Savage Love Oct 9, 2018 at 4:00 pm

Quickies

Joe Newton

Comments

213

Even if you’re not fake Harriet, you annoy the shit out of me with you talking of what women want, as if we are known and one dimensional. You do my head in, so I’ll disengage.

214

Before someone finds a way to transphobe my words, go for it. And yes I’m pissed with some of the loud trans women as well, not noticing cis women are fucking under seige.

215

Take a nap, LG.

216

I'm not sure that anyone thinks that gender is 'just' biology. Culture, socialisation, a systemic organisation of differences--all these have to be part of it.

For the record, I have no desire to make everyone the same, especially to make them indifferent/undifferentiated with regard to gender. It's an unusual charge to lay at the door of someone fascinated by many of the effects (dress, the visual and material culture e.g. textiles, stationery) of the gender that I was not born into. There are--yes--NB people who push politically for the erasure of gender markers; but, to be clear, I'm not one of those people.

I would guess that commenters who are pithy, forthright, consistently sound etc. on the basics of gender politics, while falling down at once on trans issues / intergenerational feminist controversies, just don't know (m)any GQ or trans people. I take their comments in this light.

217

Curious @199: Indeed, it was "human females," a phrase that implies women are a different species from men even more strongly than "adult females" would have done. But yes. The term "human females" instead of "women," the word "hypergamy," the generalisation itself (which omitted the fact that men, too, seek partners superior to themselves on the desirability scale), and the term "sexual free market" conclusively pointed to a sexist attitude. The academic words and faux-scientific language attempting to lend credence to an indefensibly biased attitude. Though I am honoured to be the one who sexists know in advance will see right through their crap and call them on it! :)

Congrats on the double hunsky, Venn.
As to your pronoun crusade, I'm sorry but sometimes "one" is the appropriate pronoun for a given situation and sometimes it's the gender-neutral "they." Consider, "As each student arrives, give them their form to fill out" versus "As each student arrives, give one one's form to fill out."

Harriet @202: There's a big difference between "most everyone" and "the average person." Sadly, I'm willing to accept that the average person may not accept a woman as a woman if she still possesses a congenital penis, but this is changing. Sorry folk are confused by you. I do think the younger generations are far more au fait with the concept of gender being non-binary and varied.

Lava @203: "And how many of these sad young or old men who can’t find female company, irl, constantly watch these videos of women being force fucked and humiliated and go yeah, treat those bitches like the dirt they are.. feeding their rage at women for not being available to them." Nailed it. The problem is easy to see. The solution, not so much.

Lava @205: Sometimes the letters have to do with the LWs' genders, other times their gender is irrelevant. Usually there is at least some influence on the situation that results from whether the LW was socialised as male or female; sometimes these gender roles have a large bearing on the situation, other times they are negligible. Sometimes there are biological factors, for instance period sex. Gay men never have to ask this question! But often, the debate takes a turn for the polarised when one commenter or other opines that the LW's problem results solely from the fact that they are male and their partner female or vice versa. It's usually that the LW's problem is a direct result of every person in the world who is the opposite sex to them. Obviously, that's blatant bullshit, and other commenters (like me) step in to say so, and here we go into the third page of comments and tangents back and forth. I for one am glad folk like Harriet and CMD are here (and miss Capricornius) because they do not experience the world is such polarised ways, with men and women natural enemies like lions and gazelles; not every individual relates to the assignation of "man" or "woman" let alone its attendant stereotypes, and I'm glad we have the variety of perspectives to keep us all thinking. Those of us who choose to think, that is. (That's a dig, but not at you, Lava. Though I do think disengaging is a good idea at this point. Providing a different perspective is not "attacking gender." If "gender is more nuanced than male vs female for some people" is not a concept you can understand, or indeed tolerate, then yes, scrolling past Harriet's posts may be a good strategy for you.)

Harriet @207: I think we are all projecting when we talk about "what women/men/people want." We are all thinking of what we, personally, want. It's easy for me to pooh-pooh the idea that women are more interested in wealth than in looks and personality, but Melania Trump exists. So clearly there are some who do want wealth, but to round that up to "most" or "all" is both inaccurate and damaging. Meet a woman who only likes rich men, and you're not rich? Congratulations, you've avoided what would probably be a terrible relationship.

218

@217 BiDanFan "The academic words and faux-scientific language attempting to lend credence to an indefensibly biased attitude."

You're right, and before I got to the above sentence realized it. I accepted "human females" (as standard academic language) but precisely as you say it was a trap to legitimize the (originally academic jargon) "hypergamy" now in common use by virulent misogynists. The trap didn't /work/ on me, but neither did I realize it was a trap.

219

At this point I have zero idea what column this thread was born from.

220

M?? Harriet - If you merely advocated honestly for what you wanted, I'd disagree, but it would be no more than that. You've said before that my kind of pure gay is becoming extinct and crowed about it; I don't know why you're trying to be conciliatory now. And really, you ought to be enthusiastically behind my proposal of an amicable divorce for the G from the LVBTQ. Get rid of us, and you'll have a much easier time taking over the remaining crowd.

I am perhaps a bit adamant here because I am occasionally (about once or twice a month on average) taken for female myself. Had you gotten your hands on me when I was young, you'd probably have pushed me into presenting as GQ and accepting (to use Mr Savage's image) at first the occasional lesbian firefighter and eventually the whole caboodle. I did not defeat conversion therapy for such a fate.

221

Ms Fan - I'd not utter either of those sentences, probably going with "give each a form". I'll accept the description of "crusade" for my efforts on behalf of "whom", but not here. I am simply asserting that the singular "they" is not for me, and in this thread I chose to praise Ms Lava for using "one", as she didn't strike me as a typical "one" user, though perhaps I'm influenced by John Mortimer's finding it an advantage for Leo McKern to have been Australian on the grounds that Australians have no respect for authority. Now, I'll give anyone who wants one a gender-neutral pronoun; it just won't be a singular "they". Requesting that would be asking me to relive a moment of public humiliation that stuck with me for years.

222

Curious,

Daddy’s example was blatant. It was designed to offend, and it did. It provoked an interesting discussion, so good I guess. I keep thinking of what another commenter said (Ricardo, I think, or Donny- they’ve both been pretty funny recently) something about how you can’t have Batman without the Joker, ha ha. 

But seriously, yes to what BDF said regarding “female”.

I wanted to just chime in to say that if you are a fluent especially a native speaker, you are unlikely to use “female” in the offensive way- it’s not a natural usage and requires either making the deliberate effort to be offensive or else hanging around with people who do it so much you pick it up without realizing. 



To illustrate, unless you were a patron in an intergalactic or multispecies bar, you would never say:



“I’m going to ask that human female for her phone number.”



Even the red pill types probably wouldn't say that in casual conversation, only when talking about their theories of women. Daddy used it while discussing a tendency he’s observed in human females- the clinical language is the key. The use of clinical language is to constantly remind the man that he is observing something quite different from himself- a specimen that can be stimulated to provide desired results if one only learns it’s habits, etc. So you will find among the PUAs stuff like this: “Human females respond to alternate periods of attention and neglect.” etc. 



But back to our bar. You, as a native speaker who is speaking naturally, would probably not even say:



“I’m going to ask that female for her number.”



Most native speakers who do not read and/or hang out with red pill/MRA types, wouldn’t naturally talk like this. We don’t usually and non-clinically use “female” as a noun. That doesn’t mean we never do it, but usually not. Instead, you would probably say:

“I’m going to ask that woman for her number.” Or “I’m going to ask that girl for her number.”
Other nouns a native speaker might more naturally use than "female" depending on context/demographics, etc: lady, chick, gal, - you might even use a vulgar word like bitch, slut. But you probably wouldn’t say “female”. 



My point here is that it’s a tell. When a guy consistently uses "female" as a noun even when just discussing things in regular everyday life- how he bought a female a drink or how he was talking to this female at work, it’s a tell. It’s not just that it’s offensive (it’s more subtle and far less vulgar than some of the words he could use), it’s that it’s a red flag that you are dealing with a man that reads and/or hangs out with a particular type of misogynist- the red pillers/PUAs/incel/volcel resentment politics “feminism is a conspiracy” types. 


Most native speakers more natural use "female" as an adjective, especially when talking about groups. You mentioned academics, so let's make the setting a classroom. You'd say: "I have a lot of female students this year." You might even assume the noun (students) is implied and say something like "There are more females in my class this year." But you'd be unlikely to make female a noun when talking about an individual interaction. "A female turned her paper in late." You'd probably say instead: "A female student...", "A girl in my class...", "A woman in my class..." or more likely just "A student". See the difference?

In short (ha ha) don't over think it. If you are speaking naturally without the intention to dehumanize or offend, you are fine!

223

@BDF, Against my better judgement (because I lack self discipline I suppose) I want to jump in for just a second and say that one can have issues with a GQ poster that has nothing to do with their being GQ. I too appreciate and learn from Cap and CMD. The difference is the lack of sincerity and good faith in the conversation- the lack of space for the possibility that one could learn something - it's infuriating and suffocating. CMD likewise has experience raising children (I don't remember if they are his own) and so doesn't harp on about things he doesn't know. While I don't understand the GQ experience and no doubt could take lessons on my own biases, I identify with the frustration that my learning about this means being schooled on what it means to be a feminist or a woman. Even in this very thread, yet again we read that women in their 40s and 50s have a reduced sex drive - this is taken as a given (and this isn't the first time, no point in disputing, no point even in pointing out that the stereotype is often the opposite with cougars and Mrs Robinsons)- and then built upon this assumption is an explanation for misogynistic theories. I understand that he is not supporting those theories (rather to the contrary) but you can't pick at the heart of the false stereotype in the first place- you can't get to the meat of the dispute because he'll just take you in circles. My frustrations here have nothing to do with him being GQ- they're with his assumptions of women and the impenetrability of being able to talk about that, which he sometimes uses his GQness as a way to cover. Other times it's his academic credentials, other times his supposed feminism. It's maddening, and I'm right there with Lava. I'm also with you to a certain extent because if he would just step back a bit and talk more about his own experiences as a GQ person, I do believe we could learn rather a lot. But now having typed all this out, I'm thinking that like Lava, I should take a nap and let this all go for a bit.

224

@217. Bi. The issue isn't which of these two remarks is right: remark 1) 'the reason most women don't fuck incels is that incels aren't high enough status for them', or 2) '...that women are looking for a more integrally respectful and affectionate relationship than these guys seem to offer'. Most feminists, I think, will hands-down prefer 2). The issue is my right, in some readers' minds, to pass the blandly unexceptionable generalization without seeming to usurp ciswomen. My line wouldn't have batted anyone's eyelid if you, a perceived ciswoman, had come up with it--the same remark. For it to raise hackles coming from me ... low-level transphobia.

@217. Bi. I have it easy compared to trans women. I wouldn't say I was trans myself--first, because I've never aspired to effect a complete transition; and second, because I was less politically ambitious in what I asked of people -- understanding it was wise to dial down the femme-ness, or extent of indelible genderqueerness, in family and work contexts, say. (I would perhaps have a blouse on at an interview, never a skirt...). Quite rightly, trans or transitioning women aren't now always minded to negotiate the fine print of situational after situational concession.

The sense in which I feel transphobia is pervasive lies, for me, just in how trans is an issue for people. It’s above the threshold of noticing, of 'how weird', of 'what d'ya think about...?'. A lot of gender politics is Feminism 101. Organising for women's reproductive rights...what feminist could disagree? Or #me too? Yet trans people's involvement, having a part, in these struggles is somehow worthy of notice. Whenever a Feminism 101 topic comes up, Emma and Lava tend to be exemplary: salty in one case, articulate and detailed in the other: right on the money. I see this and make a point of highlighting it. This is a lot of what oppositional leftist and feminist politics should be for me: not sweating in-group differences but uniting on what's pressing.

226

My children are indeed my own. I share my experiences while also attempting to maintain some privacy, and assume others do the same.
I’m now identifying as a non-binary genderian, a term I was introduced to only some 12 years ago after many years of wondering what the hell is going on, and yes it was hell at times.

I find Harriet’s shares to be elusive at times, and while admittedly not reading all of them I recall H sharing personal stuff upon joining this forum. From what I gather H’s experience seems to be more on the femme side than myself, as well as starting their nonbianry journey earlier in life.

I still think H’s claim to be “twice as gendered” is a bit of an overstatement that can tick others. Being nobinarian is indeed an experience that constantly keeps evolving on my part. Yet being born and living most of my life as a “human male” obviously doesn’t make me qualified to claim I know all about womanhood nowadays. It still enables me to learn new things and better understand nuances from different perspectives.
Too early for a nap, maybe later this afternoon.

P.S. Cinderella was a transwoman anxious to get back home before the beard starts showing. There’s a reason the shoe wouldn’t fit so many cisters.

229

CMD, I've never heard the word "genderian" and googling reveals nothing. BTW re: your experiences as a parent- I just meant that when you have chimed in about the difficulties in relationships when it involves a family, it's obvious that your perspective (even though from a certain point of view just like any of us) is nuanced with real life experience. Not that I expect any one to divulge personal details- just the self-awareness to realize when you are speaking about things you understand or not. We all make assumptions all the time- it's unavoidable- but most of us don't try to speak on authority of situations with which we have only passing or only theoretical experience. lol at the Cinderella story- you are absolutely right. I'd never thought of it that way. The fairy godmother, the transformation, etc.

@224 I'm sure you perceive it that way, but the issue isn't that. It's that the dichotomy you suggest (1 or 2) is something that you totally just made up out of nowhere. Real life is not limited to those two options, so unless life is a multiple choice exam, it's pointless to then speculate what most women or most feminists would choose between two choices that only exist as your creation. Then, from this, you build assumptions. This is the problem- you start with an idea/assumption about women and then build a theory around it. Obviously cis women who do similar things are challenged here as well- BDF and Lava and NoCute and I have all argued to a certain extent, and plenty of people here I have no idea their gender. But it doesn't happen as often. I actually don't think this is entirely because, being women, their experiences tend to resonate more accurately with other women. I think it is because they seem to be more willing to distinguish between their experiences, their assumptions and their ideologies- even though of course there is overlap here. You tend to build upon these things in a way that both maddens and fascinates me. It hits a nerve too when you refuse to acknowledge the massive role that biology plays (and historically has played) in the creation and maintenance of what we consider culturally to be the female gender, and it hits a nerve when you talk of culture wars and divisions as if we aren't fighting real oppression, so this makes it personal and emotional in a way it wouldn't be if we were discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The frustration is not healthy for me, and it must reveal something ugly about my own personality that I have trouble letting it go. This is why I've decided not to engage with you anymore, though here I am. Uggh. I do mean to say that we all have real lives off line and sometimes we can forget that there are real people on the other end and I don't wish you anything but good will in real life.

230

Daddy who is the scary man? You aren't scary and I did engage with you, most than you've responded. There are plenty of misogynists with advanced degrees. You are perfectly clear and easily recognized. The dispute doesn't have enough nuance to be very interesting on a personal level. I think it's important to engage with some of those ideas and explain them because they are used as fundamentalist brainwashing to explain away resentments. Some of the grievances of lonely and alienated men are accurate. The causes and solutions provided by these misogynists are not- they are easy scapegoats that play on resentment, classic fundamentalism. I think it's important to call it out and engage with it where there is a real desire to come to understanding and liberation, and so I'll respond to these things, the language, the theories, alternatives, etc. As far as responding to individuals like yourself, who clearly has no willingness at all to engage sincerely and who has already drunk the kool-aid and enjoys triggering and offending, well that's just boring and pointless and I don't bother myself with what you think very much. There has to be a central mystery or miscommunication or chance of understanding to scratch at or else it's just boring. It's why you are easily dismissed and not at all troublesome on a personal level (though I have no problem blurting out a takedown of your ideas, like shooting fish in a barrel) while Harriet raises my blood pressure.

231

@200 vennominon: Congratulations to you, sir, for scoring the coveted Two HUnsky Award! May an enormous cache of riches shower upon you like never before.

232

@189 LavaGirl: I KNEW I liked Brad Pitt!

WOW--well over 200 comments this week! Griz is certainly doing her part to help boost up the comments. Anyone for a Three HUnsky?

233

Dadddy
@227 "I have an advanced education in relevant disciplines."

I did see "human female" as academic phrasing (that sought to specify that you weren't making an assertion across multiple species). But please, given that you have an advanced education, you are also quite capable of not trolling/provoking here with loaded words like (as it is commonly used today) "hypergamy".

@228 "@curious2: "In other words, I think the attraction to money/power you're saying is innate in women, actually results from men's oppression of women."
As far as I'm aware, the evidence does not exist to dismiss either view, and yet you seem very confident one of them couldn't possibly be true."

Hey, you're the one who in some thread recently recommended confidence to men.

And you're right, I am pretty confident in my "view", because (1) It seems to me (and to Occam's Razor) quite natural for a group who has been denied money/power, to have increased motivation to get it, and (2) Suggesting OTOH that that group NATURALLY has a greater desire for money/power (in which case even if that group already had EQUAL money/power they'd /still/ have GREATER motivation to get it, well, that is so cynical and misogynist I find it appalling and contrary to my experience with women. Honestly, I think women tend to be LESS greedy and materialistic than men; it is after all men who have oppressed women in most societies.

234

The "just know" paradigm is disturbingly close to the "just know it's true" paradigm that was common in my Mormon religious upbringing. Taps into patterns of our cortex no doubt, but dangerous to the point of being potentially abusive /crazymaking.

235

@227: It sounds more like you're the one who's desperate, Dadddy-o.

236

See you only turn up to put me down, sangu. Do you just sit in wait?
I didn’t say gender is just biology Harriet and yes it’ll be the last time I read your posts.. you sure as hell cant escape from it though.. the biology I mean. And what’s your beef with Brad Pitt.. is there a problem for you with him. He’s a very attractive, intelligent and seemingly good man.
And I know a few trans people so what has that got to do with anything. They don’t try to undermine cis women and cis women’s power like a lot of the loud ones do. And the loud ones as far as I’m concerned can go fuck themselves.

237

Don’t patronize me Fan. I have no issue with CMD or Harriet or whoever feeling fluidity around themselves.
It’s the attempt to deny the realities of what cis women experience as if its nothing. Dying in childbirth/ and the US is way up on that statistic. Abortion always an issue, like a woman can’t decide about her body. Shit birthing practices which endanger mother and child. It’s a feeling of having our realities dismissed, that’s when I get furious. And if Harriet presented like CMD then I might be able to feel some authentic self coming thru. But no, they are gay oh no they are not now gay etc etc. Too many inconsistencies.

238

“ I am a bigendered person, that’s twice as gendered as you” these are the words Harriet used, and that’s what pissed me right off because no Harriet you are not a cis woman gendered person and have no idea how to inhabit one. You may inhabit a sense of woman, and go for it no issue with me. I do take issue with you thinking your idea of yourself as a woman and my reality of myself as a woman are the same.

239

Harriet @224: I join you in lamenting some "feminists'" rejection of trans women as allies. Hell, I lament some feminists' rejection of cis men as allies. Curious2 gets a Feminism Award from me over here. The more people fighting for the same things, the better; and upper-class cis white feminists are hypocrites if they claim trans women don't understand gendered oppression.

Dadddy @227: Lol indeed. Straight men don't make me insecure. Having dated plenty of straight men, "straight men" and "misogynists" are nowhere near as synonymous as misogynists believe they are. And no, it's not me who's "inventing" revulsion at the use of "females," noun, instead of "women." As I said somewhere in the thread, and which EmmaLiz is confirming, the only individuals who typically say "females" when they mean "women" are misogynists and Ferenghi. One group are ugly on the outside, the other are ugly on the inside. Can you explain why you used the term "human female" instead of "woman" when "woman" requires far less typing? Or why you phrased @92 the way you did instead of just saying "I suspect WAH is still a virgin because he hasn't got many qualities women find attractive"?

Oh, and you're a hypocrite for declining to share personal background but asking me for mine. No, I do not self-define as an "incel" with respect to ladies, because (a) I don't resent them for not sleeping with me and (b) guess what, occasionally some of them do.

Dadddy @228: Ah, so your hypothesis is that because the wealthy women you know (anecdata alert) aren't looking for boyfriends, the only reason women look for boyfriends is to gain wealth and power that they themselves lack? Okay then. It can't be that women who are wealthy and powerful got that way because they either don't have much interest in sex/relationships or because they chose to prioritise their careers, which didn't leave them much time for dating. Or because so many men are intimidated by wealthy, powerful women -- let's call this hypogamy. Or that you're disregarding the women you know who have lower incomes and also aren't really looking for boyfriends, because they don't support your hypothesis. Academic, indeed.

Curious2 @233: "Honestly, I think women tend to be LESS greedy and materialistic than men." Indeed, it's a bit rich (haha) for men to fault women for being materialistic! One reason women's salaries lag behind men's is that men are more likely to ask for a pay rise, while women are more likely to accept the salary they have been offered. And what about all the wealthy, powerful men who aren't looking for partners? Trophies, maybe, but not partners. The fact that wealthy, powerful women are mocked for having an attractive younger lover while men in that position are lauded says all we need to know about why Dadddy's rich women friends aren't seeking lower-income trophy husbands. In a capitalist world, everyone is socialised to seek more money. Most women's best chance of this is finding partners who (also) earn a good living, so blame capitalism, not women.

240

I salute you for hanging in there Dadddy. Here’s a tip: Hunter is a troll so he jumps in to cause trouble. And look, you fell right into his trap.
I’m still not sure what this argument is about. I’m sorry lots of people can’t find a person to share sexual intimacies with. It’s not just men who suffer this, women do as well. I’ve never felt like I couldn’t attract men, so I don’t know what it must feel like to as you say, miss out. It’s nobody’s fault though, and those missing out would do well to enhance themselves. Drama classes would be good, activities to help them get out of themselves. Trying to prove women are purposely ignoring them is sort of crazy. And arrogant. The question they should be asking themselves is why, and look inside. Nothing to do with money or looks because one / that’s for you Mr Venn/ sees couples everywhere who are not rich or beautiful.

241

Fan most trans women I imagine are allies to cis women, and have no wish to undermine us. Same can’t be said for all trans women and yes, they suffer greatly with gendered oppression. Has anybody denied that? If you’re labeling me a upper class woman, you’ve got that wrong.

242

You don’t scare me Dadddy.

243

Lava @241: I was not talking about you when I spoke of TERFs (trans exclusive radical feminists) who want to exclude trans women from their groups. You seem to take a lot of things I say personally, so much that I had to specify that my dig @217 at people who don't think wasn't meant for you. My post @239 didn't even mention you, you don't fit the description of people I was talking about, and you still got defensive. Naps all round.

244

In other words, Lava, you should know by now that I'm direct enough that if I do have something to say to you, I will say it to your face -- virtually speaking of course! :)

245

It’s eight pm here. Siesta time is 12-3pm.. hours ago. Ok. Apologise. I got that wrong. I don’t get offended by you Fan, I’m a tough chick and we’re mates, right?

246

*Trans exclusionary radical feminist, I will be my own word police before someone else is.
All fine between you and me, Lava.

247

@220. Venn. I think we're both past the age at which we're heavily into a 'scene'. (For me, this stopped at around 30). So, in one sense, the question of the kind of venue for socialising, making friends, meeting potential partners and lovers, I'd want, doesn't quite speak to my experience. My social context is more informal, more inherited from friendships and work.

But if the question were, 'how are you personally happiest for gays to socialize?', then yes--my answer would be 'among queers', among gender-dissonant people, trans men, stone and other dykes, and with a smattering of anyone who wants to be there, including liberal and curious cis-straights. This would lighten, for me, the unrelieved maleness of the gay scenes of my youth. The kind of more mixed scene I'm describing would have less of a bias towards transphobia. This conditioned, and in many cases warped, almost everyone on the scenes I remember (less the more fantastic ones, like leathermen)--and ironically, since as you say, many gays would naturally present as femme-er were there not a pressure to suppress this.

Besides the question of 'where I'd like to be', there's that of 'what I think should exist'. Like, do I think there should be smoking clubs in NYC? Well, of course I do. Wouldn't go. Do I think there should be gay male nightclubs? Yes, a thousand times more. Would go occasionally. These were the places (not in NYC) that offered me a 'second home' and acceptance as a young man.

248

@226. CMD. The 'twice as gendered' was a joke / wind-up. (I do feel very bigendered, and not at all agendered, though).

Why should we 'share'? We're not representative of anything or anyone but ourselves. Not walking study packs. There isn't the same pressure on a cis het married-with-two-kids college-educated white-collar-job Midwesterner to share. Yet such a person has one story, and I have one, too.

249

@223. Emma. If your main point is that I can personally wind you up without this making you a transphobe, well then, yes, obviously.

I can answer any (non-identifying) question on my personal history you want (maybe I have the goodwill today for ... ermm ... two?). But the requirement isn't symmetrical, note. For instance, you don't feel you have to say how you e.g. did voluntary work overseas, first dated men as an aid worker (?), lived in India or central Asia, are part-Indian (?), to explain your perspectives as a woman and feminist.

Suppose that a ciswoman says to you, 'what you're describing as a woman's experience, or characteristic mental life, doesn't to me capture the full range of femininity'. You wouldn’t (I think) take that as a lesson in how to be a woman. Yet when a trans woman, or non-woman, or man, implicitly says the same, you do? I have no interest in telling anyone how to inhabit their gender assignation.

250

@227. Dadddy. I have a Sociology PhD and don't think women's sexual behavior determined by considerations of status in the way you do. Always happy to talk, though ;)

251

Transwomen ARE feminists, not allies. Not section of feminists should get to define what the movement is.

252

Brad Pitt has been credibly accused by Angelina Jolie, his ex-wife, of child abuse, for those who don't know. He reportedly lost control and screamed at one of their kids.

His response was not to put out a statement saying e.g. 'as a public figure, I want to put on record my belief that it is wrong to scream at children', then some kind of explanation of the personal circumstances or mitigation (or contestation) of the charge. Instead he did a cover article with GQ posing as some sort of 'bad boy' (no doubt donning the equivalent of Aviator sunglasses).

Here's my money's-worth. 'Toxic masculinity' isn't just a matter of boys behaving badly. It’s sustained by patterns of gender socialization which lead to some women being attracted to the 'signifiers' of bad--wretched, in fact--men.

253

Harriet @251: Good catch, though you know what I meant. And not all trans women are feminists (just as not all cis women are... perplexingly). And not all trans women think trans women are women. Are you familiar with Miranda Yardley? Agree completely that no one person or group can claim to be a final arbiter of what feminism is, but to my mind, if it does not include respect for all women -- that includes trans women, women of colour, bi women, sex workers -- then you're missing the point.

Harriet @252: Wow, losing control and screaming is child abuse!? And people ask why I never had children!? But yeah, toxic masculinity of late appears to be freedom from ever having to own up to or apologise for anything. I guess Dadddy, as our resident expert on masculine signifiers and the women who like them, can tell us more about whether "refusal to take responsibility" is one of them.

254

@252. Bi. Miranda Yardley would be a version of the second-generation womynist inside transexuality. The same bad science (e.g. understanding sexual dimorphism as a binary, rather than a distribution between poles); same absolutist understanding of socialization (everyone is socialized AS a man or AS a woman, rather than into gendered roles, behaviors or traits); the same refusal to accept that 'trans', like 'women', is an umbrella category. Moralized dislike of cross-dressers, transvestites and gender-curious straights as inauthentic. She's occasionally interesting, I guess.

I know something about the GRA. The TERFs' concerns with it (which the Conservative government wants to 'explore') are just vicious politics.

I don't know about Brad and Angie. It's online. Yes? (Like so much these days. Like Miranda Yardley). Surely there has to be more to it? There was a custody battle. But why would an established women's and child rights campaigner like Jolie--an experienced, toughened activist--use the word if she didn't think it warranted? There must be more to this than airing an ex-couple's dirty laundry in public.

255

Harriet @252: if screaming at one's children (absent further context) constitutes child abuse, then virtually every parent is damned.

256

@162: So your partner is perfect for you in every possible way? Your relationship is entirely frictionless and conflict-free? Congrats! I remain, however, unwilling to pump other people full of unrealistic expectations because you happened to win the lottery, girl. But congrats again!

257

I feel bad for Dan that I guess he reads all this.

258

Also, Harriet @252, while I'm unable to comment on Mr. Pitt's performance vis the GQ piece (due to not having read it), I'd like to know if it was a manifestation of "toxic masculinity" or simply due to the reality that the Internet - and hence society - does not forgive or forget past transgressions.

If someone, who otherwise was not a complete tool, were nominated for... oh, let's say SCOTUS... and someone else came forward with a story of long past bad behaviour, and the nominee said, "Yes, I did that. I'm very sorry. I've grown and matured, and my record since those days has been pristine. Again, very very sorry." with a healthy donation to Planned Parenthood... would that have been acceptable?

I'm not excusing any of it, just suggesting another possible explanation for doubling down other than "toxic masculinity".

260

EL @ 229
As for "genderian"
Instead of using the gender studies dept’s “gender non-binary” I used the Dan Savage’s playful “nonbinary genderians.” It’s once again poetry vs. academics :)

262

@147 curious2 - appreciate the acknowledgement of any reduced skepticism; I'm glad a more relatable analogy may have helped me communicate it :)

And yes, the first moment I had the ability to see color in a way I had never been able before is something I will never forget.

@234 DC270 - as one who also grew up in a cultish environment (fundamentalist Christianity) I'm extremely wary - and aware - of the type of just knowing I think you refer to. The major difference is that what I was describing merely requires two human minds to interact in a certain way - nothing supernatural. (I personally, btw, would not use the language "the one" implying someone was predetermined as being for me via some outside force - I simply had the fortune of meeting someone so compatible that such a level of intimacy is within our mutual capacity.)
.

263

Harriet @254: "why would an established women's and child rights campaigner like Jolie--an experienced, toughened activist--use the word if she didn't think it warranted?"

I have my theories, but I wasn't on the plane and I don't know either of them. Apparently he shouted and perhaps "got physical" with the then-15-year-old. The police were tipped off in an anonymous phone call and investigated, but charges were not filed. The GQ article mentions this incident in the context of the failed marriage, and that it happened five days before she filed for divorce. There's a chicken and egg issue here: did Ange (who seems, like our gay man Gary from a few letters ago, to have always had more fulfilling relationships with children than with romantic partners) dump Brad because he couldn't keep his temper around her human menagerie, or did Brad lose his shit due to stress over his marriage? Who among us wouldn't be stressed enough to shout at an unruly teenager at a time when our marriage was falling apart? Who knows, but in the scheme of things, yelling at one's kid is something I can forgive without a second thought.

Fubar @258: It would have been acceptable to me. Sorry really does seem to be the hardest word.

264

As for “why share?”
I personally appreciate it when commenters tie their observations/opinions/suggestions/condemnations to their own personal experiences. It gives a context, a better understanding of why they say what they say as well as their tone.
Beyond helping you make a point it also shows others that you are real, that you trust others who share their stories and made it a safe place for you, that you assume you will be trusted as well.

The much maligned Hunter used to ask others personal questions or follow their personal shares, then make fun of them while never disclosing ANYTHING about himself. He has been doing it for years, and hopefully mellowed down a bit recently.

265

@134: “masculine signifiers ... like the biker cap in my avatar”. LOL, that avatar made it take me ages to realize dadddy was straight. In that context it seems far more SS re-enactor than manly... not that leather boys can’t be damned masculine, but that’s not the context here.

266

As for the latest transphobia allegations:
I usually don’t experience transphobic comments in here, and while I may have other issues with the commenters recently cited for such behavior, transphobia has never been one of them nor do I think it is currently the case.

Lots of straight cis folks share here regularly plenty of their own stories. When a trans person is asked to do the same it’s not necessarily because they are viewed as “case studies,” but rather people are curious as to why they say what they say, where they come from, what influenced their experiences and observations.

267

Oh my. Referring to the Jolie/ Pitt children as a menagerie is probably going to trigger some people. Sounds racist and all.

Bigender / bisexual / transgender / transexual. If you're going to live a complex non-typical life, or if you feel called to be something outside the box,
don't be at all surprised when other people can't quite comprehend it.

269

Admittedly some times I do encounter transphobe assholes trolls in here, like @ 267.

And speaking of assholes...

Hunter- That came after years of ongoing abuse.

270

As for once again playing Simon Wiesenthal.
“tim browne” @ 267 has a history of transphobia. A short search points to their post a year ago:
https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/06/28/25252342/the-detransitioners-they-were-transgender-until-they-werent/comments/23
I’m sure other pseudo-sophisticated hateful remarks were made by this person.

271

@LG 173: “Iron John was written decades ago, before the internet. It was written about men as they were then, my peers. Men as they were before internet mainstream porn.” I read Iron John just a few years ago, around turning 50, and found it still very insightful and relevant. In particular, his discussion of “lost boys”, young men searching fruitlessly for a sense of masculinity, made me think about MRAs/incels/whatevs. Regarding porn, no doubt the ubiquity of the net exacerbates things, but I’m not so sure the (easily obtained) penthouse, etc. of my youth was any better in terms of inculcating respect for women. No argument that as with everything in our culture, it has tended towards the extreme, which can’t be helpful.

272

Tim @267: I can assure you that there was nothing racist about my remark. Child-ist, perhaps; light-hearted, for sure.

"Called to be something outside the box"?? Okay, now we know why Tim read bigotry into my comment -- projection! Isn't everyone's life "complex and non-typical"? If yours is dead dull, don't blame the interesting people.

273

Maker @271: I can assure you that there is a gulf of difference between photos of nude women, even those who are posing with their legs spread or licking phallic objects, and videos of women being ass- and face-fucked until mascara runs down their crying faces. One presents women as sexual beings, the other as sexual objects. Only someone who was already so inclined would look at Penthouse and think "yeah, treat those bitches like the dirt they are," as Lava so accurately summed up as the thrust (sorry) of most modern hetero porn.

274

CMD, thank you for sharing that fascinating article on detransitioning. I suspect reading the comments will be less than enlightening, but it shows gender (can be) far more complex than most people realise.

275

Genderian, gotcha, thanks. I missed that. Honestly I have trouble keeping up with the terms. I don't know if there is a difference between GQ and NB and I use them to mean the same thing which is probably wrong?

Harriet, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I started dating men (boys) in high school in Houston. I've lived in India for short periods of time off and on all of my life though not in recent years. I've done quite a bit of volunteer work (and much less professional work, that has mostly been in the US) in India and a few other places in the developing world that I would not accurately describe as "aid work" though perhaps I did say that at some point in an attempt to be nonspecific. I'd prefer "development work" or "public health" (depending on what phase of my life I was in). Honestly I think I talk about myself rather a lot and how all these experiences shaped my feminism, etc.

Yes it is true that the actual experience of having a uterus or having children would prevent most cis woman from making assumptions you've made about biology or childbirth or pregnancy or orgasm or childrearing / nursing or relationships with small children, etc. But, it's not that I have discounted your words because you are not cis while accepted the words of cis women. (Most obviously, I have disagreed with cis women here as well.) It is because you've claimed things that seem outlandish to me that no one else here, cis or not, female or not, has claimed. You happen to be GQ which adds another layer here because part of your defense of your claims is to say that you speak with some authority on gender. Which I agree you do- but you are an authority on your own experience of gender, not of cis women's- hence why I said it's far more interesting and enlightening when you speak of your own experiences and stop making assumptions about others and then building theories on top of that.

Yes you are correct that this is personal and of course I'm not the comment police and you can do whatever you like, so after our last argument when I told you to fuck off, I said I would ignore you from now on. I've felt bad about telling you to fuck off- as I don't know you in real life and we never know how our words affect others and as you are not being abusive it was wrong for me to attack you in that way. Nonetheless, I do think it's best for me to continue to not engage with you in the future, I just wanted to jump in here to clarify that this has nothing to do with you being gender queer and that I don't wish you any ill will.

276

M?? Harriet - I am sorry to see that you are not an admirer of Chief Inspector Morse; perhaps I should add the Oxford Zed to my list of goals. Even at my peak, I was never all that socially active, more a bit of an activist until the first strains of intersectionality started floating in the very tail end of the 1980's, when I retired without rancour to see if the women and non-white people would live up to their billing or even exceed it.

As you're not gay, any reason why you think you should be judging how we socialize just goes on my long list of how Everyone Not G wants to make gays into whipping boys to keep around to kick and to blame for whatever one pleases. I don't carp about how your spaces are run. If you want to hold No Gays Allowed party nine nights a week, knock yourself out, and we'll even send over some caviar occasionally (only lumpfish, probably, but most people won't know the difference). You remind me a little of a column by Mr Urquhart complaining that gay male groups are not explicitly welcoming (straight) trans men and going out of their way to do so.

I'm not sure how you read my worries about how people like you are trying to pressure people like me out of presenting as gay (and this actually happened a year or so ago to a British Youtuber whose campus GSA so badgered him about male homosexuality being transphobic and misogynist that he un-came out on the grounds that he was trying to get over being attracted only to cis men) and interpreted that as a complaint about supposed pressure to present as more masculine. I was rarely in New York or Boston, and almost never experienced that particular pressure. As someone who valued authenticity and originality above all (and I have discussions similar to these almost from the other end, with others among the seceding Gs who sometimes craftily try to universalize their own attraction to the masculine), it never really occurred to me to consider whether that cost me dates; I generally assumed any deficiency there was due to my being insufficiently good-looking.

I've said elsewhere to MRAs that gays gaying is good for straights, and I'll say similarly here that our doing so on our own is almost equally good for those remaining in the alphabet soup (except, of course, the bisexual women).

If my tone in this post seems a bit off, it is because I am in a better mood than usual, from anticipation of comparing Mr Fry's portrayal of Mr Wilde to that of Mr Everett.

277

While we're on the subject of toxic masculinity, presently I am absolutely stumped by something my VA PTSD therapist said during a session today. She stated that many male veterans who see her would be frightened by me. Many jobs once traditionally filled by men are being filled by women. We now have more female veterans now than ever before. I am a composer struggling to get my work performed and acknowledged. My one male sibling, established in film and television industry scoffs at me and the music I write. What is he afraid of?
The Err of Trump has definitely spawned a new era of extreme rage against women. Men...afraid of...someone like....ME! Griz! WTF? Who programmed so many men and women to be so incompatible and reluctant to speak to one another?
I am not psychotic. I don't own a gun, nor do I intend to ever get one. I have no intention of murdering anyone (as if!). As a wind musician I don't smoke but drink, however--red wine being my allotted beverage of choice. I never planned on having children and have managed to remain childless by choice. I have literally had to battle my ass off to do so.
I was an enlisted supply grunt for a U.S. Navy SEALs training facility in Southern California where raging testosterone dominated during the Gulf War period in which I served. These men were part of a physically and psychologically brutal type of training as warriors, groomed as cyborgs akin to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator. I can't imagine serving any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces now. That's why I'm a musician. For me, it's therapy and the most effective way I have been able to communicate. It's the best way universally that I know how.
Dan? BiDanFan? LavaGirl? nocutename?.EmmaLiz? .EricaP?.Harriet?..CMD? sb53? DonnyKlicious? vennominon? Anyone care to comment?

278

Griz @277: the error of Trump may have unleashed many things, including a massive disrespect for women, but men, at least in my own personal alternate reality, are allies of women.

279

@278: Thank you and bless you, fubar. :) Griz

280

Griz @277: Although I tend towards pacifism, I will sincerely thank you for your service. I'm not sure which must have been scarier for you, the enemy you were sent to destroy or the testosterone-soaked brutes you served alongside. (Obligatory not-all-men, I'm sure some of them were fine.)
It all goes back to intersectionality. Someone like Donald Trump would not be threatened by any woman whatsoever. Someone who feels his own place on the "status" scale of capitalism is insecure is afraid that Others will take away what he has -- whether those Others be women, immigrants, people of colour. They feel that their own tenuous success depends on keeping other groups beneath them, which the architects of capitalism and patriarchy have done a great job convincing them is the case. That's why they fight against equality -- they don't believe it can exist, there must be winners and losers and they must ensure they are not among the losers. Fubar @278 is correct though: this is a subset of men. Men who are secure, who are happy with their lot in life, who can see through the lies of patriarchy, who have the capability for empathy are on our side. The side of humans -- not "human males" or "human females," just humans.
And some people are just jerks, sounds like your brother is one of them.

281

@255. Fubar. Really, I don't know what happened. Apparently Pitt hasn't paid child support for 18 months and manhandled one of Jolie's kids on a private flight from LA.

It's a good thing for some cishets' feminism that they don't have the hots not for Dreamboat Brad but for Justice Brett.

282

@263. Bi. But is Jolie's family a 'human menagerie'? Provided the children are cared for, is any?

@264. CMD. My point is that hard-to-categorize people wrt gender and sexuality should not be under an asymmetrical obligation to reveal. That's prejudice. I am non-normative in both respects. I don't want to give chapter and verse of my personal history; but when I do offer snippets of my experience, it's taken as miscellaneous and ill-fitting, even (in some people's minds) made-up.

283

@268. Hunter. Aha, you've come out as John Waters's alter ego ;)

284

@275. EmmaLiz. I have never read personal hostility into your comments. If you do ever want to engage with me, maybe over one of my flagrant misconceptions (in your mind), perhaps it would be better if you just highlighted the contentious statement i.e. one sentence. I'm sure that some of what I say is tendentious; and that we could both learn as a result of your bringing it to light.

@275. Venn. I apologise for any confusion over whether something is an English spelling (and possibly a spellcheck correction) or plain wrong.

I don't think male homosexuality is transphobic. Part of the spectrum of male gayness, rather, is being attracted to feminised men, queer or GQ types. Being attracted only to manly men is a taste. The very many men drawn to manly tops are surely, though, more centrally the constituency of the G than the men they covet. This is such that the gender definition of gayness (certainly in my mind) could easily--if gays as a group were so disposed--come under pressure of revision. (I'm guessing you'll be aghast at this idea...).

90% of the people I have sex with are men. (This gives an exaggerated idea of the number). I've never had an exclusive relationship with a woman. I didn't sleep with a woman until I was in my 30s. Yet ... you use the vocabulary of secession. I'm not gay enough for you....

285

@277. Griz. If Dadddy isn't frightening, I can't see how you are. It's not on you if a few sexists are threatened by you. I don't know what your therapist meant; but maybe you should try to be more frightening?

286

A few Commenters use photos of people as their avatar. Are ANY of them photos of the actual person commenting?

287

I wonder if it's possible to 'just know' that nobody just knows whether anyone just knows.

288

Harriet @ 282
Despite the painful realization I am now somewhat reluctantly willing to accept that the sun doesn’t always shine out of my asshole.
And while cherishing my very own uniqueness I am forced to recognize that most if not all others carry their very own unique experiences as well.

My years in 12-step, mostly SAA, have taught me that despite the differences- gender, orientation, preferences, appearance, and so on- our joys and struggles have a lot in common.

289

Bi @280: "Men who are secure, who are happy with their lot in life, who can see through the lies of patriarchy, who have the capability for empathy are on our side. The side of humans..."

I know quite a few men who are rather insecure, less than happy with their lot in life, and essentially blind to the patriarchy, yet are still able to be empathetic and on the side of humanity.

I say this not to be contrary, but to press my belief that most men are good men and that it takes a malevolent force like, oh I dunno, the KKK, Fox News, or Donald Trump, to lead people - men and women - into stupidity. For the sake of my own sanity, I cling to the belief that those people are a minority, or at worst a temporary aberration. I could well be wrong, but the alternative is just too depressing. (I also live in a liberal city in a liberal country, and try to surround myself with decent people, so there's that too.)

290

I agree with Fubar above. Most of the men in my life are wonderful people. And aside from my husband and men I know through activism, I doubt any of these very good men have any understanding of patriarchy, etc. All of us, men and women, they have their biases that come about living under our system, but I think just getting out and interacting with others with best intentions and compassion forces biases to be more nuanced with reality rather than resentment. This is really all it takes. The efforts to take those biases and play up the resentments and turn it all into theoretical scapegoating is fundamentalism, it's deliberate and it serves a power structure. I have lost friends due to this- I don't keep people like that in my life- though they've been as likely to be women as men. This is not to say that I have not also been a victim of harassment, etc or that I have not felt the effects of patriarchy in my own life- every woman has.

Griz, I don't know what to say. Being in the military seems another universe to me. I've had more experience (though second hand) with the frustrations of the creative process and then the frustrations of what to do with a creation once you've made it. Nothing to do but slog away at that and try not to get discouraged. The only thing I can add is to ignore your asshole brother (sorry, I know he's your brother and may not be an asshole in every aspect of his life). Sibling rivalry is a real thing- the insecurities and competitions often go way back. In my own case, mine got quite a bit better when I stopped defending myself and instead started to voice my recognition of my brother's own achievements. It seems he needed this from me but I had been too caught up in my own defense to notice it. Then things got better between us. I don't know anything about your brother or your relationship, but if he feels very good about his own achievements- if his ego is wrapped up in them- then he might be intimidated by the possibility that you, too, could achieve success in the same field and therefore scoff at even your attempts. It's arrogance, or insecurity- I have no idea if it is also gendered- you are in a better position to know that. Best of luck.

291

Vennominon, I had no idea that Rupert Everett was going to play Oscar Wilde. You have officially made my day. I just adore Rupert Everett and have ever since watching Another Country eleventyseven times when it came out on video cassette when I was at university (or high school I can't quite recall).

293

@264 CMDwannabe
"Hunter used to ask others personal questions...while never disclosing ANYTHING about himself"

@268 Hunter
"I've disclosed I'm a het male, live in Baltimore, have a long term partner, that I'm 70"

@286 Curious
"A few Commenters use photos of people as their avatar. Are ANY of them photos of the actual person commenting?"

@288 Hunter
"Curious @286, Yes."

I think putting one's photo on one's posts is a kind of disclosure.

And hey, we'd have NEVER guessed he was straight had he not told us.

@292 Hunter
"This was the best week for this column in a long time"

This was a wild comment thread.

Best of all Sportlandia now has a rainbow in his avatar!

I wish I'd found a more meaningful avatar. I just went looking for something that matched my username. I was gonna use a magnifying glass, but those JPEGs reminded me of the Search button on Search fields.

294

Nothing to see here, I just want this thread to hit 300.

295

@287 curious2 I think it's possible to just know that nobody who hasn't just known just knows whether anyone just knows..

296

Curious2 @294: what happens at 300? Now I'm curious too!

297

Dadddy @261; yeah and sometimes they scare me. I’ve got two bossy sons and two whatever/ it’s cool, sons. I don’t mind the bossy ones moving things along once they get home. as long as they don’t get to into it. Then I give them what for. The other two live on the compound with me, and we just sail past each other, it’s very civilised, except nobody much is into housework.

297

@295 Spf85
Sorry man, I was just playing with words.

298

@296 fubar
Maybe someone buys everyone a drink!

299

tim browne @267; I comprehend others fluid sexuality and in no way do I judge their perceptions of themselves. I feel a lot of empathy for trans women and for most, I’m happy to call them sisters, others, not so much. Then there are many cis women I don’t think of as sisters either.
Fine for others to have their sense of self and wish for them to not denigrate mine, or imply there is a superior way to sort gender. Obviously there are myriad presentations of gender, and they are valid and authentic for each person.

300

Tapping my heels together, wishing that Trump would disappear in a puff of smoke.

301

Harriet @284: "90% of the people I have sex with are men. (This gives an exaggerated idea of the number). I've never had an exclusive relationship with a woman. I didn't sleep with a woman until I was in my 30s."

Funny, 95% of the sex I have (which is different to the number of people I've had sex with) is with men or genderqueer biological males. I've never had an exclusive relationship with a woman, and I didn't sleep with a woman until I was 26, yet I very strongly and adamantly identify as bisexual. To me it is about one's desires and not one's experience. (Incels are not asexual.) Not saying that your identity should be anything other than what it is, just that there are indeed many shades of queer. Then, I suppose this may be why I have to fight to be seen as bi, against those who would round me down to straight. "One drop" indeed.

Hunter @288: And I can't acknowledge her wilingness to have "faced the enemy" if she were ordered to do so? Are you a veteran?

Fubar @289: It was an and/or. I was not trying to imply that the capacity to feel empathy comes only at a certain economic level.
Aha! You live in a bubble, congratulations. I too struggle to reconcile the abhorrent views of so many men that I see online with the lovely "male humans" I know in real life. But then again, I know that men who hold sexist views would be less likely to say them to my face. And yes, yay for self selected groups of like minded people.

Hunter @292: Feminist IN-fighting? Please give me an example of feminists arguing with each other here.

Curious @293: Hunter has previously said his avatar photo is "some rando." Make of that what you will. Personally, I feel that using our photos, or real names, or easily identifiable screennames, would make me for one less likely to share the deeply personal information that I do here, given that this column is very popular. I sometimes feel that anyone who does know me well could easily figure it out. But eh, anyone who knows me that well probably wouldn't be surprised :)

Curious/SPF: Who knows? :)

Fubar @300: Congrats on the elusive triple hunsky! Drinks all round!

302

@301. Bi. We were scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit there, scrabbling off the murk to uncover the elusive three-oh-oh, until you came in with a slew of substantive comments.

I suppose I am bi but my identification is broadly as queer, rather than that. One part of the reason was that in adolescence it wasn't straightforward to avow myself as gay. I resisted being a walking cliche--the cissy boy, always 'cheeked' for his mincing, who turned out to be a homo. My parents disliked it--my mother in a silently horrified Roman Catholic way; and my father was more complicated--he had the contorted but once common view that gay male tops were contextual but actually straight, and that only male bottoms were actually gay. And it was wrong to be gay. So I had three phases before leaving for College--not gay; not a bottom; a fully self-accepting bottom (and implicitly not bi). All before casual penetrative sex, which eventually I took to with abandon.

The other reason for my identification is how readily, both intellectually and psychologically, I took to notions of queerness implicating both sexuality and gender-dissonance. This was again before I had sex with woman. Before that, my notions of being a woman were jocular, not serious--e.g. 'I'm really an old woman' about my collection of Bauhaus fabrics (this was also gay male, of course); about insisting on condoms and turning down sex otherwise, and so on. I always presented anomalously, but this queered gender rather than aspiring to embody any sort of femininity. But my feeling 'a woman as much as a man', 'part female' etc. was always 'both/and' and not transitional, and always queer and never bi. (This makes me a poor spokesperson for very many trans people, who are coming to be who they always were, or moving from one thing to another).

More obviously, too, saying you were gay and are now bi is backsliding in terms of gay male politics. The political direction of travel for you would have been the opposite.

303

fubar @300

Congratulations for hitting the rarely-attained but highly coveted [okay, Griz, please insert the appropriate word] award, you (and we) will all see your wish come true!

304

@288: Fuck you, Hunter, and all trolling pigs like you. YOU'RE afraid of women like ME. Cop to it, you pathetic dickless coward. I scare you because I'm a woman with a brain. I don't need a man. YOU need sex--that's why you keep paying for it at age 70. I hope your stupid dick shrivels up into a wart infested pink pickle.

305

@300 Congratulations, fubar! Way to go for hitting the highly coveted Three HUnsky Award! May an abundance of amazing goodness flow into your life like you've never imagines.

306

@304: Fucking damn. Griz is comfortably numb after watching Carrie (Sissy Spacek / Piper Laurie 1976) twice. And not one fucking typo. I need more red wine.

Ha! We made it to the 300 level. Wa-HOO!

307

@285 Harriet_by_the_Bulrushes: I am thinking of becoming more like Kathy Bates' Oscar winning depiction of Annie Wilkes from Misery, or maybe somewhat like Piper Laurie's creepy portrayal of Margaret White from Carrie. Stephen King has a knack for creating frightening fictional females, doesn't he?

308

@290 EmmaLIz: Thank you for your kind words of support
@300 fubar: I second it, and Congrats on the Lucky Three HUnsky Award!!

309

@288 Hunter: You should talk, a spineless trolling asshole with a limp dick. I faced the enemy. He was already in the United States, stationed across town, asswipe. War is hell no matter where you are or what you do. Those of us who served ALL served our country. There are no lesser veterans. Do us all a big favor and go fuck yourself and the cheap cur that bore you. It'll likely be the best sex you've ever had, and----WOWEE!!---you won't have to actually PAY for it!

310

Griz @304 and 309: I don't think Hunter pays for sex, at least I don't remember him ever saying that here. Are you confusing him with me perhaps?

311

@310 ER: I'm not, believe me. Hunter is and always was a trolling asshole. Either way, I'm standing by my comments made.

312

@297 as was I! (Though maybe a very small part of me couldnt help myself)

313

Hunter @55 from next week: To me, bravery is -willingness- to face the enemy. Grizelda's BDF commendation stands. And you're still going to have to give me your example of infighting, which you couldn't have meant comment @301 when you referred to it @292. Were you referring to some of us having lamented the TERF phenomenon? I didn't see anyone speaking as a TERF, so, no infighting on the board.

314

RE @310: I think Griz was implying that no one would want to have sex with Hunter unless he paid them. Griz, correct me if I'm wrong.

Hunter, if you're 70, you would have been the perfect age to go and fight in Vietnam. Yet you didn't. So you don't get to diss Grizelda for not having seen active duty.

315

@277 auntie grizelda
"I was an enlisted supply grunt for a U.S. Navy SEALs training facility in Southern California where raging testosterone dominated during the Gulf War period in which I served. These men were part of a physically and psychologically brutal type of training as warriors"

What an unpleasant working environment! (Thank you for your service, Griz.)

For a few years I was an FAA air traffic controller; about half my co-workers had been controllers in the military. I found that working environment unpleasant enough, I can't imagine working with SEALs!

316

I think that is what Griz was implying as well (maybe she'll clarify). I'd add that there are all sorts of reasons people might pay for sex and that it's normal to still desire sex at 70, and I've been trying to move away from thinking/speaking in a way that reinforces the toxic idea that a man's personal worth and masculinity are tied up in how much pussy he can get (women as a reward while other men are losers). That's damaging for everyone, and even though I know this, it's down in my subconscious due to our socialization (as a woman, I got it from the other side- all the why buy a cow stuff...)

It is true that some social skills, personalities, and appearances will increase your likelihood of getting partners -not because of hypergamy or feminism or alpha males but because we are in a highly competitive and also wasteful society which prioritizes certain traits/skills and casts aside all others. This is not just with sex partners but also with careers, value systems, different ways of seeing things, skill sets, aging, health, physical capabilities, etc- we have an increasingly limited number of traits that are considered worthy of anything (housing, health care, intimacy, etc). I don't know if Hunter hires sex workers. I do remember RE talking about hiring sex workers. RE is not a misogynist nor a troll nor does he come across as resentful. And plenty of trolling misogynists do find willing sex partners. I'm sitting at home a lot lately with an elderly person and I have a nephew who just can't get on despite being creative and compassionate so I'm probably going off on a tangent here wondering what things would be like if we built a world around the people we have and instead of throwing aside everyone who is not useful in a very narrowly defined way. I hate to see a thoughtful man like RE grouped in any way with a troll like Hunter, even though of course I know that wasn't the intention but it's what sent me down this rabbit hole.

317

@315 curious2: Thank you for commenting. Yes, it really was a traumatic working environment. Women there were sexually harassed, and worse; abuse of all kinds was rampant. My male immediate supervisor, one rank up, married with a wife and young daughter, hit on me. Medical facilities at my command were designed exclusively for men (strange how SEAL instructors, trainees, and medical corpsmen were programmed to be so macho, yet cringed at the mention of menstrual periods). Women's health issues had to be addressed across that bay at Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego. While I want to point out that not ALL male personnel were like that, I was still sexually assaulted, harassed, had my life threatened by a fellow service member stationed across town (that's a LONG story; he was once engaged to another female in my supply department but they broke it off. He was mentally unstable and came from a highly abusive background. He was adept at being manipulative, controlling, possessive, and isolating women he targeted to marry. If I had had my head on straight back then in my 20s I wouldn't have married him. My chain of command protected the other female, holding her hand and threw me to the dogs.Add wartime conditions (Gulf War, 1991), and that finally sent me over the edge. I am in VA PTSD therapy now for what happened 27 1/2 years ago, dealing with the memories. I am fortunate to never have gotten pregnant.
It sounds like you've had plenty of stressful work, too, as an air traffic controller. Bless you --I couldn't do that.

318

@314 BiDanFan: Correct, spot on, for the win. I was active military--I just never got deployed overseas during my enlistment. To many, however, my work environment then could still qualify as a combat zone, both physically and psychologically.
@316 EmmaLiz: My response to curious2 (@315) further clarifies my previous comments. I was surprised by Registered European's comment @310, too. I can't believe he'd ever liken himself to anyone as hideous as Hunter.


    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.