Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Cambridge Union debate - This House Believes modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community

235 replies

ItsCoolForCats · 15/05/2026 07:15

I'm starting this thread mainly so I can post this link because Maeve Halligan is a force to be reckoned with:

https://x.com/i/status/2055119527914938412

They lost the debate, which was to be expected given the state of universities on this issue, but Thea Sewell said they got a respectable number of votes. Hopefully they have planted some seeds in people's minds.

Other speakers were Buck Angel and Helen Webberley (for the other side).

Full debate is here https://www.youtube.com/live/wE0JY9d7f-w?si=4ZIVmcxyevo0DQvB

Thea Sewell (@theasewell05) on X

lIf you do anything today, watch @MaeveHalligan at the Cambridge Union. I genuinely think this was the first time many people in that room were confronted with the hard reality of the trans debate, rather than the slogans that usually surround it. @Bu...

https://x.com/i/status/2055119527914938412

OP posts:
BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 09:13

Tatatan · 17/05/2026 08:00

How do you know that "Most people don't believe in 'ghosts' or believe in 'god'"?

Indeed.

According to figures from the last census in the UK, most people don't believe in god. Only 46% of the UK population does:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

As for the ghosts bit, who knows? All we've got on that AFAIK is personal anecdote. Personally, I do because of an experience that I've had. When I share my experience, I'm met with a mix of "me too", open-mindedness and people thinking I'm mad.

Whichever way you look at it, beliefs are personal and nobody should force or coerce others to adopt practices of their own belief. Yes, people might empathise with me that my mum passed away 5 years ago, yes they might understand why I sometimes talk to her out loud... but I'm not so entrenched in my belief in ghosts to demand that they should talk to her too (and tell them that if they don't, they are being unkind invalidating my belief)**. However, that's exactly what happens when trans(-identifying) people guilt-trip everyone into using opposite-sex pronouns, accepting transwomen in women's sports and so on. They are forcing their belief onto others and calling them heretics (transphobes, bigots, Nazis etc) if they don't comply with this demand.

**I'm yet to hear anything back from her TBF. Mildly annoying, given I really didn't need to hear from the random woman that did engage with me. So I'm left in a position where I do believe in ghosts but haven't actually had any benefit from it. FFS.

Religion, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

The religion of usual residents and household religious composition in England and Wales, Census 2021 data.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

woollyhatter · 17/05/2026 09:21

Rather enjoying watching Everton use the techniques predicated on a methodology based on the values outlined here.

https://x.com/boroscq/status/2055585708748730461?s=46&t=9TRdb2Nrc_7Avh47HJ3yuw

Fascinating and sadly pretty nihilistic rather than transformative.

But crack on because the more we try to pin it down in open discussion, the clearer it becomes that it is all smoke and mirrors signifying very little.

Salvador Cruz Quintana (@boroscq) on X

El wokismo no es simplemente un hijo degenerado de la "French Theory", como si las ideas viajaran solas por el aire y conquistaran universidades por seducción literaria. Las ideas no mueven la historia por sí mismas. Las ideas se insertan en las insti...

https://x.com/boroscq/status/2055585708748730461?s=46&t=9TRdb2Nrc_7Avh47HJ3yuw

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 17/05/2026 09:31

FlirtsWithRhinos · 17/05/2026 01:07

The problem with your analogy / projection is that I have literally no idea which of the two you think I'm supposed to fancy! In fact I don't even know myself!

I don't really fancy either of them when they have the rights bits so swapping them around didn't really iluminate anything for me, except in the sense it told me a bit about how you think about sexual attraction.

I don't "fancy" everyone of the sex I'm attracted to. Buck Angel is a good example of this, but there are plenty of women with far less extreme presentations who are "not my type" for all sorts of reasons. And I too can appreciate that some men, whom I'm not sexually attracted to, are good looking. I do not find any transwoman I've met, or seen in photos or videos, any more than very superficially, at first glance, sexually attractive – without exception, they have been unconvincing. The closest any have got is something like the look of a woman who is trying much too hard to fit conventional beauty norms, using the whole contents of the Boots cosmetics display and an overdose of botox. They can look good from a distance, but on closer acquaintance the artifice is overwhelming.

Attraction is more subtle than Emily seems to be describing. The superficial has to be quite convincing and has to match the subconscious cues that tell me whether someone is female or male. I'm genuinely not interested in sex with a man, so realising that someone is a transwoman is somewhat off-putting! There are also personality traits that I find off-putting, and moral considerations (I'm in favour of a strong relational commitment, in my case marriage, as a requirement for a sexual relationship). No doubt this is transphobia if the object of initial attraction at 500 yards turns out to be unattractive at 10 yards. Equivalent to racism. A defining character flaw that puts me in the bigot category.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/05/2026 09:39

Doesn't this thread exemplify what Thea and Maeve were talking about? The relentless attempt to dominate, including lecturing women and lesbians on this board about our reality and language, all based on niche fantasies and untruths.

I'm always grateful to women on here who take so much trouble to carefully unpick the drivel. Flowers

OpheliaWasntMad · 17/05/2026 10:25

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/05/2026 09:39

Doesn't this thread exemplify what Thea and Maeve were talking about? The relentless attempt to dominate, including lecturing women and lesbians on this board about our reality and language, all based on niche fantasies and untruths.

I'm always grateful to women on here who take so much trouble to carefully unpick the drivel. Flowers

Well said! 👏

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 10:27

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/05/2026 09:39

Doesn't this thread exemplify what Thea and Maeve were talking about? The relentless attempt to dominate, including lecturing women and lesbians on this board about our reality and language, all based on niche fantasies and untruths.

I'm always grateful to women on here who take so much trouble to carefully unpick the drivel. Flowers

The irony is breathtaking given I'm a CIS woman.

OpheliaWasntMad · 17/05/2026 10:30

Andy Burnham thinks “ transwomen” are women and agrees with self ID - So he’s another one who doesn’t care a jot about the safety of women and girls.

OpheliaWasntMad · 17/05/2026 10:32

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 10:27

The irony is breathtaking given I'm a CIS woman.

That’s another distortion of language. There aren’t two categories of women so we don’t need the term cis .

Datun · 17/05/2026 10:48

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 10:27

The irony is breathtaking given I'm a CIS woman.

Another misuse of language.

It's not ironic when you go out of your way to present as a dominant man, is it.

And I couldn't help laughing at your 'sexual traits indicate reproductive capability'. Not as much as your actual reproductive capability!

And no, you've got it about face.

Sexual orientation is whether you are attracted to the opposite sex or your own sex. Or both.

The rest of it, all of it, from start to finish, is sexual preference.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 17/05/2026 10:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 17/05/2026 11:19

The clips of Maeve were great. Aside from her clear delivery of simple logic and compassion, also so brave of her to stand up and give that speach in the prevailing culture of denial and slander of gender critical women.

The full debate is about 1 hr 45 minutes so I'll have to watch it in chunks, but I will watch it.

FrippEnos · 17/05/2026 11:36

What I find fasinating about the Megan Fox with a dick or Hulk Hogan with a fanny is that it is based on the mis information that trans women look like megan fox.

Very few trans women go the extremes that looking like megan fox would require.
And it has become the norm in the trans world to not pass but to look trans.

GenderlessVoid · 17/05/2026 12:04

FrippEnos · 17/05/2026 11:36

What I find fasinating about the Megan Fox with a dick or Hulk Hogan with a fanny is that it is based on the mis information that trans women look like megan fox.

Very few trans women go the extremes that looking like megan fox would require.
And it has become the norm in the trans world to not pass but to look trans.

I thought it was a purely hypothetical question based on your ideal sexual partner (wrt the aspect of physical appearance) and how would you react if their primary sexual organ was switched. (I thought the question was also assuming that Hulk got an actual vagina and Megan got an actual phallus, not the simulacrum they would get with surgery and hormones. But that was unclear.) But I'm not sure because, although EmilyinEverton replied to me, she didn't answer my questions so I still don't understand the purpose of her comments about Megan and Hulk. My guess is that it's a derail.

A few people prefer men with a neovagina to women. Some may prefer women with a phalloplasty to men. I'm not sure how that relates to whether modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 12:07

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I guess it's the mental barriers you have to put in your mind to deny your own experiences and disassociate yourself from knowing the ways your biological sex shapes your life

On the contrary, being an old school feminist means kicking down patriarchal imposed barriers of separate spheres: the idea that, in order to protect the virtue of women & their 'inherent weakness', they needed to be separated from men.
That you wish to return to Victorian times & live in fear that feminism fought against is exactly why gender critical ideology has a limited reach.

Ramblingnamechanger · 17/05/2026 12:13

“Forgive me if I am out of touch as I don’t have kids and well into my sixties, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if debating could be something that is mandatory to be offered in all schools from secondary age, clearly the ability to debate something is a skill that can lead to power, influencing change, and it is a shame that this seems just another privilege that can be bought by the few. Plus I know it’s pie in the sky when education is struggling for the most basic of resources. Anyway I found it fascinating all round”

I remember at my all girls school debating “ Better to be dead than wed” but that was 50 odd years ago. Stood me in good stead!

FrippEnos · 17/05/2026 12:34

GenderlessVoid · 17/05/2026 12:04

I thought it was a purely hypothetical question based on your ideal sexual partner (wrt the aspect of physical appearance) and how would you react if their primary sexual organ was switched. (I thought the question was also assuming that Hulk got an actual vagina and Megan got an actual phallus, not the simulacrum they would get with surgery and hormones. But that was unclear.) But I'm not sure because, although EmilyinEverton replied to me, she didn't answer my questions so I still don't understand the purpose of her comments about Megan and Hulk. My guess is that it's a derail.

A few people prefer men with a neovagina to women. Some may prefer women with a phalloplasty to men. I'm not sure how that relates to whether modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community

But if we are saying that its your ideal partner then for ahetrosexual male their partner wouldn't have a penis.

I agree that its a derail and I apologise for carrying the post on, but however we consider the post the question is just nonsense.

FrippEnos · 17/05/2026 12:40

Ramblingnamechanger · 17/05/2026 12:13

“Forgive me if I am out of touch as I don’t have kids and well into my sixties, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if debating could be something that is mandatory to be offered in all schools from secondary age, clearly the ability to debate something is a skill that can lead to power, influencing change, and it is a shame that this seems just another privilege that can be bought by the few. Plus I know it’s pie in the sky when education is struggling for the most basic of resources. Anyway I found it fascinating all round”

I remember at my all girls school debating “ Better to be dead than wed” but that was 50 odd years ago. Stood me in good stead!

Part of the reason why debating doesn't happen in schools as much as it used to is the fear of offending, which links us back to why lgbtq+ activism has hurt their cause.

But if debate had been allowed I doubt that the LGB would still be linked to the
TQ+

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 12:52

Picking up on the "ideal partner" narrative, I think that opens up the door to some good discussion.

For example, it would be interesting to ask "LGB+" (anyone that includes the letters beyond the B) community members and allies the following three questions:

  1. Irrespective of your current relationship status and your sexual orientation, if you were single, would your ideal partner have a penis?
  2. If you are solely attracted to either males or females and your answer is no, why is it no?
  3. If your answer is no, do you think that LGBTQ+ activism fails its community? What is your reasoning?

As a couple of examples, I would expect a lesbian woman (i.e. a female who is solely same-sex attracted) to answer as follows:

  1. No
  2. Because I'm a lesbian and that means attraction to women. Women don't have penises
  3. Yes. The LGBTQ+ community says I'm transphobic if I don't include sex and gender (identity) in my definition of lesbian. Meaning it expects me not to exclude biological males in my dating pool.

And for a heterosexual man:

  1. No
  2. Because I'm straight and that means attraction to women. Women don't have penises
  3. If I'm expected to be attracted to chicks with dicks, then yes. Because I'm not a GAMP.

And so on...

Edited for typo

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 12:58

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 12:52

Picking up on the "ideal partner" narrative, I think that opens up the door to some good discussion.

For example, it would be interesting to ask "LGB+" (anyone that includes the letters beyond the B) community members and allies the following three questions:

  1. Irrespective of your current relationship status and your sexual orientation, if you were single, would your ideal partner have a penis?
  2. If you are solely attracted to either males or females and your answer is no, why is it no?
  3. If your answer is no, do you think that LGBTQ+ activism fails its community? What is your reasoning?

As a couple of examples, I would expect a lesbian woman (i.e. a female who is solely same-sex attracted) to answer as follows:

  1. No
  2. Because I'm a lesbian and that means attraction to women. Women don't have penises
  3. Yes. The LGBTQ+ community says I'm transphobic if I don't include sex and gender (identity) in my definition of lesbian. Meaning it expects me not to exclude biological males in my dating pool.

And for a heterosexual man:

  1. No
  2. Because I'm straight and that means attraction to women. Women don't have penises
  3. If I'm expected to be attracted to chicks with dicks, then yes. Because I'm not a GAMP.

And so on...

Edited for typo

Edited

TBF, it would be equally interesting to hear the reasoning of a lesbian woman and straight man who answered yes to question 1.

To me, it would be like a vegetarian including their favourite (meat) sausages in their diet and still calling themselves vegetarian.... and quite possibly shouting at me that I don't get to decide what their vegetarian identity looks like etc etc.

But I'm open-minded that I might have prejudged the answer. That's why debate is important, to challenge prejudice.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/05/2026 13:03

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 10:27

The irony is breathtaking given I'm a CIS woman.

😂 At 02.45 yesterday morning you arrived on this thread where women were celebrating the courage of these young women for speaking out in a hostile university environment to claim that one of them had made a "category error" by not realising that men were now lesbians as definitions are at the mercy of social usage!😄😄

It was a very funny claim and your subsequent stream of claims has (as usual) resulted in some fascinating posts from women. So thank you for that.

I have made no claims about your identity other than to define you as a transactivist when I pointed out your "relentless attempt to dominate, including lecturing women and lesbians on this board about our reality and language, all based on niche fantasies and untruths" All can be found on this thread.

Mumsnet always warn us that posters may not be who they claim to be which is good advice. I tend to judge people by their posts which are often very revealing. Women, many mothers (and some even lesbian mothers) usually show empathy for other women, concern to safeguard children, rigorous intellectual thought, experiences of fighting for womens rights, a curiosity and great sense of the ridiculous.

That's why so many women enjoy posting on here - the company of women 😊

ElectoralControversy · 17/05/2026 13:05

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 12:07

I guess it's the mental barriers you have to put in your mind to deny your own experiences and disassociate yourself from knowing the ways your biological sex shapes your life

On the contrary, being an old school feminist means kicking down patriarchal imposed barriers of separate spheres: the idea that, in order to protect the virtue of women & their 'inherent weakness', they needed to be separated from men.
That you wish to return to Victorian times & live in fear that feminism fought against is exactly why gender critical ideology has a limited reach.

Absolutely sister! 💪

This is why old school cycling groups campaign to smash down the patriarchal imposed barriers between them and HGVs, we should all be living in harmony not fear 😍
(*let's ignore any pesky statistics on who kills whom in massive numbers)

FlirtsWithRhinos · 17/05/2026 13:09

EmilyinEverton · 17/05/2026 12:07

I guess it's the mental barriers you have to put in your mind to deny your own experiences and disassociate yourself from knowing the ways your biological sex shapes your life

On the contrary, being an old school feminist means kicking down patriarchal imposed barriers of separate spheres: the idea that, in order to protect the virtue of women & their 'inherent weakness', they needed to be separated from men.
That you wish to return to Victorian times & live in fear that feminism fought against is exactly why gender critical ideology has a limited reach.

Hahahhahahhahaha hahhahahhaha haha ahhh - breathe - ahahahahahahahaha

No.

This is not about "inherent weakness". I would love to be in a world where we could just kick down the barriers with gay abandon.

But you know what?

We tried that. And it didn't work.

Not because there's any inherent baked in reason why it shouldn't but because we were unrealistic about the men and about how socially ingrained sexism is in both sexes.

So right now, women (in the non-debased, pre-genderist sense of people with female bodies) are still being sexually and domestically abused and doemstically exploited, and are still given less default credibility and therefore harder career paths resulting in fewer women in the highest levels of senior leadership, and our bodies are still being brutalised and abused for entertainment.

Do you really think that still happens because some pesky women seem to think we need separate lavatories, and if we just let TW use the loos like they ask it would all go away? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

We got the freedom to do more but we didn't change the way too many men treat us and we didn't change enough of the cuture for enough other men to challenge them, so we just gave them new ways and sometimes even easier ways to exploit us.

We wanted fairness and opportunity.

We got cocklodgers and CSA-dodgers because we were conned into thinking women having the ability to earn their own money meant it's not feminist to hold men accountable for their families.

We got pornhub, only fans and mega-brothels because we were conned into thinking that women not being shamed for haing sex meant men would respect women sexually.

And we got trans women in our sports, prisons, officerships and prizes because we were conned into thinking that saying women should not be limited by their sex meant women can never say that our sex matters.

Bringing about that barrier-free world we both want to see is not a simple matter of refusing to see things that we do not want to believe and thinking that means they will go away.

It is about accepting the hard truth that right now, women (in the non-debased, pre-genderist sense of people with female bodies) do get a shitty end of the stick for reaons that are sometimes baked in our bodies (we will always be the ones who carry children, most of us are physically weaker than most of the men we encounter and none of us are stronger than every man in the world) but mostly baked into our structures and our culture and how people with our bodies are supported or not.

And for that reason, even as we still strive for a world where men do treat us with respect, and don't abuse and sexualise us, and don't take up the air and the space and push us to the margins, we also need places, for now, where the men are not.

Physical spaces of course, but also cultural and linguistic spaces where we can come together as women without men inserting themselves in our conversation and reframing our expereinces to suit themselves, where we can form our own understanding of our lives, our challenges and our needs and to back each other up to fight for true equality.

That is true Feminist insight. To be brave enough to realise women will not be freed with a few slogans, a few mixed sex changing rooms and some You Go Girl corporate events, by pasting on a smile and petending that if we don't ackowledge the sexism we still face it will go away, but with hard work, with being clear eyed about the hidden inequities we face and being brave about talking about these and having the language we need to do so.

Beccause we tried "kicking" down the barriers and it turned out that we only we kicked down the barriers that protected us, because they were only ever very flimsy in the first place. We didn't make a dint in the reasons we needed protection in the first place.

We didn't change the invisible ones stop us having the same opportunities in and power over our lives as men. Those barriers are harder. And they won't come down with kicking, but with patient hard work to demolish them brick by brick.

Now, I'm still an optimist. I do still believe those barriers can come down. But as long as they exist not just because, as you believe is the only reason and I accept is partly the reason, women wrongly see ourselves as needing them, but also as an entirely rational response to the current behaviour of men, we can't just kick them down by ourselves. We need to bring men on the journey with us, or at least enough of them that social pressure between men keeps the rest in check.

Before the barriers come down we need to get to a place were the barriers don't make any sense. And we are sadly no where near that place today.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/05/2026 13:14

BonfireLady · 17/05/2026 12:58

TBF, it would be equally interesting to hear the reasoning of a lesbian woman and straight man who answered yes to question 1.

To me, it would be like a vegetarian including their favourite (meat) sausages in their diet and still calling themselves vegetarian.... and quite possibly shouting at me that I don't get to decide what their vegetarian identity looks like etc etc.

But I'm open-minded that I might have prejudged the answer. That's why debate is important, to challenge prejudice.

Much as I love your thoughtful and insightful posts BL, I reckon everyone should back off lesbians.
Young lesbians have been under siege for nearly a decade now, being bullied and coerced into accepting men as sexual partners. It's that corrective rape fantasy that some men indulge in. Older lesbians weep as we see what's happened to young women and how they've become a seedy man's rape fantasy.
That's where the return to Victorian times is located - in the transactivist's Victorian male reductive view of women. As objects to be owned, to be dominated, conquered and violated.

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 17/05/2026 13:18

FlirtsWithRhinos · 17/05/2026 13:09

Hahahhahahhahaha hahhahahhaha haha ahhh - breathe - ahahahahahahahaha

No.

This is not about "inherent weakness". I would love to be in a world where we could just kick down the barriers with gay abandon.

But you know what?

We tried that. And it didn't work.

Not because there's any inherent baked in reason why it shouldn't but because we were unrealistic about the men and about how socially ingrained sexism is in both sexes.

So right now, women (in the non-debased, pre-genderist sense of people with female bodies) are still being sexually and domestically abused and doemstically exploited, and are still given less default credibility and therefore harder career paths resulting in fewer women in the highest levels of senior leadership, and our bodies are still being brutalised and abused for entertainment.

Do you really think that still happens because some pesky women seem to think we need separate lavatories, and if we just let TW use the loos like they ask it would all go away? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

We got the freedom to do more but we didn't change the way too many men treat us and we didn't change enough of the cuture for enough other men to challenge them, so we just gave them new ways and sometimes even easier ways to exploit us.

We wanted fairness and opportunity.

We got cocklodgers and CSA-dodgers because we were conned into thinking women having the ability to earn their own money meant it's not feminist to hold men accountable for their families.

We got pornhub, only fans and mega-brothels because we were conned into thinking that women not being shamed for haing sex meant men would respect women sexually.

And we got trans women in our sports, prisons, officerships and prizes because we were conned into thinking that saying women should not be limited by their sex meant women can never say that our sex matters.

Bringing about that barrier-free world we both want to see is not a simple matter of refusing to see things that we do not want to believe and thinking that means they will go away.

It is about accepting the hard truth that right now, women (in the non-debased, pre-genderist sense of people with female bodies) do get a shitty end of the stick for reaons that are sometimes baked in our bodies (we will always be the ones who carry children, most of us are physically weaker than most of the men we encounter and none of us are stronger than every man in the world) but mostly baked into our structures and our culture and how people with our bodies are supported or not.

And for that reason, even as we still strive for a world where men do treat us with respect, and don't abuse and sexualise us, and don't take up the air and the space and push us to the margins, we also need places, for now, where the men are not.

Physical spaces of course, but also cultural and linguistic spaces where we can come together as women without men inserting themselves in our conversation and reframing our expereinces to suit themselves, where we can form our own understanding of our lives, our challenges and our needs and to back each other up to fight for true equality.

That is true Feminist insight. To be brave enough to realise women will not be freed with a few slogans, a few mixed sex changing rooms and some You Go Girl corporate events, by pasting on a smile and petending that if we don't ackowledge the sexism we still face it will go away, but with hard work, with being clear eyed about the hidden inequities we face and being brave about talking about these and having the language we need to do so.

Beccause we tried "kicking" down the barriers and it turned out that we only we kicked down the barriers that protected us, because they were only ever very flimsy in the first place. We didn't make a dint in the reasons we needed protection in the first place.

We didn't change the invisible ones stop us having the same opportunities in and power over our lives as men. Those barriers are harder. And they won't come down with kicking, but with patient hard work to demolish them brick by brick.

Now, I'm still an optimist. I do still believe those barriers can come down. But as long as they exist not just because, as you believe is the only reason and I accept is partly the reason, women wrongly see ourselves as needing them, but also as an entirely rational response to the current behaviour of men, we can't just kick them down by ourselves. We need to bring men on the journey with us, or at least enough of them that social pressure between men keeps the rest in check.

Before the barriers come down we need to get to a place were the barriers don't make any sense. And we are sadly no where near that place today.

Edited

100%

Which also reminds me:

Cambridge Union debate - This House Believes modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community
FlirtsWithRhinos · 17/05/2026 13:21

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/05/2026 13:14

Much as I love your thoughtful and insightful posts BL, I reckon everyone should back off lesbians.
Young lesbians have been under siege for nearly a decade now, being bullied and coerced into accepting men as sexual partners. It's that corrective rape fantasy that some men indulge in. Older lesbians weep as we see what's happened to young women and how they've become a seedy man's rape fantasy.
That's where the return to Victorian times is located - in the transactivist's Victorian male reductive view of women. As objects to be owned, to be dominated, conquered and violated.

That's where the return to Victorian times is located - in the transactivist's Victorian male reductive view of women. As objects to be owned, to be dominated, conquered and violated.

So true. Just as the Victorian explorer and ethnographer felt entirely able to observe, categorise and define the cultures he encountered with far more authority about their lived experiece than he could conceive of them having themselves, so male transactivists take the same colonising approach to women.

And just as some colonised individuals consciously or subconsciously came to take the coloniser's view of their culture over their own, so female transactivists accept this male narrative for themselves because they consciously or subconsciously feel safer with that group than against it.