Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Miranda Yardley]

Roz wasnt referred to as 'he' when she appeared on After Dark in 1988, but its already fairly clear that misgendering them is part of your own stance and politics on these issues.

I think you are a disgrace and a shit gatekeeper.

I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to be a 'gatekeeper' for. It's not my rule that means that men cannot be women (or males female).

 

[elbows]

I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to be a 'gatekeeper' for. It's not my rule that means that men cannot be women (or males female).

Its not a rule, its a belief system, a way of interpreting the world and the people in it. Of which you have your own special extreme version which succeeds in making my blood boil.

 

[8ball]

Is this one of those games where you say something, then pretend you didn't say it, and rinse and repeat in the hope that some fool thinks there is a cogent argument backing up their prejudices?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Its not a rule, its a belief system, a way of interpreting the world and the people in it. Of which you have your own special extreme version which succeeds in making my blood boil.

Sure, find me a single instance of a male who produced an egg which was fertilised which he then gestated.

It's not bigotry, prejudiced or hateful to recognise facts.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Is this one of those games where you say something, then pretend you didn't say it, and rinse and repeat in the hope that some fool thinks there is a cogent argument backing up their prejudices?

Was this aimed at me? If so, what in particular are you referring to?

 

[8ball]

Was this aimed at me? If so, what in particular are you referring to?

This would be the "pretending you didn't say it" phase.
For CBA reasons I'll just wait til you reach the other side of the circle and point it out then.

 

[mojo pixy]

Sure, find me a single instance of a male who produced an egg which was fertilised which he then gestated.

It's not bigotry, prejudiced or hateful to recognise facts.

 

[elbows]

Oh yeah, facts are fun.

Facts like you being such a fuckwit, with such crude methods, that from time to time you've ended up called cis women men on twitter, because you decided they were trans and were wrong. The useless depths to which your beliefs lead you.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

This would be the "pretending you didn't say it" phase.
For CBA reasons I'll just wait til you reach the other side of the circle and point it out then.

What you really mean is 'I don't like what you say but I can't explain why because I don't have a substantive argument'.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Facts like you being such a fuckwit

Funny how you descend so quickly into outright abuse.

 

[8ball]

What you really mean is 'I don't like what you say but I can't explain why because I don't have a substantive argument'.

<taps watch...>

 

[elbows]

Funny how you descend so quickly into outright abuse.

Quickly? I've been in this debate for a very long time and the level of disrespect you've shown to many people and the reputation you've built for yourself as a result is your fault, not mine.

But I will provide a specific example of why I regard you as a fuckwit.



The left wing press has many flaws but if you are too fucking stupid to understand why the papers you mention are the ones that have loudly taken a side you approve of in this matter, then I consider you a fuckwit.

 

[19force8]

I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to be a 'gatekeeper' for. It's not my rule that means that men cannot be women (or males female).

Hang on, I think I know this one.

Is it Internet Rule 37?

 

[Teaboy]

Sure, find me a single instance of a male who produced an egg which was fertilised which he then gestated.

It's not bigotry, prejudiced or hateful to recognise facts.

Facts? You've been bandying around some very dodgy looking psychiatry without question yet you now start talking about facts.

 

[smokedout]

Regarding the point the OP makes about femininity, we can assess the observation that HSTS would tend to be more feminine than AGPTS in the context of the HSTS being a manifestation of homosexual male sexuality and AGPTS being a manifestation of heterosexual male sexuality. Again, the argument being made is not essentialist as a particular type of behaviour is not being imputed on males generally, rather we are saying 'males who are *sexual exhibit the following traits...'.

To suggest this was essentialist would be like (for example) saying 'it is essentialist for heterosexual men to be sexually and romantically attracted to women' which is clearly nonsense: it would be essentialist to suggest the general case that 'men are attracted to women', see what I am getting at?

Likewise, it is not essentialist to say 'lesbians are females who are sexually and romantically attracted to other females', it's just a defining characteristic of what it is to be a homosexual female. An essentialist counterpart would be to suggest 'all lesbians are masculine women with buzzcuts who wear khaki and smoke cigars', the imputed trait is not part of the defining characteristic.

But it is essentialist to say 'extreme homosexuals' possess an innate femininity (which Lawrence argues can be observed in brain structures). The argument states quite clearly that transwomen who are attracted to men naturally possess typical feminine behaviours, a feminine essence if you will, whereas it is near impossible for transwomen attracted to women to possess this because they have a masculine essence.

In other words there is an authentic transsexual type, who is authentically feminine because she likes men and has a feminine brain, and an unauthentic sexual fetishist type who is naturally masculine and as such attracted to women. It is naked essentialism, and interesting that the tiny number of trans proponents of this theory, like you, just happen to fall into the authentic camp.

Androphilic MtF transsexuals were extremely feminine androphilic men whose cross-gender identities derived from their female-typical attitudes, behaviors, and sexual preferences. Nonandrophilic MtF transsexuals, in contrast, were conventionally masculine, fundamentally gynephilic men who resembled transvestites in that they experienced paraphilic arousal from the fantasy of being women (autogynephilia); their cross-gender identities derived from their autogynephilic sexual orientations.

Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism: Concepts and Controversies

 

[8ball]

But it is essentialist to say 'extreme homosexuals' possess an innate femininity (which Lawrence argues can be observed in brain structures). The argument states quite clearly that transwomen who are attracted to men naturally possess typical feminine behaviours, a feminine essence if you will, whereas it is near impossible for transwomen attracted to women to possess this because they have a masculine essence.

In other words there is an authentic transsexual type, who is authentically feminine because she likes men and has a feminine brain, and an unauthentic sexual fetishist type who is naturally masculine and as such attracted to women. It is naked essentialism, and interesting that the tiny number of trans proponents of this theory, like you, just happen to fall into the authentic camp.

Cheers for unpacking that - the post-Christmas CBA is too strong in me atm.

 

[elbows]

Even Miranda Yardleys beliefs and choice of words are not enough to satisfy everyone on that side.



I can appreciate where fears of 'erasure of women' and the struggle for rights, a voice, power feed into this. But when it reaches this level of misguided extreme I'm bound to think that what will actually end up marginalising these women more is the extreme nature of their beliefs and, crucially, the implications of their beliefs on the lives of others. Huge numbers of people arent going to stomach that shit in 2018, wherever discussions about eggs and choice of language lead.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Quickly? I've been in this debate for a very long time and the level of disrespect you've shown to many people and the reputation you've built for yourself as a result is your fault, not mine.

We had a couple of interactions on here and you became abusive instead of making a coherent argument. If you've been in this debate for so long, if you can actually argue the point, please go ahead, I'm all ears, I'd love to be shown to be wrong...

The left wing press has many flaws but if you are too fucking stupid to understand why the papers you mention are the ones that have loudly taken a side you approve of in this matter, then I consider you a fuckwit.

Well, in fairness The Mirror also picked up the story:

Woman is punched in face as transgender group and feminists clash at Hyde Park

And my criticism is that the left-wing press have failed to act, rather than my saying what a jolly good bunch the other newspapers are.

I was glad The Grauniad (my own paper of choice) published this letter:

Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters

Do you consider that 'transgender women' can legitimately commit acts of physical violence against women they disagree with?

 

[8ball]

This 'erasure of women' thing seems odd. It looks like the kind of language that aggrieved white supremacists use.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Even Miranda Yardleys beliefs and choice of words are not enough to satisfy everyone on that side.

I have absolutely no control over what other people call me or say about me. I have, however, made my own position very clear on many occasions.

I encourage and support anyone in the act of refusing to use ‘preferred pronouns’, ‘transwoman’ or ‘transwoman’, and refuses as an act of political disobedience to refer to males as women, females or she/her. And to be clear, within this I include myself.

Why I Disavow ‘Woman’ And Am No Longer ‘Gender Critical’

 

[8ball]

Do you consider that 'transgender women' can legitimately commit acts of physical violence against women they disagree with?

This is quite a stretch.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

This 'erasure of women' thing seems odd. It looks like the kind of language that aggrieved white supremacists use.

That's an absurd statement.

Laurel Hubbard is a man competing in women's sports:

Trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard wins silver at World Championship

Fallon Fox is a man who fights women:

After Being TKO'd by Fallon Fox, Tamikka Brents Says Transgender Fighters in MMA 'Just Isn't Fair' - Cagepotato

Hannah Mouncey is a man who wants to compete against women in women's sports:

Hannah Mouncey: AFLW block transgender athlete from 2018 draft

Lauren Jeska is a man who held women's fell-running titles, who attempted to kill UK Athletic's point of contact for 'gender issues' because he felt he was going to lose the women's titles he'd won in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Jailed fell runner thought UK Athletics was 'trying to kill her'

These are all acts of female erasure.

 

[elbows]

Do you consider that 'transgender women' can legitimately commit acts of physical violence against women they disagree with?

No I do not.

Bt nor do I think that it is possible to separate coverage of such events from the various broader contexts and agendas in play at the time. Nor do I believe that when 'unusual allies' turn up, especially media ones, they should be embraced without question. Or their participation simply described as 'amazing' without pondering how their own agendas interest in the story might illuminate some tricky ground you are standing on.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

This is quite a stretch.

It was a question.





etc etc etc

 

[Miranda Yardley]

No I do not.

Bt nor do I think that it is possible to separate coverage of such events from the various broader contexts and agendas in play at the time.

So you think that the violence committed by at least two trans-identified males is justifiable? I mean, in this video one of these trans-identified males is squaring up to and threatening a woman who was part of his own group!

 

[Sea Star]

Oh yeah, facts are fun.

Facts like you being such a fuckwit, with such crude methods, that from time to time you've ended up called cis women men on twitter, because you decided they were trans and were wrong. The useless depths to which your beliefs lead you.

I see this regularly on Twitter tbh - not just Miranda but among TERFs generally. Quite a few of my cis female allies have come to me to tell me how they were told they were a man. and if that fails - I saw one of my cis friends the other day saying she'd been called "a traitor against women" for supporting trans women.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The key point to take from Blanchard's typology (which builds on ideas that have been around for a long time, see for example Hirschfeld's 1918 examination of automonosexualism in cross-dressing males) is that the population of transsexuals (as he originally defined the typology, but would apply equally to transgender) falls into two general groups: homosexual and non-homosexual. This observation often gets lost in the noise.

That observation is simply a description with assumptions (it also follows the highly dodgy reasoning that there is no such thing as bisexuality, which appears to be a favourite theme of some of Blanchard's associates, despite the self-evident truth that it's nonsense, and arbitrary nonsense at that, like most of this stuff). Transsexuals may be attracted to one sex or the other or both or neither. There you go, four groups into which all transsexuals (and all people) fall.

So he makes a statement that applies equally to any other group. It is essentially arbitrary to build a theory from these categories rather than others, but that's what he does, he builds his entire nonsense edifice from there, and bends the evidence in a pretty shocking manner in order to make it fit around his assumptions. It's archetypal nonsense on stilts, the stilts in this case being his arbitrary typology.

In a trawl around the murks of Twitter after reading this thread, I noticed autogynephilia looming large. It is the pet theory of many fellow travellers of the likes of Dr RadFem, and it is invariably invoked in order to diminish and dismiss trans people.

 

[elbows]

So you think that the violence committed by at least two trans-identified males is justifiable? I mean, in this video one of these trans-identified males is squaring up to and threatening a woman who was part of his own group!

There you go, giving me more reasons to consider you a fuckwit. I'm not going to waste my time seeing how many different ways I'm supposed to say that I dont think the violence is acceptable. Because apparently a clear and simple reply is not enough for you, at least when I go on to follow it with a further point about people using this stuff to further their own agendas.

For the avoidance of doubt, since it seems to be slippery in your world, I was talking about coverage. And I certainly dont mean that such violent acts should not receive coverage just because some of those doing the covering are using it for their own purposes. I'm not interested in shying away from events which are not good for causes I suppose. But coverage of how people use these events is important too.

 

[8ball]

It was a question.

elbows clearly implied nothing of the kind.

It was about the motives of those newspapers in "rushing to your aid" that looks very naïve.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I see this regularly on Twitter tbh - not just Miranda but among TERFs generally. Quite a few of my cis female allies have come to me to tell me how they were told they were a man. and if that fails - I saw one of my cis friends the other day saying she'd been called "a traitor against women" for supporting trans women.

Ah, good. I'm glad you've shown up.

All he did was approach the owners of the venue and told them about what MY was all about - the doxing, the abuse and the constant lies.

It was MY who put up a website - when I stood for parliament - implying that I was a sexual abuser of children. It was actionable but I can't afford that sort of legal action so I just had to ignore it.

Please substantiate your claims, viz:

• that I have ever doxed anyone;
• that I am abusive;
• that I am a source of 'constant lies'.

Please also substantiate you claim that I 'put up a website - when I stood for parliament - implying that I was a sexual abuser of children'. This statement is I have been told, actionable and I would please ask you kindly to either substantiate it or retract it and apologise.

Thank you.