TRAs deface Millicent Fawcett statue

[Peony1897]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/19/transgender-activists-deface-millicent-fawcett-statue/

How dare they.

Neither do I. Social contagion, mental health problems, autism and internalised misogyny and hompohobia seem to be behind the huge rise in FTM numbers. For many MTF, it's a fetish.

Yeah the men with fetishes have done a good job hiding behind the vulnerable ND/gay/ abused teenagers, haven't they?

I think many of us forget there are people who have started to think about this topic over the past year or so and have not seen these.

These quotes used to be some of the only things we could use to highlight exactly what these people thought about women.

Where is that taken from?!

They are collected quotes from those men, about how they see women.

This 100% sums up how I have felt over the years. Always been 'live and let live', described as 'woke', embracing difference, welcoming of pretty much anyone identifying as anything if it made them happy, as long as it didn't harm anyone. As long as it didn't harm anyone. And then came the vitriol aimed at JK Rowling for voicing a perfectly reasonable and well informed perspective. Threats of violence. Feeling like I was unable to voice my own experience of womanhood for fear of being called a bigot, for rejecting the terminology our public services were increasingly using - "people who menstruate", "cis woman" etc. My whole experience of biological womanhood reduced to dehumanising terminology and denial of biological fact.

Serano, Lavery and Chu are all “trans women” writers fawned over in the media.

It’s awful to see. Really sick

Indeed!! Because every woman has always protested in exactly this way... 🙄FFS

There were lots of reasons why the fetish element was not acknowledged.

But the main one was that, if people acknowledged that many of them were men with a sexual fetish, that undermined Stonewall's line of Acceptance without Exception because those men would/should have been excepted.

So...

A) women could have reasonably argued that all TW should be kept out of women's spaces on the basis that some were real transwomen and some were autogynophiles from the start.

B) because it would have been harder to get the general public to feel that this was 'the most vulnerable group' if it became known that some were doing it for sexual gratification reasons.

C) it would have most definitely ended any talk of TWAW if so many of them could be proved to be just common or garden sexually motivated males.

I'm always most baffled by the TW re all harmless and don't commit crimes narrative when the evidence is freely available that there is no significant difference between offending rates or patterns between men and TW and that the rate of sexual/violent offending against women in TW is actually higher than the rate of sexual offending in the general male prison population. Meaning that a TW is more likely (not less) to be in prison for a violent/sexual crime against women than other men. Or other crime.

That's not to say I think all TW blah blah but the lack of critical thinking applied by so many was just baffling.

And remember Lavery was platformed on woman's hour on Lavery's book tour. The book tour about Lavery's book about Lavery's penis. And Lavery loved to post the photos of Lavery's dominance over his wife who was a female with a transgender identity which showed Lavery's bite mark on her cheek and with Lavery's whole hand in her mouth.

When these men show us who they are, they believe they are the height of liberalism and progress. When you scratch below the surface, too often they are the opposite, and they are getting wonderful feelings though from being lionised by the very people they secretly despise, as well as being shamed by those who they publicly despise. It is all to often a win win for them (and no this is not me saying ALL, this is specifically SOME)

It's odd that the Cynthia Payne film 'Personal Services' was the second highest grossing film in the UK in 1989 (thanks google), but that now the idea that some men are aroused by role playing as women is taboo.

Yet there is general acceptance that porn is out of control.

The fatal flaw in the plan to pretend that fetishists don't claim trans identities - exhibitionism.

Re that image with those disgusting quotes: I don't understand why those trans people would so blatantly make those statements. Doesn't it massively undermine their movement?

They're not trying to win hearts and minds though, that isn't the strategy. Are you familiar with the Denton document?

Yep, they can't help themselves

People can 'believe' what they wish. In this instance they are profoundly and demonstratably wrong. And affirming that wrong belief is doing them absolutely no favours. Witness the response to their finally having been told 'no'.

A strongly-held belief in a reality that isn't real, that we are something which we are patently not, is a delusion. Sometimes the delusion is a primary symptom; at others, it's a secondary symptom of another underlying mental health disorder, often of the variety involving a disassociation from reality.

Either way, 'affirmation' is far from being the cure. Anorexics suffer from bodily dysphoria: the delusion that, no matter what their body shape, they are fat. We don't affirm that delusion by agreeing with them that they are fat and facilitating the starving of themselves to accord with the bodily image they perceive. We give them mental health support.

Erotomania - the absolute, unshakeable conviction that the object of the erotomanic fixation loves them in return - is another such delusion which in fact provides an interesting parallel with trans activism. Even if the object of desire is a celebrity, or someone unknown to the erotomanic, their every word or deed is perceived as confirmation of this 'love'.

The erotomanic doesn't have the legal right to stalk the object of his (it's usually a 'he') affections, to close that gap between presence and absence, to make his unwanted presence felt every day through his unwanted contact. There are legal measures in place to prohibit this. Same as the presence of males in a female changing facility is unwanted contact (and if one woman says 'no', she has the veto. Other women do not have the right to consent for me).

Stalking, the frequent manifestation of erotomania, is quite rightly a criminal offence. It's a gross invasion of another person's boundaries, without their consent and where contact/boundary overstepping is unwanted.

Erotomania, stalking and recent demonstrations of TRAs' behaviour are all driven by the delusional belief - or pretensions to such a belief - that reality doesn't exist the way it truly is and that other peoples' boundaries can be completely discounted as a means of affirming that delusion.

Too much 'affirmation', and for far too long, is exactly what has led to last week's outcome.

For some, 'their' movement was just about undermining and destabilising women's rights and showing women that men won't accept their no.

This is what many women understood for years and why so many have referred to it as a men's rights movement for so long.

The problem was that, under the Stonewall, Acceptance without Exception banner, all 'transwomen' were equal (whatever their motivation) so even those who threatened women were allowed to/turned a blind eye to and it was framed as the women made us do it or it was just denied - but that never happens! Even when it had. You can't let one bad apple upset the applecart. Etc etc.

And you'll also notice that it's only ever Transwomen who behave like this. There's no similar widespread aggression from transmen towards anyone (despite all that testosterone they've taken which, apparently, means they are now indistinguishable from men and pose equal, if not more, threat to women than TW do). There are a couple of reasons for this.

A) TM are female and were raised as girls and girls/women just don't behave like that in the main. And it's tolerated less when they do.

B) No one expected men to accept TMAM in the way women were expected to accept TWAW because, well, they're female and who cares what a woman thinks. That's why there was no challenge to primogenture laws and a gay sauna in London was legally allowed to.exclude TM on the basis that they were female etc.

C) and because it didn't matter how they behaved. If anyone had really believed, even for a second, that they were really women, this sort of behaviour would have been frowned upon. But it wasn't. And it wasn't frowned upon because people expect that sort of behaviour from men and ignore it to an extent (boys will be boys, innit?) By the same token, it's why women saying no have been so roundly vilified - "women know your place. You're right, but the men don't like it so quieten down now!"

I was fondly remembering the Man Friday efforts shared on MN a few years ago this morning (for those who dont know, it was when a group of women identified as men on a friday to see how far they got without being challenged. The answer was not very far.) It was in response to everyone else falling over themselves to show that they believed TWAW and really, honestly, they couldn't even tell the difference! Turns out, they could.

The obvious thing you are missing is that for a great many trans people they have a "sincerely held belief" that at some level or another they ARE the other; they ARE a woman in their brain and in their heart for example. This has been reinforced online and in teaching and in mantras such as "trans women are women". A trans person doesn't begin to upend their life by thinking "You know what, I think I might like to pretend to be a woman". They think "You know what, I think I AM a woman".

Actually, many of us are aware that this is exactly what has happened. And it's why so many were angry about it - especially where children were concerned.

But this is where the fault lies - with the people who peddled those complete untruths. Not with the women who identified them as untruths. They should never have been told that they were really were a woman in the first place.

I have not yet read a single story of a 'transchild' where it hasn't come about because the child preferred the toys and clothes of the opposite sex for.a while, was told they couldn't play with that/wear that because it was for [insert the opposite sex] and then concluded (because they were a child using child logic) not that this was a load of sexist bollocks but that, in that case, they must really be a [insert opposite sex].

I agree that it is terrible for those who have been lied to throughout this especially those who took a path that they might not otherwise have taken. But the answer is to find ways of.genuinely supporting those people in a way that is not at the expense of women. Not for the lie and injustice to be perpetuated indefinitely.

"IF you truly believe that your internal essence is female and that makes you a woman - "

The problem with this is that this is normally a part of dysphoria associated with the sexed body. The fact that trans activism has sought to remove the requirement for a dysphoria completely suggests THEY don't genuinely believe it. And have pissed all over that first group for their own gain.

They get off on it. They get off on knowing they can say that stuff and we can't stop them coming into our spaces, in fact they'll be lionised as so brave and stunning for doing it. Dominating women and pushing boundaries is how they get their kicks.

<Waits to see if telling the truth in a way men don't like is still a deletable offence after the supreme court ruling>

Anyone who has followed Lavery's career will know he's done far more since to humiliate his wife, since he posted those photos of his fist in her mouth and his bite mark on her face

No because the world is full of misogynists who now have the perfect vehicle to drive their misogyny whilst bleating ‘be kind’ - trans activism.

When I think of Daniel, I think of someone who is being abused in front of everyone while people applaud their abuser.

And to add to the quoted words of TRA's. A quote by Andrea Long Chu (published I believe in his book 'Females') and which was part quoted (or at least referred to earlier in this thread) is, in full -

"Femaleness is a universal sex defined by self-negation… I’ll define as female any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another…[The] barest essentials [of femaleness are] an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes"