Gay men's magazine bullied into grovelling

[aliasundercover]

twitter.com/BoyzMagazine/status/1332052779871965186

Looks like they're gunning for gay men now. Anything other than complete agreement is no good.

Readers here will be used to this sort of insanity:
twitter.com/robholley/status/1332054419337334789
I wonder if it will wake up those who have not seen it before?

What do you mean that gay sex doesn’t end in reproduction"
Sex between people of the same sex doesn't result in reproduction

This.
That's what all I meant, thought it was self explanatory?!
Unless people think that it does?!

"An interesting point made during IDEVAW was that if "sex based oppression" is biological rather than social (thereby excluding trans women, which was the point trying to be made), then there is no possible solution to it, which does seem like GC painting itself into a corner, TBH"

Sex-based oppression derives from unequal power relationships between the two sexes, which are realised in all sorts of social forms.

The good news is MBD that you can be part of the solution by engaging with the experiences and opinions of those oppressed by their sex class.

Quaagars I know.

I vacillate between incredulity and despair that in 2020 we need to be explaining things to adults in simpler terms than I explained sex to my children when they were about 5, and thinking that actually sunlight is the best disinfectant, and it's better to expose the absolute nonsense that is driving gender ideology.

Schools have not been statically trapped in the 70s or even the 80s. I got the banana+condom demo in school. It's a cliché of school RSE at this point

They dont even use bananas anymore....fake penis

Even the banana was after my time, although I was at school pre HIV/AIDs, so it's good to hear that safe sex is addressed more specifically than previously.

@Impatiens

I found the Trans Actual document to be concise, clear and informative. I don't consider it over-broad, it just says "don't be an arsehole to transgender people"

Define 'arsehole' in that context.

An interesting point made during IDEVAW was that if "sex based oppression" is biological rather than social (thereby excluding trans women, which was the point trying to be made), then there is no possible solution to it, which does seem like GC painting itself into a corner, TBH,

Why is there 'no possible solution' to sex-based oppression?

If you can't define 'arsehole' within the spirit of what I am saying, then I can't help you.

If "sex based oppression" is rooted in biology and not society, then it is inevitable, and unavoidable, and unsolvable. It is a logical outcome of biological essentialism

Right. So was that supposed to be a "gotcha" so could talk about "sunlight?"
It was in context to teaching gay sex in schools, and now we're twisting it round to all about the trans again.

I don't consider it over-broad, it just says "don't be an arsehole to transgender people"

Is saying 'I believe trans people should be allowed to live their lives as they want, free from discrimination and violence, but for the purposes of law, I don't think that transwomen are women and I don't think transwomen should be in female only space' being 'an arse hole' to trans people?

If "sex based oppression" is rooted in biology and not society, then it is inevitable, and unavoidable, and unsolvable. It is a logical outcome of biological essentialism

That’s not what biological essentialism is.

If "sex based oppression" is rooted in biology and not society, then it is inevitable, and unavoidable, and unsolvable. It is a logical outcome of biological essentialism

No duh. It’s just the biology bit that’s inevitable and unchangeable. Not the oppression. Happily because you are a human with free will and stuff, you and the rest of society has a choice whether or not to treat women as lesser people just because they don’t happen to be possessed of a penis. If you really can’t understand that distinction, I would suggest that your comprehension skills are fairly low.

@SophocIestheFox

If "sex based oppression" is rooted in biology and not society, then it is inevitable, and unavoidable, and unsolvable. It is a logical outcome of biological essentialism

That’s not what biological essentialism is.

It’s so tragic. They think it’s some clever gotcha and they have no idea what biological essentialism actually refers to. They literally think that a description of a woman amounts to biological essentialism.

Sex based oppression can be rooted in biology, in that the physical differences between men and women are often exploited. Those differences are always there, but how we make use of those differences isn't necessarily hardwired

humans are ever rising above our biological urges and developing as a species and society. So it's not inevitable that we exploit those differences in negative ways

I do not for example believe it inevitable that men will rape women. I think the difference in rape across the world show that society/culture has a huge /dominant impact on rape

We may have a biological urge to go to the loo, but we retstrain ourselves until we find a clean loo.

@Duckwit

I don't consider it over-broad, it just says "don't be an arsehole to transgender people"

Is saying 'I believe trans people should be allowed to live their lives as they want, free from discrimination and violence, but for the purposes of law, I don't think that transwomen are women and I don't think transwomen should be in female only space' being 'an arse hole' to trans people?

Yes, for one thing b/c we are already there and have been for some time. There is no good reason to exclude us.

'Fraid so Quaggars.

We were supposed to have the epiphany that trans women are indeed women so that them having sex with another woman can result in reproduction by a gay couple.

Anything rather than acknowledge the basic biological truth that reproduction in mammals happens through male sperm fertilising a female egg.

Two sperm don't fertilise each other, nor do two eggs.

Basic primary school 'facts of life' stuff which MRAs purport to be bamboozled by.

@RufustheSniggeringReindeer

Schools have not been statically trapped in the 70s or even the 80s. I got the banana+condom demo in school. It's a cliché of school RSE at this point

They dont even use bananas anymore....fake penis

What's with this effort by our nation's educators to improve?

is staggered by learning stuff has changed simce the 90s

Also, great they're not wasting those bananas any more. Always wondered if anyone ate it at the end of the day.

Yes, for one thing b/c we are already there and have been for some time. There is no good reason to exclude us.

So women saying "No, this is unsafe for us" isn't a 'good reason''?

Interesting.

It is not at all true that trans people have been “in women’s spaces” for some time- the spaces that I’m thinking of are women’s sports, women’s prisons, lesbian groups and more topically on the board today, support groups for women breastfeeding. It is a very recent thing to expect transwomen to be welcomed without question into those spaces.

I expect you’re thinking of loos though, as we always end up back in the bogs again...

Yes, for one thing b/c we are already there and have been for some time. There is no good reason to exclude us.

So you keep saying. There are in fact many good reasons to have single sex spaces and you just dismiss them because they don’t fit your narrative. There are extremely good reasons to exclude natal males from sport and prisons for instance. Overwhelming reasons, against which there is no argument apart from ‘but I want to’.

@SophocIestheFox

If "sex based oppression" is rooted in biology and not society, then it is inevitable, and unavoidable, and unsolvable. It is a logical outcome of biological essentialism

That’s not what biological essentialism is.

Whatever. It was a point made in relation to why Olivia Colman and friends were very wrong for daring to show solidarity with trans women on IDEVAW.

I only bought it up as an example of how insisting on 'sex' and not 'gender' to define women is usually only motivated by a desire to exclude transgender people

Fraid so Quaggars

OK, but if it was indeed a gotcha as you say, that STILL deflects from what I actually said and on here people are saying they can't work out if that's what I meant when it was clear along - still have me doubting myself as to what I was saying? When it was clear all along?
Think there's a word for that beginning in g and ending in lighting.

Quote fail, last post was directed to Quaagers who I can’t work out whether they believe gay men having sex can actually result in babies or not... or if they need to go back and have some sex ed classes themselves

Using sex is not used for the purpose of excluding transgender people. Sorry you feel that way. But let's clear this up.

When talking about women and the female sex , we aim to be fully inclusive of transmen for a start.

It is also inclusive of women who do not have a clear gender identity, and inclusive women who according all definitions are actually transgender but, due typically to the abuse they have experienced , recognise that they can't escape their sex and welcome the protections that are granted to people of their sex.

Whatever. It was a point made in relation to why Olivia Colman and friends were very wrong for daring to show solidarity with trans women on IDEVAW.

I only bought it up as an example of how insisting on 'sex' and not 'gender' to define women is usually only motivated by a desire to exclude transgender people

Rubbish. You have an issue with it because it reminds you that, despite your wishes, you can never be part of the class you want to belong to. The only way you can do it is by bullying people into agreeing with you by threatening their jobs. But even the so-called allies don’t really believe it either, they are just saying it to be kind. When push comes to shove, everyone knows what biological sex is and who is female and who is not. The vast majority of the bearded woke men who shout that trans women are women would never date a trans woman for instance.

Women saying no is not a good enough reason?
Reminds me of something.
Men who will push across women's explicitly stated boundaries are exatly the men we need to keep out.
For women's privacy safety and dignity.
Although im guessing you dont think those things are reasons eithet.
We said no.

Anything rather than acknowledge the basic biological truth that reproduction in mammals happens through male sperm fertilising a female egg
Two sperm don't fertilise each other, nor do two eggs

Nobody has said any different.
It's back round to trans issues, seemingly in a way to deflect from what was actually asked - - which was should gay sex (as in not heterosexual before anyone doesn't understand what I mean by gay sex) be taught in schools? And that according to some we don't need to know how they have sex as it's personal business between them.

I think someone did question the concept that gay sex would not lead to reproduction quaggars, can't remember who

Clearly gay sex can only lead to reproduction if gay is defined not has homosexual but as homogenderal which isn't the normal meaning of the term