garbage-empress:

philoponella:

garbage-empress:

kai-skai:

garbage-empress:

kai-skai:

jumpingjacktrash:

agingwunderkind:

shitty-car-mods-daily:

I’m sure this car would have some horror stories to tell via Shitty_Car_Mods

i mean on the one hand, it’s not like the car is experiencing any distress. it’s a car. so like, sure, go ahead and stick your dick in a rusty metal tube if that makes you happy.

on the other hand, i kind of feel like your REAL kink is making sure i KNOW about you sticking your dick in a rusty metal tube, and that’s not cool, bro.

On the one hand I get that and feel the same way, on the other hand this is pretty much one of the arguments people make against any kind of visible gayness (same-sex marriage, rainbow flags, etc.), and I’m… honestly not sure whether there’s an actual important difference here that I’m missing.

the difference is one is a normal relationship between two human beings and the other is a dude expressing his explicitly sexual desire for jacking off into an exhaust pipe to complete strangers because he has a fetish it’s not that fucking hard to draw a distinction here.

Not if you view one as a normal relationship and not the other, sure, but that’s not the case for most of the homophobic religious people I’ve encountered. They’d consider a (romantic/sexual) relationship between two people of the same gender as just as much of an abnormal and disgusting fetish as jacking off into an exhaust pipe, and anything that made complete strangers aware of someone’s gayness as just as much of a moral affront.

you are literally equating humans to cars here. I honestly don’t know how else to tell you you’re wrong if we can’t agree that humans are more important than cars.

Also reiderating, the car thing is just sexual while the gay thing isnt. Like guys are yelling about penis i feel like you have the right to be uncomfortable by that, but like, a rainbow flag and holding hands isnt that. the car equivialnt if you must have one would be ‘i think cars are cool :^)’ and no one would be upset by that so. 

@kai-skai

I don’t know whether that is true, but from what I’ve heard of people with any kind of object fetish, many view their objects of desire as more than just instruments of sexual gratification. Especially given the “cars are people too” sticker, I’d think that’s the case here as well.

The tailpipe sticker does strike me as TMI in any case, but “proud to be a mechanophiliac” and “I find cars sexually attractive” do seem pretty equivalent to a rainbow flag regarding what they communicate (”I am proud to be gay”, “I find people of my own gender sexually attractive”), whereas “I think cars are cool” is not. (I don’t know what would be a gay equivalent of that. “I think men are cool”?)

And sadly, religious homophobes also sometimes view being gay as something purely sexual and interpret any display of gayness accordingly. (Although that has gotten a lot better since Jack Chick days, and may thankfully be on its way out.)

garbage-empress:

kai-skai:

garbage-empress:

kai-skai:

jumpingjacktrash:

agingwunderkind:

shitty-car-mods-daily:

I’m sure this car would have some horror stories to tell via Shitty_Car_Mods

i mean on the one hand, it’s not like the car is experiencing any distress. it’s a car. so like, sure, go ahead and stick your dick in a rusty metal tube if that makes you happy.

on the other hand, i kind of feel like your REAL kink is making sure i KNOW about you sticking your dick in a rusty metal tube, and that’s not cool, bro.

On the one hand I get that and feel the same way, on the other hand this is pretty much one of the arguments people make against any kind of visible gayness (same-sex marriage, rainbow flags, etc.), and I’m… honestly not sure whether there’s an actual important difference here that I’m missing.

the difference is one is a normal relationship between two human beings and the other is a dude expressing his explicitly sexual desire for jacking off into an exhaust pipe to complete strangers because he has a fetish it’s not that fucking hard to draw a distinction here.

Not if you view one as a normal relationship and not the other, sure, but that’s not the case for most of the homophobic religious people I’ve encountered. They’d consider a (romantic/sexual) relationship between two people of the same gender as just as much of an abnormal and disgusting fetish as jacking off into an exhaust pipe, and anything that made complete strangers aware of someone’s gayness as just as much of a moral affront.

you are literally equating humans to cars here. I honestly don’t know how else to tell you you’re wrong if we can’t agree that humans are more important than cars.

If anything, I’m equating sexual attraction to humans of a certain gender with sexual attraction to cars. And wondering whether there is a difference there that isn’t just “well, one is normal and the other isn’t” (or “one concerns a human and the other doesn’t”), because I’m well aware of that one but it doesn’t follow that making one obvious is fine and making the other obvious is a no-go.

Like, yeah, of course humans are more important than cars! But why would that make “I find humans of this gender sexually attractive” a more acceptable thing to say than “I find cars sexually attractive”?

garbage-empress:

kai-skai:

jumpingjacktrash:

agingwunderkind:

shitty-car-mods-daily:

I’m sure this car would have some horror stories to tell via Shitty_Car_Mods

i mean on the one hand, it’s not like the car is experiencing any distress. it’s a car. so like, sure, go ahead and stick your dick in a rusty metal tube if that makes you happy.

on the other hand, i kind of feel like your REAL kink is making sure i KNOW about you sticking your dick in a rusty metal tube, and that’s not cool, bro.

On the one hand I get that and feel the same way, on the other hand this is pretty much one of the arguments people make against any kind of visible gayness (same-sex marriage, rainbow flags, etc.), and I’m… honestly not sure whether there’s an actual important difference here that I’m missing.

the difference is one is a normal relationship between two human beings and the other is a dude expressing his explicitly sexual desire for jacking off into an exhaust pipe to complete strangers because he has a fetish it’s not that fucking hard to draw a distinction here.

Not if you view one as a normal relationship and not the other, sure, but that’s not the case for most of the homophobic religious people I’ve encountered. They’d consider a (romantic/sexual) relationship between two people of the same gender as just as much of an abnormal and disgusting fetish as jacking off into an exhaust pipe, and anything that made complete strangers aware of someone’s gayness as just as much of a moral affront.

gillygeewhiz from which you reblogged that spreadsheet of transgender research seems pretty TERF-y from a cursory look of their blog (and uses of words like “transgenderism”), so I’m worried about that being biased. (Especially since they referred to the articles’ “usefulness”). I don’t suppose you’ve had time/energy to check it?

gillygeewhiz:

kai-skai:

mugasofer:

kai-skai:

gillygeewhiz:

@kai-skai Not a TERF, but to disclose my bias, I believe that:

  • gender identity is neurological and fixed
  • the brain is sexually dimorphic, therefore there are two genders
  • transgenderism (as in “the state of being transgender”, I have no idea why that word is an issue or what I’m supposed to use instead) is caused by a mismatch of gender identity and sex, which in turn causes dysphoria over the body’s sexed attributes
  • transition should be considered medically necessary for trans people to relieve their dysphoria

The sources in the spreadsheet are ones that I’ve either been given (mostly by trans people) or have used myself to support the above, or which are just generally interesting/good sources to have on-hand (like the DSM & WPATH SOC). The studies listed are all peer-reviewed and most of them corroborate each others’ findings; as much as I appreciate people being critical about where information is coming from, it’s pretty irresponsible to dismiss ~50 scholarly sources over a 20-year period that all support common ideas out-of-hand because “OP seems TERF-y /:”

Hi, thanks for elaborating, and I’m glad to see I was wrong.

Apparently “transgenderism” is used routinely in non-TERF contexts as well – somehow I haven’t seen it much outside of there, so it made me suspicious. (I mostly just see “being transgender”.)

I didn’t mean to dismiss the sources – I haven’t even had the time to look at them more closely, figured I’d ask first because this is more @transsexualism’s area of expertise than mine and therefore would probably take them less time and effort. Good research is good research no matter who does or distributes it. (Even so, it’s sometimes possible to cherry-pick decent research in a misleading way. Although I guess that’s much less of an issue with a spreadsheet of original sources than by reporting on the conclusions.)

transsexualism:

I haven’t looked at the blog, only the spreadsheet. It seemed like a good resource since it’s a compilation of neurological studies and it includes useful information like the impact factor of the journal where it’s published (which I know is not in itself an indication of how valid a study is, but it’s still good to know).

The use of the word transgenderism is not something I thought anything about. I use transsexualism myself, which many people frown upon for similar reasons.

From quickly looking at the studies compiled in the spreadsheet I don’t think there’s bias. There could be though, if the author is cherry-picking studies to support their own opinion and ignoring other studies. But to be fair, if you want to really form an opinion on this topic you shouldn’t be looking at a spreadsheet but rather look through the literature yourself and see what the consensus is, or look for literature reviews. This type of compilation of information is a useful start, but you shouldn’t limit yourself to that as a source when you can just go on pubmed or similar and find every single study, including ones the person making the spreadsheet may have missed on purpose or not.

the brain is sexually dimorphic, therefore there are two genders

Plus intersex brains, right?

Intersex (people’s) brains would be an argument against dimorphic brains.

Another issue is that most brain differences are attributes like the thickness of certain regions etc., which are continuous (like height) rather than discrete (like blood types, IIRC), so groups of men vs. women would have different statistical means for these attributes, but there would be wide ranges within each group and drawing clear boundaries between the groups or categorizing an individual on their basis would be impossible/pretty likely to go wrong.

Also, there’s the question of brain development – hormones (and substances working similarly) probably play a role there (prenatally as well as during puberty and possibly later), which further points to continuous rather than discrete attributes and implies that changing brain sex/gender might be possible. And nurture also plays a big role in different functional patterns, so gendered upbringing in a culture with binary genders might lead to dimorphism there even without biological dimorphism, and a culture with more genders would get more brain genders. (And confounding factors like sexual orientation, which seem to be controlled for surprisingly rarely.)

The existence of intersex people actually supports dimorphic human sex & gender, because there are no intersex traits that are not already found in either males or females, and many intersex conditions only appear in one sex or the other. Intersex people are not physically or neurologically a third sex or gender – they do not have a third set of gonads, or a third sort of chromosome, or a third kind of sex hormone influencing their brain’s development. Intersex people are men and women with disorders of sex development, and claiming that their mere existence disproves binary gender implies that they must by virtue of being intersex not really be men or women – I don’t think I have to explain how shitty that is.

Furthermore, research on intersex individuals has been instrumental in proving that gender identity is neurological and not subject to outside influences. There’s also the (in)famous case of David Reimer, who was born a healthy male but raised female from infancy after his genitals were destroyed by a botched circumcision – even with a psychologist’s supervision and interventions to try to make him embrace femalehood, he never swayed from the male gender identity and continued life as a man after he learned the truth of his sex (and later committed suicide due to the trauma of his upbringing).
There is no evidence that it’s possible to change a person’s gender identity, and that is a claim that causes actual harm.

Gender identity is not a malleable aspect of the brain subject to social conditioning, and that is the exact reasoning used to justify both the abuse that intersex people (and people like David Reimer) suffer when they are forcibly reassigned sex, and the abuse that trans people suffer in conversion therapy. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t mean anything bad by it, but suggesting that’s a valid position when all of the evidence says otherwise is absolutely reprehensible and if you give a shit about trans people you need to drop that as an argument.

Cultural third genders are not gender identities, they are oppressive social categories that trans people, gay people, intersex people, and gender non-conforming people get forced into because they are not considered “real” men and women in the culture they live in. Do not confuse gender roles (especially sexist, homophobic, and transphobic ones) with gender identity. It’s not a scholarly source so it’s not in the spreadsheet, but this post has a pretty thorough breakdown of the validity of cultural third genders.

Please take a look at the sources that actually are in the spreadsheet, though, starting with these:

In all of the studies relevant to it in the spreadsheet, subjects with sex-atypical brain areas falling between the male and female ranges were all still binarily gendered, suggesting that even an “intersex brain” will conform to either a male or female gender identity and not a third gender. All of the studies reporting on sex-atypicality in trans brains are based on evidence that male and female brains have distinguishing features.

That seems like saying there’s no such color as purple and all purple is just disordered red or blue – purple may not contain any other colors than red and blue, but it’s noticeably different from either anyway, to the point where assigning it either red or blue is both inaccurate and pretty arbitrary; the mixture is precisely the point. (It’s also possibly not quite accurate, since there are intersexual gonads – ovotestis – which appear in neither men nor women.)

There’s actually a legal process in my country right now because an intersex person (Alex Jürgen) has petitioned to list their gender as something else than either male or female, arguing that being legally required to do violates their right to accuracy of existing data about them. I think that makes perfect sense, and so do the courts so far – it’s very likely they’ll rule there has to be a third legal gender/sex option in the near future.

(Rest beneath cut because long)

Obviously, unlike the color purple, intersexuality may not be visible, and given the social ramifications of diverging from the norm in any noticeable way, I very much don’t think intersex people should be forcibly assigned any particular gender or forced to out themselves as intersex on legal documents if they don’t wish to. The intersex people I know of identify as a variety of genders, including male, female, trans male, intersex female, or just intersex, depending on what they feel describes their individual situation most accurately. All of these identifications are perfectly fine as far as I’m concerned.
But diverging from the binary norm is not inherently (or at all) a bad thing, and acknowledging and naming such a divergence as natural human variation seems honestly less shitty to me (and many intersex people) than insisting they are disordered in some way, especially if their “disorder” is not harmful in any way. (Especially given the medical communities’ infamous track record of non-consensually and unnecessarily surgically altering “disordered” intersex people’s bodies.)


I was confused when you suddenly started talking about changing gender identity until I re-read my own post and realized it was ambiguous enough to make that a valid interpretation. Belated clarification: it is my understanding that the functional/structural brain differences correlating with gender are indeed correlates rather than the neurological basis of gender identity, i.e., that it’s possible to have a male gender identity but a more female-typical brain or vice versa. Based on your last paragraph and the research links you posted (thanks, by the way, read through some and they were interesting), we seem to mostly agree on that. These functional or structural brain differences are what I meant by “brain gender”, not gender identity, and it’s those differences that I think may change during development and/or vary with cultural influences (e.g. functional differences relating to spatial cognition may develop from differences in how boys vs. girls are brought up regarding the activities they are expected and encouraged to do/like/be good at etc.).

FWIW, I do think that people’s gender identity and sexual orientation can change somewhat, since I’ve heard about/known quite a few individuals whose experience of their own gender identity and/or sexual orientation changed over time. But I don’t think this can be caused deliberately either by oneself or others (since attempts to do so have never been shown to work and caused a lot of harm), would not support any attempt to do so and strongly oppose any attempt made on someone without said person’s fully informed and voluntarily given consent, as well as any social pressure to change. (Such consent was obviously not given in Reimer’s case. IIRC he killed himself for reasons unrelated to his coercively assigned gender, though from what I’ve read about how Money tried to assign said gender, it might have been related to the abuse surrounding that assignment even if it was unrelated to the gender itself.)


Regarding non-binary genders in various cultures, I am unclear on what you think gender identity is if not literally what gender a person identifies as. To me, a person’s gender identity is non-binary if they identify as something other than male or female, which is often the case in cultures that offer more than these two options or concepts. As for them being oppressive and people being forced into them, this contradicts what I know of non-binary people in at least some other cultures – there is a vibrant community of e.g. self-identified fa’afafine in New Zealand, and Indian hijra themselves pushed for legal recognition of their gender. Just recently, I also came across this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlzhXBjmaUw about muxe – some of the muxes interviewed explicitly reject categorization as either men or women and emphasize that muxes are neither and want to be neither. This does not fit with being forced into beig muxe.
Of course it’s still possible some people are pressured to identify as fa’afafine, hijra etc., but that is true of every gender, including male and female in the West. (If you have info on/writings by members of cultures with non-binary genders who oppose their culture’s gender concepts, I’d be interested.)

While I read the post you linked on the topic with a lot of interest (such a comprehensive and detailed overview!), the poster’s basic premises seem to be that a gender cannot be a gender if (most or even some of) the people within the category are:

  • AMAB and androphilic or AFAB and gynephilic;
  • AMAB and (identifying as) more feminine than cis men or AFAB and more masculine than cis women;
  • intersex in any way;
  • performing a different gender role than their ASAB’s;
  • eunuchs;
  • adhering to religious or spiritual beliefs in which non-binary genders (including bigender/agender) are important.

These restrictions are pretty baffling. A group of people whose anatomy/development is clearly distinct from both males and females, whose social role is different from those for men and women and who actively identify as a gender other than male or female is basically as much of a gender as gender gets (including neurological structural/functional differences – I’d be surprised if guevedoche were not statistically different from both men and women, given their unique development). All of this is precisely the case for guevedoche, yet the poster still claims that guevedoche is not a gender (and presumably views them as either male or female, she does not specify which). At this point I’m puzzled as to why she believes that male and female are genders, and not at all sure there’s any (even theoretically possible) gender other than female or male she’d accept as such.

(Notably, especially performing different gender roles than one’s ASAB may well be a way to express a different gender identity and not something done for its own sake. This includes accepted and offered social roles that diverge from the usual gender role, such as those of a shaman to a third-gender/agender/polygender deity. Jewishmagpie seems to fail to consider this possibility when she immediately discounts any gender for which the description mentions different gender roles and/or religious/spiritual significance, e.g. the quariwarmi.)

That said, I’m not sure the question of whether there are “true” non-binary genders in other cultures is useful. Any attempt to answer it will have to provide a working definition of gender, and I suspect that any such definition will already be heavily colored by how gender is conceptualized by Western cultures today. The statement that gay men are “not real men” is certainly offensive, because it implies they’re somehow fake men and failing at being men; saying that a woman is not a man is considered a fact (unless there is reason to believe that the speaker is actually referring to trans men and misgendering them), because women and men are indeed viewed as different and (largely) mutually exclusive categories. But this is not some objectively true fact – it’s entirely possible for a culture to use “man” for heterosexual men and some other category for gay men without implying they’re fake men or that being a [word for gay men] is negative in any way. “Straight men and gay men” is not offensive – why would it suddenly become offensive if each category was referred to by a single word (especially if generally considered non-offensive and used by gay men to self-identify)?

Much the same is true for the trans/cis distinction, except even more so in my opinion. A “please select your gender” drop-down menu that listed “trans man” as an option alongside “cis man” would not feel the least bit offensive to me, rather the opposite – “trans man” feels like a perfectly valid descriptor of my gender, similarly accurate as “man” and even more complete. Having both trans men and cis men as subcategories of the term “man” is entirely correct in our culture, where “trans” and “cis” are both adjectives, but it’s not some objectively correct way to categorize, and having separate nouns for the two concepts and no overarching concept of maleness independent from gender alignment (such as the Indonesian calabai and calalai mentioned, or the Mohave’s hwame) is not inherently less valid.

Jewishmagpie sets Western conceptualizations of sexual orientation and gender (alignment) as objectively correct in a way that is, mildly put, problematic. According to the description, fakaleiti specifically do not consider themselves transgender or gay, “which are considered strictly Euro-American constructs that do not apply.” – yet jewishmagpie’s conclusion is “trans women that prefer another term for them being trans”, completely ignoring that fakaleiti apparently know what “transgender” means and consider it something different than what they are. Thinking that she knows their experiences and the very concept of their gender better than they do, as well as thinking that Western gender (and sexuality) concepts are somehow better and more advanced than others (as implied by “Western societies have moved past that kind of labelling”) is pretty damn arrogant and patronizing.

jumpingjacktrash:

ghostecutioner:

pyonkotchi:

Ppl without ADHD be like “oh if I get rid of all possible distractions then you’ll be forced to focus on the boring task!” Fool… You underestimate my Power 

#if you can’t use storebought distractions homemade is fine

nothing distracts like silence and isolation

Not ADHD but every time I have trouble studying I am reminded of this (which doesn’t help)

gillygeewhiz from which you reblogged that spreadsheet of transgender research seems pretty TERF-y from a cursory look of their blog (and uses of words like “transgenderism”), so I’m worried about that being biased. (Especially since they referred to the articles’ “usefulness”). I don’t suppose you’ve had time/energy to check it?

mugasofer:

kai-skai:

gillygeewhiz:

@kai-skai Not a TERF, but to disclose my bias, I believe that:

  • gender identity is neurological and fixed
  • the brain is sexually dimorphic, therefore there are two genders
  • transgenderism (as in “the state of being transgender”, I have no idea why that word is an issue or what I’m supposed to use instead) is caused by a mismatch of gender identity and sex, which in turn causes dysphoria over the body’s sexed attributes
  • transition should be considered medically necessary for trans people to relieve their dysphoria

The sources in the spreadsheet are ones that I’ve either been given (mostly by trans people) or have used myself to support the above, or which are just generally interesting/good sources to have on-hand (like the DSM & WPATH SOC). The studies listed are all peer-reviewed and most of them corroborate each others’ findings; as much as I appreciate people being critical about where information is coming from, it’s pretty irresponsible to dismiss ~50 scholarly sources over a 20-year period that all support common ideas out-of-hand because “OP seems TERF-y /:”

Hi, thanks for elaborating, and I’m glad to see I was wrong.

Apparently “transgenderism” is used routinely in non-TERF contexts as well – somehow I haven’t seen it much outside of there, so it made me suspicious. (I mostly just see “being transgender”.)

I didn’t mean to dismiss the sources – I haven’t even had the time to look at them more closely, figured I’d ask first because this is more @transsexualism’s area of expertise than mine and therefore would probably take them less time and effort. Good research is good research no matter who does or distributes it. (Even so, it’s sometimes possible to cherry-pick decent research in a misleading way. Although I guess that’s much less of an issue with a spreadsheet of original sources than by reporting on the conclusions.)

transsexualism:

I haven’t looked at the blog, only the spreadsheet. It seemed like a good resource since it’s a compilation of neurological studies and it includes useful information like the impact factor of the journal where it’s published (which I know is not in itself an indication of how valid a study is, but it’s still good to know).

The use of the word transgenderism is not something I thought anything about. I use transsexualism myself, which many people frown upon for similar reasons.

From quickly looking at the studies compiled in the spreadsheet I don’t think there’s bias. There could be though, if the author is cherry-picking studies to support their own opinion and ignoring other studies. But to be fair, if you want to really form an opinion on this topic you shouldn’t be looking at a spreadsheet but rather look through the literature yourself and see what the consensus is, or look for literature reviews. This type of compilation of information is a useful start, but you shouldn’t limit yourself to that as a source when you can just go on pubmed or similar and find every single study, including ones the person making the spreadsheet may have missed on purpose or not.

the brain is sexually dimorphic, therefore there are two genders

Plus intersex brains, right?

Intersex (people’s) brains would be an argument against dimorphic brains.

Another issue is that most brain differences are attributes like the thickness of certain regions etc., which are continuous (like height) rather than discrete (like blood types, IIRC), so groups of men vs. women would have different statistical means for these attributes, but there would be wide ranges within each group and drawing clear boundaries between the groups or categorizing an individual on their basis would be impossible/pretty likely to go wrong.

Also, there’s the question of brain development – hormones (and substances working similarly) probably play a role there (prenatally as well as during puberty and possibly later), which further points to continuous rather than discrete attributes and implies that changing brain sex/gender might be possible. And nurture also plays a big role in different functional patterns, so gendered upbringing in a culture with binary genders might lead to dimorphism there even without biological dimorphism, and a culture with more genders would get more brain genders. (And confounding factors like sexual orientation, which seem to be controlled for surprisingly rarely.)

gillygeewhiz from which you reblogged that spreadsheet of transgender research seems pretty TERF-y from a cursory look of their blog (and uses of words like “transgenderism”), so I’m worried about that being biased. (Especially since they referred to the articles’ “usefulness”). I don’t suppose you’ve had time/energy to check it?

gillygeewhiz:

transsexualism:

I haven’t looked at the blog, only the spreadsheet. It seemed like a good resource since it’s a compilation of neurological studies and it includes useful information like the impact factor of the journal where it’s published (which I know is not in itself an indication of how valid a study is, but it’s still good to know).

The use of the word transgenderism is not something I thought anything about. I use transsexualism myself, which many people frown upon for similar reasons.

From quickly looking at the studies compiled in the spreadsheet I don’t think there’s bias. There could be though, if the author is cherry-picking studies to support their own opinion and ignoring other studies. But to be fair, if you want to really form an opinion on this topic you shouldn’t be looking at a spreadsheet but rather look through the literature yourself and see what the consensus is, or look for literature reviews. This type of compilation of information is a useful start, but you shouldn’t limit yourself to that as a source when you can just go on pubmed or similar and find every single study, including ones the person making the spreadsheet may have missed on purpose or not.

@kai-skai Not a TERF, but to disclose my bias, I believe that:

  • gender identity is neurological and fixed
  • the brain is sexually dimorphic, therefore there are two genders
  • transgenderism (as in “the state of being transgender”, I have no idea why that word is an issue or what I’m supposed to use instead) is caused by a mismatch of gender identity and sex, which in turn causes dysphoria over the body’s sexed attributes
  • transition should be considered medically necessary for trans people to relieve their dysphoria

The sources in the spreadsheet are ones that I’ve either been given (mostly by trans people) or have used myself to support the above, or which are just generally interesting/good sources to have on-hand (like the DSM & WPATH SOC). The studies listed are all peer-reviewed and most of them corroborate each others’ findings; as much as I appreciate people being critical about where information is coming from, it’s pretty irresponsible to dismiss ~50 scholarly sources over a 20-year period that all support common ideas out-of-hand because “OP seems TERF-y /:”

Hi, thanks for elaborating, and I’m glad to see I was wrong.

Apparently “transgenderism” is used routinely in non-TERF contexts as well – somehow I haven’t seen it much outside of there, so it made me suspicious. (I mostly just see “being transgender”.)

I didn’t mean to dismiss the sources – I haven’t even had the time to look at them more closely, figured I’d ask first because this is more @transsexualism’s area of expertise than mine and therefore would probably take them less time and effort. Good research is good research no matter who does or distributes it. (Even so, it’s sometimes possible to cherry-pick decent research in a misleading way. Although I guess that’s much less of an issue with a spreadsheet of original sources than by reporting on the conclusions.)

jumpingjacktrash:

variablejabberwocky:

jumpingjacktrash:

Doesn’t mother nature understand it’s April and this whole snow thing needs to stop?

callout for persephone: maybe your husband can visit you at your mom’s place sometimes jfc GO HOME

better yet: someone stage an intervention for possessive helicopter-mom demeter

your child is a grown-ass woman and can do what she wants, knock off the winter bullshit

is winter just demeter having a trantrum then? i thought she needed persephone’s powers to do spring.

The way I learned it in Latin class is that Demeter is missing her daughter so much she can’t focus/have all the warm and motherly feelings needed to make things grow. So, not really a helicopter mom thing or a tantrum, but maybe some therapy to learn better coping skills would be a nice idea.

(Although of course in some interpretations, Hades stole Persephone against her will and is basically holding her captive and raping her during winter. In which case Demeter feeling anguish and grief is pretty fucking understandable.)

jumpingjacktrash:

agingwunderkind:

shitty-car-mods-daily:

I’m sure this car would have some horror stories to tell via Shitty_Car_Mods

i mean on the one hand, it’s not like the car is experiencing any distress. it’s a car. so like, sure, go ahead and stick your dick in a rusty metal tube if that makes you happy.

on the other hand, i kind of feel like your REAL kink is making sure i KNOW about you sticking your dick in a rusty metal tube, and that’s not cool, bro.

On the one hand I get that and feel the same way, on the other hand this is pretty much one of the arguments people make against any kind of visible gayness (same-sex marriage, rainbow flags, etc.), and I’m… honestly not sure whether there’s an actual important difference here that I’m missing.

Arbeit – Fluch oder Segen?

[long-ish German
post beneath the cut]

Um die im Titel
gestellte Frage überhaupt annähernd beantworten zu können (und
nicht mehr als eine annähernde Beantwortung kann ich in diesem Post
anstreben) sind nicht weniger als vier (genauere)
Begriffsdefinitionen nötig, eine pro Wort.

Fluch
und “Segen” stehen hier wohl nur recht pauschal für
Schlechtes bzw. Gutes, was wiederum Definitionssache ist und von
ethischen Grundvoraussetzungen abhängt. Hier werde ich meine
ethischen Grundsätze dafür heranziehen, nach denen (grob
gesprochen) Freude und Freiheit gut sind, Leid und Einschränkungen
schlecht.

Verbunden werden sie
durch das Wörtchen “oder”, das umgangssprachlich
meist als exklusives oder (entweder dieses oder jenes) interpretiert
wird, logisch allerdings inklusiv ist (dieses und/oder jenes). Welche
Bedeutung hier angemessener ist bleibt abzuwarten.

Fehlt noch ein
Begriff. Was ist Arbeit?

Die Physik kennt
mehrere Bedeutungen des Arbeitsbegriffs, auf die ich hier nicht näher
eingehen werde. Computer, Waschmaschinen, Heizungen, Autos und
zahlreiche andere Gerätschaften des täglichen Lebens – sie alle
leisten Arbeit. Ebenso Überwachungskameras, Schusswaffen und
Drohnen, und natürlich auch Spielkonsolen, Taschenrechner,
Babypuppen die lachen wenn man sie kitzelt, und Radios.

Spätestens jetzt
müsste klar sein, dass das “oder” in diesem Fall wohl ein
“und/oder” sein sollte: maschinelle Arbeit aller Art kann
sowohl Fluch als auch Segen sein. Kleidung und Bettzeug oder auch
Geschirr immer per Hand waschen zu müssen würde weder mehr Freiheit
bedeuten noch den meisten Leuten Freude bereiten, auch wenn es für
viele (weltweit gesehen) Alltag sein mag. Von einem Auto überfahren
zu werden hingegen ist wohl eher Fluch als Segen (gewisse gestresste
Student_innen in der Prüfungszeit vielleicht ausgenommen, wenn die
Verletzungen nicht allzu schlimm sind).

Allerdings ist die
Sachlage auch in Bezug auf Waschmaschinen und Geschirrspüler etwas
komplexer als man auf den ersten Blick vermuten würde. Die
subjektive Leichtigkeit der (ja fast ausschließlich von der Maschine
verrichteten) Arbeit und die schlechte Überschaubarkeit der dadurch
verbrauchten Ressourcen beispielsweise könnten zu allzu sorglosem
und unbedachtem Umgang damit führen, die auf lange Sicht auf uns
alle als Fluch zurückfallen. Und wieviele Leute würden im Winter
vielleicht lieber noch einen Pulli überziehen als stärker zu
heizen, wenn sie dazu selbst Holz hacken und schleppen müssten?
Schon diese Arbeit selbst zu verrichten würde wohl etwas wärmen.

Menschliche
Arbeit lässt sich
nach unterschiedlichen Kriterien einteilen. Eine Einteilung nach der
Art der Anstrengung ergibt grob folgende drei Kategorien:

  • körperliche
    Arbeit: erfordert vor allem körperliche Kraft und Ausdauer, zB.
    Möbelschleppen, Kisten stapeln, Post austragen, putzen, sportliche
    Leistungen aller Art…

  • geistige
    Arbeit: erfordert vor allem kognitive Anstrengung, also planen,
    berechnen, erfinden, schreiben, recherchieren, untersuchen…

  • Gefühlsarbeit:
    erfordert Anstrengung beim Regulieren eigener sowie beim Erkennen
    und evtl. Manipulieren anderer Gefühle, zB. im Verkauf und bei
    allen Arten von Kundenservice, aber auch bspw. bei Lehrtätigkeiten
    (Geduld mit Schüler_innen, Erkennen und Berücksichtigen ihrer
    Bedürfnisse), im psychischen wie physischen Gesundheitsbereich und
    sonstigen Tätigkeiten, bei denen zwischenmenschlicher Kontakt
    wesentlich ist.

Die eigentlichen
Tätigkeiten nehmen meist mehr als eine Kategorie in Anspruch – Hilfe
bei einem Umzug mag viel körperliche Arbeit erfordern, aber
möglicherweise auch ein gutes Stück geistige Arbeit, wenn es darum
geht, das Transportgut sinnvoll und platzsparend einzupacken und/oder
unterzubringen, Möbel ab- und wieder aufzubauen etc., und
möglicherweise auch etwas Gefühlsarbeit, wenn man Mithelfer_innen
motivieren (oder, wenn man sie nicht sonderlich leiden kann,
freundlich tolerieren) zu können.

Jede Kategorie hat
außerdem ihren Nutzen und enthält Tätigkeiten, die viele Menschen
rein zum Vergnügen ausüben.

Körperliche Arbeit
kann die (körperliche und geistige) Gesundheit verbessern und
erhalten, und ist in Form zahlreicher Sportarten ein beliebtes
Freizeitvergnügen. Zusätzlich eröffnet sie oft neue
Handlungsmöglichkeiten, die ihrerseits wiederum Freude bereiten –
mit verbesserter Kondition kann man lohnende Wanderungen unternehmen,
mit mehr Muskelkraft schwerere Gewichte heben (was manchen aus mir
unerfindlichen Gründen Spaß macht), mit verbesserter Flexibilität
ganz neue Bewegungen ausführen.

Ebenso kann geistige
Arbeit kognitive Fähigkeiten verbessern und erhalten, hilft Probleme
zu lösen und ist oft selbstbelohnend, bspw. in Form befriedigter
Neugier oder durch die Problemlösung selbst. Die Beliebtheit von
Kniffelspielen wie Kreuzworträtsel und Sudoku sind ein
eindrucksvoller Beweis dafür, dass zahlreiche Menschen an geistiger
Arbeit (zumindest in diesen bestimmten Formen) Spaß haben.

Gefühlsarbeit ist –
wie vielleicht schon durch die Beschreibung ersichtlich – in allen
sozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen wichtig, sei es zu anderen
Menschen (Familienmitgliedern wie bspw. den eigenen Kindern,
Freund_innen, romantischen Partner_innen,…) oder nicht-menschlichen
Tieren, und diese wiederum sind ein menschliches Grundbedürfnis.
Gefühlsarbeit greift außerdem auf andere wertvolle Fähigkeiten
zurück und trainiert diese – unter anderem die Fähigkeit, die
innere Erfahrungswelt anderer Menschen (möglichst) korrekt zu
modellieren, Empathie und die Regulierung eigener Gefühle.

Eine andere
Kategorisierungsart von Arbeit ist die nach Erwerbsarbeit vs.
unbezahlter Arbeit. Oft ist Arbeit umgangssprachlich nur ein Synonym
für Erwerbsarbeit: arbeitslos, arbeitssuchend und arbeitsunfähig
beziehen sich alle auf Erwerbsarbeit – logisch, niemand ist
arbeitslos nach den oben genannten Definitionen. Diese
Kategorisierung mag zwar soziologisch sinnvoll sein, nicht aber wenn
es um die Tätigkeit selbst geht: ob eine Tätigkeit Erwerbsarbeit
darstellt oder nicht hängt schließlich einzig und allein davon ab,
ob man dafür bezahlt wird oder nicht, und nicht von Merkmalen der
Tätigkeit selbst. Ist ein Buch zu schreiben denn nur dann Arbeit,
wenn man es hinterher auch veröffentlicht und (gut) verkauft
bekommt? Sind Hausarbeit und Gartenarbeit nur dann Arbeit, wenn man
sie an einem Ort verrichtet, der jemand anderem gehört, der einen
dafür bezahlt? Ist Reproduktionsarbeit – Kinder zu beaufsichtigen
und zu erziehen – nur Arbeit, wenn die Kinder jemandem anderen
“gehören”?

Ähnlich häufig wie
für Erwerbsarbeit steht Arbeit für jede Tätigkeit, die (manchmal)
als mühsam und unangenehm empfunden wird, etwa in der Aussage, dass
etwas – ein Hund, ein Garten, ein Kind, ein Haus – viel Arbeit mache.
Diese umgangssprachlichen Gepflogenheiten mögen nicht ganz
unabhängig voneinander sein: wenn man eine mühsame und
unerfreuliche Arbeit erledigt braucht, muss man vielleicht eher Leute
dafür bezahlen als für eine recht angenehme.

Allerdings liegen
Mühe und Unerfreulichkeit oft nicht in der Tätigkeit selbst,
sondern den Umständen und/oder der Passung von Tätigkeit und
Tätigen. Wahrscheinlich würden sich nicht viele Leute hobbymäßig
zu einer pausenlosen 12-Stunden-Schicht in einer fensterlosen,
heißen, lauten und unbequemen Nähfabrik einfinden, trotzdem ist
Nähen sowohl selbst ein Hobby als auch Teil vieler anderer Hobbys
(LARPing und Cosplays beispielsweise). Für manche Leute wäre ein
Job als Strandanimateur_in (körperliche und Gefühlsarbeit) ein
Traum, für andere ein Alptraum.

Zu guter Letzt ist
auch kontextabhängig, ob eine überwiegend (d.h. unter den meisten
Umständen und für die meisten Leute üblicherweise) mühsame und
unerfreuliche Tätigkeit an sich in Summe eher Fluch oder Segen ist.
Öffentliche Klos zu putzen ist wahrscheinlich auch unter den besten
Umständen eher unangenehme Pflicht als Freizeitbeschäftigung, aber
ungeputzte öffentliche Klos sowohl selbst ein Fluch für ihre
Benutzer_innen als auch ein erhebliches Gesundheitsrisiko – Arbeit
ist hier also die bessere Alternative.

Eine noch bessere
Alternative könnte natürlich in vollautomatisierter Kloreinigung
bestehen. Da wäre die logische Frage, was die bisherigen
Kloputzer_innen jetzt machen – wenn sie leer ausgehen und mit Hunger,
Obdachlosigkeit etc. zu kämpfen haben ist die Erwerbsarbeit als
Kloputzer_in vermutlich die bessere Alternative, wenn sie von
bedingungslosem Grundeinkommen ganz passabel leben und sich für sie
angenehmerer Arbeit (wie Krafttraining oder leidenschaftlichem
Computerspielen) widmen nicht, und wenn sie stattdessen
Wartungsarbeit für Kloputzroboter leisten kommt’s drauf an, ob sie
das als angenehmer und/oder müheloser empfinden.

Natürlich könnte
man jetzt noch viel geistige Arbeit in Recherche zu empirischer
Forschung darüber stecken, wie Menschen durchschnittlich zu ihrer
Erwerbsarbeit stehen, das über Branchen, Länder, Geschlechter,
soziale Schichten usw. hinweg vergleichen und ganze Bücher darüber
schreiben, aber ich beende diesen Post stattdessen mal ganz faul.
Vielleicht ein andermal. Ich stecke lieber noch ein bisschen geistige
Arbeit in ein paar Partien Mastermind, und dann wohl etwas
körperliche Arbeit in Duschen, Zähneputzen und Schlafengehen. (Ja,
auch das ist körperliche Arbeit! Ich muss dazu eine Leiter
raufklettern!) Ganz allgemein ist die Titelfrage jedenfalls sicher wie folgt zu beantworten: “Arbeit – Fluch oder Segen”, mit inklusivem Oder.