GC Ultra / GC Lite?

After reading the discussion on this thread, I think DJ Lippy makes an interesting point:

https://x.com/terfasaurus/status/1756714230613483695?s=20

'Is it just me or does it feel like the GC lite position has been reverse engineered? The deals were done long ago and they've been attempting to manufacture our consent ever since. Now the time comes to pay the piper and they're empty handed. We do not comply.'

@ResisterRex exactly ! Imagine if this person was female ? Remember the female teacher in Scotland caught on Only Fans ? She was very quickly dismissed ( and quite rightly i.m.o. ) This is how we know sex can't be changed !! And neither does male priviledge !!! The safeguarding of children however , falls by the wayside , well because .... stunning and brave ....

Oh yeah, you're right, how could I have been so blind.

Putting a popstar poster on your wall is exactly the same as involving teenagers in your adult fetish while they're in school.

I don't think schoolchildren or adults should expected to play along with a man pretending he's a woman.

Neither do I. The majority of posts in this thread are yet another take on "I'm not transphobic". It's pointless: it's transphobic to question anything a "trans" person or their acolyte says or does; there's no safe position here; no reasonable compromise.

I do think men should be able to wear skirts and pink jumpers if they want to, with fake breasts if they insist. Since it wouldn't be acceptable for a female teacher to showcase her Z-cups and nipple detail in school, it isn't for Kayla Lemieux either.

No matter what they wear or do to their bodies, adult male humans are men. No fashion choice or pronoun can change that, and pussyfooting round the edges of this important fact makes people look stupid.

I mean - this used to be part of basic moral religious teaching in the west. You aren't supposed to think about other people besides your spouse sexually, and really you aren't meant to be having sexual fantasies or masturbating etc. And this was in part seen as respect for others and not objectifying them sexually.

But this was felt to be prudish and repressive, so then it was argued that it is ok to do this, not disrespectful, and none of anyone elses business.

I do kind of wonder about this combination of ideas when you add in consent to the mix - it's great and normal to have sexual fantasies, masturbation is normal and good etc -- and also that there is supposed to be some kind of consent involved with the person being thought about? How is that supposed to work?

That just seems bizarre and it's surely not just a male thing. There are millions of girls who had Mick Jagger or Justin Bieber or whomever on their wall and I am quite sure they were not all thinking about going out for a burger and a coke with them.

Not all these guys wear comedy breasts though. Some have fairly normal sized implants or hormonally induced.

I don't like this level of sexual display publicly that we've now got with agp, but we seem to have reached a point where we can't object socially, it's just clothes and his identity, and I really think we've stretched 'safeguarding' way beyond what it's able or is designed to do

Is it "just clothes"? It looks like either fake breasts or breasts induced on a man by artificial hormones. That's way beyond someone choosing slightly unusual clothing and keeping their sexual ideas to themselves.

And I don't think schoolchildren or adults should expected to play along with a man pretending he's a woman.

That teacher was seen as acceptable.

But it raises the point: if men can have fake boobs now how big can their fake boobs be?

We've opened Pandora's box.

Basically yes.

What are you saying? Men who watch grim porn and think about it at work need to be sacked?

Firstly we'd only get to sack the ones who at least admit to this thought crime.

The rest of them just deny it and carry on.

How is that better?

This is not solvable with legislation.

DH is targeted because he's admitted what the rest won't admit to but getting him cancelled won't solve the rest of them who can just deny the thoughts and nasty porn.

You can only judge on how people act or rely on them to admit to 'bad thoughts'. It's unworkable.

Honestly it's either the hijab or a return to socially enforced codes around men's clothes. The thought police is not an option.

I know which one seems more appealing to me.

It's interesting that DH is seen as OK to be a teacher, but Kayla Lemieux isn't.

I'd say both are a fetish, but only one of them is seen as unacceptable.

I wonder at what (fake) breast size Kayla would be deemed acceptable.

This actually really needs thinking through and is a deeper schism than has been considered I think. @Karensalright makes some good points which I've been trying to think through.

It's become an assumed mantra on here that: agp men are 'involving you in their fetish.' which just seems to mean enjoying thinking about what turns them on in public.

But if that involvement remains only in their heads how do we legislate for it?

Men think about women sexualy without their consent all the time.
Does being around men mean we are consenting to that?
It would seem the only solution to men and women being together publicly without involving women in men's sexual fantasies would be the hijab.

Yes it's icky and I wish we still had a culture with more restrictions around men's sexuality but that ship seems to have sailed.

It's not the same as a convicted paedophile around children. That isn't because the children are going to be harmed by their thoughts it's because they are a known potential danger to actually harming children.

I actually think that those types of equivalences are dangerously flirting with transphobia and that's the first time I've ever suggested that in 6 years on here.

It's also not like voyeurism as that is without your consent to be seen.

When you go out in public you are consenting to the fact you will be around people they will see you, they will be having all sorts of thoughts about you you can't control. As long as they act properly and within the law nothing you can do.
There is no thought police.
Or there is actually, but I don't want there to be.

I don't like this level of sexual display publicly that we've now got with agp, but we seem to have reached a point where we can't object socially, it's just clothes and his identity, and I really think we've stretched 'safeguarding' way beyond what it's able or is designed to do.

I think I've got it.

Debbie Hayton watches sissy porn, is a self-confessed autogynephile, has a porn fuelled idea that big breasts make women more important and was so consumed with the need to wear women's clothes, that he would have forgone his wife and family, in order to pursue transition.

But he's managed to confine the entire thing to evenings and weekends when he's on his own in his house. And the rest of the time it doesn't exist.

Or if it does, all men are sex mad bastards anyway, so what do you expect?

And people are unsure why that might be pretty fricking offensive to someone like Kathleen Stock, who lost her employment and in some sense her vocation because she was unwilling to be other than truthful or morally upright, or really anyone that has stuck their neck out over this?

And people should be free to wear their dog play fetish outfits in public. And their ‘little’ fetish oufits.

Because they are not having sex right at that time. It is all good.

Hang on, has Janice Turner opined that it's extremist to say "he" is the correct English personal pronoun for a male? Good grief 🤣🤣

Honestly, it sounds more like this book comes with a plea to not bother removing safeguarding because bad stuff is going to happen anyway.

So you don’t know and don’t think that any steps should be taken to ensure women and children are at least protected from participating in a male person’s fantasy when it is has been said by others who have the paraphilia that being treated as a woman reinforces their fantasy.

Good to know.

Sorry i need to go bed, useful discussion so okay if I pick it up tomorrow lots to think about bless you all

There seems to be some kind of disconnect about what we have been told by people one Blanchard and other male people and what we are hearing that Hayton has written. And what sissy porn has portrayed.

Either way. The question remains, do Hayton’s students have the freedom to call Hayton ‘sir’ and male pronouns?

Does Hayton use the male toilets if the gender neutral toilet option is not available?

Have we seen Hayton’s change of heart about breast size and the worth of women ?

@Helleofabore i actually don’t know wether transsexuals do or do not go home and get off on their day, or have a good old wank. I dont know if men who i encountered at work have a good wank when they go home about me. But it has no effect it is private.

The difference to be made is the internet and what if anything are men, whatever they wear, do there that proliferates the exploitation of children and women.

Because males are supposed to stay out of single-sex female-only spaces / places where women and girls are in a state of undress. So putting a camera in there instead in order to invade their privacy is wrong.

Rather than installing a camera, Hayton has campaigned for Hayton’s “community” to be included in those female-only spaces.

Karensalright

Why does Debbie Hayton wear women's clothes and fake breasts if it's nothing to do with his paraphilia?

Or does he have a paraphilia that is sexual for every other man who has it, but not him?

And people reinforcing that feeling of them being the object of their sexual desire, ie people reinforcing them being a ‘woman’ doesn’t heighten their arousal as a thinking of themselves as a woman?

So if these male people were treated only ever as male people, they would still be just as aroused as they could be. People’s reactions don’t increase their sexual arousal at all?

Is that what you are telling us?

Got it.

And is a paedophile fine hanging out in the swing park as long he defers his arousal until he gets home?

What about a voyeur? Can they spy in my changing room as long as they don't get an actual erection until later?