International Transgender Day of Visibility

originally posted by: Boadicea
Oh no... people said mean things about me... whatever shall I do???

Oh that's right. Not a damn thing, because I'm not the one desperate for acceptance and validation.

Your lack of self-awareness is astoundingly remarkable.

In the big picture, I have said nothing as vile and hateful and VIOLENT as Trans Activists have said about me, whether directly or indirectly as I am obviously a "TERF" and "transphobe." Nothing even close.

Oh no... people said mean things about me... whatever shall I do???

JFC! I’d bet dollars to donuts you’ve never actually personally experienced anything like this in the real world or faced an actual second of harassment on the street. Words on a screen spoken by a keyboard warrior don’t affect me much because you know, sticks and stones and all

Nor have I ever said anything as vile and hateful as many Rad Fems and other GC folks.

Well, that’s one person’s opinion.

I have been very specific in my criticisms and my contempt. I very clearly distinguish between autogynephiles and homosexual transsexuals, and that they have very different causes, motivations and expressions.

I have no problems with Blanchardian taxonomies but where I do take issue with your assumptions is that all with autogynephilic driven gender dysphoria are automatically all horrible bad people because that’s what you’ve been led to believe by your gender critical alliances. This stereotyping is unfair, untrue and repugnant considering you probably know that the bulk of the so called trans community fall into this category but did you know that somewhere between a third to half of your evil autogynephiles have a change of sexual orientation as they transition? Blanchard himself was aware of this phenomenon and dubbed it pseudo bisexualism. You might or might not also be aware that huge numbers of your evil AGPs have been in loving heterosexual relationships and been warm and loving parents.

Not that being a caring parent infers some level of sainthood but it does show some level of concern toward societal responsibility and being a good person of strong moral character. In ever increasing numbers, a good percentage of this faction even maintain relationships with their wives and families and they aren’t generally the ones punching TERFs. I will grant you, however, that the majority of the ones you (we) consider problematic originate within this demographic.

I have also made clear distinctions between the Trans Activists pushing the Trans Agenda, and those transgender persons who very much disagree. Especially those with genuine gender dysphoria who know their best interests are ALSO being hijacked and usurped for those with dubious purposes, including sexual fetishes.

In many respects, there are some fundamental elements in the alleged “Trans Agenda” that all transgender and transsexual people do agree on and support because however varied and unique their experiences are, there are commonalities that tie their lives together. The AGPs and the HSTS’ path do briefly intersect at some point even though they come from different places and diverge in different directions.

As someone influenced by Rod Fleming (AllAboutHSTS and on YouTube) along with Kay Brown (On the Science of Changing Sex), both ardent Blanchard proponents and advocates of trans youth, you get no disagreement from me that the AGP factions have co-opted, hijacked and usurped narratives that are not their own for respectability and credibility. Again though, this is not necessarily implying that all AGPs are necessarily bad people.

You have basically agreed with every criticism and distinction I have made in the most milquetoast manner... "hollow words" come to mind, so that you don't "sound like a complete jerk".

I’ll admit that this is somewhat of a balancing act for me. Being GC enough to appeal to your sensibilities while not being an asshole to trans people that already think I’m a complete jerk and don’t like me because you and I do agree on a lot of things isn't easy.

You have minimized, belittled and undermined the very real harm being done to many -- MANY! -- people by Trans Activists specifically, and the Trans Agenda in general. All while telling me (and anyone that would read your comments) what an awful and hateful person I am.

Where we strongly disagree is when you use phrases like “very real harm” and “many – MANY” histrionically blowing the whole thing out of proportion. You make it seem that because there have been and are some bad trans people doing bad things and being unreasonable with their demands and tactics that all trans people are bad actors and unreasonable. The majority of people unversed and casually informed in these matters likely don’t see these distinctions you think are clear as day and if there’s one bad tranner, they’re all bad. What you know is lopsided and entirely learned from the internet. What I know I’ve learned from a lifetime of you know, actually knowing trans people. I think if you did, you would have a more compassionate understanding.

I don’t think you are an awful and hateful person. I think your agenda and constant proselytizing of the hateful gender critical perspective is equally as counterproductive to the lives of trans people as the Trans Taliban.

You're gaslighting. You know it and I know it.

Oh what a familiar refrain. It’s your favorite word again. Bo, sweetie, what the # do you think you’re doing? You and your posse have run all but maybe one openly trans person off this site and none of the middle of the road folks that may want to learn more about this want to deal with your overbearing dogma that borders on bullying at times. All you’ve ever done in these threads you feel prompted to routinely make is focus on negativity. Pardon me if I don't think you should get away with it scott free or without a counterpoint.

Plus I’ll add that it was a cheap shot co-opting the Transgender Day of Visiblity to post more of your anti-trans propaganda.

As always, our words will stand on their own merit, and everyone will come to their own conclusions.

Yeah, many have already figured out you have a bone to pick and a bee in your bonnet.

a reply to: ketsuko

"We've been using your bathrooms for years, and you never knew!"

I actually find that more than a little creepy in itself.... bragging about sneaking into the ladies' room. As if that's supposed to make us all feel better about it.

"Um, yeah, we've been creeping on you for years and you didn't know it! So just STFU and get out of our way."

I don't understand how they see this as a plus. But, at the same time, it's not the current crop of Trans Activists making these statements whot once quietly and peacefully went about their business.

originally posted by: carewemust
Today, the BP Amoco gas station changed the signs on the doors of its two bathrooms from "Unisex" to "M/F".

Was that due to this "visibility" initiative?

That's interesting. That's the second place I've heard of this week that went back to male and female bathrooms after switching to unisex bathrooms.

a reply to: Kalamitous

Ooooh... "astounding", eh? Thank you.

That's all I needed to read, and that's all I'm going to read of this claptrap.

a reply to: Boadicea

They are mentally Ill along with those who promote this nonsense.

What I really don’t understand is when so called feminists jump to the defence of men pretending to be women.

The one bonus of lockdown is that I don’t need to watch the endless coverage of LGBTQ+ rights, there’s actually more important things going on in the world.

I’m with you all the way on this subject Boadicea.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Boadicea

They are mentally Ill along with those who promote this nonsense.

Yes, sadly, they are -- broadly speaking. And by that I mean that not all will have the same mental disorder; and some of these mental disorders are no doubt the result of previous emotional trauma, leading to poor coping skills. But it's not a secret that the vast majority of self-identified transgender persons have comorbidities of one kind or another.

What I really don’t understand is when so called feminists jump to the defence of men pretending to be women.

I don't understand this either. It's an oxymoron of the highest order. It is impossible to promote women's rights and needs while putting men's privileges and wants first.

It definitely has not gone unchallenged. There are also feminists fighting it tooth and nail. But quite honestly, they practice their own variety of misogyny against women who don't "woman" correctly, and have their own purity politics and ideology, which is just as abusive in many ways. In the end, though, it makes a perfect storm, dividing women and preventing any real united front.

The one bonus of lockdown is that I don’t need to watch the endless coverage of LGBTQ+ rights, there’s actually more important things going on in the world.

Thank goodness for small wonders, eh???

I’m with you all the way on this subject Boadicea.

Thank you.

a reply to: Boadicea

I mean it is, don't get me wrong, but if you think about it logically, we're hearing all this from what is supposed to be a small subset of people who want desperately for you to believe that all they want in life is for their true inner gender to be expressed by their outer body.

If that is really what they want, then the true goal would be for them to seamlessly integrate themselves into the life of that gender with no one the wiser. It would then seem that those who were able to do that had achieved that goal, and if that was truly all they wanted, then they wouldn't want anyone to actually know they were doing it.

So transgender visibility goes against what they say they want.

a reply to: ketsuko

Being a conspiracy forum and all..

What if the CCP had large business stakes in many of the largest sources of social influence in the west?

Media, social platforms, movies, video games, colleges.. WHO, UN..

Direct control wouldnt even be necessary. Just have the "standard" set on places like Youtube, twitter, and facebook, and most of the rest of the internet (and society..) will follow.

ETA: Because it may not seem relevant to the topic, Ill expand. Giving disproportionate visibility to social groups with regards to their actual percentage of the population can lead to immense amounts of strife.

The ones who intake the cultivated information start to think it is representative of the truth, and given that their social circles will tend to represent the disproportion, it will cement the perception.

So, if I felt that people like me (health issues) were under-represented, how would I respond to sources and platforms that were "fixing" that? I mean, someone like me* is absolutely not represented. I just dont need any validation about it, but what if I yearned for it?

What would the societal impact be of introducing this after laying a foundation that seeks and manipulates this perceived "injustice?"

*someone who has tried, and failed, to overcome their health issues. Plenty'o'stories about those that overcame, not so many about those that try every day and cant quite do it.

a reply to: ketsuko
What do you thing they want ?

From what I got , transgender visibility is identical to gay and black visibility.



I have a question for Boadicea ,

Why do you always mention transwoman , but never transmen ?
According to your view , are they woman man or or what ?

a reply to: dude1

It has been a topic that has been discussed in the past.

As a woman myself who grew up as a girl who was a strong tomboy and never very feminine, for all I know, I may be somewhere on the Aspy scale although I've never been tested but I do check off some of the characteristics. I was also highly, highly athletic, still am. I competed in a major P5 conference athletically. I am very well aware that I would have been a strong target for suspicions of transgerderism growing up, and yet today I also know that I am very happy being who and what I am -- wife and mother, no doubt about it.

But they do the best they can to confuse the issue for kids today, and every kid goes through periods of confusion about things as they go through puberty. Then it's criminal to suggest to those kids that their confusion is anything but a genuine expression of transgenderism and once they get them there it's on into therapy and drugs and lifelong consequences.

It can be life-destroying.

They do it to girls as well as to boys. They boys are just more visible because their activists are more strident, and far more aggressive and violent.

a reply to: ketsuko
What tomboy has to do with transgenderism ?

criminal to suggest to those kids that their confusion is anything but a genuine expression of transgenderism

Yes. But that because its NOT transgenderism.
Diagnosing someone with cancer when they do not have it is criminal too. That does not negate actual cancer diagnosis.

They do it to girls as well as to boys. They boys are just more visible because their activists are more strident, and far more aggressive and violent.

I see , ok. Thank you.
I am curious about Boadicea response.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

If that is really what they want, then the true goal would be for them to seamlessly integrate themselves into the life of that gender with no one the wiser.... So transgender visibility goes against what they say they want.

I most definitely agree. Their actions belie their words.

This is where we have to distinguish between the homosexual transsexual and autogynephilic heterosexual in men. Two very different issues, with very different responses. The former are the ones with genuine gender dysphoria, who simply cannot be the man others expect him to be, who just want to transition and live their lives. The latter are the ones who literally need the validation to fulfill their fetish to be seen and treated as a woman, and for many to feed their narcissism.

And it is the latter who are pushing the Trans Agenda and ideology on all of us, including the truly gender dysphoric who are also being harmed, because they do not have the same needs.

a reply to: Boadicea
What about Trans Agenda of transman (man in woman's body) ?

a reply to: dude1

I have a question for Boadicea , Why do you always mention transwoman , but never transmen ?

Primarily because women who identify as men, and transition to live as men, are not a threat to others. Also, because there are very few adult women who identify as transgender in proportion to the number of adult men who identify as transgender. Finally, because the greatest number of females identifying as transgender are underage girls, so their issues are particular to being children, as opposed to being transgender in general.

According to your view , are they woman man or or what ?

Of course women who identify as men are women. All adult human females are women. That is the definition of "woman/women." It is a tangible, observable, measurable and objective reality dependent upon internal and external biology, physiology and anatomy. NOT religious, political or social stereotypes, much less some magical essence magically perceived by men.

originally posted by: dude1

I am curious about Boadicea response.

To what exactly?

originally posted by: dude1
a reply to: Boadicea
What about Trans Agenda of transman (man in woman's body)?

I believe I already addressed this.

If not, you'll have to rephrase your question for me...

a reply to: Boadicea

I already addressed this.

You are correct. I don't know why I didn't see that.


Responding ,

tangible, observable, measurable and objective reality dependent upon internal

There should indeed be an internal biology that is tangible, observable, measurable and objective reality , of that gender identity that those people in woman's body have , and its a man gender identity and not a female one.

not a threat to others

That is no relevant to the existence of transgenderism if any of them of any gender are a danger to anyone.

very few adult women

Even two in the human history are enough so its not particular to being children, as opposed to being transgender in general. Assuming that your data is representative of the reality.

magical essence magically perceived by men.

Why 'man' in the end ? Those transman you see as woman , they perceive that magical essence [gender identity , which I understand you think do not exist].

originally posted by: dude1
a reply to: Boadicea
You are correct. I don't know why I didn't see that.

Okay, cool.

There should indeed be an internal biology that is tangible, observable, measurable and objective reality...

No. Not "should be," there is obviously a "tangible, observable, measurable and objective reality." And it is this "tangible, observable, measurable and objective reality" that defines "man" and "woman" as adults with male or female bodies. When a baby is born, the genital is generally of a very specific type, either male or female. This is observed and noted as one or the other. And hundreds of years after they are dead, and only their bones remain, it will be possible to identify male or female because of the tangible, observable, measurable and objective physical reality.

In the very rare instances where genitalia is not clearly one or the other -- the genuine intersex -- they are then assigned a sex by physicians/parents, which may or may not be appropriate. But that's an entirely different issue, except to the extent that Trans Activists have hijacked and re-defined the words used to describe the tangible, observable, measurable and objective reality of intersex people.

It's not as though someone long long ago found the words "man" and "woman" and mistakenly applied the wrong words. No. These words were created to apply to a specific thing -- tangible, observable, measurable and objective.

...of that gender identity that those people in woman's body have , and its a man gender identity and not a female one.

"Gender identity" is an intangible, unobservable, immeasurable and subjective concept, based entirely on stereotypes and perceptions (if not presumptions). It is impossible for someone with a female body to know how it feels to have a male body, and vice versa. It is also impossible to assign any personality or character traits exclusively to a male or female body. And, in fact, virtually any and every personality or character trait there is can no doubt be found in both men and women, and has far more to do with nature and nurture than their physical realities.

Further, you are conflating -- rather than distinguishing -- between those with gender dysphoria (homosexual transsexuals) and gender "euphoria" (heterosexual autogynephiles). And we haven't even touched upon the many other entirely imagined transgender identities, such as non-binary and gender fluid and whatever else folks come up with.

That is no relevant to the existence of transgenderism...

Let's be clear here: the existence of transgenderism is simply the choice to transition. No one is born transgender. This is learned, and decided, and requires specific action. A person with gender dysphoria is not transgender unless and until that person makes the decision to transition.

We all understand that some people make that choice, and therefore there is no doubt that transgenderism and transgender persons exists. But the choice does not change one's sex, and indeed nothing and no one can change sex.

...if any of them of any gender are a danger to anyone.

It is well documented that violent crimes are disproportionately committed by men. It is also documented that men who identify as women retain the same level of criminal violence. And it is well documented that men who identify as women
have high rates of comorbidities including violence, sexual violence, and narcissistic rage. So while your point is well taken that anyone who commits a violent crime is a danger, there is no denying that men are far more likely to be a danger.

And no matter how you look at it, violent men will always be a greater threat to women because of their brute strength -- a result of their male biology and musculature. So no, it is not relative or comparable.

Even two in the human history are enough...

Enough for what exactly?

...so its not particular to being children, as opposed to being transgender in general.

No. First and foremost, we have laws that apply only to children because they do not have the mental or emotional capacity, experience or judgment to take care of themselves properly, including medical decisions which have lifelong adverse outcomes. Nor are these decisions that any adult -- even parents -- can and should make for others.

Further, the vast majority of these children will grow out of their gender dysphoria with puberty and maturity -- physical, mental and emotional.

Assuming that your data is representative of the reality.

If you have better, please share. If you don't, then I suggest you do your due diligence before making such assertions. Here's a clue: ROGD -- Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

Why 'man' in the end ? Those transman you see as woman...

Let me fix that: Those women who see themselves as men...

...they perceive that magical essence [gender identity , which I understand you think do not exist].

That magical essense is based upon stereotypes largely imposed upon women by men... aka the patriarchy. We were on our way to progressing beyond these stereotypes until self-identified transgender persons decided to reinforce them in their own image.

a reply to: Boadicea

Well said bar the imposed patriarchy upon women.

The patriarchy as you put it is a collaboration between men and women, the emancipation of women for example imo was more due to technological advancement rather than any kind of oppressive regime that was somehow overturned by fighting for women’s rights.

A tiny fraction of powerful men in the seats of power shouldn’t be used to stereotype men as some kind of oppressive overlords.

In my experience women are the more dominant force in relationships and make most of the decisions.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Boadicea

Well said bar the imposed patriarchy upon women.

Let me expand. And I'm simplifying and generalizing, to American/western history and norms.

It was only in the last century that women had their own rights, and were not considered the property of a man -- usually the father or husband, sometimes a brother. She could not attend university or higher learning. She could not work in many professions. She could not own her own property. She could not sign contracts. She could not vote. She could not have a bank account. Her father could not only choose her husband, but force her to marry him. Or not let her marry at all. A father or husband or brother had the legal right to beat her. Her husband could rape her (including undesirable or even unspeakable things without her consent). And so on.

This patriarchy created certain roles and jobs and expectations for and of women, which are the basis for today's gender roles and stereotypes, that were imposed upon them -- not chosen or inherent. I definitely see how some basic realities contributed to the practicality of many gender roles in society and culture, such as men's brute strength making them better hunters. There were practical reasons for the man to go out into the world and bring home the bacon so to speak, and for the woman (quite often pregnant and/or breastfeeding) to keep the home fires burning.

In the process, many traits and talents were developed simply by practice and experience, and subsequently passed down from generation to generation. So a combination of nature and nurture. But we're still trying to put it all in its proper perspective.

The patriarchy as you put it is a collaboration between men and women...

To an increasing extent, yes.

... the emancipation of women for example imo was more due to technological advancement rather than any kind of oppressive regime that was somehow overturned by fighting for women’s rights.

Hmmmmm... if it had happened during the Industrial Revolution, I might be more inclined to agree. But I see it more as exploitation of labor for maximum personal profit. Just like they were already exploiting too many men. Slowly but surely turning us all into corporate serfs, debtors and gamblers.

The once noble women fighting for true equal civil rights were replaced by women fighting to compete with men at the same game. I used to say that I could never be a feminist because I refused to give up my inherent superiority to men... and I was only half joking.

A tiny fraction of powerful men in the seats of power shouldn’t be used to stereotype men as some kind of oppressive overlords.

This is actually why I use the term "patriarchy" rather than just "men," because it's not every man, and most men are subject to the rules "patriarchy" as well. Which should be noted is also passed down by that tiny fraction of powerful men (and I'm particularly side-eying the banksters...) I try to be careful about making that important distinction. Just like I use "Trans Activists" rather than the all encompassing term "transgender person."

In my experience women are the more dominant force in relationships and make most of the decisions.

I don't agree. It's much more complicated under the surface than on the surface. Next week, my husband and I will celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary. It's always give and take -- always! Sometimes one gives more and sometimes the other gives more and sometimes one has to do all the giving and later the other has to do all the giving. For example, my birthday is also next week. So my husband is going to be giving a little more than me! And given the shutdowns, I do mean "little". But it is what it is.