Would you let your 5 years old son wear a dress?

@LeopoldBloom There are two perspectives here.
One is the idea that a biological male shouldn’t want to become female, which is "a step down", power-wise.

The other is the belief that to have a penis is to be intrinsically dangerous to anyone who does not.

That’s why the concern exists about transwomen (especially those who haven’t had surgery) being able to enter cis womens’ safe spaces. It’s something many cis women worry about, too.

A transman is not necessarily considered a physical danger to cis men.

@LeopoldBloom Exactly the point I was made in another discussion group once. Was Madonna who used to do male dressing a lot any different to a famous Dutch author here who wore dresses at home? The lecturer idealised Madonna and went mad because of the question. Somehow it's not even tolerated the other way. Even today, after all is said and done, and that's a real shame

@bijouxbroussard Interesting how the same people who dismiss date rape and tend to give the man the benefit of doubt when a woman makes a rape accusation, suddenly turn into Sir Galahad at the prospect of Dylan Mulvaney using the ladies room. Of course, they reframe it as some hyper-masculine goon "identifying" as female and lurking in there as an excuse to assault women, not a trans woman that no one would notice without a blood test.

I got into an argument with a troll yesterday who said "I identify as female today, so if you don't let me use the ladies room, you're anti-trans." I told him that there's a difference between someone making a sincere effort to conform to their experienced gender identity and a troll mocking them.

@LeopoldBloom You’re right, some of it is convenient, like the Catholics protesting drag queens "for the sake of children" but saying nothing about their own pedo priests.

@bijouxbroussard As far as I'm concerned, anyone enraged about nonexistent gender reassignment surgery for children, but ambivalent about routine infant circumcision, is a hypocrite.

@LeopoldBloom I'm pretty confused at how the love of freedom comes to play here.

Doesn't the freedom and less focus to dictate and control you seem more pleasurable in a liberal view? When women are granted more intellectual freedom and aren't being policed as hard, how can that be viewed as inferiority? Throughout the whole feminist push, breaking past being controlled and put in boxes was the problem and at the time it was considered infringement on equality and choice. Now the post is questioning for males and instead of it being seen as infringement on total freedom, it's superiority?

Is the core idea that women are negligible? I'm tryna make sense od how this comes together here

@Iwantyourhotwife Oh boy, you're obviously a man alright. Sorry, I meant that jokingly 😁

@val70 I am 😂
No offense taken at all

The question is asked sincerely too

@Iwantyourhotwife How about trying to think as a woman? Perhaps that's the idea of it all. To try to think in some else's place. Well, most women suffer a lot from anxiety and are rather more frightened easily for one. I could go on, but it's partly generalization yet again. It's not like everything is nowaways all cheerful stuff. The suffering or indeed the situation as being any human could have shifted too

@val70 those don't come to mind in my day to day perspective, although it may be a critical component

Part of me thinks I can't think like a woman at all. I get the struggles from a 3rd party lens but imagination is not real and things can get real

@Iwantyourhotwife Imagination isn't the same as trying to think things through :-)

@val70 agreed

@val70 We have an insignificant number of trans girls in girl's sports, and an even smaller number of children having gender reassignment surgery. Regardless of your feelings, these are non-issues. Compare that to the millions of infant boys whose foreskins are amputated for no valid medical reason. Hence my accusation of hypocrisy. Circumcision amounts to violent genital assault on children. The only reason it's tolerated is because people are used to it.

@LeopoldBloom Now don't forget the circumsion of girls! :) otherwise you're putting women really down there, regardless of having feelings at all

@Iwantyourhotwife In a patriarchy, women being allowed to get away with more in certain contexts isn't freedom; it's because they're viewed as less important. It's infantilization. This is why there are apparent prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, but none against lesbianism, because it doesn't matter what women do with each other. But when we're talking about actual power in society, that's where the limits show up. Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, and couldn't apply for their own credit card until 1972 without a man's approval. Even today, men hold a majority of positions of authority in business and government.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was once asked how many women there would need to be on the Supreme Court to satisfy her, and her answer was "nine." People need to ask themselves why that makes them uncomfortable, but nine men on the court doesn't.

@LeopoldBloom Right, clearly you haven't read the book of Ruth, Ester, and the rest :) but I leave you yet again with the thought that you can't think outside the box

@val70 Fortunately, female genital mutilation has been illegal in the US since 2003 when the Female Genital Mutilation Act was passed. I'll bet you thought it has always been illegal. There are girls in the US as young as 20 who were legally excised.

FGM is an atrocity. I used to live in a country where it was universally inflicted on girls when they reached the age of 8. Boys were circumcised at the same age. Believe me, I'm not forgetting about FGM, but since it's illegal in the US, my concern is with the equally-barbaric practice of male genital mutilation, which needs to be outlawed immediately. And the people who are screaming about gender reassignment surgery should be at the forefront of demanding that. The fact that they're not proves that they don't care about kids, they just hate trans people.

@val70 I'm not sure what the Books of Ruth and Esther have to do with anything we're discussing. Ruth is about a Jewish widow going back to her people after having married a foreigner, and one of her widowed daughters, Ruth, decides to forsake her own people and remain with her mother-in-law. Ruth as a result marries a Jewish man and begets the line of David. Esther is about a woman risking her life to ask her husband, the king, to stop his advisor Haman from killing the Jewish people. This was in a society where even the king's wife could not approach him without permission, so she was risking death by making this request.

Regardless, the Bible should not be used as a guide to morality. I think you're the one who's incapable of thinking outside the box. You're probably one of those incels who thinks it's unfair that men have to register for the draft.

@LeopoldBloom Yes, exactly my point :-) you can't think outside your own concepts :-) what a pity then. Never mind, again, I wish you a good life :-)

@val70 You can't think outside of yours, either. At least, I don't think you can since you haven't exactly said anything other than "you're wrong." OK, professor, better get back to school, your class is waiting.

@LeopoldBloom 🤣 gosh, you're easily pricked. Nevertheless, I stayed polite

@val70 You just think you're polite.