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

I predict a veritable flood of ferrets in reverse before all this is over. I wonder what provoked Rachel's? Was there a suggestion that the money might dry up?

BuzzShitbagBobbly hmmm, interesting.
Now you mention it...no, it’s too far-fetched...has...has anyone ever seen Yaniv and McKinnon together? As in, in the same room at the same time? Anyone?

I wouldn't think it possible for someone to eclipse Yaniv in sheer batshittery, but here we are.

(The former has been oddly quiet lately. I saw on KF the police have been at the apartment complex regularly, but not sure if that apartment specifically. Odds-on for sure though...)

Well. it seems transing is going though stages of changing and emerging sexuality which are obviously difficult for them to accept so this is all sorts of bluster and obfuscation.

There is a sexologist who could probably help, but sadly they all want to avoid that and invent new imaginings...

So RM now say RM's point of view was wrong.

But it was wrong of anyone to tell RM it was wrong.

And now it's wrong of anyone to say it's wrong for RM to now say we were wrong to point out RM was wrong before.

It must be either fucking exhausting or nauseatingly boring in that brain.

Only McKinnon can manage to make McKinnon realising that McKinnon was wrong everyone else’s fault

Can you reverse ferret by proxy?

Isn't the end point of agp sex with men who want sex with men where both of them believe that one of them is a woman?

Isn't it called GAMP?

Dont want to google...

If pansexuality is no longer the only moral orientation, are lesbians now morally allowed to be homosexual??

Asking for a friend.

Genital preference for your sex partner - bad, terrible, phobic, educate yourself, try harder.
Genital appearance for yourself, requiring medical intervention - human right.

Describe yourself as a woman, not cis - not allowed.

Legal recourse for misgendering - yes.

It’s beyond parody.

The reverse ferret!

Fun, but not as fun as Owen's eventual reverse ferret will be.

There was a tweet somewhere in that car crash thread which was RM saying something like "I thought this [their POV] was pretty accepted in the trans community"

Looks like they tried to do a dog whistle post to stoke the fires up, but it massively backfired.

So RM is either saying they were completely wrong in the first place; or that they are at odds with the wider community they purport to be a leading light in.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that a professional cyclist should be so adept at back-pedalling and astute enough to realise you can delete away to your little heart's content but when the screenshots and the receipts are out there...guess it sucks to be RM today.

The reverse ferret! Never thought McKinnon would be one to cave. Wonder if they'll welcome the sinner back into the fold.

If ever there was a film about McKinnon, then I think the lead role would have to go to someone like Will Ferrell.
If this whole thing is not a parody, then I think McKinnon is going to crash and burn spectacularly.

Surely after releasing the research paper thing , taking back the tweet is pointless ?

I mean theres an actual paper explaining it all..

I'd like to meet RM. We could have a wee chat over a coffee and see if they can keep this stuff up in person, like Dustin Hoffman method acting, or whether they turn it on only with their laptop.

Remarkable, anyway. And, this person is an academic? cancels all plans to send MiniVivariums to Canada for university

There is a difference between supererogatory and suberogatory. Supererogatory means something that is good to do but you don't have to do it (like giving to charity.) Suberogatory would mean something that is not wrong to do, but it's not good either.

There's a massive difference between something being immoral and something being suberogatory though. I would say that suberogatory acts aren't even in the moral realm at all - it's not wrong to chew gum but it's not particularly morally good either.

But McKinnon literally just tweeted that rejecting people based on their genitals is 'problematic' which suggests that it's wrong - not a morally neutral act. So 'suberogatory' isn't the right word - immoral was the best term to use all along!

As an aside, I used to work in academic philosophy and I'm very embarrassed by the way Rachel is behaving. Rachel is not a good representative of the discipline. In fact, Rachel resembles some of my worst, most obnoxious students.

His university may not be imposing sanctions. But no-one bought McKinnon's book, their talk was cancelled, and now their interview. Plus even hard-core allies are dumping on them.

I know right? Everyone else can see it except McKinnon.

Tokenism is a very powerful tool for people like them, it doesn't matter what he does their will be no consequences..

Do you honestly believe that if you position yourself as a spokesperson and work to get yourself heard, you won’t be asked about all the other shit you’ve posted? Sexuality? Dancing on the grave of a dead person? Wanting people to die in grease fires?

I know right? Everyone else can see it except McKinnon. It's extraordinary. Their credibility is forever fucked.

Yes I linked to the Amazon page for it upthread. There are only 3 reviews, but they are amusing.

"They mean supererogatory. Maybe they don't know what they're talking about."

According to McK's philosophy work, his entire paper/thesis or whatever it is called was based on exactly that theory.

First question for McKinnon about trans athletes:

Are they all as unhinged as you?

Second question:

Do you honestly believe that if you position yourself as a spokesperson and work to get yourself heard, you won’t be asked about all the other shit you’ve posted? Sexuality? Dancing on the grave of a dead person? Wanting people to die in grease fires?