Wouldn’t it protect from the male gaze? — NOS4A2

That's not a response to my post.

I guess you could phrase it that way.

I think doctors offering transitions to underage persons are probably (in good faith) trying too quick to accommodate transpeople's desires. Which is understandable, but it might not actually be in the best interest of transpeople until we can solve a whole list of medical and metaphysical concerns first.

it's absurd then I'm not the type to shy away from saying so. — S

True that.

Heterosexual Men will desire political lesbian whether she likes it or not, depending on what she looks like. — NOS4A2

But that is not what women (lesbian or otherwise) are FOR.

because I'm absolutely not making that case, — fdrake

Can you explain what case you are making then? Cause imho your last post sounded like you did not have answers to those questions but would still endorse selectively allowing underage persons to take on the risk.

It might have touched a nerve, but certainly not based on your presumptuous suggestion that women being sexually independent from men is so scary — S

So then why?

And where do I fall in that? — S

You tell me.

If it was required to trace the aetiology of any mental health effecting condition to general patterns in the population before administering any treatment, no treatment would ever be administered for mental health issues. There are screens in place - it's hard to get puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Especially hard for kids. — fdrake

I don't think there's a responsible, compassionate case to be made that we should try not to answer these very basic questions before proceeding with treatment that is possibly more dangerous than non-medical intervention.

Christianity doesn't endorse oppressing women, but treats them fairly. — Shamshir

1 Timothy 2:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.

Okiedokie.

Yes, I do. Because, why only often? Why not always? What is the percentage? Is there a way to tell ahead of time? And on what basis are they happier? Because they actually feel better in their own skin or because other people are nicer when they "pass"? And if the latter, should we be allowing kids to modify their bodies because other people are jerks?

This conversation is going in circles. We're clearly just not going to agree. Which is sad, but I guess it is what it is.

and saying that their lesbianism is a consequence of their malice (which frank is saying). — Michael

How do you not see how that's a disgusting claim to make? No one is trying to hurt you by choosing to sleep with women. They just hate men and would rather die than be touched by them.

What you've had a chance to learn is that there are aspects of the world you don't know about. — frank

It's presumptuous to assume that because I don't agree with you, I don't know what you're referring to.

My assertion of your bigotry rests solely on your assertion of malice.

He's not saying that they're malicious because they're lesbians; he's saying that they're lesbians because they're malicious — Michael

Where's the difference? Both ways it assumes malice behind refusing to sleep with someone. Whether your malicious for refusing it or maliciously refusing it makes little diffference.

What he's saying is that there are some women who hate men and so embrace lesbianhood and feminism — Michael

Yes, there are women who hate men.
Yes, there are feminists and lesbians.

No, you cannot be malicious toward a person by refusing to bed them.

It doesn't mean that at all. — Michael

It means that it sometimes is, which is just as disgusting.

For the record, I don't think we should ever allow the assumption that any woman under any circumstances not having sex with men is somehow malicious and meant to harm the man.

Accusing him of entitlement and making presumptions about his relationships (or lack thereof) with women is a non sequitur and an ad hominem. — Michael

He's calling embracing "lesbianhood" malicious. How is that not both entitled and bigoted? Sure, only "some," but it still means he thinks not having sex with men is about being mean to men.

Wasnt it you who asked about touched nerves? — frank

Because I'm calling out bigotry for what it is?

It's astonishing that someone could be so entitled.

Newsflash, someone not being interested in you sexually, is not malice. It just means you don't do it for them.

are women who hate men and embrace lesbianhood and feminism with unveiled malice — frank

This is so stupid, I'm not going to bother responding.

I don't see how it would benefit from it, considering women are the prominent benefactor of Christianity — Shamshir

They aren't.

And if it endorses such behaviour, then why did Jesus defend the woman caught in adultery, against the Jewish law? — Shamshir

There are countless examples the in the Bible that suggest adultery is a crime, especially female adultery.

I assumed the OP was just being sensational — frank

I think there is value in analyzing even sensational ideas, because it allows us to uncover why we think it's so sensational in the first place.

See for example the difference between posters here pointing to the obvious impracticalities of the notion, versus those who just dismiss it as "man-hating."

To think that supposes women were there to have sex with men in the first place, hence the withholding part, rather than just not partaking. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I think it supposes that both men and women are sexual creatures for whom that is an important part of a fulfilled life.

None or very few of the responses assume that she's proposing that, as far as I can tell. I for one did notice that bit, and it doesn't make any difference — jamalrob

There are some responses that seem quite hysterical here over the suggestion that women can exercise their right to withhold sex, calling it a "tantrum," "hate speech," and derogatory descriptions of lesbian sexual acts.
Has the suggestion touched a nerve for some? Is the idea of women being sexually independent from men so scary for some?

But yes, most here are hearteningly unthreatened and rather open to curious discussion.

I think the suggestion is impractical, because the women open enough to feminist ideas to consider it are probably already with progressive, egalitarian men. It's people like Trump and Pence who need a dose of this, but somehow I don't see the likes of Melania and Karen considering this.

Seems to me BE's posts are getting more "out there" like she's (?) testing to see how far we're willing to go down the feminist rabbit hole.

Guess the application of puberty blockers comes down to the question; does the benefit of suspending puberty for this patient outweigh the possible risks of applying it? — fdrake

Well, there we kind of have to go back to basic questions about transgenderism.

Like, if gender is based on self-id and not physical attributes, why is changing the physical of such importance as to outweigh possible health risks.

Such a shallow viewpoint. Some men? Sure. Not the admirable ones.

You realize how fallacious this is? You realize what it has in common with many racist thoughts? Identity politics? Etc — creativesoul

Some, compared to the vast majority over history, yes.

And it's not at all like racism, because I did not say anything about men being inherently anything. I'm just pointing to the facts of their historical actions to explain what patriarchy is and how it operates.

t. I still think “patriarchal” is a valid adjective though and has application outside of feminism — NOS4A2

You are free to call a car a porcupine, but it's not super useful in conversation.

Men in general — NOS4A2

I doubt that.

The existence of good, feminist men does not mean those supporting patriarchy don't exist.

Why did women need suffrage in the first place? Because of the patriarchal structures put in place by men.

Then again, neither did most men. — NOS4A2

That's true. But the people who did shape governments up until recently historically have been 99% men. So patriarchy, and the resulting societal structures are built by and for men.

Women have birthed 100% of men. I wager this has some modicum of an effect on society as we know it. — NOS4A2

Now you're grasping at straws.

Women bearing children doesn't mean they had a voice in the creation of governments or economies. And it's not like women had a choice about when or how many children to have or if at all to have them.

To assume women, half the population, had no bearing or influence on the course of history and society is ridiculous. — NOS4A2

Well, of course it's ridiculous that women haven't been influential. That's why patriarchy is so horrible. But it's what has happened.

to blame the oppression of women on the rise of christianity — Echarmion

I would say, Christianity didn't invent it, but it was founded on it, benefited from it, and endorsed it.

Christianity might actually have been beneficial to women in the long term — Echarmion

Maybe in some ways, and not so much in other ways. It's holding the US back at the moment.

Which parts of society are not patriarchal? — NOS4A2

There's a difference between being influenced by X and being inherently X.

Neither did men. — NOS4A2

Yeah, okay, men have only been responsible for, what?, maybe 99.9% of the historical creation of society as we know it. Whoop-di-do.

Probably not. Your point? — NOS4A2

Cleopatra did not single-handedly create the systems of today's societies.

There are plenty Queens, Pharoahs and Emperors of the female sex throughout history. — NOS4A2

Along Echarmion's lines: define "plenty"?

today’s feminists seek its destruction. — NOS4A2

Its? I'm assuming the referent here is "society"? Which is only true if you assume patriarchy to be synonymous with, or indivisible from society per se. Not a position I myself would support.

Intersectionality only seems to have a genuine advantage if there is something specific to the combination of being poor, black and female that cannot be adressed from either framework individually. — Echarmion

I think there are elements of racism, classism, and sexism in many of the problems poor, black women face, and the point of intersectionality would be to draw on criticisms of all those isms to explain the unique position of poor, black women.

For example, the "angry black woman" stereotype seems to be a combination of "hysterical woman" and "uppity black," sharing with both the general sentiment of "shut up and let white men speak," while still being a unique stereotype of its own.

I had already taken it into consideration. — Tzeentch

Well, then you have a very strange idea of what it means to be benefited by something. I guess you wouldn't mind being someone else's property.

I'd say women have benefited disproportionately to the weight they've been pulling. — Tzeentch

I'll refer you to a previous post of mine:

The way men have tried to "protect" women has historically included keeping them in the house, telling them whom they can be friends with, what jobs they can do, not allowing them to vote, not allowing them property, and beating them when they get rebellious. If that's not disadvantaged, I dunno what definition you're working with. — Artemis

I just recoil at its latest iteration — NOS4A2

Which would be....?

However, if it wasn’t for the so-called patriarchy and the systems supposedly built by men, woman could not have found equality in them. — NOS4A2

So-called?

Supposedly built? Who else built them? Unicorns?

It seems feminists want access to the patriarchy more so than its alteration. — NOS4A2

Some women have tried to access power through patriarchy (see Hilary Clinton's attempts to out-hawk the men on war). Feminists seek to dismantle patriarchy. The systems (by which I assume you mean economies and government, etc.) can be largely left standing, whilst still being altered to reflect equality.