This person is really not right in the head, surely?

[bigoldscaredycat]

mobile.twitter.com/aedison/status/1018266260264685568

We talk about wanting to exterminate trans people on Mumsnet? WTF? And we attack trans women then say they attacked us??

This person has thousands of followers including Barack Obama, Sophie Walker WEP and Marian Keyes.

Absolutely mad.

Ah, I remember Avery. Also expected the girlfriend's parents to pay for everything uni related while Avery shagged around with other women like the aformentioned not into PIV with Avery young woman mentioned above.

I feel like Avery's exes should form an "I was gaslighted too!" support club.

Women, and Canada, it seems

Oh Canada, wtf is going on over there?

Was Avery Edison the TRA who declared a sexual attraction to Daleks, or was that someone else?

I think that was India Willoughby. Who I think was trying to be funny (funnier than Avery, certainly).

Isn't Avery Edison the one who wrote about feeling oh so hurt because his lesbian girlfriend didn't want his speshul, oh so different to all the other penises, lady penis inside her?

Isn't that comment about Mumsnet verging on libellous? MNHQ work hard (very hard sometimes!) to ensure that the conversation stays within the guidelines. Which last time I checked did not allow talk of exterminating trans people.

OK, so which one of us is supposed to be Davros?
(not to be confused with DARVO!)

More seriously, for all their claims of threats coming from GC feminists, they have yet to provide proof. Mainly because we don't threaten (more like "leave us alone" or "I don't believe your bullshit"). Which isn't the same as we get back, which is "DIAF" "Die Cis Scum" "burn/bash/drown a TERF" "going to kill me a TERF today".

Now that, actually IS DARVO.

Women, and Canada, it seems

Barbara Kay article:
'One woman's journey from social-justice warrior to free-speech champion
A victim of racism as a child, Sarina Singh became an ardent feminist driven to right social wrongs. Then she had a political epiphany'

concludes:
"As an ardent feminist, social work, a field dominated by feminist premises, seemed a good fit for Sarina. It didn’t live up to expectations. After 22 years, a transformative experience in a shelter where she was working produced a political epiphany. Two clients with children, both suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, had decided to go off their meds and take only herbal supplements. Over Sarina’s objections, her superiors insisted that, since the medical system was “patriarchal” and it was “empowering” for women to self-treat, she should not interfere. It ended badly, with psychotic episodes putting Sarina at risk, the children needing to be removed from their mothers, and Sarina leaving the profession in a state of guilt over her professional impotence in the face of an irrational ideology.

Sarina’s resulting break with feminism turned into a refusal thenceforth to see the world through the lens of ideology, identity politics or political correctness

Sarina’s resulting break with feminism turned into a refusal thenceforth to see the world through the lens of ideology, identity politics or political correctness. Sarina stopped vilifying the white race; she stopped seeing the world as a zero-sum game between oppressors and oppressed. Today Sarina is one of Canada’s most ardent free-speech warriors. She is particularly incensed by Bill C-16, known as the Transgender Rights Bill, and the “compelled speech” it endorses in support of alleged feelings-based rights.

Next Wednesday, July 18, I will be speaking in Toronto on a public panel Sarina has organized at her own expense: “Bill C-16: One Year Later: Sex, Ideology and Compelled Speech in Canada,” along with neuroscientist and journalist Dr. Debra Soh, lawyer Jared Brown and Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd. If travel constraints permit, Jordan Peterson says he will be present to cheer us on. He explains why he thinks our event is important in this video."

nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-one-womans-journey-from-social-justice-warrior-to-free-speech-champion

the article came to my attention as Morgane Oger has accused the journalist of transphobia and put pressure on CBC (national public TV/Radio)

see previous targetting by Oger:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3269698-Morgane-Oger-is-campaigning-to-shut-down-a-rape-crisis-centre-in

Women, and Canada, it seems

Some more choice tweets from Avery :

Plenty of lesbians have enjoyed sexual acts involving my penis. Because I’m a woman, and all my body parts are women’s body parts.

There’s nothing “superficial” about being attracted to someone’s actual gender. Writing someone off because of their genitals IS pretty superficial.
twitter.com/aedison/status/1018424080352120834?s=19

I mean when someone is attracted to women, they are attracted to women, not vaginas. They might be more comfortable having sex involving vaginas, and less comfortable having sex with penises, but they’re still attracted to WOMEN.
twitter.com/aedison/status/1018478189205745665?s=19

I am not a lesbian but imagine that "less comfortable" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

@Justinemumsnet
Do MNHQ know about it? They should contact Twitter and AE about this.

Thing is, why should anyone have sex they're "less comfortable" with? Jut because otherwise nobody will touch Avery's penis?

why should anyone have sex they're "less comfortable" with?

They shouldn't. Whether or not you usually prefer sex with people with vaginas or with penises, that doesn't mean you want to have sex with every person who has a vagina or penis. Even if you have had sex with a particular person lots of times, you still have the right to say no at any point. Except apparently consent isn't relevant if someone like Edison perceives you to be transphobic.

Genitalia isn't the first thing on my list when it comes to attraction. It's things like how someone''s eyes crinkle up when they smile, their sense of humour, how they make me feel. Body shape does come into it, but attraction has been firmly established by the time I see someone's genitals. And I still have the right to say no, even if every little bit of me is gagging for it and totally comfortable with it, let alone if it I'm not.

For most people the kind of genitalia that they find sexually appealing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for them to want sex with someone. For TRAs like Avery the gender they believe themselves to be should be a sufficient condition for anyone to have sex with them.

In a situation where one person wants sex and the other does not, "no" trumps "yes" every time.

I’d love to ask all these so called ‘lesbians’ (men) when was the last time they had sex with another so called ‘lesbian’, with a dick.

Avery has been a guest on the Guilty Feminist, you'll all be reassured to hear.

Oh, they've explained that! Apparently it's OK to have genital preferences if you're trans, because reasons.

(Some bollocks about having worked through your own transphobia iirc.)

Oh I remember that Guilty Feminist one Viago. That's the one that made me stop listening to the Guilty Feminist.

twitter.com/SkylarJordan/status/1018422858735865856

Hah, this guy is not really backwards in coming forwards is he..just reading some of his other stuff now.

Skylar gives no fucks. That attitude is why I sometimes lurk datalounge.

Example - www.datalounge.com/thread/21587064

Eek, warning - datalounge is NSFW!

I’m confused though, if a person of either sex is only attracted to people with female bodies, in the case of casual sex what does it matter how they identify?
If I was single and out looking for a sexual encounter, I wouldn’t care whether it was with a heterosexual, bisexual or lesbian woman. Sex is sex and a body is a body, and as longus consent was mutual, what label they stick on that body wouldn’t matter to me in that moment. Obviously for a relationship it’s different, and I wouldn’t want to enter a relationship with a heterosexual woman Who maintained that they were heterosexual, because well, I’d find the cognitive dissonants a bit problematic, and surely she couldn’t be heterosexual if she was in a relationship with me. I’d consider it a denial of our relationship, and a denial of me as a person. By the same token if I were to enter into a relationship with a man I could no longer maintain that I am a lesbian, because clearly it wouldn’t be true., and any man who I’d enter a relationship with wouldn’t deserve to be erased by me.
These people seem to lack any awareness that it cuts both ways. I can understand how they would want to feel validated as a person, but feeling validated as a person for me wouldn’t be fulfilling if it came at the expense of invalidating another person.
I’ll give you a more mundane example. I have taken my guide dog to restaurants in the past and been told that I’m not allowed in with the dog. I’ve pointed out that it’s against the law to discriminate against guide dog owners, and sometimes it’s just been a misunderstanding that get’s cleared up immediately, but sometimes they have continued to object. At this point I have two choices, I can push, and threaten to take them to court if they don’t allow me entry, hope that they’ll back down but spend my evening feeling awkward, uncomfortable and unwelcome, or I can walk away, go somewhere else, and pursue it through more official channels if I wish.
I know this is different because what they are doing is discrimination, and against the law, but even in those cases pragmatism I‘ve found is the best way to cope.
There comes a point where insistence on exercising your rights can become harmful to yourself and a self defeating pursuit. It’s very easy to get into a victim mentality if you pick the only place in town where you are not welcome., so why do it? Sorry I’ve rambled on somewhat and started to confuse myself. I guess my point is why do people who identify as women but also have a penis target lesbians? Why is it only acceptable for their validation that they only sleep with women who say they only sleep with women? There are plenty of women out there, many more than lesbians, who happily except penis in their sex lives, so why intentionally go after the ones who do not? I mean presumably what they’re after is sex, or companionship, so why not take it where it’s available and find a compromise regarding labels, rather than trying to kick down a closed door. Sex, after all is not a human right, it’s an act entered into by two consenting adults. Why is The validity of the relationship based on the sexuality of their partner?
I’m sorry this is really confused, and of course I know why they’re doing it, I just can’t get my head round the utter madness of it, and I completely fail to understand why nobody else would either. Maybe it’s because I’ve spent my life dealing with real prejudice and discrimination, and pragmatism is the only healthy way of dealing with it.

I guess my point is why do people who identify as women but also have a penis target lesbians? Why is it only acceptable for their validation that they only sleep with women who say they only sleep with women?

It's a very pertinent question. It's because it's mainly about control I think. They can't bear the thought that many women who exclusively sleep with women don't accept their stated womanhood. And that causes narcissistic injury.

Back to Avery and the "I can't bear that you think my female penis would feel like a male one when I am inside you".

Y'know, for a comedian they ain't that funny.

Also would be nice to have at least one day where I click on a Trans profile and not have to be presented with self-porn

I get your point but women who are attracted to penises are generally wanting the whole package that goes with that penis ie the person presents themselves as a man. I would be totally weirded out by a man who was wearing a dress makeup and had long hair and wouldn't find that attractive at all.