JK Rowling article

In the same way that refusing to date someone because they're black is racist, refusing to date a trans woman solely because she's trans is transphobic.

And denying the existence or validity of exclusively same sex attraction is deeply homophobic.

I think this sums up my thoughts about genital preference quite well: www.instagram.com/p/CYpFFCVJEnJ/

In the same way that refusing to date someone because they're black is racist, refusing to date a trans woman solely because she's trans is transphobic.

- It's homophobic to gatekeep who is and isn't gay/lesbian/bisexual.

Does that mean no lesbian can say no to a transwoman purely because said transwoman has a penis?

Oh, we have heard that one many times before. No Thank You!

Firstly, I think it's a loud minority. Look at the turnout of gay people one sees at trans-inclusive pride marches, compared to trans exclusionary events.

What now? Are gay people, the people who set up Pride supposed to leave because trans poeple join in?

Oh, silly me. Yes, just like women. Put up or shut up.

And what excatly is a "trans exclusionary event"?

Cos we have videos of lesbians being removed, still sat on their chairs, from events discussing equality, purely for being lesbian, not even speaking, but being in the general vicinity, aka the audience, of someone, a speaker at the event. They had said nothing, done nothing, simply used their tickets and sat down.

Refusing sex to males who identify as something other than a man is not treating them differently or less favourably to any other male. The whole point is that homosexuality means solely same sex attracted. And sex is not an equal opportunities activity.

You make all this fuss about don't put words in your mouth, you never said that, it's awful, it's disgusting - at root this is exactly what you mean.

That homosexual females should not be homosexual. That they should get over their genital preferences and inclusively validate male people with trans identities by being inclusive in their sexual choices.

I can dress it up in nice language all day. It's ABOUT requiring female people to abandon the right to have a sexual preference and instead to regard providing unwanted sexual access to their body to males as a social duty.

These are the facts. Making it sound pretty does not make it any less ugly in reality. It also makes an absolute nonsense of saying you are against bigotry: you are demonstrating quite remarkable bigotry in your attitude towards females and homosexual people. You may want to look up what it actually means.

Wait, what? If you can self-ID disability there are no false claims, surely? To be false, there must be some external criterion, e.g. physical reality, which would be at odds with the individual's claim - thus, not self-ID at all.

- It's transphobic to treat someone worse solely because of their trans status.

I don't want to treat someone worse or even differently because they are trans. I want males to be treated just like any other male human being. Other males aren't allowed to use spaces, services and sports meant for female people, so transidentifying male people can't either. Treating everyone the same regardless of their gender identity. Just as you want as well.

What else does self identify a disability mean? And organisations gatekeeping who gets provisions meant for people with certain disabilities that you don't agree with?

"It is offensive Artichoke and downright homophobic however the poster attempts to frame it, it is the very definition of homophobia and who would want to ally themselves with someone who not only thinks like that but proselytizes it."

It's not my place to deny you feeling offence, so I'm not doing that. You have the right to feel any way you want.

Just to state my point one last time before leaving this thread.

• It's homophobic to gatekeep who is and isn't gay/lesbian/bisexual.
• It's transphobic to treat someone worse solely because of their trans status.

I might answer any other specific questions if I have time.

, I fully support self-id for disabilities, I can't imagine how dreadful it would have to be to have government or other organizations gatekeep disability benefits/accommodations from those who need them.

Sorry but that is also a a vile position to take. Say I am nearly blind and I need additional support at school to help with my exams. I need to show a medical diagnosis to ensure I get the right support. I get that support, others don't.
Now others self id as nearly blind and they get that additional support too, meaning they get to do better, it raises the bar overall but I don't get any additional support anymore in relation to others. I am on the backfoot again, trying to work my way through life and get an equal chance at a good outcome with NO additional support because others who do not have my abilitiy, have coopted my additional support they don't need....

They identify as virtuous though, and to them that's enough.

However, the rest of us know that to identify as something is not to be it. So we know they are being offensive at the same time as they identify as virtuous.

I don't think this is controversial haha

That's the measure of you isn't it, finding it funny taking away people's rights. Not only do you wish to remove rights from women and homosexuals you want to do the same to disabled people, what an absolute peach you are.

Sorry, @ElaineFuchs, can you just say that one more time for those at the back?

‘Yes’ you agree with Artichokes transphobia definition?

Wow, you really are saying the quiet bit out loud. Thank you for the clarity.

I must not reject male sexual partners because they're male, although I'm a homosexual female.

I don't care how you dress that up in positive fig leaves, I find that beyond offensive. And homophobic.

I hope I made someone think about how to be less transphobic however.

'Being less transphobic' in your terms in this conversation could only mean my accepting that 'lesbian' means 'anyone of any sex who wishes to use the word', (regardless of how that impacts the actual group), that 'homophobic' means 'telling anyone of any sex that they're not homosexual if they choose that word even if they're actually not, (regardless of how that impacts on the actual group) and something about how as a lesbian you absolutely grant me the right to not have to have sex with someone I don't want to (thanks for that), but that I must not reject male sexual partners because they're male.

I don't know what you hope anyone takes away from that, but bloody hell do I know what I've taken away from it.

I never prescribed how to "female and lesbian better", you are putting words into my mouth. You can female and lesbian in whatever way you choose, it's what it means to you.

I hope I made someone think about how to be less transphobic however.

some of the views espoused on this thread are clearly formed from a very biased viewpoint, and seeing the perspective

I'm finding your views quite fantastically biased. Is seeing my perspective helping you in any way to realise why females are so very, very angry about the appalling way they are being treated?

Not least the never ending supercillious lecturing about how to female and lesbian better?

I did answer it with a "No"

Like I said, I wouldn't deny someone access to a women's space because of their looks/height/breast size/etc... None of these things make them any more or less of a woman.

Right so transwomen use the spaces and services set aside for their sex which is male. Excellent, we agree on something.

Like I said, I wouldn't deny someone access to a women's space because of their looks/height/breast size/etc... None of these things make them any more or less of a woman.