Any recommended genderist writers?

[bonfireoftheverities]

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." - John Stuart Mill

This is something I've tried to keep in mind over the last half dozen or so years since I heard TWAW, thought "What?" and fairly quickly found FWR. So I've made sure to read as much as I can take from those who truly believe that men can be women, or if they don't actually believe it (because how can you, deep down?), desperately want it to be true. I say as much as I can take because after a while you've seen and heard it all before, and it never starts being convincing.

The latest pile of nonsense I dove into is this: The End of Trans Rights in the UK Is the Start of Democratic Collapse. Dear god, that almost made my brain melt. The links alone show you that he never strays outside an idiotic bubble (Helen Webberley being the first I clicked into).

Is there anyone you can recommend who makes their case without lying and relying on liars?

This is just false. Experiencing emotional, physical, or sexual abuse from men can cause some women to avoid heterosexual relationships. In some cases, choosing to date women can be about safety, healing, and seeking comfort, rather than an innate biological attraction exclusively to women.

Of course he'd insist he isn't, but that's just because they're different teams.

But they're obviously playing the same game - they're in full agreement about getting the ball in the net, as it were.

But if you are the net, I doubt you care what colour the players are wearing.

Are you really being that homophobic! Maaaaate. Just stop now. Youre just embarrassing yourself. I don’t know if you mean to come across so offensive and lesbophobic but you need to stop.

But they're obviously playing the same game - they're in full agreement about getting the ball in the net, as it were.

Okay, maybe they're not playing exactly the same game - there may disagreement with Andrew Tate about the offside rule, or what constitutes a handball. The sort of thing that can cause very heated disagreements.

But irrelevant disagreements from the point of view of the designated net, who didn't volunteer for repeated balls in the face.

Sorry, getting carried away with the analogy a bit. The word "fan" started me off...

It does seem odd that these men are not pressurising heterosexual women and men in the same way. It’s almost like they need lesbians to sleep with them for validation. There are plenty of bi and pansexual people out there who would I’m sure, be open to dating them. Why go after lesbians specifically?

Because some trans women consider themselves as lesbians so it makes sense for them to seek a lesbian partner.

A male cannot ge a lesbian. A lesbian is a female homosexual. The fact you are defending men pressurising lesbians for sex is frankly so “manosphere”.

You are misrepresenting my words again. No one is suggesting lesbians be pressured or owe any body anything. The context is 'disappointment'.

It makes things simpler. We had AidaP who wanted to fuck the women he didn’t like with a splintery rolling pin. Now we have Emily who thinks lesbians are unreasonable if they refuse to have sex with men.

You don't sound very secure in your argument when you need to misrepresent words to get a fake 'gotcha'.

The context was about the disappointment Serrano felt because she assumed lesbians would be more open to challenging their preferences given their disposition. Again its no different from GC's who are disappointed in women supporting trans people.

The fact that women are somehow still being shamed and pressured when they state ‘I don’t have sex with men’ either by using those words or by saying ‘I’m a lesbian’ is so shocking, so offensive. ‘Priors’ indeed.

It is still violently shocking to me to hear a man state that he’s a lesbian. The homophobic arrogance of it. Do you really not see that, Emily?

That you wish to interpret disappointment in a lack of openness to different experiences as 'shame' & 'pressure' on others is an overreaction to say the least & not what this is about. That others are disappointed when their views aren't shared hardly should invoke shame & pressure. It has a kind of censorship/silencing flavor to suggest others can't express disappointment without being accused of shaming & pressure.

'I'm disappointed you didn't enjoy my favourite ice cream'

'STOP SHAMING ME AND PRESSURING ME!!!!'

I’m confused.

Why would anyone need to ‘challenge their preferences’?

Why is a lesbian ‘no’ less believable than another woman’s ‘no’.

Again its no different from GC's who are disappointed in women supporting trans people.

No, it’s like any other man griping that a woman has said no. He might as well be complaining that women will only sleep with Chads.

so Serrano, a straight bloke, was demanding lesbians slept with him and wrote whole essays documenting his “disappointment”. Why not date bi or pan women? He knows fine well he’s not a lesbian.

If a bloke wrote about how disappointed he was that lesbians weren’t interested in him & his dick, people would laugh scornfully & view him as a somewhat pathetic incel type. The only differences with Serano are his choices of name & pronouns.

She was making the point that people who should know better via their experience of being excluded should be more open to having their beliefs challenged

Or in other words, he expected lesbians to have low self esteem and to be easy targets.

There is absolutely nothing new about this kind of man.

‘Biased priors’ here means ‘can spot red flags’.

I’m not a lesbian, but I would be more than disappointed if someone characterised my firm same-sex attraction as not being open to challenging my preferences. I’d be extremely pissed off.

This borders on coercive control of thought, emotion and physical autonomy. A person expressing such opinions is no better than an abuser.

My interpretation of it is that JS assumed that because he is attracted to lesbians, lesbians would be attracted to him.

When he was rejected, he put it down to a personality flaw of lesbian women, rather than a fault with his reasoning. He's saying these women would be better people if they open up more, and should be more like the straight men who didn't reject him outright.

I dont know how to politely describe a man who expects women, especially lesbians, to behave exactly like men regarding sex and relationships?

All this talk about 'priors' is now reminding me of two things:

1. Discussing prior convictions.
2. Discussing prior sins.

It really is just another attempt to paint women who know that men who identify as trans are just as male as any other man (regardless of any body modification they have had or not) as 'bad'.

We are wrong to not pretend, perhaps even sinful or criminal.

I am so bored with this shit now.

he put it down to a personality flaw of lesbian women,

A limitation she hadn't expected certainly. But its a limitation most of us have as she states so there's no suggestion it only applies to lesbians.

Oh, so now not pretending is a 'limitation'.

These men are so entitled.

It reminds me of that bloke who moaned on Reddit about not being able to control other people's perceptions (he thought he should be able to do so, only the big old meanies just wouldn't do/say what he wanted).

I don’t think “biased priors” explains everything at all. I actually started from a very open-minded position and actively mixed with tw’s because I assumed we’d have common ground as women, even if we differed politically or personally.

What changed my perspective was experience, not prejudice. I’ve had encounters that made me feel genuinely unsafe and deeply uncomfortable in ways I never expected. One leered at me repeatedly while calling me “young lady.” Another followed me into the women’s toilets, left the cubicle open, and exposed himself to me. While visiting my dying mother in hospital, a tw we didn’t know came into the room and began graphically discussing complications from their sex surgery. These are just some of my experiences with tw. Sadly I have others.

Those experiences were shocking, intrusive, and upsetting. So when people insist that women who become gender critical must simply have “biased priors,” it erases the possibility that some women arrived at their views because of things they actually experienced first hand.

People can begin from openness and empathy and still conclude that some behaviours they encountered felt male, entitled, boundary crossing, or unsafe.

I appreciate that's how you arrived at your skepticism but anecdotal evidence of a few instances isn't enough to generalise about the majority & doing so forms a bias in reasoning. It's like saying because some muslims practice FGM or are terrorists that implicates all muslims. The sad truth is that just about all groups have a minority of abusers within them that don't represent the majority & to make judgements based on the minorities actions is therefore flawed.