Break it down for me?

[TortiousTortoise]

Hi all, I am fairly new to the discussion on the impact that transwomen are having on women generally and I want to more fully understand the issues (been trying to talk to my husband about it and am struggling to articulate it).

I feel so awkward writing about this as I definitely don't want to come across as sounding horrible about transpeople, I just want to understand.

Also there are a lot of acronyms being thrown about. Can anyone help me out?

Thanks!! Interesting they extended deadline...I wonder how long it takes them to report back on responses.

Keeping this up there. I have sent it to some people today and they found it very helpful.

Massive thanks to everyone who has responded to the consultation, or even just had a conversation around the gender-critical view. This is very hard.

A great piece to read was shared by ItsAllGoingToBeFine, and it's written by Iain Macwhirter in the Herald: Transgender rights? Great. But don't tell women what makes a woman: they were born that way

And there’s no “but” coming here. Transgender people should have full democratic and human rights, and I wish them all happiness.

One of the curious things about the Gender Recognition Act, which allows men to declare themselves legally as women without any medical intervention or complex certification, is that the public consultation period for it came and went in March with scarcely a murmur.

Sex is a biological reality which is essentially unalterable. No matter how many cosmetic changes a man may undergo, they do not actually become a woman. Their DNA remains different: XY instead of XX.

Now, I was aware of the “TERF wars” on the internet, and regarded it all as a rather silly. As far as I understood it, the Gender Recognition Act was an administrative matter, about making it easier for trans people be legally recognised.

It never occurred to me that it was about altering the very definition of a female, such that man born of woman, could actually become one.

Since I became involved, an extraordinary number of women have approached me privately saying that they have been silenced. This includes politicians, academics and media figures – hardly shrinking violets.

However, with the police very publicly urging “victims of transphobia” to report “hate incidents”, many organisations, understandably, are under the impression that transphobia is against the law. It is at any rate regarded as a disciplinary matter if such complaints are made about staff.

Anyway, for many women this is essentially an existential question. If anyone can become a woman simply by announcing the fact, where does that leave women’s status in society?

And I’m afraid that it is absurd. If we are to change the very definition of sex, such that there is to be no physiological distinction between the sexes, then we are changing the nature of what it is to be human

Women should not be intimidated into silence, as many have been. To dispute the claim that transwomen are women is not bigotry. To object to self-identification is not misogyny. To oppose the Gender Recognition Act is not transphobia

For transwomen to have equal rights it is not necessary for women to be denied theirs. Don’t tell women what makes a woman, they were, after all, born that way.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3400925-Iain-McWhirter-Iain-Macwhirter-Transgender-rights-Great-But-dont-tell-women-what-makes-a-woman-they-were-born-that-way

Sometimes it's nice to just watch some videos. I find Prof Kathleen Stock crystal clear on these issues.

Speaking at Woman's Place UK:

And on the BBC:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06p9ktl

Really interesting thread.
I agree with the analysis that the most aggressive TRA's are likely to be AGP who are different to those with gender dysphoria, but after reading Tom Farr's article: medium.com/@tom_farr/the-wolf-of-masculinity-is-dressed-up-in-the-sheeps-clothing-of-gender-ideology-progressiveness-10ef8399ca6e
I think it points to an additional phenomena. There is a crisis in masculinity, the goalposts have changed, but men who perhaps want to think that they are feminists and liberal cannot actually yet shake off their conditioning and adhere to misogyny. Being trans in this superficial sense of wearing a dress and a bit of eyeliner but little else allows them to virtue signal and give the nod to women's rights whilst simultaneously retaining all their privilege and even increasing it by demanding that they are the worst off. I've seen it said here that TRAs are MRAs and I can see it in these young middle class white guys who are far too woke to be associated with the more conservative MRA movement. TRA allows them to retain all their prejudice and self-loathing for their femininity whilst still being Corbynistas.

@Datun - I realise this post is old, but I saw you mentioning AGP websites disappearing from the internet. There's the wayback machine internet archive which has records of deleted pages that you can browse through, good for any kind of investigative work actually on how we got to this point: web.archive.org/web/*/autogynephilia

On male-pattern narcissistic abusive behaviour, Lisa Muggeridge always provides sharp insights. This video is excellent, if you haven't seen it, talking about how certain trans activists are engaging in grooming of adults.
The context is the policy of Girl Guiding UK, which allows biological males and females to mix in sleeping quarters, showers, and changing rooms, without telling parents.

Thanks for the info ladycockblocker

Not sure if this is linked yet, but for people wanting to know more about autogynephilia, I've found Anne Lawrence's writing on the subject interesting. Anne is a MtF transsexual and autogynephile, and trained as a medical doctor. This is an excerpt from her essay on shame and narcissistic rage, which references the attack on an academic by trans activists following a book that explores the autogynephilia phenomenon. The significant point I would disagree with is Anne's assertion that the onus should be on others to avoid inflicting injury, because let's be honest, that sounds like victim-blaming. Plus it's probably impossible to prevent narcissistic injury and be able to speak about this subject honestly. To me, it sounds like the best solution would be to increase the resilience of autogynephiles and get them to accept their situation:

I propose that nonhomosexual (i.e., presumably autogynephilic) MtF transsexuals are probably at increased risk for the development of narcissistic disorders— significant disorders in the sense of self—as a consequence of the inevitable difficulties they face in having their cross-gender feelings and identities affirmed by others, both before and after gender transition. As a result, many autogynephilic transsexuals are likely to be particularly vulnerable to feelings of shame and may be predisposed to exhibit narcissistic rage in response to perceived insult or injury. It is not hard to understand why Bailey’s book was experienced by at least some nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals as inflicting narcissistic injury and why this led some of them to express apparent narcissistic rage. I propose that narcissistic disorders in autogynephilic transsexuals are important and probably common phenomena, which deserve more extensive study than they have thus far received. I also suggest that clinicians and scholars should be aware of the susceptibility of autogynephilic transsexuals to narcissistic injury and should try to avoid inflicting such injury.

and

Autogynephilic transsexuals may also find it harder to fully identify with women after transition than before, because the differences they inevitably observe between themselves and natal women become harder to rationalize after transition. Before transition, these differences can be attributed to the necessity of temporarily maintaining a socially acceptable masculine persona; after transition, when this excuse evaporates, autogynephilic transsexuals may be forced to confront reality. Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals often seem to expect that, with enough effort, they will be able to pass undetected as natal women after transition; but because their appearance and behavior are rarely naturally feminine, this expectation usually proves to be unrealistic. Tangney and Dearing (2002) observed that persons prone to narcissistic disorders ‘‘typically develop many unrealistic expectations for themselves...that, in effect, set the stage for shame. With each failure to achieve ambitions—ambitions that are often grandiose— the narcissistic individual is apt to feel shame’’

www.annelawrence.com/shame_&_narcissistic_rage.pdf
www.annelawrence.com/autogynephilia.html

Interesting results from a crowd-funded poll to find out public attitudes to these questions around self-ID and what trans activists want.
To quote OldCrone on the other thread

13% agree with self-id for passports and birth certificates
19% of people consider a person who was born male and has male genitalia but identifies as a woman to be a woman.
13% think a person who was born male and has male genitalia but identifies as a woman should be able to compete in women's sports.
14% think a person who was born male and has male genitalia but identifies as a woman should be free to use female changing rooms
12% think a person who was born male and has male genitalia but identifies as a woman should be incarcerated in a women's prison

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3404335-Poll-52-of-people-consider-a-person-who-was-born-male-and-has-male-genitalia-but-identifies-as-a-woman-to-be-a-man

Brendan O'Neill of Spiked Online asking why isn't transgenderism cultural appropriation?

The Gender Recognition Act being championed by the Tory government – trans activism is so radical that even the Tories love it… – would green-light the most brazen acts of ‘cultural appropriation’, where people could appropriate at the click of a finger the experience, lifestyles and even physical spaces of the opposite sex.

What we have is a bizarre situation where the woke insist on rigidity in everything to do with race yet demand fluidity in everything to do with sex and gender. They see race as fixed and gender as changeable. This represents the worst of both worlds. Why? Because it discourages something that is actually very positive – cultural and social interaction between different races of people – and it encourages something which really doesn’t make much sense or hold much scientific water: the idea that you can change sex simply by declaring it. It frowns upon racial sharing and cheers sexual delusion.

The end result of both of these woke approaches is to promote a peculiarly conservative view of the world. ‘Whites and blacks shouldn’t mix too much, and if a boy acts in a feminine way then he is probably really a woman.’ In short, racial groups should know their place, and feminine traits in boys must be corrected with drugs that allow those boys to realise their true selves as women. Somehow, the youthful, supposedly progressive PC movement has ended up promoting a deadeningly old-fashioned view of both racial issues and gender roles. There is nothing more socially stifling and innately hostile to the idea of human mixing and human diversity right now than the PC outlook.

Discussed on this thread (thanks to that OP, Maeb):
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3404641-Why-isn-t-transgenderism-cultural-appropriation-Brendan-ONeill-Spiked

Bump

These is really important work by twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy with significant collated references:

"The Gender Recognition Bill

I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard.
One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions." (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

"If those who voted the GRA into law had known that 14 years later the EHRC would be lobbying to remove every criteria and safeguard the govt promised would keep the legal lie in check, this law would never have existed.

The GRA only exists BECAUSE of these checks and balances." (continues)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1053968824356274177.html

Amy Dyess article, “TERF Is Hate Speech and It’s Time to Condemn It”
(extract)
"For the most part, mainstream media and so-called LGBT organizations have chosen to ignore a specific demographic of the Me Too movement. “TERF” is a slur used to sexually harass, threaten, and silence lesbians. Instead of standing up for female homosexuals, “LGBT” orgs and media are persecuting lesbians and disguising it as social justice. The gaslighting is next level, but the majority of the world is starting to wake up to this injustice. Time’s Up!

TERF was initially used as an acronym that meant Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, but the term has always been used to muzzle women from discussing our rights. For the past year and half, TERF has been widely used as homophobic hate speech aimed at all lesbians. That’s right… ALL lesbians.

You don’t have to be a radical feminist to be labeled a TERF. A lesbian can make it clear she believes trans people deserve human rights and respect, but she’s still a “TERF” because her sexual orientation has an innate boundary. That boundary is same-sex attraction for other adult human females. Lesbians are the only sexual orientation that excludes penis, and that makes us the most dangerous adversary to the patriarchy.

Extremists don’t believe women, chiefly lesbians, deserve boundaries. That’s what this issue is all about. They disguise their misogyny and homophobia as social justice in order to gain support from people who are misinformed. So-called “progressives” are openly oppressing and condemning the homosexual community, primarily the lesbian community.

The Economist has banned the use of “TERF” in articles and comments because the slur “may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women.” Unfortunately, too many journalists and sites have decided to do the opposite. Even editors are doubling down on their misogyny and homophobia." (continues with many examples)

concludes, "I hereby call upon all media, including social media platforms, to follow The Economist’s example and ban the slur TERF. It’s time to move on to civil debate about trans rights and women’s rights. TERF is hate speech and it’s time to condemn it."

medium.com/@amydyess83/terf-is-hate-speech-and-its-time-to-condemn-it-6efc897ce407

link twitter.com/AmyDyess/status/1055526583786627072

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3405680-Amy-Dyess-article-TERF-Is-Hate-Speech-and-It-s-Time-to-Condemn-It

Further really important work:
OP Barracker wrote:
"We've been lied to about 'Single SEX' wards since 2010
medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

They were ALWAYS based upon 'gender'.
The evidence is in NHS documents from 2010.
And the Department of Health were told, by the NHS team, not to tell people wards were segregated by sex, because they knew the policy was based on gender.

But the DOH purposefully used the word sex to the public instead.

We've been deliberately misled."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396859-Weve-been-lied-to-about-Single-SEX-wards-since-2010

see linked artice for collated evidence

I decided to full on out myself on FB with the message below. Was nervous as I have a few friends working in their field (gender identity doctor, someone else at Tavistock clinic etc). Interestingly, none of them responded but quite a few other (generally well-informed, enlightened) friends commented to thank me for the clear explanation of concerns and to say they agree with me. So that was great - and reassured me that at least my social media bubble hasn’t gone mad. Also interesting that it was mostly men who commented - I think women are more aware of the issue and the tensions around it, and therefore more nervous.

My FB post:

The UK government is consulting on changes to the Gender Recognition Act to make it easier for people to "self-identify" as a woman or man. This could include removing the need for medical diagnosis, or to live in the "acquired gender" for two years, before legally changing gender. In my view, this would create a system that is open to significant abuse, would remove safeguards that are in place to protect vulnerable individuals, and could seriously erode women's rights.

At the moment, it is legal to create "single-sex services" in certain circumstances:

1. where women have experienced trauma, such as women’s refuges, rape crisis centres, domestic violence services;

2.where women need safety, privacy and dignity, such as in women’s prisons; 3.where women are physically at a disadvantage, such as in women’s sports; and 4.where a single sex provision exists to repair the historic sidelining of women and marginalisation of girls resulting in unfairness, such as in all women’s shortlists, recognition of women in business, finance, law and other male-dominated professions. It's hugely important that we protect these spaces and services for women and girls. By allowing men to more easily "self-identify" as women, we're knowingly introducing loopholes that can be exploited by predatory and dangerous men. Some organisations are already getting ahead of the law - there are self-identifying transwomen who have been transferred to womens' prisons and have raped inmates, the Girl Guides now allow transgirls to share single sex overnight accommodation with other girls (withouth informing parents). If I wouldn't choose for my (soon-ish to be) teenage daughter to sleep in the same room as teenage biological boys, I wouldn't want the Guides to take that choice away.

I find it hard to believe that at the same time as MeToo has highlighted the ubiquity of harrassment and sexual abuse of women, we are preparing to weaken legal protections and safeguards for women and girls. I think women and girls are important, deserving of safety and representation. I also think clear definitions are important. If we can't see sex, we can't see sexism. Already, crimes committed by transgender people are being recorded as having been committed by women, transgender athletes are wnning in women's sports, transgender politiicians are on All Women Shortlists. and transgender soldiers are being counted as "women in active combat roles". Statistics might not be sexy, but they matter. We make policy on the basis of them, we inform ourselves about the world using them.

I also believe that we are in danger of entrenching regressive gender stereotypes. When young girls do not perform femininity in the expected ways, or young boys perform it too well for our society's liking, this doesn't t mean that they are wrong, their bodies are wrong, or that they need to change. It means we need to be accepting of boys in make-up, girls on the football pitch, both aggressive and sensitive girls and boys.

Lastly, I know that I'm likely to be called "transphobic" or a "TERF" (trans exclusionary radical faminist, for those of you unfamiliar with the new insults knocking around). This is not about hating or excluding any group - it is about centring the needs and rights of women and girls. I am very clear that I support the right of transgender people to live safely and free from from discrimination. However, I don't agree that some women have penises. As women, we are socialised to be "nice" and accommodating, so this feels slightly awkward - but it's because I think it's important that I'm posting now.

The consultation closes this Thursday, 19th October. If you share any of my concerns, please contribute at ...

That's a great post, lovelylimesoda
Thanks so much for sharing it with us.

Here is what the incredible, incomparable Datun wrote on another thread, called Want to know why women are livid? :

Want to know why so many posts start with 'Trans people should have full rights...but'...?

Because the equality act is being manipulated to elevate the rights of one protected characteristic over another.

Being mis-used. Being breached, in fact. It smells wrong, it feels wrong, it is wrong.

Because the equality act is designed to be fair. All protected groups have equal value.
It's got the word in the damn title.

EQUALITY

But the one thing this doesn't feel like, is equal.

Equality decisions must fairly balance the needs of everyone affected. This does not mean treating everyone the same. Because sometimes treating people differently is the least discriminatory outcome overall.

So when a business wants to implement a new policy they must take into account how it will impact on all the protected characteristics and then work out the fairest and least discriminatory way to do it. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum. A rule for one will impact others too and the Equality Act has been designed to reflect this reality. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone if overall it's the fairest thing to do for all concerned. The key phrase here is 'a proportionate means to a legitimate aim'.

And in no-one's book does fairness mean boys' sleeping in girls' accommodation, beating them at sport, making girls uncomfortable or working in a rape refuge.

It is not transphobic to raise this at work, in school, in leisure activities.

The gaslighting has to stop.

What we have been witnessing is no longer about fairness and inclusivity, it's about a cohort of men actively campaigning to hoodwink or coerce the public into validating NOT their identity, but their authority.

Can a refuge for women employ only women staff? Yes, of course they can. We all accept this because despite it being unfair to men it is overall the fairest thing to do for everyone involved. And for exactly the same reasons, it is lawful to exclude people who have reassigned their sex/gender, from that job role. In this instance, the internal gender feelings of the employee is not as important as the impact of their perceived maleness. The needs and impact on vulnerable women seeking refuge are greater than the needs and impact on a transgender person seeking employment. In this instance the balance falls squarely favour of women.

A transactivist will want everyone to draw everyone's attention solely to the impact and unfairness of that situation on the transgender people and claim DISCRIMINATION!. But that's just not how it works. It's written down in law – Occupational Requirements Schedule 9 Part 1.

There a lots of these legal exemptions written into Equality Law. They have been put there to be used and to protect women. We have to start insisting that they get applied. All of us. Now.

Here are some more examples that this time apply to services (Schedule 3, Part 7 Sections 26-28).

Can a woman ask for a female-born HCP? Yes, she can. It's not transphobic to say no to a transwoman in that context. She's not saying no because they are transgender – it's because they were born male and as someone born female she prefers the same.

It's written in law (Schedule 3, Part 7, Sections 26-28) and examples are set out in the Equality Act: “If a service is used by one or more people or involves physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex”.

What about changing rooms? If a TIM wants to use a female changing room with individual lockable cubicles and no-one minds, then fine. The overall balance is fair. But if people do object, and for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety when they in a state of undress, and they don't feel able to use the changing rooms with just a flimsy curtain that doesn't close properly, then the balance of fairness changes.

The equality act does not say oh well, too bad. The retailer must take into account the impact on other people too (women). If there are reasonable options available to the retailer that makes it fairer for all then they must consider them.

Insisting all transgender people must use the facility of their natal sex would be unfair to them, but this doesn't mean the only fair option is to allow them into the facility for the opposite sex or to make the whole thing uni-sex and to hell with how the women feel. It could be enough to provide them with an alternative, just for them. This is a fair balance that considers everyone.

But a retailer doesn't know the impact on us unless tell we tell them. Women are socialised to not object. Which is part of the problem. Let's stop doing that. Let's hold our retailers to account to uphold the equality act by telling them we object, and why. They must take that into account.

Don't wait for it to actually happen. Get them to formalise their policies and insist they take women seriously from the start.

What about fairness in sport?

The equality act is quite clear. It's written into Equality law Schedule 16 Part 1. It's is entirely lawful to restrict participation of transgender people if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition.

“A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.

The IOC have issued guidelines that rely on testosterone being the determining factor and deciding that reducing it will eliminate the advantage TIMs have. But when men are routinely beating women, it's quite clear that this is not an adequate determinate.

Sporting bodies, Swim UK, etc, should be able to provide evidence of a level playing field. Otherwise it is neither fair or safe for women and this is in breach of equality law.

What about communal accommodation - Girl Guides, school trips, dorms?

Again there is a exemption in the equality Act to deal with this (Schedule 23). It explicitly states that transgender people can be excluded from communal accommodation for use by one sex if that is that's the fairness thing to do overall. In other words, the least discriminatory option. The needs of all pupils must be considered. The protection of the dignity and privacy of girls, is a legitimate aim. Furthermore, requiring pupils to share accommodation with the opposite sex raises specific issues around menstruation, risk of pregnancy, etc. Any institution which fails to acknowledge and accommodate these issues when formulating policy will risk breaching the EA.

The EA does need tightening up. Not ripping up. TIMs are already assuming they have a whole bowl of fruit and making everyone else assume it, when, in actual fact, they only have a couple of plums.

It's now no surprise that the favoured narrative is that trans people are oppressed, abused, murdered, at risk. Because it is that description that has somehow elevated the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' above 'sex' in people's mind. It's completely wrong.

They have equal value As does sexual orientation. Claiming lesbians are transphobic for not sleeping with natal males, is NOT upholding the equality law. And I realise it's only individuals who are mainly saying this, but Stonewall have refused to clarify that homosexuality means same sex attraction.

We have to change the narrative here.

We can change it. We have the right to change it.

We just need to do it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3175666-Want-to-know-why-women-are-livid-trans-thread

A pretty good summary can be found in this Forbes article:

www.forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2018/10/26/evil-womxn-the-silencing-of-biological-reality-and-the-technology-of-obfuscation

Discussed here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3406721-Forbes-article-Evil-Womxn-The-Silencing-Of-Biological-Reality-And-The-Technology-Of-Obfuscation

Bump

Bump

Academics are afraid to talk about this issue:

Kathleen Stock, professor of philosophy at Sussex University, who has been critical of trans self-identification as part of her work on feminist philosophy, has been publicly labelled “transphobic” by Sussex students’ union. The union put out a statement about her saying: “We will not tolerate hate on campus, and we will do everything in our power to protect our students.” She says the union and some students have sent emails asking her head of school and other senior managers to condemn or publicly disassociate themselves with her views, and students have protested against her on campus.

She says: “It is a failure of our education system that it produces young people who think superficially about these issues; who think it is all about emotion, and who can’t tolerate different points of view from theirs.”

Despite calls from students and trans rights activists for her to be fired from Sussex, Stock feels confident she will keep her job. In July, Sussex’s vice-chancellor, Adam Tickell, issued a public statement about her case saying: “I hold a deep-rooted concern about the future of our democratic society if we silence the views of people we don’t agree with.”

But Stock says she knows academics at other universities who are “terrified of being fired” for their views on this subject. She wants UK universities to follow those in the US that have adopted the “Chicago [University] principles” on free speech. This is a commitment to allowing free debate on campus, even if other people at the university think someone’s views are “offensive, unwise or immoral”.

Stock says: “I can deal with strangers behind pseudonyms saying horrible things on Twitter, and, up to a point, with young, inexperienced students condemning me. But what I can’t understand is academics going out of their way to shame me.”

www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/30/uk-universities-struggle-to-deal-with-toxic-trans-rights-row?fbclid=IwAR2KAEsMgz1KLRO0ii-hAVDjmwjmgbE6zOoHifaIGuMyyuNqG6B0KDqM4fE

Discussed here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3409179-guardian-on-toxic-trans-debate

Three 11 year old best friends transitioning together after years of bullying.

Lily, Fiana and Zuri have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and will soon undergo medical intervention to prevent their bodies changing from that of boys to men.

Lily, 11, from the Austin area of Texas, has already begun taking hormone blockers to prevent her going through male puberty - an irreversible change her parents wrestled with before undertaking.

“Around the age of two, Lily started asking for different types of toys, and then after that, the first big thing that we noticed was that she wanted to dress as Cinderella for Halloween,” Lily’s mum Julie Maerz said.

“Right before her eighth birthday, she came out from her room one morning and she said 'I’m Lily all the time now, only use girl pronouns. I’m not gonna be Jack anymore’.”

Discussed here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3410412-3-transgender-best-friends-transition-together-age-11-after-years-of-bullying

Original article:
www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/three-transgender-best-friends-transition-13510930

This thread. The pressure some trans activists are putting on lesbians to include penis in their sex lives is absolutely vile.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3411070-Rachael-McKinnon-another-gem-from-the-you-couldnt-make-it-up-guidebook