• 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: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
So are the alien abductees.
Click to expand...

Oh look, a group of alien abduction supporters lesbians protesting harassment by transwomen and others.

https://www.gettheloutuk.com/

There are plenty of articles about the cotton ceiling, most pointing out that lesbians have the right not to be pestered by unwelcome transwomen, and some, rather amusingly, that it is a weapon used to deny transwomen’s desire to have sex with lesbians.

Also, for the non-faint hearted, search on Twitter for “girldick” and discover what some of the possessors of said appendages want to use them for against lesbians and “TERFS”.

Those denying the issue raised in the OP is non-existent haven’t been paying attention.
 
arthwollipot said:
What's the difference?

What's the difference between dinner and a movie with a woman who has a penis and dinner and a movie with a women who doesn't?

Unless you're talking about having sex with them, of course, which is the distinction that Darat was panned for earlier.
Click to expand...

It is my humble opinion that a woman cannot have a penis. Where I come from, that is called a "man".

I don't date men.



....thank God I am married and don't have to deal with this ****.
 
Matthew Best said:
The same group as what?
Click to expand...

The same anti-trans group that produced the questionable survey. The same anti-trans source referred to by OP article. The same anti-trans group everyone seems to point to and say, "Hey, look, here's a group that is also upset about harassment from trans women." Every time, it's the same anti-trans group.

If trans women are harassing lesbians so much, why is Get The L Out the only group reporting it?
 
Hercules56 said:
Here ya go.
Click to expand...

Three links later I get to the actual study. :cool:

Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity
Abstract
The current study sought to describe the demographic characteristics of individuals who are willing to consider a transgender individual as a potential dating partner. Participants (N = 958) from a larger study on relationship decision-making processes were asked to select all potential genders that they would consider dating if ever seeking a future romantic partner. The options provided included cisgender men, cisgender women, trans men, trans women, and genderqueer individuals. Across a sample of heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and trans individuals, 87.5% indicated that they would not consider dating a trans person, with cisgender heterosexual men and women being most likely to exclude trans persons from their potential dating pool. Individuals identifying as bisexual, queer, trans, or non-binary were most likely to indicate a willingness to date a trans person. However, even among those willing to date trans persons, a pattern of masculine privileging and transfeminine exclusion appeared, such that participants were disproportionately willing to date trans men, but not trans women, even if doing so was counter to their self-identified sexual and gender identity (e.g., a lesbian dating a trans man but not a trans woman). The results are discussed within the context of the implications for trans persons seeking romantic relationships and the pervasiveness of cisgenderism and transmisogyny.
Click to expand...

The rest is behind a paywall unless one wants to go through the reporters' filters. It's not a measure of transphobia unless one conflates willingness to date a measure of bigotry and I'm not seeing it.


From your link:
In another study, 348 cisgender college students were shown pictures of 48 cisgender members of the opposite sex. Each picture was randomly assigned a fake biography, which included whether the person in the picture supposedly was transgender or cisgender. The college students were then asked to rate the attractiveness of the people in the pictures. The researchers found that participants were far less likely to find the people in the pictures attractive if they thought they were transgender.

The question that gets danced around, however, is: "Are all these numbers indicative of transphobia?" The answer, I believe, is clearly yes.
Click to expand...
So nothing to do with lesbians, and, conflation of attractiveness with transphobia.

From the link from the link:
Two Canadian researchers recently asked almost 1000 cisgender folks if they would date a trans person in a new study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. This is the first study to ever attempt to quantify the extent of trans discrimination when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships.
Click to expand...
That is not an assessment of transphobia, it's an assessment of sexual attraction.


So :jaw-dropp I find myself agreeing once again with TP:
So it's the bedroom thing. People accusing lesbians of bigotry because they're not sexually attracted to dick.
Click to expand...

Am I an ageist if I don't find Rupert Murdoch sexually appealing?
 
arthwollipot said:
It would make as much linguistic sense to refer to a "blackman" or a "tallwoman".
Click to expand...
Imagine the sheer linguistic confusion if we sometimes labeled people without first separating out the adjective with a space, using offensively archaic terms like alderwoman, bagman, chairwoman, doorman, Englishwoman, fireman, guildswoman, herdsman, Irishwoman, journeyman, kinswoman, laundrywoman, mailman, newswoman, oarsman, policewoman, railwayman, servicewoman, tradeswoman, underclassman, vestryman, washerwoman, yachtsman, etc. Quelle horreur!

arthwollipot said:
The language we use matters.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
The same anti-trans group that produced the questionable survey. The same anti-trans source referred to by OP article. The same anti-trans group everyone seems to point to and say, "Hey, look, here's a group that is also upset about harassment from trans women." Every time, it's the same anti-trans group.
Click to expand...

I found the article in the OP to be all over the place, which is why I posted the website of Get The L Out, which I think far more accurately reflects their position.
 
The Atheist said:
On the other hand, the extremists on both sides are definitely increasing anti-social and violent behaviour against the the entire LGBT spectrum.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/30089...mpaign-declares-in-state-of-emergency-warning
Click to expand...


Good point, I'd seen a similar comment regarding the Netflix Cleopatra Documentary.



In that video (I'll link it when I find it.) the commenter pointed out that the problems that film series had caused for Egyptians of sub-Saharan African descent (FWIW, as Muslim as the Arab descended population), including heightened racial discrimination from the Arab descended population.
 
d4m10n said:
Imagine the sheer linguistic confusion if we sometimes labeled people without first separating out the adjective with a space, using offensively archaic terms like alderwoman, bagman, chairwoman, doorman, Englishwoman, fireman, guildswoman, herdsman, Irishwoman, journeyman, kinswoman, laundrywoman, mailman, newswoman, oarsman, policewoman, railwayman, servicewoman, tradeswoman, underclassman, vestryman, washerwoman, yachtsman, etc. Quelle horreur!
Click to expand...
Well, all of these gendered terms have non-gendered equivalents, so I don't see much of a problem there.

Also, a number of trans advocacy and psychological and psychiatric organisations have published guidelines on trans language, which I don't think is the case for mail carriers, guild members, or yacht crew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom