Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

would you date someone who is gender critical?

279 replies

Bespin · 29/06/2019 16:40

Seeing as there is a would you date a trans person thread for proper balance I'm sure you will be happy with a would you date a gender critical person. I know we could ask for every other characteristic that people do and do not find attractive, and then we can judge people by there answers. But no one needs to date anyone they are not attracted too.

So my answer is I'd probably be attracted to them but over time if there views were such that they impacted on me negatively then that would be a massive turn off.

OP posts:
JessicaWakefieldSV · 30/06/2019 09:20

So both questions are equally valid

Well they’re not. I’m sorry for you that you aren’t intelligent enough to see that you’ve presented a very poor analogy that makes no sense. The opposite of trans is not GC. Think about it.

WineIsMyCarb · 30/06/2019 09:26

Haha - noting that being a 'torie' ranks as worse than being GC. What if they are both @Bespin?! Shock

Bespin · 30/06/2019 09:38

WineIsMyCarb

that would be pushing it i think, though when you meet someone you don't tend to know these things until later, and loving someone is about accepting them for who they are, so as long as they are not hurting others there is a possibility that you could still be with them i feel.

both questions are equally valid in relation to being posted on this board. not that trans is the opposite of GC as that is cis. i am sorry if you feel that calling someone thick makes you feel better about yourself.

OP posts:
Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 30/06/2019 09:40

Yeah sorry to hear that meph

Brew
Lamaha · 30/06/2019 09:46

The odd thing is, my generation who were young in the '80s and '90s were not remotely prudish.

I think you misunderstood me. I came of age in the late 60's and 70's. I had more unconventional adventures in that time -- and really, really wild adventures such as backpacking for a year through South America, and, later on, to Asia, smoking tons of weed, and, yes, having lots of sex, sometimes, even, with strangers. Many, if not all, of my friends were the same. We were anything but prudish.

My so-called "prudishness" now comes from the revelation that as much as those years contributed to my attitudes today, there's no way I would repeat any of it (except the actual travels -- now that was important), or want my children or grandchildren to repeat it in the style of what is on offer today. Because today's offerings are simply awful in comparison. Modern life is a mess. That's what I base my prudishness on.

The sex was nothing. It did not bring me happiness. If I could go back now, I would give the younger me a big slap and say, stop it. It's not worth it. That's why I roll my eyes at people boasting of their sexual exploits, thinking it makes them interesting or unconventional. The wildness, quirkiness, rebellion, defying convention trust me, I was on top of the game! was not IT.

Today there seems a sense of desperation that was lacking in my day. The sexualisation of everything, the pushing of boundaries into ever more outlandish directions such as men becoming women it all comes from a sense of directionlessness. If that is even a word.

I am far closer to IT in the quiet, celibate country life I now live in retirement. Been there, done that. You (pl.) may call me a boring old crone but I bet I can run rings around you as far as pure LIVING is concerned, and who cares if I have no selfies to prove it.

And I don't mind being called a prude; I use it on myself. It's not an insult. We have to stop thinking of ourselves as boring, just because we aren't flipping somersaults in clown costumes with purple hair. It's all an attempt to make oneself more interesting. If you have had, or are having, a truly interesting life, you can be as quiet as you want and it doesn't matter what others think -- because it is inside you, you don't have to demonstrate anything.

So I do understand the need to defy convention so many young women today feel. But I feel a certain deeper malaise, and I think there will come a day when many of them will look back and say, "was I out of my head?" I did too, in some respects (I cringe at the thought of certain men I got too close too), but today it is much worse. I feel terrible for those young people who go so far as to mutilate their bodies because the regret will be unbearable a few years down the line.

But you live and learn and sometimes you just have to go through it.

Lamaha · 30/06/2019 09:49

trans is the opposite of GC as that is cis

No it is not. Cis is a made-up word that means nothing.
There are men and women. Full stop. Nothing more. No cis.

There are men who want to be women and women who want to be men.
They want to be their opposites, which is an impossibility.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 30/06/2019 09:52

Now now, don’t write lies Bespin. I didn’t call you thick, you aren’t smart enough to understand you haven’t presented an equally valid or comparable question.

Bespin · 30/06/2019 09:58

No it is not. Cis is a made-up word that means nothing.

CIS
denoting or relating to a molecular structure in which two particular atoms or groups lie on the same side of a given plane in the molecule, in particular denoting an isomer in which substituents at opposite ends of a carbon–carbon double bond are on the same side of the bond.

Trans
denoting or relating to a molecular structure in which two particular atoms or groups lie on opposite sides of a given plane in the molecule, in particular denoting an isomer in which substituents at opposite ends of a carbon–carbon double bond are also on opposite sides of the bond.

hence there use in relation to gender.

OP posts:
Thisizit · 30/06/2019 10:00

Of course. I would not date someone who wasn't.
I couldn't deal with their woke bullshit.

Bespin · 30/06/2019 10:02

JessicaWakefieldSV

you just did it again lol if all you want to do is tell me i don't understand something and that im not clever enough to do so, then thats up to you. You seem to have misunderstood my point that both questions are of equal value on this board as they are both questions asked in a internet forum and have little to no relevance on any other thing. But in and of themselves have equal weight as questions.

OP posts:
BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 30/06/2019 10:03

Haha - noting that being a 'torie' ranks as worse than being GC

All forms of wrong think are bad!

Shock about someone starting a thread about dating disabled people. Truly this has really struck a nerve, hasn’t it?

sackrifice · 30/06/2019 10:11

hence there use in relation to gender.

Their use in relation to anything is only feasible if you are talking about isomers and bonds. Not humans.

Bespin · 30/06/2019 10:21

but still we call people trans? so what should we call people then?

OP posts:
FermatsTheorem · 30/06/2019 10:22

Well, yes the woke issue is an interesting one.

I'm a straight woman. I.e. I date men with penises.

In order for a "male ally" to be truly acceptable to the fully woke, he would have to believe the following. That it was appropriate to place sex offenders with penises into women's prisons if said sex offenders identified as female. That lesbians were transphobic for excluding people with penises from their dating pool. That women's sport was a waste of time unless it included people with penises. Including women's rugby, where the people with penises might put women at risk of life threatening/changing spinal injuries. That women shouldn't be allowed to have discussion groups and spaces of their own free from people with penises.

In short, in order to be an acceptable male ally, a man would have to be a complete bell end of an unreconstructed misogynist.

I don't date misogynists.

Lamaha · 30/06/2019 10:22

hence there use in relation to gender.

Gender also means nothing. It's an idea in someone's head. It is not verifiable.
Since you are talking definitions:

VERIFIABLE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/verifiable
verifiable definition: 1. able to be proved: 2. if a statement, number, etc. is verifiable, it can be checked and proved to be correct.

Can you verify a person's gender? If so, how? if not, it is not verifiable.
It is like God. You either believe or you don't.

sackrifice · 30/06/2019 10:24

but still we call people trans? so what should we call people then?

Men and women? you know, like we have done since the dawn of time?

Bespin · 30/06/2019 10:33

sackrifice

ah history you got to love it, shall we look at all the other things we used to call people since the dawn of time. Humans define things with language and they categorize them into groups. We are very good at this and over time we redefine those categories. There is no point highlighting comparisons between this and when we used to define some people as not human is there.

OP posts:
NeverSayFreelance · 30/06/2019 10:35

Not in a million years or for all the money in the world.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 30/06/2019 10:36

We have never define some people as not human, unless you are talking about neanderthal, in which case they weren't human.

sackrifice · 30/06/2019 10:37

We are very good at this and over time we redefine those categories

Yes and to do so you would have to show how a male-born human changed sex and gave birth to a healthy live infant, and how a female born human produced sperm that fertilised an egg which resulted in a healthy live infant.

Until then, we'll stick with the actual names of men and women right? Unless you have evidence that the above happened?

Bespin · 30/06/2019 10:38

CaptainKirksSpookyghost

You really need to read more about western colonial and imperial history then.

OP posts:
CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 30/06/2019 10:39

Do you mean a hierarchy of status?

Because slaves were property, but still humans.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 30/06/2019 10:40

Maybe you need to do some actual reading on the subject Besin?

Michelleoftheresistance · 30/06/2019 10:42

Humans define things with language and they categorize them into groups. We are very good at this and over time we redefine those categories.

Men have spent history recategorizing and re defining what makes women socially acceptable in order to limit and control them. It's called patriarchy. Women have had centuries of experience in fighting this so that today they can look sexist men who want to control their boundaries and their bodies, straight in the eye and tell them to fuck off. Because males are not more important or valid than females, and females do not exist purely to service and enable people with penises.

And please don't refer to me as 'cis' I find it beyond offensive. I do not identify with my own oppression. I cannot identify out of being a woman whatever I call myself. It's another pretentious and invented term from the trans lobby that is about men trying to control women's bodies and boundaries for their sexual benefit.

If you're all for controlling women whatever, your life. But own it honestly and stop pissing on my leg and telling me its raining.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 30/06/2019 10:42

Likewise disabled people were still human, just of the bottom most status.

Swipe left for the next trending thread