"Lesbians being anti-trans is a lesbophobic trope"

[MerlinsLostMarbles]

https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/lesbians-are-not-anti-trans/

I think this helps give another viewpoint to the "gay people are anti-trans" trope that is often used by the LGB-Alliance and Julie Bindel etc.

Lesbians often have to put up with harmful stereotypes that may deter them from coming out, and in recent years the "lesbians are anti-trans" is another stereotype on top of the existing ones.

To be honest, there has been some terrible terrible consequences of people having this surgery. And sometimes this can happen, particularly when there is internal pubic hair, or poo. It's not nice, for the person, to have to experience this. I would advise transwomen to consider very carefully before embarking down this road, in case they end up with a botched surgery that they themselves may well describe as festering 😢

People really should educate themselves properly before embarking on a process from which there is no return.

Yes, it can go wrong, have complications, or not lead to a result the person expected. But some people are very happy with the results and have no regrets. Referring in general terms to a part of other people’s bodies as a ‘festering hole’ is clearly not acceptable.

I am not convinced the pp’s concern here is really for trans women themselves

Another key issue with this ideology that does not seem possible to compute when discussed:

To what extent is it acceptable to use other humans as props and tools in a personal agenda, without their consent?

To attempt to force their consent?

When the agenda includes using them for sexual experiences?

Does someone who is trans have a special exception or excuse to treat others in this way and expect not to encounter the word 'no'?

Do some humans have a right to consent and others not?

I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly capable of finding someone's political or social views misguided, socially damaging even, but still feel sympathy for them as a human being.

I don’t think someone who says it’s an insult that trans women think their “surgically constructed rot pockets” or “festering holes” are anything like vaginas has any sympathy for trans women as human beings, do you? By pp I meant @zibzibara not @Jonei

I agree the language used goes further than is really necessary, but it is insulting to describe what they have as a vagina. It implies that they think a vagina is just a hole. It shows very little understanding of or respect for the female body.

This. It’s essentially misogynistic to reduce a vagina, an actual human organ, a complicated self-cleaning canal between the vulva and cervix, with many functions, to a hole for dicks to go in. And that’s what transwomen think it is - that is all they end up with after surgery but it’s not and never will be a vagina. Like they are not and never shall be women.

I admit I was a bit rude about these men's extreme body modifications but the appropriation gets me so angry and frustrated. However I will try to moderate my language in future. My apologies to all who I upset with my choice of words.

Personally I don’t find it insulting. It’s an artificial vagina, like an artificial leg, or nose, or eye. It doesn’t have the same functionality as the real article, but it fulfils a function.

Thank you, I appreciate that

@aseriesofstillimages
Personally I don’t find it insulting. It’s an artificial vagina, like an artificial leg, or nose, or eye. It doesn’t have the same functionality as the real article, but it fulfils a function.

What function would that be then?
In your example an artifical leg would help someone walk. An artifical nose or eye would be purely cosmetic, until perhaps science can create sensors and link them to the brain. But a cosmetic nose or eye are on display at all times as a part of the human face.
What function does a surgically created hole perform in a male where his penis and testacles used to be?

It doesn't fulfill the same function. Why not call it something else? It's no more a vagina than it is an anus.

I am so tired of being scolded for insufficient respect towards a political movement that calls women all kinds of names and will laugh in your face at the idea that they might need to apologise or be considerate.

Women do not owe deference to men. Women do not owe standards of behaviour to men while men get to freely treat them like shit. Women are not subhuman service units.

@MargotBamborough
It doesn't fulfill the same function. Why not call it something else? It's no more a vagina than it is an anus.

How about a validatemegina?

😄

Is the equivalent operation for a transman a strapadichtomy?

The disapproval of funny names for things is another indicator of the special status of this identity.

Like 'transphobic'. It basically all means 'heretic'.

Hard agree my Sister;
Ladies we owe no sympathy, kindness, or any fucks to this horrible movement that steals women's achievements, ruins their bodies ( how I grieve for the female detransitioners), and bullies and silences us.
Now is the time to be strong, brutal and clear. Be Amazons and tell the entire movement;
We Women say No!
Eddie Izzard and the rest of you: Piss Off!

@aseriesofstillimages It doesn’t have the same functionality as the real article, but it fulfils a function.

I think that the function it performs is a very male idea of what a vagina is for. In heterosexual sex a vagina performs the role of providing a warm wet hole which a man will get pleasure from if penetrated with his dick. As they say "any hole is a goal" but in sex between two women it is very different, that's not what the vagina is for and an artificial vagina doesn't hold any kind of attraction.

The unpleasant descriptive names come from people who have read papers such as this one.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8215372/

Quite.

And then you listen to cases such as the Jazz Jennings one, where due to puberty blockers the 'functional' part created is a hole of a very short depth due to lack of tissue being grown, in someone with no capacity for arousal or climax themselves due to the chemicals provided to that growing body.

And anyone with the most basic awareness of safeguarding and care for others is going to face the horrible thought of who exactly is that 'function' for, and who would make functional use of it with a person who is incapable themselves of sexual feelings?

Calling this 'the same basically because a real human can stick their appendage in it' is really a quite fantastically misogynist view that fails (again) to see females as real humans. As opposed to walking sex toys.

What function?

Absolutely this.