Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2hr ago
But I’ve seen enough examples of non passing, pre-T trans guys insisting that their boyfriend is gay for being with them and I think they’re being genuine. Likewise in reverse with gender-criticals.
You have seen gender-criticals claiming a non-passing trans guy in a relationship with a man is in... a straight relationship? That would be consistent! (I think the trans guy claiming her boyfriend is totally gay is coping, because she'd be mad to realize he still thinks of her as a woman.) Or do you mean something else? I'm honestly confused here.
A trans man is female, but can be a man, a boyfriend, a husband, referred to as “that dude over there”, because those aren’t scientific terms or claims about their chromosomes.
This is the whole "sex versus gender" debate. Provisionally, I am willing to accept that gender roles are more fluid than gametes, but I also think gender roles are social/psychological constructs (i.e., basically I agree with the gender-criticals here). If you are a man but you "feel" like a woman and act like a woman and want to be seen as a woman, fine, whatever, but it doesn't make you female. In an ideal world, this wouldn't matter and we wouldn't have to debate it. Doctors could factor in your natal sex when it matters and otherwise it would be mostly irrelevant. Just as being an adopted child does not make you less of a real child, but if you start being concerned with genetic diseases you kind of need to know someone's biological parentage.
What are we actually debating here?
At its heart, we're debating whether gender "exists" in some real fashion, outside your head or mine, as something separate from sex.
The reason we care about the debate are all the effects it has that makes people mad. You have your religious conservatives who think living as a different sex is violating God's law. They can pound sand as far as I'm concerned, but they exist. You have the fragile trans-identified people who think it's a violation of their personhood not to really, truly see them and internalize your conception of them as whatever sex they say they are. They can also pound sand. Both those camps would be fine if they just MYOB and let people think what they wish as long as their rights aren't being infringed upon.
But then you have the men who want to enter women's space (almost never the reverse) and that's where all the heat is, even if it's a relative small frequency compared to the total trans population. But if you think women's sports matter, it's important! If you think women being raped in prison is important, it matters! If you think bad faith actors using trans ideology to act out their fetishes and subject other people to them under the cover of identity politics is an issue, it matters!
You seem pretty reasonable: you are not bothered by my thinking of you as a man as long as I'm not rude to you. But that hasn't been my experience with most trans people. They don't want you to just mouth the words. They want you to really believe, or at least pretend to believe so convincingly that you'd suck girldick and call yourself straight if it came to that. We're debating whether it's possible to accommodate such people while also letting you live your life as a woman.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2hr ago
I spoke to both of them. Don't know how you concluded I was only rapping Dean.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11hr ago
Fwiw I didn't think you were Darwin. And generally speaking you have not been modded harshly. You get reported a lot for taking contrary opinions, but we don't mod people for that. That you rile people is clear, and yes, I realize that being a lefty here means getting dogpiled a lot, and that's no fun. People are not allowed to insult you, but they are allowed to argue with you, and they are allowed to say they don't like how you argue.
You do seem to enjoy rattling cages, and you can hardly go around poking people and then complain that you are being poked back.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11hr ago
I don't think he is either, but once it's been raised people will keep pestering us about it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11hr ago
@Dean, knock it off.
You - you're participating in this slapfight too and not conducting yourself any better. If you want to block someone, block them and move on, do not loudly announce you are blocking them, do not loudly announce you are reporting them, and do not say you're blocking someone but you're unblocking just to have one last word.
Also, sigh, just to put this to rest so we don't have to hear about it forever: are you Darwin?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12hr ago
"Bad faith" covers a broad spectrum, from straw men and weak men to gish gallops and gotcha questions to outright trolling.
Since we're not mind readers, it's necessarily a judgment call and if we don't mod someone who people think is obviously posting in bad faith, it's because our threshold for pulling the trigger is higher than the threshold of people being triggered.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
13hr ago
Yes, depending on the profession, there are definitely jobs in America where being exposed as a "transphobe" (not posting hateful things on Twitter, but just saying trans women are men) can get you fired. Not everywhere; most workplaces just expect you to be polite to your coworkers and don't want to deal with disputes over what someone believes in their personal life. But any job that has public exposure and leftist stakeholders can be perilous to be "out" with heterodox views.
Sure, I don’t disagree. But if you have someone that looks like a hairy bearded man with a penis, both the pro-trans woke camp and the trans critical side are saying it’s somehow possible for a straight man to be attracted to them, either because the hairy bearded man is a trans woman and trans women are women, or because they’re a trans man and straight men are into biological female.
I... really do not think that is true. I mean, wokes might claim that a hairy bearded trans woman is a woman, and therefore if you are a male in a relationship with said trans woman, that is a heterosexual relationship. But realistically I think even wokes would be surprised to meet a 100% straight man going for that. Of course I think that that's because even wokes, deep down, know that said hairy bearded trans woman is in fact a man.
As for the trans criticals, if a straight man were into Buck Angel, I think they are perfectly capable of admitting that Buck Angel looks like a man and if you are a man who finds Buck Angel hot you are probably not all that straight. But that still wouldn't make Buck Angel a man.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
17hr ago
That indeed sometimes happens, as I lampshaded with my consideration of "men exaggerating." What also happens is men hating on the experiences of other men to protect their own egos and the Wonderfulness of women.
Sneer noted, but I am neither jealous of your sexual experiences nor trying to protect the Wonderfulness of women. You are kind of like early Kulak, in that I am not sure how seriously to take you and whether you are just playing a character in preparation for taking your act on the road (to Twitter).
I'm aware of such white-washing attempts to salvage women's rape fantasies, even if the white-washed version still lies outside the Overton window in popular discourse.
I don't think the "white-washed version" (that women fantasize about being dominated and ravished by a man they were already attracted to) is outside the Overton window in popular discourse. It is outside the range of acceptable discourse in feminist circles, but we weren't talking about those, were we? The Rhett Butler/Scarlett Ohara staircase scene is something everyone instinctively understands even if feminists call it rape.
...fantasize about it so strongly and frequently that they admit it in a study. I don't doubt there's a non-zero number of women who don't have rape fantasies. However, seeing as light-BDSM is well, lighter, than rape—the 31% to 62% is a floor for the proportion of women who are turned on by light-BDSM (or heavier).
I don't know what the actual percentage is and how each individual woman would qualify what she is turned on by. What I am disputing is the extrapolation you are making, from "most women like being dominated and get turned on by a little rough play" to "women like being raped."
It's not a serious question at all, just a loaded one to smuggle in "whine" and "yourself facing charges" as if guilt is presupposed and any defense unmerited and illegitimate.
No, it was a serious question. Granted, I don't think you're serious, and no, I don't believe your claims that you go straight for choking, spitting and smacking and every woman likes it.
Serious question: if you kissed some woman who turned out to be very much not into that, what would you do? Whine about how bitches lie and entrap men when you find yourself facing charges?
Sure, I'll give you a serious answer. If I am kissing a woman who didn't want to be kissed, I've made a pretty serious error in judgment. Supposing I tried the Humphrey Bogart "forceful kiss" and miscalculated, if I were then facing charges, either I done fucked up (how do you try to a kiss a woman who is so not into it that she presses charges?) or I should stay away from BPD chicks. Would I whine about it? Well, I'd probably feel pretty disgruntled about trying to stick my dick in crazy and it backfiring, but you can simultaneously acknowledge that women aren't all wonderful and also that you should probably be pretty sure someone you kiss (or choke or spit on or beat) will be into it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Military slang for an unidentified/unknown object, coming from its original meaning of a supernatural creature.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
By my own definition, I don't think something almost universally beloved can be bad. The idea that one can 'snooker' people into liking something that is actually bad seems like a confusion of terms to me.
I think perhaps we disagree about cause and effect. I think if something is universally popular, it's almost certainly because it's good. You seem to be arguing that popularity makes it good by definition.
I tried to be clear that I wasn't writing a polemic or positing a malevolent conspiracy, it's just that the people broadly in control of the culture genuinely have preferences that can't be publicly satisfied without making lots of other people unhappy as a side effect.
This is probably true to some degree, if by "people broadly in control of the culture" you mean the Left, because pretty definitionally leftists want to change society, and that is going to upset lots of people. There might be a correlation between "likes brutalist architecture" and "likes immigration" but I am not convinced it's coming from the same place or that "upsets people/is bad" is its defining characteristic.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I think popularity has a loose, but certainly not precise, correlation to "good."
Would you accede to the proposition that a work of art which is loved by much or most of the 95% is 'objectively good' and one which disgusts and repels them is 'objectively bad'? To my mind, whether a given work will delight the vast majority of people seems like a far better indication of its quality than technical skill or whether it accomplished what the artist wanted.
Can you give me an example of a work that is loved by 95% of the population but which you think might be arguably "bad" on a technical level? I wouldn't agree that popularity defines "goodness" but I'd be hard-pressed to think of something so universally beloved that just somehow snookered everyone and is bad, actually.
Personally, I've enjoyed lots of things that were technically bad - everyone dunks on Rowling's prose, the art for Higurashi is genuinely terrible, etc.
I am not familiar with Higurashi, but I've written about Rowling before. Her prose is not great (though she's improved quite a bit since Harry Potter), but it's also not the strong point of her work. I would not agree that she is "technically bad," though I would agree that there are other authors whose prose is objectively better.
When you conflate bauhaus and brutalism with immigration, you kind of lose me. Bauhaus and brutalism are not to my tastes but I've seen works of both that I thought were pretty good and I am unconvinced they are some deliberate construct imposed on the masses by the same elites who do all the other social things you disapprove of.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
If you just want to lob Dunning-Kruger Syndrome accusations at people who disagree with you, I could make up some Qs of my own, but again, it's not in any way a convincing argument.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
People are moved by the placebo effect, authority bias, the desire to fit in, and ambient cues in the environment. Just as they were in 1924, four years after Novus Angelus, where this was proven:
Perhaps some people really were moved by Yes, We Have No Bananas or "Jerdanowitsches's" other works. More likely it took in some critics who weren't really moved by it but were signaling, which is what Scott (and you) claim is all that people who say they like Klee's work are doing.
Certainly people can be hoaxed (Jordan-Smith isn't the first guy to put one over on a community of pretentious snobs). But people have in this thread have expressed why they find Angelus Novus worthwhile. You can disagree with their analysis, but all you've offered are personal expressions of disgust. There is a difference between "I don't like this" and "This is objectively bad and if you think it's good you're either lying or stupid." And as I said, bluntly, I don't believe your analysis is based on the art but on the artist.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Why should anyone else's reaction be more meaningful than mine? They're just saying "Yum!" with more words.
When someone tells me "This is bad" or "This is good," I'd rather hear why they think that. Not just "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" or "It disgusts me."
I do think to some degree there is such a thing as "objectively" good and bad art, but that is mostly in the realm of technical skill, and perhaps to a lesser degree, does it accomplish what it intended? So for example, I think Twilight largely fails in the first category (it's badly written, though not the worst written book I've ever read) but obviously succeeds in eliciting feelings in its (mostly teenage girl) audience that the author intended. Angelus Novus actually shows technical proficiency which is perhaps not obvious at first glance, and it elicits feelings and analysis that some random minimalist angel sketch wouldn't. I wouldn't claim it's great or even the best in its class, but when people just sneer at it because it's "ugly" or "degenerate," or claiming "it fails because I didn't like it," I don't see that as meaningful critique. And it's telling that most of the critique seems to come not from a genuine analysis of the work, or even a particular dislike of the style, but because of culture war reads.
"That claim is unfalsifiable, compared to having failed" seems like a reasonable statement, and one that I'm not sure you're even disagreeing with.
I disagree that "having failed" is more falsifiable than "it didn't fail." It implies you can objectively say it "fails" as art (because I didn't like it).
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Traditional European art moves you
It moves you.
Do you think it possible that people who are not you are moved by things that do not move you, and are not moved by things that move you?
I'm not saying "Everything is subjective" so no one can say anything is good or bad. But when you make absolute statements about not just the artistic, but the social and moral value of art, as if your judgment is clearly true and everyone else is either pretending or being deceived by the devil, well, it's beyond the arrogance of someone saying "I don't like modern art" or "Twilight is a crappy book." It's presuming that you can define good art (according to your particular fixations) and see through the pretense of anyone who likes things you don't like.
As I said, Angelus Novus doesn't move me. But clearly it moves some people. They aren't just degenerate angel-haters. Even I can see that while at first glance, sure, it looks like something I might put on the fridge because my kid drew it, ("Oh, it's an angel? Of course it is!") but further examination shows a level of intentionality, composition, color, and drafting that required artistry. Maybe not to my taste but there is meaning there. Even you evidently sense that since you so strongly react to its "degeneracy," which certainly could not be the case for some unskilled scribble.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Why would your reaction be meaningful to anyone who is not you? You're just saying "Yuck!" with more words.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
If you are not capable of evaluating anything outside your totalizing culture war impulses, your art criticism will look like this, verbose and childish. Naive but not in an unpretentious and innocent way. The opposite.
You hate Angelus Novus because of what you assume about the painter and his intent, not because of any intrinsic ugliness or "degeneracy" in the work.
If you had been told that Klee was a devout Christian who spent his life trying to understand God and His angels and show them to others in a particular symbolic way, resulting in a very idiosyncratic, arguably "ugly" art style? Your opinion would flip like a bit. Maybe you still wouldn't particularly enjoy his work, but you'd appreciate his intent and wouldn't be railing about degenerate filth corrupting the youth.
Which ironically makes the point of a lot of art appreciators (a point Scott tries to negate, not very successfully) that art has context, and no matter how much you try to "appreciate it on its own merits" you and it are not in a vacuum and your priors and the context of the piece influence your perception of it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Angelus Novus doesn't do much for me, but I can appreciate that there is more than surface level artistry in it.. I can see why many would call it ugly, but Scott's insistence that it's just objectively bad and everyone saying it's good are trying to put one over on the plebes is incredibly parochial.
I am put in mind of the little controversy spun up by Shad Brooks here.
Now, Shad is a tool. He's known for using Stable Diffusion to generate images, doing a little post-work on them, and claiming this makes him just as much of an artist as someone who actually draws or paints the same image. He's also a right-wing Mormon, so you've got your Culture War content too. But his Miyazaki diss is sort of the reverse of Scott's disdain for Klee. Shad thinks "More saturated, photorealistic style" is "better" and Miyazaki is just cartoons. As if Ghibli studios couldn't paint in a more "Stable Diffusion" style if they wanted to.. It's a deliberate choice of styles, and you can prefer one or the other, but just dunking on the style you like less doesn't mean you have taste. It means you're incapable of evaluating what goes into the choices artists make and are rating things according to whether you'd like it on your desktop wallpaper.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Yes, obviously other people on other topics collect SJ scalps, but I don't have to deal with SJs of other flavors generally. Or if I do, it's not somewhere where they have social or institutional power over dissenters.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Okay, and? I didn't say that all SJ inquisitors are trans or that all trans are SJ inquisitors. But yes, the correlation is significant enough that if I am dealing with trans people, I have to expect a high probability of dealing with someone who's looking to collect SJ scalps.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Your explanation is "They have freed themselves of society's lame constraints."
My explanation is: "It's a fetish."
Your explanation is more charitable than mine, but I think my explanation is more realistic. It more closely matches what I have observed about trans behavior, and it more closely matches what I observe about the specific ways in which they choose to present themselves.
Of course you could be right and I could be wrong. But it will take more than an alternative, more charitable theory to convince me.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
So look, I am admit I am skeptical of your story (men lie about sex too, especially in self-aggrandizing ways, and it's so convenient that it turns out every woman you've fucked turns out to be exactly the kind of shameless slutwhore you are constantly saying all women are), but let's say we take this all at face value, all the women you've tried it with turned out to love being slapped, spit on, and throatfucked without asking. I mean, yes, I believe there are a non-trivial percentage of women who are into that.
But there are also a non-trivial percentage of women who aren't. Even taking your "31% to 62% of women have rape fantasies at face value" (you do know that those "rape fantasies" are usually more like 50 Shades of Grey and not like Clockwork Orange, right? i.e.., they are fantasizing about being pleasurably dominated by an attractive man while abdicating responsibility for their own choices, not about some rando violently assaulting them) - that means 38% to 69% don't.
Serious question: if you tried that shit with some woman who turned out to be very much not into that, what would you do? Whine about how bitches lie and entrap men when you find yourself facing charges?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
I obviously didn't mean that I thought Amadan and SnapDragon thought the colors of the trans women's clothes clashed, but I did mean to imply that they were, perhaps, being judgemental in taking it for granted that revealing clothing is always "sexual", let alone "off-puttingly" so.
Let's put it this way: there are situations and contexts where wearing tight/revealing clothing or sexually suggestive logos is appropriate, and situations where it is not. In my experience, trans women are much more likely to push the boundaries of appropriateness. They are also much more likely to try to, ah, flaunt their "assets" in a way that a non-trans woman wouldn't. By which I mean, fat women don't usually go to casual events with clingy bodywrap dresses showing off their every bulge and roll, and flat-chested women don't usually try to draw attention to their nonexistent cleavage down to their hairy navels. In fact, they will usually try very much not to show off such bodily defects. Why, then, do fat trans women (men) get it into their heads that they are so uWu sexy doing this? At, say, a baseball game? I have never seen a fat woman wear a tutu and a lycra blouse over unshaved legs to a casual event; I have seen more than one fat trans woman do this.
Yes, I think it is often a sex thing. I think they have a fetish and they are involuntarily making us play along with their fantasy. No, not all trans women. But a lot of them.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Thanks! Maybe I’m a bit oblivious but I don’t detect that much hostility towards me personally, in fact many times I’ve been disappointed that I can’t seem to get into a proper argument with a gender critical person.
Maybe you aren't trying hard enough! But seriously, it's probably partly that our rules prevent anyone who genuinely despises trans people (of whom I am sure there are some here who fit into that category) from really unloading on you, and partly because "gender critical" usually refers specifically to a particular brand of radical feminism, which is also not too popular here. Unless you are using it more broadly to mean the same thing as "trans critical." ("Gender critical" feminists are not just "anti-trans," though - they are critical of the entire concept of gender roles and innate "gender" which is distinct from biological sex.)
I’ve been happy to criticise them here I think, and I’m no different in real life.
That's cool, but like most people on the Motte, you are probably quite outside the norm. Now would you actually defend someone who is facing a cancel mob for expressing trans-critical views?
Like what are you saying when you say you don’t think I’m a woman? Is it “for me, women refers to adult female humans, and you’re not in that category”, is it “I can’t override the part of my brain that sees you as a guy”, is it “I will not behave towards you the way I behave towards women because that goes against my beliefs”?
It is mostly the first two. I realize "I can't override the part of my brain that sees you as a guy" is not a rational basis on its own to deny someone's identity, but it is certainly a rational basis to... not react to you the way I would to a woman, whether that be socially, sexually, in terms of threat perception, etc. And saying that I should because my brain does not get to overrule your self-identification is basically demanding that I ignore my instincts and evolutionary hardwiring and defer to something I have only your word for. To be clear, I am not claiming that you are asserting something ridiculous like "If I think I am a hot woman, you should perceive me as a hot woman." But it does to lead to situations like trans women accusing lesbians of transphobia if they can't override their brains and see trans women as women.
As for "adult female humans," yes, I do think a woman is basically an adult human female, and every edge case or exception you will offer is something I have heard already and does not convince me. The fact that there exists a tiny percentage of people who aren't easily classified into a sexual binary because of physical, chromosomal, or other abnormalities does not mean humans are not a sexually dimorphic species. Such arguments have always struck me as not unlike claiming that humans are not bipeds because some people are born without legs.
So, yes, if you were born with XY chromosomes and a penis, then I'm sorry, you're a dude. You can present as female as you like and live as a female and for social purposes, I'm happy to let you do that, but you're still a dude, and my internal mental state for you will always be "dude".
As for all the various combinations of sexual attraction you propose, I am also happy to concede some people might be more sexually fluid than they acknowledge, but again, a bunch of edge cases testing "But what if you're attracted to him? What if you're attracted to her?" does not prove anything about someone's actual sex.
“Hey, she’s an adult female human, still a woman even if she got phalloplasty, top surgery, has been on testosterone for 20 years and is in the top 1st percentile of height for women!”
Yes. Yes, she is. Even if she passes. Does it matter, if 99% of the people she meets never know she's not a man? Probably not to her. But she's still a female.
Well, what does it mean for you to be caught out? Is it them flat out asking questions, like “do you think trans women belong in men’s prisons” or “what did you think of Lia Thomas?” and waiting expectantly for you to say the politically correct answer? That’s shitty behaviour and I’m sorry if that’s been your primary kind of interaction with trans people.
Generally speaking, no, I have not had trans people ask me such obvious interrogatory questions. It's more like "Well, you know I won't be watching the new Harry Potter HBO series because I refuse to support a transphobe (looks around meaningfully)." Or an obese man in drag lecturing us (men, not including himself in that category of course) about sexual harassment and women's safety. Or casual assertions about trans genocide, how dangerous some red state is for trans people, how all their rights are being taken away (because some sports organization just banned trans women in women's sports), etc. And my choices are (1) Nod affirmatively, (2) Say nothing (slightly less cowardly, slight chance of being noticed), (3) Say "Well Actually..." and bang! You're a transphobe!
For the most part, my interactions with trans people have not been "dreadful" as @SnapDragon put it. As I said, they are usually chill. But it's a regular series of... can I say "micro-aggressions," only somewhat ironically? Sexual innuendos, constant reminders of how trans they are, something dropped about JK Rowling or Trump. Nothing that a non-trans person might not also say, but you just notice it comes from them with greater than average frequency and there is always a sense that they are watching to see who reacts and how.
And from a non-trans person, if someone is annoying me with their pet hobby horse, I might be free to say "Give it a rest, come on," or if that would be overly aggressive for the situation, I would at the very least only suffer a smirk and a snort if I were to roll my eyes. But with a trans person... Tag.
I'm being vague here because I don't want to be more specific, you know? But take my word for it: I know some trans people, and they are mostly okay, but sometimes they Do and Say Things that really make me want to Say Things in response, and I don't because there would be Consequences that aren't worth it to me.
Yes, I already acknowledged other explanations are possible and that I am capable of being wrong. Clearly we've both seen different sets of evidence. I would suggest that leftist theorists on Discord servers are quite a different population from the trans women we see blow up on social media with their various shenanigans.
More options
Context Copy link