The immigration analogy for transwomen

[MrsCollinssettled]

Did anyone see the article in Saturday's Telegraph magazine about Diana Thomas? Diana said "I use the immigration analogy because in the same way that immigrants bring to their host nation things from their own culture - food, music, whatever I think I can bring- or we can bring- something new and interesting to the female experience. And I absolutely don't deny the guy in me. I am not pretending I am not still him in many ways."

Diana believes that being female is all about the clothes (says she "has almost caught up on the 40 years of shopping she missed out on") and nurturing "I have earned my way for long enough, so yes, put a pinny round my neck and let me be a homemaker, please!"

The monitors can report as much as they like. That article is out there and anyone who reads it can see exactly what's going on.

Here's a suggestion for MNHQ: if a thread did not break guidelines at first, but then a clear pattern develops of more and more deletions, how about simply locking it so that nobody can pose but the original discussion remains?

I thought it was interesting that they mentioned Diana's ex-wife and adult children who clearly weren't celebrating Diana's transformation and how this wasn't going down well with Diana.

It came across that nurturing was all about looking after the man who paid for you to stay at home rather than bringing up independent, happy and healthy children.

How can a journalist like Diana have got to that age without realising that their vision of what it is to be a woman is divorced from reality?

This popped into my newsfeed today and is very pertinent.

When people are secure in their homelands, they don’t emigrate. It’s the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free that up and move to a new land. Without antisemitism, the “west” would have no colony in the Middle East. Without patriarchal gender enforcement, TiMs wouldn’t be spearheading the further colonization of women. So men simultaneously threaten TiMs, and demand the protection of TiMs as “the most oppressed.” That male-imposed marginalization is what drives the whole project.

Nina Paley

Gender Colonialism: how womanhood is being occupied by men

4w.pub/gender-colonialism/

I saw a lot of anger on that thread at Thomas for Thomas's completely farcical idea of what it is to be a woman.

There was probably some "misgendering", does this mean it's fine to call someone "he" until they go "okay, done now!" And suddenly calling them "he" is wildly offensive?

I have been called Miss Testing, Mrs Testing-husbandname, Mrs HusbandName and Sir. I have never told anyone these are my names, but when it happens I just shrug and politely correct.

It's ducking ridiculous that women have to be polite on here and use the language demanded by males when they are furious at misogynistic attitudes.

Here's a suggestion for MNHQ: if a thread did not break guidelines at first, but then a clear pattern develops of more and more deletions, how about simply locking it so that nobody can pose but the original discussion remains?

That’s a good suggestion Jelly. I’ve no idea what happened, but was on the early part of the thread which was mainly women expressing their frustration with Thomas’ article.

Nice post SonEtLumiere

I think that as David Thomas, this opinion piece writer (not sure if journalist is even appropriate) was very clear in their opinion of women and it does not seem to have changed.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2077605/If-women-want-female-Sports-Personality-Year-dont-create-one.html

On one hand Thomas is saying that the media is at fault because it won’t include any women’s sportspeople because it won’t sell and more needs to be done. But the attack is also on women and how they are not interested in anything but frothy frocks, desperate housewives etc. A very cutting article that certainly would not have advanced the progress of women in sport but certainly cut all women down to vacuous nothings.

The tone of D Thomas’ writing has not changed. They, the articles, still focus on that side of so called womenhood.

. There is a lot of talk about the agony of childbirth, but you don’t get an epidural when you have your legs lasered

Yeah, that’s exactly what it is.

I wonder if the thread was deleted because of the claims made by many posters that AGP (autogynephilia) is involved.

But - genuine question - isn’t AGP more associated with the type of MTF transgender person who is fundamentally heterosexual (according to the research done by Raymond Blanchard)? The subject of the article, however, seems to have discovered an attraction for men.

(I’ve edited this to remove overly personal speculation about the individual in the article. It’s probably best if people respond in general terms, if we don’t want the thread deleted again.)

I remember being struck by DT’s comment There is a lot of nurturing in me that has gone to waste and there is a lot of love that is not being used up. DT was married with three children, with I would have thought plenty of chance to love and nurture.

I was going to post exactly the same thing. To say this need hasn’t been met yet suggests this individual didn’t take the opportunity they already had. As the saying goes, watch what a person does rather than what they say. Either DT doesn’t have it in them, or they thought it was beneath them (“woman’s work”) in their previous incarnation.

By contrast, my DH is a very nurturing, hands-on Dad to our two sons and manages it whilst wearing male attire etc. Who knew?!

It’s the offensive stereotyping that made people cross on the last thread, I assume?

That article is even more telling on second reading isn't it. I don't know why our words get banned when they do it to themselves so much better that we ever could.

I had decided in the other thread that this author is highlighting Diana’s transition beautifully. It can be read either way and if you take the opinion that the author doesn’t believe the ‘ argumentative, slightly domineering, Eton-educated man I remember (he was the original white privileged male) ‘ has changed anything but appearance.

If D Thomas always has this fetish about being drawn to women’s clothing (the undertones were there in the sports article), all they are doing is living that dream. Diana is not womaning at all.

There is so much to say about this person. But taking 3 women’s HRT treatments when there is a shortage and being oblivious to those women’s distress and that they may not be able to function without them is just one.

The immigrant analogy was also wrong. I am also an immigrant and although I mostly fit in because my ancestry is British on all sides, I agree with SonEtLumiere.

Too much to say about this article but I think the author was clever in putting the spotlight on the fact that this is a person donning on a costume and finding it a very sexual pleasure while waiting for their prince.

I said in the last thread, the author makes a point about not being able to talk about the wife and children. Again telling.

About misgendering this person.

if they wrote previously as a man and still has that byline active and an entire book (the extract about women who somehow make men rape them is truly sickening) as a male and you refer to this work, surely we can say ‘he’ as they were at that time????

They were writing about a male perspective that they were living at the time.

‘Sometimes people say to me, “Why do you want to be a woman? It’s such a faff.” ‘And it is a faff, but I love the faff. Although I have had to readjust to how long it takes me to leave the house. These days, it takes at least an hour longer, but that hour is kind of fun,’ she says.*
*
It takes me 2 seconds to leave the house. I've been womanning wrong. So good that a man can tell me.

That sport article is incredibly, unbelievably misogynistic. This whole issue is so very deeply offensive, I don't have the words. Ugh! Horrid, horrid man (the one who wrote for the Mail - and it's also offensive that we have to dance around fucking pronouns). Ugh! Makes my skin crawl. It's people like this that throw the 'true trans' ones under the bus - I imagine most women will have a visceral reaction to meeting a man like this in the loos. And I say 'man' advisedly - it states quite clearly in the article that this person does not have and will never have a GRC. It's a factual word to describe a factual fact.

I don't think it was deleted because of misgendering. But as MrsDoyle says, everything you need to know is in the article. I'm not surprised the monitors are agitated but they should save their anger for The Telegraph and D.Thomas - they're the ones who have let their little secret out. They must be absolutely raging - all that effort they put into telling us it was a lie, only to see it confirmed by one of their own.

As Magdalen said "what do you think you're contributing to womanhood?" also... "why do women have to make space for you, rather than men making space for men who like wearing a skirt and not being a dick about it?"

But no, budge up girls. They really do think womanhood is about skirts and make up and being a bobbling fool don't they?

But - genuine question - isn’t AGP more associated with the type of MTF transgender person who is fundamentally heterosexual (according to the research done by Raymond Blanchard)?

From what I understand GCGayDad, the fantasy of a male partner is all part of the fetish. Having sex 'as a woman' requires penetration of some description. It's not so much that their sexual orientation changes, as it is, and always has been, focused on them self (as a woman), it's that a man is required a prop in their fantasy.

From what I remember Blanchard did note this phenomenon.

*as a prop

The subject of the article, however, seems to have discovered an attraction for men.

The subject of the article has developed an attraction for feminity and for themself as someone practising feminity. Their sexuality seems to be a secondary issue.