@disarray I still assume I'm being trolled but go ahead. I like going on schizo rants anyway so I'll respond whether the questions are genuine or not. :blobcat-beanbag:
I would suggest that there is a "female brain", its neurons have have XX chromosomes and not XY. Do we know that the female brain is more or less intelligent as the male brain? No, they seem the same. There are some very small differences we can see on certain 3D tasks, this doesn't tell us that female brains are better or worse, but hint at how brains might work (we don't really know how they do).
> In an equal society there would a healy polyamourous transsexuality akin to the polymorphous perversity that we are trained out of with the impression of Oedipus and Electra complexes to make the gendered distinction.
@taylan@disarray You really should read "Dialectic of Sex" by Shulamith Firestone. It is a foundational text of second wave radical feminism and one of the pillars of her argument is that societies need for genital distinction causes women's oppression. In an equal society there would a healy polyamourous transsexuality akin to the polymorphous perversity that we are trained out of with the impression of Oedipus and Electra complexes to make the gendered distinction.
@taylan@disarray I read enough of it to know that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even in the S.C.U.M. Manifesto Valerie Solanas makes an exception to extermination of males for feminized flaming faggots. The fact is if you aren't about feminizing men you just aren't a feminist because you don't see masculinity as a base societal problem.
A quote from S.C.U.M. for you "The fag, who accepts his maleness, that is, his passivity and total sexuality, his femininity, is also best served by women being truly female, as it would then be easier for him to be male, feminine. If men were wise they would seek to become really female, would do intensive biological research that would lead to me, by means of operations on the brain and nervous system, being able t to be transformed in psyche, as well as body, into women."
You're trying way too hard to be taken seriously rn for someone who just argued that forced feminization is feminist praxis. :blobcat-joy:
But in the off chance you're not just trolling / clowning:
We could, theoretically, stop acknowledging sex almost entirely, limiting it to medical and family planning settings and such, but this seems rather unrealistic at least in the foreseeable future.
So-called "sex changes" are anything but, and every culture on the globe is still obsessed with gender stereotypes. Sexist attitudes are still almost as strong as they've always been, and pretending like the sexes don't exist simply causes us to become unable to name and address sexism, rather than eliminating it. For example, even transwomen often show the same kind of misogyny as regular men, so eliminating female-only spaces like changing rooms simply worsens women's life.
In short, you're high on theory, ignoring reality.
I can't comment on Firestone's literature because I haven't read it, but you will notice, for example, that Andrea Dworkin gradually became less abstract and theoretical, and more pragmatic and realistic, as time went on. In Woman Hating, she was dreaming of an androgynous sexless future for humanity, musing about how even the taboos against pedophilia, bestiality, and incest may be aspects of patriarchy. Later, when confronted with the actual realities of pedophilia and incest, for instance, she massively changes her tone, telling Alan Ginsberg that she wants to see him dead for supporting NAMBLA.
I've met some very studious radical feminists, active on the gender critical front, who were big fans of Shulamith Firesone, so I have to assume that your interpretation of her works is probably heavily biased in favor of the trans perspective. I've seen the same done with Dworkin, where some MtF trans try to argue that her positions were compatible with, or even in favor of, trans / queer politics, which is just dead wrong:
@taylan Val very much intends to be taken literally. though you would probably have to actually engage with her to understand how her proposal is more than just a sissy fetish. To come to that conclusion you would have to assume she thinks all women are just bimbos. Val is inverting the Freudian assumption of penis envy however crudely.
So no, I'm using SCUM as an additional example to show that at the heart of second wave radical feminism theory is the injustice that arises with the division of the sexes. I Think Sulamith's theory is actually of merit but both these works are foundational and monumental for the ideologies you are claiming support your article and yet they are in sharp contradiction to what you are claiming.
are you capable of engaging in a discussion of the theories you claim to know about or can you only write articles where you confusedly construct and then knock down strawmen?
I've experienced AGP. But I didn't decide to become a transvestite, take hormones, or otherwise feminize myself in pursuit of ... *checks notes* ... feminist ideology. :blobcat-extremejoy:
Not that any of those things are inherently *bad* by the way. Do what you want with your body and clothing, so long as you're not bothering anyone and are old and wise enough to understand the repercussions. Just don't pretend it's feminist praxis to indulge in a freaking fetish. Holy smokes.
firstly thank you for at least half heartedly trying to engage.
Valarie prescribes genocide as feminist praxis where voluntary and enthusiastic recognition of ones feminine side would result in you being spared. I dont think she is much of a theorist, but this plan of action grows out of the most basic feminist idea that masculinity is the problem with society. basically taking the form of an edge lords logical progression of womb envy proposed Karen Horney in her writings.
Shulamith actually does a good job of engaging with freudian theory proposing that penis ought to be read as power with regard to envy and fetishes rather than simply inverting the dynamic. in her book she follows the way that male children are conditioned to lose access to their emotions to produce oppressive masculinity and female children are conditioned to constantly seek approval. these in essence the Oedipus and Electra complexes that Frued thinks every healthy adult should have, but Shulie problematizes. She proposes Freudianism was adopted by society as damage control for the rising tide of feminism at the time. If your wife is hysterical u send her to the psychoanalyst and he tells her that her problems stem from her wishing she was a male etc. this is why for her a healthy psyche is transexual, it lacks the oppressive complexes that society wants to reenforce. She is a gender abolitionist. if you have a gender critical friend who says she likes shulie she must disagree with the majority of what she has to say.
following on that staking in "reality" and "right now" is always a literally retarded stance for feminists to take. their freedoms have always come with advances in technology and imagining futures to move toward not resigning themselves to what's possible right now.
as far as Dworkin goes; There are some people i respect who are big fans of her. Ofc i think any feminist with adamant stances against pornography and sex work has dropped the ball. they abandoning ground where she could be weaponizing it. I haven't read much on or about her except for what ive heard these people say, so if you could enlighten me as to what Dworkin's solution to masculinity is.
i dont really have a dog in the fight about bathrooms n shit. im arguing society is incredibly sexist. in fact women in general are pretty misogynistic against themselves and other women, that this cultural attitude would then extend into trans women should not be a surprise. but if we didn't distinguish between the sexes you would definitionally not have sexism, you would have to have eliminated it to achieve that.