Gender Discussion #39

[Ensay]

I don’t see much evidence of many TIMs wanting to have sex with men anyway. But surely this just needs better rules based on risk.

The tweet makes gay sex sound like this awful thing that should exclude any gay man from giving blood. Thankfully here in the UK the rules were changed to look at behaviour - ie gay men who aren’t sleeping around all the time are at a lower risk and hence can donate blood. I’m sick of low level homophobia in tweets like that.

 

[weeweegie]

I think it’s worth noting and acknowledging how everything we have talked about for ages in here is now being discussed by the general public in a way we’ve not seen before. It is a win (of sorts) for the GC cause. More and more people are talking out now publicly about the ramifications on women and how it impacts us.

Shame on everyone who has jumped on the TWAW bandwagon these last few years, because it was trendy and they were tit scared of the TRAs. Shame on those who dropped friends and colleagues, took what they thought was the higher moral ground, been openly abusive to women, called JKR an evil nazi etc etc. Now they are seeing the very real issues that self ID brings. And that it was never about hatred of trans people, and only about the rights of women. The fact it’s taken an actual rapist on the back of Nicola’s insane gender reforms to highlight what we’ve all been saying for years is astounding and totally shameful.

 

[HockyRorror]

I don’t see much evidence of many TIMs wanting to have sex with men anyway. But surely this just needs better rules based on risk.

The tweet makes gay sex sound like this awful thing that should exclude any gay man from giving blood. Thankfully here in the UK the rules were changed to look at behaviour - ie gay men who aren’t sleeping around all the time are at a lower risk and hence can donate blood. I’m sick of low level homophobia in tweets like that.

The homophobia is 100% from the American Red Cross announcement, not the Reduxx reply reporting of it.
---

I think it’s worth noting and acknowledging how everything we have talked about for ages in here is now being discussed by the general public in a way we’ve not seen before. It is a win (of sorts) for the GC cause. More and more people are talking out now publicly about the ramifications on women and how it impacts us.

Shame on everyone who has jumped on the TWAW bandwagon these last few years, because it was trendy and they were tit scared of the TRAs. Shame on those who dropped friends and colleagues, took what they thought was the higher moral ground, been openly abusive to women, called JKR an evil nazi etc etc. Now they are seeing the very real issues that self ID brings. And that it was never about hatred of trans people, and only about the rights of women. The fact it’s taken an actual rapist on the back of Nicola’s insane gender reforms to highlight what we’ve all been saying for years is astounding and totally shameful.

Politically and in some other areas it’s fascinating (not the content of course, I mean how it unravelled). Journalists have been forced to play along (some probably all to willing more than others) and are now getting bolder, some of them even blatantly forewarning that they are going to use biological sex in their articles no matter what the ISPO rules say.

 

[mochibean]

Anyone seen that Kaelie on tiktok? Says he's uncomfortable using men's bathrooms as he identifies as female (he has a beard and uses the 'some women grow beards' as an excuse for his manly appearance). Yet, he gives 0 fucks to the women he's making uncomfortable by forcing himself into our spaces.

Why is their discomfort more important than women's rightful discomfort of having some smelly fat man in their bathroom? His 100 videos dedicated to invalidating women's feelings and rights for his own selfish desires is sickening.
---

And that it was never about hatred of trans people, and only about the rights of women.

This is the point everyone has been missing. It's shameful, women deserve private and safe spaces.

 

[katyazamo]

I really do think there has been a noticeable shift in the general dialogue over the last few days. It's no longer about letting people identify as they wish. Motives are being rightly questioned and it's finally out there in the open that yes really, some men are cosplaying as women to access female spaces. I can see TRAs lashing out because they know they aren't going to keep getting their way.

We speak about Scotland a fair bit on here and I noticed a post in the Glasgow subreddit about a "counter protest" against KJK/Standing for Women this weekend. What was interesting is that there were actually a lot of comments pointing out that KJK is simply speaking up and she has the right to do so. They all got down voted but there wasn't much being offered in way of a counter argument, other than... "TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN"

And actually, none of this is about being nasty or deliberately spiteful towards transsexuals. It's about our rights as a sex class. But unfortunately a lot of people have been led to believe that TiMs are kind and gentle Hayley from Corrie types. What has been uncovered with Adam the rapist and that other Scottish bloke in a woman's jail (can't remember the name) has finally exposed this sham.

 

[Ensay]

The homophobia is 100% from the American Red Cross announcement, not the Reduxx reply reporting of it.

I disagree. The article is written in a 'panic' type fashion. The bit in bold is weird:

This change would allow a homosexual or bisexual male to present at the clinic and self-describe himself as “female” or “trans” and be exempted from the 3-month deferral typically associated with males who actively engage in sexual activity with other males. This may pose a risk to both the Red Cross staff, the donor, and the viability of blood donations.

Why would the Red Cross staff be at risk if a sexually active gay man presented himself at a donor centre?! It's like they think any gay man who's had sex in the last 3 months is diseased and that the disease can jump from the person to the staff at the donor centre through the air!

I don't want to derail*, and I get the risk being outlined to the blood, but saying donor staff are at risk and the salacious reporting is crappy. In my opinion. I just have to call out homophobia when I see it.
(*I might resurrect the LGB thread )

 

[Peachsquish]

I don’t see much evidence of many TIMs wanting to have sex with men anyway. But surely this just needs better rules based on risk.

The tweet makes gay sex sound like this awful thing that should exclude any gay man from giving blood. Thankfully here in the UK the rules were changed to look at behaviour - ie gay men who aren’t sleeping around all the time are at a lower risk and hence can donate blood. I’m sick of low level homophobia in tweets like that.

It doesn't come across as homophobia to me, more calling out that whilst gay men are excluded, men who self id as trans and sleep with men are good to donate and they are right to call it out.
If the US rules are that gay people's blood is more risky then self iding is not going to magically remove the risk. This is where TRAs do great damage instead of whining about hurt feelings they could campaign for the UK rules which would benefit more people and sounds far more sensible, the US rule comes across as written by someone who has internalised homophobia.

 

[Piff paff puff]

A Scottish caller to talk radio in his 70s said he won't vote SNP again after being a life long supporter. He found out since the greens coalition they've gave 9 million to trans, 5 million to historic slavery reparations and 65 million to the Ukraine war! She's probably trying to give away more taxpayers money than westminster.

 

[Peachsquish]

I disagree. The article is written in a 'panic' type fashion. The bit in bold is weird:

This change would allow a homosexual or bisexual male to present at the clinic and self-describe himself as “female” or “trans” and be exempted from the 3-month deferral typically associated with males who actively engage in sexual activity with other males. This may pose a risk to both the Red Cross staff, the donor, and the viability of blood donations.

Why would the Red Cross staff be at risk if a sexually active gay man presented himself at a donor centre?! It's like they think any gay man who's had sex in the last 3 months is diseased and that the disease can jump from the person to the staff at the donor centre through the air!

I don't want to derail*, and I get the risk being outlined to the blood, but saying donor staff are at risk and the salacious reporting is crappy. In my opinion. I just have to call out homophobia when I see it.
(*I might resurrect the LGB thread )

Presumably because there is always the risk of accidental blood transfer to the staff whilst inserting needles etc. Assuming also that any risk is less after 3 months. Contaminated blood kills.

 

[nicalibres]

Anyone seen that Kaelie on tiktok? Says he's uncomfortable using men's bathrooms as he identifies as female (he has a beard and uses the 'some women grow beards' as an excuse for his manly appearance). Yet, he gives 0 fucks to the women he's making uncomfortable by forcing himself into our spaces.

Why is their discomfort more important than women's rightful discomfort of having some smelly fat man in their bathroom? His 100 videos dedicated to invalidating women's feelings and rights for his own selfish desires is sickening.

Please don’t tell me this is him?

 

[Ensay]

Presumably because there is always the risk of accidental blood transfer to the staff whilst inserting needles etc. Assuming also that any risk is less after 3 months. Contaminated blood kills.

But surely those staff always take precautions because anyone could technically have contaminated blood regardless of sexual orientation and if they’re monogamous or not. The risk to donor staff is lower in certain groups but can never be ruled out.

Yet the article makes it sound like the risk to donor staff is specific to male donors who’ve had sex with men in the last 3 months.

I’m not getting at you, I just feel I’m more attuned to spotting homophobic prejudice as it’s relevant to me. A bit like how women are better placed to call out sexism against women etc.

 

[mochibean]

Please don’t tell me this is him?
View attachment 1924258

That's him. And this thing reckons he's a woman..

 

[Glortard]

I disagree. The article is written in a 'panic' type fashion. The bit in bold is weird:

This change would allow a homosexual or bisexual male to present at the clinic and self-describe himself as “female” or “trans” and be exempted from the 3-month deferral typically associated with males who actively engage in sexual activity with other males. This may pose a risk to both the Red Cross staff, the donor, and the viability of blood donations.

Why would the Red Cross staff be at risk if a sexually active gay man presented himself at a donor centre?! It's like they think any gay man who's had sex in the last 3 months is diseased and that the disease can jump from the person to the staff at the donor centre through the air!

I don't want to derail*, and I get the risk being outlined to the blood, but saying donor staff are at risk and the salacious reporting is crappy. In my opinion. I just have to call out homophobia when I see it.
(*I might resurrect the LGB thread )

From infected blood as 65% of new infections of HIV where in MSM group. Whilst there are protocols in place for infections there is still a very minimal risk of someone being infected. I am pretty sure they did not mention viruses jumping through the air in the article.

 

[Ensay]

From infected blood as 65% of new infections of HIV where in MSM group. Whilst there are protocols in place for infections there is still a very minimal risk of someone being infected. I am pretty sure they did not mention viruses jumping through the air in the article.

No they didn't mention that, which is why I used the phrasing "it's like they think".

It should be a risk based approach - as clearly a man who's in a long term relationship with another man is less at risk than someone who's had multiple sexual partners in the preceding three months.

I do sometimes frequent another forum which has more Americans and I believe they're considering changing it like I've suggested in the US, which shows there's a demand for it. I'm not sure if it's just state by state. Some gay men who replied adopted a "if my blood wasn't good enough for them up until now, I'm not going to donate going forward" stance. Which is a shame, but I get it as prejudice tends to piss people off.

But anyway I'm not gonna derail any further. I've raised it in the LGB thread for anyone who wants to discuss further.

 

[nicalibres]

That's him. And this thing reckons he's a woman..

I wonder what his goal is and who it is he’s trying to attract with his wee fairy lights, animal handbag and mean girls poster? This creep should never be allowed within 100 feet of female only spaces or schools.

 

[Peachsquish]

But surely those staff always take precautions because anyone could technically have contaminated blood regardless of sexual orientation and if they’re monogamous or not. The risk to donor staff is lower in certain groups but can never be ruled out.

Yet the article makes it sound like the risk to donor staff is specific to male donors who’ve had sex with men in the last 3 months.

I’m not getting at you, I just feel I’m more attuned to spotting homophobic prejudice as it’s relevant to me. A bit like how women are better placed to call out sexism against women etc.

Not getting at you either but the US blood service and its staff and volunteers have decided that the 3 month rule is one that carries the least risk to all.
Whether the rule is homophobic or not is not this issue, it is a separate issue entirely.

All health and safety guidelines and risk assessments to all will have been based on this rule, to then allow anyone to self identify out of the rules is putting the safety of others at risk and taking their free will away from them, we cannot know if any people would choose not to volunteer if the rule wasn't in place. Self id removes their choice from them.

 

[DoraMaar]

"We - the women - we want our bleeping stuff back. We want our women’s prisons, our women’s sports, our women’s refuges, our women’s bogs, our right to same-sex care, our bleeping WORDS. And we will not wheesht for all you jelly-spined bloviating cowardly politicians and hacks. Especially not for those who feebly wring their hands now, backtracking on their mantras because they are so bleeping stupid that they only just realised that adhering to TWAW “principles” means they must publicly side with serial rapists, and -oops!- the optics of that are making them feel a bit icky. Don’t like the sound of female rage? Find a bleeping safe-space. Of your own".

A Message to Those Recently Opining on a Risk to Women Prisoners (4w.pub)

 

[VC10]

Do they screen the blood donations for HIV, etc ?

 

[ChastityDingle]

"We - the women - we want our bleeping stuff back. We want our women’s prisons, our women’s sports, our women’s refuges, our women’s bogs, our right to same-sex care, our bleeping WORDS. And we will not wheesht for all you jelly-spined bloviating cowardly politicians and hacks. Especially not for those who feebly wring their hands now, backtracking on their mantras because they are so bleeping stupid that they only just realised that adhering to TWAW “principles” means they must publicly side with serial rapists, and -oops!- the optics of that are making them feel a bit icky. Don’t like the sound of female rage? Find a bleeping safe-space. Of your own".

A Message to Those Recently Opining on a Risk to Women Prisoners (4w.pub)

I read that piece last night, it so badly needed to be said.
I seriously hope a light has been shone on the shitshow that has been created, and that that light cannot be ignored or quenched again.

I get so angry on this topic that quite honestly words fail me, so thank you to all of you here who express so coherently what I want to say.

And lastly to echo the piece linked - we want our bleeping stuff back.

 

[mochibean]

I wonder what his goal is and who it is he’s trying to attract with his wee fairy lights, animal handbag and mean girls poster? This creep should never be allowed within 100 feet of female only spaces or schools.

Literally!! I really wanna know his end goal.. I get big creepy vibes from this guy.