Libfems have altered the meaning of sexuality completely. Being attracted to femininity is not a sexuality, it's a preference. You don't see people making sexualities for those attracted to big noses or those attracted to blonde hair. Sexuality is simple. If you are attracted to the same sex, you're a homosexual. If you do not experience attraction to the same sex, you're a heterosexual. Anything else is a preference, not a sexuality.
You are so close. If a person who identifies as x gender and is attracted to x gender then they are homosexual. If a person who identifies as x gender is attracted to y gender then they are heterosexual. However sexuality is not black and white. For example people identify as bi or pan. Some people don’t feel sexual attraction to anyone (asexual) and some people have to know a person and develop a connection (demisexual).
It can be overwhelming but it’s also beautiful how open and diverse the community is
Libfems have altered the meaning of sexuality completely. Being attracted to femininity is not a sexuality, it's a preference. You don't see people making sexualities for those attracted to big noses or those attracted to blonde hair. Sexuality is simple. If you are attracted to the same sex, you're a homosexual. If you do not experience attraction to the same sex, you're a heterosexual. Anything else is a preference, not a sexuality.
People are starting to realize that with the rise of gender identity politics sexuality is losing its meaning and rather than question the validity of these gender identities they have resorted to preaching that sexuality labels no longer have rigid definitions and that anyone can identify into any sexuality if they feel a connection to it. They'd genuinely rather erase homosexuality than let go of their precious gender identities.
Sisters, some of you may lack experience evaluating scientific evidence, yet are confronted with TRAs saying “science proves trans people exist!” and providing links to scientific studies claiming to have found a biological basis for trans identity, or proof that transition is beneficial to trans people.
I’d like to outline a few concepts that may help you understand the problems with the science that has been conducted on the subject of trans people. I am not a scientist, so I’d much appreciate any feedback or corrections.
1. Begging the question
Here are some of the studies being held up as proof that trans people are “valid”:
A study of the brains of trans women, trans men, cis women and cis men, and the potential for gender-based differences: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107082133.htm
Our sense of belonging to the male or female gender is an inherent component of the human identity perception. As a general rule, gender ide
A study on the brains of some trans men, and some cis men and cis women, claiming to show that the brains of the trans men had more similarities to the cis male brains, relative the cis female brains: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022395610001585
Some gray and white matter regions of the brain are sexually dimorphic. The best MRI technique for identifying subtle differences in white m
You’ve heard it before, I’m sure. Are you ready to learn why these studies were giant wastes of time? And no, it’s not even because of the obvious problem right off the bat (How did they know there were no closted trans people in the “cis” groups? How could they be sure there were no future detransitioners in the trans groups?).
It’s because, if you want to do science, you cannot start by assuming what you are trying to prove. This is known as the fallacy of “begging the question.” They relied on the self-reports of trans people to sort them in a group apart from cis people. In attempting to prove the biological basis for the category “trans”, they assumed the category “trans” had a biological basis. This is what pseudoscientists do.
This fallacy comes up a lot in arguments with the devoutly religious: “The human eye is too complex to have evolved, it must have been designed. Therefore, God exists.” Sir, no…. you cannot assume that the eye is too complex to have evolved that way. You must prove that to me.
What they should have done, right from the start, is study the brains of self-identified trans people, and from there predict the future detransitioners. Or they could have studied the brains of self-identified non-trans people, and predicted which ones were closted trans people. That would have been real science.
“I am not convinced. After all, they found something that looks “female” in the brains of the trans women! Maybe their methods are flawed but they must have found something!”
Not necessarily. I think what may be going on is known as:
2. P-hacking
When I was a young child, I saw a History Channel Special that claimed to prove that the Bible predicted the JFK assassination. I think the letters of a certain translation were arranged in grid form, and certain words related to the JFK assassination were grouped in close proximity. Stupid, right?
But I was just a kid, so I told my dad “Dad! Did you know the bible predicted the JFK assassination?” And my father recognized that as an excellent opportunity to teach me about p-hacking.
“No,” he said, “those are just coincidences.”
“Dad, are you blind? What are the odds that those exact words would be found together like that?”
“Not very high. But don’t forget… they weren’t looking for evidence that the bible predicted the JFK assassination. They were looking for evidence that the Bible predicted anything, in the history of ever. It’s actually quite unlikely, using their methods, that you’d find NO uncanny predictions of anything that’s ever happened in human history. And you’d probably find a few uncanny predictions in the Harry Potter books, using this method.”
These researchers in the second study cited did not set out to find whether trans men had similar fractional anistropy levels in posterior part of the right superior longitudinal fasciculus to cis men. They were looking at whether the white matter patterns of trans men had any similarity to cis men (of course, in doing so they flagrantly beg the question, but I digress).
The brain is highly complex. When you conduct an MRI scan, you generate mountains of data. And if you set out to prove that a similarity exists somewhere in this mile-deep well of data you have generated for these individuals, you are going to find something that appears statistically significant. It’s actually unlikely that you will find no similarities between any two groups of people who have their brains scanned. And, if you are engaged in anti-scientific motivated reasoning, you will take this and claim to have found evidence for a biological basis for trans identification.
“Perhaps there is faulty science going on but you can’t argue with the results! Transition saves lives! Studies have shown that it makes people feel so much better!”
Well, there’s a problem with that, too.
3. The placebo effect
The neurological basis of the placebo effect has been extensively studied. We know, for example, that it can be augmented or dampened by certain drugs. We know that it exists even when you know you are being given a placebo. And we know that the more elaborate a placebo is, the more effective it is: so a surgery will be more effective than an injection, which will be better than a pill.
Do you see where I’m going with this? Have you ever heard of a more elaborate treatment than gender transition: surgery, hormones, clothing, hair, name, pronouns, every aspect of your life can change.
But transition has not been proven to be any more effective at treating gender dysphoria than some kind of equally elaborate placebo. That’s the piece that’s missing, that would usually be accounted for when studying any sort of medical treatment.
“But there are a lot of health benefits to placebos. If they help people, then they help people.”
This is true. There’s a problem, though. Transition is not tumeric pills or reiki or like… journaling frequently. In fact, it comes with risks of absolutely nightmarish consequences. Trans women are walking around, right now, with colostomy bags because of botched vaginoplasties. Trans men are stuck with chronic kidney infections from phalloplasties, as well as the risk of gangrene and lifelong weakness in their donor sites, as well as phantom pain and progressive tightening and sclerosing from their mastectomies. Puberty blockers disrupt brain development and put a child at risk of osteoporosis, sterility, and sexual dysfunction. Hormones cause powerful and systemic changes that have not been fully studied, but consider this: what happens when the cartilagenous valves on a male-sized heart become thinner and more flexbile under the influence of estrogen? What happens when the cartilage structures in a female sized brain become larger and tougher in response to testosterone? Do you know?
You don’t, because nobody knows. We aren’t studying these treatments. We are experimenting on human beings, just like they did in the Nazi camps, and for what: treatments that have not been proven to be better than a placebo, that are based on faulty science, and that don’t even hold up to common sense. Why would you amputate a healthy young woman’s breasts? Because she begged you to? Is that how medicine works?
“But why does the trans rights movement need to lean on junk science? Why don’t they do real science instead?”
Because it is a religion. That’s it, that’s the only explanation left. They believe that they have gender identities, that are at odds with their physical bodies. Theses gender identities have not been demonstrated to exist. These gender identities seem to want things of trans people, and they seem to be placated with certain rites (going to the beach after top surgery, standing to pee after phalloplasty) and certain prayers (compelled pronoun usage). Gender identities act similarly to the members of any polytheistic pantheon.
I have no problem with anyone’s religion. But it is time the scientific establishment, and the government, understand that in “affirming” trans people, while defacing the scientific method, logic and common sense, they are in fact respecting an establishment of religion. They do this to the ultimate detriment of trans people, who have come to them for help, for answers, and are made a mockery.
“Why do you care so much about trans people?”
Because they’re human beings and they deserve better than this horseshit. Because I used to be one. Because if not me, then who?
If you want to go off too about drag race please do I’m sure we’d all (or at least my petty ass would) love it! Definitely lots of fuckery and bullshit. Also bc I love to look at things that make me mad online Kerri Colby is now calling their manicured pink claws DICK GRABBERS……… just be a hypersexual GNC gay MAN like you are please god fuck off already, women are not sex dolls. (Also hidden friend is a V cute anon tag 🥲)
I was frothing when my friends were watching it the other day. It's all the worst parts of femininity and female stereotypes shoved into one small space. Like seriously they are all so "bitchy" and "catty" and it's so clear it's a performance. I hate the way they refer to each other with female pronouns, female slurs like bitch, and the way they call their gentiles pussy makes me wanna snap.
Also the padding? Like, excuse me? Why the hell do they think it's okay to try and imitate the female form that way? It's essentially woman face. The costumes sometimes make me wanna barf too. They constantly involve BDSM and even worse the idea of "naughty little girls", it's paedophillic and makes me sick to my stomach.
It's a misogynistic menagerie where they put the worst stuff that gay men have to offer on display so that the straights who watch it can point and laugh, while also seeming vaugly progressive. It also very much taps into this idea that gay men (and by association the LB) are wierd and unique. Plus with all the trans additions and the striaght guy it really plays into the queer stuff, licking the boots of the gender fandom.
(I am glad you like my tagging system. It makes me happy to see that there are people who like to come into my inbox as radfems, hence the friend.)
I really don't like the take that if in a fictional universe homophobia (and sexism, heteronormativity, etc) does not exist, then obviously characters in that universe would not need the words "gay", "lesbian" or "bi". It feels like they are saying that we have words to describe ourselves only because we are discriminated against and there are no other possible reasons to communicate who we are attracted to.
Is is like "wow, homophobia solved, there are no gay people anymore!"
I NEED validity. No you don't understand I can't survive without it. Please tell me hetero relationships are heckin valid or I might just end my life. No I'm not straight my penis having partner is genderqueer you raging bigot
