Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Agatha]

16 minute youtube vid. Like a lot of posters, I don't waste a lot of time watching interminable yt vids because they invariably are a waste of time, unless I have reason to believe there is a payoff. The summation seems to be why trans groups have been locking horns with LGB groups, which arguments we are all long aware of. Is there anything else of content in this, and if so, can you extract the one or two sentences of it and save us the other wasted 15 1/2 minutes of viewing time?

It relates to the statement put out by Stroud Pride that "LGB views" are not welcome at their Pride event, and points out that by excluding LGB voices from Pride - as happened in Cardiff where lesbians were excluded for carrying banners that stated that lesbians don't have sex with penises - it becomes a homophobic festival for straight men.

The interviewee points out that sex and gender are different, and that LGB relates to sexual orientation, not gender identity. He touches on the current BBC gay dating show "I Kissed a Boy" which included a trans-identifying female and suggests that this is akin to conversion therapy, males in lesbian dating apps, the cotton ceiling (coercing lesbians to sleep with men who say they are women) and the homophobia inherent in the TQ+ movement (and gives several examples of this). He calls this schism between LGB and TQ+ "the dark homophobic heart of the genderist movement".

He goes on to discuss straight people identifying as "queer", the Progress Pride flag and says he considers it anti LGB, males in women's prisons, the way Stonewall has dropped gay rights activism in favour of trans rights activism and the idea of gender identity which he explains can't be defined. He says that he has been attacked by a tiny minority of GC feminists for being gay (I have not seen this, I would call it out if I did, and think it's appalling that it happens). He briefly touches on what might be under the + umbrella. And then he plugs his new book.

 

[Ziggurat]

He briefly touches on what might be under the + umbrella.

Is it the MAPs, aka the pedophiles?

 

[Thermal]

It relates to the statement put out by Stroud Pride that "LGB views" are not welcome at their Pride event, and points out that by excluding LGB voices from Pride - as happened in Cardiff where lesbians were excluded for carrying banners that stated that lesbians don't have sex with penises - it becomes a homophobic festival for straight men.

The interviewee points out that sex and gender are different, and that LGB relates to sexual orientation, not gender identity. He touches on the current BBC gay dating show "I Kissed a Boy" which included a trans-identifying female and suggests that this is akin to conversion therapy, males in lesbian dating apps, the cotton ceiling (coercing lesbians to sleep with men who say they are women) and the homophobia inherent in the TQ+ movement (and gives several examples of this). He calls this schism between LGB and TQ+ "the dark homophobic heart of the genderist movement".

He goes on to discuss straight people identifying as "queer", the Progress Pride flag and says he considers it anti LGB, males in women's prisons, the way Stonewall has dropped gay rights activism in favour of trans rights activism and the idea of gender identity which he explains can't be defined. He says that he has been attacked by a tiny minority of GC feminists for being gay (I have not seen this, I would call it out if I did, and think it's appalling that it happens). He briefly touches on what might be under the + umbrella. And then he plugs his new book.

Thanks a bunch for the summation.

 

[Thermal]

"Why can't you all be nice, and agree with me" addressed to the women in this thread.

First off, the majority of people I am consistently arguing with are males.

Second, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, nor would I ever expect them to, having interacted for a while. But bad arguments are bad arguments. Fig leaves are fig leaves.

 

[Thermal]

Since you're okay with using Nazis as clarifying analogies, let's assume that a group of Nazis had some demographic group they didn't like. Let's just pretend, for the sake of an example, that that's Jews.

Let's say a poster here, let's call her "Rolfe," posted an example of something objectionable a Nazi claiming to represent the Nazi cause had done. For instance, just for arguments sake, pulling a fire alarm at a synagogue during a routine service because (as they openly stated) they couldn't stand the thought of Jews getting away with talking among themselves about Jewish things. And then the police excusing that act because, well, you just have to understand that Nazis don't like Jews, didn't'cha know? So naturally they're going to "organize a protest" by singlehandedly pulling a fire alarm.

And let's say your response to that was dismissive and disdainful, something along the lines of "Whelp, I'm convinced. Dangerous sieg heiling Krauts, the lot of them. The police apparently are, too. And theater management. Krauts, the lot. Is there anyone left in the UK excepting Rolfe who is not a Kraut?"

And now you're explaining to us that, no you don't have any beef with Jews yourself, and you agree that pulling the fire alarm was a dick move and the perp should have been arrested (despite your initial dismissive response saying nothing of the sort), but you object that we seem to be failing to understand that Nazis find Jews doing Jewish things objectionable and that's very important to keep in mind here.

And by the way, why are we overlooking that those particular Jews publicly admitted in a sugar-coated public policy statement that while all are welcome at most of their events, only Jews can be rabbis?

Hm. I see you point. I am apparently a woman hater in your story. Good to know.

Eta: and again, my criticism.was related to Rolfe stating that it was "another juicy cherry", which she had been using to demonstrate perversion and violence. This was a jerk being a jerk, which pretty much any activist does. It is not specific or even related to the portrayal being foisted.

 

[smartcooky]

16 minute youtube vid. Like a lot of posters, I don't waste a lot of time watching interminable yt vids because they invariably are a waste of time, unless I have reason to believe there is a payoff. The summation seems to be why trans groups have been locking horns with LGB groups, which arguments we are all long aware of. Is there anything else of content in this, and if so, can you extract the one or two sentences of it and save us the other wasted 15 1/2 minutes of viewing time?

If you find a 16 minute video 'interminable' then you have a problem with attention span.

 

[Thermal]

I think Thermal is saying it makes them Nazis in their little world, and that we should be more understanding and tolerant of that viewpoint. We should find that viewpoint relatable.

No. I'm saying that you should find it relatable feel justified in doing extreme things when you believe your adversary is dead in the wrong.

But I shouldn't have used nazis, conceded. This activist was not in the moral right, nor were the women in the moral wrong. They had ideological differences on an unrelated subject to the meeting, and that was not the place to do battle. Plus the activist was just a twat. People can get mowed down evacuating what they believe is a burning building. That ◊◊◊◊ is endangering everyone.

 

[smartcooky]

First off, the majority of people I am consistently arguing with are males.

It might be the males here you are arguing with, but much of your disdainful, snarky and snide remarks are directed at the women here.

 

[Thermal]

If you find a 16 minute video 'interminable' then you have a problem with attention span.

Wasted time is wasted time, and posters in this forum love to waste each other's time demanding others watch videos, when the video is usually pretty empty. It's a personal policy that saved me many hours of watching stupid videos that deliver nothing.

 

[smartcooky]

Hm. I see you point. I am apparently a woman hater in your story. Good to know.

Eta: and again, my criticism.was related to Rolfe stating that it was "another juicy cherry", which she had been using to demonstrate perversion and violence. This was a jerk being a jerk, which pretty much any activist does. It is not specific or even related to the portrayal being foisted.

But we are not discussion just any activists are we?

 

[Thermal]

But we are not discussion just any activists are we?

Might as well have been, for all the relevance it had.

Eta: Rolfe clutches at any straw she can find. It doesn't matter to her if it is factually untrue, logically screwball, or otherwise a teeny tiny fig leaf to cover her stated position: they are all cross dressing pervs.

 

[smartcooky]

Wasted time is wasted time, and posters in this forum love to waste each other's time demanding others watch videos, when the video is usually pretty empty. It's a personal policy that saved me many hours of watching stupid videos that deliver nothing.

No demands were made.
The video wasn't empty
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to know the subject you are discussing. You clearly don't as evidenced by your continued bevy of contradictory statements. You were presented with an opportunity to learn something... you spurned it. Horses to water and all that.

 

[Thermal]

No demands were made.
The video wasn't empty
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to know the subject you are discussing. You clearly don't as evidenced by your continued bevy of contradictory statements. You were presented with an opportunity to learn something... you spurned it. Horses to water and all that.

Based on Agathas summation, it was well-trodden ground, nothing new or original. I got me another 16 minutes of leisure time.

ETA: And btw, you and others think my statements are contradictory because you are knee jerking to keywords and flying off with canned replies instead of reading for comprehension. Not my responsibility.

 

[Agatha]

I did a bit of research into Doyle's claim he'd been attacked [on twitter] for being gay by "GC feminists"; it appears that this may not be entirely accurate. It's possible that tweets have been deleted, or I may have missed some. But it's unproven as far as I can see, and his claim has been challenged by others.

Written by a lawyer: https://www.theretailbulletin.com/r...oms-for-their-customers-and-staff-19-05-2025/

 

[smartcooky]

First off, the majority of people I am consistently arguing with are males.

It might be the males here you are arguing with, but much of your disdainful, snarky and snide remarks are directed at the women here.

Eta: Rolfe clutches at any straw she can find. It doesn't matter to her if it is factually untrue, logically screwball, or otherwise a teeny tiny fig leaf to cover her stated position: they are all cross dressing pervs.

I rest my case.

 

[smartcooky]

I did a bit of research into Doyle's claim he'd been attacked [on twitter] for being gay by "GC feminists"; it appears that this may not be entirely accurate. It's possible that tweets have been deleted, or I may have missed some. But it's unproven as far as I can see, and his claim has been challenged by others.

Written by a lawyer: https://www.theretailbulletin.com/r...oms-for-their-customers-and-staff-19-05-2025/

To be fair, he said it was a very small subset of GC Feminists. There are homophobes in all walks of life - I wouldn't find it surprising if GC Feminists were no exception.

 

[Thermal]

I rest my case.

If your case was that Rolfe's arguments (not Rolfe as a woman or poster) are terrible, than your case can indeed rest.

But we both know you reacted to keywords rather than considering that, don't we?

 

[Thermal]

@Thermal 's position seems to be that it's understandable that a man will get angry and even lash out at women who won't let him hang out with them. Not excusable, mind you! I'm not setting up a strawman, here. But understandable.

No actually I don't. It's not understandable to get angry about someone who doesn't want to hang out with you, except in some flaky sociopathic sense. It *is* reasonable to get angry about someone/ some group who says "we don't take to your kind here, hit the road".

I'm sure if pressed Thermal would concede that Not All Men. Just a certain subset of men. Which is fine. It's that subset we're talking about anyway. The subset that regards male-exclusionary women as akin to Nazis, becomes emotionally distraught at the idea of them, and lashes out with acts of harassment and vandalism when he sees them gathering without him.

I don't see any of that response, from that subset of men, as understandable at all. By which I mean, it is not the response of a reasonable person. It's not reasonable to think of women as nazis, if they don't want males foisted on them in their female spaces and gatherings. It's not reasonable to become angry at such women and their exclusive gatherings. It's not reasonable to become so angry that you lash out at them with harassment and vandalism.

Ironically, it is exactly subset of unreasonable men that Thermal says women should accommodate, on account of how upset and out of control they get if their claim to womanhood is challenged in any way. One doesn't have to squint very hard to see some parallels with spousal abuse. "See what you made us do?" "Let us control you, and there won't be any more problems."

Again: I'm not saying women should "have to accomodate" anyone. I'm saying that A) the arguments in favor of anti-trans policies are being argued from an anti social standpoint, and B) we've staggered along without anti trans laws for millennia and seem to have gotten by. Every once in a long while, a nonconformer to the usual male/female breakdown wanders in to the wrong restroom. You say to yourself "OK this is a little weird" and go on with your day. Or the rest of your year or however often it impacts you. If anything goes sideways, you deal with things going sideways as you always have, with or without policies.

The argument being put forth by your side is to legislate what is not really causing a problem and doesn't really solve the ones we have, in the name of being dicks to transpeople.

{ETA: and that they are all cross dressing dangerous pervs, obviously second/third/fourth class citizens who obviously are not worth basic human dignity}

Although I am starting to gather from the UKers that their activists are more belligerent than the ones we see in the States, so there's that.

 

[theprestige]

No. I'm saying that you should find it relatable feel justified in doing extreme things when you believe your adversary is dead in the wrong.

I think you're stretching to justify sympathy for the aggressor over the victim.

I don't find violent overreactions relatable, except in the sense that I have from time to time overreacted, and then felt greatly ashamed of myself afterwards. Does Our Hero feel ashamed of his overreaction? I might find that relatable.

But no, I don't relate to the man who hits his wife because she cheated on him. I don't relate to the road rager who rages on the road because someone cut him off in traffic. I don't relate to the Karen who trashes a point of sale because her pizza was cold. I don't relate to the incel who thinks his misogyny is justified because women aren't interested in his attentions.

That's what this guy makes me think of, actually: An incel. A spoiled, incontinent man-baby who throws a temper tantrum because women don't appreciate his company. Yet another trans/ally who can't figure out how to express womanhood except as toxic masculinity.

But I shouldn't have used nazis, conceded.

Oh, you absolutely should have used nazis. That is exactly the state of trans/ally rhetoric today. I think you rightly characterized the unhinged rationalization that went through this bully's mind as he was lashing out.

I think where you went wrong was imagining anyone else would find that relatable or sympathetic.

This activist was not in the moral right, nor were the women in the moral wrong.

And yet, your knee-jerk response was to attempt an apologia for the aggressor, not the victim.

They had ideological differences on an unrelated subject to the meeting, and that was not the place to do battle. Plus the activist was just a twat. People can get mowed down evacuating what they believe is a burning building. That ◊◊◊◊ is endangering everyone.

Well, that's progress, anyway. Maybe next time you'll find the stomach to say the trans/ally aggressor was a twat because of their unjustified aggression towards women in particular. Maybe next time you'll even lead with that.

 

[Ziggurat]

we've staggered along without anti trans laws for millennia and seem to have gotten by.

I have explained this to you already. Past non-legal social enforcement has broken down under the pressure of trans activism. What worked in the past is now failing. In order to maintain sex segregation, laws are now required. You can bemoan the loss of traditional enforcement mechanisms all you want, but they are gone, and wishing for it won't bring it back.

Every once in a long while, a nonconformer to the usual male/female breakdown wanders in to the wrong restroom.

Bryson is not a "nonconformer". People like Bryson (because he is not alone) are not "nonconformers". You are indifferent to the problem they pose.

The argument being put forth by your side is to legislate what is not really causing a problem

It is causing problems. You just don't care about the problems it is causing.

and doesn't really solve the ones we have, in the name of being dicks to transpeople.

That's the only problem you care about. When trans people are being dicks to women, you just excuse it as "activists", outliers, or whatever.