I can't say it was entirely fun in the last few days to see that most of my notes come from some reblog of my (not showing my best self) exasperated rejoinder from many weeks ago to spitting-fanatic anti-feminist Brazenautomaton, pointing to my slip-up about assuming that rates of victimhood of made-to-penetrate rape largely come from the context of prisons as just a typical sign of the usual despicable feminist brainwashing into the evil feminist memeplex that's controlling society.
I mean, I'm mostly pleading to the choir here I suppose, but given that males of our species have the protruding organ that they have sexual urges to poke inside of other humans and are biologically granted the higher sex drive and are also more prone (culturally and biologically) to physical violence and are also (culturally and biologically) put into the role of actively pursuing sex (and typically, anti-feminists proudly refuse to shy away from acknowledging the biological element!), am I brainwashed into male self-loathing by feminists if I imagine the common-sense default outcome is that a solid majority of the raping within humanity is done by men? (Not that this overrides actual data or excuses my misreading of data.)
I'd be curious if those in my audience who aren't anti-feminist fanatics devoted to interpreting everything to do with feminism and individual feminists in as damning a light as possible have a take on what to make of the rape gendered perpetrator/victim data being discussed in the above-linked long thread, given the common-sense backdrop I described above.
I would simply be very cautious of accepting or reasoning from any "common sense" notion of how things are with men and women and the differences between them, given that we are stewing in so much acculturation and propaganda and polarisation-driven or trauma-/ego-driven bias about the subject.
I'd also be hesitant to make inferences from reported figures given that (and this assumption is re-enacted in your very framing of this issue! why does it matter who has protruding genitalia? did we not begin this by talking about rape in which that very specifically isn't relevant in the expected way?) there's a strong sociocultural and, in some places, legal bias towards defining rape in a way that necessarily produces the outcome "it is mostly committed by people with protruding sexual organs" since without penetration (by the perpetrator of the victim) a lot of folk won't see (and therefore won't report or record) something as "really" being rape!
Being-made-to-penetrate rape and female-on-male rape of any kind are both things which we have good cause to think underreported, and ofc when things are underreported it's hard to know by how much.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that well-thought-out and earnestly felt theories of gender that permeate the general leftist discourse on trans people have absolutely no useful or relevant applications to cis men.
Which is of course why, when you say that trans people are "biologically prone" to do or be anything, that's horribly transphobic and ignorant. Appeals to "biological sex" have nearly no bearing on reality, because gender is entirely a construct of society, and sexual biology is actually extraordinarily flexible in ways that we stumbling ignorant fools are only just beginning to discover.
Only cis men are biologically prone to be or to do anything, because they are a simplified form of being that is endlessly easy to categorise, understand, and predict. Best of all, this mindset has absolutely no downstream consequences or other problematic lines of thought attached to it, which sure is lucky given that we are dabbling in biological determinism!
