Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Does it bother you when an activist at a Pride Event (this was in Brighton 4 years ago) says this about homosexuality? Do you think that some gay people might find this upsetting and, indeed, threatening to their existence?
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
Odd how Crawley's average is still around 28 or 29. He gets a lot of big scores but also a lot of low ones.
Today's innings increases Crawley's average from 28.65 to 31.01 (+2.36).
Most surprising is that, before the three sixes that he scored in today's innings, Crawley had only previously scored one six in Tests.
That family was never any good.
Well, I'm not in a position to comment on his father's morality but as a carpet fitter turned millionaire futures trader I would have said he was quite good at what he did.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
Safety / interest groups.
If you have an 'interest' that is outside the norm, it can be easier to associate frequently with people within that group. Back in the early 90's, I lived in London. It was a lot less easy being homosexual or 'different' then, than it is now. I had a handful of gay/bi/trans friends, who introduced me to a load more I would never have met if they had not introduced me. And they introduced me because (I think!) they saw me as not-a-threat. If I'd been going on about the evils of homosexuality, they would probably not have been friends with me, let alone be introduced to their friends.
Another factor: I'm an ex-engineer. Mrs J is an engineer. We probably know more engineers than would be the average. Likewise PB's many lawyers probably know more lawyers than I do.
- "There is simply no case to match it in recent years as an example of systematic corporate cruelty and venality." - " the prime minister needs to take personal command of this issue and ensure that convictions are swiftly quashed, compensation swiftly paid and victims’ finances restored to health."
Yes he does. As I said in May. As plenty of others have also said.
FFS! The Tories will almost certainly lose the next election but they could at least use the time until then to do something honourable and this would be one of them. The government has set aside £1 billion for the compensation payments so just bloody well get on with it.
Implementing the IICSA recommendations on child abuse would be another.
A like is just totally inadequate to that post. Come on Tories, you have lost. Do the right thing anyway.
This lot do the right thing only after all other options have been exhausted.
Odd how Crawley's average is still around 28 or 29. He gets a lot of big scores but also a lot of low ones.
Today's innings increases Crawley's average from 28.65 to 31.01 (+2.36).
Most surprising is that, before the three sixes that he scored in today's innings, Crawley had only previously scored one six in Tests.
That family was never any good.
Well, I'm not in a position to comment on his father's morality but as a carpet fitter turned millionaire futures trader I would have said he was quite good at what he did.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
I knew people at University who used to say they were "lesbians trapped in a man's body".
It means they're straight men.
Lesbian isn't the right term for someone with a penis attracted to someone with a vagina, whatever terminology you wish to use about those someone's.
Odd how Crawley's average is still around 28 or 29. He gets a lot of big scores but also a lot of low ones.
Today's innings increases Crawley's average from 28.65 to 31.01 (+2.36).
Most surprising is that, before the three sixes that he scored in today's innings, Crawley had only previously scored one six in Tests.
That family was never any good.
Well, I'm not in a position to comment on his father's morality but as a carpet fitter turned millionaire futures trader I would have said he was quite good at what he did.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
fine, not doubting you. It just seems to me that extreme trans is so hostile to mainstream LG that it is odd that someone as close to it as you, lumps it all in as one happy family.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Does it bother you when an activist at a Pride Event (this was in Brighton 4 years ago) says this about homosexuality? Do you think that some gay people might find this upsetting and, indeed, threatening to their existence?
Do I think a badly phrased idea about gender and sexuality being a spectrum and not a clear binary from a well meaning trans individual is as threatening to LGBTQ+ people and the community as people screaming f****t at me and friends, or threatening to beat us up, or screaming t****y at my friends and threatening to correctively rape them, or the state advocating that trans people cannot use their preferred toilet, potentially putting them in danger of attack or outing themselves? No, I don’t.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
That's really not how it works, particularly with a community that faces a lot of oppression - there will be a lot of friendships created within the community because it's felt to be safer, and you get a bit more of the sort of friend-acquiring on a friend-of-a-friend(-of-a-friend) basis.
Also my experience of hobby-based groups is that they often stratify on other social characteristics anyway. In Edinburgh I was part of two different knitting groups - one was very much local mums and grandmas, while the other was immigrants to the city and more bohemian types. I was a bit of an oddity for bridging the groups, almost as much as I was an oddity being a man at a knitting group. Anyway, guess which of these knitting groups had a higher proportion of people who didn't fit the heterosexual, monogamous norm?
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
Accurate weather forecasting is the thief of joy. 30 years ago today would have been unalloyed pleasure because we would have had no idea what was coming.
The Ukrainian staff of the temporarily occupied Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant refuses to comply with the order of the occupation "management of the plant" to transfer power unit No. 4 from a "cold shutdown" to a "hot shutdown" state, the press service of @energoatom_ua reports https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1682049624339619840
Great!
*checks weather and wind forecast for southeast Poland*
If there’s an incident at Zaporizhzhya that releases radioactivity haven’t a lot of Eastern European NATO members been essentially saying Article 5 would be triggered?
If they fuck up Craft Cocktails in Gdansk, I want instant Global Thermonuclear War.
And none of those Woke Vegan Tactical Nuclear weapons. Big fuck off ones only.
Bowling has got a lot tighter. Less short stuff, much more conventional lengths and fields. Probably not.
We need Brook to get out, he's got a strike rate of about 30. Doesn't seem to have got the message that we might lose 2 days play.
Indeed. Yes, very unlike Brook.
Should Stokes channel the great IT Botham in the infamous Botham-Boycott 'I've run you out, you ****' incident?
what about me average?
As a spotty teenager playing in men's cricket, I got massive amount of grief because I refused to throw my wicket away to go for a win in the final match of the season (which wasn't important) because I worked out I would finish with a season average of over 50 if I was not out at the end...Sir Geoffrey mode was engaged and I ended up getting sledged from my own team!
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
fine, not doubting you. It just seems to me that extreme trans is so hostile to mainstream LG that it is odd that someone as close to it as you, lumps it all in as one happy family.
I don’t see any incompatibility between LGB and TQ issues - and neither do most LGB people. Indeed, the earliest queer liberation groups actively fought to make sure trans people were included in the struggle because they were always in the scene and always beaten up with us, beaten up because they were considered deviant in the same way, and because LGB people are also oppressed because of their gender - gay men and boys often are harassed by calling them women or girly, and lesbians are often attacked for being manly. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany in the 30s included LGBTQ+ people, the GLF in the 60s and 70s had trans people involved. The podcast Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff recently did a number of episodes on the US and UK GLFs and their trans inclusion from the beginning of the movement.
Even Gorsuch accepted that discrimination against LGB people is partly based in gender discrimination - based on the idea it would be fine for a woman to be attracted to a man, but it wouldn’t for a man to be attracted to a man, meaning the persons gender matters.
- "There is simply no case to match it in recent years as an example of systematic corporate cruelty and venality." - " the prime minister needs to take personal command of this issue and ensure that convictions are swiftly quashed, compensation swiftly paid and victims’ finances restored to health."
Yes he does. As I said in May. As plenty of others have also said.
FFS! The Tories will almost certainly lose the next election but they could at least use the time until then to do something honourable and this would be one of them. The government has set aside £1 billion for the compensation payments so just bloody well get on with it.
Implementing the IICSA recommendations on child abuse would be another.
A like is just totally inadequate to that post. Come on Tories, you have lost. Do the right thing anyway.
I would add sending the entire Post Office management to manage the Post Office on South Georgia. And they can swim home if they don’t like it.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
I reckon getting on to the local NHS-only dentist list cost me literally thousands, because I could fool myself I was doing everything right with 2 checkups a year, while actually knowing the check ups are so sketchy and inadequate that I was just saving up problems for the private sector to sort out.
I wouldn't worry too much about your youthful delinquency. I have always been good as gold and always had dreadful teeth. I have fillings in the fillings in the fillings. I am convinced it's mainly genetic.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Does it bother you when an activist at a Pride Event (this was in Brighton 4 years ago) says this about homosexuality? Do you think that some gay people might find this upsetting and, indeed, threatening to their existence?
With respect to the specific point you are making concerning the individual, I understand it @Cyclefree but if you go looking for X you will find X.
With respect to the general point you are making concerning the principle, I genuinely doubt that trans people collectively are capable of eradicating homosexuality, simply on the grounds of numbers. A cis woman has the right to chose to have sex with cis women only, and similarly for cis men. Those that argue that they shouldn't can simply be ignored and those that carry it out can be jailed for sexual harrassment/rape/rape by deception/sexual assault, and I believe that some already have.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
Travel miles away? If only that were an option.
There don't seem to be any NHS dentists taking on patients within a 50+ mile radius of where I live.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
NHS dentistry is in its death throws. Our dentist has just gone purely private, causing much consternation.
I've spent £2,500 on dentistry recently with a different dentist (a periodontist) to fix things up that were missed. When I asked in vain whether NHS would pick up any of the tab, she said "No. And NHS dentistry is the reason you are in front of me now".
She said all dentist should, and probably will, split away from NHS as it is impossible to operate with integrity within the NHS system.
The chief executive of the banking group that owns Coutts has apologised to Nigel Farage for "deeply inappropriate" comments about him after his account was closed. Natwest boss Alison Rose said the comments did not reflect its view. Former leader of the UK Independence Party Mr Farage had said that Coutts had targeted him because of his political views. However, the bank had said the account closure was a commercial decision.
You know the rules. Never apologise. Only makes things worse...
Facebook group of close to 10,000 former customers who say their NatWest accounts were closed down are sharing templates and instructions on how to lodge Subject Access Requests with the bank demanding any dossiers on them. As I wrote this morning, Nat West/Coutts now entering a world of pain.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
fine, not doubting you. It just seems to me that extreme trans is so hostile to mainstream LG that it is odd that someone as close to it as you, lumps it all in as one happy family.
I don’t see any incompatibility between LGB and TQ issues - and neither do most LGB people. Indeed, the earliest queer liberation groups actively fought to make sure trans people were included in the struggle because they were always in the scene and always beaten up with us, beaten up because they were considered deviant in the same way, and because LGB people are also oppressed because of their gender - gay men and boys often are harassed by calling them women or girly, and lesbians are often attacked for being manly. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany in the 30s included LGBTQ+ people, the GLF in the 60s and 70s had trans people involved. The podcast Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff recently did a number of episodes on the US and UK GLFs and their trans inclusion from the beginning of the movement.
Even Gorsuch accepted that discrimination against LGB people is partly based in gender discrimination - based on the idea it would be fine for a woman to be attracted to a man, but it wouldn’t for a man to be attracted to a man, meaning the persons gender matters.
There you go again 'neither do most LGB people'. Who are you to decide what other people think and believe? You totally need to get over yourself.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Is your claim that the average queer person is going to have a similar ratio of queer and straight friends as the average straight person? I might accept that having an almost entirely queer friendship group may be uncommon even amongst queer people - but I’d say it’s pretty common. Loads of straight people have entirely straight friendship groups.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
I reckon getting on to the local NHS-only dentist list cost me literally thousands, because I could fool myself I was doing everything right with 2 checkups a year, while actually knowing the check ups are so sketchy and inadequate that I was just saving up problems for the private sector to sort out.
I wouldn't worry too much about your youthful delinquency. I have always been good as gold and always had dreadful teeth. I have fillings in the fillings in the fillings. I am convinced it's mainly genetic.
It *may* be genetic, but not in the obvious way. I've always had a sweet tooth, and that's something I've constantly had to fight against. I like sugary things. Mrs J does not have a sweet tooth (neither does our son, thankfully). Her teeth are in very good condition at roughly the same age as me.
If there is a connection between sugary foods and tooth problems (as seems likely), then the question becomes why people have sweet teeth. I wasn't bought up on lot of sugary foods, and my brother doesn't have a sweet tooth. Is it genetic?
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
fine, not doubting you. It just seems to me that extreme trans is so hostile to mainstream LG that it is odd that someone as close to it as you, lumps it all in as one happy family.
I don’t see any incompatibility between LGB and TQ issues - and neither do most LGB people. Indeed, the earliest queer liberation groups actively fought to make sure trans people were included in the struggle because they were always in the scene and always beaten up with us, beaten up because they were considered deviant in the same way, and because LGB people are also oppressed because of their gender - gay men and boys often are harassed by calling them women or girly, and lesbians are often attacked for being manly. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany in the 30s included LGBTQ+ people, the GLF in the 60s and 70s had trans people involved. The podcast Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff recently did a number of episodes on the US and UK GLFs and their trans inclusion from the beginning of the movement.
Even Gorsuch accepted that discrimination against LGB people is partly based in gender discrimination - based on the idea it would be fine for a woman to be attracted to a man, but it wouldn’t for a man to be attracted to a man, meaning the persons gender matters.
There you go again 'neither do most LGB people'. Who are you to decide what other people think and believe? You totally need to get over yourself.
The statistics are pretty clear - most LGB people support and advocate for trans rights and the inclusion of them within the wider community. I’m not just speaking it into being - it’s a fact.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
I reckon getting on to the local NHS-only dentist list cost me literally thousands, because I could fool myself I was doing everything right with 2 checkups a year, while actually knowing the check ups are so sketchy and inadequate that I was just saving up problems for the private sector to sort out.
I wouldn't worry too much about your youthful delinquency. I have always been good as gold and always had dreadful teeth. I have fillings in the fillings in the fillings. I am convinced it's mainly genetic.
It *may* be genetic, but not in the obvious way. I've always had a sweet tooth, and that's something I've constantly had to fight against. I like sugary things. Mrs J does not have a sweet tooth (neither does our son, thankfully). Her teeth are in very good condition at roughly the same age as me.
If there is a connection between sugary foods and tooth problems (as seems likely), then the question becomes why people have sweet teeth. I wasn't bought up on lot of sugary foods, and my brother doesn't have a sweet tooth. Is it genetic?
But I don't have a sweet tooth, I brush my teeth assiduously, and they rot. My dna just codes for rubbish enamel.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
Interesting one. You now have the teeth to chew the Nougat and the Thorntons Special Fudge.
I was sacked by my NHS dentist for not having attended enough over the lockdown period, despite having been asked not to attend and being in reasonably strong isolation.
Couldn't be bothered for a fight, so I have gone private, which will be about £350-400 a year for 2x dentist and 2x dental hygienist. So I find myself looking for a new Health Cash Plan policy which will pay for more than £130 of dental costs per annum.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
NHS dentistry is in its death throws. Our dentist has just gone purely private, causing much consternation.
I've spent £2,500 on dentistry recently with a different dentist (a periodontist) to fix things up that were missed. When I asked in vain whether NHS would pick up any of the tab, she said "No. And NHS dentistry is the reason you are in front of me now".
She said all dentist should, and probably will, split away from NHS as it is impossible to operate with integrity within the NHS system.
Dentistry is a very interesting microcosm of healthcare.
I had NHS dentistry in my childhood and it was terrifying and very painful. In part this was because for much of my early life I'm not sure I owned a toothbrush, but I certainly did own sweets and fizzy drinks. I also broke some teeth.
There was a definite thing though about not giving children anaesthetics. I can only conclude that I was already screaming.
I did not visit any dentist for about 20 years on the back of that. Happily I now have a dentist who I know and trust (also for about 20y).
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Is your claim that the average queer person is going to have a similar ratio of queer and straight friends as the average straight person? I might accept that having an almost entirely queer friendship group may be uncommon even amongst queer people - but I’d say it’s pretty common. Loads of straight people have entirely straight friendship groups.
Ladeez and gennelmen and (but let's not go there), have we all forgotten the plot of "Boys in the Band"?
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
I reckon getting on to the local NHS-only dentist list cost me literally thousands, because I could fool myself I was doing everything right with 2 checkups a year, while actually knowing the check ups are so sketchy and inadequate that I was just saving up problems for the private sector to sort out.
I wouldn't worry too much about your youthful delinquency. I have always been good as gold and always had dreadful teeth. I have fillings in the fillings in the fillings. I am convinced it's mainly genetic.
It *may* be genetic, but not in the obvious way. I've always had a sweet tooth, and that's something I've constantly had to fight against. I like sugary things. Mrs J does not have a sweet tooth (neither does our son, thankfully). Her teeth are in very good condition at roughly the same age as me.
If there is a connection between sugary foods and tooth problems (as seems likely), then the question becomes why people have sweet teeth. I wasn't bought up on lot of sugary foods, and my brother doesn't have a sweet tooth. Is it genetic?
But I don't have a sweet tooth, I brush my teeth assiduously, and they rot. My dna just codes for rubbish enamel.
That's quite possible as well. It doesn't just have to be one factor.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Does it bother you when an activist at a Pride Event (this was in Brighton 4 years ago) says this about homosexuality? Do you think that some gay people might find this upsetting and, indeed, threatening to their existence?
Do I think a badly phrased idea about gender and sexuality being a spectrum and not a clear binary from a well meaning trans individual is as threatening to LGBTQ+ people and the community as people screaming f****t at me and friends, or threatening to beat us up, or screaming t****y at my friends and threatening to correctively rape them, or the state advocating that trans people cannot use their preferred toilet, potentially putting them in danger of attack or outing themselves? No, I don’t.
Thanks. You speak for yourself. I can only say that my lesbian friends do find it concerning and find the idea of removing sex from the Equality Act, as Stonewall wants, very worrying indeed because if sex is not a protected characteristic, how can sexuality be. They do not want sex with men, do not want to be bullied into this by such men claiming they are "lesbians" and loathe being called bigots for saying this. One commented to me that when she was growing up, men would tell her that she would stop being a lesbian once she had had a good f*ck from them. And now she was being told pretty much the same thing but having it dressed up as trans rights.
All that can be concluded is that gay people have different views on these issues and no one group, whether Stonewall or anyone else, can speak for them all.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
I reckon getting on to the local NHS-only dentist list cost me literally thousands, because I could fool myself I was doing everything right with 2 checkups a year, while actually knowing the check ups are so sketchy and inadequate that I was just saving up problems for the private sector to sort out.
I wouldn't worry too much about your youthful delinquency. I have always been good as gold and always had dreadful teeth. I have fillings in the fillings in the fillings. I am convinced it's mainly genetic.
It *may* be genetic, but not in the obvious way. I've always had a sweet tooth, and that's something I've constantly had to fight against. I like sugary things. Mrs J does not have a sweet tooth (neither does our son, thankfully). Her teeth are in very good condition at roughly the same age as me.
If there is a connection between sugary foods and tooth problems (as seems likely), then the question becomes why people have sweet teeth. I wasn't bought up on lot of sugary foods, and my brother doesn't have a sweet tooth. Is it genetic?
But I don't have a sweet tooth, I brush my teeth assiduously, and they rot. My dna just codes for rubbish enamel.
To answer JJ's question, fruits and vegetables are at their sweetest when they are ripe, and fullest of lovely vitamins and minerals. It's therefore not difficult to see why humans have evolved to find sweetness delicious. The issue is we've also worked out how to remove the sweetness from the fruit, and oir bodies have not caught up with the deception.
Also, I am sure you've got this covered, but as well as avoiding sugar (it weakens bones from the inside as well as causing acid erosion outside), get yourself a sonic toothbrush (as opposed to an oscillating electrical toothbrush) if you haven't already, and you'll be astonished at the difference.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Is your claim that the average queer person is going to have a similar ratio of queer and straight friends as the average straight person? I might accept that having an almost entirely queer friendship group may be uncommon even amongst queer people - but I’d say it’s pretty common. Loads of straight people have entirely straight friendship groups.
I claim the right to speak for myself and not to be an arbiter or spokesperson of what gay people believe or who their friends are. Gay people are promiscuous/celibate/conservative and socialist/black and white ie as varied as the rest of society and long may it so remain.
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
Interesting one. You now have the teeth to chew the Nougat and the Thorntons Special Fudge.
I was sacked by my NHS dentist for not having attended enough over the lockdown period, despite having been asked not to attend and being in reasonably strong isolation.
Couldn't be bothered for a fight, so I have gone private, which will be about £350-400 a year for 2x dentist and 2x dental hygienist. So I find myself looking for a new Health Cash Plan policy which will pay for more than £130 of dental costs per annum.
Went private years ago when there was no choice. Would not change now, despite the cost.
Just got a text from one of the banks I have some of my savings in. They have just put my interest rate up to 688.36%. Suspect they might go bust. How long do you reckon before the correction text?
Correction received, 4.36%. Took 1hr 35min and half a dozen managerial heart attacks.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Is your claim that the average queer person is going to have a similar ratio of queer and straight friends as the average straight person? I might accept that having an almost entirely queer friendship group may be uncommon even amongst queer people - but I’d say it’s pretty common. Loads of straight people have entirely straight friendship groups.
I claim the right to speak for myself and not to be an arbiter or spokesperson of what gay people believe or who their friends are. Gay people are promiscuous/celibate/conservative and socialist/black and white ie as varied as the rest of society and long may it so remain.
Do you have a job? Any hobbies? If so, do you have friends that are weighted towards that occupation / hobbies?
I'm looking forward to the day when anyone who is 'unusual' but harmless can feel safe in any group of people, not just amongst similar people.
Just got a text from one of the banks I have some of my savings in. They have just put my interest rate up to 688.36%. Suspect they might go bust. How long do you reckon before the correction text?
Correction received, 4.36%. Took 1hr 35min and half a dozen managerial heart attacks.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Is your claim that the average queer person is going to have a similar ratio of queer and straight friends as the average straight person? I might accept that having an almost entirely queer friendship group may be uncommon even amongst queer people - but I’d say it’s pretty common. Loads of straight people have entirely straight friendship groups.
I claim the right to speak for myself and not to be an arbiter or spokesperson of what gay people believe or who their friends are. Gay people are promiscuous/celibate/conservative and socialist/black and white ie as varied as the rest of society and long may it so remain.
You mean they are actual humans with their own moral agency?
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
fine, not doubting you. It just seems to me that extreme trans is so hostile to mainstream LG that it is odd that someone as close to it as you, lumps it all in as one happy family.
I don’t see any incompatibility between LGB and TQ issues - and neither do most LGB people. Indeed, the earliest queer liberation groups actively fought to make sure trans people were included in the struggle because they were always in the scene and always beaten up with us, beaten up because they were considered deviant in the same way, and because LGB people are also oppressed because of their gender - gay men and boys often are harassed by calling them women or girly, and lesbians are often attacked for being manly. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany in the 30s included LGBTQ+ people, the GLF in the 60s and 70s had trans people involved. The podcast Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff recently did a number of episodes on the US and UK GLFs and their trans inclusion from the beginning of the movement.
Even Gorsuch accepted that discrimination against LGB people is partly based in gender discrimination - based on the idea it would be fine for a woman to be attracted to a man, but it wouldn’t for a man to be attracted to a man, meaning the persons gender matters.
There you go again 'neither do most LGB people'. Who are you to decide what other people think and believe? You totally need to get over yourself.
The statistics are pretty clear - most LGB people support and advocate for trans rights and the inclusion of them within the wider community. I’m not just speaking it into being - it’s a fact.
Any meaningless statistic can give a very misleading impression. I have no problem with the rights of any group in society except when their 'rights' impinge on the rights of others. Show me the data which advocates trans rights above the rights of women for example. I will not be holding my breath.
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
Interesting one. You now have the teeth to chew the Nougat and the Thorntons Special Fudge.
I was sacked by my NHS dentist for not having attended enough over the lockdown period, despite having been asked not to attend and being in reasonably strong isolation.
Couldn't be bothered for a fight, so I have gone private, which will be about £350-400 a year for 2x dentist and 2x dental hygienist. So I find myself looking for a new Health Cash Plan policy which will pay for more than £130 of dental costs per annum.
We went to Denplan years ago and they are fantastic
It costs £850 pa for both of us, and we only pay lab fees for crowns and normal fillings and the hygienist is included
Furthermore their worldwide cover is excellent.
I lost one of my crowns in Christchurch, NZ and they paid the Kiwi dental charges in full
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Is your claim that the average queer person is going to have a similar ratio of queer and straight friends as the average straight person? I might accept that having an almost entirely queer friendship group may be uncommon even amongst queer people - but I’d say it’s pretty common. Loads of straight people have entirely straight friendship groups.
Ladeez and gennelmen and (but let's not go there), have we all forgotten the plot of "Boys in the Band"?
Just to be non-sexist, lesbian equivalents during the period were a bit thin on the ground and those that existed were more of the angsty "I am attracted to women and I just don't know how to cope whilst gritting my teeth" type, in couples instead of groups. Examples would be "The Killing of Sister George" (which is really fucked up to modern sensibilities), "Lianna" (early John Sayles!) or "Desert Hearts", the latter two being a bit more hopeful. Lesbian films didn't concentrate on the group instead of the individuals until later: I assume somebody more knowledgable can fill in the details.
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I've often wondered how two horses 'passed' on a canal without fouling the tow rope. Can anyone enlighten me?
Also, I wonder how rigorously towpaths will be maintained at all given the financial crisis at whatever the Canal and River Trust is calling itself this week.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
fine, not doubting you. It just seems to me that extreme trans is so hostile to mainstream LG that it is odd that someone as close to it as you, lumps it all in as one happy family.
I don’t see any incompatibility between LGB and TQ issues - and neither do most LGB people. Indeed, the earliest queer liberation groups actively fought to make sure trans people were included in the struggle because they were always in the scene and always beaten up with us, beaten up because they were considered deviant in the same way, and because LGB people are also oppressed because of their gender - gay men and boys often are harassed by calling them women or girly, and lesbians are often attacked for being manly. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany in the 30s included LGBTQ+ people, the GLF in the 60s and 70s had trans people involved. The podcast Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff recently did a number of episodes on the US and UK GLFs and their trans inclusion from the beginning of the movement.
Even Gorsuch accepted that discrimination against LGB people is partly based in gender discrimination - based on the idea it would be fine for a woman to be attracted to a man, but it wouldn’t for a man to be attracted to a man, meaning the persons gender matters.
There you go again 'neither do most LGB people'. Who are you to decide what other people think and believe? You totally need to get over yourself.
The statistics are pretty clear - most LGB people support and advocate for trans rights and the inclusion of them within the wider community. I’m not just speaking it into being - it’s a fact.
Any meaningless statistic can give a very misleading impression. I have no problem with the rights of any group in society except when their 'rights' impinge on the rights of others. Show me the data which advocates trans rights above the rights of women for example. I will not be holding my breath.
You are starting from a premise that isn’t evident - how are trans right impinging on other people’s rights? Is this like the straight people who argued allowing same sex marriage would devalue their marriage? Self ID has been the policy in the UK all the time most people have been alive - many cis women have probably unknowingly shared bathrooms or changing rooms with trans women, as many men have probably done with trans men without knowing. The countries it is already codified in law have seen no issues. Trans rights are not at odds with women’s rights.
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I’m always impressed by heritage preservation that is completely ignorant of the heritage it is preserving.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
Yes, why would a queer person who has had relationships with other queer people know lots of other queer people, even those they wouldn’t be in relationships with?!? Very odd indeed.
Most people's friendship groups are dictated by school, university, job, hobbies, all of which are fairly pansexual. But whatever.
All the friends I have kept in touch with from uni, bar 1, are LGBTQ+. I wouldn’t call any colleagues friends - I don’t hang out with them outside of work, and those I occasionally do see outside of work are typically for an LGBT+ Staff Network outing. My hobbies include politics, gaming, drinking, theatre etc. This includes lots of queer people.
Also - perhaps unsurprisingly - queer people like to have very queer friendship groups because of the harassment they have experienced from straight society. My secondary school was a pretty homophobic boys’ school, and my experience as a young man dating other young men / queer people in public contained many experiences of public harassment aimed at me or my partner at the time - harassment which has been on the rise in the UK over the last few years.
Ahem. You have the right to speak for yourself but I'm a gay men and have always had lots of friends who are not gay. You are not a spokesperson for 'queer people' and their friendship groups.
Is your claim that the average queer person is going to have a similar ratio of queer and straight friends as the average straight person? I might accept that having an almost entirely queer friendship group may be uncommon even amongst queer people - but I’d say it’s pretty common. Loads of straight people have entirely straight friendship groups.
I claim the right to speak for myself and not to be an arbiter or spokesperson of what gay people believe or who their friends are. Gay people are promiscuous/celibate/conservative and socialist/black and white ie as varied as the rest of society and long may it so remain.
Do you have a job? Any hobbies? If so, do you have friends that are weighted towards that occupation / hobbies?
I'm looking forward to the day when anyone who is 'unusual' but harmless can feel safe in any group of people, not just amongst similar people.
I am retired now and have been open about my gayness since I was around 20. For the great bulk of the past 49 years I have felt safe most of the time which is about as much as anyone can say in all honesty. I understand I'm probably more fortunate than many others, including trans people, but no group in society can insist on their rights absolutely because it is in the nature of the game that the rights of one group can easily tread upon the rights of another. As always a balance has to be struck. However, my maon point is that I simply do not accept the ramblings of random poster on here to speak of gay people as a unique group who all have the same views on the trans debate or indeed anything else. Ironically, even if they did, the world is not just gay people!
Hope kinabalu is OK after his root canal work today.
I went to the dental hygienist today, one of a six-monthly visit that occurs because I did not treat my teeth well when I was younger. It cost me ~£70 for thirty minutes.
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
Travel miles away? If only that were an option.
There don't seem to be any NHS dentists taking on patients within a 50+ mile radius of where I live.
You get crap treatment anyway, they pay them so little they do bare minimum with the crappiest products. Desperate for people who cannot afford private costs and seems more and more are just left till they have to pull their own teeth out.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Do you have a citation from so called extreme trans activists claiming that lesbianism isn't a thing? I am unaware of this claim from literally any activist or group.
Do you agree that lesbians who would never sleep with an MtF transwoman are transphobic?
I think that depends (and have also answered this question before on these forums). Most lesbians attest to finding transwomen attractive, but not everyone will sleep with everyone they find attractive. The reasons for having sex with someone differ greatly from person to person; it could be you have a good vibe, you share common interests, you like their personality etc. There are people I find attractive who I would never sleep with because I don't like them as people. If a lesbian says that they "can just tell" when a woman is trans, or even is willing to approach a transwoman and flirt and ask them out, only to change their mind when finding out they are trans - that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference (like how I prefer to only date vegetarian / vegans). Telling those apart can be difficult. I think that if you find someone attractive and like them on a personal level and learning they are trans then disgusts you, that is probably rooted in bigotry, yes.
I'm really uncomfortable with your attempt to tell people what their sexuality is and that it's bigoted if it isn't expressed in a way that you approve of.
I don't see what is bigoted about only wanting to have sex with someone who has the genitalia you like to have sex with. But that's the upshot of your argument.
That is not what I said. I literally say "that could be about transphobia or it could be a sincere preference" - I am not saying anyone should feel they have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. What I am saying if is that if you are willing to sleep with someone and only upon learning they are trans you specifically feel disgust to the degree that you don't want to, that is probably transphobia - yes. The feeling of disgust being the main thing there that (to me) identifies the transphobia.
Again - many cis lesbians are happy to have relationships with transwomen (many of whom also identify as lesbians). People claiming that lesbians can't find transwomen attractive are the ones telling people what their sexuality is.
You seem very well versed on all this dodgy stuff
"All this dodgy stuff"? You mean the existence of trans people? Or queer people in general?
Yeah, I have trans friends, family and colleagues. I am not straight, and so have lots of queer friends, including cis and trans lesbians. I know lots of cis and trans gay men, too. Is that dodgy? Is worrying about holding hands with people I'm dating in public because I remember people shouting slurs at me "dodgy"? Is my desire to protect trans people from that same harassment, for the same reason, "dodgy"? Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people in the UK have exploded in the last half a decade - many experts point at the anti trans rhetoric for that rise against all queer people - so is the fear for my safety and the safety of those I love also "dodgy"?
An interesting post. More light than heat which makes quite a change on here.
Really? It reads a bit oddly to me. I can't think why one's sexual orientation would dictate one's friendship circle to that extent. Who knows "lots of cis and trans lesbians" without seeking them out, and what for?
I know lots of gays and lesbians. I would think most youngish people with a wide circle would do so.
I don't know many trans lesbians, but if one were to be active in LGBTQ+ circles campaigning and things then that would entirely naturally and not at all oddly affect who you know, just as if one campaigns for the Lib Dems I expect one would naturally know many Lib Dems and so on for other bizarre minorities.
There's just rather a top trumps flavour to the whole thing. Transsexual lesbians are not that thick on the ground, and it must take real dedication to be recruiting them as friends by the dozen.
I go to gay bars, queer dating events, Pride and Trans Pride; I get introduced to new queer friends by pre existing queer friends. It’s really not hard to meet LGBTQ+ people. And lots of transwomen are also lesbians, it’s not like they are rare.
fine, not doubting you. It just seems to me that extreme trans is so hostile to mainstream LG that it is odd that someone as close to it as you, lumps it all in as one happy family.
I don’t see any incompatibility between LGB and TQ issues - and neither do most LGB people. Indeed, the earliest queer liberation groups actively fought to make sure trans people were included in the struggle because they were always in the scene and always beaten up with us, beaten up because they were considered deviant in the same way, and because LGB people are also oppressed because of their gender - gay men and boys often are harassed by calling them women or girly, and lesbians are often attacked for being manly. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany in the 30s included LGBTQ+ people, the GLF in the 60s and 70s had trans people involved. The podcast Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff recently did a number of episodes on the US and UK GLFs and their trans inclusion from the beginning of the movement.
Even Gorsuch accepted that discrimination against LGB people is partly based in gender discrimination - based on the idea it would be fine for a woman to be attracted to a man, but it wouldn’t for a man to be attracted to a man, meaning the persons gender matters.
There you go again 'neither do most LGB people'. Who are you to decide what other people think and believe? You totally need to get over yourself.
The statistics are pretty clear - most LGB people support and advocate for trans rights and the inclusion of them within the wider community. I’m not just speaking it into being - it’s a fact.
Any meaningless statistic can give a very misleading impression. I have no problem with the rights of any group in society except when their 'rights' impinge on the rights of others. Show me the data which advocates trans rights above the rights of women for example. I will not be holding my breath.
You are starting from a premise that isn’t evident - how are trans right impinging on other people’s rights? Is this like the straight people who argued allowing same sex marriage would devalue their marriage? Self ID has been the policy in the UK all the time most people have been alive - many cis women have probably unknowingly shared bathrooms or changing rooms with trans women, as many men have probably done with trans men without knowing. The countries it is already codified in law have seen no issues. Trans rights are not at odds with women’s rights.
Hahahaha. Go tell it to the marines to coin a phrase. You're an idiot and Im off out with some straight friends. I know I'm a total b***ard!
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I’m always impressed by heritage preservation that is completely ignorant of the heritage it is preserving.
I'm not sure quite what version of Stonehenge I might want preserved. Leave it alone I guess, but someday it'll be dust if we do that.
But if KS wins any of the by-elections should he be on course for Downing Street? Just want to know if it's a good idea to up my bet for most seats or if I should move money over to majority
But if KS wins any of the by-elections should he be on course for Downing Street? Just want to know if it's a good idea to up my bet for most seats or if I should move money over to majority
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I've often wondered how two horses 'passed' on a canal without fouling the tow rope. Can anyone enlighten me?
Also, I wonder how rigorously towpaths will be maintained at all given the financial crisis at whatever the Canal and River Trust is calling itself this week.
The passing was done by one horse, stopping, the rope going slack, and the oncoming horse just stepping over it. The rope would sink and the other boat would go over the top. There were sets of etiquette as to who did what.
A similar (and to me more interesting) thing is bridges that let the horse cross from one side to the other without the risk of the rope being entangled, and removing any need to deattach and reattach) are "turnover bridges", which allow the horse to cross on the near side of the bridge via a spiral ramp.
But if KS wins any of the by-elections should he be on course for Downing Street? Just want to know if it's a good idea to up my bet for most seats or if I should move money over to majority
He's probably on course for Downing Street even if he fails to win any of them.
But if KS wins any of the by-elections should he be on course for Downing Street? Just want to know if it's a good idea to up my bet for most seats or if I should move money over to majority
He's probably on course for Downing Street even if he fails to win any of them.
By-elections are very different from General Elections, IMO. There is a correlation between by-election and general election results, but it is loose. Especially so when there is more than one by-election on the same day.
Having said that, my tuppence-worth is on a Labour landslide on the next GE, as things stand. That *should* mean that I think all of today's three seats go red - except local issues always intrude.
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I've often wondered how two horses 'passed' on a canal without fouling the tow rope. Can anyone enlighten me?
Also, I wonder how rigorously towpaths will be maintained at all given the financial crisis at whatever the Canal and River Trust is calling itself this week.
The passing was done by one horse, stopping, the rope going slack, and the oncoming horse just stepping over it. The rope would sink and the other boat would go over the top. There were sets of etiquette as to who did what.
A similar (and to me more interesting) thing is bridges that let the horse cross from one side to the other without the risk of the rope being entangled, and removing any need to deattach and reattach) are "turnover bridges", which allow the horse to cross on the near side of the bridge via a spiral ramp.
Another alternative were things called "split bridges", with a gap in the middle big enough for the rope to pass through - similar to the tiny lift-flap panels that allow boat's masts to pass without massive engineering of eg swing bridges.
But if KS wins any of the by-elections should he be on course for Downing Street? Just want to know if it's a good idea to up my bet for most seats or if I should move money over to majority
I think he is comfortably on course for No 10 but I might revise my view (or at least take a close look at it) if he loses Uxbridge or Selby. I think the Lib Dems should be extremely worried if they don't pick up Somerton.
I know that doesn't quite answer your question but I think wins would not tell us as much as losses as far as the opposition parties are concerned
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I've often wondered how two horses 'passed' on a canal without fouling the tow rope. Can anyone enlighten me?
Also, I wonder how rigorously towpaths will be maintained at all given the financial crisis at whatever the Canal and River Trust is calling itself this week.
The passing was done by one horse, stopping, the rope going slack, and the oncoming horse just stepping over it. The rope would sink and the other boat would go over the top. There were sets of etiquette as to who did what.
A similar (and to me more interesting) thing is bridges that let the horse cross from one side to the other without the risk of the rope being entangled, and removing any need to deattach and reattach) are "turnover bridges", which allow the horse to cross on the near side of the bridge via a spiral ramp.
Another alternative were things called "split bridges", with a gap in the middle big enough for the rope to pass through - similar to the tiny lift-flap panels that allow boat's masts to pass without massive engineering of eg swing bridges.
In the nicest possible way... You're making this up.
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I've often wondered how two horses 'passed' on a canal without fouling the tow rope. Can anyone enlighten me?
Also, I wonder how rigorously towpaths will be maintained at all given the financial crisis at whatever the Canal and River Trust is calling itself this week.
The passing was done by one horse, stopping, the rope going slack, and the oncoming horse just stepping over it. The rope would sink and the other boat would go over the top. There were sets of etiquette as to who did what.
A similar (and to me more interesting) thing is bridges that let the horse cross from one side to the other without the risk of the rope being entangled, and removing any need to deattach and reattach) are "turnover bridges", which allow the horse to cross on the near side of the bridge via a spiral ramp.
For what it's worth, I think tonight may be disappointing for Labour. I'm not at all confident of winning Selby & Ainsty - it's a mountain to climb, and I just don't think that there's enough enthusiasm, particularly among younger left-inclined voters, to turn out. As for Uxbridge, it's just hard to call - too many potentially confounding factors.
However, I hope I'm wrong and that we surprise on the upside.
I used to bat like Tavare when playing for the school cricket team, although I hadn't heard of him at the time. In one game we needed about 50 off 20 overs and I used up about 18 of them as an opening batsman. I was expecting everyone to be happy when we won the game but most of the team were annoyed to death by the way I'd played, which I hadn't expected.
As my (3rd?) off topic post of the day, a little comparison between canal towpaths 100 years ago and canal towpaths now. I don't think I have posted this.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
I've often wondered how two horses 'passed' on a canal without fouling the tow rope. Can anyone enlighten me?
Also, I wonder how rigorously towpaths will be maintained at all given the financial crisis at whatever the Canal and River Trust is calling itself this week.
The passing was done by one horse, stopping, the rope going slack, and the oncoming horse just stepping over it. The rope would sink and the other boat would go over the top. There were sets of etiquette as to who did what.
A similar (and to me more interesting) thing is bridges that let the horse cross from one side to the other without the risk of the rope being entangled, and removing any need to deattach and reattach) are "turnover bridges", which allow the horse to cross on the near side of the bridge via a spiral ramp.
Another alternative were things called "split bridges", with a gap in the middle big enough for the rope to pass through - similar to the tiny lift-flap panels that allow boat's masts to pass without massive engineering of eg swing bridges.
In the nicest possible way... You're making this up.
No he's not. At least not for horse drawn narrowboats on canals.
But if KS wins any of the by-elections should he be on course for Downing Street? Just want to know if it's a good idea to up my bet for most seats or if I should move money over to majority
I think he is comfortably on course for No 10 but I might revise my view (or at least take a close look at it) if he loses Uxbridge or Selby. I think the Lib Dems should be extremely worried if they don't pick up Somerton.
I know that doesn't quite answer your question but I think wins would not tell us as much as losses as far as the opposition parties are concerned
By elections tell you little. I would not bet the farm on a Lab majority (325 seats.) NOM is currently value IMHO.
BTW there is no legal restriction on opinions about outcomes on PB.
Comments
https://twitter.com/twisterfilm/status/1680286942347370500?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA
This partnership is averaging 3 an over. Its a bit weird after what we have seen all day.
If you have an 'interest' that is outside the norm, it can be easier to associate frequently with people within that group. Back in the early 90's, I lived in London. It was a lot less easy being homosexual or 'different' then, than it is now. I had a handful of gay/bi/trans friends, who introduced me to a load more I would never have met if they had not introduced me. And they introduced me because (I think!) they saw me as not-a-threat. If I'd been going on about the evils of homosexuality, they would probably not have been friends with me, let alone be introduced to their friends.
Another factor: I'm an ex-engineer. Mrs J is an engineer. We probably know more engineers than would be the average. Likewise PB's many lawyers probably know more lawyers than I do.
It means they're straight men.
Lesbian isn't the right term for someone with a penis attracted to someone with a vagina, whatever terminology you wish to use about those someone's.
@kinabalu is legendary at this, of course.
Also my experience of hobby-based groups is that they often stratify on other social characteristics anyway. In Edinburgh I was part of two different knitting groups - one was very much local mums and grandmas, while the other was immigrants to the city and more bohemian types. I was a bit of an oddity for bridging the groups, almost as much as I was an oddity being a man at a knitting group. Anyway, guess which of these knitting groups had a higher proportion of people who didn't fit the heterosexual, monogamous norm?
xxx
Indeed. Yes, very unlike Brook.
Should Stokes channel the great IT Botham in the infamous Botham-Boycott 'I've run you out, you ****' incident?
That's ****ing expensive. However, it's far less than a good meal out with Mrs J and our immediate family, and less than other discretionary spending we make. I treat it as a 'punishment' for the fact I was stupid when I was younger.
Then again, we are in the fortunate position where we can afford it. for people who are less well off, and with NHS dentists being few and far between in our part of the world, it may be a very different matter.
And there're issues here. If you are poor, transport is generally more difficult. If the local dentist no longer accepts NHS patients, you need to travel to another dentist miles away. And with public transport issues, that may be very difficult.
And none of those Woke Vegan Tactical Nuclear weapons. Big fuck off ones only.
Even Gorsuch accepted that discrimination against LGB people is partly based in gender discrimination - based on the idea it would be fine for a woman to be attracted to a man, but it wouldn’t for a man to be attracted to a man, meaning the persons gender matters.
Edit: what about Hotel Rwanda for them?
Let's hope we can bat through to mid afternoon tomorrow say 250 lead 👍
I wouldn't worry too much about your youthful delinquency. I have always been good as gold and always had dreadful teeth. I have fillings in the fillings in the fillings. I am convinced it's mainly genetic.
With respect to the general point you are making concerning the principle, I genuinely doubt that trans people collectively are capable of eradicating homosexuality, simply on the grounds of numbers. A cis woman has the right to chose to have sex with cis women only, and similarly for cis men. Those that argue that they shouldn't can simply be ignored and those that carry it out can be jailed for sexual harrassment/rape/rape by deception/sexual assault, and I believe that some already have.
There don't seem to be any NHS dentists taking on patients within a 50+ mile radius of where I live.
I've spent £2,500 on dentistry recently with a different dentist (a periodontist) to fix things up that were missed. When I asked in vain whether NHS would pick up any of the tab, she said "No. And NHS dentistry is the reason you are in front of me now".
She said all dentist should, and probably will, split away from NHS as it is impossible to operate with integrity within the NHS system.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1682071160433913856
Is actually really pretty (in the middle). But menaced by apposite storm clouds and thunderclaps
If there is a connection between sugary foods and tooth problems (as seems likely), then the question becomes why people have sweet teeth. I wasn't bought up on lot of sugary foods, and my brother doesn't have a sweet tooth. Is it genetic?
I was sacked by my NHS dentist for not having attended enough over the lockdown period, despite having been asked not to attend and being in reasonably strong isolation.
Couldn't be bothered for a fight, so I have gone private, which will be about £350-400 a year for 2x dentist and 2x dental hygienist. So I find myself looking for a new Health Cash Plan policy which will pay for more than £130 of dental costs per annum.
I had NHS dentistry in my childhood and it was terrifying and very painful. In part this was because for much of my early life I'm not sure I owned a toothbrush, but I certainly did own sweets and fizzy drinks. I also broke some teeth.
There was a definite thing though about not giving children anaesthetics. I can only conclude that I was already screaming.
I did not visit any dentist for about 20 years on the back of that. Happily I now have a dentist who I know and trust (also for about 20y).
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIeQwDRHrKc (1970 original)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=862Pb9oDDAo (2020 remake)
Oh I forget, it's PB, which has no memory...
https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/chris-tavare-shocks-the-world-by-hitting-a-six-87507
All that can be concluded is that gay people have different views on these issues and no one group, whether Stonewall or anyone else, can speak for them all.
Also, I am sure you've got this covered, but as well as avoiding sugar (it weakens bones from the inside as well as causing acid erosion outside), get yourself a sonic toothbrush (as opposed to an oscillating electrical toothbrush) if you haven't already, and you'll be astonished at the difference.
I'm looking forward to the day when anyone who is 'unusual' but harmless can feel safe in any group of people, not just amongst similar people.
That can’t be right.
100 years ago they were setup to allow 2 boat horses to pass each other ie 2.5-3m wide afaics. Now they are setup by the Canals and Rivers Trust to be as narrow as 1-1.2m wide on the surfaced part, which excludes many eg wheelchairs who have a legal right of access , with "respect the heritage" (presumably on a chocolate box) as the slogan to hide behind.
Two piccies of the approach to the Shrewley Tunnel on the Grand Union, which have an interesting extra tunnel for the horses, and now for the people, 1914 and 2015:
It costs £850 pa for both of us, and we only pay lab fees for crowns and normal fillings and the hygienist is included
Furthermore their worldwide cover is excellent.
I lost one of my crowns in Christchurch, NZ and they paid the Kiwi dental charges in full
Also we are seen very quickly if required
I'm worried my traditional GE night party will be made redundant by councils waiting for the morning to count. Last time we kept going till 6am.
Also, I wonder how rigorously towpaths will be maintained at all given the financial crisis at whatever the Canal and River Trust is calling itself this week.
But if KS wins any of the by-elections should he be on course for Downing Street? Just want to know if it's a good idea to up my bet for most seats or if I should move money over to majority
A similar (and to me more interesting) thing is bridges that let the horse cross from one side to the other without the risk of the rope being entangled, and removing any need to deattach and reattach) are "turnover bridges", which allow the horse to cross on the near side of the bridge via a spiral ramp.
https://www.core77.com/posts/109086/Clever-Bridge-Design-Lets-Horses-Pulling-a-Barge-Cross-the-Canal-Without-Untying-Them
Having said that, my tuppence-worth is on a Labour landslide on the next GE, as things stand. That *should* mean that I think all of today's three seats go red - except local issues always intrude.
I know that doesn't quite answer your question but I think wins would not tell us as much as losses as far as the opposition parties are concerned
However, I hope I'm wrong and that we surprise on the upside.
It's spelled Kohli. K O H L I.
(With apologies to @Anabobazina . I am willing to pay a small fine, but only in cash.)
BTW there is no legal restriction on opinions about outcomes on PB.