Not having sex with someone because they don't have the right genitals is transphobic. No prizes for guessing who's claiming this

The only explanation I have is "narcissism is a hell of a drug", honestly.

Now of course RMcK is just blocking their own followers. Brilliant debate tactic.

It's up there with that one who just replied with "sod off" to anyone who disagreed.

Debating societies up and down the land are issuing speaking invites without delay!

Girls "If you or PKR can help explain, that’d be great"

I don't think there is enough logic in the world to unpack McKinnon's words. I tend to just go with occam's razor and it usually turns out right.

Sorry! Used a bad word. Reposting in case of deletion...

As for RMcKs thread in general, RMcK was trying to be smart when RMcK used the term “genital preferences” (coined by TRAs?) because RMcK knows that “sexuality” (what the thread is about) would cause problems.

RMcK was probably talking to uppity women in RMcKs thread, and forgot RMcKs main audience was also listening.

No-one can help or unlearn their sexuality, and as RMcK found out, RMcK wasn’t smart enough because RMcKs LGB followers have probably heard all their lives that if they just ‘tried’ they’d be ‘normal’ so are very sensitive to the sub-message RMcK was making.

Now of course RMcK is just blocking their own followers. Brilliant debate tactic.

As for RMcKs thread in general, RMcK was trying to be smart when RMcK used the term “genital preferences” (coined by TRAs?) because RMcK knows that “sexuality” (what the thread is about) would cause problems.

RMcK was probably talking to uppity women in his thread, and forgot RMcKs main audience was also listening.

No-one can help or unlearn their sexuality, and as RMcK found out, RMcK wasn’t smart enough because RMcKs LGB followers have probably heard all their lives that if they just ‘tried’ they’d be ‘normal’ so are very sensitive to the sub-message RMcK was making.

Now of course RMcK is just blocking their own followers. Brilliant debate tactic.

I'm still raising my eyebrows at the "if a girl has a funny looking vagina" part, for the following reasons.

1. Rachel is an adult and should not be looking at the vaginas of girls, who are female children
2. The vagina is the bit on the inside. Does Rachel commonly whip out a speculum during sexual encounters?
3. What's a funny looking vagina, by which I assume Rachel means vulva?
4. Is Rachel trying to suggest that, say, having longer than average inner labia or, I dunno, assymetry is funny looking for a vagina/vulva in the same way having a penis is?
5. Because if so I'm starting to wonder if Rachel is an alien and, being new to our planet, unfamiliar with our social and sexual norms and expectations.

I think we should all be encouraging McKinnon to keep talking. Loudly.

Oh yes. I for one can't get enough.

Shorter Rachel's new friend - "Shut up about the cotton ceiling, you idiot! Just when we'd almost managed to convince the Woke Youth that it was something the evil witches made up..."

I honestly don't think McKinnon particularly cares about The Cause. Just a malignant narcissist.

Hey Buzz

I read that twitter thread too, and that particular exchange confused me.
a) because RMcK uses ‘her’ to mean males and females interchangeably so that statement is hard to parse
b) RMcK using cotton ceiling which has a negative rapey vibe in a thread about how not giving someone sex is transphobic ie doubling down seemed problematic, so I assumed I misunderstood RMcKs point.

If you or PKR can help explain, that’d be great

I think we should all be encouraging McKinnon to keep talking. Loudly.

Titania McGrath now introducing McKinnon to a new audience.

twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1179199295431593984

"Dr McKinnon is SO right. Genitals have literally nothing to do with sexual attraction.

In fact, if a straight man refuses to suck a female penis, that just proves he’s actually gay".

Shorter Rachel's new friend - "Shut up about the cotton ceiling, you idiot! Just when we'd almost managed to convince the Woke Youth that it was something the evil witches made up..."

GirlDownUnder RMcK makes the Post Millennial.
www.thepostmillennial.com/trans-athlete-claims-lesbians-are-transphobic-for-not-liking-penises/

That article links to a tweet by 'Jennifer', and Rachy re the Cotton Ceiling: twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1179012560550531072

I read the other tweets in that thread.
Note the highlighted word that gives away Rachy's game.

Well...a woman like martina doesnt back down

I've come to realise that "WWMD" works for many situations.

Applies to either Martina or Magdelen too - bonus!

It should certainly rule out any genital assignment surgery, of course. How can you start expressing a preference for any kind of genitals to the extent where you will have surgery on them, if it's transphobic as fuck.

I think Big Rach is with you on that one, Datun!

The wheels on the bus go round and round (for several years, screeching "preferences are transphobic!" the whole time) and then go flying off, at which point they then start to circle back like boomerangs and a few of the brighter TRAs go "shit, wait, do you think maybe trying to extend our reign of sexual terror to straight men too was a bit of an overstep?"

Not Rachel, though!

Maybe a questionnaire would be a good idea. And photos of relevant anatomy parts and medical history.

It should certainly rule out any genital assignment surgery, of course. How can you start expressing a preference for any kind of genitals to the extent where you will have surgery on them, if it's transphobic as fuck.

I’m beginning to think a firm ‘I’m not telling’ is a good response to gender/sex questions. Let them work it out.

So we just have to shag whoever or whatever and not have any preference on their genitals.

How are we meant to decide who to shag, I wonder. Flip a coin? Fuck anyone who asks? Preemptively offer, like "just so you know, I'm an ally, so if you fancied a quick one..."?

Chatty the more I look into surrogacy the more I see there are dark forces of men's rights and big business pushing for this.
At one of the consultations I went to there was a (presumably het) couple of hopeful parents. The aggressive level of entitlement from the man was extraordinary as he argued against my complaints that 18 was too young to be a surrogate, my concern about the woman Dustin Lance Black interviewed who had had 13 surrogate babies (women can do that naturally so what's the problem?) and more.

This really isn't about sisters and best friends doing a wonderful thing for each other. That is just the Trojan horse.

So how does it go?

I don’t want to have sex with you
Is it because I’m a man/woman/have a penis?
No, it’s because you are a complete arse

Any kind of objection to having sex with anyone, dating, being attracted to anyone is both a normal part of life and crucially, should be taken as final, sufficient, and not a license to treat the objector badly or call them silly names like ‘transphobic!’

Women have heard all this before that if they don’t have sex with their reputation will be trashed and also we have heard it all before that our ‘No’ to sex is somehow negotiable.

This is probably why women of an age have no time to indulge this creepy shit, we have had years of our consent being tried to be undermined or being pushed aside. Fuck that.

Only men say this shit to guilt trip and frighten women into letting them be fucked when the women doesn't want to be. It’s a disgusting rapists’ attitude and treats women like interchangeable pieces of meat. No agency is allowed for anyone else except for the man who feels he needs to fuck someone.

Showing this level of disgusting sexual entitlement really doesn’t reflect well on the politics of genderism. The misogyny and lesbophobia is so clear.

It also brings to mind other scenarios of consent in this cultural context.
Like the prospect of surrogacy and consent. It’s currently being proposed by the Law Commission (a government body that recommends legal change to government) that women who agree to act as surrogates (who could be as young as 18 [hmmm] ) will have only 2-4 weeks immediately after the birth to say if they change their mind and keep the baby.

They are currently consulting the public on this, there are lots of FWR threads on it. It closes next week, so anyone with a view on this should respond to the consultation because it is very important to let them know what women think.

There is an entitlement and lack of respect for women’s agency and consent in various of these proposals.

When I turn down sex I could be in any kind of state and I still expect my ‘no’ to be sufficient. I do not expect to have anyone make a legal issue of it.

When I have just had a baby 2-4 weeks ago and am looking after a newborn, and either of me or the baby may be ill, or you know, I just may be really fucking tired and busy and sore and depressed, struggling with feeding, or whatever, i do not expect to have to get lawyered up to be able to keep the baby if that’s what I want.

The idea that prior consent should be binding even when circumstances change is very sinister.

It sets out to put women’s bodies at the service of men’s sexual entitlement and at the service of (everyone’s?) entitlement to ask a women to risk her mental and physical health to build them a baby, birth it and then give it away, with no choice about this is allowed for the woman.

Hayden still trying to pretend they didn't get banned for repeatedly breaking talk guidelines and harrassing MNers by following them around threads?

What a loser.

"Not having sex with someone because they don't have the right genitals is transphobic. No prizes for guessing who's claiming this"

we.....a leftwinger?