TERFs are not the problem

[niadainud]

AIBU to think that transwomen's beef should not be with so-called TERFs, but with men who rape women or who have sexual proclivities such as autogynaephilia?

It is not (imo) transphobic to want women-only spaces for a number of reasons, but if (some) men weren't predatory in one way or another then women would have nothing to worry about.

I realise this is a highly utopian way of looking at it, but it riles me enormously that it has somehow become socially unacceptable not to pretend a man in a wig and a dress is actually female. I was introduced to someone's "niece" recently and they had facial hair. It's just ridiculous.

I also think that "real" transwomen (i.e. those who have undergone surgery etc.) make things more difficult for themselves by adopting this very black-and-white stance. People like Blaire White are realists and seem to speak some sense about the issue but they're a tiny minority.

Humans have the right to free and informed consent, what you are proposing/doing removes that right.

ButterflyHatched · 02/12/2024 10:50

I have a lot more sympathy for fellow feminists practicing a strain that happens to exclude me; my experiences have overwhelmingly been that we can find a common ground once we speak in person and the reality of my own existence becomes clear.

Overwhelmingly, you haven't found common ground on FWR.

This board is so infamous for its toxic brand that workplaces started dropping collaboration initiatives with mumsnet over it half a decade ago.

Some advertisers have dropped MN, but not because it's actually toxic, but because an very biased ratings agency said that it is. There are no checks, or controls on the agency and it seems to be staffed by trans zealots, so that dishonest bias, whilst unwelcome, is only to be expected.

Every time I return to this thread I'm aghast to see what is now being demanded:

The removal of boundaries for women and girls
The rights of men to indecently expose themselves to unconsenting women
The rights of men to commit voyeurism
And now promoting sex by deception (including advising vulnerable young people to do this).

I'd say it defies belief but realistically it seems to be stating all the quiet bits out loud.

Right to privacy does not, and nor should it ever, over-ride the right of free and informed consent to sex. That you think it should is horrifying.

Nah mate, I warn them not to fuck cis people who hate them

A human right to privacy does not take precedence over someone else's right to consent or not to sexual contact.

Protecting your privacy isn't a defence to committing a crime.

It takes some warped thinking to believe that not telling someone you are about to have sex with what sex you are is ever acceptable behaviour.

It is especially egregious to be in a position of advising children and young people when someone cannot recognise actual criminal behaviour.

It shows how deep the deficit of morally goes when someone wishing to know what sex the person they are having sex with is framed as bigotry.

Well it would be pretty fucking irresponsible to recommend to vulnerable young people who are trying to escape a lifetime of prejudice that they put themselves in danger in order to test a legal precedent, wouldn't it?

So we just advise them not to let bigoted cis people fuck them as it's safer all round. Maybe in a world where it isn't dangerous to be publicly trans we wouldn't have to worry about privacy quite so much.

I'm thinking of renewing my memories of that classic cinema portrayal of coercive control, Gaslight. Should I go with the 1940 British original or the 1944 American version. I have both DVDs.

Note that consent is essential. It's not up to one party who they choose to have sex with. This would be rape.

All these distortions as to why lying to people is fine and their consent is irrelevant.
We've all seen it now. We were right to assume this is what TRAs are fighting for.

Thankfully I think sex by deception happens less that Butterfly might think because most of the time we can tell a persons sex.

But in the minority of times it is unclear, and beer goggles may well play a part in this it's pretty fucking abhorrent to put your own right to 'privacy' above the right of consent of a person you want to have sex with. And it is also complete bollocks about warning young trans people to do this for their 'safety' if a person is going to be mad that a person is trans because their sexual preference is their sexual preference then they are going to be even madder if the sex of the person isn't 'exposed' until the sex act takes place.

Cis bigot in this case is a person with a sexual preference for either male or female bodies. In other words sexual preference/ orientation is now bigoted. WTAF.

While what Butterfly says sounds extreme, it's worth noting that Stonewall campaigned for exactly this removal of the 'sex by deception' crime.

If you successfully escape from daily lifelong prejudice and exist as a healthy sexually active adult in society you should be prosecuted.

What a green and pleasant land eh?

Anyway, that's only one of the ways trans people are discriminated against. I listed many others as well and that was by no means a particularly exhaustive list.

I'm off on holiday to a lovely country that doesn't discriminate against trans people. Have a lovely week.

Yes. It is rape which is why the law is there.

It is effectively reducing a human down to a fuck hole. Because they certainly have not been cared for and respected in any way.

I cannot believe what I’m reading here
what the ….
stealth?????
as for discrimination against trans people? More like the reverse! Oppressed minority my …
and cis is offensive

Fucking hell again.

This is yet another seriously warped post.

If a person doesn't want to have sex with someone because they are not the sex they expected, it is not prejudiced.

ButterHat: Do you not see how fucked this is? Do you genuinely not see it?

Do you?

You seem to live in a world where women don't matter, consent from sexual partners is not a thing, and anyone, I mean ANYONE, who disagrees is a bigot. Would not live in your world for ever so.

Whenever people argue that there are circumstances that exempt them from seeking informed consent from others, I'm very uneasy.

It also puts me in mind of Will Storr's status games.

Will Storr's The Status Game: On Social Position and How We Use It, the three types of status games are dominance, virtue, and success:
Dominance: Using force, fear, or control to get your way
Virtue: Being dutiful, obedient, and moralistic
Success: Competing to win, whether in business or sport

Storr's book explores how humans compete for status across the world, and how this obsession has driven both the best and worst of us. He argues that status is a big deal, and that people play status games to win affection, approval, and to succeed
https://decentred.co.uk/status-and-virtue-games-will-storrs-guide-to-surviving-the-games-of-life/

There does seem to be an interesting blend of Dominance and Virtue in play where the latter is used to bludgeon others as a form of dominance.

ETA: it's reminding me of Wuthering Heights the ghastliness of Linton. ETA again: and, the discussion of consent in the Pelicot trial.

If you successfully escape from daily lifelong prejudice and exist as a healthy sexually active adult in society you should be prosecuted.

Yes, if your escape is facilitated by having sex with someone who is unconsenting. Because that is rape or sexual assault. By definition this is not a healthy sexual activity.

You cannot have sex with anyone with whom you have not been honest to allow them to consent. This applies to everyone, however they identify.

I find your complete erasure of the other half of this "healthy" sexual activity fascinating. Do they even exist for you as people in their own right, with their own rights to consent to sexual activity? They seem to be mere props in your fantasy of personal liberation.

"Do you not see how fucked this is? Do you genuinely not see it?"

I can only assume you are talking to yourself here. Because I don't believe there will be any reader of FWR who will be reading these posts of yours and not thinking this exact thing.

"Do you not see the issue with laws that exist to protect people from predatory behaviour becoming a way for bigots to brutalise minorities who hide from them - to the extent that we have to brief vulnerable young trans people who are trying to escape prejudice and persecution that actually they can't and can in fact be sent to prison for trying?"

This is your reason? This is your reason for telling vulnerable young people to act outside not just the law, but outside the acceptable boundaries of morality?

I think that people reading can see very much what underpins what you advocate for. You are advising young people to act illegally as well.

"Do you not see how fucked this is? Do you genuinely not see it?"

Whoever said this was a men's sexual rights movement wasn't wrong.

Sheila Jeffreys.

find your complete erasure of the other half of this "healthy" sexual activity fascinating. Do they even exist for you as people in their own right, with their own rights to consent to sexual activity? They seem to be mere props in your fantasy of personal liberation.

Illuminating, really.

Re-read please. I do the opposite of this. Wilful misinterpretation or mistake?

If 'we' said not to 'fuck trans people' as it was too dangerous because of 'predatory behaviour' and as they might 'brutilise' them we'd be banned.

But it's totally fine the other way round.

Fascinating.