Noone refuted Helen Joyce in the last thread so lets see if anyone has anything for Kathleen Stock. I thought this book was better structured, more philosophical and less journalistic, take on the subject.
I love plapping tranny ass so goddamn much
>>25257064>why reality matters for feminismhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FgxacX72snA&ra=m
>>25257064why don't you explain to me why i should read it instead of something else on my list? what facts or arguments did you take away from it that you didn't already have? if i read everything everyone ever wrote about their pet political issue in order to see exactly why they're wrong, i'd never get to any of the shit i actually care about.
>>25257075It clearly laid out all the options for what "gender" could mean without the motte and bailey tactics you get when pro gender people talk about it and followed on with the consequences of each definition.
>>25257090that's an explanation of the structure of the book, not a new fact or argument that you took away from it. i'm not asking you to explain what the author is attempting to do, i'm asking you to tell me something new you learned from the book.
>>25257064>gender critical generalIf you want a tranny hate thread just post your engagement slop to /b/ or /r9k/, the adults are trying to discuss literature here
>>25257095It wasnt a about new facts for me instead the clarity of the ideas and how they connect. If you really need one it was physical differences in the sexes and their effects on peoples lives makes feeling like the othe sex an absurd idea.
>>25257185>If you really need one it was physical differences in the sexes and their effects on peoples lives makes feeling like the othe sex an absurd idea.okay, well i already know that testosterone causes enormous physical changes in the body, so i guess i don't need to read this.
>>25257251I should have been more specific. Its about the different roles in sexual reproduction not muscles and bones. There are weak men and strong women but if a couple decides to have a baby it's always the woman that has her body and life fucked up for at least a year. No amount of gender bending and progressive roles in the household can change that.
>>25257380NTA but you're not really making the case for this book. The other anon had to ask you twice about what new ideas you learned from it, and all you can come up with is "men and women don't do the same thing in human sexual reproduction and when women have a baby it really fucks them up," which seems pretty obvious to me?
>>25257064>reality matters to feminism>feminists still insist women can play football
>>25257090>pro gender people
>>25257064Fuck off back to crystal cafe. Trannies are less cancerous than women when it comes to this board. Leave.
>>2525709095 IQ but thinks she's an expert. Classic woman moment.
>>25257388Sorry. It isnt about the new ideas for me instead the clarity with which it presents them. A lot of the time people think they understand something but there are gaps and vague areas their mind glosses over with them realising hence why its so easy to for interviewers walking around towns and university campuses to make people look stupid when they ask them simple questions.Not entirely new ideas but solidifying understanding.
>>25257380>No amount of gender bending and progressive roles in the household can change that.artificial wombs could.does the author engage in any way with the long history of feminist transhumanist and proto-transhumanist thought on this subject, from shulamith firestone's work to xenofeminism?
>>25258160Artificial wombs mean the extinction of women. They will enable the minority of gay men with an urge to reproduce to outbreed everyone else. That future quickly converges to a species of ~clones of people like Thiel and Musk, raised without mothers, outcompeting anyone with normal human psychology.Women were shaped by the strife of nature and the violence of childbirth and will dissipate without it. So would humanity, but men unfettered from female regulation will fly a bit higher first, before extinction. You are your limits. And you, in particular, are even more worthless than your body tells you you are.
>>25258190is this your own argument or stock's? i can argue with you if you want but if there's serious GC engagement with this stuff in the book, even if i disagree, that might actually convince me to read it.>They will enable the minority of gay men with an urge to reproduce to outbreed everyone elsewhy would it be gay men specifically? of your two examples, the one known to actually have kids is a repping AGP trans woman.
>>25257425> with them realising hence why its so easy to for interviewers You are retarded, actually brained damaged.
>>25257425I guess, sure. It sounds like it's a more articulate rehashing of a bunch of arguments I've seen online before.
>>25258219Mine, that was my first post in the thread. I skimmed and had a tard moment and thought you were op (hence the mean comment). I'm not going to read whatever dogshit summary of mumsnet posts is being shilled by her. >why would it be gay men specifically?They don't worship women the way straight men do. I genuinely don't like women, the way they talk often makes me nauseous, but I'm straight and the urge to devote myself to one is still there. We ruined civilization because they cried and stamped their feet. Homosexuals are free of that urge so will be, if not the only, certainly the first to totally break free of natural reproduction and make women irrelevant. I don't think it's a good thing, it horrifies me, but it seems the inevitable consequence of artificial wombs. The unbounded, pathological empathy and gentleness that feminists brag about is suicide in a darwinian universe. The fact that individual species and in group instincts exist at all shows that cooperation is bad strategy on average.
>>25258233i don't think spamming clones of themselves is actually something more than a very tiny number of humans want to do. i do think you are correct about one that if reproduction is unlimited by any constraint, it doesn't matter how small that group is, they'll soon outnumber everyone. i don't think gay men are more likely than any other group to be in that small minority. as i said, the most famous example is musk who is definitely not a gay man.i think there are lots of ways to address this and prevent that tiny minority from taking over the lightcone. one is that you try to satisfy their values in a different way. musk believes in a bunch of deathist cope bullshit right now. if he didn't actually have to die, and knew he didn't have to die, would he be so hell-bent on producing as many copies of himself as possible? maybe not. that said there are probably some very tiny number of people out there who really do want to tile the universe with themselves and you have to be able to say no to them. i don't actually think "you're not allowed to have 100,000 children, and you're not allowed to make the children you do have identical to you" will turn out to be that onerous a restriction.
>>25257064Otto Weininger BTFO gender over a century ago and managed to do it while dabbing on women
>>25257403Are you genuinely retarded?
>>25257403>would rather have trannies over womenayo this nigga is gay
