In defence of deadnaming

[welshgendercrit]

For ‘deadnaming’ is just a Newspeak word designed to demonise the telling of historical truths. Not satisfied with seeking to control contemporary discussion and attitudes, now trans activists and their allies (all institutions, in essence) want to control the past itself. History. No way. The past happened, it was true, and we should not allow that to be erased and forgotten just to make some people feel better about themselves.

Yet again spiked (which I never used to read) has written a good, hardhitting, sensible article on transactivism.

www.spiked-online.com/2018/10/11/in-defence-of-deadnaming/

Fox you promised. You said you were done.

Given that sex reassignment is also legally certified I think they'll be fine about a cis woman and a trans woman being a lesbian couple. You're not even trying now, so I think my work is done here.

Can you tell me how you can discriminate, on the basis of homosexuality, towards a couple where one is male and one is female?

And if two men fellating one another can be called lesbian sex, I don't think you'll get many takers.

Hooray! We're back to 2D + 69 = L. Just in time for Christmas!

Hooray! We're back to 2D + 69 = L. Just in time for Christmas!

Happy Holidays

Let me get this straight correct: Person A has a penis and has sex with Person B, who also has a penis. That is lesbianism. If Person A has oral sex with Person B (or vice versa, so as to be inclusive) that is cunnilingus.

If Person A has sex with Person C, who has a vagina, that is lesbianism, too. If Persons A and C have oral sex, that is cunnilingus.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale

Correct. Women fought hard to make sex a protected characteristic. If anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

Likewise if anyone can be any combination of sexual orientation irrespective of who they are actually attracted to, or sleeping with, how does that work?

This is how we have arrived at the point where male bodied individuals who express an interest in the menstruation of 10-year-olds, are able, quite freely, to photograph said children in the female toilets.

Anyone who supports it, is complicit.

Yes that's right disrespectful because having a penis trumps all, doncha know. It can be whatever it wants to be.

This is how we have arrived at the point where male bodied individuals who express an interest in the menstruation of 10-year-olds, are able, quite freely, to photograph said children in the female toilets.

Anyone who supports it, is complicit.

This. You cannot word salad your way out of it. This, this, this.

Right. And to further check my understanding: Person C (who has a vagina) has sex with Person D, who also has a vagina. But that is straight sex.

But that is straight sex.

Or male gay sex, if they both identify as men.

I was going to say that I am one of the few people in the world who actually had heterosexual sex, but then I realised that I am not gender-conforming and so my sex with heterosexual men was actually gay sex.

Therefore, that makes me gay, in a minority and, thus, my opinion is more important and valid than anyone else's opinion.

This is how we have arrived at the point where male bodied individuals who express an interest in the menstruation of 10-year-olds, are able, quite freely, to photograph said children in the female toilets

You mean, like this?

Freely, unchallenged and totally legal in Canada?

True, Datun.

Really, the only true minority is gender-conforming people who have gender-conforming penis-in-vagina sex. Therefore, their opinion is more valid than anyone else's.//

I apologise for my gender non-conforming privilege and oppression of you, gender-conformers.

sackrifice

Exactly. Pretending men can be women completely obscures the power differential between men and women, and the fact that men are largely responsible for all sexual crime.

That person is just another older female, who happened to be witnessed talking to other, younger, females about menstruation, borrowing sanitary products and whether the young females needed help.

In fox's world, you can't call that what it is.

This person happened to be witnessed. But many more people like this, won't be.

Or maybe they will be, now. Because this person doesn't seem to be suffering any kind of consequences.

Are you saying that Woman A (who is only ever attracted to non-trans women) is a lesbian but a Woman B (who is only ever attracted to non-trans women and also believes TWAW) is not a lesbian? Or is it that Woman B is a lesbian but just doesn't know what a lesbian is?

Oh, go away.

Woman B is a lesbian but thinks that bisexual women are also lesbians.
As a matter of interest, do there exist women who are sexually attracted to regular women, men who identify as women, but not regular men?
Because if there genuinely do, then these women sound like they're attracted to both sexes but also something in the gender presentation of those sexes.
But from the "I'm pansexual" moaning that's around I assume actually, women who are attracted to men who identify as women, are also attracted to men who don't.

As a matter of interest, do there exist women who are sexually attracted to regular women, men who identify as women, but not regular men?

Yep. And if by "men who identify as women" you mean trans women then these unicorns who fancy them are known in the parlance as "lesbians".

Hello Fox, you've been asked before, but failed to answer, what makes men who identify as women, into women? Non-circular answer please.

Deadnaming.

Stick to the subject.

Language is used to communicate, but under your classification, lesbian coupling could mean two men, two women or a man and a woman, so coherence is fucked for starters. Likewise heterosexuality. It could mean anything. And everyone had better keep awake because it can all change tomorrow.

A world where nobody was able to discriminate between gay and straight sex? Add a few more preferences to Grindr and bring it on.

Essentially you're talking valid sex vs invalid sex, aka sodomy. All sex that isn't PIV is technically sodomy. We most of us manage to hit the spot despite this appalling vagueness. Get over it.

Hello Fox, you've been asked before, but failed to answer, what makes men who identify as women, into women? Non-circular answer please.

I have answered in other threads, and I would dispute the "men" presumption of your question, but anyway: other than the fact that they're really sure about it, which as I said seems to be good enough for you with the gays, my current answer is that I don't know yet but given that this conviction doesn't sufficiently resemble what I would define as a delusion, I don't think it matters. It exists; we just don't know its cause.

Can you adequately explain to me how or why the universe's expansion is accelerating, people are gay or my cat purrs? Because I'm reliably informed that the universe is expanding and fuck yeah Isabella Rossellini and the cat is definitely emitting some kind of buzzing noise.

I have answered in other threads, and I would dispute the "men" presumption of your question, but anyway: other than the fact that they're really sure about it, which as I said seems to be good enough for you with the gays, my current answer is that I don't know yet but given that this conviction doesn't sufficiently resemble what I would define as a delusion, I don't think it matters. It exists; we just don't know its cause.

Why would you dispute the 'men' presumption? If a man is calling himself a trans woman then why is it a presumption that he is a man?

If you don't know 'yet' what makes a man into a woman, why spend so much time on here arguing for it? Unless as has said before you just believe everything anyone tells you in which case, i have some magic beans on offer.

Good grief Fox, you’re back on here spouting your usual crap which means your hatred of females must be all consuming. I pity you.

There is no such thing as 'deadnaming'. It is just 'real naming'. Saying the truth cannot be a crime - that would be insane.

Everyone knows this - this is yet more Emperor's New Clothes stuff.

No-one should consider worrying about 'deadnaming' for a moment. The public's right to safety overrules the individual's right to privacy. The public has a right to know if an individual has a relevant criminal past and a putative change of name, for whatever reason, should never be regarded as denoting a right to falsify or cover up the historical record.

Facts matter. They are not subjective and can't be changed by feelings. Feelings don't take priority - no, not even if they are 'ladybrains' feelings.