site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   2619 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 8, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Who do you think the average (not super progressive) feminist will be more likely to resent, and why:

The very clearly masculine man, with a tall and broad build, perhaps strong beard growth, who decides to transition to being a trans woman and tries to fit in as being one of the women in various ways,

Or the clearly effeminate, slender, smaller man who had trouble fitting in with men and now transitions (with more ease) to a trans woman and tries to fit in with women.

I would suspect the former.

Per Blanchard's typology, the former man pattern-matches far closer to "autogynephiliac". As such, assuming she isn't attracted to him, she will have to fend him off in much the same way she would have to with a straight man who doesn't take the hint. She will feel uncomfortable getting changed in front of him or going to the bathroom, as he will be more or less openly leering at her. If she's straight, she can rebuff his advances by claiming she's not interested in "girls"; if she's a lesbian, she will have to put up with his emotionally manipulative whining about the "cotton ceiling". All of her discomfort will be greatly exacerbated by how physically imposing he is relative to her.

By contrast, again per Blanchard's typology, the latter man pattern-matches far closer to "effeminate homosexual with internalised homophobia". As such, he is unlikely to have any sexual interest in her at all, and she can interact with him in much the same way she would her gay best friend (including getting changed in front of him etc.). Although they are nominally competing for men's sexual/romantic attention, they both know that the kind of man who's interested in dating a trans woman is not the kind of man she's interested in dating.

In short, the former is a straight man in a space for women; the latter is a gay man in a space for women, with all that that implies.

First time I've heard of this typology. Will have a look. Thanks for the reply!

Obviously the latter, if they're more attractive and feminine than the average feminist.

The first is fargroup weirdo. The second is competition.

It would certainly depend on what the attempts to fit in with women consist of.

I don’t think this is a very coherent question. What does it mean to be “more prepared to hate?” I’m not sure I understand your usage of “manly man,” either; transitioning to female is pretty darn un-manly.

I’m not sure I understand your usage of “manly man,” either; transitioning to female is pretty darn un-manly.

Even if they were wearing wigs and lipstick, I would not like to meet Karen White or Isla Bryson in a dark alley.

Guess I didn't formulate it well. Edited now. Physical appearance before transition is what I'm getting at. Is the "clearly not a real woman" trans-woman resented more than the "can actually pass more or less for a woman now" trans woman?

Okay, that makes more sense.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats