would you date someone who is gender critical?

[Bespin]

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.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost

No i was referring to the identification of some cultures as sub human by victorian naturalists, during the commonwealth.

No i was referring to the identification of some cultures as sub human by victorian naturalists, during the commonwealth.

Really?
And what does this have to do with the thread?

As a colonised person, can I just say, you’re talking rubbish again we weren’t not human, we were inferior to the Brits, in their mind.

The common term used for us was natives, or savages. They liked to use our women as sex slaves, so very much thought of as human.

Bespin, you have repeatedly said you were asking the opposite question to would you date a trans person. Your actual words. So at least admit that is not correct and in fact you’re not making that analogy any longer having seen that it doesn’t make sense.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost

I dont bloody know, you asked me lol
you asked me when we had ever not refered to people as human, tried to correct me on it and i highlighted how we have indeed done this. It as nothing to do with the actual thread.

shall we pretend it didnt happen and move on ?

The only thing i can find in my books google search is a tribe of Cynocephaly, being classed as subhuman....

considering they were human bodied dog headed people i would assume the identification was correct.

shall we pretend it didnt happen and move on ?

no, your argument was that we used to categorize humans differently. I've asked you for proof of when we actually had sub humans because this type of thing really interests me.

Untermensch (German pronunciation: [ˈʔʊntɐˌmɛnʃ], underman, sub-man, subhuman; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazis used it to describe non-Aryan "inferior people" often referred to as "the masses from the East", that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs – mainly Poles, Serbs, and later also Russians.[1][2] The term was also applied to Blacks, Mulattos and Finn-Asian.[3] Jewish people were to be exterminated[4] in the Holocaust, along with the Polish and Romani people, and the physically and mentally disabled.[5][6] According to the Generalplan Ost, the Slavic population of East-Central Europe was to be reduced in part through mass murder in the Holocaust, with a majority expelled to Asia and used as slave labor in the Reich. These concepts were an important part of the Nazi racial policy.[7]

Are we all happy now that we have used sub human in history. i didnt want to use that example but its still true.

There’s a lot of casual racism / ableism on Twitter by TRAs talking about ‘black women, disabled women, trans women’.

Thus pushing the idea that white able-bodied women are so much the norm that melatonin levels or what a body is capable of are just as ‘unwomanly’ as having XY chromosomes & a penis. And that only white, able-bodied women are likely to object to sharing intimate spaces with men.

Sojourner Truth would be turning in her grave.

It has struck a nerve, yes, and brought some nasty little critters out from under their stones.

Yes let's move on.

So returning to the original question: is there any evidence of GC people as a political movement trying to shame and coerce homosexual or heterosexual people into having sex they wouldn't choose and don't want? And to justify and normalise this appalling behaviour? Cos it's nowhere in Fair Play For Women's website, not Women Scotland, or anywhere else I look.

Are we all happy now that we have used sub human in history. i didnt want to use that example but its still true.

Yes the good old Nazi's and their classification of races as subhuman.....

So that's you proof we all used to have non-humans is it, i thought you were taking about imperialism, which is about 100 to 200 years before this example?

And if i remember didn't we go to war to stop mistreatment of people in this way, so clearly not some big scientifically accepted catagorise?

Everyone is entitled to like/not like thing's, the governent have approved a few thing's i don't like, thing's have got to be accepted wether you like it or not, everyone is entitled to an opinion

thing's have got to be accepted wether you like it or not,

Why?

thing's have got to be accepted wether you like it or not,

So lesbians have to accept penises?

If you want to play that ball, yes the Nazi party very definitely categorised many humans as subhuman, entitled to less rights and consideration than 'proper' humans. This included the right to life. It's truly scary how a political group emerged and managed to spread this belief and force others to accept it and act on it in such a relatively short period of time.

So. Do we have a political group at the moment who believes that women demonstrating thought crime and disobedience to a political orthodoxy deserve less rights than others? Like not being allowed to talk on line, being shunned, ostracised, excluded from public facilities if they won't share with males, baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire for the disciplining of them, reporting them to the police and trying to get them sacked from their jobs, blocking them from entering public spaces, punching them for holding opinions in public places like speakers corner and threatening them with tedious frequency with rape and murder?

Which group could that be? And would you want to date someone in favour of all that?

CaptainKirksSpookyghost

your derailing the thread now, if you want to talk about the classificant of humans there is lots of articles on the internet around it, and in actual books of the time of people trying to classify people out of the category of human.

i find this an interesting starting point.

www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/post-darwin-social-darwinism-degeneration-eugenics

thing's have got to be accepted wether you like it or not

LOL

Yes, keen to know here: are you informing me that as a lesbian you believe I have got to accept penis whether I like it or not?

Enough. I’m going to go read some Bunbury instead.

your derailing the thread now

You were the one who mentioned people used to be classed as none - human.

I'm still waiting for some examples.

I still don't understand the point of this thread?

Do you genuinely want to know if there's anyone on the MN feminism board who wouldn't date someone GC?

Or are you making a point that GC would get upset if people wouldn't date them? Or upset about you asking the question?

They aren't really comparible questions. But I don't think anyone particularly cares about you asking it, no one has said it's not a fair question to ask. Do you think your being sneaky and contrary?

I think the point of this thread is pretty damn obvious - it was started as a piece of goady-fuckery.

I reported it as a TAAT, but apparently normal rules don't apply on FWR - not only in the sense we're used to (GC feminists being subject to more severe standards of behaviour than posters on for instance AIBU) but apparently in the opposite direction too (goady fuckers being cut far more slack than they'd be allowed elsewhere on the boards).

CaptainKirksSpookyghost

FermatsTheorem

As the other thread was started in good faith i can only assume that you feel asking the question in reverse is not appropriate. Mumsnet would have to remove both if that was the case. Also by continuing to engage in this thread i hope i am demonstrating that this is indeed in good faith and in the spirit of freedom of speech to also pose the opposite question. You might not like it but i don't like many of the treads on here.