https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Well, I have to admit I'm very pleased that some of you took their time to write some interesting responses :) Even if I don't agree with some points I undestand why most of you have your views.

Sadly, this is true in most of human groups and organizations with originally good intentions. I have encountered this kind of radical feminist and, indeed, they do much more harm than good to the movement. This is something most moderate feminists would agree with, I believe. When I talk about feminist I'm thinking about it as a philosophy and social movement that strives, like the LGBT movement, to eliminate the traditional roles of gender, both male and female. There are some really great feminist thinkers that analyzed the power structures of the society that subjugates every single one of us to a predetermined role. This kind of roles are taught to us in a very subliminal way through education, movies, games, people's commentaries, etc., and take root in us in the form of prejudices. There are some really great essays, not only from feminists, but from political philosophy in general, that are very interesting to make oneself aware of this kind of prejudices and determinations. But I understand that while in theory this movement is very interesting, in practice thinghs are more of a mixed bag. There are groups of radical "feminists" that are, indeed, staining the good name of feminsm and their original intentions. I understand why so many people began to distrust them. But there is also many feminist people who are very lucid and reasonable and want to achieve equality for everyone. They are the first ones that want those sexist radical people to stop ruining the good intentions of feminism. Of course, this is something that also happens on the side of men that want to protect men's rights. I have also read some masculinist webpages and commentaries that were pure hatred over women. This is just human nature, independently of any gender, class or whatever. It's really disgraceful.

I couldn't agree with you anymore. I think your commentary was pretty insightful.

You're welcome! :) Yes, it is pretty specific that there must exist an emotional relationship, past or present, because the objective is to stop any kind of abusive or subjugating relationship (from men to women). This law would'n be so bad if it didn't exclude the female-to-male, male-to-male, and -female-to-female abusive relationships. This is what happens when some dumb people full of prejudices who are incapable of understanding the true complexities of the world are in charge of making the laws of a country (sadly, it is the same thing that happens in almost every place in the world).

About that patriarchy term, it should not be disregarded as just "a feminist term that they use for complaining". It is the name of any social structure that gives power to men over women, including the inheritance. Of course this has changed in most developed countries in the last decades, but there are still many things to be done to completely erradicate it. There is still a lot of prejudices and pressure to act according to our respective roles. A lot of it is almost invisible (prejudices are usually incredibly hard to see), but it's still there. "You must not cry. Behave like a real man", "If you (as a man) do not lose your virginity before 18 you're a loser", "You (a woman) have slept this week with two boys. You're a hooker", "You prefer to read and play games over going out to a party and try to get laid? You're a nerd", etc. Our every life and culture is full of this damn messages that determine us, without being counscious of it, to be and act according to a role, to what society expect from us. Gender roles are just a part of this structural violence that forbids us from being free and be like we really want to be. As I already said, patiarchy is the name of this traditional gender roles and structure of power.

About the sexualization of women of games. Any moderate feminist that criticises this doesn't have the intention of censoring anything. What they are complaning about it's not the existence of sexy characters, but the lack of realistic ones. There is no problem if some games have sexy ladies, as there wouldn't also be any if some had sexy men (or both). It's the lack of diversity that makes this a problem, because it becomes pretty clear who are the target for the developers. Most female characters are designed to be like that only to cater to male gamers sexual desires, and the almost completely absence of other kinds of female desings makes them feel like they are been ignored and treated with inequality. If you think about it, it's pretty easy to spot this imbalance: there are male characters of great diversity: some are agly, some are beautiful, some strong, some weak, some are deformed beasts, etc. It's pretty difficult to think of female ones that are not very beautiful in some sort of way. Even the beastkin ones are usually sexy and not deformed. Why it's bad to ask for some more diversity? It's like if every game just have the human race, refusing to make elves, dwarfts, vampires or any other species. I would say it is even boring not to have more diversity on the female side. I prefer much more the new desing of Lara Croft than the older (and it's still beautiful, but not in a sexualized way), and I'm sure a lot of women really liked the change, both because it's different and because she's more "like them" (and therefore, easier to empathise with). I think in these last years this issue is evolving in the right direction.

By the way, when in these days some developers decide to "cut" some sexual content or censore it (specially japanese ones) they usually do it because they knew, even when they designed it, that it was objetifying a character just to sell it more using sexual content as and incentive for buyers. They know that in the west there is much more concern of the harm that objectifying people can cause in society than in Japan (remember that it is one of the countries with more gender inequalities and sexual repression), so they fear that that could hurt sales and remove it. What makes them do it is not so much the feminist groups as it is the awareness of the cultural differences of the west. That's why they cut, for example, that petting minigame from that new Fire Emblem (How do you think most regular people would react when they saw that?). I think any kind of censorship is bad, and I would love they stopped doing these things (and I also believe any reasonable feminist would think the same). What would be nice is if, from the very beginning, they didn't designed the game to have sexual stuff just to sold more without taking in consideration the meaning of what the representations inside all this industry's products are transmitting to all of us. Luckily, this golden age of indie games is bringing much of this needed diversity :)

P.S. I see some people downrepped my first comment from two pages earlier. I think I was pretty respectful. I was happy with the respectful responses I had until now from some of you. Well, that just speaks badly of their attitude and stains the good name of their own movement. What an irony (and a pity).

It's worth noting that this sort of comment is especially damaging when directed to a trans woman, even (perhaps especially) if she isn't out as a trans woman. The whole "real man" attitude is reinforcing the falsehood (in the trans woman case) that the person it's directed to is a man, which in turn can trigger her gender dysphoria.

It's worth noting that much of what you've posted in this post and the previous one are interesting when examined from a transgender perspective.
Like TERFs? ("TERF" is an acronym that stands for "Trans Exclusive Radical Feminism"; in other words, it refers to those feminists who don't see trans women as women, and are often as hostile to them as right-wing conservative Christians sometimes are.)
You're not the only one who has experience this; just look at my posts.

The only issue with your posts is that they are maybe a little too long; otherwise, they are excellent posts.

The reputation system has been abused to the point of it being no longer meaningful; notice how so many of my posts in this topic (and in a few others) are "low rated", yet the personal attacks by me from a certain other user aren't?

I predict that both this post and the one it is a reply to will be "low rated", given how things are going.

They already burned in some way Lovecraft for the creation of Black People poem, but the bible with its non inclusive legends, naaaah we cannot burn that, we are INTERSECTIONAL xDDDD


All the issues about considering a TRANS as a WOMAN points directly to how afraid if people of differences. A Transexual is a transexual, period, there is nothing wrong on it. But hey, ¨SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS"

Yeah sure...

I didn't know that acronym, but I have heard of those groups before. That is beyond shameful. For a group who is suppossed to strive for justice and equality to limit their fight to their own members and exclude others who are also suffering even more is the most inmoral action one can imagine. Humankind's selfishness is really limitless.

The existence of strict social roles is usually bad for all individuals (but convenient for the society). Transgender people suffer inmensely just because people's cosmology vision is too narrow and prejudiced. They get attacked by almos everyone. I really hope this kind of injustices stop as soon as possible.

And thank you for your compliment :) I wrote my first post partly because I got mad when I saw so many people showing so much lack of respect to your point of view, wich I found to be, in my opinion, generally right.

A trans woman is a woman, period. The fact that she is trans in no way invalidates her identity as a woman.

A trans man is a man, period. The fact that he is trans in no way invalidates his identity as a man.

(It's worth noting that TERFs usually neglect to mention trans men; in fact most anti-trans arguments neglect to mention them at all. For example, those proposing anti-trans bathroom laws typically fail to consider that having a trans man with big muscles and a beard would make the women in the women's bathroom uncomfortable.)

As a side note, I am wondering what you think of this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12165845/Winner-of-national-transgender-beauty-pageant-stripped-of-her-title-because-she-was-not-transgender-enough.html

The way I see it, there are *so* many problems with it. First, medical treatment is not an appropriate prize. Second, the whole "not trans enough" argument is nonsense; what's wrong with a woman wearing boxer shorts and a t-shirt?

But what if a trans woman doesn't want to be a woman? You know, for a fan of changing moral and ethical boundaries, you seem pretty content to create your own new ones.

No, a trans woman is not a woman. But you can continue to talk about if Pluto is a PLANET or a PLANETOID in the most absurd way the mighty highway of stupidity can bring you.

You can consider that social constructs are more important than facts, I am sorry for you if you ever need to live in reality, for now it seems you are pretty well cozy in Wonderland.

By the way, even out of Wonderland there it should be zero problems with the way people consider themselves, the same for their sexuality, that frankly speaking should be something to enjoy, instead of make it a flag or a way of life... because if you can raise funds for being a Transexual, is because there is something definitively wrong in your society, and not because you are a transexual, or a martian, or a goose. Or you feel like it.

There is also no problem at all in the way people dress, or they way they consider themselves, the same there is not problem not even Spiderwoman, oh... sorry, I hope I were not touch any other sensitive trigger warning...

Comments like "behave like a real man/woman" are toxic for anyone regardless of sex, that's what most people including transgenders don't get. It denies personal identity in favor of a group identity and I'm convinced, that there were a lot less transgenders around if expectations that are tied to the sex rather than the person's identity wouldn't be there anymore.
Most parents I know treat their children gender neutral and none of those children show the slightest signs of gender dysphoria since there's no pressure in any direction anyway. The daughter of my boss is like a classic "guy" as in loving soccer, meat, beer, camping in the wild, barbecue, practical clothes, not seeing any sense in styling, etc... and everybody (including parents, teachers, etc...) thinks it's cool and she has no problems with self-acceptance whatsoever.

Still mixing up opinions with facts. :/
You're entitled to have any opinion you want, problems occur when you don't tolerate differing opinions.
Tolerance isn't a one-way road.

That's just your opinion. Other people are free to think and believe otherwise.

And surgery or hormones don't change chromosomes. And if there is no lower end for being trans, then there is nothing stopping people from pretending to be to get the welfare you say they so desperately need when its implemented.

As to the beauty pageant article, I think its a private event, and they can set the rules they want. If entrants disagree, they needn't enter in the competition. And what about the feelings of the ''more'' trans women the current winner hurt when she did less work and still got more than them?

Strictly speaking, that person would likely fail to meet my definition of "trans woman". It's like asking "what if an atheist believes in a god"?

Aha, it's about wanting to be a woman rather than being one (referring to your brain hormone stuff and chromosome mixups here) after all.

Let's switch the genders. imagine if the son of your boss were* like a "girl" as in loving to knit, baking cookies, good sense of style, prefers to wear dresses all the time, etc.... would everybody still accept him? Would he be able to go out wearing a dress and not get strange looks?

Except that:
* At this point, ones configuration of sex chromosomes *do not matter*. Not to mention that there are XX men and XY women, as well as people with some number of sex chromosomes that is not 2.

Actually, at this point I believe there's no difference; wanting to be a woman is the same as being one. Again, chromosomes *do not matter*, nor do genitals (which are hidden in public, anyway).

Does not matter based on theory / evidence? And on what basis? Link evidence.

By XX men and XY women, what are you using to prove that they're men and women? Their genitals? Orientation?

Women with more than 2 sex chromosomes? They are women based on their............?