Thermal
August Member
You literally just demonstrated my point for me. Thank you.
AGP is a specifier to distinguish the roots of one type of transvestic disorder from fetishism. Capitalizing the scary words doesn't steamroll that.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
AGP is a specifier to distinguish the roots of one type of transvestic disorder from fetishism. Capitalizing the scary words doesn't steamroll that.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Sometimes it's a "good thing" to plainly state the factual background before making any moral evaluations.
Bearing in mind that the statement of the problem was originally posted at #9,975: "Humans have easily managed sex segregation for over a century without any difficulties" but in recent years we've had more difficulties sorting people easily into two separate bins based on sex. These difficulties are not because of the people you complained about "whose only real effort is cross dressing," because those folks are trivially easy to clock as male. People who transition early and convincingly are much harder to segregate by birth sex, because other people tend to missex them on sight. Even if no one continued to advocate the "position is that nobody should be required to pass, or even to really try to pass," the problem which I described would continue to exist, in fact, that might just make it worse.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,774
That makes no sense. Again, the problem isn't coming from the people who pass. Nobody notices them transcending sex segregation. The problem comes from people who don't pass but still transcend sex segregation. Clocking them as male doesn't make the problem go away. It's precisely because they're clocked as male that we have a problem at all.
Yes, it's harder to segregate them by sex, but they don't cause problems, because if nobody knows they broke the rules, then no one is any wiser. Again, the problem comes from people who DON'T pass, but are still being allowed (or are demanding) to transcend that sex segregation anyways.
But that's not the problem. I have no idea why you think it is, because I think everyone else has been clear that it isn't. The problem is not the people who pass transcending sex segregation when they shouldn't. The problem is the people who DO NOT pass but try to transcend sex segregation anyways.
You are trying to solve the wrong problem, the one no one cares about, and ignoring the problem that people do care about.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I genuinely don't understand what point you think you're making.
AGP is way in which a disorder is expressed, it's part of the disorder. How you translate that into being not a disorder of any sort is entirely baffling.
I swear, it's like you're vehemently arguing that "stage 4" isn't cancer at all, because it's a modifier describing how the cancer is being expressed.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
What do you think is gained from trimming my post so it looks like I've asked a question, when in reality I've echoed your post and added a considerable amount of my own thoughts on it? Do you think it's honest and good argumentation to do so?
Even so, your description here is just plain wrong. We're not having this problem because more people are hard to classify, we're not having a problem because of early transition or effective surgeries. The entire reason we're having this problem now, starting from the very first post of this series of threads is because people who are blatantly and obviously one sex demand that they must be treated as if they're the opposite sex, and must be granted access to single-sex spaces for the opposite sex based on their feelings about themselves. This thread started with Laurel Hubbard - an obvious male - competing against females in weightlifting. Every part of this argument is about the intentional violation of sex-based boundaries in situations where sex matters.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Huh. This is kind of eye opening. Perhaps males of the human species are even more of a risk and a danger than I thought.
Prior to your post, I would have said that most heterosexual males find females at the beach to be attractive and often sexy, that they appreciate the bodies on display. I would NOT have said that most of them were getting sexually aroused at the beach. JFC, are you actually at the beach with a constant running mental sex fantasy playing about every female you see?
Seriously, I think Jason Momoa is sexy as hell. They're absolutely attractive, and a fantastic specimen of the male body. But I don't get all slippery when I see them on TV, and I don't spend the entirety of Aquaman fantasizing about sex acts with them!
I notice you avoided answering the actual question.
If a person that you know has an actual paraphilic fetish focused on feet were able to convince their employer to require that all employees must wear open toed sandals or flip-flops, would you be okay with that?
If a person that you know has paraphilic pedophilia were able to force preschools to let them hang out with children, would you be okay with that?
Rolfe
Adult human female
This is good (though pretty long).
janhavinilekani.substack.com
Inclusivity In Healthcare Should Not Be Valued Above Our Paramount Mandate: First, Do No Harm
In the spring of 2022, a 50-year-old grandfather in North Carolina decided that he wanted his daughter’s newborn to suckle at his nipple.
janhavinilekani.substack.com
Thermal
August Member
No, its not. Thats our whole argument and dispute in a nutshell. It is absolutely, unequivocally NOT part of the disorder, full stop.
AGP is used as a specifier in transvestic disorder to distinguish it from the fetish variety. That's it. It's a descriptor for a disorder to make the root clear. Nothing more.
Can't help you there. You snipped out the long version, which is not baffling at all and is in line with the profession as a whole.
"Stage 4" is also a specifier in that case indicating the severity and extent. If you had not spent so much time snipping the posts up, you would have seen where I used the professional definition of specifier which allows for that, as well as the other senses it gets used for.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
No idea why you go flying off to an extreme. "Aroused" is not some whacked out extreme. In this sense, it's just a little heightened more than if you were, say, taking out the trash. A simple mental "Daaaaamn" is arousal.
I notice you avoided/snipped out every question and point I've put forth.
No. And before you pounce on that, no, it has nothing to do with a trans person. You are not being made to present in a sexually gratifying way to them, nor do they have "paraphilac fetishes", nor does your tortured understanding of AGP apply (it does NOT mean sexual arousal at being *treated like a woman by others*.
No, with similar fleshing out.
There, I answered your questions in one word with caveats for the weird way they were posed. Now, are you going to address the backlog of like a hundred I've posed to you?
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
No, that's just the part of the problem you really want to focus on. For every individual who is "blatantly and obviously one sex" but nevertheless demands "they must be treated as if they're the opposite sex" there are other individuals who have made efforts to pass, many of whom slip completely under the radar of the original clientele for single-sex spaces. I'd posit that the passing-as-the-opposite-sex category significantly outnumbers the obviously-the-opposite-sex category when we are talking about FtM folks in particular, and they obviously pose a greater threat to the process of segregation strictly based on sex observed at birth because they are so hard to spot.
The problem is that they ARE transcending sex segregation, bearing in mind that the stated goal at #9,975 was to continue with "easily managed sex segregation" rather than, say, "sex segregation one may willingly violate, so long as you do so convincingly."
To be pellucidly clear, I was addressing the specific problem of continuing (or re-establishing) strict segregation based on sex observed at birth.
It's cool that you and EC want to talk about other problems, but that was the one I was addressing when I replied to that post.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,774
That’s the part that EVERYONE is focused on. That’s what this entire conflict is actually about.
Even now you can’t get the problem right. It doesn’t matter whether or not they make an effort to pass if they still aren’t passing. Pass/not pass is the relevant distinction, not effort/no effort.
Possibly. And wouldn’t you know it, people aren’t really up in arms about the FtMs, are they? Those two things are not unconnected.
But again, that’s not the problem. Why do you persist in this misunderstanding?
No, actually it isn’t. When they transcend sex segregation and no one can tell, then there is no problem.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This is utterly bonkers, and this Dr Ronx is seriously creepy for even thinking of an idea like this, let alone actually suggesting it.
And people still claim that transgenderism is not a mental disorder?
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
I went to the fundraising site and reported the campaign as a safeguarding issue. The more reports the better. If they close the campaign they'll refund all the donations.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Send me or post a link @Rolfe and I'll do likewise.
This is utterly bonkers, and this Dr Ronx is seriously creepy for even thinking of an idea like this, let alone actually suggesting it.
And people still claim that transgenderism is not a mental disorder?
Have you read the article that is quoted? It is nothing like the twitter post states:
BBC presenter launches new trans visibility campaign
A BBC TV presenter has launched a new campaign calling on UK workplaces and schools to make visible commitments to trans inclusion.
www.swlondoner.co.uk
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Have you read the article that is quoted? It is nothing like the twitter post states:
BBC presenter launches new trans visibility campaign
A BBC TV presenter has launched a new campaign calling on UK workplaces and schools to make visible commitments to trans inclusion.
Dr Ronx Ikharia’s ‘Safe With Me’ initiative invites allies to wear a yellow badge with bold black text, signalling to trans+ individuals that they are safe to approach especially when using public toilets or navigating other gendered spaces.
Dr Ronx added: “I want this to be everywhere. At schools, in NHS settings, at festivals, in shops. The trans community deserve to feel safe! Not just protected by law but actively welcomed and this badge is one small way we can all help make that happen.”
This needs to be kept as far away from schools as possible. There is already enough gender-ideology indoctrination in schools without adding this garbage. It has NO PLACE anywhere near a school.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,774
From the fundraiser page above:
"Wearing the badge means:
• You will accompany trans+ people to their preferred facilities if asked."
As already mentioned by smartcookie, they want to distribute these at schools, which means to children. So yeah, they want children to escort trans people to the bathroom of their choice.
Last edited:
Did you read the twitter post?
In case you didn't: "...This is breathtakingly inappropriate. Children shouldn't be groomed into thinking it's their job to accompany adult strangers into toilets..."
That is not happening, at least not by the campaign that is mentioned.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
They have made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they want to do this ".....everywhere. At schools, in NHS settings, at festivals, in shops."
In case it didn't occur to you, "at schools" means they will be peddling this inappropriate crap to children.
Why do you keep missing this? Are you just pretending the person, who describes themselves as “black, queer, transmasculine, non-binary” (whatever the ◊◊◊◊ that means - and NO, PLEASE don't try to explain it - I neither care nor wish to know), hasn't actually said this?
Last edited: