Top products from r/GCdebatesQT

I honestly can't imagine how hard it must be, but I offer you my empathy, solidarity and respect. It is awesome that you are speaking out and I really hope it helps your healing process. I totally agree with you (and many other exited people) who speak to the fact that most of those trapped in the system of misogynistic sexual exploitation are silenced by the demands of survival-- which is why it always just stuns me when someone -is- able to speak out.

I guess this is probably more for readers than for you, as you probably already know it, but on the off chance you haven't heard of it yet I highly recommend Rachel Moran's memoir about her journey through prostitution: http://www.amazon.com/Paid-My-Journey-Through-Prostitution/dp/0717156028

Again, best wishes and thank you for your insight!

I try really hard to forget that feeling because I don't want to shave all of the time haha. It's easier now thanks to HRT, but I'm still lazy...when my wife and I check out a comedy show soon and I dress up a little, I'm sure I'll shave my legs for that so I'm more comfortable in a certain dress.

There have been a lot of studies that find that school teachers give more attention to boys: they call on boys more frequently, they wait longer for boys to articulate their thoughts, they use more eye contact with boys, they reward boys more often for speaking out while punishing girls for the same behavior. Here's a book about it. The authors, Sadker and Sadker, wrote another article in 2004 about the same stuff, but I can't find a copy of it online.

There was a study that came out of Israel a couple of years ago where they found that teachers gave girls lower grades on a math test when they knew the kids were girls.

MtF trans people benefit from these sorts of teachers' biases as long as MtF trans people are in the closet. What I mean is: until a trans person comes out as trans--at 15, at 26, at 50--everyone around them will treat them as their birth sex, and so even if a MtF trans person doesn't feel like a boy inside while they're in school, the teachers around them will still treat them like boys, not like girls.

For the record, the definition I posted comes from an anti-trans source, but defines gender and sex in the original radical feminist terms, which distinguish between sex and gender, so the things you posted would be parts of being female (sex), as opposed to a woman (gender). I agree they're usually synonymous and I understand why people would see it that way, but there are some feminists who thought it was worthwhile to make a distinction

Here's a sneak peek of /r/GenderCriticalMTF using the top posts of all time!

#1: Understanding Why Growing up Male is a Privilege - even for future MTF | comments
#2: To the MTFs on this sub, when did you first gain GC viewpoints?
#3: Why did you transition?

----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Contact ^^me ^^| ^^More ^^info

You might want to read something on the topic before you so cavalierly discount the work of global feminists and the existence of many peoples outside your own culture.

I don't know what you mean by "based on," but you're welcome to just spit out the word you are fishing for.

Check out the table of contents. It's a great book.

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-History-Studies-Susan-Stryker/dp/158005224X
Transgender History (Seal Studies) (9781580052245): Susan ...

Used as the definitive Text at College and Universities.

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-Studies-Reader-1/dp/041594709X
The Transgender Studies Reader (Volume 1 ... - Amazon.com
Also used in college Gender Studies courses.

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-Warriors-Making-History-Dennis/dp/0807079413
Transgender Warriors : Making History from Joan ... - Amazon.com

I don't know how they labeled themselves, but it was definitely under the Tran Umbrella.

I had been anticipating this video, expecting the worst. I expected ContraPoints to throw feminism under the bus and to come out as an anti-feminist, but this wasn't remotely as aggressive as I expected it to be.

Also, you might want to check out this book. Women have a history of flashing their crotches. At one point in time it was considered a good omen for a woman to flash. It was also considered an effective way to ward off evil or enemies, so once upon a time women's genitals too were "weaponized".

I understand that this "cabaret" aspect of these videos is not everyone's cup of tea and could come across as intentionally crass or offensive. I totally get it, as a fellow radfem, that you would look at this and only see objectification and humiliation. I have seen a lot of contemporary ballet and performance art over the years and am a bit desensitized in that regard, but I totally respect people who are unfamiliar with these art forms and are just completely put off. I found it rather amusing for example that ContraPoints would wear Mardi Gras necklaces and flash their pixelated titties in one of these videos. Yes, probably no woman would ever want do that in the midst of discussing a serious point in a Youtube video (though there is plenty of flashing of other body parts in YT videos by women), so in behaving like that ContraPoints is primarily flashing their very male gender privilege to do something wacky or outrageous and still be taken seriously as a person making a point. At the same time, isn't that flashing a gestural commentary on either socially acceptable or transgressive behaviour with regards to both men and women? If ContraPoints is able to flash and still get their point across, are they to blame for society being so receptive to that kind of exhibitionism? I am not discouraging you from being offended. I respect your feelings. You are probably a better feminist than I am for being offended. I just would like you to see how people seeing the humour or implied commentary in these images might be reading (into these images) something other than merely humiliating aggressive intimidating objectification.

https://www.amazon.com/Aion-Researches-Phenomenology-Collected-Works/dp/069101826X/ref=nodl_

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Book_(Jung)

The Owl Was a Baker's Daughter : Obesity, Anorexia Nervosa, and the Repressed Feminine, 1980 Inner City Books. ISBN 0-919123-03-1

Addiction to Perfection : The Still Unravished Bride, 1982 Inner City Books. ISBN 0-919123-11-2

The Pregnant Virgin : A Process of Psychological Transformation, 1985 Inner City Books. ISBN 0-919123-20-1

The Ravaged Bridegroom : Masculinity in Women, 1990 Inner City Books. ISBN 0-919123-42-2

Leaving My Father's House : A Journey to Conscious Femininity (co-authored with Kate Danson, Mary Hamilton, Rita Greer Allen), 1992 Shambhala Publications. ISBN 0-87773-896-3 (PB edition)

Conscious Femininity : Interviews With Marion Woodman, 1993 Inner City Books. ISBN 0-919123-59-7

Dancing in the Flames : The Dark Goddess in the Transformation of Consciousness (co-authored with Elinor Dickson), 1996 Shambhala Publications. ISBN 1-57062-313-9 (PB edition)

Coming Home to Myself : Daily Reflections for a Woman's Body and Soul (co-authored with Jill Mellick), April 2001 (paperback ed.) Conari Press. ISBN 1-57324-566-6

The Maiden King : The Reunion of Masculine and Feminine (co-authored with Robert Bly), November 1998, Henry Holt & Co; ISBN 0-8050-5777-3

It's not that new. There is a book about this from 1997 (source)

Here is the mobile version of your link

I'm so glad so many others have pointed out how bizarre, tone-deaf, and insulting this question is.

No, female people are not "appropriating" discussions about their own rights. Lesbian, infertile women, girls who have not entered puberty yet, women who are post-menopausal, celibate women, and women who have simply never (yet) had an abortion are all people who ARE directly impacted by the debate over who owns our internal organs.

If you honestly don't see a difference between female people talking about sex-based oppression and male people talking about sex-based oppression, then I recommend this text as a starting point for you.

> Please do not "transplain" philosophy to me. I grouped them together only in reference to their being irrelevant to this discussion about biology. Go to a subreddit on philosophy if you really want to argue that either of their views change biological facts, and send me a link when you've posted the argument. I disagree, but this is not the place to discuss it.

There are already philosophical works which show how philosophy can influence biological studies and change intepretation of them. For examle https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X

Susan Stryker's history is a contemporary history of which I think if you actually read wouldn't find anything controversial. It isn't claiming anyone is trans the way they are now. It gives a preamble of terms, some basic social history of the late 1800s-1950s, and then goes straight the trans revolts of the 60s which she has researched extensively and beyond (which we are all more familiar with).

The Reader isn't a history book, and again, isn't claiming definitive trans identities on long dead people.

Leslie Feinberg's book is also not a history, but the exact kind of speculation that I was referring to. It is an autobiography of someone living outside of gender conventions looking through history to find personalities who resonate. It is not claiming to be definitive history or trying to pass itself off as that, but traces a journey of trying to find oneself in the past. You prob don't read enough academic queer theory books or articles (and this really isn't one), but they have a habit of being over-saturated with puns and and double (and more) entendre. "Making History" is the context clue here. Feinberg is playing with the notion of both uncovering gender-nonconformity and possible translike experiences with letting us know it is Feinberg who is making that history in the uncovering. The personal process of speculation what is at stake here, and the names in the title are just to sell copies. Feinberg is not a historian and the text is not a history, and the book isn't taught as one (besides as a literary memoir of Feinberg hirself).

I'm not denigrating your attempt here. But I'm not seeing iresponsible or poor history scholarship in any of these texts.

Again, Stryker's History is a contemporary advanced 101 for liberal studies educated pop audience.

The reader is a bunch of key texts about transpeople, ranging from early sexologists and the most anti-trans feminist scholars, gathered in one volume. Trans studies is still a thing regardless of whether you think trans people exist. Religious Studies exist too whether you think dieties exist. It is a handy reference, not making claims about particular people's identities.

Feinberg's is a documentation of a personal journey, not a serious argument about the identities of people who live in the past (and ze was strongly critiqued whenever ze insinuated as much despite not being a historian or really doing history, but "making history" in the search itself). Ze is providing a GNC/trans "reading" of the past.

Got any more you want to throw this way showing the transes are stealing women's stories for their own?

I mean, I found this academic monograph written by a historian as history scholarship, True Sex, to be a historical study making claims with lots of traditional historical evidence.

As an intro, you might be interested in reading the studies cited under the gender socialisation section in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#GenSoc.

Secondly, The Gendered Society by Michael Kimmel would be a good reference point as I know there are several large studies cited throughout that book.

But then I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for as I feel a lot of the material linked in this thread already has been relevant to your question.

----
One area of study I'd possibly recommend is at how gender expectations differ across cultures. If gender differences are innate, then these differences should presumably remain fairly static. So it may be worth looking at how gender expectations are framed within their cultural environment.

Firstly I'd recommend Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives, which is available on Google Books and has a fantastic chapter on the relation between gender and emotions in different cultures. (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tS1C8Sl5ysEC&redir_esc=y)

If you're looking for the actual studies themselves, then this fairly recent study looking at the different gender expectations in America & South Korea - http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-097.pdf

Annoyingly, this study is behind a paywall, but the abstract is a worthy read - Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/81/2/322/

There's also Women, Culture and Society ( https://www.amazon.com/Woman-Culture-Society-Michelle-Rosaldo/dp/0804708517). Which (at least IMO) is a fantastically well researched book, but worth remembering that this was published in 1976.

----

In response to your main question looking at 'big effects', it's probably worth concentrating your research on subjects where significant gender differences still exist.

On that regard, this article looks into cultural gendered attitudes towards female murderers and serial killers. I know this doesn't answer your question directly, but does touch on how women convicted of murder have use gendered expectations to their advantage, certainly a good reference point for further research: http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/support-files/female-psychopathic-killers.pdf

While not directly relevant to gender itself, there are plenty of studies looking at the environmental causes of crime, which may go some way towards explaining why women are largely absent from some criminal behaviours. Gender differences in violent crime is just one obvious example...

----

However, I really don't think you're necessarily going to find any research that directly answers your question since research in this field tends to look at sub-conscious ways in which individuals and/or society at large influences gender roles and identity. By their definition, these are going to be small. It's not that 'one' thing determines differential treatment between boys and girls, it's more that numerous subconscious actions permeate through our culture causing large rifts between the sexes.

----

Some other possible areas of research:

(non-grammatical) gender differences within linguistics (/u/SagaciousUmbrella has already covered this brilliantly, below.) I've spent way too much time on this reply all ready to look for references, but there are plenty of studies out there looking at the differences in how men and women talk, both to each other and within their own groups. This should easily demonstrate how small subconscious differences in gendered socialisation can cause 'large effects' on a societal level.

Of the top of my head, there's also research looking at perceived gender differences within classical music - worthy since these differences disappear when performers are judged blindly.

& I'm assuming you've looked at the studies relating to the 'resume gap': Jennifer seen as significantly less competent than John etc... http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

There's also studies looking at gender biases in literature (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/10/if-you-doubted-there-was-gender-bias-in-literature-this-study-proves-you-wrong).

Plenty of studies on gender bias in education as well. From memory, there should be lots of research out there looking at this from both student and teaching perspectives.

-----

I can think of lots of other things that might be relevant, but it's difficult to know exactly what you're after.

I'm going to stop writing now, but I do want to stress that cultural attitudes towards gender often don't seem apparent until the concepts themselves becomes outdated. Perhaps it might be worth looking at historical ideas related to gender differences as an initial reference point?

Edit: Obviously I wasn't going to get this wall of text right first time.

> I have noted rightest thinktank policy positions and talking points that expressly advice to take talking points from GCs and radfems.

I suspect you're familiar with the way rightist think-tanks operate. They will seize onto anything that promotes their worldview, even if the intellectual framework behind it is vastly different from the neo-con perspective. Taking talking points from radfems-- even when it does happen-- is a woefully incomplete proposition *because* these organizations don't engage with the full content of radical feminism.

In effect, you're saying, "Radfems should shut up because their points could be cherry-picked and fit into an arch-conservative framework." That same argument, with minimal tweaking, could be leveraged against *any* marginalized group. (Examples: Black liberation movements are pro-gun and therefore natural allies of the NRA! Feminists who advocate for abortion are buddy-buddy with the eugenics movement and probably white supremacists to boot!) Would you like everyone who can be misconstrued by neo-cons to hush and toe the line?

>antisex feminists believed women couldn't be sexual agents under patriarchy and had to be protected from the degenerate gaze of me, and temperance activists worked from the frame of white protestant women needing protection the dangers of alchohol

So here's the thing: pornography and prostitution have terrible effects on women, particularly First Nations/Indigenous women, women of colour, women below the poverty line, and yes, trans women. Alcoholism had terrible effects on women in the 1800s and early 1900s. You can argue about the policy failure of Prohibition/anti-porn bills. That's fine, and I suspect I'd agree with you about a lot of it. But the actual issues these movements tried to address were extremely real. Are you conceding that trans women are a legitimate threat? Because otherwise, your analogy falls apart.

(Also, I remain confused by your insistence that Prohibition was a white Protestant phenomenon exclusively. It had support among Southern black women and male black community leaders precisely because of its religious roots.)

> Women get assaulted in bathrooms and especially prisons without transwomen present. Abolishing prisons is the progressive stance to take, or at least holding prison staff accountable for overlooking and often perpetuating violence against women themselves.

Sure thing! Most GC feminists are leftist and pro-prison reform and abolition. But we're also clear-eyed about the risks of putting pre-op trans women (particularly those with sexual offences under their belts) amidst a population of vulnerable women whom they can, statistically speaking, overpower. We're also aware that women's prisons tend to be nicer than men's, due to women's lower penchant for violence, and that people may very well lie about their gender identity to get access to preferential treatment.

>Medical transition processes that start with teenagers (potential hormone blockers) is child led and involves whole teams of professionals and parents.

Mermaids can provide same-day hormone blockers. (And that's in their own words, in a mediation with a newspaper.) Children under the age of five transition. Tell me more about this child-led, careful, very scientific process. (And, before I get told off for picking disreputable, fly-by-night organizations, Mermaids is extremely respected in the UK. The Canadian psychologist in the second article has close ties with the B.C provincial government. These people aren't unqualified.)

>Who is defunding shelters? Transpeople?

Morgane Oger, a trans women, spearheaded one such campaign in Vancouver.

>The outrage of what are we doing to children's bodies rings hollow when that argument is not used against the heavy psychiatric drugging of exponentially more children that has impacts on brain development.

Okay, you clearly don't hang out on GenderCritical. (Which is fair; I don't actually expect anyone to do that.) That community is shockingly (and in my view, unreasonably) anti-psychiatry. Nobody's for drugging kids in that political corner. And, more charitably put, the over-medicalization of children is basically a mainstream talking point. (see: the ADHD discourse)

>Jumping into the discourse with academic radical feminist credibility to peddle the same BS that transpeople are threats to women and children for the sake of women's liberation I think is dishonest, because we know that plenty of radical feminist thinkers disagree.

I'm still reeling from the assertion that normies are particularly moved by GC feminists. Weird, gender-nonconforming academics spouting theory are, like, the worst possible candidates to win hearts and minds, particularly in America.

When a community wants to win rights, there's a playbook. Members of that community make a principled argument: we're people just like you, we deserve the same rights, we care about this society. Unfortunately, trans activists have decided to metaphorically trample institutions, vigorously deny science, and demand special accommodations that nobody else receives. (See: trans women wanting access to a men's college, a trans man wanting access to a sorority, the reframing of consent as exclusionary) Y'all can't blame us for your own bad PR.

Start by taking a look at the work of Brown University's Katharine A. Phillips, MD (https://iocdf.org/providers/phillips-katharine/). She's a psychiatrist who has written extensively on body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), its relationship with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and the high suicidality rate of BDD sufferers. Also, she directs the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Program at Rhode Island Hospital.

Here's an easy to read 2006 news article about some of Phiilips work surrounding BDD:

(http://banderasnews.com/0608/hb-highrisk.htm).

A more academic paper by Phillips (2007) on the suicidality of BDD sufferers is available for free here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361388/

It's only a hop, skip and a jump from BDD to Gender Dysphoria (GD), in my opinion, despite some protestations to the contrary. The leap from Body Identity Integrity Disorder (BIID) to GD isn't that big either. As Phillips (2007) points out regarding BDD:

> Although individuals with BDD appear normal looking to others, they are preoccupied with distressing and time-consuming thoughts that some aspect of their physical appearance looks flawed or defective. They may worry, for example, that they have very noticeable acne, their skin is too red or terribly scarred, their hair is thinning, their nose is too large or misshapen, their head is too big, or their stomach is huge and protuberant. The appearance
concerns can focus on any body area, and preoccupation with multiple body areas is common. The appearance preoccupations are obsessional, occurring on average for 3–8 hours per day. The beliefs about the perceived appearance defects are usually delusional or characterized by poor insight.


These clinical features of BDD should sound very familiar to anyone familiar with GD. The latter are obsessed with their genitals among other things. The delusional beliefs and the poor insight of BDD sufferers particularly intrigue me. You could say the same about many transwomen (TW) regarding GD.

Given trans people love to point out their high suicide rate (or attempt rate), notice that BDD sufferers are prone to suicide, too. Per Phillps (2007):

> Suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and completed suicide appear common in individuals with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). Available evidence indicates that approximately 80% of individuals with BDD experience lifetime suicidal ideation and 24% to 28% have attempted suicide.

As for any relationship between OCD and GD, Phillips and Kaye (2011) explain in a book on obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders (OCSD):

> Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and eating disorders have long been hypothesized to be related to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). More recently, since the advent of the obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders (OCSDs) concept, they have been considered candidates for inclusion in this grouping of disorders....Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) has been considered closely related to OCD for more than a century, and it is widely conceptualized as an OCSD....

(See chapter 2 in http://stop-abuse.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Eric_Hollander_Obsessive-compulsive_Spectrum_DisBookZZ.org_.pdf)

Unsurprisingly, brain imaging is popular among OCD researchers, too:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29159060

Everybody wants an easy answer regarding the cause of a medical problem -- be it OCD, transgenderism, homosexuality or god knows what else. Easy answers rarely exist.

p.s. Katherine Phillips wrote a book called The Adonis Complex. I haven't seen it yet but it sounds interesting. Maybe the complex is relevant to some transwomen claiming that they couldn't fit in and function as a man.

https://www.amazon.com/Adonis-Complex-Identify-Prevent-Obsession/dp/068486911X