TERFs crash London Pride

Lithrael said:
I'd really have to dig into the shoe-study-data to tease out the full health situation. Are the health risk studies talking about five inch stilettos or two inch kitten heels?
Click to expand...

I don't know if any "data" per say exists, but if you just do a google image search on "deformed feet from high heels" (sans quotation marks) you can see pictures of what wearing heels (3 inch or so was the norm) did to many/most women my grandmother's age after a lifetime of wearing them daily.
 
Last edited:
Kind of late, but just wanted to say - I can run and climb trees in heels just fine. If someone ever attacked me while I was wearing heels, not only would my escape not be hindered, but I would also be equipped with two additional pokey weapons for self-defense.

That said, I wouldn't work somewhere where heels were expected attire, just like I won't work anywhere with a dress code that demands women wear skirts/dresses or makeup. And I was surprised as some of you probably are to find out those places absolutely do still exist.
 
Regarding men and skirts, I dated a guy in my early twenties (lovely fellow!) who used to wear long skirts sometimes in the summer. I kid you not. He wasn't cross-dressing (he'd wear the skirt with, like, an Insane Clown Posse T-shirt and full beard) nor was he getting any kind of thrill out of wearing "women's clothes." He simply thought it was stupid that men in America "can't" wear skirts. They're comfortable in the heat.

So he'd find a couple long, plain skirts and walk around in them, daring anybody to say anything about it. (Few did - he was a tall, muscular guy.) Yeah, he was a young rebel in a liberal city. His claiming of fashion might not have worked as well in a different setting. But I always thought it was cool. Men in skirts seems fine to me.

Mini-skirts make me nervous because of the ball-slip issue. ;) But if balls are secure, go for it. Guys are wearing makeup more now, too. Why shouldn't a man cover his blemishes? All that stuff is dumb.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
This says: Men's boots had high heels until the middle of the nineteenth century when the design of coaches was improved and the development of railways meant less need for horses.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the first time heels became fashionable, and then unfashionable, with people who were dressed their best, in the west. 17-18th century stuff. When high heels went out of fashion for men in the early-mid 1700's it was not because of coaches and rail. With style, you can go out in 1740 and 1850, for different reasons.

And style and utility are a little different; I'd imagine riding boots kept the heels once widely introduced, since that's what they were good for, and if you had a good chance of finding yourself on a horse in the course of your day you'd want a general purpose day wear boot to have a riding heel.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
I was talking about the first time heels became fashionable, and then unfashionable, with people who were dressed their best, in the west. 17-18th century stuff. When high heels went out of fashion for men in the early-mid 1700's it was not because of coaches and rail. With style, you can go out in 1740 and 1850, for different reasons.

And style and utility are a little different; I'd imagine riding boots kept the heels once widely introduced, since that's what they were good for, and if you had a good chance of finding yourself on a horse in the course of your day you'd want a general purpose day wear boot to have a riding heel.
Click to expand...


Ironically, women only started wearing heels during a movement to dress more like men. They were at the time seen as as specifically a 'man's' article of clothing as one could get.

On another note, I've seen more threats of violence against trans people lately, including specifically from 'feminists', but also from the same old kind of bigots. I mean, anyone would fake themselves through the harassment and pain of being transgender to 'invade women's spaces'. Harassment like adults threatening to murder a 12 year old girl for using the bathroom.
 
isissxn said:
Kind of late, but just wanted to say - I can run and climb trees in heels just fine. If someone ever attacked me while I was wearing heels, not only would my escape not be hindered, but I would also be equipped with two additional pokey weapons for self-defense.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha! You rock!



isissxn said:
Regarding men and skirts, I dated a guy in my early twenties (lovely fellow!) who used to wear long skirts sometimes in the summer. I kid you not. He wasn't cross-dressing (he'd wear the skirt with, like, an Insane Clown Posse T-shirt and full beard) nor was he getting any kind of thrill out of wearing "women's clothes." He simply thought it was stupid that men in America "can't" wear skirts. They're comfortable in the heat.
Click to expand...
I think kilts are still considered okay in the United States, barely, because of the simplistic and unwholesome sexual hangups, but there are all kinds of unbifurcated garments for men that are still worn across the planet and they don't lessen their masculinity at all.

I'm currently picking out some styles of kilts myself for this summer, though it's a little late (better late than never) and along with linen shirts... boy I've never been so comfortable in summers.
 
tyr_13 said:
Ironically, women only started wearing heels during a movement to dress more like men. They were at the time seen as as specifically a 'man's' article of clothing as one could get.
On another note, I've seen more threats of violence against trans people lately, including specifically from 'feminists', but also from the same old kind of bigots. I mean, anyone would fake themselves through the harassment and pain of being transgender to 'invade women's spaces'. Harassment like adults threatening to murder a 12 year old girl for using the bathroom.
Click to expand...

When did this take place, approximately?
 
pharphis said:
When did this take place, approximately?
Click to expand...

About the 1600s, not long after the Persians introduced the extended heel to Europe (1599, when Persia was warring with the Ottoman Empire and seeking aid from Europe, the Persians using the heels from about the 9th century). In some parts of Europe about that time, women dressing and acting like men as a sign of some sort of equality was in fashion.

"You had women cutting their hair, adding epaulettes to their outfits. They would smoke pipes, they would wear hats that were very masculine. And this is why women adopted the heel — it was in an effort to masculinise their outfits." -Elizabeth Semmelhack, curator of the Bata Shoe Museum
 
pharphis said:
When did this take place, approximately?
Click to expand...

Wiki says it started in the 1700's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-heeled_shoe#History

...royalty such as King Louis XIV wore heels to impart status. As the shoes caught on, and other members of society began donning high heels, elite members ordered their heels to be made even higher to distinguish themselves from lower classes.[8] Authorities even began regulating the length of a high heel’s point according to social rank. Klaus Carl includes these lengths in his book Shoes: “½ inch for commoners, 1 inch for the bourgeois, 1 and ½ inches for knights, 2 inches for nobles, and 2 and ½ inches for princes.”[9] As women took to appropriating this style, the heels’ width changed in another fundamental way. Men wore thick heels, while women wore skinny ones. Then, when Enlightenment ideals such as science, nature, and logic took hold of many European societies, men gradually stopped wearing heels. After the French Revolution in the late 1780s, heels, femininity, and superficiality all became intertwined.[3] In this way, heels became much more associated with a woman’s supposed sense of impracticality and extravagance.
Click to expand...
 
First peer-reviewed study of rapid onset gender dysphoria


Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports

In on-line forums, parents have been reporting that their children are experiencing what is described here as “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” appearing for the first time during puberty or even after its completion. The onset of gender dysphoria seemed to occur in the context of belonging to a peer group where one, multiple, or even all of the friends have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same timeframe. Parents also report that their children exhibited an increase in social media/internet use prior to disclosure of a transgender identity. The purpose of this study was to document and explore these observations and describe the resulting presentation of gender dysphoria, which is inconsistent with existing research literature.
Click to expand...

~~~~~~~~

Trans teenagers have become an experiment


An academic has risked her career by highlighting troubling parallels with false memory syndrome of the 1990s

She questioned 250 parents whose teenagers (83 per cent girls) had shown no signs of gender dysphoria as children. The vast majority (63 per cent) had pre-existing mental health problems including serious psychiatric disorders; half self-harmed; half had suffered a traumatic event such as death of a parent/sibling, family divorce or sexual abuse. (One previously happy 16-year-old was raped and a few months later declared herself trans.) Such “coming out” invariably occurred after binge-consumption of online trans forums on Reddit or Tumblr. Many girls did so in tandem with peers: one parent reports how her 14-year-old daughter and three friends chose male names and announced they were trans boys.

This, says Dr Littman, has direct parallels with other “peer contagions” in teenage girl cliques such as bullying, drug use and anorexia. In person and on chatrooms, anorexic girls egg each other on to avoid doctors’ efforts to make them eat and compete to be the thinnest. “If similar mechanisms are at work in the context of gender dysphoria,” she notes, “this greatly complicates evaluation and treatment.”
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
And? One assumes you are posting these for a reason?
Click to expand...

I don't know what her intent was, but I found it interesting enough to do a scholar search of the author, and who had cited her previous, similar work, and who had cited those works.

The topics of "What is the cause of the increase in minors self-identifying as transgender and seeking medical treatment for it, and what's the best way to treat them?" appears to be a matter of valid, extreme scientific controversy.
 
JihadJane said:
Male and female are biological realities. We are our bodies. I haven't yet seen any alternative definitions of 'woman' that improve on, or are more accurate than, the definition "adult human female".
Click to expand...

I understand that you believe strongly that that definition is hands down the best definition, to the point that you consider it the only one worth using.

I'd just like you to consider the possibility that your communication with others will overall be far more effective and persuasive if you speak to people who disagree with you about this stuff using those words as they use them. I suspect you feel like it might just encourage bad ideas and sloppy, anti-scientific thinking to do so, and I understand why, I think. But I'm pretty sure that when you use definitions that insist that "transwomen are REALLY men", you're going to have far more people tune you out as an irrational bigot than you would if you just stuck to "transwomen are males".

eta:
This is kind of off topic, but I'm a tad neurotic, so I have to address this and throw in my own two cents:

We are our bodies
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that's the case when it comes to minds. I don't think my consciousness is my brain. I think my consciousness is the result of a series of processes happening within my brain. But what's going in there is a topic for the religion and philosophy board, and it's been discussed to death many, many times over the years. LOL
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
I understand that you believe strongly that that definition is hands down the best definition, to the point that you consider it the only one worth using.

I'd just like you to consider the possibility that your communication with others will overall be far more effective and persuasive if you speak to people who disagree with you about this stuff using those words as they use them. I suspect you feel like it might just encourage bad ideas and sloppy, anti-scientific thinking to do so, and I understand why, I think. But I'm pretty sure that when you use definitions that insist that "transwomen are REALLY men", you're going to have far more people tune you out as an irrational bigot than you would if you just stuck to "transwomen are males".
Click to expand...


Yes, I could speak postmodernism... I did it when I was at college and it's great fun, intellectually. I just don't think it's a good way of approaching concrete political reality. It's too individualistic and narcissistic and leads to a kind of dissociated madness ( which is part of why it's fun for the brain to grapple with) in which society no longer exists, just individuals and their feelings. That's why transgender activist ideology is sometimes referred to as neoliberal or even that it's popularity is a product of living in a world dominated by neoliberalism, individualism and consumerism.

I understand what you're saying, though, and if anyone here can come come up with a better definition of the word 'woman' than "adult human female", or any definition, I'd love to hear it, but few seem eager to offer one.

Outside of the trans bubble (where misgendering is "literal violence") there is nothing controversial whatsoever in saying that transwomen are men. That's what they were born as. Bad luck! There's no going back... To me it's a simple fact, like saying 'water is wet'. If that means people tune me out, so be it. I'm going to keep saying "Transwomen are men" anyway.

The Emperor has no clothes.



eta:
This is kind of off topic, but I'm a tad neurotic, so I have to address this and throw in my own two cents:



I'm not so sure that's the case when it comes to minds. I don't think my consciousness is my brain. I think my consciousness is the result of a series of processes happening within my brain. But what's going in there is a topic for the religion and philosophy board, and it's been discussed to death many, many times over the years. LOL
Click to expand...

I don't think it is off topic*, broadly speaking! It's not uncommon to hear transpeople claiming that they have the soul of the opposite sex within them. And I think it's fair to say that there is a dualist, "I think therefore I am" mind/body split at the heart of transgender philosophy.




*Lesbian erasure
 
I understand what you're saying, though, and if anyone here can come come up with a better definition of the word 'woman' than "adult human female", or any definition, I'd love to hear it, but few seem eager to offer one.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of a better definition, but of acknowledging that the word has more than one meaning. When YOU say women you're talking about adult human females, and when "they" say it, they're referring to the status and social space usually occupied by an adult human female.

Look at the wildly different definitions of the word gay:

1 a : happily excited : merry in a gay mood
b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits a bird's gay spring song
2 a : bright, lively gay sunny meadows
b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : homosexual gay men
b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals the gay rights movement a gay bar
Click to expand...

Do you think any one meaning is harmed by acknowledging different uses of the sound and letters in that order to signify a totally different mental concept? The purpose of language is simply to accurately transmit the thoughts of one person into the mind of another or others.

Outside of the trans bubble (where misgendering is "literal violence") there is nothing controversial whatsoever in saying that transwomen are men
Click to expand...

How many participants in this thread do you think reject the fringe "misgendering is literal violence" claim, but would agree with me that calling transwomen men is controversial, insensitive, rude, ignorant, or something like that? Do you really believe I'm the only one? If so, would a poll be useful?

If that means people tune me out, so be it. I'm going to keep saying "Transwomen are men" anyway.
Click to expand...

What's the point of even posting in these threads if you aren't interested in changing anyone's mind?

And I think it's fair to say that there is a dualist, "I think therefore I am" mind/body split at the heart of transgender philosophy.
Click to expand...

One can be an epistemological solipsist without being a dualist who believes in a mind body split, per say. Do you think beliefs aren't even real in people's minds? Like, would you say that concepts don't exist, even within minds?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
*Lesbian erasure
Click to expand...

I wanted to add, I don't think that's an irrational worry, or some myth lesbians are making up and perpetuating, by the way. After looking at quite a bit of the scientific literature, I'm worried about young, gender stereotype nonconforming people, especially females, doing things to their bodies which will permanently impair their ability to have a thoroughly satisfying sex life. I find it very...curious/suspicious/alarming that there are so few 50+ year old lesbians transitioning to transmen. I would not at all be surprised if they were being largely silenced on this topic, and their entire life history being "lez'splained" into a sort of erasure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom