Another day, another friend insisting that THIS video will change minds and hearts

But I think the intention behind drag and the intention behind the hyper feminisation of trans women is very different.

Intention is all that separates the two, though. I certainly don't think they pass at all. Drag is what immediately came to mind.

"Has anyone tried to police anyone in this way on this thread?"

Well, it's rather obvious that I think you are! By "what that necessarily means" I was referring to what that means at a societal level. In other words, I disagree with anyone who thinks they can tell someone that being feminine means xyz so they shouldn't be feminine. Apologies if that was unclear.

Anyway, I'll leave it there as this is on a bit of a road to nowhere.

This person is not a drag queen, so what's your point?

What's the difference in your view? I can't spot any differences, and I'm sure neither could your average person. The only difference is the inner feeling or motivation.But you don't need to dress up to tell us about feelings.

I abhor drag-but I do try very hard to separate it in my mind from transwomen. One thing this video did was to help me understand the hyper femininization thing- that made a lot of sense.

Maybe, but resorting to exaggerated parodies of femininity does not really express feeling( inside oneself) supposedly 'womanly things'. If anything, it heightens the discrepancy; makes more of a pantomime. It doesn't convince anyone: quite the opposite. It literally is just a parody - no matter how deeply felt the motivation.

So many of the on-line trans divas seem to spend all their time cultivating what they associate with femininity; but the moment the mask drops, the genuine, wholistic person pops out from behind the show.

Thanks Betty, I was going to watch it later, I can't right now as am out of the house.

People are allowed to think other people have been taken in by a con trick. You can think whatever you like about my views, I don't care at all.

You know very little of my views or why I refer to this person as she.

I don't need to know your views to find this choice of words offensive.

I posted this back on the first page but I don’t think anyone really noticed it. It’s an excellent point by point take down of Contrapoints’ video, in two parts (because it would be hella long otherwise).

You can listen while doing something else, and it covers the whole CP’s video, so you don’t need to watch it first.

Made by a U.K. based left-leaning GC man who used to be a trans supporter but went off to research radical feminism (in order to critique it) and realised that radical feminism actually made sense.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=I7QXcYBgNIY
m.youtube.com/watch?v=rr3h4-bLUwo

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that anyone should police who can be feminine and to what degree
Has anyone tried to police anyone in this way on this thread?
and what that necessarily means.
You disagree with people having opinions on things (aka having a perception of what something necessarily means) on a discussion forum?

You know very little of my views or why I refer to this person as she.

I agree, WeRiseUp.

What are the motivations for women who are extremely feminine?

I understand the point you're making. However, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that anyone should police who can be feminine and to what degree, and what that necessarily means.

The reason it is important to discuss drag queens is because some gay men have a very deep seated need to adopt camp and flamboyant mannerisms. It's a long discussion to be had and often comes from a place of pain and defiance and a search for identity, acceptance and significance.

The reason why this is relevant to this thread, is because exaggerated 'femininity' is part of the camp/drag thing.

If the narrator of that video is trying to say that the motivations for camp exaggerated 'femininity' in drag for gay men is totally different for camp exaggerated 'femininity' for gay men who call themselves 'trans', then the narrator is attempting to hoodwink you with all the smoke, mirrors and razzmatazz.

Contrapoints was "born male" and will never be anything other than male.

What is the difference between a flamboyant, highly camp male who presents as 'a woman' who calls themselves a drag queen and one who calls themselves a 'transwoman' (apart from the levels of offensiveness to women)?

In my view, one lives as a woman and one performs as a woman principally for comic effect. In the video, I see a feminine woman. Knowing that the person is trans, I see a person born male who now outwardly presents as a woman. And I find myself agreeing with a lot of what she says.

As to your last point, you have been gratuitously offensive to me so I see no reason to accommodate your preferences.

And that's her perception. Something over which nobody else has any control. Some people will perceive transwomen to be no different to drag queens. And you can't control how others perceive you.

Sure, I agree. But if you're dismissing someone's perspective because they are a drag queen, but in the way they present they are actually just a trans woman (in this video at least, which is the only one I've seen), then it is of relevance.

My original question was does the pp think all transwomen are drag queens and if not then why this one - just because she is feminine in the video?

If you watch the Contrapoints video about "incels" Contrapoints has significantly more sympathy for them than Contrapoints does for women uncomfortable with trans ideology. Which is interesting.

I note you still haven't explained exactly what it is that makes her a drag queen, except that you think she looks like one.

And that's her perception. Something over which nobody else has any control. Some people will perceive transwomen to be no different to drag queens. And you can't control how others perceive you.

I just cannot believe that person is a woman. They are just not. Same way with belief in god I just can’t believe as I know it’s not true. I respect other people’s beliefs but nothing can change mine. Nothing.

Well, I would say it starts off reasonable, but does not actually address any GC arguments, and of course ends with TERF and how they are evil witches who want to eradicate transwomen. Unsurprising. How anyone can claim its not a slur is beyond me. I have only ever seen it used as an insult, or a way to shut down conversations.