Super Straight - a new sexuality???
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Maybe he should have a child. He'd be Teflon, going on maternity and all.Thing is, cross-dressing counts as "trans" these days according to the relevant vocal organisations and various work types/TRAs etc.. so yes, anyone who only occasionally adopts an alter ego and cross-dresses + demands to be referred to as a woman when they do so falls under the broad "trans" umbrella, even though for them it could be more of a kink/roleplay type situation rather than dealing with gender dysphoria.... And yup, they'll need to be accommodated in changing rooms etc..when they feel like playing with their female side.
See this banker for example - he's a crossdresser but that counts as trans - he even won a place on a top 100 women thingie...
^^^ you'd be a "transphobe" if you're a straight bloke and you turn him down for a date on say Wednesday or Friday... but it's cool to do so when he's got his suit on.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...st-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html
Funny how simply adopting a fashionable identity + a bit of publicity about it suddenty leads to an award and celebration by the corporate Twitter account. I wonder if it's been a career boost and/or if he's less vulnerable to redundancy now given large companies are very focused on "diversity" and anyone who can (visibly) tick those boxes.
Some actual women aren't so happy about it:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ss-honour-for-cross-dressing-banker-h0gv3l7nw
I think we all know the answer to that question tbh...
I think you’ve misread what I’ve wrote, or I’ve mistyped it. Let’s not be silly, whilst we disagree on topics, can we at least try and give each other a benefit of the doubt.
See this banker for example - he's a crossdresser but that counts as trans - he even won a place on a top 100 women thingie...
^^^ you'd be a "transphobe" if you're a straight bloke and you turn him down for a date on say Wednesday or Friday... but it's cool to do so when he's got his suit on.
those boxes.
No you wouldn’t, you are just painfully desperate to try and make out you are a victim, which is pathetic.
Again, I’m the only one in here so far who has held their hands up and said I’ve turned down a trans person, and even I didn’t hear anything negative about me first hand, and I can assure you, those who did say things about me (apparently) I have even less of a decent opinion than that I do of even anyone here in this thread (which is pretty low opinion considering our disagreements). This is mainly because they are utterly anti social and frankly, barmy, when it comes to the reality of society and life. They are a tiny minority within a tiny minority, and have zero power. Why are you so afraid of them?!
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,503
- Location
- ST4
As a great and wise philosopher once said,
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
E's are good
Seems like a lot of projection and some dubious logic here - if you don't think that TRA groups are influential right now then you're being rather naive.
What exactly is a 'woman' in you mind?
You may think its nice to engage in a fantasy but there are occasions where it is necessary to differentiate the two sexes from one another.
This question never actually gets an answer that isn't just a load of gender wang obfuscating nonsense that boils down to circular definitions and/or reliance of regressive gender stereotypes.
And what makes a transition 'valid' surely that's subjective from a third party perspective?
Is Jesscia Yaniv's transition 'valid', how about Karen White?
It would be nice if you did that. But you don't. Instead, you just attack people with wild and extreme accusations. As you just did to Foxeye.
You wrote "[..]refer to someone as a woman if they were a man."
That would usually mean that the person is a man. That was the interpretation Foxeye was referring to. My guess is that they understood that you probably meant something else and they were making a joke about the imprecise nature of English. But you certainly didn't even try to give them the benefit of the doubt. You leapt straight to making a very serious attack on them, one that could cause them significant harm.
In the "as...if" context, "was" and "were" usually refer to the present despite usually referring to the past in other contexts. English is messy.
Nope.
Foxeyes decided that if we can call one man a woman we must call all men women. It’s based on the notion that a gender can’t be changed, and if one person can change their gender it’s now meaningless and everyone gender should change.
I’m saying this is both absurd and offensive, in that there are people who have swapped genders.
Where? What is your evidence to back up your statement?
You're mixing up gender and sex, which are very different things. Pretending that they're the same is a recipe for sexist stereoptying. But that's another issue. Here, specifically, I want you to provide some evidence for your claims about Foxeye. I'd also like you to take your own advice about giving people the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect either of those things to happen.
It’s not not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt though is it. I was asked for transphobia, I showed some as it was immediately posted.
I’ve mentioned that some people refuse to refer to trans people are the correct gender, a poster then replies saying we should call men women now, or both....
It’s reductionist, absurdist and frankly, pathetic.
If enough people put it in then it will get recognition.
Doubt it. In fact it massively backfired for atheists who put Jedi down as a joke, because then churches used the statistic that more people were religious than atheist to get more funding because Jedi counted as being religious.
Ew...
No, you didn't. You made a post that had at least two interpretations and the most common one, the one most closely following the most common conventions of English, was that all adults should be referred to as women. Foxeye joked about the imprecise nature of English and you responded by attacking them with a serious false accusation that could cause them lasting harm.
You then had the astonishing gall to talk about giving people the benefit of the doubt, which is a remarkable degree of hypocrisy. Then you made another untrue (though far less harmful) statement about what Foxeye had written and when asked to support that claim you merely quoted Foxeye writing something else and claimed it was what you said it was.
If that happened, it's efficient politics on their part. Unethical and deceitful, but effective.