• 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.
Elliot Page won the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress in 2007; another tragic example of men taking opportunities away from women.
 
d4m10n said:
Elliot Page won the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Actress in 2007; another tragic example of men taking opportunities away from women.
Click to expand...

Pretty shocking stuff.

This is the list of shame and infamy. Each one a case of Elliot cold heartedly using his simmering caldron of toxic masculinity to tear award after award out of the trembling hands of struggling young actresses, who one by one were banished into obscurity and destitution and probably having to go on the game, in desperate attempt to survive the coming winter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Elliot_Page
 
d4m10n said:
I'd've thought that "lesbians" were female-bodied humans attracted to other female-bodied humans, but WTF do I know? Language is usage, and I'm decades out from the dating game.
Click to expand...

In the context of this thread, it usually means male bodied people who want to use the girls' locker room because they identify as women, but who are sexually attracted to females.
 
Earthborn said:
Which is why they are only prescribed to kids who seem to have a persistent transgender identity. The blockers give them more to time to think about what other treatments they will seek, but this stuff is only prescribed to them when it seems pretty clear what choice they are going to make.
Click to expand...

The UK court judgement this week (quoted up thread) fairly shredded that line of argument.

The defendant argues that PBs give the child “time to think”, that is, to decide whether or not to proceed to cross-sex hormones or to revert to development in the natal sex. But the use of puberty blockers is not itself a neutral process by which time stands still for the child on PBs, whether physically or psychologically. PBs prevent the child going through puberty in the normal biological process. As a minimum it seems to us that this means that the child is not undergoing the physical and consequential psychological changes which would contribute to the understanding of a person’s identity. There is an argument that for some children at least, this may confirm the child’s chosen gender identity at the time they begin the use of puberty blockers and to that extent, confirm their GD and increase the likelihood of some children moving on to cross-sex hormones. Indeed, the statistical correlation between the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones supports the case that it is appropriate to view PBs as a stepping stone to cross-sex hormones.

It follows that to achieve Gillick competence the child or young person would have to understand not simply the implications of taking PBs but those of progressing to crosssex hormones. The relevant information therefore that a child would have to understand, retain and weigh up in order to have the requisite competence in relation to PBs, would be as follows:
(i) the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms;
(ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking PBs go on to CSH and therefore that s/he is on a pathway to much greater medical interventions;
(iii) the relationship between taking CSH and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery;
(iv) the fact that CSH may well lead to a loss of fertility;
(v) the impact of CSH on sexual function;
(vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships;
(vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking PBs; and
(viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
For those worried about Elliot Page's love life, he's been married to a woman called Emma Portner for 2 years. As soon as he released his statement, she released a supportive one. I imagine they had at least one conversation on the subject before he came out as trans. They're probably fine.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
For those worried about Elliot Page's love life, he's been married to a woman called Emma Portner for 2 years. As soon as he released his statement, she released a supportive one. I imagine they had at least one conversation on the subject before he came out as trans. They're probably fine.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm worried or even really care, but they are probably not fine. That may have nothing to do with Page's gender status. Precious few Hollywood relationships are fine. They're mostly messed up. I find it unlikely Page is among the few who can make it work.

Although given that lesbian marriages have higher divorce rates than straight (or gay male) marriages, maybe this will help them. But probably not enough, because again, Hollywood.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Serious question here.

Let's take two groups:
1) women on social media who express cruel opinions against transgender ideology
2) transgender people on social media who express cruel opinions against women

Why is it that group #1 gets treated as if they're widely representative and a serious threat to trans-people, whereas group #2 gets treated as if they're total outliers who aren't even remotely representative and don't present any threat to women at all?
Click to expand...

It becomes a question of prominence and representation of a wider community. For any given fringe idea, one can find a twitter moron that is willing to advocate it. Nutpicking isn't a useful exercise.

There's a big difference between some Twitter nobody saying something and prominent thinkers of a movement saying something.

It's pretty clear what the reactionary right feels about trans issues, there's no shortage of articles in all the popular right wing outlets insisting that trans people are attention seeking, mentally ill, and/or perverts. Pick any of the popular right wing rags and you'll find it, so I feel comfortable generalizing here.

I have to admit that I'm not as familiar with who's who in the TERF world or what counts as a significant voice for them. It's a fringe view with a small, vocal following that I admit I don't really follow that closely. The UK seems to be a stronghold for transphobes and I'm also not too familiar with UK press or academic circles. The person I shared in my post is someone that seems to have got some traction online and claims to be an author, but I have no idea how seriously she is taken in the world of TERFs.

Who would you recommend as being more representative of the TERF viewpoint? I'm honestly open to suggestion here.
 
Puppycow said:
That's a real disease, not a personal lifestyle choice.

ETA: are you suggesting that being transgender is a disease like uterine cancer?
Click to expand...

Ah so all pregnacy costs should not be covered by insurance. Children are a lifestyle choice after all and I refuse to subsidize other peoples lifestyle choices.

And of course breasts are in no way a right, that is why no insurance should cover breast reconstruction after breast cancer or breast reduction.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Perhaps you should look to organizational voices?

e.g.

https://twitter.com/cawsbar/

https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen

https://twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK
Click to expand...

Thanks, this is one that was retweeted by the cawsbar:

I will never not be gobsmacked at how so many people think a lesbian woman saying she's actually a man is something to be celebrated. Are we in Iran?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/jackappleby/status/1334234519428345856


I'm not seeing any comment from the other two, which seemed more narrowly focused on UK legal fights.

Seems that treating Elliot Page as a "lost lesbian" is somewhat common among the TERF community.
 
d4m10n said:
Is it wrong to say she was a lesbian before?
Click to expand...

No, but I imagine most of these orgs would not be amenable to complaints that someone coming out as gay as a loss for the straight community or a sign of barbarity. I trust you understand that the invocation of Iran is meant to be derogatory. Do you disagree?

It's quite clear from these complaints that they see trans identity as illegitimate, which is not at all surprising given they are trans exclusionists.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
No, but I imagine most of these orgs would not be amenable to complaints that someone coming out as gay as a loss for the straight community or a sign of barbarity.
Click to expand...
Since the "straight community" hasn't historically been oppressed and marginalized for their sexuality, it would be a bit odd for them to whinge about losing a socially prominent member from among their ranks.

SuburbanTurkey said:
I trust you understand that the invocation of Iran is meant to be derogatory there.
Click to expand...
I trust you understand there is more to it than that.
 
d4m10n said:
Since the "straight community" hasn't historically been oppressed and marginalized for their sexuality, it would be a bit odd for them to whinge about losing a socially prominent member from among their ranks.
Click to expand...

Got it so if it is say a black man coming out as gay, criticism from the black community is not homophobic because they are a traditionally marginalized community.
 
d4m10n said:
Since the "straight community" hasn't historically been oppressed and marginalized for their sexuality, it would be a bit odd for them to whinge about losing a socially prominent member from among their ranks.

I trust you understand there is more to it than that.
Click to expand...

If it was just a comment moaning the loss of a prominent lesbian woman, there would be plausible deniability for trans animus. But TERFs cant resist the opportunity to smear trans identity. Don't be willfully obtuse, we all know what the invocation of Iran is meant here.

Sure, of course there's more to that. That's why it's being expressed by TERFs. They see this as another lesbian woman bowing to the pressures of patriarchy and succumbing to demands to defeminize herself. I suppose this makes sense to TERFs who deny the legitimacy of trans identity and see it as a direct assault on real queer women.

That's my point generally. The moaning from TERFs is rooted in animus towards trans people generally. Elliot Page did nothing other than exist as trans to earn this kind of response from them, which is ironically not dissimilar to the response from the reactionary right that is generally opposed to the entire LGBT community. Only in barbaric corners of the world, like Iran, is the tolerance of trans people celebrated. I know this is idiotic, but TERFs gonna TERF.

TERFs and reactionary conservatives, the iconic duo at it again.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Only in barbaric corners of the world, like Iran, is the tolerance of trans people celebrated.
Click to expand...

I think what the tweet in question was getting at was that the Iranian regime actively pressures lesbians and gays to become trans instead. It's a silly and facile comparison, unless there is some evidence that well known lesbians face such pressures in the free nations of the west.
 
d4m10n said:
I think what the tweet in question was getting at was that the Iranian regime actively pressures lesbians and gays to become trans instead. It's a silly and facile comparison, unless there is some evidence that well known lesbians face such pressures in the free nations of the west.
Click to expand...

Interesting, that does clarify this insult quite a bit.

You do understand that this is meant as an insult, right? I mean, comparing someone transitioning of their own free will to gay people who do so in fear of being put to death is not meant to be flattering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom