• 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.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uh huh.

"Females totally have a right to say no, and no means no, but... well... let's all get together and come up with strategies for how to overcome other people's sexual boundaries that keep them from being interested in having sex with us"

It's no different from an Incel seminar on tactics for overcoming a female's boundaries when they're not interested in having sex. Same approach. You can give lip service to "no means no"... but when the entire premise is that transgender identified males should develop strategies to overcome the objections of lesbians who are not interested in their penises, it rings a bit hollow.

Big if true. I'm sure you'll have no problem pulling quotes from these wicked seminars to show that they are teaching such toxic material.

You wouldn't just be making **** up, would you?
 
I can explain why a heterosexual man outright refusing to date black women is different from the same man refusing to date other men (although not necessarily racist).

Can you explain why a lesbian outright refusing to date transwomen is different from the same lesbian refusing to date men?

You're begging the question that this is what these conversations about the "cotton ceiling" are about.




ETA: I also think that black women complaining about this is somewhat misguided and ultimately pointless (you can't address this without addressing the core issue), but that's a different story.
 
That sums up my attitude.

Of course there will people so clueless that they don't get the problem, but the fact than an organization like Planned Parenthood would give them the time of day was just bizarre to me.

ETA: But, generally, I think ST has it right. They're fringe and not really a meaningful part of any trans rights debate. At least, they ought to be. Sadly, they are not completely a straw man, because there are people in the trans rights support arena who aren't willing to tell people with cotton ceiling issues that their issues are really ones that they kept out of the rights debate.

They're NOT fringe among lesbians. They might be fringe in the "larger debate", but this is incredibly common rhetoric among lesbians, and increasingly so among gay males as well, where transgender identified females are attempting to shame and harass gay males into having sex with their "front hole".
 
Rhetoric on how internalized biases impact attraction and the how the "conventional beauty standard" is hostile to marginalized groups is extremely common even outside of how this impacts trans people.

There's really nothing novel about discussing how the intense bigotry against trans people that is just in the air we breathe might impact how trans people fare in the dating world. Much discussion about such topics, broadly speaking, occurs in feminist circles. TERFs only get mad when trans people get included.

ETA: An extremely common example discussed is how modern beauty standards routinely are quite hostile to black women in particular. There's no shortage of articles, discussions, and workshops concerning this topic, you just may not notice them because they aren't subject to an intense reactionary backlash like the TERF meltdowns we routinely see.

Sure, sure. I can totally see how the existence of biases around standards of beauty is exactly the same as same-sex-attraction. It's totally obvious that female lesbians who are only attracted to female lesbians are just bigoted phobic ******** who need to be reeducated and examine their cis-privilege, right?
 
I don't see anything particularly objectionable in this post from Planned Parenthood Toronto, except that the name of the workshop was a fairly unfortunate choice of metaphor, reminiscent of forced entry.
 
Wait what?

Are you saying men who think lesbians should consider having sex with them have a point?

Clearly, those lesbians only don't like dick because of their biases and prejudices. :rolleyes:

Seriously, how can a gay male know for sure that they don't like vijajay unless they try them? And well, maybe that one was a bad snatch, they should really try several just to be sure.

It's not like sexual orientation is something *fixed*, right? It's totally a learned behavior...
 
No. I have edited my comment to provide more context.

Your added commentary did not make it any better. You're still essentially saying that lesbians are bigots and are only excluding penises from their dating pool because of their social biases... with the rather clear subtext that such lesbians really ought to examine their prejudices and reeducate themselves so they can be less bigoted about penises.
 
Big if true. I'm sure you'll have no problem pulling quotes from these wicked seminars to show that they are teaching such toxic material.

You wouldn't just be making **** up, would you?

The content from that seminar is not available.

On the other hand...

'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women'

Also worth taking some time to read the various articles out there written by transgender identified people who take the position that being same sex attracted and excluding transgender people from your dating pool is inherently bigoted and transphobic.

Or spend some time on Twitter or Reddit or Instagram or Tumblr or any other social media platform and read what transgender identified people have to say about it.

There's a LOT of 'well, everybody has the right to say no, but if you're saying to to a transgender person because you perceive them to be of the sex you're not attracted to, then you're a bigoted transphobe and you should examine your biases and learn to be better'
 
The content from that seminar is not available.

On the other hand...

'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women'

Also worth taking some time to read the various articles out there written by transgender identified people who take the position that being same sex attracted and excluding transgender people from your dating pool is inherently bigoted and transphobic.

Or spend some time on Twitter or Reddit or Instagram or Tumblr or any other social media platform and read what transgender identified people have to say about it.

There's a LOT of 'well, everybody has the right to say no, but if you're saying to to a transgender person because you perceive them to be of the sex you're not attracted to, then you're a bigoted transphobe and you should examine your biases and learn to be better'

So you're mad about a seminar which has content you are totally unfamiliar with? Why?

It's really interesting the BBC cites this seminar in their smear article, yet cites nothing from it that is objectionable.


Still waiting for BBC to run their "cis women want to murder us trans women" article. After all, apparently thinly sourced anecdotes is all it takes for such an article, and they are already familiar with Lily Cade.
 
Last edited:
Cited in the BBC panic piece is this article.

https://rozk.livejournal.com/445853.html

It's pretty short, can anyone point out what is so threatening about it?

It's a morass of a bunch of various issues related to inclusion, as you might expect

What I will say is that it is a huge mistake for lesbian trans women to assume that it is only their issue. For one thing, it is closely linked with the issue of 'chasing' of straight men who fetishize pre-operative and non-operative trans women, or lesbians who fetishize trans men (often in a way that entirely disrespects their identity and treats them as a different flavour of butch women). For another, one of the major manifestations of the ceiling in our culture is the assumption that to be attracted to someone trans throws your own sexual identity into question - that a lesbian who fancies a trans woman has somehow gone straight, that a straight man who lusts for a trans woman might as well buy the Glee collected soundtracks immediately, that a gay man who falls for a trans man is on the slide to suburbia. What is always going on is an assumption that the person is the current status of their bits, and the history of their bits.

The author mentions problems that trans women face in the dating sphere: fetishization that is dehumanizing, partners that are ashamed of their attraction to trans people, lesbians that fear being attracted to trans women makes them not a "real" lesbian, and so on.

Seems exactly like the complicated, intersectional thing that feminists might write about and have workshops, and much more nuanced than the absurd strawman that TERFs are fighting.

For christ's sake, straight men freaking out that they get a boner from a trans woman is such a common example of transphobia it's cliche. Obviously there's something there worth exploring, and it's not "suck my ladydick, bigot".
 
Last edited:
You're begging the question that this is what these conversations about the "cotton ceiling" are about.

What is the Cotton Ceiling?

The term “cotton ceiling” has been viewed as quite the incendiary phrase. It was coined by porn actress and trans activist Drew DeVeaux in 2015. It’s been used to refer to the tendency by cisgender lesbians to outwardly include and support trans women, but draw the line at considering ever having sex with them.

...

The point of such discussion is not, EVER, to exhort anyone to have grudging sex without enthusiastic consent. The point of such discussion is to exhort folks to examine their inherent bigotry. We change, we grow, we learn through familiarity and exposure. We can challenge and re-examine our prejudices and fixed ideas.

...

I am NOT saying anyone owes anyone a roll in the hay. I am not saying anyone is entitled to sex. If you don’t want to bed a trans woman, you do you, boo.

I’m just inviting you to sit with this a while, challenge your prejudices, and hopefully expand your thinking a smidge.

The Struggle To Find Trans Love In San Francisco

Sexual attraction is a complex phenomenon, and of course there is lots of individual variation. I certainly do not expect every cis queer woman to swoon over me. And if it were only a small percentage of cis dykes who were not interested in trans women at all, I would write it off as simply a matter of personal preference. But this not a minor problem—it is systemic; it is a predominant sentiment in queer women’s communities. And when the overwhelming majority of cis dykes date and **** cis women, but are not open to, or are even turned off by, the idea of dating or ******* trans women, how is that not transphobic? And to those cis women who claim a dyke identity, yet consider trans men, but not trans women, to be a part of your dating pool, let me ask you this: How are you not a hypocrite?

I did not write this piece to vent about my dating life. I go out on plenty of dates, and I’m having lots of super-*******-awesome sex, just not with cis women at the moment. My purpose in writing this piece is to highlight how cis dykes’ unwillingness to consider trans women as legitimate partners translates directly into a lack of community for queer-identified trans women. After all, queer women’s communities serve several purposes. They are places where we can build alliances to fight for our rights. They are places where we can find friendship and chosen family. But one of the most critical functions that queer women’s communities serve is in providing a safe space outside of the heterocentric mainstream where women can express interest, attraction, and affection toward other women. In other words, queer women’s spaces fulfill our need for sexual validation. Unless, of course, you are a trans woman. And personally, with each passing year, it becomes harder and harder for me to continue to take part in a community in which I am not seen as a legitimate object of desire.
 
So you're mad about a seminar which has content you are totally unfamiliar with? Why?

It's really interesting the BBC cites this seminar in their smear article, yet cites nothing from it that is objectionable.


Still waiting for BBC to run their "cis women want to murder us trans women" article. After all, apparently thinly sourced anecdotes is all it takes for such an article, and they are already familiar with Lily Cade.

Are you aware that Cade's comments were universally rejected by feminists? No feminists, even those you deride as "TERFs", support Cade's atrocious views.

Not a single transwoman in the US or UK has EVER been killed or even seriously harmed by female human. MALES are the ones who harm females, transgender identified males, and transgender identified females. But it's never MALES being called out for being so bigoted that transwomen are unsafe in their restrooms - no, it's females, who have done no harm, that are abused, harassed, and attacked for not wanting to throw open the doors to males without some reasonable safeguards in place.
 
Primus: "women, please let us into the spaces where your most vunerable - we promise not to rape you"

Secundus: "what will you do if we don't?"

Primus: "we'll rape you"

Only secundus is being called out and cancelled by the TRA
 
Are you aware that Cade's comments were universally rejected by feminists? No feminists, even those you deride as "TERFs", support Cade's atrocious views.

Not a single transwoman in the US or UK has EVER been killed or even seriously harmed by female human. MALES are the ones who harm females, transgender identified males, and transgender identified females. But it's never MALES being called out for being so bigoted that transwomen are unsafe in their restrooms - no, it's females, who have done no harm, that are abused, harassed, and attacked for not wanting to throw open the doors to males without some reasonable safeguards in place.

To be fair, that's kind of an artifact of the weird nature of the debate.

Safety of transwomen is actually the most frequently cited reason that transwomen ought to be allowed into female spaces. The argument is basically that a guy in a dress risks being beaten up if he uses the men's room.*

Not too long ago, that was pretty much true. Is it still today? it certainly is much less true than it used to be, but I doubt that the legitimate fear has been erased completely.


*I've given up trying to be consistent in pronoun usage. A "guy in a dress" is how he would have been perceived in the not too distant past, and would still be perceived by a lot of people today.
 
Last edited:
Are you aware that Cade's comments were universally rejected by feminists? No feminists, even those you deride as "TERFs", support Cade's atrocious views.

Just thought it was funny that in the BBC's smear piece against trans people that relied entirely on half-baked anecdotes of bad behavior of trans people, one of the people quoted turned around and straight up endorsed committing mass hate crime murders against trans people.

It's nice when the trash takes itself out, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Not seeing either author endorse coercing cis women into sex with abuse and accusations of transphobia.

Really?

The point of such discussion is to exhort folks to examine their inherent bigotry.

And when the overwhelming majority of cis dykes date and **** cis women, but are not open to, or are even turned off by, the idea of dating or ******* trans women, how is that not transphobic? And to those cis women who claim a dyke identity, yet consider trans men, but not trans women, to be a part of your dating pool, let me ask you this: How are you not a hypocrite?

Another way to phrase these would be: "Not being interested in trans people is bigoted and transphobic. You wouldn't want to be a bigot would you? Maybe you should rethink your position and be more open to dating trans people."

It's a somewhat veiled coercive argument. The intent is to shame people into changing their sexual preferences by characterizing those preferences as bad. But, of course, with some interspection, you can recognize that your preferences are wrong and just change them. It basically implies that ones sexual preference is a choice, and some choices are bad.
 
Really?





Another way to phrase these would be: "Not being interested in trans people is bigoted and transphobic. You wouldn't want to be a bigot would you? Maybe you should rethink your position and be more open to dating trans people."

It's a somewhat veiled coercive argument. The intent is to shame people into changing their sexual preferences by characterizing those preferences as bad. But, of course, with some interspection, you can recognize that your preferences are wrong and just change them. It basically implies that ones sexual preference is a choice, and some choices are bad.

"Feminist workshop lightly encourages introspection, news at 11"


Internalized misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc are not particularly controversial topics in such circles. The idea that some people would have internalized transphobia is not a huge leap. Given the hard lines that these organizations take around consent and full bodily autonomy, it's pretty safe to assume nobody is being taught to badger sex out of reluctant feminists. Maybe the TERFs and media outlets platforming them could provide a shred of evidence otherwise.

ETA: Don't you think it's bit telling that some Planned Parenthood can't hold a workshop (let's be honest, that was probably pretty sparsely attended) that discusses the particular difficulties of being trans in the dating world without TERFs spuriously claiming it's some rape training camp?

I suppose if you believe every trans woman is just some crypto-male pervert, a few organizing a meetup together to talk would be very alarming.
 
Last edited:
What of what I said do you think is hogwash?

How about you just address the real issue?

Should biological males be allowed to compete in divisions labeled, "women".
Depends on your definition of "biological male" and why you think there should be divisions labeled "women".

That's the real question. It's not about nationalism or money or rare genetic conditions or cheating with hormones and banned subpplements.
You can't just ignore those issues because whatever you propose as a solution, it will have an impact on them.

In hypothetical world, sure, you're correct. In reality, this is likely to be an extremely rare occurrence.
Not as rare as you think. Women athletes are not representative of all women, but a selection of with extraordinary athletic abilities which require specific physical characteristics.

Females who have been excluded have been excluded because they were DOPING.
No, some have been excluded for various other reasons. Here is an article detailing the history of such tests.

Maybe like allowing males to declare themselves to be "women" with no diagnosis, no treatment, and no effort at presentation required?
The Olympics now require hormone treatment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom