This is bullshit thread #3

[HornyTortoise]

Following on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2716917-This-is-bullshit-Thread-2

Open ongoing discussion welcome for anyone to join in.

Just tried to reply to see max posts were reached, hope this is OK to do...

Also - yes to Prawn - very well put!

It's not that it's Ok to be trans because we're actually women. It's that it's ok to be trans because gender is bullshit and it's OK for men to be like that.
This.

Helen, you express yourself so clearly, thank you for your posts.

We can go to the moon but we can't invent and install penis detectors?
That's a damn shame ( along with noro and the common cold).

That's the difference for me too. Choosing the loo in which you blend in most easily....not always going to work really.

"The problem is not an absence of moral imagination; it’s an absence of objective reality. When gender identity wins, girls and women always lose. Biology matters, and not just in the imagination. There’s an undeniable power differential between the sexes, and it rarely ends in the favor of team XX. How many Christopher Hambrooks will there have to be before people are willing to name the problem? These aren’t hard questions; they just require hard answers."

thefederalist.com/2016/08/29/cruel-put-men-womens-shelters/

Fuck that was a long post without much useful content Just skip to the last two paragraphs.....

About "passing"
If middle-aged transwoman really wanted to pass, they should aim to look like a slightly dowdy woman of their age & body shape
For example the actor that plays Mrs Brown, or Les Dawson when he played that bosom-hoiking lady, would both pass quite easily if they quietly went into a cubicle in the ladies loos dressed like that

But not if they wore full-on make-up, cascading long hair, glamourous frock & high heels, in the way that some transwomen do
Because real women of their age and body shape don't present like that

So middle-aged transwomen who dress like that, are not trying to pass as real women, but are fulfilling a fantasy , attention seeking rather than blending in

Further proof that "when gender identity wins, girls and women always lose" www.rawstory.com/2016/05/transgender-student-races-in-girls-track-in-spite-of-criticism-from-anti-trans-bigots/

It's the title of the piece that really galls me. We're bigots for not wanting to lose scholarships earmarked for girls to boys? what's to stop any boy insisting he is a girl to clinch a girl's sports scholarship, because he isn't fast enough to get a boy's? This is the slippery slope we're on

And don't even get me started on Fallon Fox.

Unfortunately some of the complaints about this sort of case may well come from bigots or at least, people with overall agendas very much at odds with many of us. A link about this from the piece Helen last linked to www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-outraged-as-transgender-male-beats-girls-at-alaska-state-track-meet. ... Ok of itself (and pointed out that students dont need to have undergone hormone therapy before transing in their sport which to some extent negates the 'evidence' in microferrets link). But then look at the context... The other stories linked to on that page look to include a mix of conservative christian homophobia, prolife etc.

Doesnt mean that they're not right that having biological males compete against biological females in sports is unfair but the motivations may be more transphobic than pro-womans rights. Urgh.

Unfortunately some of the complaints about this sort of case may well come from bigots or at least, people with overall agendas very much at odds with many of us

I often think this another reason people are uncomfortable discussing this issue, as they are wary of being seen to align themselves with genuinely bigoted groups.

Yy. I am extremely uncomfortable at being on the 'side' of the religious right, but then I'm also uncomfortable with the religion-iness of genderism. I can't win!!

I literally couldn't care less that the Christian right and I happen to converge on this particular issue. I am a feminist, first and foremost. My priority is the liberation of 50% of the earth's population, and my motivation for opposing trans ideology is wholly different to that of the religious right.

In fact in Iran the religious right actually supports transgenderism, because they are so uncomfortable with the transgression of gender boundaries and particularly homosexuality that they'd rather forcibly transition a person than accept them as gay or GNC.

I would love to not care - sadly I am a massive overthinker

Also, the reason you can only find trans-critical articles on websites like the Federalist and lifesitenews is that all the liberal media outlets won't touch this issue with a barge-pole, unless of course they're fawning over the "bravery" of men who pretend to be women in order to beat them at sports.

I really had no idea how unimportant women were to the left until this issue reared its ugly head.

Yes... The 'convergence' is for almost polar opposite reasons and the media (not to mention the political parties!) who should be concerned about women's rights seem not to give a stuff. Which is why its all the more important that MNHQ gets the balance right on this.

It's similar to the fact that the TRA has much narrative in common with the MRA narrative.

I posted in the last thread about it being important to look at where the news stories are coming from, e.g. someone posted a link to the American College of Pediatricians, which is a right wing, conservative, Christian, homophobic organisation which tries to confuse itself with the American Academy of Pediatrics to try and gain credibility.

I don't want any of the basis for my arguments against gender based classifications, as opposed to sex based, to come from hate groups.

It's no different to the immigration or Brexit discussions, both on MN and nationally.

'If you voted Brexit you must obviously be a hater/bigot/evil' and on the side of Farage/BNP etc

'If you voice any concerns of any kind about unlimited immigration you are obviously a hater/bigot/evil' and on the side of Farage/BNP etc.

Mostly because only those extremist groups are the ones willing to voice any discussion at all. Whateverphobia is coming to mean saying or thinking anything but unquestioning, unlimited approval and support for. None of these are black and white arguments. There can't be the good narrative (unquestioning, unconditional support) and the bad narrative (anti/hater/evil/bigot), there are difficult but valid, reasonable and important discussions to be had on the middle ground.

The backlash of Brexit happened out of the blue in part because too many people had learned they would be socially punished for expressing an off message POV, and became increasingly angry about being silenced over real life things that affected them, encroached on their lives, their wellbeing, and not being allowed to show it or say so. This aspect of liberal politics is not positive, it's not helpful, it doesn't support anyone, and when the inevitable backlash comes from those punished and ostracized and called names for having doubts or a different reality to the on message one, a lot of vulnerable people from those vulnerable groups get more damaged than they would have been had those points of view been something possible to talk about.

Something being offensive, painful or personally upsetting to hear cannot be a basis for making it taboo to talk about. When the subject is shut down as too offensive or too painful, the silenced group have no way to protect themselves from real and serious consequences coming from the extreme end of the subject. That bottled up anger and concern does not go away because it's no-platformed.

When the subject is shut down as too offensive or too painful, the silenced group have no way to protect themselves from real and serious consequences coming from the extreme end of the subject - and I mean that for people at both ends of the viewpoint.

Even if I had supported Brexit I would not have used anything published by the BNP to make my case.

It is fine to hold differing opinions, it is not okay to align yourself with hate groups.

Not entirely sure where/how this is related but it might fit in somehow.

University Challenge is usually fairly low key, but this year the most 'activity' has been when people who are (presumably) transgender or non-binary have appeared.

It's seems to be half "just wondering if are they male/female" and half "you're so amazing, and a truly beautiful person". Nobody seems to actually care how they do at answering the questions!

I don't think it should change how UC cast, but surely that fact they identify as something particular shouldn't be more important than why they're actually there?

My point was that it can be interpreted as to be automatically aligning yourself with a hate group to express an opinion that is off message/unconditionally positive.

The massive majority of the people trying to have conversations about immigration/Brexit/trans issues/Isis etc can't stand those hate groups and don't want anything to do with them. A shut down response is often paraphrased as 'well THAT horrible extremist hate group say that, so you must be one of them, so you shouldn't be listened to'.

I think it's an easy mistake for a non American to make.

Rumbling, excellent point.
Nautical, I think the problem is that other people will align you with hate groups, not that I'd ever align myself with them, but because of my concerns on this, there are people who will say "you are agreeing with so and so group".

My point is that people have been linking to hateful organisations during the debate over these 3-5 threads; it doesn't help the cause.

Veni, your post was long but I found it interesting and identified with much ot it. I remember the sometimes frightening, often disgusting, hassle I got as a young girl from men of all ages. After I was raped at 17 I put on stacks of weight, several stone before I registered it as a defensive measure. Worked too. Few things reduce male sexual interest more than obesity. Later it came off again. I gained the confidence to reject unwanted attention and became assertive about my boundaries.

To a certain extent people's sexual attractiveness stems from their self image. Someone born with a penis who hates his body so much that he's prepared to have it surgically removed is someone hugely sexually conflicted and this is intrinsically off-putting. Many will consider a relationship with someone who feels like that about themselves too much like hard work.

Entitlement is just as repellent. Anyone who demands sex as their due, who issues threats against those who don't find trans/fat/old people attractive, is a twat. The demand is, of itself, really, really off-putting.

You cannot oppress someone by refusing to consider them as a sexual partner. You can discriminate against someone over housing, employment etc, but as no one owes anyone sex no one can claim to be unfairly disadvantaged by being denied it.