Naomi Cunningham's speech to the Scottish Parliament

[Pluvia]

Came across this here.

twitter.com/cwknews/status/1536766708526071813

Spot the elephants in the room. (Clue: they're behind you)

It did make me wonder whether now she's said it, and it's been reported and tweeted, we can use the phrase 'erotic cross-dressing'. I guess I'll find out, won't I?

Good to see Naomi of @SexMattersOrg getting it on record that some men cross-dress & want to be seen as women for erotic purposes & that women should not be co-opted into their fantasies.

A thousand thank you's Naomi Cunningham, this needed to be said.

It certainly did. And I'd like to thank the people behind her for illustrating the issue so beautifully.

I think it says a lot that everyone spotted them immediately. And yet no one mistook short-haired, make-up free, jewellery-free Ms Cunningham in her sober black jacket and white shirt, for a man. Such a clear way of illustrating why we can't not see what we see.

Very good point.

Thanks, Naomi and all women who are steadily getting the message out there. This is nothing to do with gay rights. It’s male sex fetishism mixed with plain old misogyny.

You're so right - it was the perfect visual.

I hope some of the women in Parliament took note. I found it quite visceral. The whole time she was talking I was thinking "would I feel comfortable undressing with those people in the same changing room as me?"

And obviously I wouldn't. Not because I know anything specific to their detriment, but because they are large strong males who (hypothetically, but also presumably, since they're in the Scottish Parliament arguing the TRA case) want to undress in women's changing rooms. Their presence made the discussion much less abstract.

Yes, motivation is everything — and there are still a lot of people who don't understand that for many cross-dressers there's an erotic charge. Greyson Perry has talked about it.

The two grinning persons behind her looked like they were bored teens sitting in a school assembly on recycling toothbrushes. Are we to believe that they are persons with roles of influence?

I think I recognised the red-haired one. Can't remember the name and context, but seemed familiar.

Crikey, the smirking going on behind her! The one on the far right instantly starts to grin when she says erotic cross dresser. And it looks involuntary.

That's an extraordinary clip. It couldn't have been more revealing if she'd planned it.

Ugh. How have we got to this.

At least there's a chink of light shining on it.

Grayson Perry talks about it at length. Right down to the reason he wears voluminous skirts - to hide his erection.

Yet people have some kind of perception filter around him, thinking he's harmless. He might be physically harmless, but he's getting off by publicly walking amongst the population, including children. They are unwittingly participating in his fetish.

Yes, I went right off Grayson Perry when I read an interview in which he was so happy about getting a hard-on in public. I just want men like that to go away and leave us in peace.

It is going to have to be faced upto:

To what extent is it going to be acceptable to involve non consenting people in personal sexual experiences?

And how do you put a line down because this is making non consenting use of other people's bodies. Whether you wish to be in a female toilet because you find the sounds of women peeing and unwrapping tampons to be a highly charged sexual experience, or whether you wish to be in a female toilet because you wish to see yourself as a female among other females who are in a state of vulnerable undress as they only are around other females you are still using those female people's bodies for your personal desired experience and to meet your personal needs. Without care for the impact your use of them may have.

I don't want to be a non consenting prop in the life of someone deemed of a higher status and greater importance than others, in this unequal powered relationship. It's not ok to use women like this.

Well, now we have a word for it — erotic cross-dressing, in which the person cross-dressing does so for the sexual charge involved. It's a bit cumbersome but it'll do.

I suppose it used to be thought of as a fetish. O brave new world, eh? I wonder whether, when Mark Drakeford and Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer talk about this most victimised of populations, they have people like those sitting behind Naomi Cunningham in mind? I wonder whether they can understand the visceral (as one PP said) feelings that women feel when they know they are sharing space with such erotic cross-dressers, and how gaslighting it feels when we are told TWAW?

That's beautifully expressed. Yes. We all saw those people, didn't we, and we saw Naomi, and we all sexed them correctly from a quick glance. And yet saying what we saw gets our posts removed, as demonstrated above.

And now link this to the male response to 'metoo' -

that a pat on the bottom, or just looking, or whistling at women's bodies is just harmless, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's not like you've assaulted them or anything, and it's just what males do innit?

And think about male socialisation. And the absolute lack of understanding or care for how women feel in this situation because male people have needs .

Things have really reached a pretty pass when we have to remind people that cross-dressers exist. The SJW mindset involves a lot of wilful naivety. Good on Naomi.

Great speech, something talked a lot here on Mumsnet and a massive elephant in the room. As some would say, good optics with the persons sat behind her just illuminating it all.

And this is just the common sense of it, there are, always have been and always will be erotic cross dressers, and women are being asked to be co-opted into a fetish. I heard someone say the other day 'I'm not giving away freebies'.

It was several years ago that Miranda Yardley penned an article called 'where have all the cross dressers gone?'

Anyone just supporting this through well meaning naivete should watch that clip and decide for themselves.

How did those people happen to be sitting behind Naomi? I don't know how the room was laid out. Were they people who were going to speak next? I'm not on Twitter, so can't work out the context.

Because I would have felt extremely uncomfortable with the group of them right behind me. It's as Tasteful said, it's a visceral thing. It's part of our survival instinct.

It's the public seating area behind the invited speakers. Committee itself is sitting on a horseshoe formation so the speakers are facing them. Those two people were there as members of the public, not invited to speak.

Well, again I thank them from the bottom of my heart for choosing to sit there, behind Ms Cunningham. They have magnified the point she was making about a thousands times. No one needs anything explained, they only have to watch.

Thanks, just watched that.

Beautifully put, and illustrated