Gender Discussion #56

[Metropolis]

Hi. Hope everyone's well.

I've been reading along here and there but stopped posting as I felt my contributions weren't welcome.

I saw @Sir Lancelot's posts and I too have seen that this thread can be quite hostile.

For me, the issue is that the thread title is misleading. It isn't a Gender discussion thread, it's a Gender critical discussion thread and that distinction is important.

If the thread were named correctly it would stop someone like me jumping in to criticise someone for disrespecting someone's pronouns as I know there'd be no point. The fact is there is no room for discussion as everyone here is GC and if you're not GC your opinion is likely to be disregarded or simply laughed at.

Ultimately, I'm never going to say that trans women aren't women because I don't believe that.

This thread taught me about AGPs, which I wasn't aware of before. It is frightening that there are men wanting to take advantage of trans-ness and pretend to be a trans woman to gain access to women's spaces. Unfortunately, there are always going to be predators out there and I don't think it's fair or accurate to to put the blame on trans-ness for that.

Trans is real, trans is valid. As is non-binary. We can agree to disagree on that. Or disagree to disagree!

This thread criticises people for using and 'pushing' certain terminologies but I was told off for referring to a gay woman as 'queer'. I am a bisexual woman (yes, a biological woman) who identities as queer. I now know it's offensive to GC lesbians to refer to them as queer. My point is you are always going to inadvertently offend someone with your choice of words.

This is the only thread where I've felt scared or apprehensive to post for fear of rudeness and rebuttal. And I was polite and willing to learn and yet distrusted and put on ignore by certain people.

I happily looked at GC resources shared and even shared some of my own GC aligned findings. Did I dare send anything supportive of trans people? No. This isn't a two-way street.

So although I learned things from this thread, I remain an advocate for trans people and won't be contributing further.

Cue responses about science and biology and 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' and 'we knew we were right not to welcome you here' or 'I'm not reading all that'. If you want to learn about why trans people are valid human beings feel free to watch some Contrapoints videos on YouTube.

The thing is, Elle, that most people here value discussion and respectful debate and also evidence-based arguments. No one is saying that people who say they are trans have less validity as human beings than people who don’t say they are trans. Every person is a human being and objectively has equal value, whatever belief system they adhere to.

You say that ultimately, I'm never going to say that trans women aren't women because I don't believe that. I am interested in why you believe transwomen are women and what informs your beliefs?

How would you distinguish between an AGP who says they ‘feel like a woman inside’ and a confused, autistic teen girl who wants to opt out of womanhood because of social pressures on girls and young women? How can someone be something they’ve never and will never experience? The logic just doesn’t stand up. Why would you believe a trans woman is a woman because they feel they are (because ultimately that is all you have to go on) and not that an anorexic person is large because they feel they are? I am interested in what makes people believe this ideology.

 

[BlairWaldorf86]

Maybe we need to start naming this threads Gender Critical or Gender Ideology? That would be fine by me.

I vote no. It’s served us well for 56 threads and shouldn’t be changed because one person doesn’t think it’s accurate enough.

@Elle, what do you mean by “trans people are valid”? What does “valid” mean when you apply it to people? What would make someone “invalid”?

 

[maytoseptember]

I vote no. It’s served us well for 56 threads and shouldn’t be changed because one person doesn’t think it’s accurate enough.

To be fair it’s come up a couple of times before. People (perhaps disingenuously) coming here saying “It says GENDER discussion, so I thought we could speak positively about trans issues in here!”

 

[Vanelope]

GC people are the only ones who discuss gender because Stonewall initiated no debate and demanded everyone accept their viewpoint without question. This is the only thread that we can air these views without being reported so that is why everyone has ended up here.

Anyone can come in here and speak positively of trans issues, but they shouldn’t be surprised that those of us who think it is nonsense ask for reasons why they think that way and can debate those points. We have had practice and have usually read around the subject when coming to this point of view. Many of us used to think that the trans people should be able to live their lives, but now I don’t actually think trans is an actual concept and affirming their mental illness is malpractice.

On Strictly - I actually don’t understand what a person’s sexuality has to do with their dancing partner? Given how many professional male dancers are gay and had female dancing partners their entire competition career. The ‘relationships’ that the dancers create have strayed into ‘strictly curse’ territory but John Whaite was hardly afraid that Katya would be all over him. Or does he dislike women? (I don’t think so after seeing him on Bake Off). I think he wanted a headline and made his demands and the BBC decided it would be a ratings winner to have same sex partnerships. Susan Calman wanted to learn to dance and didn’t see the need for a female partner. Layton this series was the ringiest ringer there ever was and that is why he didn’t win, not because it was two men dancing, but he got a whole lot of publicity and that will help his career immeasurably. He is very talented.

All female partnerships exist in competition because of a lack of men. The Argentine vaqueros learned the tango with each other before they were allowed to dance with the women - as women were scarce.

 

[Scotch Mist]

GC people are the only ones who discuss gender because Stonewall initiated no debate and demanded everyone accept their viewpoint without question. This is the only thread that we can air these views without being reported so that is why everyone has ended up here.

Anyone can come in here and speak positively of trans issues, but they shouldn’t be surprised that those of us who think it is nonsense ask for reasons why they think that way and can debate those points. We have had practice and have usually read around the subject when coming to this point of view. Many of us used to think that the trans people should be able to live their lives, but now I don’t actually think trans is an actual concept and affirming their mental illness is malpractice.

On Strictly - I actually don’t understand what a person’s sexuality has to do with their dancing partner? Given how many professional male dancers are gay and had female dancing partners their entire competition career. The ‘relationships’ that the dancers create have strayed into ‘strictly curse’ territory but John Whaite was hardly afraid that Katya would be all over him. Or does he dislike women? (I don’t think so after seeing him on Bake Off). I think he wanted a headline and made his demands and the BBC decided it would be a ratings winner to have same sex partnerships. Susan Calman wanted to learn to dance and didn’t see the need for a female partner. Layton this series was the ringiest ringer there ever was and that is why he didn’t win, not because it was two men dancing, but he got a whole lot of publicity and that will help his career immeasurably. He is very talented.

All female partnerships exist in competition because of a lack of men. The Argentine vaqueros learned the tango with each other before they were allowed to dance with the women - as women were scarce.

I don't watch 'strictly' so don't really care about whether they have same sex couples but I do take your point that it's a bit forced and the dancers sexuality is surely irrelevant.
There's always been gay dancers, and gay actors playing straight parts. I guess people think it's about representation 🫠

 

[maytoseptember]

There's always been gay dancers, and gay actors playing straight parts. I guess people think it's about representation 🫠

Bingo. “Representation” is the key word here and the BBC are seemingly obsessed with it. Which is why we have endless TQ+ stories written into everything from Casualty to Doctors (I haven’t forgotten the pro-furry storyline ) and Russell T Davies has been welcomed back to Doctor Who to make the series even more “queer” than it was during his last tenure. The gayness of Torchwood seems tame compared with the “asking an alien its pronouns” episode…

 

[Lynn’ssnazzycardigan]

I wondered where you had gone @Elle. It’s disappointing you turned out to be another handmaiden but at least you have confirmed this. Meanwhile we will be here as always, fighting the good fight because it’s actually women (adult human females) who need allies.

 

[scrummybrendan]

I have a very interesting story here.

Not sure if you lot are aware of a tiktoker called Kala the engineer. Basically she is a slightly strange woman who's been tiktoking her progress of building an underground tunnel system and storm shelter under her house.

Basically there has been a lot of controversy recently because she hasn't had the right permits for it and is also living on this tiny plot of land in the middle of suburban north Virginia. She is also not an engineer and has no engineering experience.

BUT the biggest thing to be unveiled during this is all is the fact that Kala isn't an Indian engineer woman at all, but in actual fact a white man identifying as one.

Kala in videos:

Kala as her actual white male identity and her new Indian name:

So we have an actual case of a trans woman identifying as another race/culture and platforms such as reddit are banning any mention of this information. It's a bit mad as there are literally posts on there displaying details of the plot of land he lives on and the loans he's taken out against his house, but God forbid you mention he's wearing Indian woman face???

 

[Ravenstown]

I need some LSD.

 

[VC10]

I have a very interesting story here.

Not sure if you lot are aware of a tiktoker called Kala the engineer. Basically she is a slightly strange woman who's been tiktoking her progress of building an underground tunnel system and storm shelter under her house.

Basically there has been a lot of controversy recently because she hasn't had the right permits for it and is also living on this tiny plot of land in the middle of suburban north Virginia. She is also not an engineer and has no engineering experience.

BUT the biggest thing to be unveiled during this is all is the fact that Kala isn't an Indian engineer woman at all, but in actual fact a white man identifying as one.

Kala in videos:
View attachment 2671816
Kala as her actual white male identity and her new Indian name:

View attachment 2671817

So we have an actual case of a trans woman identifying as another race/culture and platforms such as reddit are banning any mention of this information. It's a bit mad as there are literally posts on there displaying details of the plot of land he lives on and the loans he's taken out against his house, but God forbid you mention he's wearing Indian woman face???

Another prize enabled bleep.

 

[klarakluckbag]

Ultimately, I'm never going to say that trans women aren't women because I don't believe that.

And, as they say, science is true whether or not you believe it.

It's interesting when women say that they "believe" that TWAW, it's like they know deep down that it's not true. Like children believing in Santa, or fairies, it's a little fantasy that makes us feel warm and safe when we're young, and I wonder if the handmaidens "believe" for similar reasons? They don't want to know that men pretend to be women to gain power over us, to beat us at sports, to make us feel uncomfortable, to walk all over our rights. The don't understand the hatred for women that these men have, they don't realise that they're laughing at us. I honestly can't believe that in this age of scientific knowledge, where we have populated another planet with our robots, where we have invented vaccines for serious diseases, where we have contraception, brain surgery, electric cars and indoor plumbing, we're actually being expected to believe that a man in a dress is perfectly entitled to enter a women's sporting competition, win it, be lauded for his efforts, and be recognised as a woman? If you'd said this, even 10 years ago, you'd have been laughed out of town.

 

[Funny_bunny]

I really don’t understand how a man can claim to feel like a woman as how on earth can he possibly know how women feel? I’m female, and I only know how it feels to be me. I can’t answer for how any other woman feels because each and every one of us is different. Some of us are more traditionally feminine , some more masculine but that doesn’t change the fact we have XX chromosomes and that’s what makes us biologically female. I honestly think being progressive and kind should mean that we accept this and don’t expect people to behave according to horrible outdated stereotypes. We should all be able to be ourselves and it’s fine for men to more feminine or women more masculine, but biology can’t be changed. A trans identifying male is no different to any other man. I know it’s an anology often used here but no one would think helping an anoxeric lose weight is appropriate or kind, and it’s the same thing. The body isn’t wrong, it’s the self perception. Women only spaces exist for a reason and I for one do not want biological men in the regardless how how they see themselves.

 

[Mugglewump]

Hi. Hope everyone's well.

I've been reading along here and there but stopped posting as I felt my contributions weren't welcome.

I saw @Sir Lancelot's posts and I too have seen that this thread can be quite hostile.

For me, the issue is that the thread title is misleading. It isn't a Gender discussion thread, it's a Gender critical discussion thread and that distinction is important.

If the thread were named correctly it would stop someone like me jumping in to criticise someone for disrespecting someone's pronouns as I know there'd be no point. The fact is there is no room for discussion as everyone here is GC and if you're not GC your opinion is likely to be disregarded or simply laughed at.

Ultimately, I'm never going to say that trans women aren't women because I don't believe that.

This thread taught me about AGPs, which I wasn't aware of before. It is frightening that there are men wanting to take advantage of trans-ness and pretend to be a trans woman to gain access to women's spaces. Unfortunately, there are always going to be predators out there and I don't think it's fair or accurate to to put the blame on trans-ness for that.

Trans is real, trans is valid. As is non-binary. We can agree to disagree on that. Or disagree to disagree!

This thread criticises people for using and 'pushing' certain terminologies but I was told off for referring to a gay woman as 'queer'. I am a bisexual woman (yes, a biological woman) who identities as queer. I now know it's offensive to GC lesbians to refer to them as queer. My point is you are always going to inadvertently offend someone with your choice of words.

This is the only thread where I've felt scared or apprehensive to post for fear of rudeness and rebuttal. And I was polite and willing to learn and yet distrusted and put on ignore by certain people.

I happily looked at GC resources shared and even shared some of my own GC aligned findings. Did I dare send anything supportive of trans people? No. This isn't a two-way street.

So although I learned things from this thread, I remain an advocate for trans people and won't be contributing further.

Cue responses about science and biology and 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' and 'we knew we were right not to welcome you here' or 'I'm not reading all that'. If you want to learn about why trans people are valid human beings feel free to watch some Contrapoints videos on YouTube.

Transwomen are women but AGP's aren't.
Ha.
We've just found your peaking point, most people have one.
How are you going to police the 'nice', Transwomen going into the women's spaces, but not the horrible AGP's??
There is no logic in this, you've just demonstrated that.

 

[gigilouxx]

People can have their own beliefs, but don’t start moaning and crying offence when actual women dont want to be grouped in with the entitled, period obsessed, predatory perverts who make us and millions of others feel nothing but uncomfortable and threatened.

 

[Funny_bunny]

Transwomen are women but AGP's aren't.
Ha.
We've just found your peaking point, most people have one.
How are you going to police the 'nice', Transwomen going into the women's spaces, but not the horrible AGP's??
There is no logic in this, you've just demonstrated that.

That’s exactly it. Men suffering from gender dysphoria, AGPs who get euphoria from being perceived as women and for lack of a better description, “male identifying men” (as I won’t use c*i*s) are all exactly the same underneath regardless of clothes, make up, freaky surgery and inappropriate cross hormones.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

The thing with AGP's is is that to me pandering to that is pandering to the sexual violation of women. They get off on it, it is sexual arousing for them. They are perverts for the lack of a better word, the get semis from making women uncomfortable, listening to us pee and taking power away from us when they know, thanks to our idiot population who just don't want to think any deeper about it, that we can't speak up any more.

It's such a violation. It is a form of sexual abuse. And it's people like you Ellie that are enabling it.

 

[Hansnoms Mumma]

So are we kind to these people too, and remove their healthy limbs? Or do we get their mental illness treated?? Because it's the exact same thing! Transdisabled. duck me.

 

[Ekathrina]

How are we to know that the big, hefty, obviously male born individual in the toilet cubicle next to us is an AGP or a ‘real’ trans woman? It’s not like AGPs walk round with a sign announcing themselves as one.
Plus, given that a large majority of presumably ‘real’ trans women walk round in skimpy, fetishised and over sexualised attire it’s almost like there’s a massive crossover of these two categories anyway.

 

[gimm3more]

Hi. Hope everyone's well.

I've been reading along here and there but stopped posting as I felt my contributions weren't welcome.

I saw @Sir Lancelot's posts and I too have seen that this thread can be quite hostile.

For me, the issue is that the thread title is misleading. It isn't a Gender discussion thread, it's a Gender critical discussion thread and that distinction is important.

If the thread were named correctly it would stop someone like me jumping in to criticise someone for disrespecting someone's pronouns as I know there'd be no point. The fact is there is no room for discussion as everyone here is GC and if you're not GC your opinion is likely to be disregarded or simply laughed at.

Ultimately, I'm never going to say that trans women aren't women because I don't believe that.

This thread taught me about AGPs, which I wasn't aware of before. It is frightening that there are men wanting to take advantage of trans-ness and pretend to be a trans woman to gain access to women's spaces. Unfortunately, there are always going to be predators out there and I don't think it's fair or accurate to to put the blame on trans-ness for that.

Trans is real, trans is valid. As is non-binary. We can agree to disagree on that. Or disagree to disagree!

This thread criticises people for using and 'pushing' certain terminologies but I was told off for referring to a gay woman as 'queer'. I am a bisexual woman (yes, a biological woman) who identities as queer. I now know it's offensive to GC lesbians to refer to them as queer. My point is you are always going to inadvertently offend someone with your choice of words.

This is the only thread where I've felt scared or apprehensive to post for fear of rudeness and rebuttal. And I was polite and willing to learn and yet distrusted and put on ignore by certain people.

I happily looked at GC resources shared and even shared some of my own GC aligned findings. Did I dare send anything supportive of trans people? No. This isn't a two-way street.

So although I learned things from this thread, I remain an advocate for trans people and won't be contributing further.

Cue responses about science and biology and 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' and 'we knew we were right not to welcome you here' or 'I'm not reading all that'. If you want to learn about why trans people are valid human beings feel free to watch some Contrapoints videos on YouTube.

nobody’s denying trans people are not “valid human beings” lmao ofc they’re human beings - just mentally unwell, attention seekers or raging male perverts (or all 3)

 

[AbnormalFrog]

'TWAW' possibly the most meaningless phrase in existence. Of course they are. And I'm a Victoria's Secret model.

The fact that I'm chubby and 5'1 is irrelevant, because I iDeNtiFy as a 6'1 and skinny