Male and Gender Critical

I think there are a lot of spoilt young people trying to claim their human rights are being violated and they they need protection.

The clothes are a bit irrelevant.

Who really needs to know if a person doesn't have sexual attraction to others or not/or doesn't have sex/or does have sex after developing a bond with another.. the ridiculous nature of all the different genders now. There appears to be a professional victim status now and the ones claiming it want everyone to notice them.

Each of the different 100 or so genders are looking to be the special ones and want to claim their human rights are not being protected etc etc blah blah blah. Meanwhile in many countries Afghanistan etc real human rights abuses!

No, the clothes are just an example of why OP doesn't want men joining in challenging gender ideology.

The OP's post doesn't have a point to make other than character assassination. It was fail.

Those who successfully challenge trans extremism are regularly subjected to similar treatment on here - usually KJK & Glinner - so it's good to see 2 more ethical & very effective male campaigners getting the same treatment 😀

All the men I know are gender critical and think gender/trans ideology is a load of bollocks.

I'm no sure what point the OP is making?

Some clothes do have particular meanings.

This is a completely separate issue from the clothing you are wearing somehow permitting another person to assault you?

Personally, I find most men, especially heterosexual men are naturally rejecting of gender ideology. It is only those invested in their identities as social justice warriors that go along with it.

James Esses is on the radar because
a - he sat through 7 hours of a Pink News Trans Training Session and took notes
b - he is being contacted by people within the NSPCC to detail how the NSPCC are putting kids at risk.

So he is a hot topic for people to 'go off' him and stop listening to him.

It is nothing to do with a woman donning some bondage gear and banging on about asexual rights.

I'm not sure, and OP will tell me if I am completely wrong, but I am under the impression that the OP doesn't approve of a lot of people who are fighting the good fight. Am I right, OP? What are your thoughts on Kellie-Jay, for example?

Ha!

Unfortunately for them, those atempting that simply don't have the werewithal to recognise it.

Dennis Kavanagh is well able for them. I imagine a verbal joust with him would be like walking head first into a threshing machine.

" Subvert the message".

That is the sum total sum of what Queer Theory preaches.

When you are intent on playing around with, and "subverting", sexual norms then you are playing around with sexual responses and messges. you don't exist in a vacuum, though, you exist in given context and society. You cannot control the message in the way you think you can.

This is just idealistic thinking not rooted in reality. If you want to spend your whole life so consciously and wilfully trying to subvert norms that's up to you.

We all do that in one way or other - but if you choose to subvert sexuality and so on then that is how you will be perceived.

Indeed. Glinner used to be an outlier , inasmuch as it's usually GC women who are set upon and insulted. Perhaps the same toxic treatment is now being extended to James Esses.

I don't see the same visceral hatred for eg Lol Fox or Matt Walsh. I suppose it's because they can be written off as far right nutjobs. Whereas people like Esses , Linehan and Lord Winston are obviously left liberals and therefore more dangerous to the gender lobby?

Ps I agree with your other point - attention seekers are best avoided.

So many fashions for women have become pornified, and the trend for trout pouts and slug like eye-brows create a totally manufactured look. Like a sex doll,

You certainly aren't!

The whole queer movemnt is predicated on identities that revolve around sex and sexuality. And when that happens, women tend to come out of it the worst.

And for many transwoman the costume they assume is totally sexualised. Have you seen Eddie Izzard's outfits? It is all high heels, fishnet stockings, PVC coats, ridiculous amounts of make-up. 'Woman' is a totally sexualised concept and prersenttaion for men like this.

That is the misogyny right under your nose.

You clearly have a problem with people and men in particular making comments about what a woman is wearing - and forming some kind of judgment based on that; as if people are not supposed to notice how someone is presenting themselves.

Clothes/fashion are all about image and message - even if the wearer is unconscious of that.

You want a simple rather than nuanced answer. Life is not simple, though. Social interactions are complex and nuanced and we all have to navigate them.

Most men don't prey on women purely because of what they are wearing no, and if a man is intent on sexual assault it won't matter what a woman is wearing. Women get assaulted in countries in which the abaya is mandatory.

You cannot control people's perceptions and reactions, though, but what you can do, and control, is to be at least a little bit conscious and aware of the subtleties of what you signalling through your presentation.

Why do you think people tend to make an effort to look 'professional' and 'smart' ( both encoded via a certain type of clothing and presentation) for an interview for an office type job?

Well, there isn't a PRIDE in being a woman march is there?

The PRIDE march which used to be all about sexuality but has morphed into straight kink is definitely the place to march if you are asexual. Like a vegan going to a Butcher's March...or something. Dressed as a furry.

This woman campaigning for asexuals to be protected under the Equal Rights Act and protected from “conversion therapy” while wearing fishnets to attract attention for her cause is concentrated, purestrain, extremely high quality blend TQ+ nonsense and considering Esses is on Twitter a lot commenting on TQ+ nonsense I don’t think it’s very notable he mentioned the dissonance.

And I like Dennis Kavanagh! Great way with words and always credits lesbians.

Forget him mentioning the clothes she may be wearing, what is his problem with asexuals, exatly?
And why the apostrophes?
Asexuality is real.

The irony is, as a woman of colour she'll have experienced absolutely tons of discrimination. Maybe she's mistaking the anger she faces as not being 'up for it' as anti-asexuality, when it's just boring old misogyny.

Yup, agree.
It's not criticising her clothing or saying she's 'up for it'.
To the question 'what rights do asexual people not have?' the answer seems to be none, but it must be a pain to live in such a sexualised society. Therefore it's an odd choice to embrace hyper sexualised clothing (although obviously she can wear what she wants etc etc ).
Having said that I do appreciate the point above- if she didn't make herself look hot she'd get 'noone wants you anyway love'. There probably were other asexual protesters not wearing sexualised clothing- no surprise they're not the photo being shared everywhere.
Which maybe, inadvertently, proves their point..?

As for asexual people needing explicit protection under the law, it’s nonsense . Gay and lesbian people need protection so they can be open about their relationship. That’s because their sex is visible if they’re out together.

What people do (or don’t do) in the privacy of their bedroom makes no difference to anyone else. Why would you need to tell anyone? The idea that we must all be able to disclose our sex lives (or worse, conduct them in public) is bizarre.

I genuinely don’t understand. Protected from what?

I think activists like this see being protected by the Equality Act as validation. It's like the Government patting them on the head and telling them they are very special and important, and that it knows that they exist.

It doesn't occur to them that the Equality Act has purposes other than validating people, because they've never experienced actual discrimination. They just feel like it's not fair that other people get Government headpats and they don't and they are throwing a tantrum for their equal share of headpats.

The idea that “feminists have always been against” doesn’t cut much ice for me. It’s becoming clear that some feminist ideas, particularly the more extreme ones, haven’t actually been great for women. We can now work, but still have almost all the shitwork in the home is classic. Better perhaps to have pushed for a model where it was normalized that either parent could stay home or work and home were split and both worked, but fewer hours.

Additionally, I was amazed to find many feminists held the view that all behaviours were socialized and none inate.

Anyway, I regularly judge men and women who wear explicitly sexual clothing in public places. Argue all you like that we should be fighting that concept. Bondage gear, men and women who choose to wear fishnets and leather miniskirts, they are all sending messages. That’s not saying they deserve to be attacked or should be assumed to be “up for it” but they’re wearing clothes to make a statement and if that statement is in obvious contradiction with what they’re saying, then I can’t see a reason not ti comment.