Cambridge Union debate - This House Believes modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community

What I find fasinating about the Megan Fox with a dick or Hulk Hogan with a fanny is that it is based on the mis information that trans women look like megan fox.

Very few trans women go the extremes that looking like megan fox would require.
And it has become the norm in the trans world to not pass but to look trans.

The clips of Maeve were great. Aside from her clear delivery of simple logic and compassion, also so brave of her to stand up and give that speach in the prevailing culture of denial and slander of gender critical women.

The full debate is about 1 hr 45 minutes so I'll have to watch it in chunks, but I will watch it.

Another misuse of language.

It's not ironic when you go out of your way to present as a dominant man, is it.

And I couldn't help laughing at your 'sexual traits indicate reproductive capability'. Not as much as your actual reproductive capability!

And no, you've got it about face.

Sexual orientation is whether you are attracted to the opposite sex or your own sex. Or both.

The rest of it, all of it, from start to finish, is sexual preference.

That’s another distortion of language. There aren’t two categories of women so we don’t need the term cis .

Andy Burnham thinks “ transwomen” are women and agrees with self ID - So he’s another one who doesn’t care a jot about the safety of women and girls.

The irony is breathtaking given I'm a CIS woman.

Well said! 👏

Doesn't this thread exemplify what Thea and Maeve were talking about? The relentless attempt to dominate, including lecturing women and lesbians on this board about our reality and language, all based on niche fantasies and untruths.

I'm always grateful to women on here who take so much trouble to carefully unpick the drivel.

I don't "fancy" everyone of the sex I'm attracted to. Buck Angel is a good example of this, but there are plenty of women with far less extreme presentations who are "not my type" for all sorts of reasons. And I too can appreciate that some men, whom I'm not sexually attracted to, are good looking. I do not find any transwoman I've met, or seen in photos or videos, any more than very superficially, at first glance, sexually attractive – without exception, they have been unconvincing. The closest any have got is something like the look of a woman who is trying much too hard to fit conventional beauty norms, using the whole contents of the Boots cosmetics display and an overdose of botox. They can look good from a distance, but on closer acquaintance the artifice is overwhelming.

Attraction is more subtle than Emily seems to be describing. The superficial has to be quite convincing and has to match the subconscious cues that tell me whether someone is female or male. I'm genuinely not interested in sex with a man, so realising that someone is a transwoman is somewhat off-putting! There are also personality traits that I find off-putting, and moral considerations (I'm in favour of a strong relational commitment, in my case marriage, as a requirement for a sexual relationship). No doubt this is transphobia if the object of initial attraction at 500 yards turns out to be unattractive at 10 yards. Equivalent to racism. A defining character flaw that puts me in the bigot category.

Rather enjoying watching Everton use the techniques predicated on a methodology based on the values outlined here.

https://x.com/boroscq/status/2055585708748730461?s=46&t=9TRdb2Nrc_7Avh47HJ3yuw

Fascinating and sadly pretty nihilistic rather than transformative.

But crack on because the more we try to pin it down in open discussion, the clearer it becomes that it is all smoke and mirrors signifying very little.

Indeed.

According to figures from the last census in the UK, most people don't believe in god. Only 46% of the UK population does:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

As for the ghosts bit, who knows? All we've got on that AFAIK is personal anecdote. Personally, I do because of an experience that I've had. When I share my experience, I'm met with a mix of "me too", open-mindedness and people thinking I'm mad.

Whichever way you look at it, beliefs are personal and nobody should force or coerce others to adopt practices of their own belief. Yes, people might empathise with me that my mum passed away 5 years ago, yes they might understand why I sometimes talk to her out loud... but I'm not so entrenched in my belief in ghosts to demand that they should talk to her too (and tell them that if they don't, they are being unkind invalidating my belief)**. However, that's exactly what happens when trans(-identifying) people guilt-trip everyone into using opposite-sex pronouns, accepting transwomen in women's sports and so on. They are forcing their belief onto others and calling them heretics (transphobes, bigots, Nazis etc) if they don't comply with this demand.

**I'm yet to hear anything back from her TBF. Mildly annoying, given I really didn't need to hear from the random woman that did engage with me. So I'm left in a position where I do believe in ghosts but haven't actually had any benefit from it. FFS.

Maeve Halligan is superb isn’t she?

It’s so heartening to see young women fighting for the cause so eloquently. Amazing speech.

How do you know that "Most people don't believe in 'ghosts' or believe in 'god'"?

@EmilyinEverton I don’t fancy women. I also don’t fancy men who present as women.

one of those groups calls me phobic, and says I need to widen my perspective and reframe my trauma.

Do I, indeed, need to do that, if so why? And if not, why not?

No I get it. For some people typical sex traits aren't their 'deal breakers' but that would be a minority of people that ignore characteristics like a penis or vagina preference for another.

Maybe it's because I'm in a lot of pain but I don't understand your point at all.

I think swimmers are attractive. Say I rate Katie Ledecky an 8 and Aleksandr Popov a 7. I rate Katie with a willie a 2 and Aleksandr with a fanny a 3. What does this mean other than I prefer congruency between primary and secondary sexual characteristics and bits are marginally more important to me than secondary sexual characteristics?

If I rated Aleksandr with a fanny a 10, what would that mean other than I'm probably a chaser? What if I rated Katie with a willie a 10 but Aleksander with a fanny a 5?

This is probably a derail. Sorry. This makes no sense to me and I'd like to follow the discussion.

So in other words it's not about how the people you fancy actually gender-identify.

Edited to add: it's about your perception of their body.

Clearly, attraction characteristics vary between individuals. But what does remain a constant is an attraction to typical sex traits for both CIS & trans people.

No. But those 'reproductive bits' can now be artificially created.

'Reproductive fitness' is an evolutionary psychology term that's subject to the scientific method.

No. The analogy was directed at Tate's fans who are predominantly straight men who have stereotypical preferences in women.

It's simply pointing to how superficial traits influence preferences.

I'm not sure how same gender attraction is supposed to work. Say you identify as a woman; and you meet a person who is clearly female (biological sense) but she is wearing unisex clothes and doesn't declare her pronouns. What differentiates her from her twin who dresses similarly but in fact (although they don't mention it to you) identifies differently? Or you meet a man who presents in a quite feminine way but may or may not identify as a woman (he doesn't say). If you are attracted, on what basis are you attracted? What role does gender play?

So it’s all about the bits? You’re aware that 95% of trans identified males still have penises? and obvs it’s not possible to create an actual vagina on a man

She truly is! Such an impressive young woman.