Categories
men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reddit

Men’s Rights Redditor: Feminists loathe MRAs because they want to be abusive girlfriends and MRAs won’t let them get away with it

Men’s Rights Activist making an argument (re-enactment)

By David Futrelle

A young Men’s Rights Redditor named Destonreson is puzzled by the hostility directed at him and others of his kind.

“I’m an MRA,” he writes in a post on the Men’s Rights subreddit,

and I simply cannot understand the hate it gets. I think my views are fair and equal. … But the things I hear people say, the pure hatred the MRM gets, it makes zero sense to me. It’s upsetting and scary and has given me a negative view of society.

Really? Because it seems to me the hostility towards MRAs is pretty self-explanatory.

Yet again, a girl I matched with on tinder blocked me when I brought it up.

Ah ha! Now we get to the real source of his discontent.

“I’m glad she did,” he says, though the fact that he’s now writing a giant wall of text on the subject suggests he’s not quite as glad as he’d like us to believe.

I see being anti- MRA as a red flag. IMO, the real reason feminists are so bothered and angry by MRAs existing is because they want to be abusive and controlling in relationships.

Uh, what?

So they hate it when they know a man wouldn’t put up with it, and they hate it when a “white male” dares to have the audacity to see himself as a human being.

Wait, how did “white” make it into the mix here?

Domestic violence against men is one example of what I think is a basic and obvious point of fairness that feminists hate and attack- but why? If you’re against “harmful gender stereotypes”, then why are you against recognizing that male victims exist?

Weird, because the only people /i know of who have actually done something about domestic violence towards men — as opposed to yelling about it online — have been feminists.

Another thing is circumcision. It’s mutilation and IMO not a debate.

Most feminists I know are opposed to circumcision.

But feminists will attack you for even bringing it up, and will constantly defend it or it minimize it by bringing up FGM.

Maybe because by this point the discussion has already become a shouting match? Maybe because every time feminists try to talk about FGM online they are immediately surrounded by angry and sometimes abusive men screaming about circumcision? The anti-circumcision movement is so full of fanatics and antisemites that anyone with reasonable views on the subject is repelled by them.

Yes, FGM is disgusting and barbaric and has now place in the world. It doesn’t just mutilate women/girls, it’s fatal and kills many women/girls. I know! I acknowledge that.

But how is that a relevant part of circumcision? Why does that mean I shouldn’t be able to talk about it?

Talk about it all you want, just don’t barge into feminists spaces to “what about”it.

Would you say “littering doesnt matter because global warming is worse” or “rape doesn’t matter because genocide is worse”? No, because that doesn’t make sense. Why do feminists ALWAYS bring up FGM to “counter” circumcision? As if it’s a “defense?” It’s not.

Feminists, in my experience, don’t bring it up as a defense; they bring it up to see if the men yelling at them about circumcision actually give a shit about the barbarity of FGM.

Feminists are just incapable of making intellectual/logical arguments.

There’s a leap. Not sure you’re doing very well in the logic department yourself, bucko.

There are so many things that MRAs are right about…the education gap, the unemployment gap, the life expectancy gap, conscription, higher pension ages, homeless men being denied shelter because they aren’t “priority need”…what am I wrong about? What do MRAs say that isn’t true?

Where do you want me to start, Destonreson? How about with your assertion that feminists hate MRAs because they all want to be abusive girlfriends?

Of the rest, well, the education gap is real, to the extent that college admissions offices routinely let in less-qualified males in order to even things out a bit. Part of the reason for the education gap, moreover, is that men know they can make better money than women even with less education.

The life expectancy gap is also real, but it’s not the result of discrimination. Conscription? No one in the US is being conscripted right now, and feminists generally believe that if there is going to be a draft, women should be included as well. Indeed, the National Organization for Women sued over this at least once.

The others? I’m pretty sure you’ve just made up the unemployment gap, since the unemployment numbers for men and women, last I checked, were almost identical, with male unemployment only fractionally higher, at least in the US. The only “pension gap” I’ve run across is the result of men getting more pension money than women.

As for other MRA untruths, there are too many to mention. MRAs are gender wage gap deniers. They pretend that domestic violence towards men is the same or worse than that directed at women; never mind that it’s mostly women who end up in the hospital or the morgue because of their partners’ or ex-partners’violent attacks. MRAs pretend that men are as likely to be raped as women. Even more absurdly, MRAs like to pretend that we live in a “gynocracy” secretly run by women, and that men are the real victims of gender inequality.

But the biggest MRA untruth is probably the claim that Men’s Rights activists are actually activists. While they sometimes bring up real issues faced by men, they don’t — outside of the fanatical intactivists — try to do anything about them. Instead, as I and many others have pointed out many times before, they simply use all of these issues — real or bogus — to attack women. As Destonreson has done here, and as commenters on the Men’s Rights subreddit do day after day after day.

Destonreson, if you by chance are reading this, and you’re still wondering about the hostility towards the MRM, just take a look at some of the comments on your own post. One commenter calls feminists “lice infested moth [sic] breathers crawl[ing] out of their lesbian orgy,” another declares feminists opposed to “decency [and] truth,” still another says “that MRAs threaten their lucrative victimhood,” as if all complaints from feminists are manufactured.

I just don’t get it.

No, you really don’t.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tyko
Tyko
1 year ago

A great post. I’m saving the links.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

So much projection and wrongness—where to begin?

Yet again, a girl I matched with on tinder blocked me when I brought it up.

She made the right call.

I see being anti- MRA as a red flag. IMO, the real reason feminists MRAs are so bothered and angry by MRAs feminists existing is because they want to be abusive and controlling in relationships.

FTFY. The projection is IMAX-level here.

Wait, how did “white” make it into the mix here?

He probably forgot he was posting on a men’s rights forum and thought he was posting on a white nationalist forum. Easy mistake, they look about the same.

Maybe because by this point the discussion has already become a shouting match? Maybe because every time feminists try to talk about FGM online they are immediately surrounded by angry and sometimes abusive men screaming about circumcision? The anti-circumcision movement is so full of fanatics and antisemites that anyone with reasonable views on the subject is repelled by them.

Circumcision is maybe the one issue on which MRAs could hypothetically find common ground with non-bigots, but they squander the opportunity as mentioned because they just have to be bigoted about it all.

Why do feminists ALWAYS bring up FGM to “counter” circumcision? As if it’s a “defense?” It’s not.

Sir, your projector is running again…

lice infested moth [sic] breathers crawl[ing] out of their lesbian orgy,

How does one breathe moths? That sounds painful. And lice are itchy and painful (had them as a kid and it sucked). But I’ve always wanted to go to an orgy, just so I could say I’ve been to one and because it could be fun. So could there maybe be an orgy but without the lice and moth breathing?

Kevin
Kevin
1 year ago

If Destonreson were any kind of activist instead of just a noisy malcontent, he would address the one grain of truth he’s actually stumbled upon. The relative difficulty single homeless men face in securing somewhere to live during normal times. It’s actually a thing here, but I can’t answer for other countries.

He could get off his a***e and do something about it instead of staying a keyboard warrior, but that would show compassion, and don’t his ilk view that as a weakness?

Yes, I know I’m a kb myself. (Shows Parkie Pass.)

Kevin
Kevin
1 year ago

Sorry, should be kbw.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Kevin

It’s actually a thing here, but I can’t answer for other countries.

I don’t know figures for men vs women specifically, but I do know that as a whole homelessness is a very real issue in America. There aren’t too many shelters for men (or women for that matter), but I can say with certainty that none of the shelters for men are run by MRAs (though quite a few are run by feminist groups). I doubt MRAs have anywhere near the organizational skills to run a shelter of any sort.

Aaron
Aaron
1 year ago

@Naglfar

In fairness there is (I think still?) a center in Canada, which is run by the MRA-adjacent CAFE. In fact, I’ve noticed that the MRA movement, insofar as it exists offline at all, is weirdly Canada-centric. I wonder what’s the deal with that.

Crip Dyke
1 year ago

They pretend that domestic violence towards men is the same or worse than that directed at women; never mind that it’s mostly women who end up in the hospital or the morgue because of their partners’ or ex-partners’violent attacks.

So, there are lots of fucked up things that they do and say around DV, including pretending that slapping a man once is the same as engaging in a campaign of violence, threat, and coercion in order to control that man. I get how you would say that this is “not as bad” … but it’s also just not domestic violence.

While I get what you’re saying, I wish people would choose their words with more care around this, because there are issues here. My mother actually did abuse my father. I witnessed her campaign of violence against him over the course of years. She seems to be a much better person these days, but those were isolated slaps and her actions definitely weren’t self defense.

So in my idea world, I’d like to see something that doesn’t say or even imply that DV against men isn’t as bad as DV against women.

Instead, we could say that DV against anyone is bad, and there’s no easy or simple or fair way to compare those different experiences, but we are sure that
1. MRAs misunderstand what DV is and routinely classify relationships that don’t encourage violent, threatening and abusive behavior as DV when it is not, and
2. DV against men by women is very probably much more rare than DV against women by men, and
3. Despite the fact that we have solid research that gives us good reason to believe #2 is true, it is also true that there are extra barriers to talking about one’s experience as a DV victim/survivor when one is a man and that men need and deserve extra help in overcoming those barriers, and,
4. Even though we don’t expect that our understanding from #2 will change with more men describing their experiences with violent, abusive relationship, everyone in society will gain when men are as free to describe their experiences of victimization as women, and, finally,
5. DV against anyone is intolerable.

I hate to harp, but just the way you’ve written things, the first part of your sentence is about how bad DV targeting men is, but the second part is about how rare or common DV, and the way it comes across is that you think that both how bad it is and how rare it is are different, when the truth is more that the latter (frequency) is almost certainly different but the first is just not something that should be compared any more than we should be saying that one woman’s experience of DV isn’t as bad as some other woman’s experience of DV because she’s wealthier or whatever.

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
1 year ago

Yet again, a girl I matched with on tinder blocked me when I brought it up. I’m glad she did

Good work, MRM guy. It’s good for a woman to know right away that a potential date is abusive. Or given to lengthy, intellectually dishonest arguments that are all about him, his needs, his problems, and how the world is scary for men. (Yeah, you definitely need to cover all the talking points about circumcision, even though the effects of female genital mutilation are so much worse.) It’s also good for a woman to know right away that the person she’s texting is stupefyingly boring.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Kat

It’s good for a woman to know right away that a potential date is abusive. Or given to lengthy, intellectually dishonest arguments that are all about him, his needs, his problems, and how the world is scary for men.

In fact, I would suggest that for the benefit of all, MRAs should put this screed in their Tindr bios to warn potential dates.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
1 year ago

the education gap, the unemployment gap, the life expectancy gap, conscription, higher pension ages, homeless men being denied shelter because they aren’t “priority need”

the pure hatred the MRM gets, it makes zero sense to me.

It’s because the MRM solution to these problems is to drag women down, because everything is a zero sum game to them. If women are winning, that must mean men are losing, so we have to go back to making women lose so that men can win. They propose to solve the unemployment and education gap, for example, by pushing women back into the kitchen.

If the MRM wants to be taken seriously, they need to stop whining, make a genuine case for why men are suffering, and do something productive about it. Trolling and grifting aren’t helping their cause.

Susan
Susan
1 year ago

MRAs claim that the mythical gynocracy is the problem. But real disadvantages suffered by men are, just like those suffered by women, the result of patriarchy. Anyone really interested in men’s rights (in education, in mental health, in divorce and custody cases) can point out patriarchy (that defines masculinity narrowly and would keep us all – men and women – conforming to specific roles) as the problem.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Buttercup

Trolling and grifting aren’t helping their cause.

One could maybe argue that trolling and grifting have helped them, as those are integral parts of the alt-right that has mainstreamed many of their ideas and got Trump elected.

Sheila Crosby
1 year ago

I suspect his idea off an abusive girlfriend is one that will only do half of the housework and cooking.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Sheila Crosby
I think he also means one who won’t give him sex whenever he wants it the way he wants it. In an MRA’s mind, women should cook, clean, fuck, do all emotional labor, and have no expectations from their partner.

Victorious Parasol
1 year ago

Did anybody explain to this guy that “matched on Tindr” does not equal “she’s required to be perfect/available for me”?

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
1 year ago

Victorious Parasol wrote:

Did anybody explain to this guy that “matched on Tindr” does not equal “she’s required to be perfect/available for me”?

Oo! I know the answer to this one!

No.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
1 year ago

@Naglfar

One could maybe argue that trolling and grifting have helped them, as those are integral parts of the alt-right that has mainstreamed many of their ideas and got Trump elected.

Eventually maybe they’ll notice that the issues they pretend to care about aren’t getting addressed by the alt right, because they’re too busy owning the libs?

Oh, who are we kidding? Rip the mask off the MRM and underneath, the root demand is always “I want free license to be an abusive asshole with no consequences.”

Which Trumpism certainly promises, though the “no consequences” part is heavily dependent on skin color and wealth.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Buttercup

I want free license to be an abusive asshole with no consequences.

I’d say that’s also the point of conservatism as a whole.

Snowberry
Snowberry
1 year ago

@Naglfar: I’d argue that while the most blatantly assholish conservatives are generally people who join the ‘side of good’ (their concept of it, not ours) because it lets them get away with what they couldn’t otherwise, it’s probably more often a side effect rather than the point in itself.

The point of conservatism as a whole seems to me to be about “protection” – protection of self, of family, of tribe (however they define their tribe(s)) and occasional others whom they hope to bring into the fold – and that “protection” includes bullying people (including their own) into giving up “corrupting” thoughts and behaviors, becoming an active threat¹ to outsiders in order to prove their strength and weaken their opposition, and to protect their personal ego and/or the egos of their leaders.

¹To be fair, on a socio-political level, any group of people which is too different to them (including other conservatives) is a threat to their way of life… though often only because such groups serve as a counterexample that undermines their teachings and worldviews.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Snowberry
I’d hesitate to say it’s actually about protection, seeing how much conservatives are willing to hurt themselves so long as it hurts others. The amount of self-damaging behavior to own the libs that they engage it makes it seem that their motive is far more malicious.

Snowberry
Snowberry
1 year ago

@Naglfar:
You sure about that, though? I mean, on this very site, we mock people for thinking that they’ll come out unscathed (or even ahead) when they propose or support causes/positions/policies which hurt people in general. Or for not thinking about the likely fallout to themselves when they gloat over misfortune to others they dislike, regardless of who or what was/would be responsible. Granted, in the latter case a lot of the time nothing happens to them because the “misfortune” is entirely imaginary or even a benefit for their enemies, but still.

EverythingIsRidiculous
EverythingIsRidiculous
1 year ago

Projecting so hard that the film has caught fire.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Snowberry

I mean, on this very site, we mock people for thinking that they’ll come out unscathed (or even ahead) when they propose or support causes/positions/policies which hurt people in general. Or for not thinking about the likely fallout to themselves when they gloat over misfortune to others they dislike, regardless of who or what was/would be responsible.

When conservatives do things like that, they seem to mainly think about the harm it will cause to their enemies rather than how it will affect them. If they were about protection, presumably they would worry about (or at least momentarily think about) how it affects their own people more. That’s why I think it’s more about hurting others than protecting oneself.

Samantha Ravensdaughter
Samantha Ravensdaughter
1 year ago

I just read an article in the New York Times entitled:

Why Are So Many More Men Dying From The CoronaVirus?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/opinion/coronavirus-men-women.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_200403&instance_id=17281&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=2488544&segment_id=23715&user_id=ec47da91781a0074de8d1666542989c9

I found it truly fascinating. Apparently, having two X chromosomes both makes it very likely that a woman will outlive her male mate and gives her a distinct advantage over him in successfully recovering from illness and injury. It also makes it less likely that she will be born with a number of birth defects.

There is a downside. Genetic women are also more likely to have certain autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and to carry certain conditions, such as color blindness. We can sometimes suffer from some conditions that we usually simply pass on to our genetic male children. Again, color blindness comes to mind. Rare, but it happens.

In short, and in many ways, when it comes to the types of strengths that give us those advantages, genetic women are, to put it bluntly, superior to genetic men. For those of us who have men in our lives for whom we feel deep love and friendship, these are frightening times.

But there is something else that occurred to me after reading the article. Is it possible that at least some of the hatred that so many men have for women – a hatred that is universal in that it crosses all boundaries, geographical, religious, cultural et. al., – be based on what they feel is an unfair and even evil and deliberate advantage? It is irrational and violent, but it might begin to unravel the mysteries at the root of this violent, even murderous, reaction to us.

Why else would so many men insist on defining us as lesser beings, not quite human, with little intelligence, creativity, ethical standards and such? If we live longer than men, grow life within us and enjoy generally better health, what right do we have to also be intelligent, creative, successful, prosperous and all?

Just some passing ideas that popped up after reading and hearing about some nifty (sarcastic sigh) ideas about the need to limit most of our participation in most of life outside of taking care of men and children, our basic natures revolving around our sexual behavior and deviant desires, our theft of what are rightfully activities, such as all forms of creativity, reserved for men who, as we all know, created all forms of culture, science, music etc., all by themselves, with no help or input from females. After all, it is only fair that we pay for our advantages by serving men, being silent, knowing our “places” and such.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Samantha Kaswell

In short, and in many ways, when it comes to the types of strengths that give us those advantages, genetic women are, to put it bluntly, superior to genetic men.

Sex is a lot more complex than chromosomes. There are people with XX who were assigned male at birth (De La Chapelle syndrome) and people with XY who were assigned female at birth (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), and there are further variations like XXY (Klinefelter’s Syndrome) or XYY (Jacob’s Syndrome). And that’s before we even get into the existence of intersex people whose bodies don’t fit neatly into a sex binary, or trans* people whose gender identity doesn’t align with the gender assigned at birth.

Not all women have XX chromosomes and the inherent advantage you describe. I’m a woman, I have XY chromosomes, and because I’m trans* and autistic I am less likely to receive appropriate medical care if I get sick, because society sees me as less worthy of it. To me, your post simply comes off as rather callous because you seem to off-hand dismiss all women who aren’t “genetic women”. I can only assume that that discounts trans* women, women with AIS, some intersex women, and women with Turners Syndrome or certain other chromosomal differences. I am not sure if this was your intention, but that is the effect.

Snowberry
Snowberry
1 year ago

One thing I’ve heard of is that both trans and intersex people are considerably more likely than the general public to have different-colored eyes. Different-colored eyes are, with occasional exceptions, a sign of chimerism¹… but not all chimeras have such an obvious tell. Virtually nobody is tested for chimerism even though we have the capability to do so², and apparently nobody knows exactly how common the condition is in humans in general, let alone trans and intersex people.

This means that it’s theoretically that possible that many (or even most) trans people have some parts of their bodies containing XX chromosomes and other parts containing XY chromosomes. If anyone ever gets around to studying that and it happens to be true, then that would throw a pretty big wrench in the gears of the DNA argument.

¹Chimerism is when two (or very rarely more) fraternal-twin fetuses fuse together in the womb and grow into a single person.

²Why the hell not? DNA sequencing is much cheaper and faster now. And in the case of the possibility of trans people having both XX and XY cells, you wouldn’t even need DNA sequencing, just an ordinary microscope! (And, okay, some other stuff, but nothing which hasn’t existed for over half a century.) Not to mention a chimera’s differing sets of cells could theoretically end up being moderately biologically incompatible, which could cause all manner of rare and “mysterious” medical conditions³. If so, knowing this wouldn’t necessarily solve anything, but it could help with misdiagnoses and figuring why existing treatments fail.

³Yes, I overthink things sometimes. Okay, a lot. There’s a good chance this is all nonsense. It just seems weird that nobody has ever at least tried to eliminate this possibility in regards to medical research in general, not just trans people.

Laserqueen
Laserqueen
1 year ago

Yes, human biology is more complicated than simply XX and XY. The data simply and repeatedly shows that having two X chromosomes is an advantage. That’s it, nothing else. Is there a study that investigates whether XXY and XX have the same advantage? I don’t know, I’m a dry science person, not a wet science person.

Romaine-la-Prophétesse
Romaine-la-Prophétesse
1 year ago

I as a man was in a realtionship, that I later realised was quite controlling, emotionally manipulative and abusive. And while my Exgirlfriend was a feminist activist and would deflect critisim of her actions as men not being able to cope with a strong minded female, or just throw a tantrum and cut women out of her life when they tried to point out how gaslighty her behaviour was, I don’t think that MRAs would have helped me in that situation or with the mental problems that followed.

It actually where my feminist friends, who believed me, who I could open up too in a way that I just can’t towards any man who believes in traditional gender norms. Simply because I fear being mocked for having been weak, controlled and all of thoese “unmanly” things.
So yeah, I think having a feminist girlfriend, someone who questions and not enforces traditional gender roles is actually really good for my mental health.

@Samantha Ravensdaughter:
I don’t think that anyone except for MRAs has those statistics in their head. And most men who just carry the kind of “traditional” mysoginist views (you know – the ones that you don’t reflect on, don’t even recognise as such, it’s just what everyone around you knows to be right) don’t know much about them and haven’t even heard about MRAs.

Also – I personally don’t envy women for having like 6 more years in the late 80s and at least in my country right now the mortality rate from Covid-19 for men is just a few percentage points higher than for women and smoking, diabetes and age seem to far bigger a factor.
A better explanation for while almost all (with a few rare exceptions) cultures tried to control women ist that as soon as you start farming (and remember that while they are sometimes wrongfully describes as “still living in the stone age” alltmost native people around the world did farm, at least to some extent) you have property. With property ther is an incentive to control womens sexuality to keep property whithin the familiy. And by in large cultures where the line of inheritance is matrinilear, instead of patrilinear are much less controlling of women.
Why most cultures became patrilinear is another question, that#s rally hard to answer. There are lots of good theories out there but you just can’t really proof them.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Snowberry

One thing I’ve heard of is that both trans and intersex people are considerably more likely than the general public to have different-colored eyes.

That’s interesting. I’m trans* and both my eyes are the same color, but that’s interesting to note. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever met a person with different colored eyes. I knew someone who was colorblind in only one eye due to chimerism, though.

Virtually nobody is tested for chimerism even though we have the capability to do so

I’d guess part of it is that in most cases where chimerism doesn’t cause problems or visible symptoms there’s no real need to test. It would take more resources and there isn’t really much of an advantage to knowing in most cases.
Most humans display some degree of microchimerism—having some of ones’ parent’s immune cell lines that were exchanged in utero and usually persist throughout life. This goes two ways as well, as many pregnant people end up with immune cells from their children that persist long after giving birth. However, this usually doesn’t have much clinical significance.

@laserqueen

The data simply and repeatedly shows that having two X chromosomes is an advantage. That’s it, nothing else.

I know, and I recognize that. My issue wasn’t with the data but with how Samantha phrased her response. Sorry if I was too aggressive, it’s just that I’m stressed about the virus right now and the last thing I need is more talk about “genetic women” and how I am more likely to die.

Is there a study that investigates whether XXY and XX have the same advantage?

I haven’t seen it but I would be interested to know. Klinefelter’s Syndrome is rather rare (about 1 in 500 AMAB people) so it could be a bit hard to get data.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

different-colored eyes

Heterochromia, or more properly Heterochromia iridum. Chimerism isn’t the only cause of it by any stretch, especially in domesticated animals, and even more particularly animals with varied-colour coats. (Apparently huskies are one of the most common dog breeds to have it.)

Laserqueen
Laserqueen
1 year ago

@Naglfar

I am so sorry there is so much added stress for you. I get it, I kind of lost it yesterday with my kids (17 and 19) because I am also internalizing the added risk factors of my own particular position, and they are young and have none of my risk factors or responsibilities. I am definitely more scared than they are.

I have over the past few years tried very hard to remove any sex or gender references in my writing unless they are absolutely relevant to what is being discussed. My office mates have definitely heard me grumble and rant about forms that are not inclusive and try to collect unnecessary information. I push back where I can have effect, try to get over it if I have no power, and flat out refuse to provide the invasive information if I can get away with it.

Regular commenters here aspire to a higher standard and I have learned so very much, and am very grateful.

Vespertine
Vespertine
1 year ago

Related to nothing, but the phrase “wet science person” gave me the major squicks for some reason. It sounds so… moist. Augh.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@laserqueen

I have over the past few years tried very hard to remove any sex or gender references in my writing unless they are absolutely relevant to what is being discussed. My office mates have definitely heard me grumble and rant about forms that are not inclusive and try to collect unnecessary information.

You’re doing good work. I try to do the same in my day to day life to be as inclusive as possible.

Victorious Parasol
1 year ago

A thought occurred to me the other day. With the pandemic has come the new social practice of “social distancing.” Yes, not everybody practices it. The point is that giving somebody space is now considered important in a way it hasn’t before.

We’ve seen various inhabitants of the manosphere weaponize (for lack of a better word) that old childish game of “does this bug you? I’m not TOUCHING you” to harass their targets. As of now, they’re less likely to get away with that. Could that be yet another reason for them to be angry these days?

OT: I’m having a rough day at work. I had to call NYC physician practices about their lab information system. Everybody was either closed/only practicing telemedicine, or trying to keep the lights on with a skeleton crew. That’s my frontline family up there, and here I am bugging them about an upgrade to their LIS. Nobody I talked to seem to mind, but I felt like apologizing none the less.

Masse_Mysteria
Masse_Mysteria
1 year ago

The data simply and repeatedly shows that having two X chromosomes is an advantage.

Related to what Samantha said, since people aren’t usually karyotyped unless there’s a reason to believe there’s something interesting in their chromosomal makeup, most people don’t know the amount of X chromosomes they have. We just assume based on the appearance of external genitalia and such at time of birth.

I don’t know if my some years old information is still current or not, but IIRC chromosomes can get crossed and exchange material, and when this happens with X and Y chromosomes, it can lead to situations where a person has XY chromosomes but has all the properties we expect from someone with XX chromosomes or vice versa, and at least some of these people an have normal puberties and can have children. We assume this happens rarely, but we really don’t know, since karyotypes aren’t routinely checked.

This isn’t to say that assuming karyotype based on gender assigned at birth isn’t a good guess. I’ve just often been in situations where someone asserts that your sex chromosomes are all there is to sex or gender, where I have been tempted to say that my chromosomes have been checked, so I know mine, and ask them if they actually know theirs.

Laserqueen
Laserqueen
1 year ago

Sorry about the wet science description! I am an optical physicist, very dry and clean and mathematically based science. I only deal with the necessary chemicals to clean optics! Methanol, isopropyl alcohol, and pure soap are as messy as I get. My daughter is heading for a medical illustration masters, and has no qualms about the grossest of pictures and illustrations. Definitely beautiful work that gives me the major squicks. Sometimes I just cringe at her work and in my mind I say, “Please just paint something pretty for your mamma.” She’s got a nice wide dark streak, and somehow maintains a generally happy personality.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Masse_mysteria

I don’t know if my some years old information is still current or not, but IIRC chromosomes can get crossed and exchange material, and when this happens with X and Y chromosomes, it can lead to situations where a person has XY chromosomes but has all the properties we expect from someone with XX chromosomes or vice versa, and at least some of these people an have normal puberties and can have children.

That does happen. Here are a few case studies on fertile women with XY genotypes. Most AFAB people with XY are infertile (as in AIS) but occasionally as shown above they are able to have children unassisted. The second case study is of a person with chimerism, which was mentioned earlier.
I’m aware of the inverse happening (AMAB peple with XX chromosomes) rarely, but AFAIK all cases with only XX are infertile since having XX generally prevents testicle development from occurring the way it does in XY people. Here are some case studies on that (with a bonus study of a male with XX/XY chimerism and low but extant fertility).

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

There’s a decent article on chimeras here:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2014/jan/31/grrlscientist-halfsider-chimera-bilateral-gynandromorph-birds
starting with Twinzy, a budgie that’s green and yellow on one side and blue and white on the other. While Twinzy is male, it notes later on that there are cases where the two gene-lines that make up a chimera are of different sexes, and even has a picture of a cardinal that’s obviously split that way (because in cardinals the males and females are different colours).

The article also notes the oddity that in birds normally only the left ovary is functional, so dimorphic birds like that could only produce eggs if the left half is the female half.

(Not mentioned in the article is that birds are actually also flipped from mammals in terms of differentiation: genetic males have two of the same chromosome, WW, and it’s the genetic females who have a different one, WZ.)

Biology be weird, yo.

(Which, of course, means that anybody trying to use ‘science’ to insist that people need to fit into nice little boxes on sex has failed from the start. Science actually says quite the opposite.)

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Jenora Feuer

The article also notes the oddity that in birds normally only the left ovary is functional

I wonder why that is. One would think evolutionarily it would be better for reproduction if both sides worked so there would be a backup in the event of failure.

Not mentioned in the article is that birds are actually also flipped from mammals in terms of differentiation: genetic males have two of the same chromosome, WW, and it’s the genetic females who have a different one, WZ.

IIRC some other animals use that system as well, including some reptiles and certain fish.

As well, some animals have more than 2 chromosomes. Platypuses, for example, have 10 sex chromosomes that are called X and Y but are not homologous to placental mammals’ X and Y chromosomes.

Which, of course, means that anybody trying to use ‘science’ to insist that people need to fit into nice little boxes on sex has failed from the start. Science actually says quite the opposite.

Which is also why I have yet to meet a TERF who actually knows anything about biology. I’ve seen them say before that XX chromosomes make someone male and YY make someone female. YY embryos couldn’t form under any normal circumstances, and if they did I doubt they would survive long.

I can think of a few trans* biologists though (Julia Serrano, Ben Barres, etc). We’re not the science deniers, it’s the TERFs and conservatives who are.

TacticalProgressive
TacticalProgressive
1 year ago

@Vespertine

Related to nothing, but the phrase “wet science person” gave me the major squicks for some reason. It sounds so… moist. Augh.

Huh, hddly enough when I heard the term “wet science”: my mind went to Oceanography , Marine Biology/Marine Zoology and Wet Labs.

Those are fun fields of science… especially the Marine Zoology in my book. in particular when it comes to anything Shark Related. Sharks are just awesome.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
1 year ago

Those aforementioned fertile AFAB XY people could produce YY embryos. And 2/3 of their offspring would be genetically male.

Usual: X1X2 x X3Y -> X1X3, X1Y, X2X3, X2Y -> two XY combinations and two XXs, so half and half.

XY fertile female: X1Y1 x X2Y2 -> X1X2, X1Y2, Y1X2, Y1Y2 -> one XX combination, two XY combinations, and one YY that I doubt will even implant and certainly can’t gestate to term. So only 3/4 of normal fertility success rate and 2/3 rather than 1/2 genetically male offspring. But if the trait causing fertile AFAB anatomy in the mother is heritable, that might not translate into 2/3 AMAB offspring …

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Naglfar:
Well, birds and reptiles are closer to each other in many respects than either of them are to mammals.

And platypuses are a just plain weird evolutionary holdover. Then again, the fact that they combine both features of mammals and birds/reptiles, I guess it’s not entirely surprising that their genetics are some mess that could over time have eventually simplified down to either of the two more common systems.

Surplus:
Honestly, I’m not even certain that YY combinations will even get past the blastocyst stage to the embryo stage, so almost certainly not implant, though I’d happily defer to someone with actual expertise on this. There are a number of pretty critical genes on the X chromosome that aren’t on the Y.

Which is part of how this whole discussion started, that people with two X chromosomes have a backup for some important processing and that makes their bodies more robust against a certain set of problems. (Colour blindness being one of the most well-studied cases.)

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
1 year ago

@Nagfljar : for the ovaries problem, there’s a bunch of common biological reasons for something that seem sub optimal :
* it’s suboptimal, but don’t impact reproduction much. Maybe birds just don’t lose ovary function without dying very often.
* it’s suboptimal, but it’s linked to a very useful other trait. Maybe the other ovary is cannibalized to help the growth of a more directly useful organ, or maybe it allow faster maturation by requiring less energy
* it’s suboptimal, but the evolution path don’t allow mutations for other options. In mammals, there is a nerve, the laryngeal nerve, who take a suboptimal path because the organs it link have drifted apart ; and rewiring it in a more efficient way isn’t doable by a simple mutation, the intermediary steps would not be viable.
* it serve a purpose we didn’t discover. Maybe the other ovary is changed into an important gland, but we just didn’t find it out yet. Or it somehow protect against a disease, similar to how the recessive form of sickle cell disease protect against malaria

On another topic, talking about XY women to TERF is sort of counterproductive. Their goals is A – to reduce sex and gender to physical markers and B – mark transgenderism as a disease, and the comparison with XY women help both of their goal : it refocus the discussion on genetic markers instead of mental state, and since it’s on the blurry line between normal variance and disease (it’s a genetic anomaly affecting fertility), it’s all too easy for them to reframe it to being a disease.

And no, it’s clearly not a vent after having to explain again to someone that transgenderness and gender dysphoria have nothing to do with genetics and that there is no biological tests that could validate a transgender claim.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Surplus

Those aforementioned fertile AFAB XY people could produce YY embryos. And 2/3 of their offspring would be genetically male.

It would depend on how oogenesis worked. Since most XY AFAB people are sterile and the fertile ones are rare, II’m not sure how oogenesis would work. And YY embryos would probably not make it far at all.
Notably, in the first case study I linked the woman had a daughter with the same genotype but the daughter did not go through puberty and was sterile. So it seems more complicated than I have scope to understand as a non-biologist.

@Ohlmann
I see what you mean. Above, I was simply trying to point out that even among cis women not all are XX so the term “genetic female” doesn’t work the way they think it does. It’s more complicated than they’d like to think.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
1 year ago

O/T, but this popped up on my LinkedIn.

Jordan Peterson after an illustrator for his new book. Guess he’s recovered from whatever it was.

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/call-for-illustrations-for-new-book/

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
1 year ago

@Naglfar : another argument that work about “genetic female” is that mothers that have birthed at least one boy are mainly XX but partialy XY. Apparently mothers chimerize with their offspring to help their immune system not going berserk on the baby. While it’s not a huge amount of cells, it’s also enough that the litteral definition of a cisgender female won’t alway test as XX on genetic tests.

It also remind that identity is not linked to genetic code. That’s common sense given that organ transplants have less effect on behavior than head trauma, but it’s something the TERFs have a lot of problem processing.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Alan Robertshaw
Maybe some of the Jordan Peterson fan art creators could help him out. It seems in some way rightful that he is asking prospective artists to draw the fool from the Tarot deck, as if he somehow realizes what he and his followers are.

@Ohlmann
IIRC it goes the other way as well so people with XY usually have some immune cells with XX from their mother.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
1 year ago

@Jenora Feuer : if you talk evolution, “reptile” isn’t a good term, because, like fish, they don’t form a single group, but are a bunch of separate family put together. Except if you consider mammals and dinosaurs and bird to be reptile, in which case the group isn’t terribly useful.

Platypus also aren’t evolutionary leftover, because evolution don’t work from more evolved to less evolved, and there’s no animals that have stopped evolving or are frozen in time. Especially not the platypus, who isn’t on a remote island with few competition, and have a ton of highly specific organs fit for purpose. It’s similar to how parakeets aren’t evolutionary leftover of the dinosaurs.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Ohlmann

It’s similar to how parakeets aren’t evolutionary leftover of the dinosaurs.

comment image

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
1 year ago

I find it mind blowing that we’re closer in time to T-Rex than T-Rex was to Stegasaurus!