Come on, you were talking nonsense, you were banging on about Paris Lees yourself a few pages back, I've not seen any hate for her from trans activists.
Lees's sexism has been criticised by trans people and their allies. Most importantly this has been noticed and criticised by women. I'm not sure where you get the 'hate' from, I am not hating on anyone.
The Guardian sent someone over to Ireland to see what the consequences of gender recognition through self-declaration have been. It turns out that none of the terrifying consequences Brit TERFs have been claiming will follow have actually happened.
'A monumental change': how Ireland transformed transgender rights
The way that self-ID is enacted and how this filters through to the Equalities Acts are fundamentally different, so it's not a corresponding comparison.
There are other post-transition peeps with the same opinion. It`s good Miranda can express their views because not many others do.
Thank you. I get contacted by people all the time, many whose views have changed recently. Invariably they are so terrified of being open about their views, they won't even follow me on social media. The trans cult can be a brutal enemy.
I'm not really interested in what Serano has written about herself elsewhere. It doesn't affect the arguments presented in that paper. Suffice to say that I disagree with this and see no evidence for it at all.
I'll leave this issue here, I think. You've linked to Serano's paper. I and others have linked to other websites with discussions of Blanchard. The info is there for others to read if they wish to take it further. No need to take either your word or my word for it.
Well, it does when they present arguments in their paper which appear to contradict their lived experience.
You should take that up with Miranda Yardley really, as their pet theory hinges on the answer to this question. You may not have been following this, but it is MY who brought up this theory. Others are responding to that.
It's not *my* theory and the proportions are not particularly relevant to this discussion. What *is* relevant is that there do indeed appear to be two different types of transsexual. It is interesting that the lives (and plight) of the homosexual transsexuals are ignored, talked over and even appropriated by the NHSTS in this debate. The HSTSs have no voice.
Rather like 'trans men', who as not being 'self-defined women' will be unable to take advantage of women's shortlists...
But so what if it is a thing? Surely almost everyone has some sort of erotic relationship with their own body, real and desired, especially in adolescence and young adulthood. It's the experienced need to transition that really matters.
The key part it's with your own body, not a fantasy your body is that of a woman.
Gender is the attributes and expectations placed on a person by the wider society by virtue of their sex.
Quite, it's a collection of stereotypes and thus is limiting. Transgenderists also describe 'gender' as being one's own 'internal sense of being male or female'. Whether this can even make sense is very much open to debate, how can a male-bodied individual 'know how it feels to be a woman'? How do any of us know how it feels to be anything other than ourselves?
Genuine do not understand your question.
Are you saying that it is only women questioning MY?
Or are you say MY shouldn't be questioned because MY is a trans woman?
Am also confused why questioning is called interrogation when MY also questions others in an equally confrontation manner.
Not sure confrontational manner properly fits but can't think of a better term atm
I don't believe anyone should have a privileged voice just because of who or what they are. What I find amazing though it how people are so happy to believe any old nonsense they are told about trans issues, not think about this critically, and become defensive and even abusive towards the trans people they disagree with. There is a huge problem in trans culture in that diversity of belief on some key points is discouraged, to the point where transgressors are abused and banished from their own community.
For example, look at the debate over self-declaration. This is a clear case where many who are advocating for self-ID are doing so based upon misunderstandings over how the current GRA operates: they complain about 'going in front of a panel' or 'invasive and intrusive doctors' and that it is 'a long drawn out process'. All these are myths: the 'panel' is a process of paper-based adjudication, the medical reports are standard based on the normal GIC process and the process itself requires one to have lived in the required gender role for just two years. That's it. Prior to the GRC being issued, anyone can change their name, passport, bank and HMRC/benefits records.
Nobody is talking about how the new process adversely affects trans people by making their material protection under the Equality Act ('gender reassignment') nothing other ethereal thoughts and feelings ('gender identity') nor that a process based merely one someone saying 'I am X because I say am X' means that anyone can turn round and say 'well, I don't believe you'.
Right well given I am someone who has asked MY quite personal things I will respond to this. You are way off calling it an attack and I resent you characterising it that way, even though you are saying you don't want to do that, you now have.
Throughout the thread MY has posted things that refer to people not listening to them as a trans person and only listening to others. Stuff like the sarcastic 'I listen to trans people but not this one', or the straight forward... 'I've been out for 3 decades, why wouldn't you listen to me?'. This centres their opinions and experiences in the discussion. This invites people to interact with them and ask them for help in understanding x, y, z.
I am generally confused by some of the ways MY sees things given their own choices in terms of use of pronouns, surgery etc. If MY thinks I am being a dick by asking and doesn't want to they seem confident enough to say so.
By far the more 'robust' interactions on this thread have happened when discussing the various scientific papers and theories. A lot of that stuff is new to me, I am learning as I go along so stay out of the discussion and listen/read mostly.
A couple of posters have been outright abusive. This happens, I'm used to it. I realise some of the things I say are controversial, particularly pronouns, which I regard as a non-issue. They are something trans culture has built up to be absolutely central, no questions allowed, to the point where when people now talk about their 'transition' they often centre pronouns in the discussion. I've made my point many times here how I do not support the imposition of subjective views of the self on others, and how I feel males asking for female pronouns, and being counted as being female, disrespect women.
And this is what a lot of this is about. We have found ourselves in a position where the trans movement has positioned itself diametrically opposite to the women's movement: yes, I know a lot of 'third wave' feminists support the idea that 'trans women are women', but third wave feminism is an ideology that, amongst other things and as a for example, treats prostitution as a free choice of any woman to earn money in that way: it is fundamentally a neoliberal capitalist position that centres the needs of the individual, and ignores the structural problems that exist within society that allow inequality to thrive.
It is notable that the trans lobby is supportive of prostitution and pornography, invoking arguments of economic freedom for the former and freedom of speech for the latter, ironically given the attacks the same lobby makes upon the freedom of speech and expression of others.
