tabby wrote (edited )

I don't understand how what I said could be construed as transphobic at all. All I contend is that there are two sexes, male and female (and a small percentage of intersex people), that sex can't be changed, and that trans men and trans women change gender but not sex. (It is their gender that is trans to their sex; otherwise, it makes no sense to even talk about cis and trans.) That some trans men and trans women find it upsetting that this is the case doesn't make it transphobic.


tabby wrote

I don't even know what "biological genders" means. I'm talking about sexes, not genders.

You can generally, with exceptions (I can hear the "Gotcha!" now), tell what sex someone is just by looking by:

  • amount and location of hair growth;
  • height;
  • muscle mass;
  • voice pitch;
  • hip width;
  • facial bone structure;
  • fat distribution.

If this isn't the case, then what else does "passing" mean if not being perceived as the opposite sex due to changing some or all of the above characteristics by using hormones, medications, cosmetics, prosthetics, voice training, hair removal, and/or surgery?


tabby wrote (edited )

Sexual preference isn't just a genital preference or about "what's under the clothing". Gay men aren't just men with a penis preference; lesbians aren't women with a vagina preference; heterosexual people aren't just people who prefer people with the opposite genitals. People are sexed.

Don't know why saying "biologically female" is yikes. Female is a sex, and what else does sex have to do with other than biology (until you attach sex/gender roles to sexes)? In choosing a romantic and/or sexual partner, how is it "yikes" to have sex as a criterion unless you want to try to say that sexual orientation isn't real or valid?

Having a sexual orientation doesn't mean you choose anyone who aligns with your orientation indiscriminately. I very seriously doubt that OP only cares about "what's hidden under the clothing".

OP: don't think too hard about it. Go touch some grass. You're you. You're attracted to who you're attracted to. As to your question, no, you probably shouldn't identify as queer.


tabby wrote

Hasn't the term "black anarchy" been used that way for a while now?

Also, I don't understand why supposed anarchists seem to think that the only way disabled or sick people will be cared for is by social programs and why they don't think critically about who/what would administer said programs (hint: it's a state).


tabby wrote

I'm trying to wean myself off. I'm down to one cup of coffee every morning down from two cups every morning and usually one in the afternoon/early evening (since I work the evening shift). Almost a week in and I'm still feeling like total dogshit. My job is pretty laid back though, so I can manage. I think I'm sleeping better.


tabby wrote (edited )

Wolfi suggests that there's ways to "share erotic pleasure" with children that don't harm or violate them. This is bullshit. How many adults who were sexually abused as children do you know speak positively about their experiences and weren't traumatized by them?

Yes, institutions including schools, churches, the nuclear family, etc. repress children, and sexual repression (specifically the repression of age-appropriate sexual behavior, i.e. masturbation) is certainly a part of that repression, but that in no way necessitates or justifies adults sexually abusing children.

Children don't need to be sexually abused by adults to avoid becoming sexually repressed. Most children learn to masturbate by themselves; all they need is to not be shamed for doing so and to be given privacy.

As far as Wolfi's and other individualists/post-leftists/egoists' larger project of rejecting morality: unlike others, I don't think defending child sexual abuse (or rape, murder, assault, etc.) is a bug of individualist/post-leftist/egoist anarchism but a feature and has turned me off of it. I'm all for questioning society's morals and rejecting ones that I know aren't right, but I wouldn't want to live in a community with no guiding morality.

Edit: corrected grammar


tabby wrote (edited )

This is good, especially because there's fewer or no disinfection byproducts formed, but the problem is, like other alternatives to chlorination (UV, ozone) it doesn't leave a residual. Water leaving the treatment plant is disinfected, but there's nothing in the water to prevent new growth of pathogenic organisms out in the distribution system.


tabby wrote (edited )

I guess where you and I disagree is that I think there's sufficient evidence for behavioral addictions (sex, porn, food, gambling, video games, internet browsing, exercise, etc.) due to the way the brain's reward system works and the modern environment. These addictions can begin as ways to cope with trauma similar to how exogenous chemicals can (note that I didn't say that porn is the same as meth or heroin). Watching too much porn can change the brain, and, for people for whom those changes are unwanted or deleterious, abstaining from porn for a while, or just cutting down, can be beneficial.

I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't think that all porn is bad or unhealthy, that all porn actors and actresses are abused, coerced, or exploited, or that everyone who watches porn has a problem. Sex is good (though not unqualifiedly good). I am, however, suspect of the eroticization of sadomasochism, domination and submission in much porn (and in some of my own tastes and fantasies), and much of porn is informed by and perpetuates patriarchy and rape culture.