u/TreeRelative775

The great Irony of gender critical discourse is that detransitioners themselves prove an extremely strong argument for an internal, sexed body schema.

Take FTMTF detransitioners as an example They constantly describe their deep repulsion to the aesthetic effects of Testosterone, the deep voice, thick hair, masuline facial structure and the general switch towards male dimorphism as something that they hated. And how they regret and abhor masculinizing their bodies and losing their feminine features.

Note that a significant part of their complaints are not about functional losses or health effects but about change to their bodies phenotype and how wrong it makes them feel.

But this is precisely what the gender-critical model struggles to explain. If we do not have a sense of the sexed schema of the body we ought to inhabit then why is this such a nigh universal complait among detrans ppl.

The obvious implication is that people possess an internal representation of their own bodies, including their sexed characteristics, which can come into conflict with their actual physical development. And if this representation can lead a female-born person to experience testosterone-induced masculinisation as intolerable, there is no principled reason why a male-born person could not possess the same kind of representation, with the opposite relationship to their natal sex.

You cannot inisist that sexed body phenotype is completely irrelevant to a humans self perception except insofar society and societal pressure teaches us to care for them while at the same type time treating aesthetic changes as a huge violation.

From what I see online it seems like there are way more ft detrans people as compared to mtf detrans people. Also the ftm detrans people seem way more happier acepting and dysphoria free as compared to the mtf detrans people who are way more depressed and tend to retransition (like rae alex williams).

My question is why? Is maleness much worse than femaleness? misandry? misogyny? AGP being stronger?

I simply find it difficult to imagine how any self-aware AGPs has still not been thoroughly disabused of the emancipatory potential of feminism by interacting with and analyzing the behaviour and arguments of anti-trans feminists.

One might say that gcs and Terfs are not representative of most feminists, but they still forms an influential strain of thought within feminism and they are its dominant manifestation in some places like the British isles and are gaining popularity vis-a-vis liberal or Marxist feminists.

Secondly Terf critiques of AGP are carried out using frames of analysis, tools, concepts and techniques situated within the corpus of mainstream feminist thought, just applied to different group of people.

These feminist frameworks applied to AGPs result in absurd caricatures which reflect none of our lived in experiences; And if mainstream frameworks produce such blatant falsehoods in areas of ones so to speak expertise, how wrong is it when applied to every other aspect of the world.

We can see some instructive instances of this:

• The idea that AGPs sexualize or "fetishize" (whatever that means!) womanhood, when AGP is simply heterosexuality turned inwards, reflecting on how poorly defined and absurd the concept is and how it can be weaponized. Especially when the expertise of those who actually study the phenomenon are directly contradicts the application of those terms to the phenomenon.
• The idea that the majority of AGPs being submissive means that they are aping the misogynistic view of women. When in reality for whatever reasons certain sexual preferences overlap, and are genetic which is again contrary to the idea that sexual preferences are malleable or socially constructed.
• This is pretty rare, but is can be found among academic feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys, the idea of trans people 'infiltrating' womanhood as part of a patriarchal plot, like some sort of protocols of the elders of Gilead. Which again reveals the weakness of the explanatory power of patriarchy theory since it again contradicts nearly everything known.
• Finally, and this is one that is literally everywhere, feminism not abolishing gender roles but rather doing away with the ones which constrain or hurt women but keeping the ones which negatively affect men. Only once you become aware of this phenomenon do you realize how pervasive it is, and how it effects every type of feminist and not just GCs. Every possible stereotype is weaponized by GCs and TERFs to demonize trans people and what's more they seem to believe it themselves - they use the stereotypical idea of males being obsessed with sex to invalidate the role of dysphoria, they also use stereotypes to refuse to believe that any person they see as male could really suffer and victimize trans men but dehumanize trans women.

There are many other instances we could elaborate on, but these are enough to make my point

This not about personal interest or ingroup protection (which is important to care about); But if the tools and analysis of feminist critique is so wrong when applied to a group about which we have experience in, how catastrophically wrong could it be when applied to any other gendered situation also?

Most anti-trans feminists, especially in the U.K. and the Anglosphere, call themselves “gender critical,” since they oppose the concept of gender and believe that trans people promote gender stereotypes. Their other cardinal belief is that sex cannot be changed, and that any attempt to change one’s sex is tantamount to self-mutilation.

This is highly self-contradictory, since attempting to change one’s sex is the true solution to the problem of gender. Especially since, as we have seen, keeping sex intact or rigid while trying to abolish gender has only resulted in a different set of stereotypes, or in the burden of stereotypes being placed on one sex group.

But it is still instructive to observe the sheer hypocrisy of gender criticals when it comes to actual women and men—in which they acquit themselves worse than any caricature of a sexist conservative. In the UK, where this strain of feminism is most prominent and has had the most time to develop, there is almost a Manichean view of adult transitioners. Trans men are portrayed as helpless, victimized women, and trans women are portrayed as a combination of lustful brutes, slimy manipulative plotters, and perverts. Also, what is interesting is the abuse of the word “AGP,” which they have stripped of any nuance or actual meaning and turned into a tool for demonization.

What is interesting about their usage, and the meaning they assign to the word “AGP,” is that it reveals more about their own attitudes and biases than anything else. We have the fact that they tend to apply the label to nearly all adult transitioners, which, along with the second fact of them removing any of the emotional or even sexuality-related nuances of the concept, leads us to a double stereotype: that most men’s desires can easily be boiled down to sex, and that even their sexual desires are simple and one-dimensional—creating a cruder assortment of caricatures than any bigoted 19th-century academic could dream of.

Now, one might say it is simply ideological hyperbole, and that it reflects their politics rather than any real attitudes. But what we speak reflects our inner attitudes. In real life too, female detransitioners are coddled and treated with far more compassion, as comapred to male detransitioners who are treated much more coldly among gender criticals.

This hypocrisy is not restricted to conventional radfems, but also appears among trans-inclusive and liberal feminists. In the past 20 years, has the pervasiveness or seriousness of gender stereotypes increased or decreased? For males, stereotypes and their legitimacy have only increased. Thus, “gender abolition” without any change in material sex is simply the entrenchment of power for one group.

>The Şükrü Saracoğlu government introduced a bill for a one-off tax, which was approved by the Turkish parliament on November 11, 1942. This tax targeted fixed assets, including landed estates, buildings, businesses, and industrial enterprises owned by all citizens but disproportionately affected minorities. Non-Muslim communities, such as Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and Levantines,who played a significant role in the economy, were particularly hard-hit, with Armenians bearing the heaviest tax burden.

>While the tax was supposedly meant for all Turkish citizens, it disproportionately burdened non-Muslims with exorbitant and arbitrary rates.The consequences were severe—the remaining non-Muslim merchant class was decimated, and many non-Muslim families faced financial ruin. The taxes reached staggering levels, at times surpassing an individual's entire wealth. The law applied even to impoverished non-Muslims like drivers, workers, and beggars, while their Muslim counterparts enjoyed exemption. The Varlık Vergisi led to a number of suicides among ethnic minority citizens in Istanbul.

For those incapable of payment, they were sent to labor camps in eastern Anatolia. Though workers received wages, half was deducted to offset their debts. Elderly individuals, unable to endure the rigorous labor, collaborated with younger villagers from Aşkale, paying them daily wages to work in their stead. All five thousand sent to the labor camps were non-Muslims, as Muslim taxpayers faced milder consequences