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

[accelafine]

Gender ideologists all make it. They can't help it, because they want people to "transition," which means "stop being one thing, and become another."

I was hoping for something a little more specific.

I am not sure who the "gender ideologists" are - but I know that in the LGBTQ2+ community (I know this firsthand) there is a variety of views on gender, gender identity, transgender issues, etc. - the community is not a hive mind. There are people who think that if a man says he is now a woman, he becomes a woman immediately, regardless of his genetics, sexual organs, etc. There are also people who think this is ridiculous - and all kinds of views in-between.

What about your own earlier claim, that people can act "like a girl."

Are you telling me that if someone says "Bob can look good in a mini-dress and is great with makeup, but no matter how girly they look, most people see them as a guy because of how they act" - you have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

You seem to say it means "wearing pink stuff and frilly stuff...clothes and dresses...that sort of thing." If that's all there is to 'being a girl," then it's awfully simple, isn't it?

I think the question was something like what makes clothing girly - not what does it mean to be a girl.

Many guys who like to wear girly clothes do it because they like girly clothes - without claiming to be girls. Basically, just like I do not feel comfortable wearing "girly" clothes, they feel extra comfortable wearing them. I am not sure if you ever had a conversation with someone like that? I have.

You seem to say it involves putting on pink, frilly clothes and such. But that surely can't be all, can it? So we must ask: what have you left out?

An awful lot, I am sure. My time and my knowedge of philosophy are both limited - so I cannot give you the kind of detailed answer you seem to want.

Doesn't sound like much of a 'community' then. Children are being given puberty blockers for a 'community' that has no consensus on the very thing that it claims to be 'fighting for'? WTF are 'transrights' anyway? This is hardly news to me. They are all on the bandwagon for their own agendas. What on earth does a thunking great bloke with a sexual fetish have in common with a vulnerable, probably autistic, confused (gee, I wonder why) youngster? Or a convicted paedophile who suddenly 'decides' that he 'identifies as a woman' after his conviction? Or a male sports cheat?
And where's all the money coming from for your paid 'rent-a-mobs'? The 'Mengele institute of child gender studies'? Powerful paedophile rings? The pharmaceutical industry? All of the above?

'Gender identity' is bollocks. American bollocks (of course). They can't even get their idiocy straight. Ever heard of a 'sex reveal' party'? Do you really think that 'gender reveal' parties are about revealing the 'gender identity' of a baby'? They used that word because they were too coy and puritanical to use the 'naughty' word 'sex'. You lot can't even make up your tiny minds about what you mean when you use the word 'gender'. Here's an idea, how about NOT using it at all? It's like giving a child a live grenade to play with. Just stick with the word 'sex' and you can't go wrong--no embellishment needed. Kindly grow a brain before it's too late. Hope this helps. You're welcome.

[Immanuel Can]

Gender ideologists all make it. They can't help it, because they want people to "transition," which means "stop being one thing, and become another."

I was hoping for something a little more specific.

I was more specific. I can't get more specific than your own comments, can I?

I am not sure who the "gender ideologists" are

I find that awfully hard to believe. But if you say so...

- but I know that in the LGBTQ2+ community (I know this firsthand) there is a variety of views on gender, gender identity, transgender issues, etc. - the community is not a hive mind. There are people who think that if a man says he is now a woman, he becomes a woman immediately, regardless of his genetics, sexual organs, etc. There are also people who think this is ridiculous - and all kinds of views in-between.

It doesn't really matter at all, because in no world, and on no set of suppostions can one assert both that there is something called "acting like a girl" or "being a woman" but that "girl" and "woman" are terms with no actual or specific meaning at all.

What about your own earlier claim, that people can act "like a girl."

Are you telling me that if someone says "Bob can look good in a mini-dress and is great with makeup, but no matter how girly they look, most people see them as a guy because of how they act" - you have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

I can see exactly what's going on. But gender ideology can't allow us to see it. It insists both that gender is a real thing (i.e. that it's necessary for Bob to become, that his desire is legitimate and has as its object "being like a girl"), and also that "girl" is an infinitely flexible and infinitely unessentializable thing that anybody who wants to can be, so really means no specific thing at all.

You cannot reconcile those two demands. To grant the first is to deny the second, and to grant the second is to deny the possibility of the first.

You seem to say it means "wearing pink stuff and frilly stuff...clothes and dresses...that sort of thing." If that's all there is to 'being a girl," then it's awfully simple, isn't it?

I think the question was something like what makes clothing girly - not what does it mean to be a girl.

How can "girly" not mean, "being like a girl"? Even grammatically, that would seem obvious.

Many guys who like to wear girly clothes do it because they like girly clothes - without claiming to be girls.

What is "girlyness"? Why are pink and frills "girly," when there is no such essential thing as a "girl"?

Basically, just like I do not feel comfortable wearing "girly" clothes, they feel extra comfortable wearing them. I am not sure if you ever had a conversation with someone like that? I have.

Yes, I've heard people say such things. In fact, I have a very close friend who is a girl who much prefers boyish attire. But she recognizes what she is doing, and is honest about it; and she doesn't pretend to be a boy, and isn't homosexual either.

So such things can be coherently said. But those who say them are essentializing "girl" and "man", and also identifying them with specific clothing styles. Are you an essentialist? Do you believe that "girl" is a specific thing, and is identified with "pink and frilly" clothes?

They seem willing to pay the price of being logical about that. They're saying, "I know these clothes are normally associated with boys, and I'm not one; but I still want to wear those things." And that's a perfectly understandable claim. But if they were to add, as gender ideology insists, "Of course, there's no such essential thing as a girl or boy," then their claim would obviously become absurd and contradictory relative to their first claim.

[Immanuel Can]

Doesn't sound like much of a 'community' then.

Right. How can men who don't like women be in community with women who don't like men? How can men who think they ARE women be in community with men who deny there is any such essential thing as a "woman"? How can people who tell girls who like girls that they are lesbians be in community with people who tell the same sorts of girls that it means they really are men? And how can those who think men and women are a real thing be in community with those who think "man" and "woman" are not real, but are "socially assigned at birth," and how can either be in community with those who think both cannot be natural or assigned, but rather have to be surgically produced?

Where is this "community," anyway?

[accelafine]

Doesn't sound like much of a 'community' then.

Right. How can men who don't like women be in community with women who don't like men? How can men who think they ARE women be in community with men who deny there is any such essential thing as a "woman"? How can people who tell girls who like boys that they are lesbians be in community with people who tell the same sorts of girls that it means they really are men? And how can those who think men and women are a real thing be in community with those who think "man" and "woman" are not real, but are "socially assigned at birth," and how can either be in community with those who think both cannot be natural or assigned, but rather have to be surgically produced?

Where is this "community," anyway?

Just wait for the carefully constructed and rational counterargument which will consist of 'how much glue have you been sniffing?'

[carlafeit]

I can see exactly what's going on. But gender ideology can't allow us to see it. It insists both that gender is a real thing (i.e. that it's necessary for Bob to become, that his desire is legitimate and has as its object "being like a girl"), and also that "girl" is an infinitely flexible and infinitely unessentializable thing that anybody who wants to can be, so really means no specific thing at all.

I am confused about the argument you are making. You do not seem to be addressing anything I said.

I never claimed that words like girl have no meaning, or that they have infinitely flexible meaning.

Basically, just like I do not feel comfortable wearing "girly" clothes, they feel extra comfortable wearing them. I am not sure if you ever had a conversation with someone like that? I have.

Yes, I've heard people say such things. In fact, I have a very close friend who is a girl who much prefers boyish attire. But she recognizes what she is doing, and is honest about it; and she doesn't pretend to be a boy, and isn't homosexual either.

Did I ever claim to be a boy?

So such things can be coherently said. But those who say them are essentializing "girl" and "man", and also identifying them with specific clothing styles. Are you an essentialist? Do you believe that "girl" is a specific thing, and is identified with "pink and frilly" clothes?

Wearing girly clothes no more makes you a girl than wearing one of those big furry Russian hats makes one Russian.

This does not mean that descriptors like "girly" and "Russian" cannot be applied to clothing and be meaningful.

[carlafeit]

Just wait for the carefully constructed and rational counterargument which will consist of 'how much glue have you been sniffing?'

Seems like a pretty simple question.

Have you been partaking of the famous Canadian fentanyl?

Have you been partaking of all-American glue?

These are not counterarguments, but questions concerning what is the case.

[carlafeit]

Just wait for the carefully constructed and rational counterargument which will consist of 'how much glue have you been sniffing?'

Seems like a pretty simple question.

Have you been partaking of the famous Canadian fentanyl?

Have you been partaking of all-American glue?

These are not counterarguments, but questions concerning what is the case.

[Immanuel Can]

I never claimed that words like girl have no meaning, or that they have infinitely flexible meaning.

That's fine. Then you're what's called an "essentialist," meaning somebody who thinks "boy" and "girl" refer to stable, objective realities, rather than simply to some state of how the persons in question "feel about" their identity.

That also makes you what used to be called "a tomboy," meaning "a girl who dresses and/or behaves in a traditionally more masculine way. And it would make a male who goes the other way simply a "cross-dresser." The clothes change, but the sex remains the same.

Basically, just like I do not feel comfortable wearing "girly" clothes, they feel extra comfortable wearing them. I am not sure if you ever had a conversation with someone like that? I have.

Yes, I've heard people say such things. In fact, I have a very close friend who is a girl who much prefers boyish attire. But she recognizes what she is doing, and is honest about it; and she doesn't pretend to be a boy, and isn't homosexual either.

Did I ever claim to be a boy?

Nope. You didn't. And that's what I'm agreeing with. You're evidently a tomboy. Are we on the same page, now?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Helpful hints offered by Alexis Jacobi, Master Interpreter & Explainer:

I am confused about the argument you are making. You do not seem to be addressing anything I said.

I never claimed that words like girl have no meaning, or that they have infinitely flexible meaning.

Immanuel is not really arguing, or even conversing, with you. He is arguing against a larger state of affairs in the world, which he opposes.

You remind him of those issues, or better put you stimulate him to continue in his larger complaint.

If I can help in any other way please don’t hesitate to ask.

[Immanuel Can]

He is arguing against a larger state of affairs in the world, which he opposes.

No, sorry...I was arguing that gender ideology is incoherent. But carlafeit seems to be one of those few people today who are totally unaware that the sexual politics of our day also hold that "gender" (their fake concept instead of "sex") is "fluid" and thus can be adopted and adapted without bounds, by anybody who "feels" this or that way. How carlafeit has escaped hearing this sort of thing, I cannot imagine; but apparently she has.

She is suggesting that she does not know about gender ideology, and thus presumably has not heard of autogynephelia, gender, fluidity, non-binarism, transitioning and other such aberrations, so is not defending them. I was expecting she would be, since they are routinely implicated in the defending of men wearing women's clothing and related stuff.

As surprising as her unfamilarity with all that is, especially given its prominence in academia and the press, I'm willing to believe her. Thus, I have corrected my misapprehension concerning her lack of information about all that, and we're on the same page...I think.

[accelafine]

He is arguing against a larger state of affairs in the world, which he opposes.

No, sorry...I was arguing that gender ideology is incoherent. But carlafeit seems to be one of those few people today who are totally unaware that the sexual politics of our day also hold that "gender" (their fake concept instead of "sex") is "fluid" and thus can be adopted and adapted without bounds, by anybody who "feels" this or that way. How carlafeit has escaped hearing this sort of thing, I cannot imagine; but apparently she has.

She is suggesting that she does not know about gender ideology, and thus presumably has not heard of autogynephelia, gender, fluidity, non-binarism, transitioning and other such aberrations, so is not defending them. I was expecting she would be, since they are routinely implicated in the defending of men wearing women's clothing and related stuff.

As surprising as her unfamilarity with all that is, especially given its prominence in academia and the press, I'm willing to believe her. Thus, I have corrected my misapprehension concerning her lack of information about all that, and we're on the same page...I think.

Or puberty blockers, or the heavy involvement of paedophilia, or the rapists in women's prisons, or the sports cheats....Some 'community'. Yet she was talking previously about how the 'trans community' (what a sight that must be) has no consensus on 'gender'. How would she know this if she isn't involved with it and has no awareness of it?

[Immanuel Can]

He is arguing against a larger state of affairs in the world, which he opposes.

No, sorry...I was arguing that gender ideology is incoherent. But carlafeit seems to be one of those few people today who are totally unaware that the sexual politics of our day also hold that "gender" (their fake concept instead of "sex") is "fluid" and thus can be adopted and adapted without bounds, by anybody who "feels" this or that way. How carlafeit has escaped hearing this sort of thing, I cannot imagine; but apparently she has.

She is suggesting that she does not know about gender ideology, and thus presumably has not heard of autogynephelia, gender, fluidity, non-binarism, transitioning and other such aberrations, so is not defending them. I was expecting she would be, since they are routinely implicated in the defending of men wearing women's clothing and related stuff.

As surprising as her unfamilarity with all that is, especially given its prominence in academia and the press, I'm willing to believe her. Thus, I have corrected my misapprehension concerning her lack of information about all that, and we're on the same page...I think.

Or puberty blockers, or the heavy involvement of paedophilia, or the rapists in women's prisons, or the sports cheats....Some 'community'. Yet she was talking previously about how the 'trans community' (what a sight that must be) has no consensus on 'gender'. How would she know this if she isn't involved with it and has no awareness of it?

Good points. I guess we'll have to wait and see how she explains that. Might be awhile, though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, sorry...

Never, ever be sorry. For what?!

Be yourself!

Two things are true: 1) that by challenging Carla (arguing, conversing) that you are responding to the “madness in the world” and, as is usual for you, arguing against Satan’s havoc and in support of God and God’s will for man.

If I’ve got this wrong please let me know.

No truer encapsulation of your endeavor could be expressed. It is just that.

2) you bring up all sorts of interesting points, angles and perspectives that, very definitely, can and should be talked about.

My clarification was, like me, completely wonderful & useful. Really, I deserve a medal of honor!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yet she was talking previously about how the 'trans community' (what a sight that must be) has no consensus on 'gender'. How would she know this if she isn't involved with it and has no awareness of it?

I believe she said that there are variant positions held by people within that group. “Community” is a commonly used term. It is a way of referring to a group.

She definitely knows what she knows since, as she said, she associates with people in that group.

However, what she likely does not know about is the critical position that seeks to uncover what you and Immanuel believe are the “pathologies” within the gender, trans, homosexual (etc etc) “community”.

I have a strong feeling she has not, for example, been exposed to James Lindsay’s critical position on the politics of gender.

For instance here.

And she has also indicated that she has not much background in philosophy and possibly the sort of debate that surrounds contemporary issues and the Culture Wars.

I want to mention, Accelafine, that in addition to the kilt and the worm-drive circular saw, that I am incorporating into my presentation a really nifty little routine on roller blades. DM me and I’ll send an initial video. It’s hot!

[accelafine]

Yet she was talking previously about how the 'trans community' (what a sight that must be) has no consensus on 'gender'. How would she know this if she isn't involved with it and has no awareness of it?

I believe she said that there are variant positions held by people within that group. “Community” is a commonly used term. It is a way of referring to a group.

She definitely knows what she knows since, as she said, she associates with people in that group.

However, what she likely does not know about is the critical position that seeks to uncover what you and Immanuel believe are the “pathologies” within the gender, trans, homosexual (etc etc) “community”.

I have a strong feeling she has not, for example, been exposed to James Lindsay’s critical position on the politics of gender.

For instance here.

And she has also indicated that she has not much background in philosophy and possibly the sort of debate that surrounds contemporary issues and the Culture Wars.

I want to mention, Accelafine, that in addition to the kilt and the worm-drive circular saw, that I am incorporating into my presentation a really nifty little routine on roller blades. DM me and I’ll send an initial video. It’s hot!

Good grief. Wikipedia is such a joke now. So anyone who criticises this 'ideology' (if a raggle taggle collection of perverts, opportunistic sports cheats, fetishists, woman-haters, vulnerable autists, attention-seekers, anyone with blue hair..... could be called an 'ideology') is a 'far right conspiracy-theorist'. The only 'conspiracy' is whoever is behind pumping countless millions into funding it. Imagine how much money it would take to buy essentially every Western govt. institution. Actually it's not even a 'conspiracy'. These people aren't bothering to hide.