Gender swap situation

[TenThousandYears]

I know you're all probably fed up hearing about this subject...I just need to vent.

DD has been friends with "Sally" for 10 years. (Both 14) Since nursery. In the last few months Sally has decided to change gender and now wants to be called " Ron"

DD just can't wrap her head around this. If she slips up, she gets nasty looks from "Ron" and so she's treading on eggshells.

Ron's brother still refers to Ron as Sally so DD is very confused by it all.

I'm on DDs side. Personally, I would hate to be in her shoes right now. I think if you meet someone and are introduced to them as whomever then that's easier to accept than having to change names and pronouns of someone you've been friends with for 10 years. On TV shows people just accept this straight away and move on but I'm not convinced that it's really that easy.

I also think 14 is a bit young for these changes but that's just my personal opinion.

Are me and my child horrible people for not being able to accept this right away?

I think two men kissing would be a fairly good clue. But hey ho.

We manage when people get married. The odd slip ups are fine but to say you can’t ’accept’ it… you can.

I don’t believe that trans women “belong” in “single sex spaces”, I think people should be a
permitted to use public facilities like toilets in accordance with their social/ legal/ psychological sex (aka gender), as has until now habitually been the case

Cross dressing fetish has nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever.

@Tandora That paper literally proves my point. Serrano spends it acknowledging that erotic “cross gender arousal” should be considered as a full and essential part of the whole “spectrum of MTF experience”, rather than as a separate fetish of autogynephilia a la Blanchard. Serrano is dissolving the idea of the fetish right back into a broader notion of being transgender!

Did you READ the paper — as opposed to just its title?

You have to read the texts yourself, not just what you think they should say, but what they actually say.

So you are denying that cross dressers identify under the trans umbrella?

You really need to take longer ti read these papers if you want to understand them:
You said that Julia Serano said her transness is rooted in cross dressing fetish.
In this paper she is arguing against the (harmful and stigmatising) theory that cross dressing fetish is part of the aetiology of transness . Trans people may have a full range of sexual fantasies as do non- trans people- this doesn’t mean that being trans is caused by or reducible to cross dressing fetish,

@Tandora

I will find the pages but I have read on a trans forum that trans women feel sexual arousal when they transition.

This is self declared chat by trans women, it’s how they feel and they openly discuss this.

Let me find the evidence.

Apart from the bit when Stonewall decide that cross dressers were trans. And then decided this perhaps wasn't a smart move because people might start asking the wrong questions...

... yeah apart from that.

That does mean that transness is about cross dressing fetish! Or caused by it or reducible to it!!

Trans peiple are sexual beings like anyone else. Just as I might feel sexy when I feel good in my body- or dressed in a particularly feminine or nice way- so too trans women might feel sexy when for the first time they feel authentic and at home in their bodies- eg transition. This doesn’t mean that being trans is a fetish.

Let me find the chat before you make your assumptions. You have already made your mind up!

Oh but that evidence isn't admissable. Unlike the the very dubious 'evidence' about a man from 2000 years ago written by his enemy.

This is where the dual standards just out and bite transactivists on the arse.

Language doesn't matter. Except when other MUST use pronouns otherwise they are hateful.
Discussing cross dressing as within the trans umbrella isn't ok. Except for when Stonewall did this and told us we should accept without exception and then realised this wasn't going well as it rather lets the cat out the bag.
Any discussion of anything isn't something we are capable of understanding because we aren't educated enough to understand something thats indefinable. Yet when we come up with alternative explanations, its met with a brick wall of 'you don't make any sense'.

The common factor? These ALL come down in the favour of transactivism and attempt to shut down anything that doesn't fit as being non-intellectual or irrelevant or some other such bullshit.

Its a well rehearsed and dishonest pattern of trying to look clever but not being able to follow that through when challenged, because its a bunch of utter paperweight gibberish for the hard of thinking.

"Trans peiple are sexual beings like anyone else. Just as I might feel sexy when I feel good in my body- or dressed in a particularly feminine or nice way- so too trans women might feel sexy when for the first time they feel authentic and at home in their bodies- eg transition. This doesn’t mean that being trans is a fetish."

The chat is about sexual arousal and 'getting hard’ when the men cross dress during their trans process, this is on a trans chat.

I have never felt sexually aroused in that way when I look at myself in the mirror have you?

please read the article by Julia Serano - it explains it quite well.

www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-CaseAgainstAutogynephilia.pdf

Fantasising about being in the “right” body, having sex with a partner in the “right” “sex-role”/ body can be arousing for both MtF and FtM transgender people. Clothes can be a representation of this. There may also be an element of social taboo.

This doesn’t mean that being trans is about cross dressing or that cross dressing fetish is what causes transness - it absolutely isn’t/ doesn’t.

These are stigmatising and harmful representations that are imposed on trans people to over sexualise them and make them seem perverted.

Dear God.

When its literally spelt out you STILL don't want to see it, do you?!

Wow.

Its incredible to see in real time.

My bullshit meter has broken.

oh gosh no, this thread moved on from the OP ages ago, I was specifically critiquing your issues with the ‘changing grammar’ of using pronouns slightly differently

Tandora

It really doesn’t matter what specific words we use- words are just words

Well:

Elephants sparkling under agricultural galaxy, burned pink crisps?

Wouldn't you agree?

An awful lot of people did. I was also there. How else do you explain multiple countries opting not to use ‘marriage’.

I’m confused about your last bit, are you saying nobody ever had an issue with gay people

Cut that entirely out of its context didn’t you? ☺️

No.

But the entire point of the article is to say that this is a spectrum - from those for whom the erotic element is small to those for who it’s very large. You might read it as “the fetish isn’t really a fetish but a spectrum of sexual fantasy”. But the flipside of that is that she’s also saying that there’s no part of the spectrum for which the erotic motive is entirely absent, either - it’s a fundamental part of it. One can equally read that Serrano article as an attempt to have the fetish cake and eat it too — oh look, it’s not a fetish because it’s all erotic anyway! But the fetish aspect can’t be entirely absent, because what she terms “cross gender arousal” isn’t actually just the same as a woman feeling good when putting on a nice dress, as you claim upthread. Women don’t get aroused by the clothes themselves, or specifically by the idea of “crossing” gender norms in them. Elsewhere, Serrano also makes play repeatedly with the idea of dissolving or crossing boundaries, and the integral nature of the erotic within “MTF” trans identity as a spectrum. So where on the spectrum do we draw the line between “fetish” and “trans” if she is insistent that we do away with the boundaries between them?

Chu and others also make the erotic and sexual an intrinsic part of trans identity. Do you want to argue that they don’t? That being trans is always just a pure notion of oneself as alternatively gendered? Serrano is very clear that that isn’t what she thinks trans is.

And theres the deliberate missing of the point.

Again.

What are you reading?
Shes not saying that at all!

She talks about the MtF spectrum, not a spectrum of sexual fantasy, and in practically the first sentence of the article she clarifies that while some MtF people might at some point in their lives have such fantasies , not all do.

So no she categorically says all / exactly the opposite of this.

there’s no part of the spectrum for which the erotic motive is entirely absent, either - it’s a fundamental part of it.

There is no “motive”- the idea that erotic fantasy is part of the motive for transition is exactly what her article is written to disabuse- not a “fundamental part” and not part of the spectrum.

Who says that women don’t get aroused by putting on clothes? Definitely speak for yourself.

@Tandora You’re aroused by the clothes themselves? Do you think that women generally are?

oh gosh no, this thread moved on from the OP ages ago

No it didn’t.

You have lost me totally. A PP started going on about gay people as if there was some link with OPs DD being bullied and you brought up gay marriage. I have no idea what you are talking about. The discussion around pronouns on this thread has only been in relation to OPs DD.

Cool. So all those high profile ‘trans’ blokes who openly admit their fetish for cross dressing are not trans. That should cut down a good chunk of the numbers society needs to accommodate.

Who’s next? Do you think homophobia is bad? We could also stop pandering to the wishes of the clearly homophobic ones like Juno Dawson. The ones with internalised homophobia that has affected them emotionally like Paris Lees may be worthy of more sympathy though.

Do homophobic people count as trans?