You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Sisters Uncut, accompanied by masked men (I’ve seen the videos) protested against this rally.
Feel free to post this video. I've searched but couldn't find it.
@Cougar you just compared the group directly to Nazis, and ealier you compared defending them to the actions of white supremacists.
Get a grip, for goodness sake! They're a group of lesbian women talking about their sexuality, and this is the response they get.
you just compared the group directly to Nazis
No I didn't. Try again. Did you watch the video clip? Do you genuinely need me to explain why I posted it?
They’re a group of lesbian women talking about their sexuality
Are they? I have no idea who they are beyond the comments on this thread.
What are they marching for? Did they miss Pride the other week?
accompanied by masked men (I’ve seen the videos)
For clarification: were they cis men, trans men, or trans women who are 'really still men'?
And how do you know, if they were masked?
What you are doing there is shutting down debate as the trans activists are doing.
I see you have decided the best description of Sisters Uncut is trans-activists. It suits the narrative of feminists against trans activists but in reality Sisters Uncut is a feminist group primarily concerned with keeping access to women's spaces (that are being closed by the current government).
Feminist group against feminist group doesn't fit the narrative though so the story has to be 'adjusted'.
They are however, a trans activist group in the same way they are an anti-racist group. They recognise that the challenges faced by women who are from a minority racial group isn't always going to be the same as those faced by white women. They also recognise that the challeges faced by transwomen are not going to be the same as those faced by cis-women.
I've seen a few anti-trans posters on here threaten to leave but so far none have as far as I'm aware.
Meanwhile I know of at least one trans member of this forum who was constantly abused until she left so tell me, which side is really shutting down the debate here?
Meanwhile I know of at least one trans member of this forum who was constantly abused until she left so tell me, which side is really shutting down the debate here?
In Case You Missed It:
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/it-hurts-it-really-bloody-hurts/
I don't think you're invoking Rachael on the right folk here, certainly not on this page. There's only one person denying their existence and we all know who they are.
Just to put a bit of perspective on this it's all gone a bit SKS and has descended into infighting and stupid memes/YouTube links. Instead of shouting from positions nowhere near the other perspective why not actually listen to what people are saying instead of dismissing it out of hand and telling them it's all in their head. Or at least not repeating the same thing over and over.
Because let's be honest, it's not a discussion any more, it's just the usual shit flinging and in fighting with new faces in the same old roles. It's like the later series of Scrubs.
Yes, it's that bad.
Instead of shouting from positions nowhere near the other perspective why not actually listen to what people are saying instead of dismissing it out of hand and telling them it’s all in their head.
Precisely.
And for a little perspective, our friend's son decided to identify as female a couple of years ago now.
She's had nothing but positive responses, even in our little northern hill town.
No one seems to care.
It's all been quite inspirational, tbh.
I look after a lot of student nurses in work, every single one I've met over the last few years identifies as gender fluid.
Repeat; Every single one.
Hopefully, this will be a non issue for generations to come.
Be nice, let people do what the hell they want. It hurts no one.
It will increase the sum of human happiness, how can that be a bad thing?
Instead of shouting from positions nowhere near the other perspective why not actually listen to what people are saying instead of dismissing it out of hand and telling them it’s all in their head.
Because it is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one or more party's starting point is the conclusion.
it’s just the usual shit flinging and in fighting with new
facesusernames in the same old roles
Because it is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one or more party’s starting point is the conclusion.
Both you and bruce have been doing this. No dissent or discussion is allowed. If we even dare question that instant self identification is right and allows access to womens only safe spaces and services then we are labelled transphobes and bigots.
Look into what happened in Scotland over the GRA. Only one side worked to shut down any debate. The trans activists.
I have never seen such a display. Far outweighing the brexit and indy debates.
No questions are allowed. Dare to and you receive horrendous public abuse.
Its perfectly possible to have questions and doubts without being transphobic or bigoted
I haven't seen you asking any questions.
Its perfectly possible to have questions and doubts without being transphobic or bigoted
Indeed, it's not only possible but absolutely necessary.
If we even dare question that instant self identification is right and allows access to womens only safe spaces and services then we are labelled transphobes and bigots.
By a very small minority.
I think the rest of us are very up for a much needed discussion,which respects the rights of everyone involved.
If we even dare question that instant self identification is right
As several on here have pointed out, I'm not sure anyone has said this. Many have reiterated that such a simplistic approach a)is obviously risky and so b) doesn't exist in the real world.
Genuinely surprised by who is so upset on both sides of this debate.
Help help, I’m being cancelled! 😁
You’re not. You’re just embarrassing yourself is all. Feel free to continue, that’s your choice. But don’t get upset if you are challenged or (worse) ignored.
If you want to reduce all the work done by Sisters Uncut to simply being ‘trans activists’ then I think that’s being a bit disingenuous.
Literally nobody has done that. Sisters Uncut have done some amazing work, and I wish them every success to continue. Regarding groups such as Lesbian Strength, Get The L Out, Womens Place UK etc, I think SU are wrong. Because none of those groups are actually advocating transphobia or wishing to exclude women from women only groups and activities. There are large numbers of trans people who support such groups as I have mentioned, and people like Debbie Hayton have spoken out in support of them.
My wife is a Human Rights lawyer, and has attended events held by the aforementioned groups and others, and he witnessed attacks by men, on women who are simply exercising their democratic and legal right to protest, speak and hold meetings. I will again point out this is by a very small yet very shrill and vocal minority. This is what I’m talking about when I say that violence against women must be challenged. I myself have witnessed such male aggression (I’m going to call it what it is) against women. I’ve had to escort my wife and other women to events, as they’ve been fearful about possible attacks. I know women who have been attacked by trans activists. If anyone has any evidence of attacks by women on trans people, please feel free to share. Almost all attacks in trans people are by men. So why are some TAs attacking women?
https://afterellen.com/resistance-lesbienne-threatened-at-bordeaux-pride-march/
Help help, I’m being cancelled! 😁
You’re not. You’re just embarrassing yourself is all. Feel free to continue, that’s your choice. But don’t get upset if you are challenged or (worse) ignored.
Anyone else just hear a whooshing noise?
Because it is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one or more party’s starting point is the conclusion.
This is the first post on this thread:
Singletrack World takes the position that Trans women are women
That is a statement by the owners/managers of this website and forum. It is a view that I and others do/may not agree with. Therefore I don’t feel this is quite the neutral space to freely express my own personal views. Perhaps I’m wrong, and it would be interesting to hear what others think on this issue.
Literally nobody has done that. Sisters Uncut have done some amazing work, and I wish them every success to continue.
Agreed. And I'd acutally just taken BruceWee's word that it was SU organising this. It looks like several groups were involved.
I meant both on this tbread and in the wider debate.
On thus thread I have been told my friends are all transphobes for havibg doubts. I have been told that there are only two types of people in this debate. Those who support trans rights and transphobes and anyone who has any doubts is a transohobe.
I have been told that the doubts my friends have are from transphobia
I have been told tbe worries they have no basis in reality but are rooted in transphobia
Bruce ans cougar have left zero room for debate at all. Its either you accept instant self identification gives you immedzte access to all womesn safe spaces and servicrs or you are a transphobe
Its been highly unpleasant to be attacked in this way and the reduction of a complex and nuanced debate to instant name calling is what happens in the wider wourld as well the debate over the GRA in scotland follwed exactly this pattern as well
Its a puriy spiral and a refusal to recognize others postions
Myself as i said early on i have no skin in this. I gave no firm views but people i know and respect whi have spent their lives fighting for equal rights for all are very concerned
Indeed, it’s not only possible but absolutely necessary.
To your earlier comment, @RustySpanner, we should 100% be nice - this is the right starting point. We should support marginalised people, eliminate oppression and violence, and ensure people have equal opportunities.
Where this discussion matters (and it should absolutely be possible to have it) is about what "nice" actually means in particular contexts, e.g. how far it extends and what it acutally entails in things like sporting oppurtunities, considering people as potential sexual partners, or supporting people who've experienced sexual violence.
This is the first post on this thread:
Singletrack World takes the position that Trans women are women
In relation to those particular contexts, I'd argue that this statement is a conclusion rather than a starting point. A starting point would be acknowledging their differences as a way to discuss how to support both groups.
I dont see the stw statement as particularly controversial. Its a starting point to build from.
The debate should be around how do we protect trans people without risking hard won womens rights. Thats the concern my friends have
What have that lot in Brighton got to do with the Leeds women?
Bruce ans cougar have left zero room for debate at all. Its either you accept instant self identification gives you immedzte access to all womesn safe spaces and servicrs or you are a transphobe
I think you need to go back and read what's been written in the last couple of pages TJ.
Debate isn't being shut down here anymore than it was on the Brexit thread. I'm asking questions that you are struggling to answer.
First I asked what the danger of transwomen in refuge shelters was. You then posted a link to a story from 8 years ago in Toronto. I then posted a detailed description of the steps needed to go through to even meet a representative from the shelter, never mind actually get into one and we concluded that simply saying, 'I'm a woman' was not going to get you into a shelter.
You then started talking about your friends who were good people and who had concerned and because they were good people their concerns were valid.
I asked what those concerns were and you said deep voices and being bigger might be triggering for other residents.
I didn't bother asking at the time because at this point I felt it was getting a bit ridiculous but you do realise that cis-women can also be big and have deep voices?
What other characteristics that might be triggering should be banned from refuges?
Anyway, everything I'm saying to you I also say to my mum who holds many of the same views as you and your friends. The only difference is she normally says, 'I'll need to have more of a think about that' rather than, 'You're shutting down the debate!!!'
Bruce. Your first answer to me was to call my friends transphobes.
Thats shutting down debate.
You refuse to accept that people gave real concerns about safe space3z for women. I gave one example of many.
I get this is close to you and you feel strongly but alienating folk is not the way to win the debate. Youneed to listen to folk a d get them onside not as far to often in this wider debate immediately resort to labbelling all with doubts as bigots which is what you have done
Im out. I am not having my friends and myself labelled as bigots. These are people who support trans rights but have real ans genuine concerns.
You're the one interpreting "transphobic" as pejorative rather than descriptive. If they're scared of trans people, do you perhaps have an alternative term that you would prefer?
Myself, Bruce and possibly others asked you why they were concerned - you know, trying to start a discussion so that we could perhaps address those concerns or at least talk about them - at which point you started inventing non-arguments and squealing that you weren't being allowed to discuss things when challenged over them.
Debate it if you like, off you go. We're listening. You've said
These are people who support trans rights but have real ans genuine concerns
and as have others, but ten pages in we're no nearer in knowing what those concerns are or whether in fact they are real and genuine or not.
Im out. I am not having my friends and myself labelled as bigots. These are people who support trans rights but have real ans genuine concerns.
If I've called you and your friends bigots then I've also called my mum a bigot. If I've done that she didn't seem too bothered.
If your friends have concerns then I would advise them to visit Ireland, France, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway or Portugal. All these countries have gender self identification so they could see how their concerns play out in the real world.
There is no debate to be had when your first recourse is name calling.
Cougar. I have outlined 3 areas of concern and all were immediately dismissed as nimaginary nonsense worth no debate. Of course transphobe is a pejprative term of abuse. Its not fear of trans people
No debate just pejorative name calling. Same as in tbe wider debate which contrary to what you say bruce goes on in the wider world as well even norway.
This shill abuse does not help you at all
Im not going to respond any more.
This is the problem with debating second hand points, one person comes in with "well this is what I heard", genuinely trying to add something to the discussion and then shut down because they themselves don't have the first hand answers.
I have no idea what Bruce wees skin is in this game but I know Cougar has just as much as most of us, ie. none. That's not to say you don't have a right to comment but if women have concerns then surely none of us have the right to just dismiss them out of hand? Lived experiences anyone?
TJ has examples that were part of the GRA that have been repeatedly ignored or dismissed. Why?
As I say my wife has those same concerns and is anything but transphobic. Concern is not fear nor should it be used to generate fear.
Cougar. I have outlined 3 areas of concern and all were immediately dismissed as nimaginary nonsense
I didn't 'dismiss' them, I explained why. More than once.
Of course transphobe is a pejprative term of abuse. Its not fear of trans people
What is it then?
What would you suggest instead?
Im not going to respond any more.
Of course you are. You're as bad as me.
I have no idea what Bruce wees skin is in this game but I know Cougar has just as much as most of us, ie. none.
You know that, do you? How?
And "most of us" is part of the problem here. I wonder how many posters have actually even met someone who is trans.
if women have concerns then surely none of us have the right to just dismiss them out of hand? Lived experiences anyone?
By your own argument, how much "skin do you have in this game" as a bloke talking about women's issues? Why is it OK for you but not for me?
And again (again again), we're not dismissing women's - or indeed anyone's - concerns, despite what a certain narrative might have us believe. We all should be listening and discussing, then perhaps acting on concerns that have merit in order to attempt to resolve those, whilst allaying fears that are actually baseless. On here we've been occasionally discussing the threat posed to women by trans people (in between a lot of whining that we're not allowed to discuss things which I find frankly bizarre) without ever discussing what that perceived threat might be.
I am, 100%, in favour of women's rights and safeguarding. I highly doubt that anyone reading would be of a dissimilar mind. But I'm less of a fan of kneejerk hysteria and throwing a whole group of people under the bus without further consideration, for their heinous crime of being a bit different. Because, we've seen this movie many times before. Alan Turing was a bit different. Sophie Lancaster was a bit different.
Those who do not learn from history...
I have no idea who they are beyond the comments on this thread.
Since it was obviously too much trouble to check out their website before you suggested they might be “a hate group”, I thought I’d post a link here to make it easy for you.
https://www.lesbianstrength.org
There’s a lovely message from Martina Navratilova half way down the page about maintaining control of your own sexual boundaries.
What are they marching for? Did they miss Pride the other week?
You can contact them via the link on their website. Drop them a line so they know to check in with you before organising anything else.
Since it was obviously too much trouble to check out their website before you suggested they might be “a hate group”, I thought I’d post a link here to make it easy for you.
Did you read it?
What are they marching for? Did they miss Pride the other week?
You can contact them via the link on their website.
So you don't know either, then?
You know that, do you? How?
By what you've said on here in the past. If I'm missing something or misunderstood something I apologise.
By your own argument, how much “skin do you have in this game” as a bloke talking about women’s issues? Why is it OK for you but not for me?
Exactly the same as you. To both questions. I'm not saying you can't talk about it but what I am taking issue with is you shutting TJ down when he presents a different viewpoint. More so as we are all (seemingly) on the same side FFS!
I’m less of a fan of kneejerk hysteria and throwing a whole group of people under the bus without further consideration, for their heinous crime of being a bit different.
As are we all but for some* on both sides of the divide the "further consideration" bit just seems to be incompatible with their POV. As TJ said people tried to have "the discussion" up here and it did not end well.
As I said, we're (well, certainly an obvious amount of us) all on the same side here so please stop attacking people who mostly agree with your POV. It doesn't do anything to help anyone. Neither does talking in absolutes.
*those who either seek simple answers to complex questions or present simple answers in furtherance of their own agendas which are incompatible with either a proper look at the question or the possible answers. It's also worth bearing in mind that whilst we tear ourselves apart and sow the seeds of our own division there are those that would take advantage of that.
@benos there is a rather problematic statement right on that front page.
Trans activists targeted our first Lesbian Strength March in 2019, following us through the streets of Leeds, accusing us of hate whilst demanding we include men in our lesbianism.
That's a red flag right there. Nobody is policing who you are attracted to or demanding that you be attracted to anybody but that is a pretty basic definition of transphobia (denying their existence).
Plenty of discussion to be had over the fundamental definition of homosexuality and the place of trans folk within that (or if they exist within their own sphere for some or all of the time) but to do that you first need to acknowledge their existence. That IMO does not.
By what you’ve said on here in the past. If I’m missing something or misunderstood something I apologise.
I honestly don't know what you're referring to. I'm not trans, if that's what you mean, nor are either of us women to the best of my knowledge. A have a few friends who are in various stages of transitioning though. I've spoken with them, as one is wont to do with friends.
what I am taking issue with is you shutting TJ down when he presents a different viewpoint.
TJ is well versed in arguing on the Internet, he of all people shouldn't be complaining of being shut down.
(For the benefit of readers who aren't already aware, I consider TJ a friend and would hope likewise.)
As TJ said people tried to have “the discussion” up here and it did not end well.
It didn't start well, is the problem. I refer you back to Rachel's thread. She was baring her soul and practically begging for a little empathy, the response was certain quarters calling her "woman-man." She left the forum after that and we're worse for it. Fast-forward to now on this thread we had... Markie I think it was stating that trans women were men FACT. Have we learned nothing?
Whatever someone's personal beliefs this is deeply offensive and it is dehumanising, these are actual real people we're talking about.
That’s a red flag right there.
It's one of several. Their parting shot on that same page for instance.
In that photo on the front page they were marching with banners like "radical lesbian" and "there's no such thing as a lesbian with a penis." What do we suppose their motives might be here, does that sound like a celebration?
I just can’t agree with you, @squirrelking. Why should they give up the words which describe their own existence,“woman” and “lesbian”, just because other people want them?
you first need to acknowledge their existence
Unspoken in that is the context. The group is clearly well aware that trans women exist. What you’re taking about when you say “existence” in the context of this group is acknowledging trans women as being *actually* women when it comes to the group’s reason for being: lesbian sexual orientation.
Plenty of discussion to be had over the fundamental definition of homosexuality
Sexual orientation is protected by law as being on the basis of sex. Please don’t try to undermine that. Being able to openly communicate your own sexuality and meet and organise politically on the basis of that should be a red line for anyone who cares about human rights. Questioning that is a red flag.
Nobody is policing who you are attracted to
Isn’t that is precisely what those protestors were doing?
Cougar thinks being ‘no-penis lesbians’ is a red flag, and it looks like that was the protestors’ issue too.
Let’s say we came up with two sets of words, one set referring to lesbians who can be or do date trans women, and another set for lesbians who are female and only date other females. Had those words existed on Saturday and been used, do you think the protestors would have left Lesbian Strength’s rally alone?
@cougar I'm not sure what relevance the topics on here have to the GRA and the manner in which it was debated. That's what I, and TJ are talking about. Neither of us, as far as I know, were anything but supportive of Rachael so again, I don't know why you brought her up in that specific context.
As for further context, yes that's what I meant in that you have no personal skin in the game (but doesn't mean you have your own personal interest in the issue).
@benos what are they being asked to give up? "woman"? Nobody is asking them to give up their womanhood but simply to acknowledge the womanhood of an even smaller minority. To deny that is to deny the existence of trans folk which is transphobic. If you accept that trans women are women then it follows that they can (but not necessarily) love other women and thus be homosexual.
Sexual orientation is protected by law as being on the basis of sex. Please don’t try to undermine that.
Written before mainstream understanding of the difference between sex and gender. What's the problem with changing for the benefit of inclusivity?
Being able to openly communicate your own sexuality and meet and organise politically on the basis of that should be a red line for anyone who cares about human rights. Questioning that is a red flag.
Quite. Its a good job nobody is calling for that then isn't it? It should be noted that anyone who cares about human rights would know that one person's rights should never come at the expense of another's. Their stance excludes trans by the very virtue of their existence.
Isn’t that is precisely what those protestors were doing?
No, they appear to have been protesting their anti-trans stance. I don't think anyone was telling them they had to be attracted to trans women.
Let’s say we came up with two sets of words, one set referring to lesbians who can be or do date trans women, and another set for lesbians who are female and only date other females.
You mean a word like, um, pansexual? Or trans-attracted?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_to_transgender_people
It's a complicated issue to be sure, but their stance closes it down before it has even started.
If you accept that trans women are women then it follows that they can (but not necessarily) love other women and thus be homosexual.
You’ve hit the nail on the head here. I can understand how each group has reason to be offended, depending on the answer.
What’s the problem with changing <the definition of homosexual> for the benefit of inclusivity?
Because sexual orientation is by definition exclusive. It the definition of heterosexual were changed to people who are attracted to one gender identity but either sex, it wouldn’t describe me any more. I’m sure I’d cope just fine, but then there’s never been a time when I could be persecuted or imprisoned for my sexual orientation. I can see why some people might feel deeply offended by that redefinition.
It’s a good job nobody is calling for that then isn’t it?
I’m actually not entirely sure.
Do you think that if LS had used different words to describe the same boundaries (female people attracted only to female people) the protesters would’ve found that acceptable? Would you think it acceptable?
Is it just their use of “men” that earns them the description “hate group” and justifies the protest?
I’m not sure this is so much about who owns the words as whether the distinctions made by the words can be tolerated.
1) Do you think that if LS had used different words to describe the same boundaries (female people attracted only to female people) the protesters would’ve found that acceptable?
2) Would you think it acceptable?
3) Is it just their use of “men” that earns them the description “hate group” and justifies the protest?
I can't really answer 1), 2) is a yes from me as it is a more nuanced answer. 3) is also a yes in my opinion and could be conditional for 1).
I agree that different perspectives need to be considered but the idea of a harmonious "community" seems to be anything but and is probably better occasionally described as a collective containing a not insignificant minority of self-beneficial alliances that have no concern for anyone but themselves, often to the detriment of those others.
You could use that same analogy to describe feminists, the left, the right and cyclists. It's by no means unique so please don't interpret it as a slur, it's just what seems to happen within disparate groups with no clear leadership (and why anarchism would be doomed to failure from the beginning).
Neither of us, as far as I know, were anything but supportive of Rachael so again, I don’t know why you brought her up in that specific context.
I didn't bring her up, I qualified a previous comment is all.
Do you think that if LS had used different words to describe the same boundaries (female people attracted only to female people) the protesters would’ve found that acceptable?
Probably not. Their narrative is that trans women aren't women, using slightly less direct language doesn't change that belief (and in less punchy on a placard). But my answers to all those questions would be guesswork at best.
For my part, not that as squirrelking says I have any skin in the game directly, it's the not language I have issues with personally. So, if you're insinuating that I'm concerned about the use of the word "man" because I'm a man then you couldn't be further from the mark. Rather I'm pissed off about the systematic bullying of a tiny minority of people who have likely already gone through hell to get as far as they have.
I know you're out of this discussion but I have been thinking a bit about what you said.
The first point I'd like to make is that there is a narrative on this thread and in the wider media I constantly see where you and others have come to your viewpoint by listening to women while I and others have come to ours by listening to trans people.
In my case this is incorrect.
Yes, I've listened to the views of trans people but mostly I've listened to the views of cis-women. It seems the women you've listened to are afraid of trans people whereas the women I've listened to are afraid of the gatekeeping that inevitably comes when you exclude trans people.
They are worried about being hauled out of bathrooms because they don't appear feminine enough. They are worried about having to 'prove' they are not trans or intersex in order to continue playing sports. Listen to the Scottish Rugby Blog podcast I posted a few days ago for an example of the concerns I hear again and again from women that led me to my position.
However, asking for evidence that fears are an actual risk is not shutting down debate. Many countries already have self identification so if the risks are genuine shouldn't there be some evidence by now?
We're already seeing the risks that come from setting up barriers that have to be policed over in the US.
We have two groups of women who are concerned by different things. Personally, I would say the risk transgender people pose is tiny compared to the risk the brave defenders of women's spaces pose.
I'll try not to disregard the views of your friends but please don't disregard the views of my friends.
@brucewee I know you were addressing TJ but thats helpful knowing where you're speaking from. Can't say I disagree either, that's a very fair position to come from. Also thanks, I've been looking for a word and 'gatekeeping' had just fallen out my head.
@cougar RE the "man" comment that wasn't how I interpreted that question.
Probably not. Their narrative is that trans women aren’t women, using slightly less direct language doesn’t change that belief (and in less punchy on a placard). But my answers to all those questions would be guesswork at best.
Ah, but, by changing the language you would be changing the narrative. As someone who openly admits to having a habit of dealing in absolutes I'm sure you can appreciate the present language is exactly that. Change the language so its no longer an absolute then you change the fundamental narrative. Presumably they don't want to do that so the question will forever remain hypothetical.
But again, that's just IMO, they've already set their stall so I can see how it's difficult to see beyond that.
I’ll try not to disregard the views of your friends but please don’t disregard the views of my friends.
Wise words.
Ah, but, by changing the language you would be changing the narrative.
Would you? I genuinely don't know.
It's academic anyway.
I think so, but only from the hypothetical POV I described. As you say, it's academic really.
However, asking for evidence that fears are an actual risk is not shutting down debate. Many countries already have self identification so if the risks are genuine shouldn’t there be some evidence by now?
Which is the point I was trying to get across. Evidence should support and encourage debate, not shut it down.
As I said before, there's a few posters on here who usually argue cogently using evidence but seem unable or unwilling to do so on this topic. On both sides.
I appreciate its a relatively new and emotive topic, data may not be widely available, but just seemed odd to me
If the number of posters complaining about being variously 'shut down' or 'cancelled' or 'not allowed to speak' had expended as much effort into having a discussion instead of whining then we'd probably have come up with a solution by now. 😁
If the number of posters complaining about being variously ‘shut down’ or ‘cancelled’ or ‘not allowed to speak’ had expended as much effort into having a discussion instead of whining then we’d probably have come up with a solution by now
The only person I’ve seen do that, is you. It may have been a ‘joke’, but you literally said ‘help I’m being cancelled’. Just to establish an actual fact. I don’t believe you are at all interested in having a genuine discussion, you seem far more concerned with putting your stuff an opinion forward as the definitive argument. You still seem to want to portray certain Feminist groups as ‘transphobic’ despite no evidence of such, and are still ignoring male violence towards women. Yours is typical of the kind of ignorant and misguided stance taken by some people regarding these issues, a stance which is toxifying the debate to the point where others with more nuanced and thoughtful viewpoints just can’t be bothered wasting their time. I get that you want your voice heard, by God you make a hell of a lot of effort in that regard, on this forum, but for the sake of others, why not just take a step back for a while and let others voices be heard for a change. Just a polite suggestion. It’s not all about you.
Regarding the issue of sexual consent; Lesbian organisations such as Lesbian Strength and Get The L out are objecting to being ‘erased’ by a tiny minority of so called trans activists who accuse Lesbians of transphobia if they say they don’t want to have sex with biological males, regardless of gender status. Because they will only consent to having sex with women, biological women. Because Lesbianism is all about female sexual attraction to other females. As a heterosexual man, I only consent to having sex with women, biological females. I do not subscribe to the view that ‘trans women are women’. That does not make me a ‘transphobe’ as some people might cry, as I am not actually erasing or denying anyone else’s humanity. I am fully supportive of Lesbians who want to protect their sexuality, and of women who want to protect their own status of womanhood and sex based rights. As are many trans people.
I think a lot of people need to actually learn the distinction between sex and gender. One is biological fact, the other is a human social construct. I have no problem with accepting someone within whatever gender they choose, be it masculine, feminine, or a more ‘fluid’ form.
I think a lot of people need to actually learn the distinction between sex and gender.
And we're back to page 2.
And this particular circle of Hell continues.
If I were you I would go back and read the thread from the start. You might actually learn something.
Personally, I'm not going to type out the same thing over and over again only for people to completely ignore it and just repeat the same half truths and outright falsehoods over and over and over again.
If you can't be bothered to even read the thread I really don't see why anyone has to respond to you.
If you can’t be bothered to even read the thread I really don’t see why anyone has to respond to you.
I’ve read through the thread. I have the same opinions and views, and knowledge of the distinction between sex and gender that I started with. Sorry if you find that unsatisfactory. If you’d like to convince me your argument is the right one, you’re kind of going about it the wrong way…
As a heterosexual man, I only consent to having sex with women, biological females. I do not subscribe to the view that ‘trans women are women’.
Women don’t need you to consent to have sex with them in order to be women.
I think you’ve missed the point, Kelvin.
The point is that you want to define people in a way that aligns with your own sexual choices. Sleep with who you want, as long as they want to sleep with you. That has nothing to do with whether someone should be misgendered.
I have the same opinions and views, and knowledge of the distinction between sex and gender that I started with.
And yet you still find the need to state your opinions as if they are fact and tell the rest of us we simply don't know these facts.
I'm never going to convince you of anything. You refuse to engage in any kind of dialogue and just continue to spout the same opinions as if they are facts with no effort to actual prove that your opinions have any basis in reality.
I'm never going to convince you because all you're here to do is troll and I don't really feel like playing this game with you anymore.
But yes, you're going to come up with another blatant falsehood soon that others are going to repeat as facts and then I'm going to get drawn in again so I guess ultimately you win.
This place ****ing sucks, sometimes.
As a heterosexual man, I only consent to having sex with women, biological females
Having been happily married for 20 years, it's not an issue I've had to face, but if I was single and dating a woman who turned out to be trans, I'm not sure I could make such an emphatic statement. You love who you love.
and are still ignoring male violence towards women.
And by the way, you are also ignoring violence by men against women.
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11690234/women-bathrooms-harassment
The only person I’ve seen do that, is you. It may have been a ‘joke’, but you literally said ‘help I’m being cancelled’.
Of course it was a joke, good grief. There was even a smiley at the end.
Multiple people have complained about being shut down.
Having been happily married for 20 years, it’s not an issue I’ve had to face, but if I was single and dating a woman who turned out to be trans, I’m not sure I could make such an emphatic statement. You love who you love
I rather think that if I met someone who was trans I would expect them to tell me at an early stage of the relationship. It’s something the other person has a right to know.