Dating as a TERF

[TERFisTHEnewTREND]

I'm a 34 year old female. I'm currently dating via Tinder.

When the gender issue has come up and I've mentioned that I'm a TERF, a lot of men have disengaged from me. I once went on three dates with a man, we got on great, and then when I mentioned my views on gender ideology, he ghosted me after!

Do you mention your stance up front or do you wait? I don't want to date anyone who thinks humans can change sex, is it worth stating this on my profile?

Any help/ advice/ insights appreciated.

There's still a copy on the Internet Archive, at least for now:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190806093717/p

Have another screenshot, Mx Montgomery

I also find it interesting what is chosen to be shared, though.

A thread that can be used to suggest that women are somehow diminished in attractiveness. 'Nobody wants to have sex with them, ew'.

It reveals exactly what some people see as the overarching, most important quality in women - their attractiveness to men.

Hence the 'secretly all your men are shagging me and I am the beautifullest of them all and far superior to you boring old cunty women' posts that we see very often in deluded certain males.

Desperate, mate. Desperate.

I've got so many 'lols' for Katy Montgomerie.

The fact that the whole point is that the OP does not want to have sex with or waste any time on men who believe this shite has gone whooshing over their heads.

Poor Colin. The mental acrobats he performs on a daily basis as he tries to convince people his posts are some kind of 'gotcha' is kind of embarrassing.

Well, this type of person doesn't see women as humans with any agency. We get back round to the 'expectant hole' school of womanhood. To them, the only thing that 'woman' signifies is a specific sexual role.

I mean, one of the replies to Katy's posts reads -

'Is this why they keep trying to start their own dating sites?'

I shouldn't worry. Many, many women who post on FWR having had their eyes opened, first arrived here from a thread on twitter or an article in a paper, came to see the evil hateful women doing it, and found a lot of good sense they agreed with and a lot of righteous batshit they could see through.

I love it when Colin gets involved. He’s such a pseud. He makes me laugh like no one else can.

I met him at a thing at Edinburgh Uni once. It was interesting to see the power of a filter, or rather, of no filter.

Did he have a convincing head tilt?

It was hard to tell. He was a foot and half taller than me and I was mesmerised by his walk. Some people bend to the side they are stepping onto rather than twisting their body away from the side they are stepping onto. It’s thuddy. Rather like what I think I might hear at the bottom of a beanstalk. Mesmerising

@Nt1993

Who hurt you?

Patriarchy. Patriarchy hurt me darling.

Just like it hurts all women.

And actually, just like it hurts trans people and even men.

But it hurts women (people of the female sex) in specific ways, not only physically but also socially and emotionally, and for those reasons we need single sex, female only spaces, not only physical spaces but also social and emotional spaces, to deal with that and come back strong enough to overcome it.

And we need our words, the words that refer to us alone and exclude all male people regardless of how they identify, that link us to each other in our own culture and in others today, and to the history of us and how we got here, so that we can name and understand what we experience and why it happens.

Why do you think female people deserve less support than men who identify as women?

Normally the grammar police would prompt an eye roll/dismissal...but that was actually helpful as it's a term I'd used interchangeably with population.

Populous: having a large population; densely populated.

Well there you go.

You what?

First it was flat earthers being compared to trans rights (really human rights) activists, and now anorexics being compared to those with gender dysphoria?

Bloody hell.

It's one thing knowing you are ignorant on a subject (as I stated I am), it's another thing thinking you aren't and coming out with guff like that.

No, mate. The word you are after is 'populace'.

@DC1888 are you going to explain what you mean by trans (human) rights? This has been asked a few times now. Or any of the reasonable questions/arguments put to you actually, which you've avoided beautifully.

Populace/populous didn't you know we're in an age where words can mean whatever you say they mean?

Perhaps it was identifying as a noun.

I don't agree at all that it's 'guff', both conditions involve body dysmorphia: psychological distress that the outer body does not reflect the inner perception.

What is so appalling about that?

Quite! There are forms of body dysmorphia where people believe they are meant to be without legs for example but we don’t go around amputating healthy legs to appease people with that condition

why is it only this very particular form of dysmorphia that were are meant to appease?

There seems to be a fair amount of crossover between BIID and Eunuch gender.

A friendly reminder that 'Eunuch' is now posited as a gender by WPATH, who claim that children can identify as eunuchs.

What kind of a person would want to suggest to children that they could choose castration as a valid life choice?

Someone who you would want to keep well away from impressionable children.

I'd agree with you there. I didn't state those things at the beginning but did say the far left have gone overboard on this (the nutty Scottish bill for example which I did mention). We've lost the middle (sensible) ground which caused this extreme backlash (of which terf is a result). It was the far left who ultimately caused this mess.

There was never any major issue in regard to trans people in the UK, that I'm aware of, prior to the far left losing the plot.

This whole progressive thing. I’ve asked it before & not got an answer, & having RTFT, have little reason to expect an answer here, but…

The premise is that it’s self-evidently “progressive” to redefine “woman” from 1) only female-bodied to 2) including male-bodied who perceive themselves as such. Right? So what am I missing?

1), above, provides 51% of the global population - female-bodied people - with the language necessary to advocate for their political rights & needs - they have no other single, collective noun to describe themselves. Many of these needs are still, in many respects, unmet (eg. medical research into women’s bodies, PPE for women), & many of these rights are terrifyingly recent (eg. votes for women). Others are at risk (eg. laws & social contracts that have evolved to give this group, including religious minorities & those with PTSD, equal access to public spaces, participation in public life & dignity).

Option 2) removes from female-bodied people the language necessary to advocate for their political rights & needs - they have no other single, collective noun to describe themselves. HOWEVER, Option 2) also assuages the intense distress felt by a minority of male-bodied people & facilitates their access to public spaces, participation in public life & dignity.

@Nt1993 & @DC1888, please - a genuine, utterly bamboozled please - explain how 2) is so self-evidently, unambiguously “progressive” in this context, & option 1), woman retaining its original meanjng, “regressive”. You feel this so strongly, you surely must be able to explain. My summary above is, after all, biased to a GC perspective. What are your counter-arguments?

but what is the “middle (sensible) ground”?

that TW shouldn’t be discriminated against? Absolutely

that TW can wear what they like and use whatever name they wish? Of course

but sometimes sex really matters and it is not OK on any level to erase single sex spaces for women or to compel people to lie