Why do guys who dress as girls get so much hate but not the other way around?

[Age]

Girly clothes - dresses, clothing with lots of pink in it, frilly stuff, that sort of thing.

This is stereotyping, of course. But then, people turn around and say, "It's wrong to stereotype." It's also essentialism, and people will say, "Essentialism is wrong."

In these discussions, these incompatible claims are always involved: 1) men have a right to act "like a girl," and also 2) there's no such thing as "like a girl."

How can somebody "have a right" to "become" something that has no essence, no genetic basis, no stereotype, and no particular characteristics? But if "girl" has a specific essence, stereotype and characteristics, then how can somebody who is, by essence, genetic basis, sex identity, stereotype and particular characteristics, NOT a "girl" (i.e. a "man") then "become a girl"?

There is simply no way to make gender ideology coherent, and no possibility of attributing any particular right-to-switch to somebody who wishes to cross that line.

Here, 'we' have ANOTHER PRIME example of HOW one's OWN BELIEF/S WILL JUST NOT ALLOW 'them' to SEE, and thus LEARN, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, here.

AGAIN, it was 'these people's' PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS and/or PRESUMPTIONS that was what was HOLDING and KEEPING 'them' BACK.

Either they cannot (because "girl" is a real, definite thing) or they don't need to (because "girl" doesn't mean any definite thing, so there's nothing to cross TO).

I have never yet seen somebody able to solve this problem.

And, 'this' IS BECAUSE you are BEING BLINDED BY your OWN BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, here. Which, essentially, and literally, MEANS that you can NOT SEE BECAUSE of your OWN BLIND STUPIDITY. In other words, if you were NOT LOOKING FROM your OWN PRE-EXITING BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS, and STARTED LOOKING FROM the COMPLETELY OPEN and WISE PERSPECTIVE, then, and ONLY THEN, could you SEE that there IS NO, ACTUAL, 'problem', here, BECAUSE what you claim you have NOT YET SEEN ANY one ABLE TO SOLVE, here, HAS ALREADY BEEN RE-SOLVED, over and over again.

LOOK, here 'it' IS AGAIN.

1. DEFINE 'the words' being USED.

2. Come to AN AGREEMENT WITH and AN ACCEPTANCE ON 'the definitions', by ALL in 'the discussion'.

3. CONVERSE and/or DISCUSS PEACEFULLY.

4. ANY and ALL so-called 'problems', here, ARE SOLVED, and/or RE-SOLVED.

Now, in 'this discussion', the words 'girl' is being USED, and let 'us' say the word, 'man', is being USED as well.

So, let 'us' DEFINE these ACTUAL WORDS, FIRST, BEFORE you 'people' WANT TO FIGHT and ARGUE OVER 'things', here.

1. If the word, 'girl', means and/or refers to the 'human body', who has not yet reached the 'age of an adult', and which is born with the 'female reproductive organs' or 'the organs', which left alone will naturally become the 'female reproductive organs', which may or may not work properly and correctly, and/or 'the body', which has what are called the 'female chromosome', and, the word, 'man', is just meaning and/or referring to the 'human body' over the 'adult age', which has the 'male reproductive organs' and/or the 'male chromosome', and 'we' have REACHED an AGREEMENT WITH and ACCEPTANCE ON 'this definition', then 'we' can PROGRESS TO STEP 3.

2. But, if 'we' ALL have NOT YET REACHED an AGREEMENT WITH and ACCEPTANCE ON 'the definition', then what NEEDS CHANGING and/or Correctly, EXACTLY, here?

3. WHEN, and ONLY WHEN, 'this' AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, by ALL, IS REACHED and ACHIEVED can 'we' then MOVE ON, PROGRESSIVELY.

4. AGAIN, 'I' WAIT, PATIENTLY.

Until then, however, to me, anyway, the word 'girl' is just A word, which like ALL words have A DEFINITION, TO them. So, this MEANS that, to me, there is A 'thing', which the word 'girl' IS REFERENCING. AND, OBVIOUSLY, there is NOT 'another thing', with ANOTHER DEFINITION, that COULD BE A 'girl', while 'it' REMAINS the 'other thing'.

[Age]

Good points. Transvestites are only interested in mocking, parodying and 'superseding' women. They have no interest in wearing kilts--a very male garment.
Carlafeit is known in the industry as a handmaiden. A female who feels that it's more important to pander to the demands of entitled male perverts than it is to stand up for her own rights as a woman.

Is that what the famous Canadian fentanyl does to the brain?

Or just regular all-American glue?

Does the job of handmaiden for huge thunking men in frocks and bad wigs leave you to exhausted too muster even the flimsiest argument that doesn't consist entirely of an absurdly off-the-mark 'insult'?

LOL 'This' coming FROM 'the one', here, that may well be 'the one' who USES the MOST 'absurdly off-the-mark insults', or just 'insults', here?

[Age]

“Back in the days when …” simply does not interest me. I am future-focused!

If you are focused in 'one way' or in 'one thing' ONLY, here, then 'those words' were, and are, NOT INTENDED FOR 'you', OBVIOUSLY.

But, thank you for CLARIFYING that you do NOT have 'interest', here. 'This' EXPLAINS A LOT.

[accelafine]

You mean you don't know?

It was JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and JUST ASKED TO you.

you are IN a 'philosophy forum' and made A CLAIM. So, what are 'girly' clothes, EXACTLY?

Girly clothes - dresses, clothing with lots of pink in it, frilly stuff, that sort of thing.

That's not stereotyping at all So I assume that your definition of a girl is anyone who wants to be a 'pretty princess' in pink and says 'like' after every second word. Gosh. It's really hard to tell which country you grew up in. Those aren't American-specific stereotypes in any way JFC, those supervolcanoes can't blow up soon enough...

[Immanuel Can]

There is simply no way to make gender ideology coherent, and no possibility of attributing any particular right-to-switch to somebody who wishes to cross that line. Either they cannot (because "girl" is a real, definite thing) or they don't need to (because "girl" doesn't mean any definite thing, so there's nothing to cross TO).

Curiously, the “gender wars” (or whatever it should be called and whatever, indeed, it is all about) is not designed to be coherent. It is when looked at from some distance incoherent. Why? I guess because it is not really an idea and very much more something involving feelings. Something submerged in the person’s sentiments or psyche.

It still has to make sense to be worthy of being taken seriously by anybody who doesn't experience the "feelings" associated with sex confusion. Maybe a confused person can still take it seriously; but the rest of us, the people who can actually still think and reason, need it to be coherent in order for it to be worthy of belief or support -- and the "gender" lobby wants not only belief and support from us, but affirmation, special treatment, control of our language, political recognition, inclusion in affirmative action programs, representation in the media, public funds for surgeries, immunity from parental rights, equal consideration for dating and partnering, access to vulnerable children...

They're asking a lot. A whole lot. More than any other group gets. And they can't reasonably ask for any of it if they can't even make sense. And we don't have to grant it if they don't, nor should we.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It still has to make sense to be worthy of being taken seriously by anybody who doesn't experience the "feelings" associated with sex confusion.

But maybe that’s the thing: there is so much opposition these days to those categories of normalcy. The revolutionary spirit, the spirit of opposition to rigid, established categories — remember that Carla escaped from a too-rigid religious cult-like family — is a very common motivator these days.

My own view is to try to see into the basic motivation.

Carla merely dresses somewhat boyishly and cut her hair short. But she remains in an environment where men want to convince her to appear, and possibly to be, more feminine.

She’d have no issues in Portland, San Francisco or Paris.

Nothing for me has to “make sense” because, as I see it, things tend ever in the direction of deviation from those established categories. I can only dedicate time and energy to understanding why. That is, motivation.

[Immanuel Can]

It still has to make sense to be worthy of being taken seriously by anybody who doesn't experience the "feelings" associated with sex confusion.

But maybe that’s the thing: there is so much opposition these days to those categories of normalcy. The revolutionary spirit, the spirit of opposition to rigid, established categories — remember that Carla escaped from a too-rigid religious cult-like family — is a very common motivator these days.

My own view is to try to see into the basic motivation.

Motivation has nothing at all to do with truth. Somebody can be totally motivated to think something totally senseless, or something completely sensible. The only question is, which kind of thing is this belief that men can be women, and women can be men?

And the answer's painfully obvious: even on its own terms, it can't make sense. It never does. It can't even explain what IT means.

[carlafeit]

Strange men telling me that if dressed more feminine and grew out my hair I would look very pretty — not really open to that very much. If I am work I will maintain a professional demeanor and try to redirect the conversation towards them buying a circular saw or something.

And there are some good ones on the market though I think that generally the quality is dropping.

What do you think? Skil? Makita? Dewalt?

Makita is getting the best reviews.

But Bosch seems to be the most popular where I am.

To be honest, I can talk the talk when it comes to circular saws, but I never actually used one - so I have no particular preference myself.

If the customer is on the budget I will steer them away from the cheapest towards the second cheapest. Craftsman seems to be the cheapest, and I suspect there is a reason for that. I do not trust the cheapest circular saw.

[carlafeit]

What I am essentially getting at, here, is that NONE of 'us' KNOW when is the 'right time' to 'offer' or 'provide' so-called 'feedback' nor even what is the 'appropriate feedback' to give or offer.

It is possible to make a pretty good guess, and personally I err on the side of not offering feedback.

For people who have an urge to tell girls with #3 brush cuts that they would look prettier if they got long hair - I pretty much guarantee that this feedback is not needed. And if you are a man - whatever you do - resist the urge to touch the said girls #3 brush cut.

[carlafeit]

Now, would ANY one, here, be brave enough to go to say the islands in the south pacific ocean and tell 'those men' there, who wear 'dresses', 'you are wearing girly clothes'?

Different style of dress.

If you read Plato, you probably know that any attempt to precisely define anything us futile.

But if someone says "Amanda hates wearing girly clothes" you can generally make a pretty good guess about the kind of clothes you should not get for Amanda.

This depends on the context of course. Where I am, if you hear the above statement or something like it you can make a guess with close to 100% reliability.

Surely definitions only make sense in a particular context? It would be silly to suggest that there is a definition of girly clothes that is universally applicable at every time and place.

[carlafeit]

That's not stereotyping at all So I assume that your definition of a girl is anyone who wants to be a 'pretty princess' in pink

I have no idea where you are getting that from.

I do not wear, and do not like wearing, "girly clothes". This has no bearing on whether or not I am a girl.

[Age]

There is simply no way to make gender ideology coherent, and no possibility of attributing any particular right-to-switch to somebody who wishes to cross that line. Either they cannot (because "girl" is a real, definite thing) or they don't need to (because "girl" doesn't mean any definite thing, so there's nothing to cross TO).

Curiously, the “gender wars” (or whatever it should be called and whatever, indeed, it is all about) is not designed to be coherent. It is when looked at from some distance incoherent. Why? I guess because it is not really an idea and very much more something involving feelings. Something submerged in the person’s sentiments or psyche.

It still has to make sense to be worthy of being taken seriously by anybody who doesn't experience the "feelings" associated with sex confusion. Maybe a confused person can still take it seriously; but the rest of us, the people who can actually still think and reason, need it to be coherent in order for it to be worthy of belief or support -- and the "gender" lobby wants not only belief and support from us, but affirmation, special treatment, control of our language, political recognition, inclusion in affirmative action programs, representation in the media, public funds for surgeries, immunity from parental rights, equal consideration for dating and partnering, access to vulnerable children...

And, there is NO so-called 'sex confusion' when it comes to God, Itself, as God is MOST DEFINITELY of the 'male sex' ONLY, hey "immanuel can"?

This IS IRREFUTABLE BECAUSE God SAID SO, in the Bible, that 'It' WANTS TO BE called a "he".

And, as far as 'those' of "immanuel can's" ilk, One ONLY has to SAY that 'it' WANTS TO BE called A "he" for 'that' to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

They're asking a lot. A whole lot. More than any other group gets. And they can't reasonably ask for any of it if they can't even make sense. And we don't have to grant it if they don't, nor should we.

[carlafeit]

Girly clothes - dresses, clothing with lots of pink in it, frilly stuff, that sort of thing.

This is stereotyping, of course. But then, people turn around and say, "It's wrong to stereotype." It's also essentialism, and people will say, "Essentialism is wrong."

In these discussions, these incompatible claims are always involved: 1) men have a right to act "like a girl," and also 2) there's no such thing as "like a girl."

Who is making this argument?

It does seem silly the way you describe it, although perhaps your summary is not entirely accurate.

There is simply no way to make gender ideology coherent, and no possibility of attributing any particular right-to-switch to somebody who wishes to cross that line. Either they cannot (because "girl" is a real, definite thing) or they don't need to (because "girl" doesn't mean any definite thing, so there's nothing to cross TO).

I have never yet seen somebody able to solve this problem.

I really cannot say anything here unless you point to specific claims.

I doubt if there is an ideology without some flaws in it, probably sizeable ones. Not sure what follows from that other than one should not be too fanatical even about one's favorite ideology, however good it seems to be.

[Age]

It still has to make sense to be worthy of being taken seriously by anybody who doesn't experience the "feelings" associated with sex confusion.

But maybe that’s the thing: there is so much opposition these days to those categories of normalcy. The revolutionary spirit, the spirit of opposition to rigid, established categories — remember that Carla escaped from a too-rigid religious cult-like family — is a very common motivator these days.

My own view is to try to see into the basic motivation.

Carla merely dresses somewhat boyishly and cut her hair short. But she remains in an environment where men want to convince her to appear, and possibly to be, more feminine.

But WHY DO ALL of you 'men' WANT TO DO 'this'?

She’d have no issues in Portland, San Francisco or Paris.

Is 'this' BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NO 'issues' AT ALL like 'the ones' mentioned or portrayed, here, occur in 'those places'?

Nothing for me has to “make sense” because, as I see it, things tend ever in the direction of deviation from those established categories. I can only dedicate time and energy to understanding why. That is, motivation.

But, if you can NOT YET even just 'make sense' of WHAT is happening and occurring, then HOW are you EVER going to understand WHY 'things' are happening and occurring?

Obviously one HAS TO WORK OUT/MAKE SENSE OF 'WHAT' is ACTUALLY happening and occurring BEFORE they could even MOVE ON TO WORKING OUT/UNDERSTANDING the WHY of what IS, ACTUALLY, happening and occurring. Unless, OF COURSE, some one WANTS TO PROVIDE examples OTHERWISE.

[Age]

What I am essentially getting at, here, is that NONE of 'us' KNOW when is the 'right time' to 'offer' or 'provide' so-called 'feedback' nor even what is the 'appropriate feedback' to give or offer.

It is possible to make a pretty good guess, and personally I err on the side of not offering feedback.

It is ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO guess, assume, and/or theorize. HOWEVER, only through the ACTUAL SEEKING OUT OF CLARIFICATION, here, can the ACTUAL Truth be KNOWN, FOR SURE.

For people who have an urge to tell girls with #3 brush cuts that they would look prettier if they got long hair - I pretty much guarantee that this feedback is not needed.

WHY? Is it BECAUSE 'you' ALREADY KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY? Or, for some OTHER REASON, exactly?

And if you are a man - whatever you do - resist the urge to touch the said girls #3 brush cut.

Does 'this' MEAN that if you are a 'woman', then you do NOT have to resist the urge to touch the said hair, here?