posted on February 11, 2020 07:51 AM by
u/Subrosian_Smithy
28
u/Subrosian_Smithy41 pointsat 1581407707.000000
I wouldn’t know much about their fetishes, but my impression is that
most transgender individuals who achieved some level of prominence
before transitioning (e.g., Jenner, McCloskey, Col. Pritzker, Morris,
Donnelly, Wachowskis, etc.) tend to be:
– Born male
– Fairly masculine in behavior (e.g., play football at Harvard)
– Highly masculine in interests (e.g., libertarian economics) — e.g.,
they seldom ever showed the slightest evidence that they were always
female in their brains.
– Highly aggressive and combative
– Conventionally heterosexual (e.g., fathered several children)
– High to extremely high IQ
– Not very liberal or progressive in politics
– Rather self-interested in a way Ayn Rand would approve
– Perhaps interested in science fiction
– Not terribly nice
– Perhaps on the Asperger’s spectrum
A fair and reasonable evaluation of the transfeminine condition from
the SSC commenter who once called us “late Heinlein protagonists” and
decided that Martine Rothblatt was the only trans woman he ever needed
to learn about.
> – Highly masculine in interests (e.g., libertarian economics) — e.g., they seldom ever showed the slightest evidence that they were always female in their brains.
Is Sailer making the argument that being wrong about economics is a masculine trait?
A good baysarian would note the overlap of these qualities with general qualities of prominent people.
Which this person didnt, once again showing the massive failure of the rationalist project (e: it is even worse, because the article the comment reacts to is literally mentioning this problem, guess steve didnt read).
(This is in addition to the sexism and other weirdness in the quoted list btw).
E: ok wtf that isnt just a random idiot posting. It is steve sailer. The brainrot comes from the top.
E2: this kind of framing is so malicious that if you would do it in a pro leftwing way you would get a ban. Scott stop being a coward and put the famous people on timeouts for being bad thinkers and manipulative assholes (sailers transphobia is very obvious 'men who declare themselves women'). 'true, nice, or necessary' pick 2, my ass. (looked at the ban history, sailer was put [on](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/04/17/ssc-survey-results-sexual-harassment-levels-by-field/#comment-620257) timeout [before](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/07/03/ssc-journal-club-dissolving-the-fermi-paradox/#comment-645249))
E3: btw, as somebody pointed out this transphobia, to Scott, which means he is aware of it. And the comment policy, this means that if Scott does not take action on this, the comment is two of true, nice, necessary (according to Scotts moderation team, which includes Scott). Which means you are justified in calling Scott a transphobe. Your move Scott. (This puts up a nice question, sailer was banned for anti immigrant bullshit (using the 'no culture wars' argument) and sexism before, is transphobia also a offense for Scott? (The open 'question' is of course why after 2 bans Sailer is allowed to come back (while Marxbro, is banned forever for no reason for pointing out (granted in an annoying way) that somebody was full of shit and misrepresenting Marx))
I know, this is a very rationalist centrist thing to do. This kind of stupidity just makes me angry. Which is funny, as i also used to consider politeness in politics very important. I now see the error in my old ways.
And once again, im thinking about scotts 'no witchhunts allowed community -> lot of nazis in your community' line, his stance on 'just making jokes about jews can help pave the path to genocide' superweapons post, and think, how much of this is deliberate on Scotts part? To make a silly reference to caplans cryptocommie post earlier, isnt this behaviour which would (using baaaayyyyyees) fit a cryptonazi on Scotts part. Or he just is super naive about how he thinks politeness will save him from the nazis (which means he is very stupid, as appeasement has been shown not to work). Either way, this means i cant take him serious.
Trans people can say whatever they want, everyone sees their own journey differently. However, most trans people tend to reject that depiction, and the ones who feel it is appropriate (to describe their own feelings) are a solid minority. In any case, for a cis person to foist that moniker on a trans person is stunningly rude, yes.
Edit: To expand just a little bit, it's also stunningly rude for a trans person to foist that moniker on another trans person. By and large, most trans people would find being called an "ex-gender" extremely offensive. While some (minority of) trans people do feel like their gender changed somehow, most do not, and it should never be assumed that whoever you're referring to would be comfortable with that description.
I agree, and also as you can also become NB or androgen, it is also wrong to call all trans women, ex-men. It looks to me like a rethorical thrick to make trans women feel fake and bad. Just like deadnaming would, or lets go to a stupid hypothetical, if you would call all jewish people 'fake-whites'.
Of course it is usually easy to figure out if somebody is being an asshile on purpose, ask them to stop and explain the better term, if they dont and start shouting about free speech and censorship...
Pretty scary btw, Sailer not being banned from the ssc comment section, the other scott javing a lot of private correspondence with and exposure on the other scotts blog. At least Yud has not yet been on Molyneux's show.
The main post seems fairly straightforward in it’s content discussing
emprical results other than random anecdotes about the fetishes of
Scott’s friends. But yeah some of the comments are pretty awful like
normal
Skimming this, the take is fine (being trans is not a fetish), but
what’s notable here is how much effort is being put into not panicking
over the contents of their spank banks.
So really, the take here is “being trans is not a fetish[, also thank
god I’m not trans]”.
and in this case it's not even like it's an issue of "more accurate but less respectful" -- there are tons of synonymous terms which are actually *more* accurate! argh
^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules
of reddit and don’t vote in the other threads.) ^(Info ^/ 1(/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))
A fair and reasonable evaluation of the transfeminine condition from the SSC commenter who once called us “late Heinlein protagonists” and decided that Martine Rothblatt was the only trans woman he ever needed to learn about.
The main post seems fairly straightforward in it’s content discussing emprical results other than random anecdotes about the fetishes of Scott’s friends. But yeah some of the comments are pretty awful like normal
Skimming this, the take is fine (being trans is not a fetish), but what’s notable here is how much effort is being put into not panicking over the contents of their spank banks.
So really, the take here is “being trans is not a fetish[, also thank god I’m not trans]”.
I don’t hate myself enough to read this.
oh no
I’ve never wanted to read something less in my entire life
Why are rationalists always… Perhaps the least rational human beings out there?
can we just retire the term “biologically male”? thanks
the title is enough for me, clicking that link would be self harm
I’m a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don’t vote in the other threads.) ^(Info ^/ 1(/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))
Contact↩︎