Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism

[anonymous105]

@anonymous45

I don’t spend much time in the US and can’t vote there. Maybe that context helps. Mostly I get US news via YouTube and skip plenty, so while I have an idea what’s going on, it’s not as relevant to me as general trends.

That helps a lot. My guess would be that your news intake is severely biased. But if you are not in the US and not participating in the US political situation, I find it less concerning.

@anonymous45

I agree it’s antiliberal, though the idea of a top down decree seems somewhat reasonable to me when other governmental or pseudo governmental bodies (states, universities) are pushing an agenda also.

I think there is a qualitative difference between pushing an agenda of tolerance, liberalism, and mutual benefit vs. pushing an agenda of bigotry and discrimination. I don’t think all agendas are equally good and bad. Many issues are mixed, confusing, tricky… and many agendas are flawed. But also some agendas are actually evil, with bad intentions, that would be evil even if implemented effectively. I think those are worse than flawed, confused agendas that might have unintended negative consequences when implemented.

@anonymous45

Besides under 12s mixed gender leagues, I can’t think of many examples where mixed leagues make sense. Even something like chess would crowd a lot of women out if it were combined. (Also it’s usually allowed for women to compete in men’s leagues, just they don’t perform well most of the time).

Do you see how bringing up gendered chess leagues actually works against your position (and the anti-trans position in general) in this topic? I can explain but it might be good to think it through yourself.

A few things to consider:

What is the best argument for excluding trans women from professional women’s sports? What specific, objectively verifiable biological advantages do trans women have over cis women in sports? Do these advantages exist in all sports equally?

One thing that might also help is to not think about trans women as “identical to a typical man, but in a dress” for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Edit: Also, what might be some reasons women would choose to participate in women’s sports instead of mixed gender sports? Do those reasons vary from sport to sport? Where does chess fit in?

@anonymous45

Maybe, but I know several ordinary trans people (not influencers, have a pretty normal life outside of being trans) and many of them say pretty extreme things. Like implying someone is a nazi for using Twitter.

Implications have a problem compared to explicit statements, in that they can be easily interpreted multiple ways. So if they implied that, but did not say it outright, then maybe they meant something slightly different than you think. Maybe they were venting about what they perceive as a new or worsened problem, rather than literally saying everyone on Twitter is a nazi.

Did you know that once Elon Musk bought Twitter, many nazis who had previously been banned were unbanned? This makes some sense, considering Elon Musk felt comfortable performing multiple nazi salutes in a public setting. It is in fact extremely easy to find nazi content on Twitter now.

I don’t think that means everyone on Twitter is a nazi, though. But I think it would be reasonable to say that under Elon Musk’s control Twitter has become a nazi-friendly platform in a way that it did not used to be.

@anonymous45

It occurs to me now that I suspect f2m have a much easier time than m2f. Probably because it’s much much easier to pass. (He and his BF do quite well unless you know what to look for. I think they both have had masecomies too)

Yeah, testosterone is a much more powerful (or maybe a better word would be “overt” or “obvious”) hormone than estrogen in some ways, which is fortunate for trans men and unfortunate for trans women.

@anonymous45

I don’t have a great sense for the situation except what I see online which seems like violence from the left is on the rise (particularly with recent high profile attacks). Also actual violence doesn’t seem to be as much of an issue outside the US.

Did you know there have also been recent high profile attacks from the right? Well, I say high profile, in the sense that they were public assassinations of public figures, e.g. congresspeople. They were not as high profile in the sense that the federal government did not care about their deaths in the same way, and most online media did not dwell on their assassinations in the same way.

In general, it is plausible that left wing violence has risen lately. Here is some analysis of that:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us

Here is a useful image from that site:

As you can see, the dark blue line for left wing violence has gone up. It’s worth noting that even with that rise, the analysis points out left wing violence is much less lethal on average than right wing violence. I think there are some other takeaways one could immediately gather just from that one graph, much less the study itself.

One thing I find odd is you cared enough about this to mention it as a thing on your mind in your brain dump, but you did not care enough about it to actually look into the details, or fact-check the YouTube videos you have seen that maybe talked about this issue.

If you are not in the US and it doesn’t concern you, that’s totally fair IMO. You can choose to focus on other stuff. But if you choose to be concerned by it, and care about it, and be upset about it, then I think it would be wise to also choose to be well-informed on it.

I am adding bold in the below quote, it was not present in the original post.

@anonymous45

She did not seem to like my position of not trying to police other peoples opinions, but did acknowledge that it’s important that people are able to make mistakes without having their lives destroyed.

I do find it interesting that you do not like to police peoples’ opinions, but you are seemingly okay or unbothered by e.g. the US Federal Government trying to police peoples’ bodies by trying to ban gender affirming care.

I don’t think “policing opinions” has a clear definition. I agree with your trans friend that people should have space to make mistakes and change without their life being ruined. For example: I disagree with the current federal government exerting massive influence on society to get people fired or deported or imprisoned for saying bad things about Charlie Kirk. That seems very destructive to me.

But in general if people share their opinions in public, I think it is okay to criticize them in public.

@anonymous45

I asked her (respectfully) if there was one thing she could say to the ones that would listen, what would it be, and she replied along the lines of “I’m a human too”. She also mentioned getting a lot of hate on the street.

I empathize with your friend. How did you feel about those comments? You did not mention.

@anonymous45

Anyway I do have some access to do that kind of research but have been hesitant particularly because it seems like curiosity is rewarded with hostility. (Passively observing this is also one of the things that pushed me toward an anti-trans position)

In person one on one is probably easier than over discord for that sort of thing (esp in a public channel)

Curiosity can take many forms. You can ask questions in a judgmental or accusatory way, and you can ask questions in an open and accepting way. Neutral ways probably exist too, though I think they inevitably will lean one way or the other.

And also, if someone is used to getting asked questions in a negative way, they may be primed to expect that, so they may assume negative intentions unless the question is asked in a very accepting and friendly way. Also, some people don’t want to answer personal questions like that, and are tired of having to defend their existence, and might be fed up/annoyed at the whole thing.

In general I would agree that private discussions will probably yield better results. But I don’t think that’s always true.

@anonymous45

Yeah, I think I have a strong desire for as consistent a view as possible, and some of my reservations are more consistent with an anti-trans position than neutral or pro. In scientific matters those kind things are more important maybe because a good explanation should handle all criticisms and be consistent and general.

Social/political ideological camps are not generally comparable to coherent scientific theories. Maybe some that are purely concerned with academic theory (like some forms of economics, maybe) could get a little close. But real world ideological camps, advocacy groups, political parties, etc… definitely not.

There is zero reason to assume they will be consistently right or consistently wrong. I think the current Republican party is overall deeply evil and actively working to bring about the destruction of liberalism, but they might still be right on some specific topics. And the Republican party of 10 or 20 years ago was far from perfect, but I think they were way less bad than now. That’s pretty normal and expected.

You could be principled and consistent, but that does not imply any specific conclusions on any specific topic.