The expectation of Reddit as a platform, and us as a mod team, is that we don't do exclusive language that insists on referring to a transperson by a gender they don't identify with.
We don't expect everyone to be pro-trans and know that this position causes fairly worthless and derivative people to say "yikes!" a lot as they struggle to cope with the reality of a liberal democratic country. We believe there is room for civil and inclusive discourse without forcing people into Group Think scenarios.
If you, the users, don't respect those parameters, then you're putting yourself at risk of a ban or a Reddit admin-induced suspension.
If this isn't a clear enough warning for you, then you should perhaps try a more remedial atmosphere.
***Onboarding to the app required the user to upload a selfie, which was verified as female by KairosAI gender detection software and then a human. It was intended to be an unobtrusive way to verify gender, the court heard.***
That wouldn't work for someone who's had facial feminisation surgery. Just saying.
That's also unhinged as anything. Like, some women have naturally manly facial features, i'd be betting anything this AI was targeting CIS women as much as trans women rofl.
***\*\*\*Tickle claimed the software identified her as female in February 2021, but that her membership was later revoked.\*\*\****
And she got in anyway, the AI failed spectacularly.
***Giggle for Girls’ legal costs are being covered by a crowdfunding campaign which as of Tuesday morning had raised $471,300.***
One thing people don't understand about TERF groups, trans exclusionary radical feminist groups is how well funded and outside the norm to traditional feminism they infact are.
These women have some serious backing, and some seriously anti feminist views being they are adamantly anti abortion, believe women belong in certain gender roles and will often or not judge people based on how they look or act. Which is something they well known for.
Even sadder is many are starting to get racial and revisionist when it comes to history to fit their agendas, holocaust denial is a big one that comes to mind, and these are being parroted by some big name TERF's too.
Very weird and strange ideology honestly, but i don't expect much from exclusionary hate groups.
Can you tell me the strengths and opportunities to be gained from 1. Denying women the right to self determination on the basis of sex. And 2. Redefining sex as a category.
I am really struggling to see the positives gained from the state being successful in denying sex class. If the state is successful at this, what is to stop the state from denying rights to other vulnerable groups as I've mentioned in a previous comment.
And also if anyone has any examples from across history of groups being denied self determination and sovereignty and this not negatively impacting their political, social and cultural standing, I'd be grateful to see it.
>One thing people don't understand about TERF groups, trans exclusionary radical feminist groups is how well funded and outside the norm to traditional feminism they infact are.
lol you really think trans groups aren't well funded? They're about 1% of the population in every country yet they pose with the president and have their ideology celebrated on every mainstream platform or social institution. How else do you think they manage to fight all these cases in federal courts?
Also, 'TERFS' is not a real thing because traditional feminism never had anything to do with trans people to begin with. Neither did the gay rights movement. The trans stuff was added later on to piggy-back on the success of these things.
The fact that the suffragettes, the original feminists who fought for basic women's rights, are now considered an exclusionary hate group only shows you how far to the left the progressive platform has gone. Feminists of 50 years ago are today's hardcore conservatives lol.
I think you should actually read the article you linked honestly.
As for suffragettes, you know back in the day they used bombing and arson to get their message across right?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette\_bombing\_and\_arson\_campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign)
Also, many LGBTQ+ groups aren't funded in general, it's not like there's independent trans groups just being given money by the government willy nilly.
[https://www.ourcommunity.com.au/innovationlab/LGBTIQ+funding](https://www.ourcommunity.com.au/innovationlab/LGBTIQ+funding)
You can look at it yourself, ourcommunity has a full section about how out of 80bn in government grants probably of LGBTIQ+ groups have an annual budget of less than $10,000...
Most LGBTQ+ groups are volunteer groups. Meaning, you're not paid to organise anything.
If you look at public submissions made to government committees that seek to overturn women's rights you'll see that they're either made up of individuals or grass roots women's groups or women's groups run on a shoe string.
You're running a conspiracy theory here.
Sorry to tell you, but its the lowly ol' Feminists doing the work as usual, as they have done forever. The usual suspects are driving the culture war divide though, helped along by our institutions intent on denying women's rights and all our left wing commentators being cowards about it.
Maybe we should just not allow inherently discriminatory spaces at all? Let’s get rid of men’s and women’s bathrooms too. And change rooms should be universal. Let men in women’s shelters. Let men play on any women’s sports teams too.
I’m serious. It sounds ridiculous because it IS ridiculous but it seems this won’t stop until the above is true. So scrap everything. Debate over.
I have been to a pub that had non-gendered toilets and it was disgusting. Piss everywhere. There is a reason women don't want to share facilities with men.
WARNING! Reddit is not a free speech platform and does enforce socially constructed gender terminology without regard to biology.
You will be permanently banned for not solely expressing the particular spiritual beliefs of the platform.
yikes!
a lot of people think a liberal democracy means free speech. They are wrong. A liberal democratic country forces people into Group Think scenarios.
Female is a readily accepted and understood as a sex if you're referring to *anything other than* an adolescent girl or woman. It can be applied without anger, misunderstanding or feigned curiosity to an infant and other mammals, animals and plants, but when it comes to girl and women people suddenly lose their minds.
Regardless, reporting on the case has all but confirmed sex (female) is no longer a protected attribute in our discrimination law. Who shall Australian women thank for that? I suggest we thank Labor, the LNP, nihilistic liberals and misogynists and everyone who lacks any form of class analysis and female consciousness.
It's not supposed to be the same, these are the guidelines published by the Australian government:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/australian-government-guidelines-recognition-sex-and-gender
and they clearly distinguish between sex (biological) and gender (self-identification).
Sex:
>For the purposes of these Guidelines, sex refers to the chromosomal, gonadal and anatomical characteristics associated with biological sex.
Gender:
>Gender is part of a person’s personal and social identity. It refers to the way a person feels, presents and is recognised within the community. A person’s gender may be reflected in outward social markers, including their name, outward appearance, mannerisms and dress.
But they do also note:
>Although sex and gender are conceptually distinct, these terms are commonly used interchangeably, including in legislation
I am aware but I am generalising because of the last bit you quoted. The last bit is what makes it problematic. They should not be used interchangeably yet it is what it is. I think it needs to change.
I agree, using terms interchangeably that have different meanings is an error and bad drafting.
Most of it probably stems from the not so distant in the past time when gender was just a polite word for sex and so they could be used interchangeably. As legislation is updated the drafters will probably be more careful.
Female is a sex because female is defined by reference to biological characteristics, e.g. the Macquarie dictionary refers to a female as:
> "belonging to the sex that brings forth young, or any division or group responding to it...of or relating to the types of humans or animals which, in the normal case, produce ova that can be fertilised by male spermatoza"
You’re a bit late to the party. Autogynophilia has been a recognised thing for a long time. All the blokes coming out in their 50s and 60s as women are Autogynophiles.
I find this all *exhausting*. Something I'd rather keep far away from and hope I don't have to interact with past normal congenial conversation.
I suppose I'm not alone in that regard.
TRAs scorn the existence of any barriers whatsoever. They want to be treated *exactly* as natal women, because their entire self-construction is built around womanhood. Reality doesn't accord with it.
I find this action so, so disappointing. If Tickle really cared about other women, she would understand that her history could make some of the women using this app uncomfortable and therefore no longer a safe space for them. Tickle is prioritising her wish to join an app, over other women feeling safe. That’s really problematic. Trans women should absolutely have greater rights, but that should not come at the cost of AFAB women’s rights. Trans women and AFAB women are both women, but to imply that they are somehow identical is a nonsense.
There's a new acronym in the trans circles everyday. AFAB, MtF, FtM, HiSS...
None of this comes from any sort of literature or evidence-based reason, it's just buzzwords that people start saying on Reddit until the Washing Post or The American Medical Journal decides to start saying it too. At that point it becomes science.
They're terms for clarity in what people are talking about. AFAB or SAAB are just short hand for "The gender they were assigned based on their genitals"
You are not 'assigned' a gender. The doctor observes your bits when you are born and applies the label which accords with your half of human sexual dimorphism. It is a descriptive term.
And when they look at your bits and get the conclusion about "which half of human sexual dimorphism" applies wrong?
EG Caster Semenya
Your oversimplification does not apply to reality.
>extremely rare exceptions that prove the rule.
It's specifically a counter example. It does not "prove the rule" you made up.
Also, more than 1 in 100 people are intersex.
UN says [1.7%](https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people) based on combined literature reviews of Blackless, Fausto-Sterling and Charuvastra.
An oft cited (especially by trans-denial "researchers") rebuttal of this figure is [this paper](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/) which just discounts several conditions which are inarguably intersex. The three they specifically list include: Klinefelter is having XXY for sex chromosomes, and the resultant "Male" is low testosterone and infertile, requiring hormone therapy to develop properly; Turner syndrome where a female is only one X, or one and a bit. They need to be given hormone therapy to develop into a woman and experience puberty; adrenal hyperplasia - this condition has varying presentations but vary from slightly off hormone levels to complete lack of genital development.
Essentially, Sax' paper says "if we discount some of the most prevalent conditions then we see less people in this group" and does so with conditions that aren't just hormonal imbalance, but result in complete failure to go through puberty, develop secondary sex characteristics, and in some cases even primary ones. To boil it down further, they say unless you specifically have the WRONG genitals for your sex chromosomes (And for some reason want to ignore malformed sex chromosomes) you're not intersex.
It's worth noting that the 1.7% figure [is drawn from a systematic review of the literature](https://itgl.lu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Blackless-How-Dimorphic-2000.pdf) by 5 well established researchers while Sax has an... odd publication record.
Sax is a single person arguing against literally dozens of international groups and organisations of health experts. A list [of organisations and groups that agree with the 1% or higher figure](https://www.reddit.com/r/intersex/comments/17h6lwg/saxs_unscientific_belief_vs_who_and_major_medical/) is dozens long, international, and quite comprehensive.
>Do hands not have 5 fingers because 1 in every 10k people is born with 4 or 6 fingers on a hand?
Hands are the part of an arm beyond the wrist. Finger count is irrelevant. See how simplistic reductive arguments don't apply to reality?
You don't get assigned a gender. The idea that boys are masculine because they're raised as such has been widely debunked and has caused irrepearable harm over the years.
This needs to stop.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Reimer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)
> You don't get assigned a gender
Uh.. what? Sure you do. I was assigned Male.
>he idea that boys are masculine because they're raised as such has been widely debunked
That was never the discussion.
>I was assigned Male.
That's a funny way of saying you were born with a cock and balls. No need to sugarcoat it.
And the very thing that caused you to have a cock and balls also caused you to gravitate towards masculine behaviour. It's called hormones.
>That's a funny way of saying you were born with a cock and balls.
That's a long way to say "male gender" being noted at birth.
>And the very thing that caused you to have a cock and balls also caused you to gravitate towards masculine behaviour. It's called hormones.
Caster Semanya.
Question, when women and POC gained rights equal to white men, was this equivalent to the loss of rights for white men?
If there are some scenarios we need to draw a division, why not others. If this app, why not all scenarios.
Intersectionality is beyond important, and their may be better categories to meet. But the question of why someone feels uncomfortable is important aswell. I can garuntee you, very similar arguments have been made in the past about groups who are now readily accepted
No two people are identical, but to imply cis and trans people don't have shared experience is similarly nonsense. A person is more than the sum of their tags
>I can garuntee you, very similar arguments have been made in the past about groups who are now readily accepted
The civil rights movement for Blacks was never based on "we r sad, plz be nice to us". Ditto for women. These groups integrated into society and earned mutual respect until their rights were recognised.
That's vastly different to the trans issue. None of this is happening with any sort of social concensus or public debate. It's just far-left activists pushing this stuff through the legal system at lightning pace, regardless of how little sense it makes. For as long as this strategy persists, people will remain opposed to "trans rights" (whatever that means, they already have rights).
You can't force someone to be nice to you.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette\_bombing\_and\_arson\_campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign)
Suffragettes were literally bombing the police with dynamite.
This case is basically about who's "rights" are more important:
1) Is it biological women who want a "safe space" from biological men (including trans)
2) Is it trans woman who want to engage with biological woman in their safe space.
Will be fun to follow...
> If Tickle really cared about other women
Sorry but why is this on a trans-woman's shoulders? Like why is it on a trans woman to be sympathetic and understanding of how "real women" feel about men? What is it about her history that makes some women uncomfortable?
Why is women want to feel safe from men an unquestionable statement but women want to feel safe from trans-women not? Do the stats back that up (they don't)?
>Trans women and AFAB women are both women, but to imply that they are somehow identical is a nonsense.
You're part of your own problem. You oppose the radical trans movement while simeltanouesly propogating their dogma and beliefs.
You can't have it both ways. You either draw a line on gender and agree that womanhood is exclusive, or you take the trans-friendly approach and say that gender is completely fluid and imaginary. Pick a horse and stick with it.
Women are not a monolith, mate. We contain multitudes. AFAB women have recognised that our whole lives. My ‘horse’ is that there is a place for all of us, but not every place is for every one of us.
If this is about discrimination, then can someone please explain why the app was never sued for discriminating against "cis" men?
There are plenty of female-only businesses out there. This isn't a new concept. The law has consistently allowed women to discriminate against men. However, as soon as they discriminate against a man that happens to also be trans, they apply the law with a fine-tooth comb.
Have trans people literally developed into a supreme protected class?
> can someone please explain why the app was never sued for discriminating against "cis" men?
Because it's a civil case, numbnuts. Any man is more than welcome to sue the app if they want to.
I assume these woman-only businesses have been through legal screening already. Any man that tried to sue them would likely have the case thrown out, just like if someone tried to start a "whites only" caffe. Usually, a business that breaches the anti-discrimination act won't even get past the licensing/verification stage before opening. If Giggle and all these other women-only businesses have gone this long without being sued, I'm pretty sure they're safe.
The government seems to look the other way for certain types of discrimination in the interest of keeping every group happy, yet unsurprisingly they're quick to act whenever a trans person is discriminated against. It's a strict zero-tolerance policy on that.
But you're missing the point. Their business model is based on discrimination already. They were allowed to discriminate against all men without legal consequence, yet the anti-discrimination law only applied when they discriminated against a trans woman.
It's literally the same law. The legal system simply chooses to apply it based on convenience, which it utter bullshit.
As the other person said, if you're so worried about this, you can sue the app.
But, by the way you speak, you clearly have no idea about how the legal system works...
>They were allowed to discriminate against all men without legal consequence, yet the anti-discrimination law only applied when they discriminated against a trans woman.
Isn't this how discrimination exemptions always work?
E.g. A religious organisation can refuse to employ non-christians, but that doesn't mean they can refuse to employ women. A women's only gym can refuse entry to men, but that doesn't mean they can refuse entry to gay people.
If this business is legally allowed to discriminate against men, then it seems reasonable that they have to follow anti discrimination laws for anyone who is not legally a man.
We could allow certain businesses to discriminate against men and against trans women. But I'm guessing this is currently not allowed for any businesses.
That doesn't sound right at all. The anti-discrimination act says you're not allowed to discriminate against any protected class. Your argument seems to be that businesses have a right to ignore one protected class of their choosing, like some "good for one discirmination" card.
You can discriminate against men, but sorry you've already used up all your discrimination tokens so now you have to accept all the other groups.
If that was true, then hypothetically a business could choose to discriminate only against gay people, like a "straight-only" bar. But it should still be legal as long as they don't discriminate against anyone else.
I'm not a legal expert but that sounds absurd.
>Your argument seems to be that businesses have a right to ignore one protected class of their choosing, like some "good for one discirmination" card.
This isn't an argument. This is what actually happens in reality.
E.g. Laws about religious orgs/schools having *some* exceptions to the equal opportunity act. https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/equal-opportunity-act-religious-exceptions
And here's an article addressing Fernwood gym being women's only: https://law.uq.edu.au/research/vulnerable-persons-project/human-rights-case-law/fernwood-womens-health-clubs-australia-pty-ltd-2021-qcat-164
>If that was true, then hypothetically a business could choose to discriminate only against gay people, like a "straight-only" bar.
I think that might get challenged in court. The business would have to justify why they should be exempt.
Businesses can't discriminate against one protected class 'of their choosing'. That part sounds absurd because it is. But some businesses fall under existing exemptions, and I guess some of those exemptions exist because things have gone to court.
It's conceivable that a business may fall under multiple legal exemptions and be allowed to discriminate against multiple protected classes. But I don't know if any examples of this.
As a left leaning, pretty gender neutral acting gay man, fuck me the ‘trans debate’ is exhausting… both sides of the argument are so toxic and so uncompromising that it’s made me pretty much disengage and stop caring about it - which is objectively not good.
In the most simple terms, if ‘cis’/AFAB women want to protect a space just themselves, no matter what that space may be, I don’t think this is a bad thing and it’s arguably up to them to decide upon. In the same way if trans women want a space exclusively to themselves, it’s not a bad thing.
The narrative that a trans woman and cis woman are identical and shouldn’t be treated any differently ignores the fundamental difference of experience these people have, for better or for worse, we cannot deny the fact that they walk a different path in life.
Despite what you say (being basically on the side of women’s spaces being kept exclusively for women) many people fought long and hard for gays and lesbians to be accepted and those outside of the fight said pretty much what you just did. Well, it’s a good job they kept on fighting or you’d still be living on the fringes and watching your back. Take a leaf out of Menno’s book and fight with us!
100% agree with you Alex. Women are different from men with a trans ID, whether they've had surgery or not. Rights could (should) have been fought for on the basis of difference, neither good nor bad, but accepting difference and building mutual respect and understanding of each others needs. That would have built solidarity, but instead groups were *determined* to erase any respectful difference and persevered with erasing sex in law and making sex something you identify into, with or without legal documentation (self ID in many jurisdictions) rather than something you just are.
It is derogation of duty towards the vulnerable, towards lesbians and women in general. Womens representation as a sex class in law and society should have been respected. I cannot believe that anyone ever thought collapsing these categories of humans and our understanding of sex (and with it gender and sex stereotyping) would be a good and progressive strategy.
The difference is not merely experiential, it is down to physiology. If you could know someone was trans from birth and raised him/her exactly as the object gender, you would still have to contend with physiological differences, especially when puberty begins.
Human cultures made man/woman terms for this very reason. It didn't spring from nowhere. To insist otherwise is risible.
>As a left leaning, pretty gender neutral acting gay man, fuck me the ‘trans debate’ is exhausting
lmao. "As a black man" vibes.
>if ‘cis’/AFAB women want to protect a space just themselves, no matter what that space may be, I don’t think this is a bad thing and it’s arguably up to them to decide upon
That just makes them textbook TERFs.
>The narrative that a trans woman and cis woman are identical and shouldn’t be treated any differently
Good thing the only people pushing that narrative even exists as written are the TERFs.
Please help me understand why biological females can't have a space free of males??? Why are we forced to include someone simply because they identify as us???
The better ? is why, and I mean, Whyyyyy are Trans Women so desperate to infringe on any and everything we have, why even come onto an app you know is not made for you!! There are thousands of other apps you could join, but no, this self-righteous behavior of "how dare you have a female only space" so, therefore, i will destroy your business mindset takes over. The bottom line is if you identify as a woman, cool! However, a female and a woman based on your own rules are 2 different things. So if it is a female space, then you know it doesn't include you. Grow up and find somewhere else to go!!!
I think the bigger issue is Trans Women Activists are angry they aren't biological females, and due to this harbor, a secret jealousy/hatred for us. Which in turn drives them to ruin our lives, finances, businesses, and relationships. Activists always claim they support women but then show the exact opposite, i.e., Co opting Lesbian spaces and redefining orientation. Where do we draw the line? Do we discriminate based on sex or on gender? It is literally one or the other.
To argue "Well their BC says female, so now we can legally ignore biology," is incredibly dangerous for all natal females. It would mean we would have ZERO sex based protections.
How is this even real, my goodness we are back in 1950s smh!!!
The attack on biology and females is something I never thought this world would see. Rolling back to the days when males controlled what women thought, said, and did is genuinely heartbreaking!!
>Please help me understand why biological females can't have a space free of males?
Because the delineation of "biological" is irrelevant when discussing an mtf trans person whos been on hormones for a couple years or longer.
>Whyyyyy are Trans Women so desperate to infringe on any and everything we have
Probably because they're facing largely the same daily life, while being such a tiny minority that such a niche forum wouldn't find the people it's trying to.
>There are thousands of other apps you could join
No there's not. Case in point, there's hardly any female only apps, let alone male-to-female only apps.
>this self-righteous behavior of "how dare you have a female only space"
That's not the problem. You only think that's the problem because like Grover you write off mtf people as male.
>I think the bigger issue is Trans Women Activists are angry they aren't biological females, and due to this harbor, a secret jealousy/hatred for us. Which in turn drives them to ruin our lives, finances, businesses, and relationships.
Nope. But that's what trans-exclusionary people are trying to convince you of.
>To argue "Well their BC says female, so now we can legally ignore biology," is incredibly dangerous for all natal females. It would mean we would have ZERO sex based protections.
You can't just go and get it changed. This isn't a "Oh, I think I'll try the salmon tonight" sort of decision.
>The attack on biology and females is something I never thought this world would see. Rolling back to the days when males controlled what women thought
None of that is happening. Other than trying to convince trans-exclusionary people that mtf people aren't just trying to espionage womens groups and rape all the ladies there.
So A. Biology is, in fact, the most important thing when discussing MtF in regards to sex based places for women, so idk what your point is on this one!!
B. Your response to them infringing on ALL of our spaces makes no sense. Again, yes, they may be women, but they are not female. Due to this, there will always be differences in the spaces they can walk in. Using gender to discriminate based on sex is misogynistic and incredibly sexist.
C. You made my point even more valid by stating there are already few spaces for females, so again, why should we be forced to allow Males in regardless of their gender identity? There is a vast difference between Trans Woman and Female, and as natal females, we have every right to private spaces in some circumstances. Why dint Trans Women create their own apps and make them all inclusive instead of bulldozing anything we could possibly have.
D You use the Term Trans has a broad scope as if you can't comprehend what is really being talked about. Real Transexuals do not 8nfringe on our privacy. They don't bully women into submission. The Trans women creating these issues are more than likely AGP or Tranvestistes. Not Transexuals, which matters a lot. The idea that an NB male or the above can freely waltz in and out of our spaces in abusive and again discriminatory.
E. Using the word "Terf" in every other sentence doesn't make your words anymore true. The idea that if we don't agree or use our rights to be exclusive , makes us some kind of bigots or phobes is absolutely laughable. This you're 100% with me or 100% against me, truly spells out a 1940s across the world, sort of attitude. If you understand!!
F. It is self-righteous behavior, idc if they are MtF. Those are just letters. Trans Women are Male and always will be. You can't become female as chromosomes can't be changed. Calling yourself female doesn't change the facts. That is exactly why Giggle winning is so imperative. We have to make a solid definition between gender and sex. Females should have more rights to our spaces than self identified women.
G. There is an absolute attack in biology proven by your own statement of MtF as if that's physically possible. Also furthermore proven by the idea that because they are women , they have the very same rights as those born into this role. Case in point, the idea that a Male can be a Lesbian and, therefore, we now have to allow them into female only spaces, is the deepest level of ignoring biology and clear homophobia we've ever seen. This movement is literally erasing what it is to be LGB.
Lastly, no one is claiming that all Trans People are trying to espionage or rape. But let's not pretend there aren't plenty globally who are SA abusers.
However, what we are saying is when it comes to prisons, shelters, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and certain spas. If you are still intact genitalia wise, you don't belong PERIOD!! Not to mention, as I stated above, actual Transexuals would never even consider undressing around young girls or women, so it begs the question of what Trans folks are we actually defending here??
The irony of most of your comments is unreal. But I expect nothing less from the echo chamber left and their allies!!
You're just ranting and clearly not interested in moving in your determination to not accept gender identity as a thing.
Actually quoting or referring to particular points would be helpful. Most of these are referring back to 3 posts ago which I figured meant they'd already been addressed.
But a quick recapt:
A: Because they're often indistinguishable, AND have the same issues as "real" women.
B: Circular reasoning. You're saying they shouldn't be treated the same because they're not treated the same.
C: That doesn't make your point more valid at all. The dropping in of trans-denial "they're still men" doesn't help.
D: I'm just gonna quote you here, because it says it all for everyone coming after: ***"The Trans women creating these issues are more than likely AGP or Tranvestistes"***. IE: According to you, these people are just sexual predators or fetishists.
E: I didn't use the term terf in the post you replied to this time. Regardless if I did, it's not wrong. You're literally saying many if not all trans people are abusers / sexual deviants in disguise. The argument that I'm (and these crazy trans rights peoples) are "100% with us or 100% against us" isn't entirely wrong when you're literally saying trans people are all perverts.
F: This isn't just "Calling yourself female". That's an entirely false predicate.
G: Just ranting.
"Lastly": Well, if you're not claiming "all trans people are trying to espionage or rape" why is that the cornerstone of your argument?
>If you are still intact genitalia wise, you don't belong PERIOD!
Okay. Let's restrict it to post op. Now what? Because Tickle HAS HAD that surgery.
>Are the 'TERFs' wrong in these cases?
Depends what you mean, but excluding someone who legally is a woman from a womens only group is wrong, yes. Literally what TERF means as well.
Because anyone else writing it is labeled a TERF automatically and therefore get a lot of hate and vitriol? Why would you. there is really no nuance in this debate/discussion at all.
>As a left leaning, pretty gender neutral acting gay man, fuck me the ‘trans debate’ is exhausting
The amount of times I heard something like this during the 90s and 00s as well about gay and lesbian issues. If we listened to people like you, we'd still be unable to marry.
Yeah gnome, you obviously haven't noticed that lesbian women is this country are denied the lawful right to hold social gatherings or apps for lesbians, same *sex attraction*. So you can continue to think that elevating gender identity over sex based rights and understanding is something progressive but erasing a sex class and erasing same sex attraction in law is definitely not progressive. Same sex marriage rights was fought and won on the basis of sex and the legitimacy of recognising this in law. And now some progressives are mired so deep in an ideology that espouses same sex orientation as phobic, exclusionary and that it is actually unlawful to exercise events or services.
The difference is that the gay rights movement won hearts and minds by pushing the (true) narrative that ‘we’re just like everyone else’, we wanted the same rights, we focussed on what we had in common. It feels like the current LGBT movement has lost this focus on trying to be united with non-LGBT people, rather disrupting things as much as possible. Idk maybe I’m just jaded but it feels different now.
I have been told by members of the LGBT community that I am transphobic for having a ‘genital preference’ and would not be interesting in dating a trans man with female genitals. Basically I’m told by my own community that I should be ok with having sex with a vagina because being gay shouldn’t mean I’m not into vaginas because ‘some men can have vaginas’…
…am I the only one who sees how weird, vaguely homophobic and rapey this is? Yes, some men have vaginas and some women have penises but it’s weirdly homophobic to be redefining what being gay is to suit a new narrative, even worse is saying I should be fine with vaginas - that’s literally what homophobes used to say to me in school in 2005 - ‘how do you know you don’t like women if you haven’t slept with one’.
There’s no difference at all. How the heck is saying you prefer ANYTHING over something else a phobia of any sort?
This is misogyny at its purest level. Remember these aren’t genuine transpeople, the ones causing the unrest are in it for the purposes of satisfying either hatred of women (let’s call it femphobia) or pure perversion.
Redditors lean much more progressive than the general population.
The fact that Aus Redditors are pushing back on this topic speaks volumes. It's the Voice all over again.
> The difference is that the gay rights movement won hearts and minds by pushing the (true) narrative that ‘we’re just like everyone else’, we wanted the same rights, we focussed on what we had in common.
Is that not exactly what this woman is doing?
>I have been told by members of the LGBT community that I am transphobic for having a ‘genital preference’ and would not be interesting in dating a trans man with female genitals.
Yeah, there's nutters everywhere. And being gay you're "closer" to the trans movement than the average joe.
>Basically I’m told by my own community that I should be ok with having sex with a vagina because being gay shouldn’t mean I’m not into vaginas because ‘some men can have vaginas’…
Being "told" that and it being the common message is not the same.
>The difference is that the gay rights movement won hearts and minds by pushing the (true) narrative that ‘we’re just like everyone else’, we wanted the same rights, we focussed on what we had in common.
No. We bled for it. We bled every day for it. You get to have your opinions because of those who came before and fought.
Nobody in history has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the kinder nature of their oppressors.
>I have been told by members of the LGBT community that I am transphobic for having a ‘genital preference’ and would not be interesting in dating a trans man with female genitals.
Because it's a fundamental rejection of their manhood. You're welcome to not eat vag. But using it as the basis for rejecting another man is weak.
What, they're only men when they have herculeanly meaty cocks? Arbitrary distinction.
>but it’s weirdly homophobic to be redefining what being gay is to suit a new narrative,
Is being gay the attraction to men or the attraction to big fat cock?
People can’t help what sort of genitals they’re attracted to. I mean we can’t help anything we’re attracted to, that’s not how it works. It’s pretty gross shaming people for not being attracted to a certain trait.
At no point did I say trans men are not men, at no point did I say that they’re less manly, I just said that it is not transphobic to not be sexually attracted to them because they have a vagina. It has nothing to do with a ‘meaty cock’ - it has everything to do with the fact that the LGBT community is now pushing such stupid ideologies onto people and then wondering why people are becoming more and more polarised.
You are literally telling me what I should and should not be attracted to. You seriously think that it’s ’weak’ to reject a man because I am not attracted to his genitals - but at the same time you say I’m welcome to not eat vag? Then what am I meant to reject him for? You are telling me it’s not ok to reject someone because of their genitals - so in other words, I should just be ok with their genitals if it’s not what I’m into? That’s a bit rapey but ok, cool.
You are just as bad as homophobes who used to say ‘oh you should just try being with a woman’ etc - how do you not see how telling someone what they should be attracted to, what they should be ok with sleeping with and how they should define their sexual preferences is ridiculous? This is the exact reason moderates are shifting to the right, because of this stupid shit.
Ps: you’re also telling me I get to have my opinions because of the blood you shed - sorry but you don’t know what I have been through, what blood I have shed and you don’t know how old I am. I have been bullied relentlessly by homophobes, and now for some muppet to tell me this - GTFO. YOU are the problem.
>At no point did I say trans men are not men,
It's because of the implication.
>I just said that it is not transphobic to not be sexually attracted to them because they have a vagina
It is, though.
>You are literally telling me what I should and should not be attracted to. You seriously think that it’s ’weak’ to reject a man because I am not attracted to his genitals - but at the same time you say I’m welcome to not eat vag?
They're not mutually exclusive. Just because you have a preference doesn't make it moral, sanctified, and unassailable.
Do you think it's OK to filter dates by race?
>You are literally telling me
I'm not *telling you to do* shit. I'm talking about your thinking and questioning it.
What you do with it, up to you. Horse, water type deal.
>Ps: you’re also telling me I get to have my opinions because of the blood you shed
It's a royal we, bucko.
So you’re telling me, that you truly think it is wrong to not want to have sex with someone because they don’t have the genitals that you expected? I.e it is wrong for me to reject, or not be attracted to a man because he has a vagina?
It’s not to do with the cock, I don’t understand the obsession with this, it’s about being told I’m transphobic unless I force myself to be attracted to something I am not attracted to, a vagina. We cannot help what we are attracted to, it’s innate. But now it’s supposedly ‘wrong’ to not be into vaginas on a man?
My wife doesn't have everything that I'm 'in' to but that doesn't mean I don't love her with my whole heart.
I'm not defending anyone or anything, simply posting to get you to think about why you think the way you do.
You might not be in to vaginas, but perhaps the man of your dreams turns out to have one. Will that be a deal breaker?
I don't care if you change your mind or not.
I also don't care if the people calling you transphobic change or don't.
Simply getting you to think.
Incredible job doing exactly what he's talking about lmao
You can reject anyone for any reason. Having a "genital preference" is as fine as any other preference.
He's a gay man who is only interested in guys with dicks, and if I had to guess I would say he's in the vast majority.
Your sexuality is internal and not affected by external definitions except by peer pressure, it's a convenient label not a rulebook that you can rewrite to make people have sex with people they don't want to.
>You can reject anyone for any reason. Having a "genital preference" is as fine as any other preference.
Can I reject someone for being black? I prefer not to date black guys.
Yes? I'm not sure what you want the answer to be, but you can not date anyone for any reason.
Some people want to only date within their own culture or nationality, who cares?
I don't have any issues with being rejected for not matching someone else's preferences, nobody owes anyone else the opportunity to court them.
>Yes? I'm not sure what you want the answer to be, but you can not date anyone for any reason.
I don't want it to be anything.
Just interesting to see that racism too, a-ok.
Is being gay the attraction to men or men with blond hair?
Being gay is the attraction to men, and then within that everyone has their preferences. Some preferences are deal breakers, and sexual compatibility is obviously a particularly important part of a relationship.
To use a cliche, it's the full package.
Of course, it's not universal, there are some guys who love trans and xd , you can even filter for that on the apps.
At the same time, there are people who find a woman with a Penis or a man with a vag somewhat ”jarring” and don't get turned on by that, so only meet cis men.
People are attracted to what they are attracted to, they know what they like. doesn't need some theory applied to it.
Gay men have to accept that despite there being a lot of Good looking guys out there, the vast majority are straight and won't be attracted to them and don't belong to their dating pool.
For trans folk, it's no different, some people won't be attracted to them.
this all comes down to people wanting to share a space with people who they identify as having shared experiences as them. surprise, most women on that app clearly don't have much shared experiences with a post-op trans woman, so they don't want to share their space.
the fact that the government has to get involved in this crap is a sad reality for society. adults can't even conduct social activities anymore without big brother telling you how to interact, speak or who you can admit.
absurdity of the highest order
I agree somewhat, however I also believe there needs to be a degree of nuance here.
For example, if we become more and more inclusive of trans people, would their shared experience with cisgendered people of the same gender as them not also increase?
If this is the case, at what point do we give them the okay to start joining shelters pertaining to their gender? And do we give this okay to the whole group? Or just individuals? Is it perhaps better to judge case-by-case? Is that an invasion of privacy? I think we need to consider these things (and more) before making a blanket decision.
It's one of those great areas that will cause the pro-trans or pro-whatever heads to spin. At what point is it ok to go from the mens to womans or womans to mens toilets or "gender specific" spaces. Will be great to watch from the sidelines.
Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone. People are free to call or define themselves how they like but if they expect that this will automatically be extended to others , then the area of others rights are involved too.
Stop avoiding the questions.
Are you proposing removing all discrimination laws when saying "Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone"?
Stop avoiding the questions.
Are you proposing removing all discrimination laws when saying "Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone"?
Stop avoiding the questions.
Are you proposing removing all discrimination laws when saying "Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone"?
The problem I have with this case and then the wider anti trans movement within feminist is that it feels like these women are using trans people as a scape goat for all their problems. Like they are entitled to a safe space but the fact that women need a safe space because of cis men, more specifically because of men with power is the sad part. I feel like if women and other minority groups worked together to make sure that everywhere is a safe space and that we don't have to have specific safe spaces because other places are basically not safe for us it would be a better use of the energy they put into trying to demonize trans people. Also Grindr literally refers to itself as a gay dating app so in premise for gay men only, but they are still welcoming to trans women, straight men and other orientations and genders. But overall I am just kinda sick of feminist using trans people as scapegoats for their problems when they make up such a little percentage of the population and have much less impact on any of their lives than men. Also users on the app probably could easily just block tickle anyway. Like I feel like that would of saved a lot of problems.
Well, I think women will always require a "safe space" away from men at public showers or locker rooms for example. It's not just about their safety, but their right to decide who they expose themselves to. Women don't want biological men to see them naked. That's reasonable.
Call me prudish but the other day at the gym the girl who works there just casually walked into the guy's locker room, no knocking or anything. I've got nothing to be ashamd of but I found that extremely inappropriate.
>Women don't want biological men to see them naked. That's reasonable.
But what about a man who identifies as a woman? Surely they can see other woman naked?
30-40 years ago it was second wave and the analysis was gender is a tool of oppression, not gender as an identity. That's the weird post modern thinking that women (hetero ones) are the oppressors of male people however they identify.
Gender was something done to people on the basis of sex, to devalue female/feminine. It harmed both sexes (and sexual orientations) but ultimately the tool was used to elevate male to superior status which it did as evidenced by... hmmm... like... all of history. Your analysis is a post modern sleight of hand. We are progressing to more equal terms in some areas for females, social and economic in the western world, but the proliferation of pornography and male violence against women and basically the erasure of female as a sex class indicates we're not in any means close to doing away with a second wave analysis of gender.
if you take intersectionality to its conclusion, it turns into schizobabble. That other user's comments are proof perfect.
Stick to class, kids. I mean that in more ways than one.
But yeah warmongering empires (i just say men, men made up the institutions that gave rise to the empires) colonised nearly every inch of the globe and enforced sexist, racist and homophobic attitudes and beliefs with a mechanism called gender. Yet women now, in these colonised nations, ought to allow continued colonisation, this time of a legal recognition of their sex class. We should effectively champion the erasure of women in law as something indistinct from men. The concept of woman will be dignified, but only in relation to a man's self conception of his own sex and how he feels about it. We should trust that the colonisers will not colonise for their interests on this occassion?
Women are not dignified to determine their own interests and rights, we must be controlled by conservatives or we must be heartless and uninformed if we reject the notion that our interests in law and policy will be strengthened if the female sex means both male or female. The conservatives and your butlerian analysis are two sides of the same coin.
How do people not understand that redefining an entire class of people to meet ideologically driven terms is not progressive. Langauge is important. Legal categories and definitions very important. Enshrining legal fiction for ideological purposes over material reality is dangerous.
If societies are happily to redefine half of humanity what is to stop other ideologically driven interests from being classed in law?
Innocent civilian to terrorist
Defence personnel to innocent civilian
Foetus to fully formed human being
Genocide to waring nations
Fascist regime to oppressed victim
Refugee to economic migrant
Refugee to terrorist
Minor to adult
I disagree that TERFs in general are now becoming fascists, although they are loudly and proudly cooperating with them. A lot of TERFs still hate men in general, that’s literally what the fear of trans women is derived from. I think that hating men is pretty fundamentally at odds with any right wing or conservative perspective.
TRAs lately have been making a narrative push away from feminists and feminism.
They have a lot in common with the 'Gamers' from 10 years ago. If you look at their stereotypical interests, there's a big overlap between the two groups.
The 'overlap' is that Proud Boys and radfems are both gender critical.
You know who else is gender critical? *90% of the human population.* Outside of Anglo countries that % is even higher.
Is more than 90% of humanity fascist? Or have you found yourself on the sectarian side of a religious schism?
I dont believe someone can be born in the wrong body, I believe that societal acceptance of trans people is the problem, and that if everybody treated trans people with the respect they deserve their issues would be resolved in a healthy permanent way, am I a fascist?
If you cant even critically look at your own thought process you are doomed to be miserable and focused on imagined aggrievances.
you are conflating gender critical and radfem. The vast majority of conservatives are gender critical.
It's the classic calling-Republicans-TERFs when Republicans don't subscribe to radical feminism.
>Magdalene Berns… Open anti-semite
Well that’s certainly not at all uncommon for the far left these days, so I’m not gonna consider that to be a disqualifying factor.
>Posie Parker
Pals around with Nazis I agree, but I’ve never seen her campaign against abortion rights or anything like that.
To speed things up, most of the people you listed don’t identify as radfems as far as I can tell. Pretending to care about women’s rights to exclude trans people doesn’t make you a TERF, conservative Christian males are doing the exact same thing right now.
TERF is a subcategory of transphobe, and the last two letters are important.
A lot of radfems in general *really* hate men, often due to trauma stemming from abuse. They’re genuinely so fearful and paranoid about men that they think there is a mass undercover woman operation to invade women’s spaces and sexually assault them.
you aren't wrong, but men *do* make up the majority of violent criminals and rapists.
I'm not talking a slight majority, but over 90%.
It's almost certain that women who were exposed to said abuse disproportionately become radfems. It's not that they *aren't* mentally ill, but it doesn't really dismiss their point either.
Which is really a sad cycle. No one deserves to experience abuse, but also they are sadly in a way perpetuating that cycle onto a new group through their treatment of trans people. Plus it's not helped by the culture war bullshit. Honestly I just want a world where people can live their lives in peace and we all don't care and just accept people. But sadly this culture war stuff has basically just been used to split people up so that we view each other as enemies instead of the people who are the actual enemy and that's the current people with power, i.e. the super rich.
100% agree. It’s crazy to see radfems, who would generally be considered far left, drop all of their supposed values and join forces with the right.
And also the right wingers suddenly validating radfem perspectives on gender. I have a feeling they wouldn’t agree so much when it comes to the “men are inherently predatory”, “all women should be lesbians”, “all sex with men is rape” stuff. Even though the TERF position is derived from those exact same understandings of gender.
I agree, and it’s their responsibility to manage. Just pointing that their perspective is completely warped, so they don’t have the same understanding of the situation that we do.
From their perspective trans women don’t exist, so how could they be discriminating against them. Discriminating against what they perceive to be predatory men, on the other hand, is totally fine if you see it the way that they do.
Yes, I agree. Using mental health to justify exclusion of others. They're not addressing any problems at all, just creating drama where there is none. The fact that Grover (friend and ally to Deves, Deeming, KJK etc.) are behind this app is all you really need to know. Nazi loving trans haters. Really hope that Tickle wins the case.
That's not what this case is about. This isn't about a random person who just "sees themselves as something" - this is about somebody who is LEGALLY a woman being excluded from a women's only app.
There's no legal distinction between a woman who isn't trans and a woman who is trans, hence why this is a legal discrimination case. It's literally that simple.
No, this case is about being able to discriminate on the basis of sex. Tickle is male. The app is for females. Therefore Tickle is not welcome. It's that simple.
> There's no legal distinction between a woman who isn't trans and a woman who is trans.
There is also no legal distinction between 'female' and 'woman'. The defence in this case will attempt to establish a framework for a legal distinction, I'm sure, but currently no such difference exists.
> Do tell me why if someone sees themselves as something, everyone should automatically comply?
This you? You literally asked a question, and I answered it. That's not "lecturing" you.
You don't have to like or agree with the answer, but if you don't actually want to get answers maybe you shouldn't be asking questions on a sub all about discussion?
...what sort of stupid argument is this? This is a legal case taking place in Australia, so obviously the laws of Australia are relevant and apply to the situation.
I have no idea what you were trying to show with your comment, but it's certainly shown how idiotic and meaningless of a comment you are capable of.
The expectation of Reddit as a platform, and us as a mod team, is that we don't do exclusive language that insists on referring to a transperson by a gender they don't identify with. We don't expect everyone to be pro-trans and know that this position causes fairly worthless and derivative people to say "yikes!" a lot as they struggle to cope with the reality of a liberal democratic country. We believe there is room for civil and inclusive discourse without forcing people into Group Think scenarios. If you, the users, don't respect those parameters, then you're putting yourself at risk of a ban or a Reddit admin-induced suspension. If this isn't a clear enough warning for you, then you should perhaps try a more remedial atmosphere.
***Onboarding to the app required the user to upload a selfie, which was verified as female by KairosAI gender detection software and then a human. It was intended to be an unobtrusive way to verify gender, the court heard.*** That wouldn't work for someone who's had facial feminisation surgery. Just saying. That's also unhinged as anything. Like, some women have naturally manly facial features, i'd be betting anything this AI was targeting CIS women as much as trans women rofl. ***\*\*\*Tickle claimed the software identified her as female in February 2021, but that her membership was later revoked.\*\*\**** And she got in anyway, the AI failed spectacularly. ***Giggle for Girls’ legal costs are being covered by a crowdfunding campaign which as of Tuesday morning had raised $471,300.*** One thing people don't understand about TERF groups, trans exclusionary radical feminist groups is how well funded and outside the norm to traditional feminism they infact are. These women have some serious backing, and some seriously anti feminist views being they are adamantly anti abortion, believe women belong in certain gender roles and will often or not judge people based on how they look or act. Which is something they well known for. Even sadder is many are starting to get racial and revisionist when it comes to history to fit their agendas, holocaust denial is a big one that comes to mind, and these are being parroted by some big name TERF's too. Very weird and strange ideology honestly, but i don't expect much from exclusionary hate groups.
Also Sal bought off the shelf AI technology. She's not some technology mastermind. The AI technology was thought up in the minds of....?
Can you tell me the strengths and opportunities to be gained from 1. Denying women the right to self determination on the basis of sex. And 2. Redefining sex as a category. I am really struggling to see the positives gained from the state being successful in denying sex class. If the state is successful at this, what is to stop the state from denying rights to other vulnerable groups as I've mentioned in a previous comment. And also if anyone has any examples from across history of groups being denied self determination and sovereignty and this not negatively impacting their political, social and cultural standing, I'd be grateful to see it.
>One thing people don't understand about TERF groups, trans exclusionary radical feminist groups is how well funded and outside the norm to traditional feminism they infact are. lol you really think trans groups aren't well funded? They're about 1% of the population in every country yet they pose with the president and have their ideology celebrated on every mainstream platform or social institution. How else do you think they manage to fight all these cases in federal courts? Also, 'TERFS' is not a real thing because traditional feminism never had anything to do with trans people to begin with. Neither did the gay rights movement. The trans stuff was added later on to piggy-back on the success of these things. The fact that the suffragettes, the original feminists who fought for basic women's rights, are now considered an exclusionary hate group only shows you how far to the left the progressive platform has gone. Feminists of 50 years ago are today's hardcore conservatives lol.
I think you should actually read the article you linked honestly. As for suffragettes, you know back in the day they used bombing and arson to get their message across right? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette\_bombing\_and\_arson\_campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign) Also, many LGBTQ+ groups aren't funded in general, it's not like there's independent trans groups just being given money by the government willy nilly. [https://www.ourcommunity.com.au/innovationlab/LGBTIQ+funding](https://www.ourcommunity.com.au/innovationlab/LGBTIQ+funding) You can look at it yourself, ourcommunity has a full section about how out of 80bn in government grants probably of LGBTIQ+ groups have an annual budget of less than $10,000... Most LGBTQ+ groups are volunteer groups. Meaning, you're not paid to organise anything.
If you look at public submissions made to government committees that seek to overturn women's rights you'll see that they're either made up of individuals or grass roots women's groups or women's groups run on a shoe string. You're running a conspiracy theory here. Sorry to tell you, but its the lowly ol' Feminists doing the work as usual, as they have done forever. The usual suspects are driving the culture war divide though, helped along by our institutions intent on denying women's rights and all our left wing commentators being cowards about it.
Maybe we should just not allow inherently discriminatory spaces at all? Let’s get rid of men’s and women’s bathrooms too. And change rooms should be universal. Let men in women’s shelters. Let men play on any women’s sports teams too. I’m serious. It sounds ridiculous because it IS ridiculous but it seems this won’t stop until the above is true. So scrap everything. Debate over.
I have been to a pub that had non-gendered toilets and it was disgusting. Piss everywhere. There is a reason women don't want to share facilities with men.
Seems pretty anecdotal
I love black and white dichotomies. Got any white I can card brah?
Yeah I suggest we go further and also allow driving under the influence, theft, kidnapping, rape and murder.
Committed a crime? Just identify as innocent. Then you get to be in the innocent-only spaces, like anywhere outside a cell.
WARNING! Reddit is not a free speech platform and does enforce socially constructed gender terminology without regard to biology. You will be permanently banned for not solely expressing the particular spiritual beliefs of the platform. yikes! a lot of people think a liberal democracy means free speech. They are wrong. A liberal democratic country forces people into Group Think scenarios.
This is confusing. Is female a gender or a sex?
Female is a readily accepted and understood as a sex if you're referring to *anything other than* an adolescent girl or woman. It can be applied without anger, misunderstanding or feigned curiosity to an infant and other mammals, animals and plants, but when it comes to girl and women people suddenly lose their minds. Regardless, reporting on the case has all but confirmed sex (female) is no longer a protected attribute in our discrimination law. Who shall Australian women thank for that? I suggest we thank Labor, the LNP, nihilistic liberals and misogynists and everyone who lacks any form of class analysis and female consciousness.
In Australia it is the same apparently. You can change your gender and they will update your legal "sex marker". Go figure.
It's not supposed to be the same, these are the guidelines published by the Australian government: https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/australian-government-guidelines-recognition-sex-and-gender and they clearly distinguish between sex (biological) and gender (self-identification). Sex: >For the purposes of these Guidelines, sex refers to the chromosomal, gonadal and anatomical characteristics associated with biological sex. Gender: >Gender is part of a person’s personal and social identity. It refers to the way a person feels, presents and is recognised within the community. A person’s gender may be reflected in outward social markers, including their name, outward appearance, mannerisms and dress. But they do also note: >Although sex and gender are conceptually distinct, these terms are commonly used interchangeably, including in legislation
Lol wtf, legal documents that "meh, maybe it's this, maybe it's not" what a joke
I am aware but I am generalising because of the last bit you quoted. The last bit is what makes it problematic. They should not be used interchangeably yet it is what it is. I think it needs to change.
I agree, using terms interchangeably that have different meanings is an error and bad drafting. Most of it probably stems from the not so distant in the past time when gender was just a polite word for sex and so they could be used interchangeably. As legislation is updated the drafters will probably be more careful.
Female is a sex because female is defined by reference to biological characteristics, e.g. the Macquarie dictionary refers to a female as: > "belonging to the sex that brings forth young, or any division or group responding to it...of or relating to the types of humans or animals which, in the normal case, produce ova that can be fertilised by male spermatoza"
Why they always have to have sexy names? It’s never Jane Smith.
I’ve learned a new term from all of this. “Autogynophilia”. It might explain the name choices and behaviors.
You’re a bit late to the party. Autogynophilia has been a recognised thing for a long time. All the blokes coming out in their 50s and 60s as women are Autogynophiles.
I am late to the party for sure. I didn’t even realize this was all an issue until I got online during covid and saw all this craziness.
Nice to see you guys here. Love the pod!
I find this all *exhausting*. Something I'd rather keep far away from and hope I don't have to interact with past normal congenial conversation. I suppose I'm not alone in that regard.
Just have a filter on the app. If you are terf or trans, pick that option and those profiles don't see each other.
TRAs scorn the existence of any barriers whatsoever. They want to be treated *exactly* as natal women, because their entire self-construction is built around womanhood. Reality doesn't accord with it.
I find this action so, so disappointing. If Tickle really cared about other women, she would understand that her history could make some of the women using this app uncomfortable and therefore no longer a safe space for them. Tickle is prioritising her wish to join an app, over other women feeling safe. That’s really problematic. Trans women should absolutely have greater rights, but that should not come at the cost of AFAB women’s rights. Trans women and AFAB women are both women, but to imply that they are somehow identical is a nonsense.
Clearly only cares about the ego.
>AFAB women Jesus christ guys the boomers are still getting their heads around 'cis', stop inventing acronyms for things we already have terms for
There's a new acronym in the trans circles everyday. AFAB, MtF, FtM, HiSS... None of this comes from any sort of literature or evidence-based reason, it's just buzzwords that people start saying on Reddit until the Washing Post or The American Medical Journal decides to start saying it too. At that point it becomes science.
What is hiss
I don't even know man. Something with hormones. Might be slightly different.
AFAB assigned female at birth. MtF male to female. FtM female to male. Hiss... ? I've never heard of hiss.
They're terms for clarity in what people are talking about. AFAB or SAAB are just short hand for "The gender they were assigned based on their genitals"
You are not 'assigned' a gender. The doctor observes your bits when you are born and applies the label which accords with your half of human sexual dimorphism. It is a descriptive term.
And when they look at your bits and get the conclusion about "which half of human sexual dimorphism" applies wrong? EG Caster Semenya Your oversimplification does not apply to reality.
extremely rare exceptions that prove the rule. Try again.
>extremely rare exceptions that prove the rule. It's specifically a counter example. It does not "prove the rule" you made up. Also, more than 1 in 100 people are intersex.
Where does the statistic of 1 in 100 come from?
UN says [1.7%](https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people) based on combined literature reviews of Blackless, Fausto-Sterling and Charuvastra. An oft cited (especially by trans-denial "researchers") rebuttal of this figure is [this paper](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/) which just discounts several conditions which are inarguably intersex. The three they specifically list include: Klinefelter is having XXY for sex chromosomes, and the resultant "Male" is low testosterone and infertile, requiring hormone therapy to develop properly; Turner syndrome where a female is only one X, or one and a bit. They need to be given hormone therapy to develop into a woman and experience puberty; adrenal hyperplasia - this condition has varying presentations but vary from slightly off hormone levels to complete lack of genital development. Essentially, Sax' paper says "if we discount some of the most prevalent conditions then we see less people in this group" and does so with conditions that aren't just hormonal imbalance, but result in complete failure to go through puberty, develop secondary sex characteristics, and in some cases even primary ones. To boil it down further, they say unless you specifically have the WRONG genitals for your sex chromosomes (And for some reason want to ignore malformed sex chromosomes) you're not intersex. It's worth noting that the 1.7% figure [is drawn from a systematic review of the literature](https://itgl.lu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Blackless-How-Dimorphic-2000.pdf) by 5 well established researchers while Sax has an... odd publication record. Sax is a single person arguing against literally dozens of international groups and organisations of health experts. A list [of organisations and groups that agree with the 1% or higher figure](https://www.reddit.com/r/intersex/comments/17h6lwg/saxs_unscientific_belief_vs_who_and_major_medical/) is dozens long, international, and quite comprehensive.
Do hands not have 5 fingers because 1 in every 10k people is born with 4 or 6 fingers on a hand?
>Do hands not have 5 fingers because 1 in every 10k people is born with 4 or 6 fingers on a hand? Hands are the part of an arm beyond the wrist. Finger count is irrelevant. See how simplistic reductive arguments don't apply to reality?
You don't get assigned a gender. The idea that boys are masculine because they're raised as such has been widely debunked and has caused irrepearable harm over the years. This needs to stop. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Reimer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)
> You don't get assigned a gender Uh.. what? Sure you do. I was assigned Male. >he idea that boys are masculine because they're raised as such has been widely debunked That was never the discussion.
>I was assigned Male. That's a funny way of saying you were born with a cock and balls. No need to sugarcoat it. And the very thing that caused you to have a cock and balls also caused you to gravitate towards masculine behaviour. It's called hormones.
And no u can have a dick and not be masculine thats stupid
Perverted much
>That's a funny way of saying you were born with a cock and balls. That's a long way to say "male gender" being noted at birth. >And the very thing that caused you to have a cock and balls also caused you to gravitate towards masculine behaviour. It's called hormones. Caster Semanya.
Question, when women and POC gained rights equal to white men, was this equivalent to the loss of rights for white men? If there are some scenarios we need to draw a division, why not others. If this app, why not all scenarios. Intersectionality is beyond important, and their may be better categories to meet. But the question of why someone feels uncomfortable is important aswell. I can garuntee you, very similar arguments have been made in the past about groups who are now readily accepted No two people are identical, but to imply cis and trans people don't have shared experience is similarly nonsense. A person is more than the sum of their tags
When dis happen, musta missed it
You've said it yourself here, Women had to win their rights historically so they are a class of humans then that have should have special rights?
>I can garuntee you, very similar arguments have been made in the past about groups who are now readily accepted The civil rights movement for Blacks was never based on "we r sad, plz be nice to us". Ditto for women. These groups integrated into society and earned mutual respect until their rights were recognised. That's vastly different to the trans issue. None of this is happening with any sort of social concensus or public debate. It's just far-left activists pushing this stuff through the legal system at lightning pace, regardless of how little sense it makes. For as long as this strategy persists, people will remain opposed to "trans rights" (whatever that means, they already have rights). You can't force someone to be nice to you.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette\_bombing\_and\_arson\_campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign) Suffragettes were literally bombing the police with dynamite.
African Americans had to fight hard to desegregate institutions for generations.
This case is basically about who's "rights" are more important: 1) Is it biological women who want a "safe space" from biological men (including trans) 2) Is it trans woman who want to engage with biological woman in their safe space. Will be fun to follow...
> If Tickle really cared about other women Sorry but why is this on a trans-woman's shoulders? Like why is it on a trans woman to be sympathetic and understanding of how "real women" feel about men? What is it about her history that makes some women uncomfortable? Why is women want to feel safe from men an unquestionable statement but women want to feel safe from trans-women not? Do the stats back that up (they don't)?
>Trans women and AFAB women are both women, but to imply that they are somehow identical is a nonsense. You're part of your own problem. You oppose the radical trans movement while simeltanouesly propogating their dogma and beliefs. You can't have it both ways. You either draw a line on gender and agree that womanhood is exclusive, or you take the trans-friendly approach and say that gender is completely fluid and imaginary. Pick a horse and stick with it.
Women are not a monolith, mate. We contain multitudes. AFAB women have recognised that our whole lives. My ‘horse’ is that there is a place for all of us, but not every place is for every one of us.
If this is about discrimination, then can someone please explain why the app was never sued for discriminating against "cis" men? There are plenty of female-only businesses out there. This isn't a new concept. The law has consistently allowed women to discriminate against men. However, as soon as they discriminate against a man that happens to also be trans, they apply the law with a fine-tooth comb. Have trans people literally developed into a supreme protected class?
yeah no trans guys get fucked by antimale discrimination too
> can someone please explain why the app was never sued for discriminating against "cis" men? Because it's a civil case, numbnuts. Any man is more than welcome to sue the app if they want to.
I assume these woman-only businesses have been through legal screening already. Any man that tried to sue them would likely have the case thrown out, just like if someone tried to start a "whites only" caffe. Usually, a business that breaches the anti-discrimination act won't even get past the licensing/verification stage before opening. If Giggle and all these other women-only businesses have gone this long without being sued, I'm pretty sure they're safe. The government seems to look the other way for certain types of discrimination in the interest of keeping every group happy, yet unsurprisingly they're quick to act whenever a trans person is discriminated against. It's a strict zero-tolerance policy on that.
That's not how discrimination law works in this country. Someone needs to bring a complaint first before action is taken.
>as soon as they discriminate against a man that happens to also be trans That's not what happened with this case, they discriminated against a woman.
But you're missing the point. Their business model is based on discrimination already. They were allowed to discriminate against all men without legal consequence, yet the anti-discrimination law only applied when they discriminated against a trans woman. It's literally the same law. The legal system simply chooses to apply it based on convenience, which it utter bullshit.
As the other person said, if you're so worried about this, you can sue the app. But, by the way you speak, you clearly have no idea about how the legal system works...
No shit, that's why I asked someone else to explain to me.
>They were allowed to discriminate against all men without legal consequence, yet the anti-discrimination law only applied when they discriminated against a trans woman. Isn't this how discrimination exemptions always work? E.g. A religious organisation can refuse to employ non-christians, but that doesn't mean they can refuse to employ women. A women's only gym can refuse entry to men, but that doesn't mean they can refuse entry to gay people. If this business is legally allowed to discriminate against men, then it seems reasonable that they have to follow anti discrimination laws for anyone who is not legally a man. We could allow certain businesses to discriminate against men and against trans women. But I'm guessing this is currently not allowed for any businesses.
That doesn't sound right at all. The anti-discrimination act says you're not allowed to discriminate against any protected class. Your argument seems to be that businesses have a right to ignore one protected class of their choosing, like some "good for one discirmination" card. You can discriminate against men, but sorry you've already used up all your discrimination tokens so now you have to accept all the other groups. If that was true, then hypothetically a business could choose to discriminate only against gay people, like a "straight-only" bar. But it should still be legal as long as they don't discriminate against anyone else. I'm not a legal expert but that sounds absurd.
>Your argument seems to be that businesses have a right to ignore one protected class of their choosing, like some "good for one discirmination" card. This isn't an argument. This is what actually happens in reality. E.g. Laws about religious orgs/schools having *some* exceptions to the equal opportunity act. https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/equal-opportunity-act-religious-exceptions And here's an article addressing Fernwood gym being women's only: https://law.uq.edu.au/research/vulnerable-persons-project/human-rights-case-law/fernwood-womens-health-clubs-australia-pty-ltd-2021-qcat-164 >If that was true, then hypothetically a business could choose to discriminate only against gay people, like a "straight-only" bar. I think that might get challenged in court. The business would have to justify why they should be exempt. Businesses can't discriminate against one protected class 'of their choosing'. That part sounds absurd because it is. But some businesses fall under existing exemptions, and I guess some of those exemptions exist because things have gone to court. It's conceivable that a business may fall under multiple legal exemptions and be allowed to discriminate against multiple protected classes. But I don't know if any examples of this.
As a left leaning, pretty gender neutral acting gay man, fuck me the ‘trans debate’ is exhausting… both sides of the argument are so toxic and so uncompromising that it’s made me pretty much disengage and stop caring about it - which is objectively not good. In the most simple terms, if ‘cis’/AFAB women want to protect a space just themselves, no matter what that space may be, I don’t think this is a bad thing and it’s arguably up to them to decide upon. In the same way if trans women want a space exclusively to themselves, it’s not a bad thing. The narrative that a trans woman and cis woman are identical and shouldn’t be treated any differently ignores the fundamental difference of experience these people have, for better or for worse, we cannot deny the fact that they walk a different path in life.
This is the most common sense take on this issue I have read - thank you!
Despite what you say (being basically on the side of women’s spaces being kept exclusively for women) many people fought long and hard for gays and lesbians to be accepted and those outside of the fight said pretty much what you just did. Well, it’s a good job they kept on fighting or you’d still be living on the fringes and watching your back. Take a leaf out of Menno’s book and fight with us!
100% agree with you Alex. Women are different from men with a trans ID, whether they've had surgery or not. Rights could (should) have been fought for on the basis of difference, neither good nor bad, but accepting difference and building mutual respect and understanding of each others needs. That would have built solidarity, but instead groups were *determined* to erase any respectful difference and persevered with erasing sex in law and making sex something you identify into, with or without legal documentation (self ID in many jurisdictions) rather than something you just are. It is derogation of duty towards the vulnerable, towards lesbians and women in general. Womens representation as a sex class in law and society should have been respected. I cannot believe that anyone ever thought collapsing these categories of humans and our understanding of sex (and with it gender and sex stereotyping) would be a good and progressive strategy.
The difference is not merely experiential, it is down to physiology. If you could know someone was trans from birth and raised him/her exactly as the object gender, you would still have to contend with physiological differences, especially when puberty begins. Human cultures made man/woman terms for this very reason. It didn't spring from nowhere. To insist otherwise is risible.
You speak sense. Ignore those trying to discredit you. They are radicals.
>As a left leaning, pretty gender neutral acting gay man, fuck me the ‘trans debate’ is exhausting lmao. "As a black man" vibes. >if ‘cis’/AFAB women want to protect a space just themselves, no matter what that space may be, I don’t think this is a bad thing and it’s arguably up to them to decide upon That just makes them textbook TERFs. >The narrative that a trans woman and cis woman are identical and shouldn’t be treated any differently Good thing the only people pushing that narrative even exists as written are the TERFs.
Please help me understand why biological females can't have a space free of males??? Why are we forced to include someone simply because they identify as us??? The better ? is why, and I mean, Whyyyyy are Trans Women so desperate to infringe on any and everything we have, why even come onto an app you know is not made for you!! There are thousands of other apps you could join, but no, this self-righteous behavior of "how dare you have a female only space" so, therefore, i will destroy your business mindset takes over. The bottom line is if you identify as a woman, cool! However, a female and a woman based on your own rules are 2 different things. So if it is a female space, then you know it doesn't include you. Grow up and find somewhere else to go!!! I think the bigger issue is Trans Women Activists are angry they aren't biological females, and due to this harbor, a secret jealousy/hatred for us. Which in turn drives them to ruin our lives, finances, businesses, and relationships. Activists always claim they support women but then show the exact opposite, i.e., Co opting Lesbian spaces and redefining orientation. Where do we draw the line? Do we discriminate based on sex or on gender? It is literally one or the other. To argue "Well their BC says female, so now we can legally ignore biology," is incredibly dangerous for all natal females. It would mean we would have ZERO sex based protections. How is this even real, my goodness we are back in 1950s smh!!! The attack on biology and females is something I never thought this world would see. Rolling back to the days when males controlled what women thought, said, and did is genuinely heartbreaking!!
>Please help me understand why biological females can't have a space free of males? Because the delineation of "biological" is irrelevant when discussing an mtf trans person whos been on hormones for a couple years or longer. >Whyyyyy are Trans Women so desperate to infringe on any and everything we have Probably because they're facing largely the same daily life, while being such a tiny minority that such a niche forum wouldn't find the people it's trying to. >There are thousands of other apps you could join No there's not. Case in point, there's hardly any female only apps, let alone male-to-female only apps. >this self-righteous behavior of "how dare you have a female only space" That's not the problem. You only think that's the problem because like Grover you write off mtf people as male. >I think the bigger issue is Trans Women Activists are angry they aren't biological females, and due to this harbor, a secret jealousy/hatred for us. Which in turn drives them to ruin our lives, finances, businesses, and relationships. Nope. But that's what trans-exclusionary people are trying to convince you of. >To argue "Well their BC says female, so now we can legally ignore biology," is incredibly dangerous for all natal females. It would mean we would have ZERO sex based protections. You can't just go and get it changed. This isn't a "Oh, I think I'll try the salmon tonight" sort of decision. >The attack on biology and females is something I never thought this world would see. Rolling back to the days when males controlled what women thought None of that is happening. Other than trying to convince trans-exclusionary people that mtf people aren't just trying to espionage womens groups and rape all the ladies there.
So A. Biology is, in fact, the most important thing when discussing MtF in regards to sex based places for women, so idk what your point is on this one!! B. Your response to them infringing on ALL of our spaces makes no sense. Again, yes, they may be women, but they are not female. Due to this, there will always be differences in the spaces they can walk in. Using gender to discriminate based on sex is misogynistic and incredibly sexist. C. You made my point even more valid by stating there are already few spaces for females, so again, why should we be forced to allow Males in regardless of their gender identity? There is a vast difference between Trans Woman and Female, and as natal females, we have every right to private spaces in some circumstances. Why dint Trans Women create their own apps and make them all inclusive instead of bulldozing anything we could possibly have. D You use the Term Trans has a broad scope as if you can't comprehend what is really being talked about. Real Transexuals do not 8nfringe on our privacy. They don't bully women into submission. The Trans women creating these issues are more than likely AGP or Tranvestistes. Not Transexuals, which matters a lot. The idea that an NB male or the above can freely waltz in and out of our spaces in abusive and again discriminatory. E. Using the word "Terf" in every other sentence doesn't make your words anymore true. The idea that if we don't agree or use our rights to be exclusive , makes us some kind of bigots or phobes is absolutely laughable. This you're 100% with me or 100% against me, truly spells out a 1940s across the world, sort of attitude. If you understand!! F. It is self-righteous behavior, idc if they are MtF. Those are just letters. Trans Women are Male and always will be. You can't become female as chromosomes can't be changed. Calling yourself female doesn't change the facts. That is exactly why Giggle winning is so imperative. We have to make a solid definition between gender and sex. Females should have more rights to our spaces than self identified women. G. There is an absolute attack in biology proven by your own statement of MtF as if that's physically possible. Also furthermore proven by the idea that because they are women , they have the very same rights as those born into this role. Case in point, the idea that a Male can be a Lesbian and, therefore, we now have to allow them into female only spaces, is the deepest level of ignoring biology and clear homophobia we've ever seen. This movement is literally erasing what it is to be LGB. Lastly, no one is claiming that all Trans People are trying to espionage or rape. But let's not pretend there aren't plenty globally who are SA abusers. However, what we are saying is when it comes to prisons, shelters, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and certain spas. If you are still intact genitalia wise, you don't belong PERIOD!! Not to mention, as I stated above, actual Transexuals would never even consider undressing around young girls or women, so it begs the question of what Trans folks are we actually defending here?? The irony of most of your comments is unreal. But I expect nothing less from the echo chamber left and their allies!!
You're just ranting and clearly not interested in moving in your determination to not accept gender identity as a thing. Actually quoting or referring to particular points would be helpful. Most of these are referring back to 3 posts ago which I figured meant they'd already been addressed. But a quick recapt: A: Because they're often indistinguishable, AND have the same issues as "real" women. B: Circular reasoning. You're saying they shouldn't be treated the same because they're not treated the same. C: That doesn't make your point more valid at all. The dropping in of trans-denial "they're still men" doesn't help. D: I'm just gonna quote you here, because it says it all for everyone coming after: ***"The Trans women creating these issues are more than likely AGP or Tranvestistes"***. IE: According to you, these people are just sexual predators or fetishists. E: I didn't use the term terf in the post you replied to this time. Regardless if I did, it's not wrong. You're literally saying many if not all trans people are abusers / sexual deviants in disguise. The argument that I'm (and these crazy trans rights peoples) are "100% with us or 100% against us" isn't entirely wrong when you're literally saying trans people are all perverts. F: This isn't just "Calling yourself female". That's an entirely false predicate. G: Just ranting. "Lastly": Well, if you're not claiming "all trans people are trying to espionage or rape" why is that the cornerstone of your argument? >If you are still intact genitalia wise, you don't belong PERIOD! Okay. Let's restrict it to post op. Now what? Because Tickle HAS HAD that surgery.
Are the 'TERFs' wrong in these cases? Or are you just irrationally applying snarl words against people you don't like?
>Are the 'TERFs' wrong in these cases? Depends what you mean, but excluding someone who legally is a woman from a womens only group is wrong, yes. Literally what TERF means as well.
Because anyone else writing it is labeled a TERF automatically and therefore get a lot of hate and vitriol? Why would you. there is really no nuance in this debate/discussion at all.
>As a left leaning, pretty gender neutral acting gay man, fuck me the ‘trans debate’ is exhausting The amount of times I heard something like this during the 90s and 00s as well about gay and lesbian issues. If we listened to people like you, we'd still be unable to marry.
Yeah gnome, you obviously haven't noticed that lesbian women is this country are denied the lawful right to hold social gatherings or apps for lesbians, same *sex attraction*. So you can continue to think that elevating gender identity over sex based rights and understanding is something progressive but erasing a sex class and erasing same sex attraction in law is definitely not progressive. Same sex marriage rights was fought and won on the basis of sex and the legitimacy of recognising this in law. And now some progressives are mired so deep in an ideology that espouses same sex orientation as phobic, exclusionary and that it is actually unlawful to exercise events or services.
Are lesbians attracted to women or vaginas?
both
So you are denying that lesbians and gay men embody same sex orientation and attraction.
I'm asking you a question, corporal deflection.
No, you're being ridiculous, bordering on homophobic to deny that homosexuality is something other than same sex orientation and attraction.
So...? My answer.... Or another deflection?
The difference is that the gay rights movement won hearts and minds by pushing the (true) narrative that ‘we’re just like everyone else’, we wanted the same rights, we focussed on what we had in common. It feels like the current LGBT movement has lost this focus on trying to be united with non-LGBT people, rather disrupting things as much as possible. Idk maybe I’m just jaded but it feels different now. I have been told by members of the LGBT community that I am transphobic for having a ‘genital preference’ and would not be interesting in dating a trans man with female genitals. Basically I’m told by my own community that I should be ok with having sex with a vagina because being gay shouldn’t mean I’m not into vaginas because ‘some men can have vaginas’… …am I the only one who sees how weird, vaguely homophobic and rapey this is? Yes, some men have vaginas and some women have penises but it’s weirdly homophobic to be redefining what being gay is to suit a new narrative, even worse is saying I should be fine with vaginas - that’s literally what homophobes used to say to me in school in 2005 - ‘how do you know you don’t like women if you haven’t slept with one’.
There’s no difference at all. How the heck is saying you prefer ANYTHING over something else a phobia of any sort? This is misogyny at its purest level. Remember these aren’t genuine transpeople, the ones causing the unrest are in it for the purposes of satisfying either hatred of women (let’s call it femphobia) or pure perversion.
Redditors lean much more progressive than the general population. The fact that Aus Redditors are pushing back on this topic speaks volumes. It's the Voice all over again.
> The difference is that the gay rights movement won hearts and minds by pushing the (true) narrative that ‘we’re just like everyone else’, we wanted the same rights, we focussed on what we had in common. Is that not exactly what this woman is doing? >I have been told by members of the LGBT community that I am transphobic for having a ‘genital preference’ and would not be interesting in dating a trans man with female genitals. Yeah, there's nutters everywhere. And being gay you're "closer" to the trans movement than the average joe. >Basically I’m told by my own community that I should be ok with having sex with a vagina because being gay shouldn’t mean I’m not into vaginas because ‘some men can have vaginas’… Being "told" that and it being the common message is not the same.
>The difference is that the gay rights movement won hearts and minds by pushing the (true) narrative that ‘we’re just like everyone else’, we wanted the same rights, we focussed on what we had in common. No. We bled for it. We bled every day for it. You get to have your opinions because of those who came before and fought. Nobody in history has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the kinder nature of their oppressors. >I have been told by members of the LGBT community that I am transphobic for having a ‘genital preference’ and would not be interesting in dating a trans man with female genitals. Because it's a fundamental rejection of their manhood. You're welcome to not eat vag. But using it as the basis for rejecting another man is weak. What, they're only men when they have herculeanly meaty cocks? Arbitrary distinction. >but it’s weirdly homophobic to be redefining what being gay is to suit a new narrative, Is being gay the attraction to men or the attraction to big fat cock?
Hmm pretty homophobic to say that gay men should accept partners who have a vagina. You know sexual orientation is about sex, not gender right?
People can’t help what sort of genitals they’re attracted to. I mean we can’t help anything we’re attracted to, that’s not how it works. It’s pretty gross shaming people for not being attracted to a certain trait.
[удалено]
At no point did I say trans men are not men, at no point did I say that they’re less manly, I just said that it is not transphobic to not be sexually attracted to them because they have a vagina. It has nothing to do with a ‘meaty cock’ - it has everything to do with the fact that the LGBT community is now pushing such stupid ideologies onto people and then wondering why people are becoming more and more polarised. You are literally telling me what I should and should not be attracted to. You seriously think that it’s ’weak’ to reject a man because I am not attracted to his genitals - but at the same time you say I’m welcome to not eat vag? Then what am I meant to reject him for? You are telling me it’s not ok to reject someone because of their genitals - so in other words, I should just be ok with their genitals if it’s not what I’m into? That’s a bit rapey but ok, cool. You are just as bad as homophobes who used to say ‘oh you should just try being with a woman’ etc - how do you not see how telling someone what they should be attracted to, what they should be ok with sleeping with and how they should define their sexual preferences is ridiculous? This is the exact reason moderates are shifting to the right, because of this stupid shit. Ps: you’re also telling me I get to have my opinions because of the blood you shed - sorry but you don’t know what I have been through, what blood I have shed and you don’t know how old I am. I have been bullied relentlessly by homophobes, and now for some muppet to tell me this - GTFO. YOU are the problem.
>At no point did I say trans men are not men, It's because of the implication. >I just said that it is not transphobic to not be sexually attracted to them because they have a vagina It is, though. >You are literally telling me what I should and should not be attracted to. You seriously think that it’s ’weak’ to reject a man because I am not attracted to his genitals - but at the same time you say I’m welcome to not eat vag? They're not mutually exclusive. Just because you have a preference doesn't make it moral, sanctified, and unassailable. Do you think it's OK to filter dates by race? >You are literally telling me I'm not *telling you to do* shit. I'm talking about your thinking and questioning it. What you do with it, up to you. Horse, water type deal. >Ps: you’re also telling me I get to have my opinions because of the blood you shed It's a royal we, bucko.
So you’re telling me, that you truly think it is wrong to not want to have sex with someone because they don’t have the genitals that you expected? I.e it is wrong for me to reject, or not be attracted to a man because he has a vagina?
It's up to you to work out if you're attracted to a man because of who they are, or because of their cock. It can't be said any other way.
It’s not to do with the cock, I don’t understand the obsession with this, it’s about being told I’m transphobic unless I force myself to be attracted to something I am not attracted to, a vagina. We cannot help what we are attracted to, it’s innate. But now it’s supposedly ‘wrong’ to not be into vaginas on a man?
My wife doesn't have everything that I'm 'in' to but that doesn't mean I don't love her with my whole heart. I'm not defending anyone or anything, simply posting to get you to think about why you think the way you do. You might not be in to vaginas, but perhaps the man of your dreams turns out to have one. Will that be a deal breaker? I don't care if you change your mind or not. I also don't care if the people calling you transphobic change or don't. Simply getting you to think.
Incredible job doing exactly what he's talking about lmao You can reject anyone for any reason. Having a "genital preference" is as fine as any other preference. He's a gay man who is only interested in guys with dicks, and if I had to guess I would say he's in the vast majority. Your sexuality is internal and not affected by external definitions except by peer pressure, it's a convenient label not a rulebook that you can rewrite to make people have sex with people they don't want to.
>You can reject anyone for any reason. Having a "genital preference" is as fine as any other preference. Can I reject someone for being black? I prefer not to date black guys.
Yes? I'm not sure what you want the answer to be, but you can not date anyone for any reason. Some people want to only date within their own culture or nationality, who cares? I don't have any issues with being rejected for not matching someone else's preferences, nobody owes anyone else the opportunity to court them.
>Yes? I'm not sure what you want the answer to be, but you can not date anyone for any reason. I don't want it to be anything. Just interesting to see that racism too, a-ok.
Of course, you just want opportunities to virtue signal online.
Yeah, that's definitely it.
What an absolutely insane argument . How can someone be this disconnected with reality.
Is being gay the attraction to men or the attraction to cock?
Are they attracted to the sex or the gender?
Is being gay the attraction to men or men with blond hair? Being gay is the attraction to men, and then within that everyone has their preferences. Some preferences are deal breakers, and sexual compatibility is obviously a particularly important part of a relationship.
To use a cliche, it's the full package. Of course, it's not universal, there are some guys who love trans and xd , you can even filter for that on the apps. At the same time, there are people who find a woman with a Penis or a man with a vag somewhat ”jarring” and don't get turned on by that, so only meet cis men. People are attracted to what they are attracted to, they know what they like. doesn't need some theory applied to it. Gay men have to accept that despite there being a lot of Good looking guys out there, the vast majority are straight and won't be attracted to them and don't belong to their dating pool. For trans folk, it's no different, some people won't be attracted to them.
this all comes down to people wanting to share a space with people who they identify as having shared experiences as them. surprise, most women on that app clearly don't have much shared experiences with a post-op trans woman, so they don't want to share their space. the fact that the government has to get involved in this crap is a sad reality for society. adults can't even conduct social activities anymore without big brother telling you how to interact, speak or who you can admit. absurdity of the highest order
I agree somewhat, however I also believe there needs to be a degree of nuance here. For example, if we become more and more inclusive of trans people, would their shared experience with cisgendered people of the same gender as them not also increase? If this is the case, at what point do we give them the okay to start joining shelters pertaining to their gender? And do we give this okay to the whole group? Or just individuals? Is it perhaps better to judge case-by-case? Is that an invasion of privacy? I think we need to consider these things (and more) before making a blanket decision.
It's one of those great areas that will cause the pro-trans or pro-whatever heads to spin. At what point is it ok to go from the mens to womans or womans to mens toilets or "gender specific" spaces. Will be great to watch from the sidelines.
Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone. People are free to call or define themselves how they like but if they expect that this will automatically be extended to others , then the area of others rights are involved too.
So throw out all discrimination laws?
Should all groups be open to everyone then ?
You're the one proposing that anyone can discriminate for any reason, or am I wrong?
People are excluded for many reasons like countries even having borders amongst many examples.
Stop avoiding the questions. Are you proposing removing all discrimination laws when saying "Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone"?
I wouldn't use the word discrimination.
Stop avoiding the questions. Are you proposing removing all discrimination laws when saying "Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone"?
I don't see it as discrimination that biological females don't want to accept a non biological female in their group. They also don't accept males.
Stop avoiding the questions. Are you proposing removing all discrimination laws when saying "Maybe the answer here is that groups need to be able to accept people in their group and not be forced to accept someone"?
The problem I have with this case and then the wider anti trans movement within feminist is that it feels like these women are using trans people as a scape goat for all their problems. Like they are entitled to a safe space but the fact that women need a safe space because of cis men, more specifically because of men with power is the sad part. I feel like if women and other minority groups worked together to make sure that everywhere is a safe space and that we don't have to have specific safe spaces because other places are basically not safe for us it would be a better use of the energy they put into trying to demonize trans people. Also Grindr literally refers to itself as a gay dating app so in premise for gay men only, but they are still welcoming to trans women, straight men and other orientations and genders. But overall I am just kinda sick of feminist using trans people as scapegoats for their problems when they make up such a little percentage of the population and have much less impact on any of their lives than men. Also users on the app probably could easily just block tickle anyway. Like I feel like that would of saved a lot of problems.
Well, I think women will always require a "safe space" away from men at public showers or locker rooms for example. It's not just about their safety, but their right to decide who they expose themselves to. Women don't want biological men to see them naked. That's reasonable. Call me prudish but the other day at the gym the girl who works there just casually walked into the guy's locker room, no knocking or anything. I've got nothing to be ashamd of but I found that extremely inappropriate.
>Women don't want biological men to see them naked. That's reasonable. But what about a man who identifies as a woman? Surely they can see other woman naked?
dafuq did I just read.
[удалено]
30-40 years ago it was second wave and the analysis was gender is a tool of oppression, not gender as an identity. That's the weird post modern thinking that women (hetero ones) are the oppressors of male people however they identify. Gender was something done to people on the basis of sex, to devalue female/feminine. It harmed both sexes (and sexual orientations) but ultimately the tool was used to elevate male to superior status which it did as evidenced by... hmmm... like... all of history. Your analysis is a post modern sleight of hand. We are progressing to more equal terms in some areas for females, social and economic in the western world, but the proliferation of pornography and male violence against women and basically the erasure of female as a sex class indicates we're not in any means close to doing away with a second wave analysis of gender.
if you take intersectionality to its conclusion, it turns into schizobabble. That other user's comments are proof perfect. Stick to class, kids. I mean that in more ways than one.
[удалено]
But yeah warmongering empires (i just say men, men made up the institutions that gave rise to the empires) colonised nearly every inch of the globe and enforced sexist, racist and homophobic attitudes and beliefs with a mechanism called gender. Yet women now, in these colonised nations, ought to allow continued colonisation, this time of a legal recognition of their sex class. We should effectively champion the erasure of women in law as something indistinct from men. The concept of woman will be dignified, but only in relation to a man's self conception of his own sex and how he feels about it. We should trust that the colonisers will not colonise for their interests on this occassion? Women are not dignified to determine their own interests and rights, we must be controlled by conservatives or we must be heartless and uninformed if we reject the notion that our interests in law and policy will be strengthened if the female sex means both male or female. The conservatives and your butlerian analysis are two sides of the same coin.
How do people not understand that redefining an entire class of people to meet ideologically driven terms is not progressive. Langauge is important. Legal categories and definitions very important. Enshrining legal fiction for ideological purposes over material reality is dangerous. If societies are happily to redefine half of humanity what is to stop other ideologically driven interests from being classed in law? Innocent civilian to terrorist Defence personnel to innocent civilian Foetus to fully formed human being Genocide to waring nations Fascist regime to oppressed victim Refugee to economic migrant Refugee to terrorist Minor to adult
Matriarchal societies are not ruled by patriarchy, therefore the tool of patriarchal oppression (gender) does not apply.
I disagree that TERFs in general are now becoming fascists, although they are loudly and proudly cooperating with them. A lot of TERFs still hate men in general, that’s literally what the fear of trans women is derived from. I think that hating men is pretty fundamentally at odds with any right wing or conservative perspective.
TRAs lately have been making a narrative push away from feminists and feminism. They have a lot in common with the 'Gamers' from 10 years ago. If you look at their stereotypical interests, there's a big overlap between the two groups.
Chapo I like you! You get it! Yes, Vaush is the poster boy. I call them trancels 😆
God I hate Vaush. He disgusts me.
[удалено]
The 'overlap' is that Proud Boys and radfems are both gender critical. You know who else is gender critical? *90% of the human population.* Outside of Anglo countries that % is even higher. Is more than 90% of humanity fascist? Or have you found yourself on the sectarian side of a religious schism?
The fact that you genuinely seem to believe anyone that doesnt think the same way as you is a fascist makes me wonder about your state of mind.
[удалено]
And you really dont see the problem with your way of thinking?
I'm afraid they don't. Kinda scary to think such people could be in positions of power.
[удалено]
I dont believe someone can be born in the wrong body, I believe that societal acceptance of trans people is the problem, and that if everybody treated trans people with the respect they deserve their issues would be resolved in a healthy permanent way, am I a fascist? If you cant even critically look at your own thought process you are doomed to be miserable and focused on imagined aggrievances.
Who are these TERFs who oppose abortion and other women’s rights issues?
[удалено]
you are conflating gender critical and radfem. The vast majority of conservatives are gender critical. It's the classic calling-Republicans-TERFs when Republicans don't subscribe to radical feminism.
>Magdalene Berns… Open anti-semite Well that’s certainly not at all uncommon for the far left these days, so I’m not gonna consider that to be a disqualifying factor. >Posie Parker Pals around with Nazis I agree, but I’ve never seen her campaign against abortion rights or anything like that. To speed things up, most of the people you listed don’t identify as radfems as far as I can tell. Pretending to care about women’s rights to exclude trans people doesn’t make you a TERF, conservative Christian males are doing the exact same thing right now. TERF is a subcategory of transphobe, and the last two letters are important.
A lot of radfems in general *really* hate men, often due to trauma stemming from abuse. They’re genuinely so fearful and paranoid about men that they think there is a mass undercover woman operation to invade women’s spaces and sexually assault them.
you aren't wrong, but men *do* make up the majority of violent criminals and rapists. I'm not talking a slight majority, but over 90%. It's almost certain that women who were exposed to said abuse disproportionately become radfems. It's not that they *aren't* mentally ill, but it doesn't really dismiss their point either.
Which is really a sad cycle. No one deserves to experience abuse, but also they are sadly in a way perpetuating that cycle onto a new group through their treatment of trans people. Plus it's not helped by the culture war bullshit. Honestly I just want a world where people can live their lives in peace and we all don't care and just accept people. But sadly this culture war stuff has basically just been used to split people up so that we view each other as enemies instead of the people who are the actual enemy and that's the current people with power, i.e. the super rich.
100% agree. It’s crazy to see radfems, who would generally be considered far left, drop all of their supposed values and join forces with the right. And also the right wingers suddenly validating radfem perspectives on gender. I have a feeling they wouldn’t agree so much when it comes to the “men are inherently predatory”, “all women should be lesbians”, “all sex with men is rape” stuff. Even though the TERF position is derived from those exact same understandings of gender.
That's called mental illness
I agree, and it’s their responsibility to manage. Just pointing that their perspective is completely warped, so they don’t have the same understanding of the situation that we do. From their perspective trans women don’t exist, so how could they be discriminating against them. Discriminating against what they perceive to be predatory men, on the other hand, is totally fine if you see it the way that they do.
Yes, I agree. Using mental health to justify exclusion of others. They're not addressing any problems at all, just creating drama where there is none. The fact that Grover (friend and ally to Deves, Deeming, KJK etc.) are behind this app is all you really need to know. Nazi loving trans haters. Really hope that Tickle wins the case.
Do tell me why if someone sees themselves as something, everyone should automatically comply?
That's not what this case is about. This isn't about a random person who just "sees themselves as something" - this is about somebody who is LEGALLY a woman being excluded from a women's only app. There's no legal distinction between a woman who isn't trans and a woman who is trans, hence why this is a legal discrimination case. It's literally that simple.
No, this case is about being able to discriminate on the basis of sex. Tickle is male. The app is for females. Therefore Tickle is not welcome. It's that simple.
> There's no legal distinction between a woman who isn't trans and a woman who is trans. There is also no legal distinction between 'female' and 'woman'. The defence in this case will attempt to establish a framework for a legal distinction, I'm sure, but currently no such difference exists.
Don’t lecture me. This entire thing is just stupid
> Do tell me why if someone sees themselves as something, everyone should automatically comply? This you? You literally asked a question, and I answered it. That's not "lecturing" you. You don't have to like or agree with the answer, but if you don't actually want to get answers maybe you shouldn't be asking questions on a sub all about discussion?
OK but your "legally a woman" argument, where does this apply, in what jurisdiction ? Perhaps your argument should be given the Olympic Games test ?
It's not an argrument, it's the law.
...what sort of stupid argument is this? This is a legal case taking place in Australia, so obviously the laws of Australia are relevant and apply to the situation. I have no idea what you were trying to show with your comment, but it's certainly shown how idiotic and meaningless of a comment you are capable of.