You know, I've seen it so many times but it always amuses me how pooners have nearly the exact same view of men as TERFs do except with inverted value judgments. I swear to god you could take excepts of a pooner screed, cut out the bits that reference wanting to be a man and self-sympathy for "experiencing men's hardships", and post it verbatim in a TERF forum to nothing but agreement. Same myopic non-insights, same stereotyping, same obvious indicators of little to no male contact, same complete misreads of male intentions and emotions, it's just nuts. The only difference is that the pooners fetishize it instead of hating it.
Shit's weird bro.
Do you know what you are?
You are what you is
You is what you am
A cow don't make ham
It is the same issue explored in Thomas Nagel's '
What Is It Like to Be a Bat?' Consciousness cannot be explained in limited forms of language. While we can discuss and explain the ways bats communicate, we can never understand how it feels to be a bat. Any attempt to would be limited by human nature. This gulf of understanding can be applied to the genders, clearly, by how some describe each other.
On a species level, it is like Tolstoy's
The Cossacks. A Russia noble can observe the daily lives of the Cossacks, he can hunt with them, he can even drink and get drunk with them. However, he will
never be a Cossack and everyone knows it. He has been denied that life by fate. And when push comes to shove, he will have to be humbled to realise this truth.
All women have to go on with men is assumptions and what they have observed in men or read about them in books or seen about them in films. But who really knows one another? Do you feel your actions capture what is going on inside? Even our words are limited. And when we do explain ourselves it feels almost disappointing, like we have already gone beyond it.
Of course that chasm between the genders is a good thing. It is the mystery of the other sex that makes us question our surface level natures. Some of the best novels,
Madame Bovary,
Anna Karenina, are men observing women; the authors are trying to work out their protagonists and by doing so, they work out themselves. A problem with literature today is an unwillingness to explore other people. Self-obsession and autobiography is favoured. People refuse to look at each other with compassion (or with contempt). Or when they do- Updike's
Terrorist comes to mind- it is filtered through an arrogance that bars any real exploration.
The best writers are also great psychologists and to be that you must acquire an awareness of your own self, what is
you and what is in the other, what your flaws are and what external influences are around you, what is your desires and what is reality. Are pooners ever aware of themselves to even begin to be aware of other people? Are they even sensual? Whilst many transwomen are sexual deviants, they seem totally unsexual, more plastic fantastic parody of desire than the real thing. I used to think that not being attracted to the opposite sex would make you more objective when observing them, but I later realised it retards you from understanding the full picture of social life. Being a lesbian or homosexual may make you colder and more direct with the other sex, but you are missing the friction that comes with being in the game. And friction keeps you on your toes, makes you consider what is actually being said, and what is beyond external actions.