The Green Party has some serious questions to answer

[spanglechick]

From the stonewall definition

"
TRANS
An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois."

DC dressed in clothes traditionally associated with females and used a traditionally feminine name of "Lucy" while doing this.

Is DC a cross dresser?
Are they only a cross dresser if they say "I am a cross dresser"?

I know it's a long thread but I think I went through this yesterday.

Trans is an umbrella term representing the T in LGBTQ+. As your quote shows it includes a whole stack of groups, only one of which is transgender. Another is crossdressers. Both are "trans" groups. However, crossdressers are not transgender. When Stonewall campaigns for transgender people to be able to self ID, they are not campaigning for everyone under the trans umbrella to have that. It would be weird, since overwhelmingly, most groups included under the T, don't want that.

It's unfortunate that "trans" gets used as a short form of the word transgender. If I were stonewall I'd want to do something about that.

 

[Athos]

lazy tool...

None of which accounts to an assertion that "a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent."

 

[xenon]

Plenty of people have implied that on the thread

I don’t trust your inferring abilities. I’m saying you are talking shit.

 

[SpackleFrog]

None of which accounts to an assertion that "a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent."

Plenty of people have implied that on the thread

I didn't say asserted, I said implied.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I don’t trust your inferring abilities. I’m saying you are talking shit.

Well, idgaf. Night!

 

[xenon]

Yeah well whatever. Shame I thought you were better than this.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Trans is an umbrella term representing the T in LGBTQ+. As your quote shows it includes a whole stack of groups, only one of which is transgender. Another is crossdressers. Both are "trans" groups. However, crossdressers are not transgender. When Stonewall campaigns for transgender people to e able to self ID, they are not campaigning for everyone under the trans umbrella to have that.

Well, I'm not really sure its that clear.

Yes, there is "legal" self-ID - changing passports, birth certs etc, but there is also social self-ID.

Eddie Izzard has written in his autobiography about how he was bullied by teen girls for using a womens toilet....which he had no right to be in. The clear implication was that these cigarette smoking, school skipping harlots were completely out of order and he was oh so brave and strong for standing up to them.

At the moment, someone who had a GRC would not be changing back into their male persona...or if they were, they would not be using the womens toilets. But in future? What checks are there that a cross dresser (like Izzard) doesnt go and get a GRC so that the next time that young girls question them about why they are in a secluded space that is reserved for women they can produce it with a flourish.

You say Stonewall are not campaigning for that, fair enough, but how are they preventing it?

Eddie Izzard on beating the bullies and sorting his sexuality

 

[Athos]

I didn't say asserted, I said implied.

You didn't say "implied", you originally said "say." Here's the full quote:

"But it's a whole jump beyond that to say that a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent." (My emphasis)

You've now changed that to implied, but the posts you quoted don't imply any such thing. It's a straw man.

 

[SpackleFrog]

You didn't say "implied", you originally said "say." Here's the full quote:

"But it's a whole jump beyond that to say that a fetish means someone is therefore an abuser of someone else who doesn't consent." (My emphasis)

You've now changed that to implied, but the posts you quoted don't imply any such thing. It's a straw man.

Give over! They all imply exactly that - one of them even says that baby fetishes are "evidence of basic wrong 'unness."

 

[Athos]

Give over! They all imply exactly that - one of them even says that baby fetishes are "evidence of basic wrong 'unness."

We can agree to disagree.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?

How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?

 

[Wilf]

Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?

How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?

I generally hold to a bog standard 'consenting adults' line - providing that 'consent' is real and not just a by product of other power imbalances. But there's no contradiction to thinking that, whilst it's still up to consenting adults, 'gee, that's really fucked up'.

 

[andysays]

Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?

How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?

I think the argument is (or should be) more about whether someone who enjoys that behaviour as consensual activity can or should be banned from taking part in political activity of whatever sort.

As long as they aren't actually campaigning for acts of non-consensual and/or underage sex acts to be made legal (and no one has demonstrated that anyone in the current case has done that), I'd be wary about banning them simply because they like doing stuff which you, me and many other people find distasteful or even 'really fucked up'.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

I generally hold to a bog standard 'consenting adults' line - providing that 'consent' is real and not just a by product of other power imbalances. But there's no contradiction to thinking that, whilst it's still up to consenting adults, 'gee, that's really fucked up'.

That is true. But politically speaking I neither want an adult baby fetishist speaking on the dissmantling of safeguarding and gatekeeping for women and children. Nor do I want someone who wanks off to the thought of fucking children. Or who gets off on "child sex dolls".

Because all those are examples of consenting adult behaviour and/or do not use actual real life kids. Still dodgy as fuck though.

 

[Pickman's model]

I generally hold to a bog standard 'consenting adults' line - providing that 'consent' is real and not just a by product of other power imbalances. But there's no contradiction to thinking that, whilst it's still up to consenting adults, 'gee, that's really fucked up'.

i'm sure i'm not alone when i think the people in the spanner case should have had every right to have whatever they like done to their bodies, that it's not the place of the state to police consenting adults acting in private. and if it's not the place of the state to govern sexual mores between consenting adults, then - as you say - it may be fucked up, but who's to judge? how do you identify this rather peculiar practice as beyond the pale, undermining participants' ability to work in certain fields because of their bedroom behaviour? how about dressing up in school uniforms?

 

[Santino]

There are lots of kind of behaviours and beliefs that you wouldn't want people to do/have that you nonetheless would find it difficult to regulate in a formal way.

For example, you wouldn't want someone who didn't understand or believe certain basic scientific facts to be in certain positions of authority, but it would be very difficult to codify that in a rule, or 'ban' them from those positions.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's a dangerous path to go down to say that you think something should be legal (involving consenting adults and with no victim, so you can't think of any reason why it should be illegal), but that you nonetheless judge those who do it in such away that you would want to exclude them from certain other areas of life. We're straying into Section 28 territory here.

 

[crossthebreeze]

I think the argument is (or should be) more about whether someone who enjoys that behaviour as consensual activity can or should be banned from taking part in political activity of whatever sort.

As long as they aren't actually campaigning for acts of non-consensual and/or underage sex acts to be made legal (and no one has demonstrated that anyone in the current case has done that), I'd be wary about banning them simply because they like doing stuff which you, me and many other people find distasteful or even 'really fucked up'.

I don't think its about the state or organisations banning people from doing certain things or occupying political positions - but more that such activity isn't above question when it is relevant to the issues a politician is campaigning on (eg I I would say anything that might impact on safeguarding) especially when said a politician is open or semi-open about their activity (ie has social media accounts where they post pictures of themselves in nappies or whatever).

 

[Wilf]

That is true. But politically speaking I neither want an adult baby fetishist speaking on the dissmantling of safeguarding and gatekeeping for women and children. Nor do I want someone who wanks off to the thought of fucking children. Or who gets off on "child sex dolls".

Because all those are examples of consenting adult behaviour and/or do not use actual real life kids. Still dodgy as fuck though.

Neither do I (technically, I'm not sure whether the underlined is what people with this fetish actually think 'in the moment' - I really don't know). But to clarify, that's something I literally wouldn't want as a personal subjective position. I've got plenty of similar personal reactions to people I wouldn't want to be anywhere near me, my (imaginary) kids etc. More than happy to admit to that. However making that into public policy or incorporating it into safeguarding is a different matter.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

Are we seriously going to have an argument that there's nothing "wrongun" about getting sexual gratification by pretending you are a baby and getting fucked "in character"?

How about the part where you're actively sexualising the fucking of babies?

While there will be exceptions, adult baby fetishism isn’t really about the fucking.

 

[Wilf]

It's a dangerous path to go down to say that you think something should be legal (involving consenting adults and with no victim, so you can't think of any reason why it should be illegal), but that you nonetheless judge those who do it in such away that you would want to exclude them from certain other areas of life. We're straying into Section 28 territory here.

Rather depends what you mean by 'judge'. We judge on a routine basis, in our interactions with people, our discussions of topics. 'Judge' as in taking a formal public positon, from which certain actions and rules follow is very different (and something I'd agree with you on).

 

[kebabking]

... how about dressing up in school uniforms?

perhaps it just depends on context - Mr and Mrs Bloggs, who are Architects/Librarians/garage mechanics/civil servants, its all just consenting adults and who cares. Mr and Mrs Jones, and Mr Jones is a School Teacher in a sixth form - its certainly straying well into uncomfortable territory.

for me, personally, yes, the particulars of this individual case take it well beyond 'eewww', and well into 'fuck off to the other side of fuck, and when you get there fuck off some more' territory. i'm very happy for the Green Party to take that as an indication of my attiude to this individual candidate, and as a wider view of the kind of people they select as candidates..

 

[SheilaNaGig]

While there will be exceptions, adult baby fetishism isn’t really about the fucking.

But it has nothing to do with children. I want to make sure we’re making that very clear. This is about wanting to act like or be children, not wanting to be with children, correct?
Absolutely. It has nothing to do with actual children. The gratification comes from the objects or the role play and the persons themselves “being” the child. From a fetish standpoint it could be like… being treated as a child can be a degrading thing. If someone has a sexual response to being degraded, then being treated as an infant can be very embarrassing.

Tell me about the non-fetish side of it.
For people who are into it for non-sexual reasons, it’s more of an emotional response rather than a sexual stimulus. There’s a comforting aspect for them. A lot of the things we offer are just that — they’re meant to be comforting. They’re meant to be something innocent. So, as far as these people go, there are two real segments in that crowd: There are people who are on the autism spectrum, and then those who are not but who still find it comforting. People who are autistic or more specifically have Asperger syndrome, often times have social anxiety, and products like our can offer a security blanket of sorts which help them deal with stress or anxiety. For those who aren’t autistic, it can also be a way for them to forget about their cares — to be a stress release. It really is as simple as that for a lot of people. The biggest thing as far as stress relief comes from the actual product themselves. It’s basically an accessory to the moment, whether it be the diapers or anything else that we have. And some people who are incontinent buy our products because they remove that stigma for them. It brings back some of the innocence from childhood rather than being a medical product or rather than being an overtly fetish product. It’s also very personal for different people. I could probably give you a thousand different answers and I still wouldn’t cover all of them.

Inside The Misunderstood World Of Adult Baby Diaper Lovers

Confusing infantilism with pedophilia is a common misunderstanding[12] but infantilism involves role-playing exclusively with other adults;[13] infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any form of child sexual abuse.[14] Sexologist Gloria Brame states that "...infantilists who recognize and accept their sexuality - and its possible roots in infantile trauma - tend to be acutely protective of real children."[7]

John Money states that diaper fetishists may be sexually attracted to diaper-wearing babies, a condition he calls nepiophilia, but describes infantilism as autonepiophilia in which the individual desires to be and impersonate a baby and does not desire an infant as a sexual partner.[34]

Paraphilic infantilism - Wikipedia

 

[Wilf]

perhaps it just depends on context - Mr and Mrs Bloggs, who are Architects/Librarians/garage mechanics/civil servants, its all just consenting adults and who cares. Mr and Mrs Jones, and Mr Jones is a School Teacher in a sixth form - its certainly straying well into uncomfortable territory.

..

I'm probably somewhere around the same position, though what you do (if anything) about people and practices that stray into uncomfortable territory is more difficult.

Worth saying of course that the bigger threats to children come from where they've always come.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

perhaps it just depends on context - Mr and Mrs Bloggs, who are Architects/Librarians/garage mechanics/civil servants, its all just consenting adults and who cares. Mr and Mrs Jones, and Mr Jones is a School Teacher in a sixth form - its certainly straying well into uncomfortable territory..

Who gets to draw that line, though? For instance, Mr and Mrs Jones enjoy role play. Mr J (or mrs, or both, or likes being the one doing it) likes being tied up and whipped/fucked with a strap-on/whatever. Maybe they sometimes invite friends to join in. What side of the line is that on for Mr Jones the schoolteacher? At what point does it cross the line of 'none of your business', and who decides?

If our hypothetical Mr Jones likes being tied up and slapped about, that doesn't mean he has any inclination to do that to his students, does it? If he were, let us say, to try to get one of his students to join in, that would be as out of order as any other sexual advance towards a student. Are people into BDSM more likely than people who are not into BDSM to lack that particular bit to their moral code?

 

[SheilaNaGig]

And just by the way, there are lots of good studies that strongly suggest that BDSM folk are actually pretty healthy emotionally. Obviously not all of them, obviously there are exceptions, obviously there are plenty of predators and obviously it’s a place where emotionally unwell people can express their fucked up-ness in very florid and unpleasant ways and so forth.

But because some high profile wrong’uns find a bolt hole in the kink world doesn’t mean kink equates to wrongness.


People Who Have This Type Of Sex May Be Healthier

 

[Wilf]

Who gets to draw that line, though?

I've had a call from the daily mail, they said they'll give it a go.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't really care that much about the Green Party but I do wonder whether they are losing their way a bit. I get that they can't be a single issue party and they need to have the relevant policies that they believe will appeal. However first and foremost surely a green party candidate should be an environmental champion and the other policies stem from this?

I googled 'Aimee Challenor environmental' and there were very few useful hits. There is tons of stuff about gender and identity but very little about the environment. I get that she had a particular brief and she can't control the questions or indeed a lot of the stuff people choose to focus on but, I dunno from everything I've read she seems like an odd candidate. As I say though its their party.

I'm a Green Party member. I've met AC briefly at a GP thing in 2017. They are pushy, rude and quite frankly abusive of anyone that doesn't agree with them, but the party hierarchy wanted to be seen as "up" on trans and youth issues, so their behaviour was excused. As for her father, while Aimee was in care around the time the crime for which he was prosecuted took place (for, I believe, their threat to "cyber attack" a shopping centre ), I'm not convinced that they could have been unaware of their father's predelictions, nor that they were not in turned damaged by knowing about them.

 

[Wilf]

I've had a call from the daily mail, they said they'll give it a go.

Actually, (weak) jokes aside, there's something in that. Issues about teachers who once worked as an escort or go to sex parties are assessed and processed by the right wing media - that's how the lines are created. 'We'/the public rarely have any input into those debates.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think you can blame anonymous trolls for Challenor's brony proclivities.

Either she is a vulnerable young person who wasn't aware of the rules, in which case why on earth did the Greens push her forward into leadership roles, or she knows exactly what she was doing, in which case she's unsuitable for public office. Either way, she's not fit to be a candidate.

TBH I blame the Greens much more than her. She's clearly a very damaged young person but she's not that bright, has mental health issues and has only been propelled through the ranks because she's trans. That's not at all fair on her

GP was enamored of the idea of being relevant to "the kids" AND to a section of the LGBT community. They let their guard slip, and now they're paying the price. That said, Challoner, whether with their father's pushing, or solo, did put themselves forward and push themselves forward for those roles, but the GP should have been much more "self-aware" than they were. Sadly, people think there's a big party organisation looking after the bureaucratic side of things, when actually "central office" has a handful of full-timers, and a lot of stuff done by local and regional activists.