• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the actual topic... I found this humorous.

on lesbian transwomen and females

I feel really bad for lesbians. Being female is hard enough, and lesbians have been bullied by males for so much of history. This is just kind of over the top.

And the fact that the whole "cotton ceiling" concept was coined by a transwoman pornographer who was unhappy that nobody would cast her in lesbian porn aimed at actual lesbians (as opposed to males with lesbian fantasies), because they didn't want her penis involved in their porn... that's just frightening. And kind of rapey, to be honest.
 
Emily's Cat said:
On the actual topic... I found this humorous.

on lesbian transwomen and females

I feel really bad for lesbians. Being female is hard enough, and lesbians have been bullied by males for so much of history. This is just kind of over the top.

And the fact that the whole "cotton ceiling" concept was coined by a transwoman pornographer who was unhappy that nobody would cast her in lesbian porn aimed at actual lesbians (as opposed to males with lesbian fantasies), because they didn't want her penis involved in their porn... that's just frightening. And kind of rapey, to be honest.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think if there's a better words for that. Nope, rapey is pretty much correct.
 
I wonder if porn might actually be a good benchmark. If lesbians don't want chicks with dicks in their porn, that's probably a good indicator that transwomen aren't... entirely women.

Either that, or lesbians are wrong about how sexual attraction works and what they're attracted to.
 
I'm still thinking about the porn question. Meanwhile, some trans-activist related humor (video at link):

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed link at poster's request


In this video, a protestor spits on the police, and is promptly taken down. Her friend films the action from nearby, remonstrating with the officers all the while. The cops are pretty chill overall, telling the camera-person that she(?) can document the proceedings, but has to do it from the sidewalk. Basic safety stuff.

Anyway, the comedy occurs when the camera-person asks the officers on the scene to send in a female cop to carry out the arrest of the (presumably) female friend. One of the cops asks,

"How do you know none of those officers identifies as female?"


And the camera person just shuts down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige said:
I'm still thinking about the porn question. Meanwhile, some trans-activist related humor (video at link):

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed link at OP's request


In this video, a protestor spits on the police, and is promptly taken down. Her friend films the action from nearby, remonstrating with the officers all the while. The cops are pretty chill overall, telling the camera-person that she(?) can document the proceedings, but has to do it from the sidewalk. Basic safety stuff.

Anyway, the comedy occurs when the camera-person asks the officers on the scene to send in a female cop to carry out the arrest of the (presumably) female friend. One of the cops asks,

"How do you know none of those officers identifies as female?"


And the camera person just shuts down.
Click to expand...

Not what you Link to. Link is to a pro trip up video
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emily's Cat said:
To be fair, all of the people who have repeatedly insulted me, called me a bigot, demeaned me, and dehumanized me in this thread have one thing in common. I think it's worth noting that commonality.

Given that you're oh-so-much smarter than everyone else, can you guess what the thing is?
Click to expand...

I almost posted something similar, but it seemed like it could not go anywhere. If a natal woman's thoughts on things that directly affect them arent considered relevant, then pointing out that we are 'women' won't mean much.

Just know that people like me cringe when you have been bullied in here and I bet a lot read and agree, but do not post. Just remember that. ((hugs))

Cue: the snarky retorts.
 
After lurking for parts 3 and 4 of this thread, let me say that it has been very informative and educational, and of course (unavoidably) goes around in circles and contains some nastiness, but less so than most other threads of confrontational issues IMO. So good job, everyone! Thank you!

I found it quite jarring that Emily´s cat* got called a bigot so many times when her position is quite obviously not bigoted, but rather reasonable and sensible. There are real bigots out there, don´t misuse that word in vain, please. *(others too but Emily´s cat was the most visible)

I was honestly quite ignorant about this issue when I began to read this thread, I believe I understand both´s sides position fairly well now. There´s one thing I don´t quite get, though. It is the idea of self-identification. How does it work? For exaple, Did Zuby broke the women´s deadlift record? Care to explain, LondonJohn, for example? Please? what I mean is, how do you objectively distinguish between Zuby´s trolling and the real thing? It´s not possible, is it?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
It's shocking to me that these are almost all females who are being harassed - especially since in general, females are somewhat more supportive of trans rights than are males. The harassment seems very lopsided.
Click to expand...

'Harassment' is quite a strong term and I seriously doubt most of the things listed there come anywhere close to it. Being deplatformed is not harassment. Being complained about is not harassment.

Genuine harassment is always wrong but whining about being 'cancelled' is a completely different thing.

If people don't like what you are saying it is perfectly legitimate for them to raise the issue.
 
TomB said:
Except that the argument is not that trans people are dangerous. The argument is that males are dangerous and that self-ID creates a loophole that can be exploited to allow (non-trans) men into spaces where women currently feel safe from them. Hence the willingness to accept trans women with a diagnosis and an obvious effort at transition.


See the thing is, they aren't concerned about letting trans women into the changing rooms. They are concerned with letting males into women's changing rooms, but are willing to accept exceptions for trans-women who meet a criteria and show discretion in their behavior. (You know, the same thing you advocate.)
Click to expand...

Most people who oppose Self-ID seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it actually means.

Self-ID does not make it legal for a cisman to enter a women's changing room. Even if he says any sort of magic words.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Most people who oppose Self-ID seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it actually means.

Self-ID does not make it legal for a cisman to enter a women's changing room. Even if he says any sort of magic words.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate then. What do you mean by "Self-ID"? Is it not just saying that you identify as such and such? Is it something else?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Self-ID does not make it legal for a cisman to enter a women's changing room. Even if he says any sort of magic words.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence for this, because it is contrary to a lot of what I’ve read in this thread, like self-identifying trans women school athletes forcing girls to change in other smaller, not suitable rooms?
 
Abooga said:
After lurking for parts 3 and 4 of this thread, let me say that it has been very informative and educational, and of course (unavoidably) goes around in circles and contains some nastiness, but less so than most other threads of confrontational issues IMO. So good job, everyone! Thank you!

I found it quite jarring that Emily´s cat* got called a bigot so many times when her position is quite obviously not bigoted, but rather reasonable and sensible. There are real bigots out there, don´t misuse that word in vain, please. *(others too but Emily´s cat was the most visible)

I was honestly quite ignorant about this issue when I began to read this thread, I believe I understand both´s sides position fairly well now. There´s one thing I don´t quite get, though. It is the idea of self-identification. How does it work? For exaple, Did Zuby broke the women´s deadlift record? Care to explain, LondonJohn, for example? Please? what I mean is, how do you objectively distinguish between Zuby´s trolling and the real thing? It´s not possible, is it?
Click to expand...

Good post, and I’d also like hear answers to the questions in your last paragraph.
 
TomB said:
Theoretically correct, but not on a practical basis.

The current system is informally self-ID, but with a social understanding of who can be there. If a male goes into the woman's locker room, he can be asked to or required to leave by staff. No one is formally given a protected "right" to be there.

Formalizing self-ID takes this ability away. If the staff approaches someone who they believe is in the wrong space, that person can simply say: I identify as______________ and there is little the staff can do without risking legal action for discrimination. In fact merely approaching a person to investigate puts one at risk.

If you put in a provision about documentation, it doesn't mean that one must show ID to get in. It just means that staff retains their judgment, but that their judgement can be overridden by what is indicated on their driver's license or other ID.
Click to expand...

This appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. In the former case the person can still say they identify as ____ and the risk still exists that a person pursuing the issue can be found to be discriminating. Of course these discussions are complicated by the fact that laws can vary from place to place but in places where it is already illegal to discriminate against someone for being trans, Self-ID does not change anything.
 
d4m10n said:
Is there any way for the young woman in question to tell situations #2 & #3 apart without striking up a conversation?
Click to expand...

Is there anyway to tell any of them apart without making assumptions that may not be true?

There are loads of cis-women who look what might be called quite 'manly'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom