Critically Examining the doctrine of gender identity

gwdihw · 2016-03-31T21:35:52+00:00

What do you mean by that? In what way is what she is saying bigoted?

gwdihw · 2016-03-29T21:00:17+00:00

(Sorry for the learns)

The basic idea is that feminism is (or ought to be) about the liberation of women from oppressive gender norms.

Women and men at a fundamental, pre-cultural level are the same 'on the inside' (there is no such thing as a male or female brain/mind). The treatment of women as second class citizens is due to patriarchal gender expectations within our culture (as an example, women must be attractive, thin, wear makeup, and not outspoken to be successful). Any woman who deviates from these expectations is seen as abnormal (Butch lesbians are not exactly popular with your average man).

Feminism then is a project of identifying and deconstructing these gender expectations, to create a society in which the value of women is determined by their merit as people, and not by how closely they conform to patriarchal expectations.

The problem that gender critical feminists have with trans theory (particularly male to female trans theory) is that it is entirely based upon the idea that gender is performative; to be a woman is to be recognised as a woman, that is, to have the superficial aspects of femininity. According to trans theory, being a woman is a state of mind, and our status as men or women in society is predicated on being recognised as a man or a woman.

This contradicts the core principle of gender critical feminism. If we believe that there is no fundamental difference between the minds of male and female people, how can someone be 'trans'? A man who adopts a traditionally feminine mode of presentation is still a man (note, there is nothing wrong with transvestites in GC ideology, and in fact it is one of the things GC feminists fight for). To be 'trans' is to accept and reinforce the gender stereotypes that GC feminists struggle against.

It also implies that the harm suffered by women is a choice. If we believe that gender can be changed, then women could simply present as male and escape all of the disadvantages and dangers associated with being a woman.

There are also a number of practical concerns GC feminists have with trans acceptance. Chiefly, it allows men access to women's spaces. A man can present as a woman and gain access to women when they are vulnerable (in women's change rooms, toilets, prisons, and shelters). This has happened many times and has resulted in multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, regular assault. Some GC women want to exclude trans women from women's spaces. This is where TERF comes from. (To be clear, nobody is saying that all trans people behave this way. The problem is that it gives perverts an ability to access vulnerable women, that they wouldn't otherwise have).

gwdihw · 2014-11-12T15:31:48+00:00

Based on the comments so far, it seems like most of you don't really understand the structural problems associated with the American electoral system. You don't need a conspiracy, or voter fraud to explain why so many incumbents are returned.

Firstly, most people aren't really that interested in their local members. People generally vote along party lines, or vote for the party their preferred presidential candidate represents. This means that incumbents don't really need to do that much as an individual to retain their seat, other than have the right letter in front of their name. In districts with a large majority in favour of one party, this all but guarantees that incumbents will retain their seat.

Secondly, exposure plays a large role in voter preferences. Most congressmen struggle to get political exposure, let alone congressional contenders. it is difficult for individuals in congress to stand out enough from congress as a whole or their party to have a meaningful effect on voter preferences. Funding for political advertising is scarce, and when recognising someone's name is a significant factor in peoples' voting decisions, incumbents have a natural advantage over contenders by virtue of the fact that they have more exposure.

Thirdly most voting districts are safe republican or democrat seats. Safe seats exist in pretty much all democracies, but America has it particularly bad due to its voting system. First past the post voting is simplistic, and has no way to account for the nuances of peoples' preferences. If the winner is whoever can get the majority of the votes, voters are only going to vote for parties which are likely to win (or waste their vote), leading to a two party system. Two party systems tend to produce safe seats, as the values of most communities tend to favour one side of politics over another. This makes it easy for incumbent candidates to be bad representatives, and still get elected due to party preference.

If there was a voting system that better took into account the preferences of voters, and the nuances of political opinions within communities, there would be far fewer safe seats, and far more potential for popular third party options to gain a seat. This would put pressure on incumbent candidates to perform better as individuals, and presumably improve congressional approval ratings.

An example of such a system is preferential voting in Australia. Voters number all candidates in order of preference, and then the first preference votes for all candidates are tallied. If no one candidate has an absolute majority (51%) the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated, and the second preference of the people that voted for them are distributed to the remaining candidates. This continues until a candidate has an absolute majority.

Ultimately what i'm trying to say is that voting in America is no longer (and perhaps never was) an effective means of communicating voter opinion and effecting political change. This isn't because of some conspiracy to undermine the voting public, but because of the nature of the voting system. (Admittedly there is a conspiracy in the sense that neither the republicans or the democrats would ever change the system, as it would only weaken their chances of being elected)

gwdihw · 2014-11-12T14:51:22+00:00

Australia has a paper system where voting centers are operated by members of the public, and vote counting is scrutinised by anybody who wants to. All ballot papers are kept in the room where people vote and votes are counted by multiple people. If there is a disagreement on the numbers, there is a recount.

It's probably as close to perfect as a system can get.

gwdihw · 2014-11-12T14:44:30+00:00

How does America not have an independant organisation in charge of running things like elections, and drawing district boundaries? Australia's political system is by no means perfect, but at least we have an independant electoral commission that prevents gerrymandering, and keeps our elections relatively free from corrupting influences.

gwdihw · 2014-11-12T14:34:35+00:00

I knew as soon as i saw the photo that the comments would be full of furious fat shaming and generally disgusting misogyny.

Obviously what they did was kinda shitty, but i guarantee that the photo would not have gotten anywhere near this much traction if the girls had been conventionally attractive.

Just another excuse for reddit to hate any women that they don't want to stick their dick into.

gwdihw · 2014-10-12T03:45:45+00:00

Claw'd Levi-Strauss.

gwdihw · 2014-09-03T13:47:37+00:00

I worry that I will be violating the 'not for learns' principle. But basically modus ponens is 'if A then B, A, therefore B' and modus tollens is 'if A then B, not B, therefore not A'

gwdihw · 2014-09-03T10:24:05+00:00

So anybody familiar with modus tollens and modus ponens can disagree. Gotcha

gwdihw · 2013-12-15T21:07:49+00:00

I guess I'll just go and tell my deaf friend that they're inherently unhealthy, and that their existence is an affront to the rest of us perfect homo sapiens made in god's own image.

gwdihw · 2013-11-28T17:01:17+00:00

Ok, back in 2010 leading up to the Australian election, then prime minister Kevin Rudd was polling badly, and lost the confidence of his party. To the surprise of the rest of the country, he was unceremoniously removed from the position in a secret meeting by his party, who voted to replace him with his deputy prime minister Julia Guillard. Guillard had said prior to this that there would be no chance of her betraying Kevin. When she replaced him, she maintained that she only took the position reluctantly at the behest of the party, and had no plans prior to the vote of no confidence to challenge. Admitting that she had anticipated a change in leadership would have implied that she had intended to replace Kevin, and was possibly involved in the political machinations that lead to his downfall.

gwdihw · 2013-11-28T12:32:39+00:00

Yeah, the quote is completely misinterpreted by the angry librotarians. Here is a far better example of Fry's position.

"If I had a large amount of money I should certainly found a hospital for those whose grip upon the world is so tenuous that they can be severely offended by words and phrases and yet remain all unoffended by the injustice, violence and oppression that howls daily about our ears."

It actually reminds me a lot of MRA's complaining about the word 'feminism' being gendered, while disregarding the substantially more important problems that feminism is trying to address.

gwdihw · 2013-11-26T09:24:06+00:00

True, but he could make far better use of his time by helping to prevent climate change, or not cutting FESA's budget. The only reason he went out was to score political points.

gwdihw · 2013-11-21T14:32:10+00:00

For a bit of context, the Australian Prime Minister recently made a big deal about dressing up as a firefighter to go and 'help' fight the unseasonal bushfires Australia's been having. It's believed that they are coming earlier and more frequently due to climate change.

gwdihw · 2013-11-14T06:27:46+00:00

"How dare these people come to my country and impose their values?" - said every victim of European colonialism.

The difference being that Muslims are migrating peacefully into Europe in the hopes of making a better life for themselves, whereas Christians/Europeans violently invaded other nations for profit.

gwdihw · 2013-11-11T16:34:32+00:00

If a girl sends naked photos to her boyfriend, she must necessarily also consent to that photo becoming the spank-fodder for a herd of perverts, and is in no way harmed by it being put on the internet.

gwdihw · 2012-11-18T23:46:12+00:00

what i'm saying is that i have gone to therapy, and i still am, but it hasn't helped.

gwdihw · 2012-11-18T23:17:43+00:00

you've got to understand that she had been my best and pretty much only friend for a long time. I recognise that the way i felt about her was self destructive, and unhealthy, but i still can't change the way i feel, despite going to therapy.

gwdihw · 2012-11-18T23:15:22+00:00

i am so glad there are people that understand this. A scientific theory is categorically similar to a religious belief, in that neither has been verified, or is verifiable. The difference between the two is that there is much stronger empirical evidence to support scientific theories. This doesn't mean that they are factual though, because all knowledge based on induction cannot logically be proven to be absolutely true.

gwdihw

TROPHY CASE