Enthusiastic Consent - I am .. confused.

[loopyapp]

So .. AIBU that the once previously highly held gold standard for consent between partners had to be enthusiastic and complete. Any hesitant or unsure thoughts = a grey area in which the other party should NOT ever step into??

I ask because (I am very new to all this so please be gentle if I've got this wrong) this sudden uprise in trans activists insisting that predominantly gay women (though men too apparently) should willingly sleep with transwomen and transmen regardless of what genitalia they have or where they are in their transition is confusing.

Are trans people really insisting that people have sex with them despite their lack of enthusiastic consent because its their right??

I must have this wrong.. surely.. we were banging the #metoo campaign drum not that long ago .. all up in arms about how both parties need to be fully able and willing to consent to engage in anything that could be considered sexual contact.. its how I've been raising my 4 boys .. its what I completely believe in .. that absolutely everyone is allowed to turn sex down at any point, even during, simply because they wish to without having to give a carefully drafted PC reason????

[Edited by MNHQ to remove poll]

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]I had a quick look at research this morning and as I said, there has not been much scientific study (as opposed to comment) in the decades since your researcher

From Wikipedia

A 2015 survey of roughly 3,000 American trans womenn^ showed that at least 60% were attracted to women.

[[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexuality]][/quote]
Gosh we had no SOMEidea did we?

60% , the majority, of transwomen were attracted to women according to that link

Ijustreallywantacat

What is the point of the thread?

That people with a penis shouldn't be able to call lesbians prejudiced, genital fetishes and transphobic, (and all the other threats on the internet) because a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with them.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

And in fact I’ve never even spoken to one person who was a victim of Savile

I have, she was a young woman I worked with in the early 2000s who was subjected to his sexually abusive and inappropriate behaviour in public at a work event and it was laughed off.

Laughed off, minimised, dismissed, the women affected threatened with reprisals as you say in your next post, if they didn’t keep quiet about it.

Always the same dynamics.

I always remember the woman on that documentary about him (after he was finally exposed as the prolific abuser he was) who he assaulted when she was a teenager in a children’s home. When she told the staff there what he’d done, she was punished for “lying” about “Uncle Jimmy”. Solitary confinement, I think - for a 14/15 year old girl.

And yes, I’m sure the fact he was allowed to transgress so openly and his victims either disbelieved or ignored was part of the thrill for him. What a kick he must have got out of being able to exercise all that power over those far more vulnerable than him, being able to make everyone around him treat his sexual gratification as the number one priority.

Anyone seeing any similarities yet?

I really do think some of the “handwavers” (indeed, Datun) on this thread would have responded the same way as the staff at that children’s home, if they’d been in that position, given their reactions to this abuse of lesbians that’s happening now.

And here is a collection of another group of women writing their stories.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/43?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cta

Should we be discounting their stories because it shows a group of males that continue to show male patterns of sex offenses despite their transition?

Or should we be saying, ok, there are now more and more stories coming out, perhaps NOW is a good time to listen to these women and understand there is an issue. One that is being swept under a colourful rug of silence.

I think I asked the question up thread.

How many females being harmed will be deemed the limit before something is done?

Or will it always be n+1 in favour of the males.

I think it’s also worth pointing out that some of the biologically female people harmed by this culture also identify as trans themselves.

I have read several harrowing accounts by young same-sex attracted biologically female trans people who were coerced into sex/raped by older biologically male trans people. In all the accounts, the male person knew the female person wasn’t interested but despite an often repeated “no”, applied huge amounts of pressure until they achieved their aim. Some threatened to “out” their victims as “transphobes” to their community; some took advantage of their position as leaders of a support group for trans youth to groom their victims. Some resorted to physical violence.

To those of you who see yourselves as “trans allies” I ask, which trans person is more vulnerable in that scenario? Which of those people’s rights are you you advocating for? Does the biologically female trans person get a voice, or does that person’s right to a voice have to be sacrificed for the “greater good” of the (predominantly male) “trans community”?

Should these vulnerable young people be silenced and/or ignored along with those other same-sex attracted biologically female people we’ve been talking about here?

Or should we acknowledge there’s a pattern of male sexual entitlement and predatory sexual behaviour here, among SOME biologically male trans people (yes, a minority, but still a pattern) - and the fact of their being trans is what is stopping widespread awareness and condemnation of their acts, and as such, it needs to be addressed?

@Helleofabore

I think I asked the question up thread.

How many females being harmed will be deemed the limit before something is done?

Or will it always be n+1 in favour of the males.

Sadly I think it will always be n+1 for some people.

Anyone who’s interested in the psychological aspect of denial and how powerful it is should watch a documentary called Capturing the Friedmans.

It follows a family where the father and an adult son were both convicted of sexually abusing boys.

What struck me particularly was something the wife/mother said about her husband’s collection of magazines of images of child abuse (this was pre intenet): she said that even though he had the magazines in full view, and she knew they were there, she literally couldn’t see what they were. She could see them, but not see them.

Her psychological need to deny the fact her husband was a child abuser was so great that even the physical evidence of her own eyes failed to reach that part of her brain that would have reacted to it, that would have had to take this information on board and process it. She knew that threatened her whole life and family so she protected herself by blanking out the information even though it was right there in front of her.

All unconsciously, of course. This was by her own account, years later, divorced and looking back in some astonishment at the power of her own denial.

An non-abusive adult woman could actually see these magazines that were full of photographs of men sexually abusing boys, and rationalise them into something perfectly acceptable and normal.

When I see people hand waving away instances of abuse that don’t sit comfortably with their worldview, like they have done on here, I can’t help but think it’s the same kind of process at work.

It’s probably naive of me to be disappointed that posters such as Ijustwantacatreally don’t seem interested in engaging with the issue of how their own behaviour amounts to enabling abuse. I would have liked them to, but instead it’s radio silence or sidestepping. It’s a shame when those who are so vocal when pointing the finger at others have so little to say about their own behaviour and attitudes.

Anyone should sleep or have sex with whomever they want with no pressure for any particular group.

I have 2 lesbian friends and they just don't fancy trans women at all. Their choice. I also know lots of men and none of them would have sex with a trans woman. Some men obviously do but many men still see them as not women because you know sex at birth and still seeing them as men.

"Stonewall employed a person they knew taught seminars entitled ‘how to break through the cotton ceiling’.

So no it’s not scaremongering, it’s endorsed by the leading lgbt+ organisation in this country.

Nancy Kelly ceo also said that lesbians should examine their ‘societal prejudices’ if they don’t want to have sex with tw, including the 90%+ who retain their penis.

Stonewall have rewritten the legally protect characteristic of same sex orientation as same gender attracted.

So yes this happens. Supported/promoted by stonewall.

And there’s the first person accounts in the article- are you claiming these lesbians are lying? The two tw in the article who say it has happened to lesbian friends of theirs are lying? Miranda Yardley (tw) also always stood by the fact this happens. And there’s links in fwr that have years worth of evidence to show this happens.

It’s not scaremonging. Stop trying to silence rape victims."

Even when people provide evidence of it happening some in the pro trans lobby say it isn't. Why should a lesbian woman be made to feel guilty or examine anything because she doesn't want sex with a man who now says he is a woman.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Betrayal trauma theory or betrayal trauma blindness is the term in children. It’s based on the need to put aside what we know to preserve the bond to our primary attachment figure for survival. Human brains are actually wired up to do this.

While an adult isn’t going to be as dependent as a child for survival, there’s lots of ways in which it must feel that way in some relationships/families/circumstances (prisons for example), and the human need for survival.

If women face how unsafe women are then that would mean facing they are that unsafe themselves. It’s the part of the reason those of us who are survivors of abuse blame ourselves, because it gives a false sense of security. If it’s our fault then there might be a way of figuring why, and correcting it- getting fat of wearing baggy clothes or stop provoking him, stop ending up alone with him and so on- which while it’s a fucking lousy way to live, it’s a lot less scary than facing the reality- that we have zero control over it and we are always at risk of it. It’s a function habit that serves to allow our brains to cope with living in such terror, to give us survival strategies (to our minds they are survival strategies). This is viewed as dysfunctional once we are adults and away from the abuse, but at the time this way of thinking serves a function. Then the neural paths ways link up and it becomes very difficult to change that.

I guess denial is like that.

But despite understanding that mechanism I still want to walk around screaming safeguarding at people, because what the fuck is wrong with adults who have the luxury to be blind to this when children (or women) have no say in being victims of this.

I understand yet I can’t understand at all.

*the human need for survival overrides every other need

And yes, I’m sure the fact he was allowed to transgress so openly and his victims either disbelieved or ignored was part of the thrill for him. What a kick he must have got out of being able to exercise all that power over those far more vulnerable than him, being able to make everyone around him treat his sexual gratification as the number one priority.

I won't say here what he did in public to this 19 year old in front of lots of people in her workplace but it was fucking grim.

[quote BloodinGutters]@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Betrayal trauma theory or betrayal trauma blindness is the term in children. It’s based on the need to put aside what we know to preserve the bond to our primary attachment figure for survival. Human brains are actually wired up to do this.

While an adult isn’t going to be as dependent as a child for survival, there’s lots of ways in which it must feel that way in some relationships/families/circumstances (prisons for example), and the human need for survival.

If women face how unsafe women are then that would mean facing they are that unsafe themselves. It’s the part of the reason those of us who are survivors of abuse blame ourselves, because it gives a false sense of security. If it’s our fault then there might be a way of figuring why, and correcting it- getting fat of wearing baggy clothes or stop provoking him, stop ending up alone with him and so on- which while it’s a fucking lousy way to live, it’s a lot less scary than facing the reality- that we have zero control over it and we are always at risk of it. It’s a function habit that serves to allow our brains to cope with living in such terror, to give us survival strategies (to our minds they are survival strategies). This is viewed as dysfunctional once we are adults and away from the abuse, but at the time this way of thinking serves a function. Then the neural paths ways link up and it becomes very difficult to change that.

I guess denial is like that.

But despite understanding that mechanism I still want to walk around screaming safeguarding at people, because what the fuck is wrong with adults who have the luxury to be blind to this when children (or women) have no say in being victims of this.

I understand yet I can’t understand at all.[/quote]
Agree with every word.

I won't say here what he did in public to this 19 year old in front of lots of people in her workplace but it was fucking grim.

Oh Eresh. for her, wherever she is now.

@Snoozer11

I think all of those who talk about "enthusiastic consent" are virgins.

This is gross and misogynistic

So what is the point of the thread? What's the point of the article? What's the takeaway that you think I should learn?

Ijustreallywantacat what I am hoping, from threads like this, and from the BBC article, is that young lesbians will see that they are not alone, that they are not broken, that their desire is not shameful, that their boundaries are not something that others should be permitted to overcome, that they don't need to learn to "cope" with penis-in-vagina sex in order to be seen as a good, progressive person.

If all this news coverage gives just one lesbian a bit of comfort and support to be able to say no, when she's pressured for sex by a male-bodied person, then that's a win.

If all this news coverage enables just one young lesbian not to feel shame at her own same-sex desires, then that's a win.

I'm kind of staggered that someone could post a thread about women being sexually coerced and assaulted, and someone could come back asking what the point is.

As a lesbian friend of James Kirkup said to him: "I'm a lesbian. I don't like penises. That's rather the point."

This thread is eye opening. We have a BBC article reporting on lesbians who have been sexually coerced and raped by some trans women and still there are commenters minimizing this, saying we should not discuss this, piping up with not all of them are like that or asking what the point of discussing the BBC report is.

It really drives home to me that there will always be a certain subset of people who are ready to either ignore or even be complicit with abuse in the communities/organizations they belong to and/or support.

@Rheia1983

This thread is eye opening. We have a BBC article reporting on lesbians who have been sexually coerced and raped by some trans women and still there are commenters minimizing this, saying we should not discuss this, piping up with not all of them are like that or asking what the point of discussing the BBC report is.

It really drives home to me that there will always be a certain subset of people who are ready to either ignore or even be complicit with abuse in the communities/organizations they belong to and/or support.

This.

How dare people minimise this to protect men that say they are women. Why are more women born female not angry.

@DrSbaitso

I'm kind of staggered that someone could post a thread about women being sexually coerced and assaulted, and someone could come back asking what the point is.

Yes. It really is staggering, isn’t it.