J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just like you're dismissing my examples, whereas yours are prime gold? Yeah. No surprise there. And I didn't say that my experiences were specific to China. I know trans people from various countries.

As for dismissing me based on my race, you completely missed my point.



Your friend does not make the world... just as you missed/deflected away from my point about society and social media.

I didn't miss it deflect your point about social media. It's just too vague. I could claim any social change over the last 10 years and it could be responded to with "SOCIAL MEDIA". You don't have to take my points about my friend seriously but given that I never said any of his experiences were online it's a little odd to respond with "Only on social media".

I also did not say your experiences of trans people were exclusive to China. I said that I'm not surprised you had experiences of people rejecting you and telling you it's because you are white in China based on previous posts you have made about China. Never mentioned trans people

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't miss it deflect your point about social media. It's just too vague. I could claim any social change over the last 10 years and it could be responded to with "SOCIAL MEDIA". You don't have to take my points about my friend seriously but given that I never said any of his experiences were online it's a little odd to respond with "Only on social media".

No. You made the point that society had moved on, with the acceptance of trans people. I said that Society hasn't. Only social media has, which is where the only real acceptance of Trans issues has happened... on the internet, and even there, it's a conflict zone. Just because certain political groups are trying to push trans issues on to the rest of society, doesn't mean that society has accepted Trans people entirely, or even slightly. Nor should it. Trans culture itself is far too full of conflict, aggression and confusion.

I also did not say your experiences of trans people were exclusive to China. I said that I'm not surprised you had experiences of people rejecting you and telling you it's because you are white in China based on previous posts you have made about China. Never mentioned trans people

I'm beginning to wonder whether you read what you write before or after you press the submit button.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. You made the point that society had moved on, with the acceptance of trans people. I said that Society hasn't. Only social media has, which is where the only real acceptance of Trans issues has happened... on the internet, and even there, it's a conflict zone. Just because certain political groups are trying to push trans issues on to the rest of society, doesn't mean that society has accepted Trans people entirely, or even slightly. Nor should it. Trans culture itself is far too full of conflict, aggression and confusion.



I'm beginning to wonder whether you read what you write before or after you press the submit button.

That's hilarious considering I did not make either of the points you claim I did:

1. I did not say society has moved on in relation to trans issues. I said it had moved on in relation to people feeling it was ok to tell Asian people things like "sorry I'm not into Asians" during a casual conversation.

2. I did not say anything about your experiences of trans people, or mention that it was anything to do with China, as you claim I have done.

The issue is not whether I read my posts before pressing submit. It's whether you read my posts at all....

Separately since you know so many trans people are you honestly saying they feel nothing has changed for them society-wise in the last 10 years?

patnor1011

LLMMLL wrote: »

Um because not all men are gay. Why would it be homophobic lol.

Um so refusing a man because he is a gay and you are not is not homophobic but refusing a man who feel he is a woman is transphobic.

So refusing a man is not "phobic" if he is a gay but it is "phobic" if he is transgender.

I do not know if I ever understand any of this anyway.

patnor1011

LLMMLL wrote: »

Telling someone who is having a conversation with you that you wouldn't date them because they are Asian is racist.

And it's the same for trans people. You're just contributing to the horrific stereotype that trans people are sexually repulsive that we have all seen.

By telling someone you do not date them because you are not in Asians is not racist. It is you being honest.
For what reason we would be expected to lie and find some excuses?
This idea of safe spaces on steroids evolved to expecting world to be some mental asylum where some people expect to navigate life without ever get rejected or offended and to win every race. Utter crap.

JoannaJag

I think I understand what LLML is saying (or I need more sleep). If you exclude someone from your dating pool because they are trans, or too tall, or too fat that’s Ok. If you make a statement that you don’t date trans women/fat women/tall women - it might be true, but it’s a bit unkind. Once you are unkind to trans people because they are trans, that is transphobic.

The difficulty with this is that on of the most primary and basic sexual discriminations is based around hetero/homosexuality. So when lesbians say, “we don’t date men” many/most of them include transwomen in that exclusion, not because they are trans, but because they see them as men. That is sad for the transwomen, but it’s a demonstration that you absolutely cannot force people to think about you in the way that suits you. Posting pictures of baseball bats and messages like trans women are women and I’ll choke you with my lady dick if you don’t capitulate is not helping the process of encouraging people to think of trans women as the gender they wish to become.

Some people will simply never be attracted to the Mighty Peen. Some will never be into fannies, however bristly the moustache that comes with it. And that is what people are discriminating against. IMHO.

Gervais08

JoannaJag wrote: »

I think I understand what LLML is saying (or I need more sleep). If you exclude someone from your dating pool because they are trans, or too tall, or too fat that’s Ok. If you make a statement that you don’t date trans women/fat women/tall women - it might be true, but it’s a bit unkind. Once you are unkind to trans people because they are trans, that is transphobic.

The difficulty with this is that on of the most primary and basic sexual discriminations is based around hetero/homosexuality. So when lesbians say, “we don’t date men” many/most of them include transwomen in that exclusion, not because they are trans, but because they see them as men. That is sad for the transwomen, but it’s a demonstration that you absolutely cannot force people to think about you in the way that suits you. Posting pictures of baseball bats and messages like trans women are women and I’ll choke you with my lady dick if you don’t capitulate is not helping the process of encouraging people to think of trans women as the gender they wish to become.

Some people will simply never be attracted to the Mighty Peen. Some will never be into fannies, however bristly the moustache that comes with it. And that is what people are discriminating against. IMHO.

Articulately and well put, that is exactly it! If you are a gay woman who does not want to go near a penis - being told “but it’s a girls penis and we’d be having lesbian sex” is at best horse**** and at worse coercion.

Thank you!!

suicide_circus

JoannaJag wrote: »

That is sad for the transwomen, but it’s a demonstration that you absolutely cannot force people to think about you in the way that suits you.

This is the main issue with the TRA shtick:

Trans people's sense of self and self-worth being predicated on what other people say or think about them.

Class 101 in pop psychology for dummies: don't base your self esteem on the opinion of others.

Danzy

Gervais08 wrote: »

Articulately and well put, that is exactly it! If you are a gay woman who does not want to go near a penis - being told “but it’s a girls penis and we’d be having lesbian sex” is at best horse**** and at worse coercion.

Thank you!!

Might try sell some tshirts at the next "progressive" get together.

" Hung like a Mare".

Gruffalux

JoannaJag wrote: »

I think I understand what LLML is saying (or I need more sleep). If you exclude someone from your dating pool because they are trans, or too tall, or too fat that’s Ok. If you make a statement that you don’t date trans women/fat women/tall women - it might be true, but it’s a bit unkind. Once you are unkind to trans people because they are trans, that is transphobic.

The difficulty with this is that on of the most primary and basic sexual discriminations is based around hetero/homosexuality. So when lesbians say, “we don’t date men” many/most of them include transwomen in that exclusion, not because they are trans, but because they see them as men. That is sad for the transwomen, but it’s a demonstration that you absolutely cannot force people to think about you in the way that suits you. Posting pictures of baseball bats and messages like trans women are women and I’ll choke you with my lady dick if you don’t capitulate is not helping the process of encouraging people to think of trans women as the gender they wish to become.

Some people will simply never be attracted to the Mighty Peen. Some will never be into fannies, however bristly the moustache that comes with it. And that is what people are discriminating against. IMHO.

I see what you are saying, and it is correct. But I think what LLMMLL is saying is far more than that. LLMMLL has already stated that transwomen are women and also FEMALE. This is belief in an act of biological transubstantiation. This transubstantiation would mean that the genitalia the transwoman, or female, possess are now female genitalia. (Note 95% of TW do not have SRS).

LLMMLL says repeatedly they do not dictate people's sexual preferences. By their reasoning a hetero man may say I do not date men and that is not phobic. A gay man may say I do not date women and that is not phobic. However a heterosexual man or a homosexual woman who says off the bat I do not date Transwomen is transphobic, in LLMMLL's view, because they have not accepted the biological transmutation of the gender identification which has now factually rendered the transwoman a female. Thus those expressing such a preference are being discriminatory at the starting gun. They are supposed to wait and see if they happen to like the transwoman, which includes accepting that the transwoman is a de facto female, and then accept that it is not a matter of the genitalia being relevant, but the person to whom they are attached - refer to LLMMLL's post where as a gay person he says he does not discriminate interest-wise between (albeit anonymous) penises and vaginas, it depends on the person to whom they are attached. I can extrapolate from that that LLMMLL will put such a theology into real world practice and not discriminate between genitalia - but only if the person in question is trans identifying.

People who ask me would I be interested in an anonymous symbolic persons penis or vagina. I'd really have to know who that penis or vagina was attached to to answer. But that's just me. ~ LLMMLL

The transphobia arises from others, in LLMMLL's worldview, because of how that transgender person IDENTIFIES. Identification is LLMMLL's only scientific and preliminary requirement to factual transmutation of reality. Therefore we get the comparison with racial preference - the act of gender identification has created an unquestionable immutable quality of biological sex (ie Transwomen are female) which like the immutable quality of race cannot publicly be discriminated against because we have moved past that time. In LLMMLL's world view.

JoannaJag

That’s a very concerning worldview, as a rapist may self identify as having received consent.

JoannaJag

Is it only gender that can totally rely on self-identification?
Is there any other identity that can be self reported with no evidence and is legally protected?

suicide_circus

JoannaJag wrote: »

Is it only gender that can totally rely on self-identification?
Is there any other identity that can be self reported with no evidence and is legally protected?

I asked this question ages ago - it wasn't answered.

JoannaJag

I suppose we self-ID our sexuality mostly in order to find a partner. And there are people who lie about that Either to themselves or their partner.

Gruffalux

JoannaJag wrote: »

Is it only gender that can totally rely on self-identification?
Is there any other identity that can be self reported with no evidence and is legally protected?

Sittingpretty

Gruffalox wrote: »

What is this?

JoannaJag

Gruffalox wrote: »

This would be demonstrably untrue though right? Through family history records and DNA if necessary.

JoannaJag

Elizabeth Warren self-ID as Native American. Until she was caught out somehow.

Sittingpretty

JoannaJag wrote: »

Elizabeth Warren self-ID as Native American. Until she was caught out somehow.

Ah ok, thanks.

suicide_circus

Self gender ID makes some kind of sense in the paradigm of gender and biological sex being completely unrelated, i personally dont believe this but however, but whats being demanded now is that someone who identifies as the female gender is the same as someone of the female sex - an obvious absurdity but thats where we are.

Gruffalux

JoannaJag wrote: »

Elizabeth Warren self-ID as Native American. Until she was caught out somehow.

She had a DNA test which showed that somewhere maybe 6 to 10 generations back, it is 'strongly possible' that some native Indian may have been involved somewhere in the family line. I am pretty sure if I did a DNA test there would be a strong possibility of non- Irish DNA but that never prompted me to write Norse on my college applications.

volchitsa

JoannaJag wrote: »

Elizabeth Warren self-ID as Native American. Until she was caught out somehow.

Is that pic real? I thought it was something of a (mainly Trumpian) exaggeration? She said that according to family tradition, they had Native American heritage. Turned out there was, but that it was very far back and therefore a tiny percentage of her DNA - but I don't think she insisted on being given land rights in a reservation or anything?

But if we make the comparison to gender, she could have had 0% Native Am DNA and still identified as one, and that would be ok. Why is it ok for gender but not race or ethnicity?

Edit: I see it is true, here: https://www.vox.com/2018/10/16/17983250/elizabeth-warren-bar-application-american-indian-dna

The question of why that matters is till just as relevant though: why should having a minimum percentage of DNA heritage matter more than being 100% biologically male or female?

suicide_circus

Exactly, at least Warren had some native american DNA but it's obviously ridiculous for her to call herself native american, while someone with no female chromosomes, on their own say so alone, is a real and actual woman.

volchitsa

suicide_circus wrote: »

Exactly, at least Warren had some native american DNA but it's obviously ridiculous for her to call herself native american, while someone with no female chromosomes, on their own say so alone, is a real and actual woman.

The more I think about this whole trans question, with the way the vast majority of female to male trans people are young girls while the vast majority of male to female being middle aged men, the clearer it becomes to me that those are two entirely different phenomena.

And I really think that if young girls find their lives so awful that they feel the need to live as males, the solution cannot be to make them appear to be male. It has to be to find ways to make teenage girls and young women's lives more bearable.

Gruffalux

volchitsa wrote: »

The more I think about this whole trans question, with the way the vast majority of female to male trans people are young girls while the vast majority of male to female being middle aged men, the clearer it becomes to me that those are two entirely different phenomena.

And I really think that if young girls find their lives so awful that they feel the need to live as males, the solution cannot be to make them appear to be male. It has to be to find ways to make teenage girls and young women's lives more bearable.

This is one of the most heart breaking aspects. I am usually fairly hard-boiled on here and maybe harsh and cutting as I just find the ideologues to be so mind-melting. My patience has worn thin for it all. But behind all the deconstructionist bollox there is so much suffering being perpetrated in the name of this ideology. It is very hard to actually emotionally encompass it. As I have been researching this area for several years now I follow various people who have viewpoints and without fail every day there is another child or two who is trying to identify out of some misery.
And the ideology is being pushed largely from the Trans identifying older males and is being lapped up like holy milk by highly disturbed very young girls. Girls who see pornification of the culture all around them, and who are now suddenly the subject of the sexual gaze, and who have to go through the undeniable trauma that is vast changes of puberty at the same time. IT is enough to make one quite sad and very angry.

briangriffin

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've VERY CLEARLY stated MULTIPLE TIMES that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know why people are or are not attracted to who they are attracted to.

I can 100% say for me that A penis and ballsack are not attractive to me and I wouldn't date anyone with those, I'm fond of the female genitalia you would have me believe that makes me transphobic, thats the insanity of whats being peddled here

Gervais08

Thar is indeed heartbreaking but one of the worst saddest aspects for me is parents proudly telling the world they have a trans toddler.

It’s pathetic attention seeking on their part and trying to be on the latest trend.

If your three year old son wants to dress as Elsa or your wee girl wants to play football in the mud - let them, stop sending them down a path of medication, therapy and anxiety.

AllForIt

I find it hard to believe anyone would pass up a shag even if they were racist. Especially gay men. I personally find gay male Asians to be more on the effeminate side than most for whatever reason that is and that would not be my cup of tea. Not because they are physically from Asia or not the same nationality as I.

However I have learned certainly as far as dating apps are concerned not to say what your're not into, and that's one thing I would agree with LLMMLL on. Recently I said on my Grindr profile 'I'm into most types of guys except skinny'. Shortly after skimming though some profiles an extremely skinny guy said on his profile "...yeah and I'm skinny so tough luck all you skinny haters'. So even on non-race issues it seems people are hyper sensitive these days. I'll just ignore the ppl I'm not interested in from now on.


Although LLMMLL says 'I'm not forcing you to sleep with someone you don't want' the discourse around this arose by transgender activists saying that gay men discriminate against transgender men. As I said I find it hard to believe a gay man would pass up a shag - for any other reason than they're not sexually attracted to them. And I'm afraid it's not just about private parts. Sexual attraction begins at the skin level I believe ,and then there's pheromones as well. Men smell like men, women smell like women. We wear scents that reflect that. My mums perfume would not suit me and my Dads musky cologne would not suit my mom. So I would shag a man who lost his dick in an accident because he still looks and smells like a man but I would not get the vibe I'm looking from a transgender man for the reasons I've outlined. Whether that vibe can be created artificially though hormone replacement I don't know but I doubt it.

I'll leave you with a line from The Science of the Lambs - "I can smell your c*nt". I'm sure he could too.

Gruffalux

AllForIt wrote: »

Although LLMMLL says 'I'm not forcing you to sleep with someone you don't want' the discourse around this arose by transgender activists saying that gay men discriminate against transgender men. As I said I find it hard to believe a gay man would pass up a shag - for any other reason than they're not sexually attracted to them. And I'm afraid it's not just about private parts. Sexual attraction begins at the skin level I believe ,and then there's pheromones as well. Men smell like men, women smell like women. We wear scents that reflect that. My mums perfume would not suit me and my Dads musky cologne would not suit my mom. So I would shag a man who lost his dick in an accident because he still looks and smells like a man but I would not get the vibe I'm looking from a transgender man for the reasons I've outlined. Whether that vibe can be created artificially though hormone replacement I don't know but I doubt it.

I'll leave you with a line from The Science of the Lambs - "I can smell your c*nt". I'm sure he could too.

Well explained. Bravo.

LLMMLL

briangriffin wrote: »

I can 100% say for me that A penis and ballsack are not attractive to me and I wouldn't date anyone with those, I'm fond of the female genitalia you would have me believe that makes me transphobic, thats the insanity of whats being peddled here

That's lovely thank you for the update. And again, I never said that not being into penises makes someone trabsphobic. What makes them trabsphobic is that they feel the need to come into a thread in trans rights and advertise that they don't find trans people attractive. It's clearly an attempt to dehumanise trans people.