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

Oh dear...

twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1179732800473305089?s=20

When TRAs talk about sex they always sound like they're picturing two stereotypes stereotyping away at each other. It's so weird.

That's a great description! And yes, it is.

Sex as described by the transwidows sounds like a trip to the dentist, but afterwards you have more decay than you did when you first walked in the door.

then what the hell are you supposed to do

Makes rather clear that you're a prop in the situation rather than an equal and active participant.

Mind you, it doesn't send the shudder down my spine that the tweet does about the poor woman with ptsd about penises whose partner with a penis makes it (sex) work . I suspect I've read too many accounts from transwidows who have been the subject of sex being made to work for the benefit of the most important person in the relationship.

Freedom programme. Seriously. I don't care if you're male, female, trans, pan, Klingon, unicorn, furry, whatever. Run a mile from someone who doesn't treat you as an equal and doesn't treat your feelings and needs and sexual pleasure with the same importance they expect you to treat theirs. Unequal expectations where one partner has the right of more and better than the other is the hallmark of an abusive relationship. No one has to settle for that. No one.

If a male person wants to have sex with a woman, but not in the typical man's role, may I suggest the novel idea of being considerate and not just jackhammering away?

When TRAs talk about sex they always sound like they're picturing two stereotypes stereotyping away at each other. It's so weird.

Or even trolling

Yeah I felt that McKinnon was attention seeking or self justifying.

Maybe both. Who knows

This has to be a joke in some weird way? Sorry, I've only just read it but what the actual fuck??

There's a particular type of men who like having sex with women, but not in what they see as a Man's role, isn't there? But my comments about them tend to get deleted.

Always best to remember that McKinnon's entire 'academic' career is based on 'making shit up'.

Apologies if this has already been pointed out.

In the metamorphosis-sis link above RM says:
Even for the few girls I had sex with after my ex-wife, I very rarely orgasmed during sex. That means that I faked 95%+ of the orgasms. Sex in that role (with those genitals) never felt right

That seems to contradict the claims in the RM tweets at the start of this post. Is RM a genital fetishist (or whatever they call it)?

What I cannot grasp, is that TRA's bleat on about 'fetishisizing vaginas' (TRA code for being an actual lesbian) like this is ng .abhorrent, but will celebrate and push for the rights of people fetishizing 'pup play', kink displays in public, cross dressing, wanking in your work toilets and broadcasting it etc

Fetish is yet another word the trans privilege brigade do not understand the meaning of.

Frankly they all appear to have severe literacy problems and should probably start learning the English language again from scratch. Your average toddler has a better grasp.

Look at all the pitiful hatchet jobs done on MN by woke publications, when supposedly we are an irrelevant minority fringe who should be ignored. Why bother?

And RM says mumsnet is an echo chamber...

These people will say anything to discredit MN because they know many people who post on here have had the realisation you describe when they've been able to discuss it freely in a female centred way, rather than having to tiptoe around the feelings of aggressive transactivists who permit #nodebate.

Yes. Calling people fetishists in any other context is "kink shaming".

I suppose in this logic, trans widows must be the ultimate bigots. I just wasn't open minded enough to overcome my penis fetish, when it became clear that he didn't intend to have a penis for much longer.

Shit @Michelleoftheresistance you've actually hit the nail on the head with this:

I have the absolute right to define myself and have that definition accepted without exception to be my authentic self.... but you may absolutely not define yourself and expect equal respect, such as calling yourself a homosexual woman or an adult human female because reasons.

I am just putting forward alternative views which you are unable to tolerate - and I'm putting those views forward because I can't tolerate your views, and what I actually mean is not that everyone should be welcome to speak equally but that you should defer to me and agree when I speak, but I shouldn't need to behave the same way to you and your views. Because reasons

That ACTUALLY is what they're saying isn't it?! Thank you for writing it in a way that much better explains the ridiculousness that you and I (and hearteningly even former RM supporters / apologists) can see crystal clear.

Claiming oppression by claiming to be the oppressed, in turn claiming those oppressed by this claim of oppression have no right to describe themselves as such.

I'm more and more seeing that the issue is you can't argue with a narcissist. It doesn't matter that their opinion doesn't make sense because their opinion is the only one that matters at all. And if anyone can't see that, they are stupid and not worthy of engaging in an actual debate with the narcissist. Aka blocked on Twitter, the most adult of ways to show the word you are an intellect colossus not to be questioned.

And RM says mumsnet is an echo chamber...

It would be funny if it wasn't so damaging.

I have the absolute right to define myself and have that definition accepted without exception to be my authentic self.... but you may absolutely not define yourself and expect equal respect, such as calling yourself a homosexual woman or an adult human female because reasons.

Yes I think when people see this it's often that they suddenly realise that it's not about their perceived oppression, it's about control and power.

What I cannot grasp, is that TRA's bleat on about 'fetishisizing vaginas' (TRA code for being an actual lesbian) like this is ng .abhorrent, but will celebrate and push for the rights of people fetishizing 'pup play', kink displays in public, cross dressing, wanking in your work toilets and broadcasting it etc. It boggles my mind

Oh the whole basis of debate is completely unequal in all ways.

I have the absolute right to define myself and have that definition accepted without exception to be my authentic self.... but you may absolutely not define yourself and expect equal respect, such as calling yourself a homosexual woman or an adult human female because reasons.

Frequent argument on multiple threads: I am just putting forward alternative views which you are unable to tolerate - and I'm putting those views forward because I can't tolerate your views, and what I actually mean is not that everyone should be welcome to speak equally but that you should defer to me and agree when I speak, but I shouldn't need to behave the same way to you and your views. Because reasons.

The importance is inclusivity and love based choices....which include excluding vulnerable women from any services at all so that male born people can have full freedom of choice, and distressing and intimidating many women whose voices should be ignored. And this is ok because reasons.

The reasons don't stand up because the essential core belief is that some people are important and others are not. That's not a world view I'm going to get on board with ever.

I read the Google Doc they shared.

Oh. My. God.

It's even worse than I thought - they actually can't string together a coherent argument.

I'll be ignoring xxx let's just assume xxx for the sake of this paper xxx at its most literal sense the word means xxx irrespective of context xxx.

Doing the above means the result of such "search" has no quantifiable significance and can't be taken seriously.

And the cheap shot comparisons are laughable especially from someone considered an academic. For example, RM states:

"Homophobic men say things like, ‘I just think a man having sex with another man is just disgusting. I mean, how do they even do it?’ and Lesbophobic people, even if only out if ignorance, ask things like, ‘How do lesbians even have sex? Do they just, like, scissor or something?’"

OBVIOUSLY the first comment would be almost exclusively thought of us homophobic. I am a bisexual woman and in no realm whatsoever would I consider someone "lesbophobic" for not knowing how two women have sex. My mum would ask this and she fucking loves me!

The pretend person quoted by and cast as lesbophobic RM above has no real life concept of it, no experience of it and has cast no negative assumptions on it - they are neutrally ignorant about it which is no moral blight on their character. They do not have an innate responsibility to know how all other pairings of people fuck.

My mum is kind and open minded, is she a somethingphobe for not knowing what spitroasting is?

Absolute attention seeking twaddle.

What I cannot grasp, is that TRA's bleat on about 'fetishisizing vaginas' (TRA code for being an actual lesbian) like this is ng .abhorrent, but will celebrate and push for the rights of people fetishizing 'pup play', kink displays in public, cross dressing, wanking in your work toilets and broadcasting it etc. It boggles my mind

There will end up being just one pure, pansexual TRA, probably living up a mountain, with everybody else blocked for being T**Fs.

Oh, I'm sure I'll be getting a stern email as soon as the morning crew arrive.