To be angry and feel the Scottish Gov’s Twitter header is an attack on women?

[Badmoonsarising]

i’d like them to clarify exactly what their definition of “transphobic” is because it seems to have become a slur these days often aimed at anyone but mostly women who are critical of or question in any way the recent upsurge of identity politics. I just feel they’re doing a knee jerk, ignorant, unnecessary huge fuck you to women.

The only way you can pretend transwomen are women is by changing the meaning of the word.

Rat has said a woman is anyone who says they are a woman. Which includes a few parrots.

You know transwomen are not female. You just dare not say it.

The only way you can pretend transwomen are women is by changing the meaning of the word.

Rat has said a woman is anyone who says they are a woman. Which includes a few parrots.

You know transwomen are not female. You just dare not say it.

How, how is that going from a yes in answer to we accept transwomen into yes I accept there are men with gender dysphoria etc?
That isn't even answering the question, what are you actually even talking about?

Um, I'm talking about the Stonewall definition of transwoman. What are you talking about?

By saying that they're always male whatever they do you are denying their existence as a transwomen.

I don't deny that such people exist. I just deny they are female. Because they are not.

Transwomen are male though, Verbeena. A female transperson would call themselves nonbinary or a transman, surely?

By saying that they're always male whatever they do you are denying their existence as a transwomen.

But this is what autogynephiles and fetishists say. The departure from reality is wholly necessary, to validate the kink.

'Becoming What We Love' is how Anne Lawrence, an autogynephile, describes it in their book.

Men with gender dysphoria have no trouble acknowledging that they are male. In fact it was a pre-requisite in order to access treatment. Otherwise it's a delusion.

Or in many cases, a fetish.

No longer it seems, in our brave new pomo world where women still count for nothing.

Um, I'm talking about the Stonewall definition of transwoman. What are you talking about?

That wasn't even what you highlighted and asked though, you said yes you accept transwomen and then went off on a tangent about you accept males with gender dysphoria,
You don't accept transwomen are women. Fair enough.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, women are only biology.
I'm just a silly woman. I obviously forgot the mantra for a minute.
I've been doing it wrong again. Damn.

then went off on a tangent about you accept males with gender dysphoria,

That's the Stonewall definition of trans, along with cross dressers etc. As Datun was referring to. We all "accept" that such people (male) exist.

But this is what autogynephiles and fetishists say

That is not the whole lot of them though, why are you so insistent on lumping them altogether as one?

Because Stonewall does. Where do you draw the line?

I accept that there are men with gender dysphoria who want to present as women to alleviate the symptoms.

I accept that there are men who fetishise women who want to present as women to get aroused.

I accept that there are men who fetishise women's biology, who like to present as women with fake biological characteristics, such as menstruation, pregnancy, lactation, etc.

(I would also point out that one transwoman has the backing of the Vancouver human rights tribunal to sue beauticians for not touching their penis doing a pubic hair waxing. Something that, according to beauticians, usually involves the man having an erection).

None of these people are women.

Although I'm sure they will say they have an innnet sense of self that says they are - except the genuine transsexuals. Who don't say anything of the kind. And acknowledge that they are in fact male.

We all "accept" that such people (male) exist.

Ah, so you'll allow yourself to accept any of the definition where it refers to males, but the rest your mind blanks out.
OK, at least that bit makes a bit more sense.

That is not the whole lot of them though, why are you so insistent on lumping them altogether as one?

Eh? Take it up with Stonewall. Not women for pointing it out!!!

VerbeenaBeeks

Please. If you are going to quote someone, put an asterisk either side of the quote. If you are going to name someone, but an asterisk either side of the name.

It bolds the text. No one has an issue with bolding. Only when you put an @ in because the @ sends an email, bolding doesn't send an email.

And now we're back to picking at how someone is forumming right sorry Datun there you go I have named you is that better did I do it right this time

sorry
sorry again

Sorry, sorry spartacus I do have a an asterisk key

there is that better

Finally. Your posts are incomprehensible, when you don't bold something that someone else has said. It looks like you are saying it! And having a bunfight with yourself

Finally. Your posts are incomprehensible

sorry datun I'm sorry I even forum wrong as well as woman.

sorree

sorree

Apology accepted. Finally. It was getting on everyone's nerves. Don't do it again.

Women are only biology
Women are only biology
Women are only biology

I'll keep writing my lines.