The UK is officially an intolerant hellhole for transwomen

[pisacake]

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/british-transgender-woman-given-residency-in-safer-new-zealand

"The tribunal deemed it would be “unduly harsh” for the woman to be forced to return to the UK, where she suffered years of “persecution” due to her gender identity disorder. "

In pleading for the woman to be allowed to remain in New Zealand, her lawyer, Kar-yen Partington, presented 20 articles to the tribunal detailing transphobic hate crimes in the UK.

Recent data from the UK shows transphobic hate crimes against LGBTQ people have soared by nearly 80% in the last four years, with more than one in five LGBT people being the victim of a hate crime in last 12 months.

Just seriously curious if (actual) women have ever been granted asylum for being subject to harassment, which in some countries is very extreme. Or is this more trans privilege?

Is it not different for each man and woman though?

My husband is very led by his emotions, he doesnt have sex unless he's in love and I've never known him to fancy someone just in their looks (and believe me he'd tell me), he doesn't have a looks type but he definitely has a personality type, he likes strong loud women women with large personalities.
I on the other hand definitely go for looks, I have a very set physical type and to be honest if someone fits that I could shag them and not even like them as a person that much.
I definitely pass men on the street and think 'phwoaw I really fancy you' but in reality even if I was single I probably wouldn't do anything because I prefer the fantasy to the reality and sex is a lot of hassle and I live in the U.K. and it's cold and I don't like taking my jumper off.

I don't need to be in love to want to have sex with a man. But there is no magic formula for who I fancy. It's all undefinable chemistry.

And yes I agree that it's individual. But that's what personality means. It doesn't need to be a specific gender or orientation.

Oh god no of course not, it's ridiculous.
But I think the variations are down to personality and conditioning and not because you're a man or a woman (though obviously the sexes are conditioned differently)

I prefer the fantasy to the reality and sex is a lot of hassle and I live in the U.K. and it's cold and I don't like taking my jumper off.

That made me laugh out loud!

I don't need to be in love to want to have sex with a man. But there is no magic formula for who I fancy. It's all undefinable chemistry.

Yy - see the thread running over on Chat right now about being turned on by someone just because of how they smell

I prefer the fantasy to the reality and sex is a lot of hassle and I live in the U.K. and it's cold and I don't like taking my jumper off.

Very Victoria Wood (which is, of course, a Good Thing)

I saw that earlier and the OP seemed entirely unaware of the concept of pheromones!

To me Loops, you seem to be conflating marginalization with oppression/discrimination.

I'm sure that asexuality is probably little understood by wider society and not discussed as a relatively common phenomenon but to say people are oppressed because they are asexual is a hefty claim and not one I can see being backed up with evidence. And that's not to say that there may be some inappropriate and rude behaviour directed towards people who are perceived as non-sexual, my brother has never had a relationship, romantic or sexual, is not bothered about having one either and has, on occasion, had some horrible names thrown his way by certain individuals because of his lack of sexual interest, but has never not got a job, or a house, or been assaulted, or imprisoned or denied relevant healthcare etc because of it.

Oppression is more than just some twat not getting that people are different and "it takes all sorts", as my nan used to say.

Nans are brilliant. There's none so strange as folk, just about covers it in my opinion.

I second that, Datun. 😄

There was a reason for my question yesterday I only just got back to the thread - thank you Loops for answering.

Looking at the comments around this:
"Porn culture has such a stranglehold (sadly often quite literally) on dating behaviour and wider culture that one has to have an "excuse" - "I'm demisexual", "I'm a transman" - to gain "permission" to opt out of pornified behaviour."

And - yes - reading all about the definitions around demisexual aromantic and all of the rest of it - that many posters identified as being well within the range of normal behaviour / ways of feeling and therefore why do we need all these labels.

The whole thing strikes me as having a starting point in line with not just a pornified approach but the stereotypical masculine attitude to sex (which is of course the one reflected in most porn) - and of course this is what people were getting at.

And it's shown up by this response - because if these labels were about describing the variations and range of human sexual and romantic behaviours there would be a term for "bang up for it all the time". The fact that there is not, sets this as the norm against which the other behaviours are measures.

So again we have the "norm" being default male - in this case stereotypical masculine sexual behaviour - as catered to in most porn where of course all the men are up for it all the time with whoever crosses their path and catches their eye and of course in this story the women are too.

The fact that there is no term for this - and that sets it as the standard and norm - proves to me that these labels are as observed by so many a way for people - especially women - to excuse themselves from sex when they don't want sex or they don't want sex with whoever.

Oh sorry I'm grey sexual and aromantic is a good way of saying no iss off I don't want to fuck you and I'm not interested in getting to know you better either ta. It's a "polite" way for women to try to reject men in a new roundabout way and thus try to avoid the sodding awful behaviour you can get from men and boys you reject.

So it all makes sense really.

But to claim these identities as axes of oppression are ridiculous. Graysexual people, aromantic people, are simply not being wholesale refused access to services and sacked from their jobs. To put it in the same group as gay people, bisexual people when partnered with a same sex partner, these people have been and around the world still are being forcibly married, arrested, executed, attacked on the street, murdered.

Anyway this was the answer that pointed to "horny porn man" as being the current norm against which all other sexual behaviour is measures:

"Queen I don't think so? Desiring a lot of sex doesn't seem to be an orientation because it's expression of your attraction rather than what your attraction is. But I might be wrong".

There are words for not wanting it ever, wanting it with certain types of people, under certain conditions. Words for wanting sex sometimes but not others (surely most people) etc but no word for always up for it.

The other interesting thing here is that male sex drive / desire etc is fairly stable over the years, it starts high and then just slows doen very gradually when he's old.

With women it's very different. Our menstrual cycles make many of us hornier at some times of the month than others. First trimester of pregnancy is often a no thanks and many women go mad for it second trimester. Breastfeeding has a well recorded tendancy to reduce libido. Then we have the upheaval of the menopause. There's also recent research which shows that male sex drive in a relationship stays much the same, for women it nosedives after a couple of years. We also seem to be (nature / nurture?) far more likely to look for more than a quick fuck.

Altogether, this whole thing, the whole movement seems like it takes a very masculine experience / view of sex - and ignores the much wider variety in women's experience - which is all perfectly standard and normal - and says no that's a bit different - you need a special word for that.

So at the heart of the whole thing is a story which ignores female sexuality and takes a hypermasculine view of sex as the norm. So much for progressive.

Thanks Queen - that was indeed what I was getting at. How did we get to a situation where "pornhound" was seen as the norm against which the rest of us (which in my experience includes the majority of men as well as most women) are measured and found wanting?

And I think that claiming greysexual, demisexual, aromantic etc. as axes of oppression is to ignore the fact that the oppression you're on the receiving end of - namely the threat of male sexual violence - is not because you're greysexual etc. etc., but because you're female. The oppression that comes with being threatened with sexual violence is the near universal experience of being female! Female with high libido, female with low libido. Female who likes consensual sex within a meaningful emotional relationship, female who likes casual sex. Female who mentally goes "phwoarr" when a good looking man (or woman) catches her eye, female who rarely (or never) finds herself attracted to people. We are all of us threatened with male sexual violence.

Very interesting sardines!

Also hormonal contraception effects women's labido loads. I have been on hormonal contraception since I was 15 that's half my life, I have literally no idea what my normal sex drive is.

And I think that claiming greysexual, demisexual, aromantic etc. as axes of oppression is to ignore the fact that the oppression you're on the receiving end of - namely the threat of male sexual violence - is not because you're greysexual etc. etc., but because you're female. The oppression that comes with being threatened with sexual violence is the near universal experience of being female!

Yes. Just seen some "non binary" women on Facebook whining about saying how exclusionary the #metoo hashtag is because they're not women

Whaaaaaaat?
But I've seen loads of posters have been including trans in their definition, the one going round my Facebook is 'woman, trans or self identified woman' I've even seen a couple of 'people' too.

"Yes. Just seen some "non binary" women on Facebook whining about saying how exclusionary the #metoo hashtag is because they're not women"

It really takes a special sort of narcissistic arsehole to react in that way, doesn't it?

I know. But me me me me me!

It really takes a special sort of narcissistic arsehole to react in that way, doesn't it?

Yes.

My friend refers to that phenomenon as 'grief thiefs'

Queen - that's a really interesting summary, that I think bears a lot of truth

Loop - I don't think I said it upthread, but thank you for sticking around and answering the various questions thrown your way. Posters often come onto FWR and post a couple of times then disappear off into the ether, so it's genuinely gratifying when people are prepared to discuss / argue / defend different views. (But I preferred Neighbours to Home & Away - possibly because my mum is a TV snob and thinks that anything on the Beeb is automatically better than anything on "the commercial channels")

Just adding thanks to Loop (and the rest of you) interesting thread.

Sentimental yes I agree - hormonal contraception & how it's handed out so easily to girls with very little caution is a big feminist issue.

The pill has been a massive double edged sword for us - of course the ability to control our fertility this way and without relying on a man doing something is probably the single-handed biggest advance for women and gives us control. But, it's not without side effects, which are not cared about, even though they are big (the recent research about mental health problems shows this up). The idea of pushing hormones into girls - and well to be honest I went and got the pill for myself at 16 so no pushing - but before we are grown and know who we are, when it's so hard to tell if any changes to mood etc are because of that or because we're teens and therefore up and down anyway and of course teenage girls are always considered to be "hormonal" so when they get depressed no-ones looking at the pill and there's no baseline for her to tell. It seems society will take any risk with girls health to avoid them getting pregnant - and of course as you say the pill suppresses libido for many which is a really grotesque side effect because then it shows up who her being on the pill is for - it's not for her - if it was this side effect would mean loads of girls wouldn't take it as why bother as you don't want sex any more so you don't have sex... But of course that's not how it works.

Awful.

Prickly yes this intent on denying sex based oppression is really, just pissing me off to be honest. All the women doing it too. People seem to have lost all their powers of rational thinking.

The best contraception in terms of upping my libido, TBH, was when my DH had the snip!