as a social construct and the conservatives controlling that definition. They own the current status quo and won't let go.

That's not how social reality works. Jesus Christ, this thread. It's not politics, it's not left vs right. Conservatives, oh my god.

Everything is politics gonz, esp. nowadays.
Although I do accept one can look at a subject matter from multiple and different angles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming anyone.
Just describing the current system and the situation as it is.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make up there in response to Gonz rant is: it's all very well being clever and well-read and understanding the points that feminists are making and so on, but I'm always interested in the practical application of those philosophical and critical ideas.

We don't live in classical Athens and philosophers and theorists don't tend to get the airtime they need these days.

Funkstain wrote:

That's not his point, Hunk. If everything is politics then it's meaningless to reduce gender identity to simple left v right ideology which let's face it is also reductive silliness.

Dave: there is no doubt in my mind that both my kids were throughly indoctrinated with prevailing social ideas of gender by the time they were three. The point is that the very idea that "feeling like a girl = playing with dolls" is precisely what a feminist objection to trans "rights" as they term them looks like.

I'd agree that it's there for girls but that works for what a boy 'should' be like. In this case by an early age this 'boy' really doesn't feel comfortable in their role. And just to clarify - not just taking about playing with dolls - this person was very clear that they felt they were a girl and preferred to act as such. It wasn't role play. It wasn't dress up.

Definitely peer and family influence has an impact. But which comes first? My daughter has a healthy love of transformers, probably because I have a few old toys around the house which she played with when young. She also loves trains and cars which she you could say she got from her early friends in pre school. But the question is did she devolp the interest before that and that's what drew her to those early friends or did she follow their influence? Honestly can't say.

Given how individual each person is, definitely gender doesn't define you (or shouldn't be the main thing) but does it influence you beyond the social norms? I would think it does. Too many cultural similarities towards men and women show up across our history to say its just a social construct.

Or conservatives.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

Almost everything is a social construct. Money is, yet it doesn't stop us slaving away in pursuit of it. Considering that we all exist within society, why is it helpful to view gender as only a social construct? And why would doing so lessen the perceived injustices/discrimination of those who feel they are being deliberately missgendered?

If you read carefully, I already anticipated and addressed these points in my very first fucking post on this issue.

OK then, thanks, bye.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, love

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

They're not denying their existence, they're denying their access to a social construct. Gender is a social construct. It is made up, by language. This is a social war, over language. It doesn't do owt to anyone's existence, only their social identity. It's not less important, but it is more precise, and therefore more useful, to be clear about that.

Your language is just strident and emotive, you are denying their existence. Well, on the other side is a hardened person, probably a woman, who is also feeling oppressed, by men, and seeing this as a form of male oppression. She is probably using all sorts of emotive language, defenses up, warlike language, and claiming self defence.

This sort of language does no one any favours. Existence. This isn't the gulag, it's not concentration camps and the extermination of degeneracy we are talking about. We are talking about an argument over Twitter which spills over to the odd debate hall or lecture room. And look at you, a straight man, delighting in joining in. For shame.

I'm not saying it's not important. I made the link with money, it's very real to us. We make social facts, we construct social reality. But we can also change it, it's a powerful tool that we can change reality, over time. We're not sure how. We have theories and countertheories. Economics, politics, sociology, law... They're all about the same thing. Gender too.

The point is to realise what it is you are doing, and why you are doing it. Social facts are social - ie collectively - established. It's money because I think it's money and so do you. Trans women are women becayse I think they are and so do y-

Wait, you don't? Ok, we need to argue about that. We are defining woman, so gender, on an ongoing basis.

I'm not saying it's not important. I'm saying it's more useful to label what we are doing, to locate its location within the analytical framework of human discourse.

"you are denying my existence" fails to do that on absolutely every level. That's why none of you could defend it except by reference to words like "feels like you are" not "you are". Misgendering is misgendering, it's not an existential question, it's a labelling /taxonomical question.

Precision is useful, because it allows us to have a proper dialogue. I happen to think that dialogue is one that the social conservatives would have to gain a lot of ground on, as I am one a bit and I have gained a lot from this approach.

Think of me as your critical friend. An ally, who points and shouts, like the Russian chess players in the Simpsons who scare Homer.

Also please guys, draw a (very fucking thick) line between Conservative and conservative, I think they've been conflated a few times in this thread (and also irl) and it's really unhelpful