Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

Across the board, organizations that have historically been focused on gay and lesbian rights have been shifted from "LGB" to "LGBTQ+", frequently without any input from the LGB people.

I actually described how this process played out upthread at #2,956.

At the end of the day, the TQ+ has nothing at all to do with LGB.

It's not up to me to say which special interest groups ally with other special interest groups.

It's "force teamed" because the TQ advocates almost always couch any opposition to their self-id agenda as being "anti-LGBTQ" even though the majority of opponents to males in female spaces are actually very supportive of LGB.

If someone incorrectly assumes that opposition to trans or queer rights (whatever those are) implies opposition to every other letter, that's on them, and it's perfectly ordinary sloppy coalitional thinking. No one is being forced to team up with anyone else here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, how about I put it another way.

If I wrote something like, "Oh look, here's another one of the gays that is interested in children. Has anyone noticed a pattern? Burn the lot of them!" and posted the same three articles, would you think that was fair enough? If I then found a website (and they surely exist) that collates examples of gay men being interested in boys, and also, for good measure a list of "approved-by-liberals" movies and books that appeared to do the same, would that be kosher?

*IF* those same gay pedos had been actively engaged in efforts to lower or remove the age of consent and in chemically locking prepubertal children into childlike bodies... then yes, I think it would be an appropriate response.

Look, I get that you want everyone to play nice. But what you're missing is the actual policies being advocated and pushed for, and the narrative being promoted.

Pretty much nobody in this thread actually cares how people dress. If males want to wear flowy dresses, go for it. If females want to wear flannel and steel-toed boots, more power to them. If males want to wear lipstick and eyeshadow and jewelry... well, Prince and Kiss and any number of hair bands already did that and we were all unphased and unconcerned. Hell, most of us were just fine with Eddie Izzard back when they were being an open transvestite - because we don't care about the fashion and expression of it.

What we do object to is males infiltrating female spaces and services, and overriding female boundaries and rights in the process. What we do object to is the medicalization of children that damages their healthy bodies and permanently harms them, often resulting in sterility and an inability to experience sexual pleasure. Those are by far the biggest objections to transgender advocacy.

And those are the items on which the advocates are dead-set and unwilling to even talk about. Those are the items that result in us being harassed and threatened, and which result in females losing their jobs, being forced to change in front of males against their will, being forced to share prison cells with intact males, parents losing custody of their children etc.

After over a decade of this, many of us have ended up concluding that misogyny is the objective for half of the advocacy, and pedophilia is the objective for the other. We know it's not every single trans person or advocate... but when we can't even get reasonable compromises like a third bathroom or shower being made available because that doesn't affirm their feelings, our patience runs out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The arguments against self-ID in sports, women's prisons and toilets are good, and worth making. The argument that LGBT associations necessarily signal pedophilia, not so much.

@d4m10n - This right here is the force-teaming. Notice that the discussion is about the T and their association with pedophiles, as evidenced by the concerted effort to continue sterilizing children and locking them into pre-pubescent bodies while being chronologically adults as well as frequently arguing for reduction or removal of age of consent laws. The entire discussion is about T, not at all about LGB.

But here, angrysoba has lumped them all together, which gives the false impression that people are assuming that someone being gay or lesbian raises flags regarding pedophilia. At no point in this discussion has there been any suggestion whatsoever that LGB is associated with pedophilia - none at all. But by tacking them on to the T, it allows angrysoba to paint the picture that Rolfe and I and smartcooky and several others are maligning gay people.

That is EXACTLY what force-teaming is all about.

It's not about individual people being forced to ally with TRA orgs - it's about creating the entirely false narrative in the minds of readers and average people that the T is indivisible from the LGB, and that any opposition to the T must necessarily be opposition to the LGB.

 

[angrysoba]

@d4m10n -
This right here is the force-teaming. Notice that the discussion is about the T and their association with pedophiles,as evidenced by the concerted effort to continue sterilizing children and locking them into pre-pubescent bodies while being chronologically adults as well as frequently arguing for reduction or removal of age of consent laws. The entire discussion is about T, not at all about LGB.

But here, angrysoba has lumped them all together, which gives the false impression that people are assuming that someone being gay or lesbian raises flags regarding pedophilia. At no point in this discussion has there been any suggestion whatsoever that LGB is associated with pedophilia - none at all. But by tacking them on to the T, it allows angrysoba to paint the picture that Rolfe and I and smartcooky and several others are maligning gay people.

That is EXACTLY what force-teaming is all about.

It's not about individual people being forced to ally with TRA orgs - it's about creating the entirely false narrative in the minds of readers and average people that the T is indivisible from the LGB, and that any opposition to the T must necessarily be opposition to the LGB.

I did no such thing.

You and Rolfe are the ones who have blithely lumped them all together. That is what I was objecting to.

The people involved were not trans, but three gay men. Rolfe says, "burn the lot of them", I say, "who?" and you say "pedophiles".

This is the kind of muddying of the waters that I object to.

Either it's utterly amazing you don't see it or extreme chutzpah in trying to pass the blame to me.

 

[angrysoba]

In that very Spiked article it says....

Predators are hiding behind Pride​

LGBT groups are blind to the wrong ’uns in their midst.

Are you promoting articles that "force-team"? Are you force-teaming?

 

[smartcooky]

@d4m10n - This right here is the force-teaming. Notice that the discussion is about the T and their association with pedophiles, as evidenced by the concerted effort to continue sterilizing children and locking them into pre-pubescent bodies while being chronologically adults as well as frequently arguing for reduction or removal of age of consent laws. The entire discussion is about T, not at all about LGB.

But here, angrysoba has lumped them all together, which gives the false impression that people are assuming that someone being gay or lesbian raises flags regarding pedophilia. At no point in this discussion has there been any suggestion whatsoever that LGB is associated with pedophilia - none at all. But by tacking them on to the T, it allows angrysoba to paint the picture that Rolfe and I and smartcooky and several others are maligning gay people.

That is EXACTLY what force-teaming is all about.

It's not about individual people being forced to ally with TRA orgs - it's about creating the entirely false narrative in the minds of readers and average people that the T is indivisible from the LGB, and that any opposition to the T must necessarily be opposition to the LGB.

Indeed.

As I have spoken about before in this thread, I have a very good friend who is a male riding instructor. He is gay, and he is sick to death of the crap he gets from being constantly associated with the "T" in LGBT. He tells me this is pretty much the feeling of everyone he knows in his community. They want the "T" out.

 

[angrysoba]

Indeed.

As I have spoken about before in this thread, I have a very good friend who is a male riding instructor. He is gay, and he is sick to death of the crap he gets from being constantly associated with the "T" in LGBT. He tells me this is pretty much the feeling of everyone he knows in his community. They want the "T" out.

But what about the quiz team transwoman? What does she say?

 

[Rolfe]

Whenever anyone tries to set up an organisation just for LGB people without the rest of the alphabet soup, they're accused of transphobia. The LGB Alliance was reported to the charity commission as a hate group because they weren't trans-inclusive and lost funding because of it. "No LGB without the T!" is the mantra. T must be included in everything. That's the forced teaming. It seems to be quite OK to set up trans-only groups though. Nobody objects to these or reports them for homophobia.

 

[d4m10n]

The arguments against self-ID in sports, women's prisons and toilets are good, and worth making. The argument that LGBT associations necessarily signal pedophilia, not so much.

This right here is the force-teaming.

Who exerted force against whom? Perhaps threats of force? More subtle coercion?

Notice that the discussion is about the T and their association with pedophiles, as evidenced by the concerted effort to continue sterilizing children and locking them into pre-pubescent bodies while being chronologically adults as well as frequently arguing for reduction or removal of age of consent laws. The entire discussion is about T, not at all about LGB.

Not the discussion in the Spiked article, which is a general smear job against Pride in Surrey on account of homosexual men having homosexual relations with homosexual boys. You are trying to make it about "the T and their association with pedophiles" but the article is not doing what you claim it is, since it provides no evidence that the perps were focused on trans activism in particular rather than the umbrella mission of destigmatizing people with marginalized sexual identities.

But here, angrysoba has lumped them all together, which gives the false impression that people are assuming that someone being gay or lesbian raises flags regarding pedophilia. At no point in this discussion has there been any suggestion whatsoever that LGB is associated with pedophilia - none at all.

Did you even read the Spiked article? It's about gay men meeting gay boys on Grindr, complete with callbacks to the PIE which tried to mainstream that sort of thing back in the day. If you snipped all the bits about trans-activism out of the article if would hang together better, not worse, since they don't bring up "the T and their association with pedophiles" as you do.

But by tacking them on to the T, it allows angrysoba to paint the picture that Rolfe and I and smartcooky and several others are maligning gay people.

If you try to paint groups like Pride in Surrey as promoting pedophilia, you run the risk of painting everyone in the group.

That is EXACTLY what force-teaming is all about. It's not about individual people being forced to ally with TRA orgs - it's about creating the entirely false narrative in the minds of readers and average people that the T is indivisible from the LGB, and that any opposition to the T must necessarily be opposition to the LGB.

Again, it's none my business telling activists whom they should choose as allies, and it's probably none of yours either.

 

[d4m10n]

Whenever anyone tries to set up an organisation just for LGB people without the rest of the alphabet soup, they're accused of transphobia. The LGB Alliance was reported to the charity commission as a hate group because they weren't trans-inclusive and lost funding because of it. "No LGB without the T!" is the mantra. T must be included in everything. That's the forced teaming.

Falsely reporting someone as a hate group does strike me as coercive, but then UK hate speech laws are inherently coercive.

Maybe LGB groups should set up shop on this side of the pond, where we don't think force is a good answer to speech.

ETA: We are also officially transphobic these days. ​

 

[d4m10n]

What is an "actual transwoman"? And how do we tell who is and who is not one?

If we're talking about criminal process, the laws/regs could be written narrowly to cover individuals who've physically transitioned.

 

[d4m10n]

One last comment about this forced-teaming thing and then I'll step away and go do spring break stuff.

In the NYT article linked at #3,070 we have this:

Many mental health providers at the V.A. have had concerns about their ability to continue providing adequate care to transgender patients after they were ordered to remove rainbow flags and lanyards, pamphlets describing services offered to L.G.B.T.Q.+ veterans, and wall posters that read “All are welcome here” and “We serve all who have served.”​

Is this "forced-teaming" by the Trump Administration to remove LGB symbols and services in an effort to signal their lack of support for TQ?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I did no such thing.

You and Rolfe are the ones who have blithely lumped them all together. That is what I was objecting to.

The people involved were not trans, but three gay men. Rolfe says, "burn the lot of them", I say, "who?" and you say "pedophiles".

This is the kind of muddying of the waters that I object to.

Either it's utterly amazing you don't see it or extreme chutzpah in trying to pass the blame to me.

All three of them were active campaigners for trans rights, and strong supporters of "gender affirming medicine" for minors.

You might feel just fine deflecting and saying "No, they're gay, not trans so no biggie". What I'm saying is that they are ACTIVISTS FOR TRANS RIGHTS WITH A FOCUS ON MEDICALIZING MINORS IN A WAY THAT LOCKS THEM INTO CHILD-LIKE BODIES.

They're trans-activists.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In that very Spiked article it says....



Are you promoting articles that "force-team"? Are you force-teaming?

Yes, that article is force-teaming. It's virtually impossible to find any reporting that doesn't force team LGB with T.

In fact, any media or organization that makes a distinction between LGB and T gets smeared as being transphobic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If we're talking about criminal process, the laws/regs could be written narrowly to cover individuals who've physically transitioned.

How much physical transition?

And again... how do we - actual real life females - tell which are "real transgender people" and which are not?

 

[angrysoba]

All three of them were active campaigners for trans rights, and strong supporters of "gender affirming medicine" for minors.

You might feel just fine deflecting and saying "No, they're gay, not trans so no biggie". What I'm saying is that they are ACTIVISTS FOR TRANS RIGHTS WITH A FOCUS ON MEDICALIZING MINORS IN A WAY THAT LOCKS THEM INTO CHILD-LIKE BODIES.

They're trans-activists.

It always looks bad to put things people didn’t say in quotation marks as though they said them. It makes your argument look weak.

But now it looks as though YOU are making claims that go beyond the evidence.

Were these men actually transing their victims as you seem to be claiming here or were they raping minors? It seems the latter which is very much a biggie. You don’t need to add a layer of force-teamed trans activism on top of it to make it worse. Rape of minors is despicable in and of itself and you are tying yourself up in knots to make it seem as though their trans activism was the actual sin.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, that article is force-teaming. It's virtually impossible to find any reporting that doesn't force team LGB with T.

In fact, any media or organization that makes a distinction between LGB and T gets smeared as being transphobic.

Wait… this makes absolutely no sense at all.

You think a Spiked writer decided to refer to these guys using the LGBT tag to avoid being seen as transphobic?

How would that work? Do you think the writer first wrote about how two gay men were raping minors and referring to them as LGB but then the editor told them to add a T and refer to the paedophiles as trans activists to prevent Spiked from being seen as transphobic?

Does that make even the slightest bit of sense to you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It always looks bad to put things people didn’t say in quotation marks as though they said them. It makes your argument look weak.

But now it looks as though YOU are making claims that go beyond the evidence.

Were these men actually transing their victims as you seem to be claiming here or were they raping minors? It seems the latter which is very much a biggie. You don’t need to add a layer of force-teamed trans activism on top of it to make it worse. Rape of minors is despicable in and of itself and you are tying yourself up in knots to make it seem as though their trans activism was the actual sin.

These are all people who were actively involved in advocating for chemical and surgical intervention in children. Those interventions are a fundamental part of "gender affirming care" for minors - something they ALL strongly supported and worked toward. Those interventions have the effect of interrupting pubertal development, and locking children into sub-adult bodies.

So, we have a collection of people who actively advocate for transgender rights, including gender affirming interventions for minors that keep children locked into being children.

Because you seem to be incapable of thinking about the entirety of the issue all together... PEDOPHILES HAVE HOPPED ON TO TRANSGENDER ACTIVISM AND ARE USING IT TO FEED THEIR OWN SICK PERVERSIONS AND TO GAIN EASIER ACCESS TO KIDS THAT THEY CAN RAPE.

 

[d4m10n]

How much physical transition?

We were talking about criminal statistics, right? When an individual is brought into custody, the medical intake forms should record their prescriptions (e.g. cross-sex hormones) and any special medical needs (e.g. dialation).

 

[Emily's Cat]

We were talking about criminal statistics, right? When an individual is brought into custody, the medical intake forms should record their prescriptions (e.g. cross-sex hormones) and any special medical needs (e.g. dialation).

That's not an answer to the question I was asking.

How much physical transition do you deem makes a male person a "real transwoman"?