Who has most disappointed you?

[Calistano]

I'd say Russell T Davies when he had his drunken rant. I get his concern that lgbt is being fractured. But his absent concern for Women and their rights was palpable. I honestly thought he had more sense.

Yes. And most DSDs are easily diagnosed these days. It’s not like Drs come along with mix n match baby parts and randomly stick them on newborns!

Sorry, but this is a poor argument - whether or not a particular man would consider sleeping with a male has nothing to do with whether a woman is defined as female or not.

Instead I'd be asking what he thinks is in a lady brain that isn't in a man's. How does he distinguish between men and women, or are they just words for the same thing: humans?

Philip Pullman - I can’t look at his books now and gave my HDM set away
Alice Roberts - I thought she was fun and clever and chilled, but she’s a relentless sanctimonious apologist for patriarchy and I had to block on her on Twitter as I can’t stand her now
Caroline Lucas - big disappointment along with the Green Party. I can’t vote for them now

Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint.
Think about how many kids idolise them and who will have detrans mental health issues and physical disabilities in the future whilst those three bask in their mansions.

All of the teachers, social workers, psychologists and other allied professionals who have followed the herd for their careers and fucked over women and children. I now know how other forms of abuse happen. It’s because systems are broken but also because blind eyes are turned for personal advantage.

Just to add to this - I also hate the hypocrisy. Many in these professions talk about being professional or adhering to codes of practice or ethics (and are required to do this) and tout themselves and their occupations as being ethical, professional, critically thinking oriented and caring, giving them status as such. In reality they 'keep their powder dry', look after themselves and their careers, follow the herd, deliberately don't think deeply and fail to support those colleagues who do have an ethical backbone and the capacity to think critically.

Ones I know fall into three camps. There are those who are totally brainwashed and/or who profit because they use gender ideology as the cutting edge in their careers, there are those who just don't question and who deliberately remain in the dark and there are those who know but who remain silent. I've met all of the above and I have exactly the same amount of disdain for all of them.

I believe that these behaviours are not particular to gender ideology but are behind the many failures in child protection and safeguarding that have occurred over the years.

Sorry, but this is a poor argument - whether or not a particular man would consider sleeping with a male has nothing to do with whether a woman is defined as female or not.

It's by no means an argument that covers the whole gamut of the trans issue. It's purely focusing on the point of, when straight men bluster that TW are women and any dissent must be bigotry, you would then expect them to be just as attracted to them on average as they are to actual women.

Just like Tom Daley is passionate about giving women's basic rights away by claiming that TWAW, but when it came to him and his husband wanting to procure a woman for the purposes of having a baby by surrogate, they knew exactly what 'type of woman' they wanted.

But the man might be bi. So could well say 'yes, I'm equally attracted to male and female bodies'. Or might wrongly believe a TW is someone who has a female-appearing body.

It muddies the waters and risks a tangent of inferring that attraction has anything to do with whether one is one's sex or not.

Asking them how they differentiate between men and women is a clearer question imo.

Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint.
Think about how many kids idolise them and who will have detrans mental health issues and physical disabilities in the future whilst those three bask in their mansions.

As an absolute basic ethical code, if you had got rich off the back of somebody/something that you later 'realised' that you found utterly reprehensible, you would consider it filthy money and thus would surely want to distance yourself from it and give the lot to charity - probably trans charities. Well, if you had any honour or integrity at all, you would...

But the man might be bi. So could well say 'yes, I'm equally attracted to male and female bodies'. Or might wrongly believe a TW is someone who has a female-appearing body.

Yes, but I specified 'straight', which is not the same as bi.

Asking them how they differentiate between men and women is a clearer question imo.

I agree with you, IF somebody can be honest and intelligent in giving a fair response; but where do you go if he just answers that he differentiates by 'respecting' people by how they identify?

With some of these men, they're happy to go along with and firmly support the 'new wisdom', because it doesn't really affect or endanger them or their own sex-based rights.

Sometimes, the only way you can actually get it through to them (whether they admit it or not) is to bring it down to them as an individual and their own life.

When all they're giving away is women's safe spaces that have no relevance to them anyway, it's very easy; but if they can get it through their thick heads be brought to the understanding that their declared beliefs mean that they as a straight man would be fully expected to consider another biological man as a sexual partner, just maybe, the lightbulb might flicker on.

Sometimes, the only way you can actually get it through to them (whether they admit it or not) is to bring it down to them as an individual and their own life.

I agree, it doesn't affect them till it affects them... I just think someone in a comfortable relationship isn't going to think any of this will actually apply to them, they'll never (as far as they think) be in a position where a male person who has one of those pink lady-brains is even on their radar, because they all hang out at lgbt clubs and have "their own" spaces.

And they are likely to say "there are millions of people I'd never sleep with, being trans is nothing to do with it".

their declared beliefs mean that they as a straight man would be fully expected to consider another biological man as a sexual partner

Obviously that is logical to you and I but in reality, people don't actually expect this from men. Because why should they change anything when the women can budge up and shut up, it's their problem?

Like when OJ blustered at the idea he could sleep with a female person. There are special reasons why of course that's not what he's saying.

No, I do agree that, if they are totally unable or unwilling to employ rational thought - especially if they're of the conviction that rules are only for other people and don't apply to them - they're probably a bit of a lost cause.

Can I just say, you the brilliant ppl here are the opposite of disappointment.
I am eternally grateful for your wisdom and courage and sheer sass in the face of monumental, systemic muppetry.

I agree..you keep me sane! And if any of you live in Havering..I'm the woman who wears the feminist t shirts and has slightly mad hair..!

alot of scientists become scientists to feel "special". oh but now you can just be trans...

i'm a firm believer of "shit floats to the top" it's all a networking game of people-pleasers. very few become famous on talent alone. and morals often get lost on the way.

And if any of you live in Havering..I'm the woman who wears the feminist t shirts and has slightly mad hair..!

And ironically, you are one of the few people who are NOT havering all the time

I think it could work well as rhetoric for some people, as the answer is likely, "No", and they then have to consider and explain why they are giving that answer.

They may be forced to admit that they don't really see them as women. Sure they could try to argue something different in theory.

A lot of people are very confused these days however...

The BMA, the Royal College of GPs, the NHS, every single doctor who has nodded along with this utter, utter nonsense that is causing irreparable harm to children and young adults.

Back when I was still on Twitter I had exactly this conversation with someone.

Assuming that he wasn't lying about his identity or using someone else's picture he was a guy in his late 20s or early 30s with a girlfriend.

In one exchange he said that if his girlfriend were raped and wanted her group therapy session to be female only, i.e. non inclusive of trans women, he would think she was being transphobic.

And then in another exchange he said that as a straight man he would be quite happy to have sex with a trans woman, and when I said to him, "OK Matt, so if you were being anally penetrated by a trans woman with a penis, what kind of sex would you be having, gay sex or heterosexual sex?" and he replied "heterosexual sex".

I may have responded something about closets and Narnia.

I would say medical professionals and science magazines running propaganda pieces.

Someone mentioned Private Eye, and I don't personally read it so I don't know, but if you're posturing as political satire that's much more of a disappointment than the average comedian, that is just there to make people laugh.

I would mention, "Rage Against the Machine", but come on, of course they are captured.

Germaine Greer has always been outspoken about it. She's been writing about so-called 'transwomen' for decades.

Yes, she is startlingly perceptive, isn't she?

What a brain.

'Germaine Greer has always been outspoken about it. She's been writing about so-called 'transwomen' for decades.'

I remember reading her book 'The Whole Woman' at least 20 years ago. There is a chapter about transwomen called 'Pantomime Dames', and the essence of it is that wigs, high heels and make up do not make a woman, and to suggest otherwise is downright misogyny. I thought she was terribly sneery and unkind 😊

These days I'm 100% behind Kellie-Jay Keen. I call that progress! GG was way ahead of her time

The Female Eunuch talked a good bit about 'transsexuals'. I think that was about 1970.

And then in another exchange he said that as a straight man he would be quite happy to have sex with a trans woman, and when I said to him, "OK Matt, so if you were being anally penetrated by a trans woman with a penis, what kind of sex would you be having, gay sex or heterosexual sex?" and he replied "heterosexual sex".

I may have responded something about closets and Narnia.

That reminds me of the quote by Abraham Lincoln (I think), where he asked "If we also classify the tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The answer, of course, being four - because you can call the tail whatever you like, but that will never change it into a leg.

Jo Brand feminism : - Men are only good for one thing and they're not very good at that eh girls.

Repeat for 35 years. Nurse - the side stapler !

Came as quite a shock to find she was married to a man all this time. Less of a shock that she is sitting this one out.