Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
I came across a Twitter post that read some along the lines of:
'I'm a gay man. I struggled for decades to have my family and friends understand that no, I won't get over my gayness and no, it's not about 'the person'. I like dick. I thought that struggle was over. Now I'm told I must accept male fanny. No, I'm gay. Do Ihave to go through this again?

And I thought, well yes, that sounds reasonable. There weren't any shrieky comments, either. Did it sound reasonable 'cos he's a man?

His sexuality is valid because he is a man. People have no problem accepting men have a sexuality that is not about responding to everyone else's needs.

Women aren't accorded a genuine sexuality. We're just supposed to respond to other people's needs. If something or someone doesn't turn us on we're either prejudiced, selfish, or frigid.
22
Discussion, Chat and Gossip / Re: How far does your sexuality stretch?
« Last post by Earl on Jul 21, 2018, 03:39:36 PM »
I came across a Twitter post that read some along the lines of:
'I'm a gay man. I struggled for decades to have my family and friends understand that no, I won't get over my gayness and no, it's not about 'the person'. I like dick. I thought that struggle was over. Now I'm told I must accept male fanny. No, I'm gay. Do Ihave to go through this again?

And I thought, well yes, that sounds reasonable. There weren't any shrieky comments, either. Did it sound reasonable 'cos he's a man?
23
This thread isn't about anyone in particular, it's about an unfocused argument, and I haven't yet called anyone on here a transphobe.

And are you telling me lefty lesbians are immune to reactionary prejudice?


I don't think anyone is immune to it but I think they are less likely to succumb to sustained unexamined prejudice. The arenas they frequent will tend to knock it out in no time.

But I'm not seeing any of that here. I do see it on Twitter and it makes my toes curl and I avoid those corners. And I do think its reactionary as in reacting to sh*t coming their way - going low to meet the level of those who literally hate women. People hating women, openly, culturally, personally is a major unaddressed problem in our society. There are even lesbians who hate women.

I know this thread is not about one person. She was an example, a good example because she was so candid. She was willing to open up about something painful and offer up why she held the position she did. And that was admirable - you don't see the men who are harrumping at Man Friday at the Mens Pond in Hampstead opening up their souls publically and exposing their vulnerability in justifying what they want from public facilities. They assume their wants and needs are valid by virtue of them being as important as anyone else. They don't feel the need to explain where those wants and needs come from.

And the fact that she got accused of weaponising her trauma to "prove transwomen weren't transwomen" was dispicable. Really, beaneath contempt. Possibly the worst abuse of these boards I've ever seen apart from the thinly veiled threat to get people sacked from their employment for holding a different point of view.

I know it wasn't you who did that and I'm not making a comparison. I'm saying it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with any sense of balance to hold in mind that women who say that "my motivation for this is the protection of women in the face of a culture of male sexual and other violence" are telling the truth about that  - and still be able to argue about we how we meet our duty of fairness to everyone concerned.

There is no need to imply bad faith where objectively its a perfectly rational position. There is no need to smear people when they are putting forward a perfectly sensible argument - all of these protections and safe spaces for women weren't brought into being by radical feminists on a mad mission.

The idea of having female prisons and male prisons, female and male toilets, female and male changing rooms, female-bodied rape crisis centres, none of these spaces segregated by sex irrespective of self-indentifying gender were the dreamchild of Andrea Dworkin. They are not a mad blueprint for a segregated society designed by Julia Long. They are not proposed radical changes. They are existing arrangements that came about as cultural and sometimes legal protections made necessary by power relationships and potential abuses by the sexes.

So if they weren't brought in by reactionary prejudice, why must it be assumed that arguing for their continued protection is motivated by reactionary prejudice?




24
Discussion, Chat and Gossip / Re: How far does your sexuality stretch?
« Last post by Trifle on Jul 21, 2018, 03:29:08 PM »
Interesting article here discussing fantasies of extreme abuse against women. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/29/violent-misogyny-not-confined-to-internet-incels?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Relevant for our discussion: “Photographs of one vitrine, featuring a red bespattered t-shirt reading “I punch terfs!” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists/ women who disagree with me), may have struck a chord with anyone following the current UK debate about the government’s self ID proposals. To date, threats, from one side, which echo inescapably, some of those in the pro- Rodger playbook (“die in a fire terf scum”) have yet to generate comparably wide spread concern, even after a woman was punched. Her assailant had earlier expressed the wish to “fuck up some terfs”.

....If sexism does not explain how rapidly the language employed against dissenting women (including some trans women) in the UK self-ID debate, degenerated, in some quarters, into generic sounding obscenities (eg, to unco-operative lesbians, “choke on my lady dick”), perhaps it’s because social media has for so long facilitated the delusion that hate speech, as applied to women, is simply part of the landscape.”

Rodgers is the man who wrote a sickening rant about his need to take revenge on women who don’t find him attractive or want to sleep with him and then went on to kill six people.
25
I hadn’t seen it. Not a convenient excuse I just generally skip to the issues I’m interested in and not being that well versed in the Margaret Atwood genre, I skipped over that.

I’m not trying to pick on you, btw. I misread you as mocking Dot. Having re-read what you posted I think you were just trying to avoid an off-topic re-route.
26
Discussion, Chat and Gossip / Re: How far does your sexuality stretch?
« Last post by Wolfgang on Jul 21, 2018, 02:15:37 PM »
You'd be better off picking on things I've not explicitly apologized for.
27
I wasn’t saying that it was. I was saying it only took a tiny minority faced with a disinterested, politically inactive public.

You’re not exactly on solid ground for mocking Dot when the argument of your day becomes challenging someone for calling a handmaid a handmaiden or vice bloody versa.
28
Discussion, Chat and Gossip / Re: How far does your sexuality stretch?
« Last post by Wolfgang on Jul 21, 2018, 01:51:53 PM »
My point was that 400-600,000 is not a minority of 300,000.  But hush I don't want to wake Dot.
29
How many people did it take to take over her Majesty’s opposition? 400-600,000 in a county of about 60 million.

That's disappointingly specious of you.  It's 570,000 full members in a pre-2015 membership of 292,505 full members.

I imagine trans people are disproportionately visible in certain areas now, for a change.

Not a bad off the cuff guess. I allowed for over estimation but the point is a tiny vocal minority achieved it.

And trans people are not disproportionaly visible at the moment. Trans women are. It’s not really “for a change”. Trans men are hardly visible at all. Whether you want to put that down to socialisation or biology it still stands.
30
Discussion, Chat and Gossip / Re: To my fellow sisters
« Last post by Trifle on Jul 21, 2018, 11:44:56 AM »
^ I tried to post that quite a while ago but got locked out of my account as must have mistyped the password too many times.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10