What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

OhHolyJesus - 1st May 19:29 - "For me, one of the top tips I've learnt from this 'debate' is it's useful for every GC thinker to know a good lawyer and to have their phone number to hand at all times."

That was a good reminder! It made me think of this video advice from Posie Parker (now going by her real name - almost - "Kellie-Jay Keen")

"What to do if the police contact you in England and Wales"

(I am still only on Page 3 of this thread, displaying 100 posts per page, dipping in and out, so much to digest!)

They never used the word "rape" but they went to the police to ask if he could be compelled to take an STI test to give them peace of mind because he'd fucked both of them bareback without their permission when they'd agreed only to the use of a condom. Sounds like rape to me.

But yes, you are right that the case was then immediately manipulated by the US to try to get him sent over there. Funny how rape only matters to some people when it can be used as an excuse for something else.

Just how powerful and engrained gender pressure truly is. When a person a would rather go through gender reassignment than change what it is to be their true sex.

never accused him of rape, not torture, duh.

Two women accused Assange of acts meeting the criminal definition of rape. I believe those women. I have paid no heed to what govts have said about him.

If you believe the UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, who reluctantly took up the case and consequently read the original Swedish files, those women did actually not accuse Assange of torture.

'I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.'

www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

But be that as it may, this is not the point. I believed those women (or what the media said those women alleged). But I still understood that Sweden's flat out refusal to promise not to extradite Assange to the US was precisely because the US wanted him extradited and had urged Swedish prosecutors to pick up the case again after it had been dropped.

That much was crystal clear to everyone who had eyes to see and did not fall for the mainstream media's narrative. It was never about the rape, whether it happened or not.

It is interesting that in Jungian terms, an anima possessed man can often present as waspish and sharp tongued, and camp; maybe best personified in the figure of the drag queen; and an animus possessed woman actually quite similar ( but with a certain 'harder', although similarly aggressive quality) The meaning of animosity and animus is, interestingly, not too dissimilar:

Synonyms & Antonyms for animus: animosity, antagonism, antipathy, bad blood, bitterness, enmity, gall, grudge, hostility, jaundice, rancour.

My feeling is that some women are actually animus possessed, and had they been born in more contemporary times, may have identified as 'trans'. A primitive form of 'masculinity' is emulated and sought. And 'femininity' is rejected.

It went totally over my head and I switched off.

Mission accomplished then, eh?

People not wanting to have sex with (insert whichever person or group of people they don't want to have sex with) is never a problem, imo, and if someone thinks it is they have a serious issue with understanding and respecting boundaries. Nobody needs a reason, much less one that other people agree is valid (presumably there will be a vote?), "I don't want to" should always be good enough.

I will not date anyone who does not respect the sexual boundaries of monosexuals.

This, exactly.

It's the not accepting that other people's boundaries may be different to one's own that I really hate. Same as when they say "sexuality is fluid" - yes, I'm sure it is for some people, but not for everyone, and this is not actually a problem that needs solving.

I'm bi. I'm also repelled by anyone who says "hearts before parts" or "attraction beyond gender". The heart of such a person is incompatible with mine because I will not date anyone who does not respect the sexual boundaries of monosexuals.

"Hearts before parts" reads like someone who isn't that keen on sex in general to me, tbh.

I confess my opinion on both sets of genitals is pretty neutral, and it really does depend on who they're attached to.

If they're attached to someone who thinks lopping bits off in order to resemble the opposite sex is a good idea, or attached to someone who thinks being a woman means conforming to a narrow set of stereotypes, then it's a no from me.

Does my head in though, that they've reduced bisexuality to "hearts before parts" as though not having a one-sex-only orientation makes one somehow morally superior.

I mean, I do in fact like both types of genitals. That doesn't mean that I'm up for a mix and match the body parts scenario, or that specific individuals won't leave me cold in terms of either looks or personality. You'd think other bisexual people would understand that "they'll sleep with anyone!" is a nasty stereotype, not a true description of our deep inner feelings.

Oh yeah. I could do without reading another "well I like both sets of genitals so if you won't shag transwomen then you must be really boring in bed" piece of word vomit.

Absolutely. We also need facepalm, ffs, and wtf emoticons. Instead fb gives us "care", which we were already using the heart for, which just goes to show the men who rule tech haven't got a clue about women's needs.

Another broader issue I've become aware of is that that monosexuals (for want of a better word) do not get bisexuals, and vice versa. In fairness I first became aware of this aged twelve, but the bisexuals of the trans lobby have really given the rest of us a bad name.

I've been asking for a vomiting emoticon for a while!

Oh no, these people definitely believed there were girls on the internet - and I say girls rather than women quite deliberately. They just assumed, from my writing style, that I was one of them rather than a girl.

It was a few years before I stopped to wonder why men in their forties were so keen to talk to underage girls on the internet. Do we have a emoticon yet?

It was a damned sight easier in those days, if pressed, to claim to be male. Which makes me one hell of a hipster in the trans debate, because we're talking twenty-plus years ago here.

To be more serious, different women have different risk profiles and risk tolerances. Some are open about their identity because they don't have much to lose, others absolutely are not because they would lose their job or they have a stalker, and then there are a bunch of women in the middle who's under their own name in some spaces and not in others or who just happened to pick a screename they liked and then used it everywhere. Expecting everyone else to do whatever you happen to feel is right for you is unreasonable.

Ah, the "there are no girls on the internet" period.

I like to be charitable and assume the majority are just clueless.

The daft part was, back then, if I did make my sex known, people used to accuse me of lying. Apparently "fifteen year old girls don't talk like that." I used to get ever so narked about it. Neither my age nor my sex disqualifies me from speaking in complete sentences with accurate spelling, punctuation and grammar, ffs.

Yeah, anyone who insists that you tell them who you are on the internet is either clueless or up to no good.

Another broader issue this whole shebang has highlighted for me:

Women are never permitted to hide.

Back in the nineties, one thing that was really fucking liberating about the internet was that everyone on there treated one like a human being instead of shit on their shoe a woman.

There were no bodies involved, no one had a webcam, all you knew of the other person was the words they chose to put on the screen. So the dickheads didn't know who to be shits to.

We could hide our sex, and just be people.

This whole pronouns in email signatures bollocks is reversing that, and all I can think is: anyone who thinks insisting women should reveal their sex on the internet is a good, right-on, fair idea, has clearly never run a live compare&contrast on being a woman on the internet versus being sex-unknown on the internet.

I'm not sure why but Prisoner Cell Block H keeps coming to mind.

Confirmation bias?

I thought it was one of the more interesting diversions, even if most of it went right over my head

It went totally over my head and I switched off. Sorry.

I found the Jungian discussion interesting as well. It's not an area I'm familiar with beyond the sort of references in popular culture, so it was enlightening reading several posters describe and critique the anima/animus, the concept of archetypes and so on. By coincidence I started watching a series of videos on the same topic a few weeks ago, so found the exchanges on this thread an interesting diversion.