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.

If you're referencing my post, this is a weird reaction. I don't think women need to be nice and always think about the feelings of others. That's not the same as asking women (or perhaps even a man) not to describe pedophilic acts in graphic pornopgrpahic terms with no other comment or context. I don't see what that graphic description added to a discussion or how it was a necessary "thought" to share? Sharing graphic sexual content with others isn't something I support whether it's posted by the perv or pedos themselves or reposted by others for "awareness" at the end of the day there's no different outcome regardless of intent.

About a grand's worth of pennies just dropped for me.

The transhumanist backers of gender ideology and transition surgeries see it as a means of normalising the commodification of the means of producing children: women's uteruses. This has just hit me so I might not be all that articulate here.

But, you know that "you will own nothing and be happy" thing, where you rent everything when you need it? It's that.

Under the various traditions of patriarchy, (some) men have exclusive access to the uterus of one or more women. That might be through chattel slavery, through concubinage, or through marriage. The woman has varying de jure rights within this arrangement, depending on time and place. But a given uterus is de facto, if not de jure, for one man and no other to have his children gestated in. Even with reliable contraception leading to the liberalisation of attitudes towards unmarried sex, this has held true.

This has meant an expectation that a man will maintain his wife, feed and house her, for at a minimum the duration of his period of exclusive access to her uterus. And he is expected to live with her, and she has these annoying things called "rights" when it comes to accessing the children and when getting divorced. This all gets expensive, especially when one considers that the advent of formula feeding means that he could potentially get away with only feeding her and housing her for nine months.

The advent of genetic testing has meant that a man doesn't have to seize and guard a woman to be sure that a child is his, because some cheek swabs will prove paternity. Combined with the advent of IVF, the possibility of simply hiring a uterus for 40 weeks becomes an option.

On the horizon, although with significant problems at time of writing, is bi-paternal reproduction, with a man's haploid nucleus inserted into a denucleated oocyte.

Enter the terribly sad transvestite (stolen shamelessly) who is heartbroken that he doesn't have a uterus and can't bear children himself, and would be so happy if he could do the next best thing by putting his haploid nucleus into a denucleated oocyte and hiring a uterus for nine months to bear him and his husband's baby. TWAW means that he's just like all the other infertile women, right? #bekind conditions us to prioritise him and not the mother who will bear his child, nor the egg donor who will go through pharmaceutical hell to have her oocytes harvested. And when he can do that, so can everyone else who wants a child without having to first find a woman willing to act as a mother.

Some of the people who will want to do this won't be terribly sad transexuals but will be the Gary Glitters and Jimmy Saviles of this world. The first line of defence against a paedophile father is the child's mother. How convenient for such a man to be able to "commission" a baby that legally and genetically has no mother...

Hashtag laundering is very well known tactic used to expose unsuspecting users to offensive content.

You can tag a deviant post with whatever wholesome tag you like. #family Christmas for example and tag it to WHATEVER CONTENT YOU LIKE.

Yes, most major platforms track content and hashtag mismatch, they might downrank or remove posts or ban repeat offenders.

But once it's up, it's been seen.
Once it's been seen, it's done it's job.
And the repeat offenders will find endless ways to get around these bans over and over again.

Or, you know, depraved fucking weirdos can keep their depraved fucking weirdness to themselves.

The trend for thinking that strangulation is a normal part of sex, the harrowing case of Gisele Pelicot, the more recent case in the UK of the man who repeatedly drugged and raped his wife and invited other men to join in - do you think those things shouldn't be discussed?

When women discuss the scandal of men in women's prisons, do you think we should not be able to discuss the details?

That would seem like an attempt to silence women.

And yet Youtube is full of foot fetish videos and Twitter is full of porn.

Of course they should! Why shouldn't they? We need discussion of the dangers of this kind of misogynistic violent trends that exist in pornogrpahy drawn attention to. Read any journal or article on it and you'll notice they manage to have thorough discussion of it without using sexual or pornographic or graphic descriptions or terminologies and they don't share any of the content they're discussing as problematic to "show" how bad it is. I can't understand at all how you could twist my posts into saying none of these things should be discussed. We can discuss it without sexualising and without sharing graphic potentially triggering examples and descriptions.

Not in the UK it is isn't anymore at least - are you in the UK? Do you report these videos when you see them?

If we don't talk about what men actually do, everyone can carry on pretending that they didn't do it.

You can always - what was it you suggested? - not search for it and stop using the platform.

I get that and I agree they do that and there will always be new posters or peopl k getting around bands but that's no reason to throw our hands up and simply accept this content on website and apps where it's not allowed. It needs reporting and complaining and the site held to account. But this kind of content is ubiquitous enough as it is without people expanding it's outreach by further exposing users to it exists. We already know illegal or perverted content exists online, we don't need it shown to us, it's as boundary crossing as whoever originally uploaded it.

Where did I say don't search for it? I haven't said that anywhere. I said report and block. There's taking about what men do and then there's taking about it how men do when they're sexualising it. It's not necessary all to do the latter. I can't understand how simply explaining how algorithms work got another poster accused of victim blaming those who see fetish content online yet when I say your graphic (and context free btw) graphic pedophilic image you described is inappropriate I'm ...too sensitive?.I guess it's fine to be exposed to fetish content on here as long as you're posting it to make some unknown point. What exactly was your point of graphically describing a pedophilic act with no context and no trigger warning?

I'll do as I advised, report to the site moderator and complain if they don't take down graphic pedophilic descriptions - something that should obviously not be allowed on any discussion forum.

The thing about foot fetish content is that it can look superficially completely innocent. A video can show a woman's legs from the knees down and nothing else.

How do you report that?

Doing what though? If it has no other context and you're obviously identifying it as fetish content you report it as sexually gratifying content and YouTube will investigate the poster. Its.goinf to be hard to justify what you're describing as anything other than fetish content. Are you in the UK?

So you are objecting to the language?

I think selffellatingouroborosofhate is referring to Andrew Miller who stole women's underwear and then abducted a child.

These kinds of crime are routinely under played as humorous - the kind of thing you would see on the Benny Hill show or in a 1980s teen movie. It's just a Peeping Tom. It's just flashing.

This is the feminist board, and I don't object to posters discussing these kinds of crimes with the appropriate anger and honesty.

Of course I'm objecting to the language, I made that very clear in my post before you just jumped to assume I'm saying strangulation or rape can't be discussed? I didn't read anger in that post, I just read someone talking about a child's underwear with two other sexualised terms in the post as well. Describing sexual violence in those terms isn't honesty to me, it reads no different to how misogynistic men describe their acts in a way that gets them off. Am I allowed to object to that? Am I allowed to take issue with graphic pedo descriptions without warning or context?
I find it very odd PP said women discussing people posting about fetish content online are made out to be the problem as I haven't seen that before, and yet I object to unwarranted sexualised pedo descriptions on a discussion forum and I'm made out to be the problem so I guess they were right.

It's a reference to a specific case that would be familiar to many people posting on this board. It's not something randomly made up by the poster.

Ah, I've confused you with the earlier poster who suggested that we don't search for it. My mistake, for which I apologise.

When Gary Dean Marie (now known as Marie Dean) was reported as having "committed sex acts" with underwear he stole during burglaries, I didn't know what was meant and so I wasn't sure what to make of it. All I could say with certainty was that he shouldn't have been burgling. When I found a local news article that described what "sex acts" meant in that context, I finally felt a disgust response. In order to care enough to object to these men, we need to be disgusted by them.

There are men who do what I described. Gary Dean Marie didn't even bother going to a forest before doing it, he did it in the victim's homes in some cases. If no one dares mention it, these men are still doing it. I was stealing "if a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" and applying it to Gary Dean Marie, because "out of sight, out of mind" will not protect us from sex offenders.

I don't care - there's many ways to describe that case without using terms I'm not going to repeat. The same way I'm sure no article about it used those words. The same way we don't use the word porn when we talk about child sexual abuse images because words and language matters about things that are wrong. Whether that case is familiar or not to posters, I'll wait to hear of Mumsnet will leave it up and if so why they're allowing descriptions of pedophilia in those terms and without context.

Am I allowed to object to being exposed to graphic pedo descriptions (that served nothing to this particular discourse) or not? I've reported it via the proper channels and only highlighted I was doing so as I think it's weird when people report without discussing but I find it really odd that you and others have taken such offense at me saying randomly exposing posters to such sexual content is boundary crossing.

Trust me I would have been disgusted enough to hear about a man masturbating into stolen children's underwear..I still think it's unreasonable for you to talk about it in the terms you did, without context, and without warning.

I'll tell you how it will end, gradually as people age out. And I'll tell you why. Because the upcoming generation, the ones who are teens now a) aren't at all homophobic, generally and b) are absolutely sick to the back teeth of trans and non-binary being rammed down their throats at every turn and won't be having it when they get into their twenties, largely. Nothing kills a trend/social contagion more than teenager laughing at it.

There will be exceptions, of course, but now that most adults have also had enough of "pronoun shit", as I heard an HR director call it the other day, and there will increasingly be no advantages in sport and when incarcerated by pretending to be a woman, it will eventually fade back to being a tiny handful of peculiar individuals.

Is the problem the detail or the words used?

People use graphic examples to communicate why they don't want to be forced to participate in somebody else's fetish and why single sex spaces are necessary. It's quite difficult to do that if clear language can't be used.

My mistake - I was referring to the wrong person!

I don't know how you describe what happened without including detail.

The graphic sexualised language without warning or context. I don't know why when describing such a heinous act those particular words are necessary at all.

So you wouldn't be upset if more formal language were used?

I can't comment on your grandparents, but your beliefs certainly seem to be homophobic and misogynistic.