How is the trans issue ever going to be resolved?

[PassportPanicFuuuck]

It seems as insoluble as the Israel/Palestine question when the two "sides" want directly opposing things. I've heard the arguments that trans people "just want to pee" and that "no-one would go through medical/surgical gender reassignment purely to abuse women", plus the mantras that "trans people exist", "trans rights are human rights" and "trans women are women" and it's quite clear that the people who believe these things fervently aren't going to change their minds any time soon.

But to a certain extent, life isn't fair. Not everyone does have equal opportunities. If you're in a gay relationship (and there's nothing wrong with that) you can't have a biological child with your partner; if you're infertile (as I am) you can't have a child at all; if you're trans (and there's nothing wrong with that either) you can't enter the spaces of the opposite sex; if you're British you don't have an automatic right to go and live in the US; if you're short and unsporty you don't have a right to be on the Olympic basketball team - and so on. All sorts of opportunities are denied people at various different points, some as a result of decisions you make (like not studying for a medical degree means I can never be a doctor) and some not (see above re. infertility), and beyond universal human rights you don't have a right - one might say "entitlement" - to an awful lot of things, much as you might keenly want them.

Like it or not, once we end up in these categories we have to accept it. Absolutely no-one is eligible to do everything or to go everywhere. However if you have made a choice - even if you consider it to be more a recognition of something innate rather than a conscious decision - it doesn't mean that you have made this choice on behalf of everyone else. If you have chosen to transition (again, you may not consider it to be a "choice") you can't dictate that everyone else ignore biology and logic and linguistic authenticity and you can't dictate that everyone else will want to celebrate your decision. No, we don't have to accept the "lady bulge", we don't have to accept child abuse under the guise of gender-affirming care and we don't have to accept men in female sports / changing rooms / organisations.

Not sure how coherently worded all the above is, but perhaps it will provoke some interesting debate.

IIRC, drugs or alcohol were involved, and they switch off the voice in your head that says "maybe this isn't such a good idea". Men have prostates and I'm told that prostate stimulation feels good.

He could have done this in the privacy of his own home with a suitable purchase from LoveHoney and not have a criminal record.

Male people put their penises in pot holes and holes in walls too. And diaper fetishes where they break into child care centres. I have read that in newpapers. There are many different paraphilias and just reading the papers will give information about them.

I agree with you that if the language itself is not abusive and is accurate, it is just someone's opinion that the language is inappropriate. If an adult cannot read that language because it is unpleasant, that is not your issue. And if they choose to ignore your information because they cannot read around the language they wouldn't choose to use themselves to understand your message, again, I wouldn't consider that your issue.

And the tree falling in the forest was an apt usage.

The State-coerced transitions of gay people in Iran are evidence item one.

The "cotton ceiling" assault on lesbians' right to refuse sex with trans-identified men is evidence item two.

Not sure what you mean by this?

It is misogynistic to many people that any male person can describe their personal experiences as being that of a female person. Changing the language that female people need to uniquely describe themselves so that it is no longer unique to female people is just one way gender identity is misogynistic.

It is homophobic to some people to use people attracted to the same sex as political leverage to convince people that humans who have an identity that is based on being the opposite sex they are is materially real. Both in that act of political leverage for an unrelated situation and because changing the definition of homosexuality to be based on gender identity and not sex category has been said to be homophobic by those who are homosexual. Like forceably changing the language for female people, it changes the language for those attracted to people of the same sex category and removes clear and accurate language.

I quoted your posts twice and explained the homophobia and sexism.

Do you want me to explain again?

This is true nicepotoftea.

If humans are being categorised into sex classes by a changeable expectation on what female people should be, what they should look like, act like etc that is misogynistic. So to is using the language that is needed to describe female people and their needs as a political class for any male person. It removes the accuracy, it makes the terms meaningless and unfit for describing female people.

YOU decided fluidity is sexist.

I disagree. Gender fluidity is part of the gender continuum for me. You don't have to believe it. Whatever.

You don't get to decide for others. You believe it's sexist, fair enough. I don't feel that way. No fucking idea how you've dragged sexuality into it. And don't try patronising me and telling me how. I've worked stuff out for myself thanks. LONG before TERFS/TRAS/GC were a thing.

Did ye aye? Have a gold star.

And yet, deciding what is feminine and not is inherently sexist.

I'm confused. What's the gender continuum you refer to? I imagine it goes from stereotypically male to stereotypically female? But what's in-between ?

"A nice Sunday out for the polycule"

But probably not a good way to resolve anything. 😕

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25740410.hundreds-gather-glasgow-watch-full-force-kick-balls/

Oh it´s going to be resolved pretty fast, once the birthrate in Western nations falls below a certain threshold. And that´s coming for sure.

Also in war, they always seem to remember what women are, all of a sudden.

Gender is societal exceptions of how men and women should behave.

Defining personality traits by gender is pretty much the definition of sexism.

You don't get to decide for others.

Actually, society does have to make choices about ethics and rights, and if you want to argue that I am wrong you first need to explain the points on your gender continuum, how one might relate a trait to a gender, and what that has to do with being male or female.

No fucking idea how you've dragged sexuality into it.

Yes, it is clear that you haven't thought much about this. Gay rights do not exist without recognition of sex, and it's clear from the stories of people like Susie Green that their beliefs about gender are based in homophobia. Her husband could not tolerate a gender non conforming son.

And don't try patronising me and telling me how. I've worked stuff out for myself thanks.

Your lack of an argument makes it clear that you haven't worked out much.

LONG before TERFS/TRAS/GC were a thing.

I'm very interested to know how long you think women have been criticising gender. It's been quite a long time now.

You didn't answer the question. Perhaps there is a reason for that.

Women are oppressed based on sex, not 'gender identity'. Our rights are based on that sex-based oppression, not 'gender identity'. 'Gender' identity is a man-made, misogynistic social construct. Only sex is real. Our rights and spaces are based on sex. 'Gender' is not real.

I mean that men and women are very interested in their sexual variation. People that are attracted to women, mainly men, are very interested in the things that they associate with female bodies, like breasts, wide hips, etc. People attracted to men, mainly women, are very interested in things that are typically associated with male bodies.

And what's more, most men and women, at least in their youth, are quite interested in having others find them attractive in that way.

As long at that is the case it's very unlikely that the clothing differernces that arise due to sexual dimporphism will be seen as completely neutral, and there is a pretty fair chance they will be emphasised in some way.

So I think you misread my post then. I wasn’t saying that everyone would morph into some version of the same.

I was trying to say that if in the future you can be accepted for your choices of dress and style, no matter your sex - then there’s no need to claim to change sex. You can be male and choose long hair, make up, dresses, it will just be you doing you.

Then if and when there needs to be a specificc separation for biological sex such as hospital wards, changing rooms, sports categories etc it can just be about the specific scientific or societal reasons that is necessary.

If the future can end or reduce gender stereotypes then everyone can just find their own vibe and tribe without judgement or encroaching on the rights and needs of women.

What does being gender-fluid actually consist of, in practical terms? How does it differ from the behaviour of anyone with a varied range of activities and interests who isn't particularly bothered whether other people code those activities as masculine, feminine or neither?

Agree.

The clothing differences related to sexual dimorphism concern fit and cut, not garment type.

Tuxedos cut for women (tuxSHEdos?) turn the most conventionally masculine formal wear into something that women look smoking hot in. The change of cut emphasises the female secondary sex characteristics of breasts, narrow waist, and hips.

This man makes his own frocks and he looks smoking hot in them. He's learned the pattern-cutting skills needed to create garments that highlight his gym body's very male V-shape with broad shoulders.

What is pathetic and laughable and makes my fanny slam shut like the vault in Gringotts is men who wear clothes cut for women that neither fit nor suit them, particularly when they wear them in service to a "forced feminisation" fetish rooted in a desire to be humiliated. I don't regard being female as humiliating, so I am insulted by men who associate being a woman with being humiliated and am turned off by their performance of their reductive and misogynist idea of "feminity".

These people are (no pun intended) nuts

Because I'm not in a court of law. This is a discussion forum where we engage with the bits we want to.

My opinions on this issue were formed many many years ago. I'm not threatened by you and vehemently disagree with the way you think. I don't need to ask you questions to engage you in discussion. And you are not in a position of authority to interrogate me. The REASON I'm not answering your questions is because I don't want to. Yes, I think you're completely wrong. But I'm not invested in changing your mind. Zero interest.

Not much point in posting on a discussion forum if you can't present a coherent argument.

I think, as well, that clothes don't hide sex.

At the moment most people I see are bundled up in unisex outdoor wear, but that doesn't mean they look less male or female.