‘Dilation day two ….

[RudsyFarmer]

……. let's play. Where in an airport can I locate a clean, dry, private place I can lie down, take my knickers off and spread my legs?'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12535827/Transgender-ex-Labour-MSP-Heather-Herbert-disabled-toilet-Gatwick-Airport.html

They are no words are there?

I remember that Guardian thing so well - it was what made me take my first step towards analysing the very wierd and abusive ways some men behave.

Was there any pushback about it in the paper at the time? I was a Saturday-only reader so wouldn't have seen the letter pages. But I've never forgotten that man - it must be ten years or more since I read his creepy, entitled words.

I don't see this particular case as being entirely separate from rape and sexual assault, if I'm honest.
Rape and sexual assault are about performing sex acts on an unwilling participant without their consent.

Agree. I'm not sure of the law but I'd like to see sexual assault being extended or a new law to cover being unwillingly involved in somone else's sex life.

i'm sure, since the entire 'transgender as a lifestyle' issue was blown wide open to accommodate a billion different motivations, there are now more than those two cohorts.

But I don't know any heterosexual men who identify as women who don't fit the description provided by the transwidows threads/experiences.

Loads of heterosexual men don't identify with strong or toxic masculinity. I don't see a great necessity for them to identify as women because of it, though.

If you fancy other men, then yes.

Just not joining in with lad culture? I don't see why it would be necessary.

What do you think is the reason for the transwomen you know to transition? What do they gain that they couldn't have as men?

@TeenEyeroll

I have been pretty horrified in my life, when men I’ve chatted to about sexual politics, have expressed quietly resentful retorts to my complaints about rape, harassment or assault of women and girls by men. Basically they would say words to the effect of ‘women and girls are lucky someone is interested in them enough to sexually assault them - it’s better than being a bloke - hard done by and ignored, no one even cares if you exist or not’.

oh

Sudden clarification of the reaction of a colleague more that 30 years after I described an unpleasant encounter one lunchbreak. I knew there was something off but couldn't quite pin it down. Not as nice a man as he tried to make people believe.

heterosexual effeminate men, perhaps struggling with masculine stereotypes? I’m asking because the transwomen I know don’t appear to fit the fetish or the ‘really gay’ models

Again though. It's the sexism. Women aren't a resource for men to exploit in order to feel better about toxic masculinity.

Especially when they're using the very stereotypes that have been historically utilised to oppress us.

If men don't like toxic masculinity, then bloody do something about it. Don't promote the equivalent female sexist stereotypes as a solution!

Sexual assault happens when someone touches another person in a sexual manner without their consent. Or when someone makes another person take part in a sexual activity with them without that person's consent.

Would getting people to unwittingly watch you engage in a sexual fetish constitute 'taking part in a sexual activity with them, without consent'?

i'm sure the law has been used for this purpose. I'm thinking exhibitionism, flashing, etc.

I don’t know; they seem unable to express a reason other than ‘I feel more comfortable’. I agree that ‘transitioning’, especially if it goes as far as taking hormones, seems completely unnecessary. But there appear to be social factors at play. I’m baffled by it all, and struggling, as one of them is my son. ‘Preferred’, i.e. compelled, pronouns are the flashpoint between us now, as I can’t bring myself to lie constantly, I am not good at avoiding them, and I am told that I therefore have no moral compass!

When a male person walks into a women's space, they are doing so because they wish to use the women in the space.

Not the space itself.

At this point it merely becomes a matter of scale.

A wish to use those women for the experience of validation in a belief of identity
A wish to use them for the experience of being a male among women in a women's space
A wish to use them to experience sexual excitement from those women being around them in a private place where they are undressing/peeing/showering
A wish to use them for their and their bodies resources, such as following them into a space in the hope of making use of their used tampon in your fetish
A wish to use them to expose/harass or otherwise directly attempt to gain the experience of those women's attention, which would obviously unless you are very naive involve wishing to enjoy the emotions of the women which will include anxiety, fear and disgust - and the sense of power and threat that can be exerted over said women. The scale in this can vary from very discreet to flat out and direct, such as the bloke taking selfies with the sword.

A wish to use them for direct physical access to the biology they're walking around in, such as the woman terribly injured by 'Karen' White's multiple rapes of her.

There is little point trying to work out where on the scale it gets unacceptable. The entire scale is rooted in a belief that a woman is a walking dehumanised resource that the male is entitled to make use of.

If you argue that there must be a point on the scale at which it starts to become an issue, then really all you're arguing is that yes, it's ok for men to use women so long as they don't break them too badly. And that women are not human in the same way as men are.

Again though. It's the sexism. Women aren't a resource for men to exploit in order to feel better about toxic masculinity.

Especially when they're using the very stereotypes that have been historically utilised to oppress us.

If men don't like toxic masculinity, then bloody do something about it. Don't promote the equivalent female sexist stereotypes as a solution!

Yes, yes and yes. I would like to be able to discuss all this openly. But there is always the threat of them going ‘no contact’ which is devastating to a parent, and I am afraid of making the situation worse. This is why parents’ voices are rarely heard, and it is yet another example of the coercion that underpins the workings of the four letter word that we are not supposed to name on here.

I think the language used was a form of 'exhibitionism'. I don't feel violated in the sense that I have been sexually assaulted but I do feel revulsion, and repulsed by the very male expression used to describe what 'they' needed to do in regards to dilation.

In any other setting, women would simply not use it. In healthcare context, one would be asked to 'remove underwear' and then 'put heels together'.

If a man truly believes that he is a woman and wishes to live as one, then have some respect for the sex he wishes to identify with, learn the ways of women, (that includes far more than wearing a frock and lipstick), understand the terror of male violence, understand that a seeing a police uniform does mean you are suddenly 'safe' from violence, understand that even while dressed as a woman you are bigger, more powerful and our instincts tell us to be wary. Its not that hard, unless of course you really enjoy the feeling of having power over women and don't want to lose that.

If a man truly believes that he is a woman and wishes to live as one, then have some respect for the sex he wishes to identify with, learn the ways of women

I struggled with bewilderment on this for years. It took a long time of reading the words, accounts and social media output of male people to realise that I could not find any real evidence of desire to become a woman.

I could find evidence of resentment and a desire to own and use what is regarded as the property of women: the clothes, the make up. Lots of evidence of a desire to enact parts of what was perceived through a male lens as a woman's role, but only selected and often the sexually exciting bits. And I could find evidence of wishing really to remove women from womanhood and replace them with a male idea of what womanhood is.

You may find it interesting to look at some of the very first years of discussions here, the threads with women talking to Hayton for example who is often held as a reasonable and polite (yes, they are) TW who represents the original group that the GRA was created for. Hayton's wish really from the start (and this is discussed openly in the threads) was to separate all other male people out and to be the one in women's spaces. To be the special exception. And even after in depth explanation to them by women as to why this didn't work, you will find the posts politely explaining in a fatherly way that having heard all of the women's reasons there's nothing that Hayton sees as sufficiently convincing and Hayton's decision is that Hayton will be using women's spaces. The sense of being something other than those women, of the greater authority over them, of possessing the inbuilt right of superiority and power to decide what is best and right for them- even having kindly taken the time to listen to their little witterings first - made it very clear it was not 'joining' that was going on.

There is never a wish to be 'that' sort of woman. There is never a point where the joining of women becomes so strong that a male person experiences the absolute derision, loss of care of interest and casual dominance with sexual violence that's littered everywhere, chalked on the streets at protests and on signs that bloody stupid MPs are standing under.

It's quite a blunt description, necessitating the exposure of genitals:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/other-offences

Exposure

[F1(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals, and

(b)he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

And a bit further down the page:

Sexual activity in a public lavatory

[F14(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,

(b)he intentionally engages in an activity, and,

(c)the activity is sexual.

(2)For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

Possibly more something like 'outraging public decency'. But that's very rarely invoked.

I'm sorry you are going through this.

People who struggle with preferred pronouns struggle precisely because they do have a moral compass. It is the fact of having conflicting desires to (a) not cause offence and (b) not lie, which causes the struggle. If you had no moral compass you would be unbothered about causing offence and unbothered about lying.

And being unable to distil it down into anything other than "I feel more comfortable" exposes this movement for what it is: extreme individualism. The unspoken counterpart to "I feel more comfortable" is "and I don't care if that makes you feel uncomfortable".

@Froodwithatowel I agree with you.

This is so accurate!

(2)For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.

in which case, it would appear, certainly to me, to be a crime

You have my deepest sympathy, genuinely.

Both and your son are victims of this ideology. Which leverages sexism.

I can quite understand a gentle boy, say, feeling more comfortable presenting as a girl. But he is perpetuating the problem that he is suffering from.

Are you able to talk to him in this way? At all? Ask him what constitutes this more comfortable feeling and see if he can become aware of the sexism behind it?

I realise it's a big ask (and you've probably tried this and everything else too). But sometimes appealing to the intellect, rather than the emotion can find it's mark.

In the meantime, you appear to be doing everything right. Getting as much information as you can, and keeping the lines of communication open. I would never advocate doing something to alienate you from your own child.

I found this article by Barracker (formerly of this parish) really clarified my thinking on pronouns.

Professionally I am also in the position where I could not use correct sex pronouns without risk of censure. However like others I avoid needing to use she/her by using names instead. And here I refuse to censor myself so will use correct sex pronouns where we can without deletion and resort to the clunky form of using the person’s name where we can’t.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

Although I’m also now reflecting on how I feel about using he/him for women who identify as men where the likelihood of this being a fetish is extremely unlikely. I think I still avoid it because the cognitive dissonance of trying to say he/him for someone I read as female is too much and I believe this is harmful in perpetuating the belief for these generally young women that they can change sex.

Having said that when a neighbour’s teenager started identifying as male, left home and went NC before reconciling with the parents who were by then desperate I don’t think I would have referred to that person as she/her to the parents as I’d hate to have caused further distress.

Looks like we're still not allowed to say autogynephilia.
(will keep saying it, as that is what this is.)

The edit function seems to have disappeared? Or it disappears as soon as you click off a page? I needed to edit my comment above as I have just realised the post of mine that got deleted wasn't the one about the fetish, but the one ironically using a term for the surgical wound Herbert has that is advised by some trans charities.

I wish we would be told WHY our posts are deleted. It is confusing not knowing what rule has been applied.

I think the edit function disappears once someone has quoted your post.

@HelenFisksBrownSuit

The edit function only works if you don’t leave the page.

The edit function only works if you sacrifice the naice ham.