(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best gender studies

I can say that you're completely justifed in feeling worried - it's a new thing for you. Communication and discussion are very important in many issues and here they are important too. Talking about your concerns and fears with your bf might help and I do hope you two can discuss it and come to compromise that doesn't dissmiss your worries and puts all blame on you. Yes it is hard for him, but don't let that diminish your issues and make them insignificat.

I've read a number of books on kindle and I'd like to recommend you some that I think could be relevant:

1. [Something to Confess by Karen Adler.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008BI8GQS?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title)
Written from perspective of a crossdressers wife is about her dealing with her husband telling her and his crossdressing. I really like it as a good example of open communication between two adult people.

2. The Cross Dresser's Wife - Our Secret Lives by Dee A. Levy, B. Sheffield Hunt

3. Men in Bras, Panties and Dresses: The Secret Truths About Transvestites (European Medical Journal)
A medical study results conducted in UK. Could be interesting read and comparing your bf to different ppl that took part in that study and seeing how different crossdressers can be.

4. Out & About - The Emancipated Crossdresser by Lacey Leigh

*5. 7 Secrets of Successful Crossdressers by Lacey Leigh

Two books by Lacey Leigh. I really like her approach to crossdressing and dealing with society. She also talks about how she made it work for their family.

First two books might be more relevant then other 3 and I do hope they help.
Girlfriends and wifes of crossdressers (they could be named significant others) have a number of support groups and forums. You can google them and read or join.

I'm a crossdresser myself and I can try to answer your questions if you have any. Just rememeber that every person (and crossdresser) is different and my answers could be different from what your bf thinks or feels.

I second what /u/scorpious and /u/TheCabbitTori, said, and have a few things to add:

• As a dom, you have just as much right as a sub (that is, a total and absolute one) to safeword if you feel unsafe physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. If you are worried during a scene about whether your sub is feeling safe or not, and various check-ins don't asuage your concerns, then for your own sake it would likely be unwise and damaging to continue. Also, therapy and research, as previously stated.
  
  
• Some people play with each other on a more casual basis, but that is only one of many ways to incorporate kink into your personal life. You may find you're more comfortable doing bdsm activities with someone you've been good friends or romantic partners with for a while so that it is easier to trust your own understanding of their wishes, and to trust that they are willing and able to communicate their desires effectively with you; and that's completely okay! There are some wrong ways of doing kink (see Communication, Safety, and Consent), but there's no one right way. The right way is the way that works for you and your partner(s).
  
  
• Regarding the research and reading recommendation, I have a few suggestions, especially about abuse and how to avoid perpetrating it:
  
  
• The There's A War On series of posts by Thomas Millar, and pretty much everythig else he's ever written for the Yes Means Yes blog (here is a link to his author archive).
  
  
• This and pretty much every other post on The Pervocracy.
  
  
• I've only read a few pieces from this collection, but they were very thought-provoking: The S&M Feminist, by Clarisse Thorn.
  
  Good luck and let me know if you are interested in more reading recommendations!
  
  ^very ^slowly ^edited ^on ^my ^phone ^to ^actually ^include ^recommendations

It's definitely not a crafty project, all crafty things tend to occur in the summer, but I have a personal project - it's mostly that I have just started to write a blog, with a focus on feminism/sexism (also, I want to expand my knowledge o is area in general). It's something I've wanted to start for over a year, but kept putting off.

With the growing popularity of the 'Everyday Sexism Project' and a lot of fantastic newspaper articles by the founder Laura Bates, I have been inspired to actually start this writing/personal project. this book would really help me with the writing and to expand my knowledge and hopefully help me to contribute positively to the increase in feminism amongst young women my age. - the used copies are under $10.

Wish it was for a project that was more crafty turtle! But like I said, all of that happens in summer! :(

Concerning introductory books, I'm better versed in German literature, but here are two books that might suit you:

• Laurie Penny: "Meat Market"; A quick and easy read, that gives a nice introduction to objectification and marketing of female bodies.
  
• Mimi Marinucci: "Feminism is Queer"; A short introduction to queer feminism, the intersection between feminism and queer theory. A bit more scholarly but still an accessible read.
  
  And just in case you can read German, I would heavily encourage you to read:
  
  
• Julia Korbik: "Stand Up"; A very comprehensive, accessible and furthermore damn pretty book about not only feminist thought, but also practical feminism.
  
  If you want a "real" scholarly book, there is incredibly much I could recommend. So if you have a specific area of interest, just ask.
  
  Personally I'd recommend most books by Judith/Jack Halberstam, I find them to be decently accessible, very relevant to both recent feminism as well as gender theory and with a heavy connection to pop culture, which makes them rather engaging.
  
  His/her most recent book, might be non-scholarly enough for you. In any case, I would heavily recommend it:
  
  
• Judith/Jack Halberstam: "Gaga Feminism"; An engaging view on pop culture and its interaction with queer narratives, before the backdrop of mainstream society.
  
  I hope that gives you a decent starting point.

I haven't read any really academic type stuff, but I have read some pretty great books of a radically queer nature.

I just finished reading From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Form and would highly recommend it. However, definitely go for the hard copy rather than the kindle version, as the etext is marred with formatting issues. In this expanded second edition of The Apartheid of Sex, she advocates an end to the legal separation of people based on genitals as well as even cooler things in the future as technology further erodes the reason for divisions between people based on genitals, or even social roles or meat/non-meat status. Her experience as a lawyer really shows in her ability to make concise, effective arguments for her points.

I would also suggest Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. I don't know if it's really that radical, but her understanding and explanation of sexism and it's impact on all people is pretty damn awesome in my opinion.

Also, for a more pot pourri style smattering of essays and such, I'd recommend GENDERqUEER, voices from beyond the sexual binary and Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation.

I have to first nitpick that you provide a bad example with Mark Ripptoe being stronger than Arnold, if you look at their powerlifting records here and here respectively. If you take a look at the strongest people in the world, judging either by strongmen meets or by powerlifting, they are generally rather large. Not as large as their bodybuilding counterparts, but still very large. Before the topic of steroids is brought up, consider the size of men before the invention of steroids, like Clarance Ross.

The other point to make is that for Arnold, or any other bodybuilder steroids or not, to make his body look nice they must be very strong. The effort of building that body also makes you look very large. Most elite powerlifters don't have as low bodyfat or the concentration on symmetry as bodybuilders, but they are still very large. Take for example Konstantin Konstantinovs (I use him as an example because he does seem to keep a lower body fat).

One last point, if you look at the history of weight training the Greeks actually pioneered it at least as early as the 5th century(PDF warning). Another great resource for the strength feats of the ancients is Manthropology which has really cool stuff.

This ruling never made any sense to me until a few days ago.

I am reading this book right now and there are some juicy little details in it, especially about Canada.

Here's a sample:

> Chapter 12: 5 Women's Rights v. Human Rights: The Case of Entitlements
>
> Of interest here are two sections of the Charter, which became law in 1982. Sections 15 and 28 must be seen as operating together. According to the first part of section 15, “[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” According to the second part, that “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Now consider section 28: “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”40

[...]

> In 1995 pay equity was given legal status under Canada’s Employment Equity Act. “The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.”60

[...]

> Status of Women Canada is a government office, remember, but it acts also as a lobby group for women. Note the link between “equal outcomes” and “substantive equality.”) In addition, a new argument follows: “Gender-based analysis can prevent costly legal challenges under the Charter and at the same time promote sound and effective public policies.”64 In other words, forget litigation. Bureaucracy itself can take care of everything. Just leave it to us!

> The following statement of commitment leaves no doubt that gender-based analysis is really woman-based, or gynocentric, analysis: “The federal government is committed through the Federal Plan [Setting the Stage for the Next Century, which we have already mentioned] … to ensuring that all future legislation and policies include, where appropriate, an analysis of the potential for different impacts on women and men. Individual departments will be responsible for determining which legislation or policies have the potential to affect women differentially and are, therefore, appropriate for a consistent application of a gender lens.”65 The word “men” appears, to be sure, but – as the very next line indicates – only as a token gesture.

> Interpretations of the Charter have institutionalized equality of result as a goal. This clearly distinguishes Canadian law from American. (Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the struggle for which is far from dead, would open up very similar possibilities in the United States. This is why feminists still want it). But all legislation that results from feminist agitation for equality of result, whether in the United States or Canada, is based on the assumption that women constitute a victim class. (Some feminists believe that women constitute the original and even the ultimate victim class.) Ergo, women both need and deserve special protection. And by “special” we refer to protection that infringes on the rights of other citizens. Like every other segment of society, women are indeed victims in some ways.

The Clarke/CAMH are an obsolete holdover before the emerging contemporary era of medicine by informed consent.

Its gender programme is still headed by two men (originally with a third person who is now retired) who have argued vociferously that some trans people can be "cured" into just being cis gay people. They subject people to become "candidates" who wait to see if they're "meriting" enough for treatment under their oversight. These two men advocate for keeping trans people classified as "mentally ill" on basis of being trans people per the next edition of the desk reference for mental health, the DSM-V (both sit on the committee overseeing that section of the guide).

Anecdotally, people I've known who enter the Clarke were fundamentally moulded and shaped into a shadow of themselves — that is, a shadow of their vivacity and personality. Transition, done right, does not change your core character. It changes your body. That people are changed (that is, changed beyond their body) after CAMH points to something disquieting about their approach to treatment.

This isn't to say that some people's experiences have been atypically good relative to this. But while The Clarke does green light genital surgery through OHIP coverage (restored in recent years), its methodology for therapy, the self-designed hoops of "legitimacy" they use to vet people, and their legitimization process overall — as well as absurd concepts like calling trans women "male transsexuals" and the like — are emblematic of a rapidly dying era whose research mandate has little to no footing in their arenas of sexology and sexual psychology. Further, it is very difficult to become one of their candidates, of which they only accept a few each year.

The present and the future of care for trans people are in approaching trans experiences from a cornerstone of applied neuroscience and for people who are the age of majority to consider an informed consent approach of reviewing the risks, ramifications, and expected long-term outcome of, principally, the way exogenous endocrine intervention will affect their body.

For minors, the increasingly acknowledged routine of care is a thorough consulting with the parents and, if all in general agreement, a provisional regimen of endogenous hormone blockers before hitting, say, age 16 — after which time the kid can decide whether to continue with exogenous hormones or not.

What the informed consent model does it remove the presumption that to be trans is a mental illness requiring mental health therapy. Trans people aren't mentally ill. Their neurological sex and their morphological sex are congenitally not on the same side. The Clarke/CAMH would like to have us believe otherwise.

If you are interested to read more someday, I highly recommend Viviane Namaste's research on The Clarke in her dissertation-cum-book, Invisible Lives.

tl;dr: The Clarke/CAMH is a dinosaur (hence, the "Jurassic Clarke").

• • *
    
    I don't know if there is an omnibus way to find trans people. We exist in many places, through many circles, and we all have different paths and experiences and world views. You will also find that a lot of trans people do not identify themselves in mixed company for many reasons — among them, safety. Just bounce around and find people along the way, really.

> I don't believe that men are in general priviliged over women in this society which is a recurring notion in feminist theory

I don't share your feminist ideals, but I'd like to rock the label, because... equality! Cool?

Ask not how feminists can validate your ignorance, ask how you can learn more on the subject. Do you like to read? Try one of these, this one here, and another too. Books are yummy. Learn about it.

First of all, webmd or whatever blogs you're using as sources are worthless.

> we actually have direct proof of immense differences in male and female brain anatomy.

It's not "immense". The average differences within each sex are larger than the average differences between sexes.

What's different is that male brains are about 10 to 15% larger than women's brains on average... even when corrected for body size (Allen, et al. 2004). However, this does not confer or imply greater intelligence (Solms and Turnbull, 2002; LeVay, 1997; Pool, 1994)

Male brains have about four billion more neurons in the cerebral cortex, however female brains have more synapses (Pakkenberg and Gundersen, 1997).

Female sensory processing is much more acute than male sensory processing. Hearing is better, sight is better, smell and taste are better. Touch shows the most disparity, with the least sensitive woman being more sensitive than the most sensitive man.

> In fact, it has been shown that males have 6.5 times as much grey matter as females while females have 9.5 times as much white matter as males.

And actually this is factually incorrect:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12725764

For all structures, male volumes were greater than female, but the gray/white (G/W) ratio was consistently higher across structures in women than men.

So actually, according to this study, female brains have more gray matter than white matter.

>Now, the research is still young, but neuroscience is currently correlating grey matter with both IQ and STEM-type problem solving and white matter/frontal lobe organization with language.

lol... so according to YOU, women should have higher IQs and more STEM-type problem solving ability then?

> It's inconceivable that given such different structures, we wouldn't see a measurable difference in both average interests and performance. Here's an interesting collection of graphs with male vs female degrees in stem fields -- note how women are least frequent in the sciences closest to physics.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that this has anything to do with the ratio of brain structures or really anything to do with neurology. And you probably know this too which is why you didn't present any.

Let's be honest here, there are cultural factors at play here, which is why we don't see a consistent percentage of gender distribution across cultures when it comes to fields of study. And we also see the gender distributions changing over time...

>Yet, this is despite the fact that because of societal affirmative action, women earn 57% of all bachelor's degrees.

Women earn more bachelor's degrees because more women go to secondary education in the first place. And the reason behind this is because women have less opportunities for higher-paying jobs right out of college, especially since a lot of those career paths have severe penalties for women due to high rates of sexual harassment (such as the armed forces).

>We also know that IQ is 75% heritable, so from the very start we can tell the issue is largely a genetic one.

You might want to read the article you linked:

>>"We should note, however, that low-income and non-white families are poorly represented in existing adoption studies as well as in most twin samples. Thus it is not yet clear whether these studies apply to the population as a whole. It remains possible that, across the full range of income and ethnicity, between-family differences have more lasting consequences for psychometric intelligence."[7]

And in fact, due to the feminization of poverty, this difference in IQ between sexes can be accounted for using this factor alone.

>Testosterone is linked to risk taking. I believe this is what's usually referred to as "aggression."

Risk taking =/= aggression. Besides, it's not enough to show that testosterone increases aggression. You have to show that the testosterone difference is significant enough to cause aggression that cannot be attributed to social or cultural factors that encourage male violence and aggression.

>There's also evidence that transgender people have different brain makeup than their original sex.

??? This statement doesn't make any sense. People who are transgender do not have an "original sex", any more than cisgender people have one. Transgender people are the same sex throughout their whole lives.

>transgenderism is a physical condition and not a mental one,

Transgenderism is a social movement for acceptance and equal rights for people who are transgender.

>and 2, that male and female brains are different enough that you can tell one from the other.

If you're a trained neuroscientist with special equipment that can detect the minor differences, yes. But you can't tell with the naked eye, because the differences aren't that much. Again, there is more variation within sexes than between sexes.

>I'm adding my example here after. The case was for David Reimer. He was, at 8 months, given a sexual reassignment surgery after a circumcision accident. His parents were told to treat him as a girl. Despite this, he always identified as male, wanted to act like a boy, and ultimately committed suicide due to this. Biology has a role, as if society molded a person, David would have identified as female.

That was one person, it doesn't mean you can conclude that therefore nobody's sexual orientation or identity is influenced by their environment. There is a reason why biological twins only have about a 50% chance of both being homosexual if at least one is homosexual... it's because there are environmental factors that contribute to sexual orientation and identity.

There are other things to consider such as the fact that our understandings of the hormones and social treatments necessary for a successful transition were incomplete at the time and the doctor there did some very bizarre and unethical things such as forcing the brothers to interact with one another and perform simulated sex acts on each other.

**

Initial parts are from [Brain, Mind, and Behavior* by Alfred Ernest Jones](http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Mind-Behavior-Introduction-Biopsychology/dp/0536352054).

> Feminism, at least on here, seems to completely ignore those factors and jump straight for 'social construct' with no evidence, no reasoning, and no discussion.

This is a false assertion on your part. There is a lot of very powerful evidence that gender is in fact the product of social forces and has very little to do with biology. This evidence emerges from decades of intensive research by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even biologists - who will often point out that while humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the extent of that dimorphism is fairly small.

One of the reasons you might not be seeing this evidence in discussions of gender online is because, frankly, having to stop a discussion to provide links to this exhaustive mountain of evidence every time someone with little knowledge of the material demands to see it is frustrating and tiresome. There are hundreds - thousands - of introductory textbooks from sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and psychology that talk about the social construction of gender; if you want to see the evidence, then look there. Most feminists accept the academic consensus that gender is primarily the product of culture, and because that consensus is grounded in the best possible empirical research, you should accept it too.

Or don't. I'm not your boss. But if you don't accept it, then you should accept that in rejecting the social construction of gender, you're also rejecting the preponderance of evidence, which might not be the best place to plant your flag.

>I think saying it's 100% socially constructed is probably wrong too...

Good thing that's not what most people are saying. Bodies exist. They are the things onto which we inscribe our cultural values. But they are also incredibly malleable and so they are shaped and reshaped by the dictates of culture.

Why do children raised in poverty have poorer health outcomes than those raised in middle class or rich environments? Because poverty correlates with poorer diets, fewer calories consumed per day, and a lack of regular access to gyms or after-school fitness programs. Poor bodies are shaped in different ways than rich bodies because of culture. I mean, hell, the foundation of epidemiology is the recognition that cultural forces have enormous impact on bodies.

Why are men bigger and stronger than women? Biology? Perhaps, but we also cannot overlook the fact that in our society - and in many others - men are expected to consume an average of 300-400 additional calories per day than women. Is this because men are "naturally" bigger and stronger than women, or are men bigger and stronger than women because they've historically had access to higher calorie diets (which we know result in bigger, stronger people)? Do men have more muscle mass because testosterone, or do they have more muscle mass because they are incentivized to be more muscled than women - who are treated worse if their own muscle mass begins to impact their perceived femininity? Men are supposed to be big and strong; women are supposed to be petite and "trim" or "fit but not overly muscled". Men know this and women know this, and our recognition of these normative standards will pressure us to sculpt our bodies in different ways.

What I'm saying is that the cliches of "men are strong because biology, men like blue because culture" is reductionist to the point of being useless. The reality is far, far more complicated than this, but in the end, in light of decades of research into the question of nature v. nurture, the broad consensus is "a little bit of biology, and a whole boatload of culture".

I say this as a fan of Evola and someone who embraces the idea that we are in the Kali Yuga: people have been complaining about the decline of their civilization forever, stop being so melodramatic about it. I get it, there is clown world shit happening that makes all of us see red, but that is no excuse to just give up. Stop waiting for some mythic event like the return of Christ, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, or whatever deus ex machina story people have been talking about since the beginning of time. Start your own damn thing.

​

Many modern oligarchs did not expect to be as successful as they ended up.

• Erik Prince of Blackwater (per Jeremy Scahill) - "Erk Prince might now see his empire as the fifth branch of the USA military, but his designs for Blackwater started off much more modestly."
  
• Elon Musk thought that Tesla would fail.
  
• In 2015 who expected Trump to end up as president?
  
  ​
  
  I also see a lot of complaining in here about the overwhelming amount of simps in the world. Simps aren't a problem, simps are an opportunity. Modern capitalism basically turned most of those bluepillers into serfs. Why shouldn't they be your serfs? Why should Jeff Bezos get serfs and not you?
  
  ​
  
  There are an incredible amount of people (99%?) who have completely given up thinking, which translates into an incredible amount of opportunity. Men have survived and even thrived despite incredible suffering throughout history. While we have dire problems to face, our ancestors went through shit like seeing 30-60% of their continent die.
  
  ​
  
  Fuck clown world. Build your own fiefdom. Most people are serfs and you don't need that many people to make a significant change in your own small corner of the world. Find a few people who are completely intolerant of clown world and start digging.
  
  ​
  
  From The Lessons of History:
  
  ​
  
  "So we cannot be sure that the moral laxity of our times is a herald of decay rather than a painful or delightful transition between a moral code that has lost its agricultural basis and another that our industrial civilization has yet to forge into social order and normality. Meanwhile history assures us that civilizations decay quite leisurely. For 250 years after moral weakening began in Greece with the Sophists, Hellenic civilization continued to produce masterpieces of literature and art. Roman morals began to “decay” soon after the conquered Greeks passed into Italy (146 B.C.), but Rome continued to have great statesmen, philosophers, poets, and artists until the death of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 180). Politically Rome was at nadir when Caesar came (60 B.C.); yet it did not quite succumb to the barbarians till A.D. 465. May we take as long to fall as did Imperial Rome!"
  
  ​
  
  Nassim Taleb: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
  
  ​
  
  "It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences."
  
  ​
  
  Jack Donovan - Becoming a Barbarian
  
  ​
  
  "There’s an old Greek proverb that says, “society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” If you don’t like what’s happening around you, what’s happening to culture, what’s happening to men and women, what people are becoming — get out there and start digging. Plant the seed of something new. Of something better. Plant the seed of something you really want — not just whatever you think you can have. Show others that there’s a different way to live. Spend the rest of your life tending a root that may one day grow into a tree of liberty."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201301/red-alert-science-discovers-the-color-sexual-attraction

"Overall, it appears that men perceive a woman in red as signaling readiness for sex. Female sex-readiness is attractive to men, partly because it is a relatively scarce resource."

I cannot find any articles on it now, to prove my point ,but I've seen research that says the similar things about brightly non natural colored hair and why women might be motivated to do it. Basically, when a woman dyes her hair purple it's because she's seeking new sexual partners. I.E cuckhold thier man. Similar in concept to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_copulatory_vocalizations. If your gal is a screamer, she has some other guy on her mind. ( This is why porn actresses exaggerate thier moans to comical levels, while making eye contact with the camera/viewer. It sells more videos, your lizard brain is hard wired to think she really wishes she was fucking you and not Ron Jeremy.)

Generally, K selected woman aren't going to engage in that sort of peacocking behavior, while R selected women will. R selected women are more likely to be SJWs. It's why cuckoldery is associated with SJWs.

This book explains the relationship between R/K selection and politics pretty well: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/mobile/w/the-evolutionary-psychology-behind-politics-anonymous-conservative/1109689556?ean=9780982947937

Stefan Molynuex on YouTube, a has a playlist called gene wars that explains this pretty well too.

Some other links:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002U8271K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

https://illimitablemen.com/tag/branch-swinging/

Like I said, somewhat of one. I'm getting a lot better. Actually, reading some PUA stuff helped, though I steered clear of most of the creepy stuff. This book was really good, even at helping me with everyday social interaction.

> Well first of all you’re part of the problem.

Ah, I'm part of the problem - with my single motherhood and putting down straight white males and my man-hating. Interesting.

>I don’t know what you gain by denying what I have said but okay

I gain the truth, and I gain the opportunity to show others what the truth is.

>Like I said you don’t have to put men down to raise everyone else up.

Did you read ANYTHING AT ALL that I typed, or did you just assume what I said because that was easier for you to respond to?

>I think it is your false assumption that just because someone is white and male means they are somehow impervious from human problems specifically.

I think it is your false assumption that I believe anything of the sort.

>This is actually sexist and racist.

Sure thing, snowflake.

>In fact the things I have said would benefit society as a whole, specifically the African American community and even women.

Because a woman can't do anything "without her man"?

>Can I not advocate for white men?

Do white men really need someone to advocate for them? Is this another "War on Christmas" thing where someone in conservative media made up a bad situation so that they'd have something to rant about? Because white men are in an awfully good position in our society.

>Do you have a problem with this?

What I have a problem with is ignorance. Something you would appear to have in droves.

>If you do then fuck off. Label me alt-right if you want, makes no difference to me.

You absolutely sound like you get your information from the alt-right media, at the very least. What is most worrying is that you don't seem interested in correcting your poor information at all.

>The decline of men (https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Men-American-Getting-Flipping/dp/0061353159)

Your sourcing about the decline of men is a link to a book that some dude wrote. Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but that's not sourcing your statement at all. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone of anything.

>Side effects (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-14/the-side-effects-of-the-decline-of-men)

So my question here is...did you even read that article? Or did you just Google something and that title met the match so you included it? Because that article doesn't say what you seem to believe it is saying.

>I was referring to interpersonal male role models. A father figure. Not some guy on TV

First of all, that's not at all what you said. You said there were no positive male role models or models for masculinity. All of those I cited are exactly that (plus many more).

As for the ridiculous suggestion that there aren't positive role models for young men to look up to in their everyday lives, well I'm not sure how you could possibly know such a thing. Where is your documentation of this evidence? Or is it just something that you were told?

I've got to be honest - you're clearly not here to find out what we think. You're clearly here to rant at us. We're not going to buy into the idiocy that someone sold you on.

I'm sorry that your life sucks so bad that you fall for crap like this...I really am. Maybe you can find a positive male role model in your life to fix this...of course, my emphasis would be on "positive", because it's clear to me that you have more than enough negative influences in your media.

Have you ever read Changing Ones? Although it's specific to Native American cultures, I think it's reasonable to assume it was not uncommon in other pre-Christian cultures as well.

People transitioned socially even though there was no way to transition medically. In some cultures they held a special place - a third gender - and in others they took on the roles and social status of the gender not assigned at birth. It's a great read for anyone interested in anthropology or archaeology, or just trans history.

You might enjoy the book Gender: In Cross-Cultural perspective...I can't seem to find a free PDF copy off-hand but it is an excellent book that goes into both male and female gender roles across various cultures from modern to ancient.

I'd second that book. Interestingly it is over 20 years old now, I'd like to see her update it. This one also looks good

https://www.amazon.com/Flipside-Feminism-What-Conservative-Women/dp/1935071270/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1464835193&sr=8-7&keywords=who+stole+feminism

This isn't surprising. There have been numerous articles, like this and books like this around for years now. Some look at it as an opportunity to redefine masculinity, others take a more doom-and-gloom approach.

well, to be fair, people were stronger in the distant past

Sounds like you'd enjoy reading some Jack Donovan.

https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Barbarian-Jack-Donovan/dp/0985452358/

I listed a few just last week on a reply to someone's question, here's the list:

• Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality
  
  
• Becoming Two-Spirit: Gay Identity and Social Acceptance in Indian Country
  
  
• Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America
  
  Unfortunately, I've moved fairly recently and my library is somewhat fractured, so I don't have all of my books handy at the moment. I see that Kate Bornstein's books have been mentioned, she's a fun author. There's also Miss Vera's Crossdress For Success which is not exactly about gender (also a little brusque at times), but more about achieving desired gender presentation.

That looks good, I'll have to pick it up.

I would also recommend Good Will Toward Men by Jack Kammer, in a similiar vein.

You can pick up a used copy for only a penny.

As am I. Every time a remotely queer topic comes up, they get hordes of Hoteps and Ankheads trying to spit some myths about how "Africa never had homosexuality" and "it's a white invention."

Thankfully there are more than enough knowledgeable people that are willing to share information about the subject.

EDIT

You're probably aware already, but for anyone reading along there is some good history to this general idea, or at least something close to what you're discussing. Martine Rothblatt wrote about the links between transgender and transhuman in 2011.

Going back further:

>At the 2003 Transvision conference Vanessa Foster, the chair of the National Transgender Acton Coalition, took the podium in the “The Future of Sex and Gender” workshop and announced that she was a pre-operative transsexual. Her presentation was built around the theme of the village mob’s attack on a misunderstood Frankenstein’s monster. Between images of beautiful transsexuals and stills from Frankenstein movies, Ms. Foster declared that transsexuals were the first transhumanists. As history we can debate the point, but as politics it was an historical moment. Transhumanism as a vanguard civil rights movement had arrived, and the stunned but open expressions on the faces of the largely straight male audience showed the work that transhumanists still needed to do to reach out to the disparate constituencies that will build democratic transhumanism.

Link.

Actually throughout history females were much, much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. And they have always had their own set of privileges and their own forms of power.

Speaking of books/papers:

The Privileged Sex

The Myth of Male Power

Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance

Favored or Oppressed?

The Legal Subjugation of Men (1908)

The Boy Crisis

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys

Gender differences on automatic in group bias: whey do women like women more than men like men?

Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Intrasexual Competition Shapes Men’s Anti-Utilitarian Moral Decisions

Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism

The Gender Empathy Gap: Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

Note that with the exception of the first link, which leads to an historical study of female privilege written by a right wing military strategist, all of these books and papers were written by liberals and socialists.

Another recent [study](Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences) (conducted in Sweden, of all places) concluded that 'gender studies' is by far the most unscientific and biased discipline in all of the social sciences and possibly all of academia. Basically, if you've learned about gender solely through the lens of feminism, you've been wildly misinformed.

Speaking of redpill reading, I feel the need to shout out Jack Donovan here. Two of his books, "The Way of Men" and "Becoming a Barbarian" have been absolutely revolutionary for me. These are dangerous books, full of dangerous ideas. The former one, in particular, is an excellent primer in masculine virtue. I bet I've given half a dozen copies away. Read them, learn them, commit them to memory. Also recommended: "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius and "Letters from a Stoic" by the one and only Seneca.

It looks to me like The Flip Side of Feminism suggests exactly the opposite of what OP is saying: that feminism resulted from women not having enough guidance/discipline/attention when growing up.

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Her-Chase-You-Attracting/dp/1440461546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299380069&sr=8-1

"Make Her Chase You" by Tynan (Herbal). There's a kindle edition also. It's a very interesting read.

>Men just have a tendency of being stupid an immature

That is ridiculously sexist. I'm sure you think it's cool, though, because it's misandrist instead of misogynist. It has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with being smart and mature vs. being stupid and immature.

From a book on sexism:

>One of the women, therapist Laurie Ingram, said that women often flatter themselves that they're more emotionally mature than men, and that women's emotions mature faster. But in her professional experience, Ingram thought that a large percentage of women were functioning at the same emotional level as a nine or ten year old child: a combination of deeply insecure, entitled and arrogant, and passive-aggressive communication.

> You do know that the concept of "Nations" and countries in Most of Europe wasn't invented back then?

Ummm yeah. When I said they are more than 30 countries in Europe, I meant each one of these countries have their own unique history. Different tribes, empires and cities had different rules. Ofcourse the borders dont look the same today, that wasn\t my point. I was just saying Europe wasnt monolith. Each had different levels of tolerance, some more than others. But most still had heteronormative expectations of gay people.

I AM GAY. And honestly, expecting gay people to birth babies and engage in a heterosexual \public life\ IS STILL HETERONORMATIVE. Not all homophobia is killing gays or hating us. Expecting gays to fullfill heteronormative standards in society is still homophopbia. I\m sure a gay man asking the father of his male lover to take his sons hand in marriage would look down upon. Same if lesbians did the same.

Ancient Greece is my favourite civilization and I always quote them and speak fondly of them. They were definately progressive, speficially the Spartans. I\m just saying heteronormative standards still existed for gay people in Greek society. Ofcouse it wasn\t as bad as the Christian. But I never said they were worse.

My original opinion was simply >>>>> ||| Homophobia existed before Christianity. |||| I originally never made any mention criticizing the Greeks. You brought them up and I said it\s true that they were accepting of gay relations but they still expected gay people to abide by heterosexual formal life.

I know tons of examples of gay acceptance in cultures. I mean, in sub saharan Africa, there was a concept of sister
husbands and boy wife. http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Wives-Female-Husbands-Studies-Homosexualities/dp/0312238290. Its example of gay accpeting socities in pre colonial Africa, but I am also of African origin so I know that a couple of reigions and empires being accepting is not equal to EVERY African tribe being accepting. That is what I meant when I said \ they are more than 30 countries in Europe and Ancient Greece didn\t represent the values of ALL of continental Europe.

My point is that ... Humans will create a hierarchy based on anything. And Im just saying that Christianity didnt invent it. Its all politics. Im sure most people wouldnt have given a fuck about gays if they werent rewarded in social ways from being homophobic.

This article is about WW2 gay prisioners being discriminated by allies. Someone blamed Christian values for the gay prisioners being left behind. Meh, I dont entirely see it that way. USA was anti Nazi but still invited over nazis
to America to continue with their medical experiments. Humans are selfish and opportunistic, that trumps everything before Christian values.


Im just saying that the allies leaving gay prisioners behind wasnt the only fucked up thing they did... Human selfishness is the root of all evil. And the problems in Christianity exist because of it. That is what I meant when I said homophobia existed before Christianity.

Even the good side aka the allies, were still corrupt, because they were human with their own agenda.

My original point was never specifically about homophobia. It was about humanity in general. Some guy blamed it on Christianity and I responded to him saying that humans have always been fucked up

hiya, I'm a trans woman philosophy student who's primarily interested in current goings on in materialist philosophy, mostly continental. I'm in love with Hegel, Marx, and Lacan. I really don't like Judith Butler, and I really don't like Kate Bornstein.

aaaaanyway, you might be interested in reading Catherine Malabou's Changing Difference. there are only a handful of very brief references to being trans, but it does explore the idea of gender in a way that attempts to go beyond either essentialism or constructionism, something that seems very worthwhile. usually when I notice any reference to trans-related issues in anything I read, though, it's a quick dismissal based on the association of transgenderism -- not entirely unfairly, in my opinion at least -- with the sort of post-structuralist/postmodern constructionist thought to which the authors are generally directly opposed. also, here is a pretty cool blog post that looks at some of the seemingly reactionary stuff Badiou and Žižek have said about trans peeps, altho idk how interesting you'll find that if you're not already familiar with those two. that blog has giant assholes tiled as the background, tho, so it's a bit NSFW.

some other neato trans-related books I like, although some of these have some stuff that would generally be considered offensive and negative by most trans folks:

-Horsexe: Essay on Transsexuality by Catherine Millot

-Assuming a Body: Transgender and Rhetorics of Materiality by Gayle Salamon

-Please Select Your Gender: From the Invention of Hysteria to the Democratizing of Transgenderism by Patricia Gherovici

-Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People by Viviane Namaste

>My father is black and my mom is white. I am really white due to albinism. Not sure what my racial label would be. I'm a natal woman.

Your account is also quite new and this is the first time you’ve mentioned your heritage. ‘Round these parts, I find it can be really hard to believe what new accounts are saying… There are lots of trolls around here. It’s especially weird that you can’t come up with what racial category you’d fit into.

>Not everyone who disagrees with you is a natal male.
True. And even if you are exactly who you say you are, I’ve had plenty of words with brown natal women who fundamentally misunderstand concepts relating to anti-racism. Although I’ve never intereacted with her, one prime example of this is this black woman who argues that slavery was a choice. So, it’s just annoying in a different way than having a natal male fundamentally fail to grasp concepts related to race and gender.


>Your interpretation of transgender people is based on various conspiracy theories.
Proof?

>Attributing the situation in Iran to transgender people as a whole is illogical and ignores the specific cultural context of that country.

I attributed the situation in Iran primarily to homophobia within a repressive, misogynistic and sexist context. Transgenderism is a theory / set of beliefs that emerges within such contexts due to such societies wanting to shove everyone into acceptable categories.

>Homophobic conservatives agree with you in regards to draconian bathroom bills, does that mean you approve of their rationality because you have the same goal? Should we equally blame GC theorists for the implementation of these laws?

These bathroom bills are actually not draconian in my opinion. No one is being strip searched on the way in, they only bar natal males from using female spaces. And bathrooms are really interesting because they are the least concerning, more concerning are dressing rooms, locker rooms, prisons, women’s shelters, etc.

Anyway, you are right that conservatives and GC feminists want these protections for women for different reasons. I actually wish GC feminism had a hand in any of these laws, but I don’t think it does due to its lack of political clout. However, just because you are right on this point does not mean that the homophobic transitioning in Iran is fundamentally different than here in the West.

>How are GNC people being forced to transition in the West? There are very few hardcore Christians who subscribe to this (it's against the Bible anyway). The vast majority of people do not want their children to be trans.

Sure, most people don’t want their child to be anything other than a gender conforming heterosexual. But transition is often seen as a good alternative to a kid being homosexual or GNC. It also allows kids an out of the abuse that pretty much all gender non-conforming people get.

>This is why I say your beliefs are based off of conspiracy theory.

Well, I just refuted every point so you will have to do etter.

>There's no credible evidence that GNC women are forced to no longer as identify as women.

So what’s credible evidence to you? If trans theorists want to have it so that their subjective experience of feeling some gender or other is credible evidence that they are that gender, I really don’t think that they’re in a good position to be demanding hard evidence of much of anything. That said, no I don’t know of any rigorous studies on the topic but what I do know is that many, many lesbians especially have been converting to trans ideology. This also seems to be the group of people most likely to detransition. This leaves many young lesbians unable to find a lesbian partner who is not in some way queer aligned (i.e. natal females who are trans men, non-binary, or some other “gender identity” that isn’t woman”).

>The vast majority of women will always identify as women or not think about identity much at all. Even if 50 GNC women come out as trans this year, that's not even 1% of the female population in the US.

Ha, you in the last paragraph were all like “there’s no credible evidence for this general thing” and in this one you’re like “but this general thing is definitely true”. You trans theorists always want it both ways.

>The obvious trend here is that some people are experimenting with their identity. That doesn't constitute some paranoid Orwellian scenario.

Experimenting with different aspects of personality: fine, great, yay!, have fun, go nuts. Creating a myriand of special “gender identities” that cannot be objectively defined (i.e. defined in any way that is not hopelessly circular) on which are being built legislation and policies that overwrite or impinge on the rights of natal females: not ok, holy shit what is this mess? I guess it’s maybe more Handmaid’s Tale than Orwellian, but it is definitely dystopian and will have disastrous consequences for natal females as a class.

>Ignoring historical oppression of women is almost entirely a MRA/conservative phenomenon.

Haha, there are literally myriad examples of trans theorists doing that in this sub. The level of doublespeak on you people is amazing.

>Queer theory is literally founded on principles of feminism.

Queer theory takes terminology from feminism and distorts it in such a way that it ends up being oppressive and erasing to natal females. This is what neoliberalism generally does; it coopts progressive thinking in ways that feel and may appear on first glance to be progressive but in reality are trojan horses that are even more regressive and dangerous than conservatism. Sheila Jeffery’s book Unpacking Queer Politics has led many natal women to peak trans.

>Whether or not gender is biologically based is irrelevant.

Wrong. It is the crux of the matter. I argue that, in a sense, gender IS definitely biologically based as it is a system of oppression that has been arbitrarily attached to a very real biological phenomenon: that of sexual dimorphisim in humans.

For trans theory to make sense within a material, secular humanist context, it also has to be biologically based (e.g. there has to be sexed differences in the brain and sometimes a male bodied person has to be able to be somehow be born with a female brain). So you are left with either claiming that gender is based in the brain or comes from the ether somehow. It is definitely not irrelevant where it comes from and how it is formed.

>People are going to express themselves how they wish. Shaming them or assuming they've been brainwashed by the "trans cult" (kind of hard to have a cult without cohesive leadership or ideology) isn't the answer. Instead consider that every individual has their own idea of self and you can only understand their view by understanding their individual psychology.

Right, and free expression is what gender abolition is all about. Why in the world do personalities have to be labeled as male or female? That’s regressive. Really, I wouldn’t give a shit what madness people get into in their private lives. Go ahead and identify as Batman if you want. I do, however, start to care when you try to force me to believe that you are literally Batman because you feel like you are or when you start claiming that you’re just as much Batman as the real Batman, but only more oppressed and that you require special legal protections that override those already in place for actual Batmen.


>On an anecdotal note, I'm very GNC and have never had my identity dictated to me by trans women or men. Only by religious zealots and GC theorists.

My anecdata conflicts with yours on this point: pretty much every single trans theorist I’ve come across has said that since I don’t feel gender in any real way, I must be so cis priviliged I can’t see it or possibly agender or possibly non-binary or maybe gender fluid. They HAVE to try to slot me into a gender or their whole ideology falls apart.

Buy her book if you like it: http://www.amazon.com/Flipside-Feminism-What-Conservative-Women/dp/1935071270/?tag=redditcom-20

It's even available on Amazon. From their own description:

> A wave of sexual misconduct allegations about powerful men have exploded recently in the media (e.g., the news, Twitter #MeToo, etc.). A bold social movement has begun with brave women coming forward and being applauded for speaking out and sharing their stories of abuse, discrimination, and harassment. As a result, accused men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and dozens more have been removed from power and are suffering the consequences.


> In How to Destroy A Man Now (DAMN), Dr. Angela Confidential (a business psychologist, consultant, and human resource professional) empowers women with a step-by-step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power.


> In easy to understand terms, the handbook reveals and explains the fundamental dynamics between allegations, the media, and authority as they relate to male misconduct in today’s society. It also unveils and details practical real-world methods for leveraging allegations, media, and authorities to dethrone a man from power.

I'm torn. I really want to maintain the integrity of book reviews left by people who have actually read the book. But on the other hand, should anyone read shit like this?

Conversely: The Manipulated Man and The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality. The first seems like it's worth a read. The second looks almost as toxic as DAMN.

They did a recent episode where they talked about this book and it was so ridiculous I just had to skip the episode. Threw up a couple red flags as well.

If it starts getting out-of-control (like, you can't leave the house because you're worried you look too awful to be seen in public), do seek help. Symptoms in this area sometimes get classified as Body Dysmorphic Disorder (basically, a subtype of OCD where you can't stop worrying that you look hideous) and it can get pretty unpleasant if it carries on unchecked. I've had it, and it not only made me feel rubbish, it cost me £3000 in cosmetic surgery!

More info here if you fancy reading up on it or you get to the stage of needing help with it: http://bddfoundation.org/

Though mind you, if symptoms are still mild and able to be reasoned with, you can do worse than read a good book on why our society's beauty standards are crazy, oppressive and unrealistic. It can be a real tonic to get a bit angry at the way the media convinces us we have to look like a perfectly photoshopped model 24/7. I reckon reading stuff like this actually helped me to get past obsessions about my appearance, because the obsessions moved on to other topics and left my appearance alone: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beauty-Myth-Images-Against-Women/dp/0099861909/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1483952439&sr=8-2&keywords=the+beauty+myth

> Researchers are using a new approach to understand why same-sex behaviour is so common across the animal kingdom

Although homosexual behavior is rather common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity not to say about formation of permanent homosexual pairs.

Then you can read this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar-ebook/dp/B002U8271K

There's From Transgender To Transhuman by Martine Rothblatt

Take a look at the book "Legalizing Misandry"--written by two Canadian academics and part of their multi-volume series on misandry:

https://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Paul-Nathanson-ebook/dp/B00CS5BJ78/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512019773&sr=1-2&keywords=misandry

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/08/african-homosexuality-colonial-import-myth

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/09/being-gay-african-history-homosexuality-christianity

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/africatoday.58.1.55?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Wives-Female-Husbands-Studies-Homosexualities/dp/0312238290

> IIRC There's no hard evidence in regards to the softening of our culture.
>
> ​
>
> That doesn't mean it's not true, I personally do believe it plays some of a role.

Relevant book here--> Manthropology

Looking for a pdf copy of these three books. Will pay lowest offer via PayPal

​

First: What does it mean to be human?

Second: Gender in cross cultural perspective

Third: Gender and Women's Studies

​

​

This post is contradictory, or at least a bit inaccurate. Potentially harmful, too (to a total newbie).

What is the definition of a nice guy?

• There's certainly the whiny little bitch who uses "niceness" as a way of manipulating other people into his fairy tales (as opposed to growing a pair of balls and taking what they want and/or saying it upfront, as it is). Once rejected, they throw emotional tantrums as the little kiddies they are. I would know, as I used to be (and still am, to an extent) this kind of a guy.
  
  
• There may be a more mature version of a nice guy - one who got burned in the past. They may recognize that altruism is the most beneficial strategy for humans as a whole; and yet, they know human nature - so they save altruism for those who are worthy. Either that, or they remain giving without an expectation of reciprocity, retaining their inner peace (but that is not a nice guy - that is a saint).
  
  Nice guys don't get nice things. Nice guys get shit on. What you are demonstrating is a change of attitude (seriously, good for you, as attitude is everything).
  
  I may not be expressing myself clearly here. That is because the subject is complex, and there are multiple layers of meaning to it. For example, on some level, you are a killer (unless you believe that meat grows on the shelves of supermarkets), and aggression is a means of self-preservation. The self-consuming rage of the frustrated nice guy may have something to do with rejecting these primal layers of his nature.
  
  Women's sexual preference has evolutionary subtext to it. This is because in pre-civilization days, nice guys didn't finish last. They finished dead in a ditch. Mating in today's world has, however, turned into charade - gym bros passing as highly fit males, no tigers to thin the herd of weaklings, etc.
  
  Then there's the civilization layer. Cooperation really is the best strategy there... but this goes against the evolutionary hard-wiring of humans. Many just "can't help it". Civilizations crumble as selfish behaviors infiltrate various institutions of the state. Modern man is thus essentially fucked.
  
  Recently, a book caught my attention. I liked the illustration on the cover, and the title (Becoming a Barbarian). I'm yet to order and read this book; and yet, I bet this book delves into this kind of a topic.