Transgender

Remove this Banner Ad

ShanDog

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 12, 2012
20,384
39,293
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.
 
Last edited:

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Suspended
Sep 21, 2009
13,865
12,157
AFL Club
St Kilda
This sort of thing isn't exclusive to any one group though. It sounds like some individuals using something new to pressure others.
I think the thing being missed is, don't discriminate for random reasons.

I don't date men, because I'm not attracted to men.
My reason for not dating a man, isn't just because they have a penis.



What's the next zany thing 'we' can attack the transgender community over? Don't let them breathe, or they'll be as powerful as the homosexual community...

Please ignore the far right, the racists, and the supremacists. They're so low in number, to be insignificant.

It's the woke, and the 'trans' that we need to monitor!!! They might attack the US Capitol if we don't keep them under thumb!
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I think the thing being missed is, don't discriminate for random reasons.
Does a biological male having a penis constitute a "random reason" for not wanting to have sex with them?

What's the next zany thing 'we' can attack the transgender community over? Don't let them breathe, or they'll be as powerful as the homosexual community...

Please ignore the far right, the racists, and the supremacists. They're so low in number, to be insignificant.

It's the woke, and the 'trans' that we need to monitor!!! They might attack the US Capitol if we don't keep them under thumb!
We should criticise bad ideas whether they come from the far right or the woke left.

Or have you surrendered the ability to do that?

Invoking the Capitol riot makes no argument whatsoever about the validity of radical trans activism.

It's dumb and dishonest.
 

Suspense

AOC + 3
Mar 28, 2006
7,799
3,437
POLICE STATE
AFL Club
Collingwood
Is it transphobic if lesbians don't want to have sex with women who have penises?

In a video which has now been deleted, YouTuber Riley J Dennis argued that dating "preferences" are discriminatory.

She asked: "Would you date a trans person, honestly? Think about it for a second. OK, got your answer? Well if you said no, I'm sorry but that's pretty discriminatory."


File under: Dumb takes because we need content and you're too dumb to notice
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
In a video which has now been deleted, YouTuber Riley J Dennis argued that dating "preferences" are discriminatory.

She asked: "Would you date a trans person, honestly? Think about it for a second. OK, got your answer? Well if you said no, I'm sorry but that's pretty discriminatory."



File under: Dumb takes because we need content and you're too dumb to notice
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying.

For the record, I think there are many valid criticisms of the article.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Chief This is now taboo:

She has said she believes gender identity does not outweigh biological sex “when it comes to law and policy”, and that people cannot change their biological sex.

How many examples do you need before you accept that there is a radical activist ideology here, which 99 percent of people would regard as nonsensical?

You don't have to be Tucker Carlson to acknowledge this.

I've got no time for the ridiculous RW identity politics either. Line them up and let me smack their heads together.

But what's the tipping point where even left-leaning folks acknowledge that unreasonable demands are being made by the woke left?

Nah, nah, no one is saying that...

Really?

They hounded a philosophy professor out of her job for statements that, as far I can tell, are entirely uncontroversial. Correct me if I'm wrong. Let me know if she did indeed say something that was legitimately "transphobic".

In the absence of that, this is deranged and illiberal.

Folks want to be tolerant and accepting of minorities. That's fine. We should protect minorities. We should ensure they are treated 100 percent equally as citizens, as that pertains to education, employment, civil rights, legal protections and everything else that goes along with that. But we shouldn't lean into these tactics. This stuff is at odds with reality and the values of empiricism and academic freedom. It's deeply illiberal and simply doesn't align with a scientific worldview.
 
Last edited:

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,288
17,435
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Again, that's not the point in dispute.
The waves of Sexual Advance can smash against the shoreline of Individual Consent all they like, but only one of them is an immovable object. At the end of the day all this is are some humans complaining that they couldn't get a root from other humans. If I have a crack at you and you say 'no', it doesn't matter if you're transgender or I'm transgender or if we're both non-binary or you're straight and I'm not. Any noise you make about phobias or discriminations you make in the face of consent issues are simply that. Noise.

None of it matters.

Individual Consent can either 'yea' or 'nay' but it will always win over Sexual Advance. This is one of the few areas nowdays where individual rights are sacrosanct and unchallengable.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The waves of Sexual Advance can smash against the shoreline of Individual Consent all they like, but only one of them is an immovable object. At the end of the day all this is are some humans complaining that they couldn't get a root from other humans. If I have a crack at you and you say 'no', it doesn't matter if you're transgender or I'm transgender or if we're both non-binary or you're straight and I'm not. Any noise you make about phobias or discriminations you make in the face of consent issues are simply that. Noise.

None of it matters.

Individual Consent can either 'yea' or 'nay' but it will always win over Sexual Advance. This is one of the few areas nowdays where individual rights are sacrosanct and unchallengable.
You're arguing a point that isn't in dispute. Have fun.
 

Suspense

AOC + 3
Mar 28, 2006
7,799
3,437
POLICE STATE
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying.

For the record, I think there are many valid criticisms of the article.
People say dumb sh*t on YouTube to get attention/views.
Journalists recycle dumb sh*t to generate 'controversial' content.
Content fiends regurgitate said article on twitter/forums in search of arguments and hot takes.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
People say dumb sh*t on YouTube to get attention/views.
Journalists recycle dumb sh*t to generate 'controversial' content.
Content fiends regurgitate said article on twitter/forums in search of arguments and hot takes.
That's all true, but I'm not sure it disproves the idea that these arguments are in fact being made by hard-liners.

Again, look at the Stonewall statement. They seem to be claiming that "genital preferences" are on par with racism. Some gay and lesbian folks are unhappy about that because it appears to dispute the "immutability of same-sex attraction".

Like, "sure, you're a lesbian who likes other lesbians who have female equipment, but you shouldn't discriminate against women who have penises by not dating them".

Quite a few lesbians aren't into that.
 

Suspense

AOC + 3
Mar 28, 2006
7,799
3,437
POLICE STATE
AFL Club
Collingwood
Again, look at the Stonewall statement. They seem to be claiming that "genital preferences" are on par with racism. Some gay and lesbian folks are unhappy about that because it appears to dispute the "immutability of same-sex attraction".

Like, "sure, you're a lesbian who likes other lesbians who have female equipment, but you shouldn't discriminate against women who have penises by not dating them".

Quite a few lesbians aren't into that.
I didn't interpret it that way.

"Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to. Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions. We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly."

To me it seems like a clumsy way of saying "individual sexual preferences are fine - but you should consider whether or not they have been influenced by social prejudices".


I find it hard to believe that an organisation that does so much work opposing conversion therapy (the premise that sexual orientation can be changed through 'treatment') would also be of the view that anyone who has a personal sexual preference is a bigot.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I didn't interpret it that way.

"Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to. Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions. We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly."

To me it seems like a clumsy way of saying "individual sexual preferences are fine - but you should consider whether or not they have been influenced by social prejudices".


I find it hard to believe that an organisation that does so much work opposing conversion therapy (the premise that sexual orientation can be changed through 'treatment') would also be of the view that anyone who has a personal sexual preference is a bigot.
"If you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."

So if you are a lesbian who doesn't like trans women because your same-sex attraction is immutable, where does that leave you?

Stonewall mentions you in the same sentence as folks who rule people out on the basis of race.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Suspense

AOC + 3
Mar 28, 2006
7,799
3,437
POLICE STATE
AFL Club
Collingwood
"If you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."

So if you are a lesbian who doesn't like trans women because your same-sex attraction is immutable, where does that leave you?
Simply consider whether your aversion to dating transpeople is due to societal prejudices (transphobic) or whether it is due to your own personal sexual predilection (not transphobic). Nothing more to it than that.

Stonewall mentions you in the same sentence as folks who rule people out on the basis of race.
It's about intention. If you are averse to dating black women because you believe they are subhuman, that's racist. If you are personally not sexually attracted to that particular demographic, it is not racist.

As she quite clearly states "Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us."
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Simply consider whether your aversion to dating transpeople is due to societal prejudices (transphobic) or whether it is due to your own personal sexual predilection (not transphobic). Nothing more to it than that.


It's about intention. If you are averse to dating black women because you believe they are subhuman, that's racist. If you are personally not sexually attracted to that particular demographic, it is not racist.

As she quite clearly states "Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us."
The statement doesn't make these distinctions explicit. Not even close. You're doing all the work to clean it up.

If same-sex attraction is immutable, why are Stonewall having a bob each way?
 

Suspense

AOC + 3
Mar 28, 2006
7,799
3,437
POLICE STATE
AFL Club
Collingwood
The statement doesn't make these distinctions explicit. Not even close. You're doing all the work to clean it up.
I said it was clumsy. Regardless, she quite plainly says:

"Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to. Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to."


If same-sex attraction is immutable, why are Stonewall having a bob each way?
That's based on your less-than-charitable interpretation - without which you'd have nothing to whine about.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,381
8,152
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I said it was clumsy. Regardless, she quite plainly says:

"Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to. Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to."
Which is inconsistent with and assuming that:

But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions. We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly."

She is presuming that one may be 'unattracted' on the basis of discrimination, while that may be true for some - even if unconsciously but not intentionally - it would certainly not be for the majority of lesbians.

Lesbians by and large like women not only for their fem but mostly for their anatomy, this is not a discrimination by intent.

That's certainly a pertinent piece of the mind set here.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I said it was clumsy. Regardless, she quite plainly says:

"Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no 'right' way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we're attracted to. Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to."
That simply reaffirms the idea of consent, which isn't the issue.

And saying "there is no right way to be a lesbian" further distances Stonewall from the idea that same-sex attraction is immutable. Plenty of lesbians would argue that being a lesbian simply doesn't involve attraction to women with penises.

That's what they mean when they say same-sex attraction is immutable. It means biological males don't count as women for the purposes of being a lesbian.

Stonewall appears to disavow that view.

That's based on your less-than-charitable interpretation - without which you'd have nothing to whine about.
That's weak.

If a lesbian "discriminates" against a trans woman because she has a penis, is that "transphobic"? I know your position but Stonewall doesn't seem as sure.

The point is that not everyone shares your common sense approach on that question. You bend over backwards to insist otherwise but there are examples to the contrary.

Some folks have radical views when it comes to "genital preferences". Stonewall talks about them in the same sentence as racial profiling. Maybe you should start coming to terms with that instead of reflexively defending every confused or deeply ideological position on the matter. That's not an honest approach.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,381
8,152
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Do you disagree with that?
That depends on the person doesn't it. So in the case of a lesbian, they're only interested in intimate encounters with other biological females, because that's their natural inclination.

So if a lesbian is to reject a transgender person who is biologically male, that is not intended to be discriminatory is it, it's their natural inclination. It's a pretty simple equation.

Same as a heterosexual male is not naturally inclined to an intimate encounter with a transgender person who is biologically male. Again it is not a prejudice, it's a natural inclination.

Sure there may be some individuals who would use their supposed natural inclination as a cloak / excuse to be discriminatory - but they'd number in the minuscule.

And for someone / group to claim that another group / individuals are being prejudiced and using their natural inclination as an excuse to do so is disingenuous to say the least.
 

Suspense

AOC + 3
Mar 28, 2006
7,799
3,437
POLICE STATE
AFL Club
Collingwood
That simply reaffirms the idea of consent, which isn't the issue.

And saying "there is no right way to be a lesbian" further distances Stonewall from the idea that same-sex attraction is immutable. Plenty of lesbians would argue that being a lesbian simply doesn't involve attraction to women with penises.
No - as she quite clearly states - "Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us."

There is no singular definition of what a lesbian is - for some it may be the attraction to feminine characteristics - for others it may be an attraction to a specific set of genitalia.

You can identify as a lesbian and be sexually attracted to both transwomen and cis women.
You can identify as a lesbian and be sexually attracted to both transmen and cis women.
You can identify as a lesbian and be sexually attracted to only cis women.


That's what they mean when they say same-sex attraction is immutable. It means biological males don't count as women for the purposes of being a lesbian.

Stonewall appears to disavow that view.
First of all, sexual attraction (same-sex or otherwise) is not, by nature, "immutable" - we know that many people experience some form of sexual fluidity over their lives.

Their view is that sexual attraction (same-sex or otherwise) is innate and instinctual - it is regulated predominantly by unconscious reactions within our limbic system. (this is not a nature vs nurture discussion - it simply means that you can't consciously choose what you are sexually attracted to).

There is no contradiction between her statement and their position on the nature of same-sex attraction.


That's weak.

If a lesbian "discriminates" against a trans woman because she has a penis, is that "transphobic"? I know your position but Stonewall doesn't seem as sure.

The point is that not everyone shares your common sense approach on that question. You bend over backwards to insist otherwise but there are examples to the contrary.
Why don't you provide some statistics then? An open letter by Trans Activism UK in response to the article received 20,000 signatures clearly states:

If someone is a transgender woman, you are not obligated to be attracted to her, to want to have sex with her, or to be with her in any way. You do not have to find attributes such as “a deep voice” or “a square jaw” attractive. If a transgender woman has a penis, you do not need to have sex with her, or interact with her genitals in any way, regardless of whether or not you are attracted to women.

However, to repeatedly insist that these attributes mean that the transgender woman is in fact a male is an act of transphobia, because in the UK she is recognised as a woman.


What examples do we have to the contrary? The YouTuber who subsequently deleted their own videos on the topic? The person on twitter who wouldn't even respond to the author's questions?

Please.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,381
8,152
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Did she suggest that it was?
What do you think?

But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions

If she's not suggesting it, then what is she saying?
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
No - as she quite clearly states - "Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us."

There is no singular definition of what a lesbian is - for some it may be the attraction to feminine characteristics - for others it may be an attraction to a specific set of genitalia.

You can identify as a lesbian and be sexually attracted to both transwomen and cis women.
You can identify as a lesbian and be sexually attracted to both transmen and cis women.
You can identify as a lesbian and be sexually attracted to only cis women.
And for some lesbians, same-sex attraction is immutable. But Stonewall doesn't seem to be on board with that.

First of all, sexual attraction (same-sex or otherwise) is not, by nature, "immutable" - we know that many people experience some form of sexual fluidity over their lives.

Their view is that sexual attraction (same-sex or otherwise) is innate and instinctual - it is regulated predominantly by unconscious reactions within our limbic system. (this is not a nature vs nurture discussion - it simply means that you can't consciously choose what you are sexually attracted to).

There is no contradiction between her statement and their position on the nature of same-sex attraction.
That's your position. It's not a fact. It's not unanimous.

That's why there is growing backlash against Stonewall from gay and lesbian folks who argue same-sex attraction is indeed immutable.

Why don't you provide some statistics then? An open letter in response to the article denouncing the article received 20,000 signatures clearly states:

If someone is a transgender woman, you are not obligated to be attracted to her, to want to have sex with her, or to be with her in any way. You do not have to find attributes such as “a deep voice” or “a square jaw” attractive. If a transgender woman has a penis, you do not need to have sex with her, or interact with her genitals in any way, regardless of whether or not you are attracted to women.

However, to repeatedly insist that these attributes mean that the transgender woman is in fact a male is an act of transphobia, because in the UK she is recognised as a woman.


What examples do we have to the contrary? The YouTuber who subsequently deleted their own videos on the topic? The person on twitter who wouldn't even respond to the author's questions?

Please.
What point do you think this makes?

It would be a reasonable response if I was claiming that folks who say it's "transphobic" to discriminate on the basis of "genital preference" represented a majority view. But I'm not claiming that.

I'm simply making the case that there are in fact radical trans activists who argue this line, despite your insistence that "nah, no one is saying that".

You might disagree with that line of argument but you should at least acknowledge it exists.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad