Meghan Murphy quits rabble

97 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2016-10-24 19:18

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Honestly getting sick and tired of all the petty, obnoxious in fighting amongst the left. We can't even talk about things without generating a huge shitstorm (none of which will talk about the issue but rather how talking about it is bad) and this whole stupid "team" mentality where if you're perceived as not being 110% supportive of "the team" you must then be an enemy who must be banished and beaten up on.

I don't disagree that the 'left' lives in excited anticipation of any battle with the 'faux' left.

But as to why this is a 'left' thing... well, what side would you expect the right to take? "Women" or transpeople? Of course they're sitting this one out, and popping popcorn. If they were viciously and self-destructively arguing over who's the 'real' patriot, we'd do the same. Only a fool tries to stop two dogs from fighting, if neither is their dog.

Mon, 2016-10-24 19:46

#53

quizzical

thank you magoo and timebandit for the links.

i read and the link above Ken was talking about.

Mon, 2016-10-24 19:57

#54

lagatta

J Baglow, you know very well that radical feminists have nothing to do with rightwing, fundamentalist Real Women Canada. I found some of your comments defending the exploitative sex industry every bit as problematic, but no, I wouldn't be happy to see you go; in other respects you are a very progressive voice and people on the left just can't agree about everything. I've done a lot of translation and interpreting between Québec and RoC progressive organisations, so have observed how very different perceptions are among people who are supposedly comrades, but come from different places and paths.

Mon, 2016-10-24 20:04

#55

quizzical

2 new tems i learned today. terf and swerf. nice fking labelling of women yet again by men and their minions!!!!!

we women just can't be repected for our opinions no matter what they are!!!

i guess i'm one of the irrational and like say fk off to men who think they can say anything against people trying to eradicate patriarchial control from whatever direction they choose to. i'm just not my mom's generation of feminists where they seem to believe being nice does more and i thought she was a radical feminist my whole life.

here taught me she's not. i may become one though. who knew?!

Mon, 2016-10-24 20:18

#56

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
2 new tems i learned today. terf and swerf. nice fking labelling of women yet again by men and their minions!!!!!

Quote:
According to Tracey at The TERFs (an anti-TERF site) and Cristan Williams at The Transadvocate, the term TERF was first used in writing by Viv Smythe/tigtog of Hoyden About Town in August 2008. tigtog said in the interview with Cristan Williams that she believes that she and Lauredhel coined it some time prior as a chat shorthand.

Unless you're just taking offense at J. Baglow using the term.

Mon, 2016-10-24 21:25

#57

Mr. Magoo

If he'd only said "SWERF and TERF", I'd have totally been there with a food joke.

Mon, 2016-10-24 21:44

#58

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

quizzical, the terms were coined by trans and sex work activists. I find the terms about as useful as calling trans women men and boys trans men women. Unless, of course, you're just interested in a scrap, in which case they work just fine.

Mon, 2016-10-24 21:44

#59

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Mon, 2016-10-24 22:08

#60

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Why couldn't Meghan have left it at saying "cis women are the only people who can give birth"? That would have been biologically correct and would have made the point she was, I think, trying to make about recognizing historic cis female oppression, without getting into the territory of apppearing to argue that trans women shouldn't "count" as women(and should, instead, be seen as male oppressors who are simply pretending to be women, and whose recognition AS women would undermine feminism at an existential level-an argument which, taken to a logical extreme ends up dovetailing with the right-wing transphobic argument for "bathroom bills").

I agree that she was owed a response and an explanation(any writer whose article is first published and then removed from a website is owed an explanation for the removal of the article-that is simply a basic level of respect and courtest to which anyone is entitled), and she should have been offered the chance to defend the article or to revise it to clarify her intent, but the removal isn't entirely unjustified.

Trans women ARE women, and it is both transphobic and sexist to define female identity primarily in terms of reproductive function. If femaleness is defined solely by giving birth, do we then state that women who are childless by choice, or due to health issues, or who are past childbearing age are NOT women? Wasn't one of the points of the feminist project to free women from the repressive concept of biology-as-destiny?

Labeling females cis women imposes an identity on me that I don't agree with. I wasn't born gendered. I was born female. I became a woman because of it.

Mon, 2016-10-24 22:32

#61

Misfit

Quiz, from what I read about your post where you talked about your mother, I don't know for sure what your background on radical feminism is. I gathered from what you wrote that you may think that radical feminism is more of an attitude or an approach to dealing with conflict that is more direct than conciliatory. I may have interpreted your statements incorrectly. I am not an expert on radical feminism, but radical feminism is a specific ideology or paradigm (a way of perceiving gender based inequality) which distinguishes itself from the other feminist theories like liberal feminism, socialist feminism, etc. Your mother can be more polite when dealing with conflicts and still be a radical feminist.

Mon, 2016-10-24 22:41

#62

Pondering

I don't want to erase anyone else's identity I just don't want mine erased either.

We take it as an article of faith that the most extreme trans or gender queer activists represent the views and desires of people who are trans. They weren't elected. Not all trans people are in agreement.

I doubt trans men want to be referred to as menstruators.

On September 2nd, Planned Parenthood tweeted, “Menstruators in New York started to #TweetTheReceipt celebrating the repealed tampon tax — but some are still charged.”

If it were possible to bet on such a thing I would bet not a single trans man tweeted #TweetTheReceipt celebrating the repealed tampon tax. I bet the only people who tweeted that were women including trans women who often fight for women's reproductive rights because they identity as women. It's no different than my supporting women's rights in other countries even though I won't be impacted personally.

I very much doubt you could find a trans man that would be happy about being referred to as a menstruator.

Referring to people as menstruators is offensive not inclusive.

Mon, 2016-10-24 22:45

#63

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I very much doubt you could find a trans man that would be happy about being referred to as a menstruator.

I've never much cared for the term "homeothermic".

But I think the question is whether transmen would prefer to be lumped in with "menstruators", or lumped in with "women". Which of those two do you think a transman might prefer?

Tue, 2016-10-25 02:13

#64

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'll confess that I'm having trouble, personally, wrapping my head around the idea that for tens of thousands of years we had "men" and "women",

Maybe we did, but not everyone.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/23/two-spirits-one-hea...

Perhaps, but it is clear they are talking about choosing gender roles not choosing sex.

Tue, 2016-10-25 08:31

#65

6079_Smith_W

Yes Pondering, and Magoo was talking about gender.

And "menstruators"? It is dumb more than anything. But while yeah, it is offensive it should be clear that they used the word in an attempt to be inclusive. I think TB summed it up well at #31.

Tue, 2016-10-25 10:02

#66

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I very much doubt you could find a trans man that would be happy about being referred to as a menstruator.

I've never much cared for the term "homeothermic".

But I think the question is whether transmen would prefer to be lumped in with "menstruators", or lumped in with "women". Which of those two do you think a transman might prefer?

I doubt they want to be lumped in with either. They want to be referred to as men. Surgery for female to male transitions is far behind that for male to female so many more trans men don't have the surgery. I'll bet many of them use the form of birth control that completely prevents periods.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes Pondering, and Magoo was talking about gender.

And "menstruators"? It is dumb more than anything. But while yeah, it is offensive it should be clear that they used the word in an attempt to be inclusive. I think TB summed it up well at #31.

So I guess now we can make racist comments as long as our intentions are good? PP is an international organization that has plenty of funds to look into such matters before taking such a ridiculous decision. How do you know they didn't do it for the publicity? Have they apologized?

Tue, 2016-10-25 10:28

#67

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes Pondering, and Magoo was talking about gender.

Gender, and gender roles are not the same thing.

Tue, 2016-10-25 11:03

#68

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Yes Pondering, and Magoo was talking about gender.

And "menstruators"? It is dumb more than anything. But while yeah, it is offensive it should be clear that they used the word in an attempt to be inclusive. I think TB summed it up well at #31.

more dumb? you've apparently never been a menstruator. if you were you'd never have made a stupid comment like you just did.

not sure how you're using Timebandits post at 31 to back you up on your diminishing.

---

thanks Timebandit did a search on who coined the misogynist hate terms. my point stands imv.

Tue, 2016-10-25 11:04

#69

6079_Smith_W

If there is a distinction it is a pretty fine one, and my point was that you just said sex, which is not what he was talking about. He was talking about gender.

And I do think there is a difference between someone saying something offensive with intent to hurt, and when someone does it with intent to be inclusive. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out or corrected, but I don't think one should see an attack where none was intended.

I expect PP did this out of honest concern about the tax still being applied. And if they are doing it for publicity (which I doubt), so what? The real question is whether they are doing it, and chose that word as a conscious attack on women, which I really have a hard time believing.

Tue, 2016-10-25 11:08

#70

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You're welcome, quizzical. But I do think my post relates the way Smith says - the word choice, while stupid, was probably an attempt to be inclusive but offended sensibilities they weren't thinking of.

Tue, 2016-10-25 11:13

#71

6079_Smith_W

She said this:

Quote:

we need to acknowledge that the vast majority of those persons are biologically female *and* have a female gender identity.

That is what I was referencing, and I agree that it is a central point here.

I agree their use of that word is dumb and offensive. I just think it was a really misguided attempt to be inclusive.

Tue, 2016-10-25 14:31

#72

MegB

J. Baglow wrote:

Not sorry to see her go. Let her TERF and SWERF with RealWomen Canada.

That may be so, but do you have to use terms that are insulting to many women?

Tue, 2016-10-25 18:50

#73

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I agree their use of that word is dumb and offensive.

Well, it's certainly a bit awkward and dorky, like it was made up by your Grade Sis health class teacher.

But if you look at the article on feministcurrent.com, that I and Timebandit linked to in posts 41 and 42, the author says:

Quote:
It isn’t uncommon for transactivists to take offence to the acknowledgement of us breeders and bleeders.

Isn't that Murphy's own personal website? So what's the difference between a "menstruator" and a "bleeder"?

Tue, 2016-10-25 20:05

#74

quizzical

magoo i took those words as re-enforcement of how transactivists refer to us biologically born women. those words underscore what they are taking offense to in respect to those of us biologically endowed with the ability to bear children.

i didn't get the sense she was self-identifying with those words

Tue, 2016-10-25 20:08

#75

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I expect it's sarcasm based on the "menstruator" reference.

Tue, 2016-10-25 21:05

#76

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I expect it's sarcasm based on the "menstruator" reference.

Planned Parenthood tweeted their "menstruator" tweet on Sept. 2, 2016.

Feministcurrents referred to "bleeders and breeders" in November, 2015.

Tue, 2016-10-25 22:52

#77

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Ah, then I stand corrected. FWIW, though, it came off as sarcastic to me.

Wed, 2016-10-26 01:58

#78

quizzical

me too.

i just read more hate towards radical feminists than i ever knew existed. did a search on the bleeders and breeders history.

lot's of things making sense.

i think this article following clearly supports Meghan and other feminists like her. hell even non-feminist opinions like mine.

undestand why PP is making stupid band wagon statements too.

funny to me when social justice advocates come down on the sides of those who re-enforce corporate messaging and patriarchy.....

Quote:
For starters, transgender activists are far better positioned than radical feminists could ever hope to be. As a big part of the LGBT lobby, they have huge amounts of influence and money behind their agenda. Hollywood has their back, as well as academia and the media......

Transgender activists have successfully petitioned to have radfems disinvited from scheduled speaking events, gotten venues taken away from scheduled conferences, and have pressured radfem associates to withdraw from events and distance themselves. In most cases, it works. In addition to disrupting radfem conferences in 2012, 2013, and 2014, trans activists have also protested allowing “womyn-born-womyn-only” in the Michagan Womyn’s Music Festival. They’ve organized boycotts of performers who play there and set up “Camp Trans” basically next door.

Trans activists also tend to show a remarkable amount of stamina in Internet trolling, rapidly responding to any and all criticism. They can generate massive amounts of comments on articles and get Amazon book reviews down to two stars, including Jeffreys’ new book: Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism and Janice Raymond’s 1979 The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male.

The tendency to swarm and intimidate like that is a key component of any agitation and propaganda campaign for a social policy that needs to push hard to tease out a rapid sea change in public opinion.

smells and looks like patiarchy silencing and making oppression of women the norm again....

Wed, 2016-10-26 09:00

#79

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Haven't had a chance to read the article, but I do remember the fuss over Michigan Womyn's Festival (gosh I hate it when people do the weird spelling thing). They were, actually, in the wrong, but it was a fading idea anyway. Which goes to show that there are assholes on both ends of the spectrum.

Wed, 2016-10-26 10:25

#80

quizzical

i don't know anything about the music festival never followed the links in the article. just decided to leave them hot in case others did.

i was more indicating the shit they're doing to silence and control. nicely patriarchial of them and how they WANT it to be.

Wed, 2016-10-26 10:31

#81

lagatta

Yes, I think the Womyn's or Wimmin's or whatever festival had lived out its interest and usefulness by then. I hate the bizarre spellings too, and they are often poorly derived. Another problem is that there are so many more important fights for trans people; in particular against the extreme violence and exclusion they face.

Normally I'm against any discrimination in terms of sex, race etc. at public events, but I'm not sure it is always right to impose "inclusivity" on a space that is building a place for Black people, women (as the women in question define that) etc. While I understand the reasons for a Women's festival when such spaces are usually so male-dominated - and at times, unsafe for women - I'd really have no interest whatsoever in attending that.

Thu, 2016-10-27 19:04

#82

Sineed

More from Meghan Murphy:

Opinion: Bill C-16 is flawed in ways most Canadians have not considered

Meghan Murphy wrote:

While the media has framed the debate around gender identity as one of left vs. right, there is a key perspective that is missing from the conversation: the feminist one.

Preventing discrimination is something most of us want to support, but incorporating notions of "gender identity" and "gender expression" into Canadian legislation is not a progressive step. In our desire to be open-minded and inclusive, we have failed to consider how this move poses a risk to sex-based protections for women and girls.

...

In Wednesday's House of Commons debate on Bill C-16, also known as the Transgender Rights Bill, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who introduced the legislation back in May, explained:

"Gender identity is a person's internal or individual experience of their gender. It is a deeply felt experience of being a man, a woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum. Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. It is an external or outward presentation through aspects such as dress, hair, makeup, body language, or voice."

But these statements show a deep misunderstanding of what gender is and how it works. Gender is a product of patriarchy. Ideas around masculinity and femininity exist to naturalize men's domination and women's subordination. In the past, women were said to be too irrational, emotional, sensitive, and weak to engage in politics and public life. Men were (and often still are) said to be inherently violent, which meant things like marital rape and domestic abuse were accepted as unavoidable facts of life. "Boys will be boys," is the old saying that continues to be applied to excuse the predatory, violent, or otherwise sexist behaviour of males.

The feminist movement began back in the late 1800s in protest of these ideas, and continues today on that basis. The idea that gender is something internal, innate, or chosen — expressed through superficial and stereotypical means like hairstyles, clothing, or body language — is deeply regressive.

...

Women's spaces — including homeless shelters, transition houses, washrooms, and change rooms — exist to offer women protection from men. It isn't men who fear that women might enter their locker rooms and flash, harass, assault, abuse, photograph, or kill them… This reality is often left unaddressed in conversations around gender identity. This reality is sex-based, not identity-based. Men cannot identify their way out of the oppressor class so easily, neither can women simply choose to identify their way out of vulnerability to male violence.

...

As unpopular as this fact has become, a man or boy who wishes to identify as a woman or girl, perhaps taking on stereotypically feminine body language, hairstyles, and clothing, is still male. He still has male sex organs, which means girls and women will continue to see him as a threat and feel uncomfortable with his presence in, say, change rooms. Is it now the responsibility of women and girls to leave their own spaces if they feel unsafe? Are teenage girls obligated to overcome material reality lest they be accused of bigotry? Is the onus on women to suddenly forget everything they know and have experienced with regard to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and the male gaze simply because one individual wishes to have access to the female change room? Because one boy claims he "feels like a girl on the inside?" And what does that mean, anyway?

I haven't been posting much lately as I'm very busy these days in RL, but some of you know me as the science-based medicine person who has spoken in the past against vaccine denial, the scam that is complementary and alternative medicine, and such-like. And the fact is, there isn't a whiff of evidence that gender identity is biologically based. Some people are unhappy in their bodies, and they deserve compassion, and I have no problem with people living their lives in a way that makes sense for them. But all this aggressive activism that serves to put males in women-only spaces, and the staggering sexism of the rhetoric around gender identity as detailed by Murphy and others is troubling.

And there's the cotton ceiling. That's where pre-op transwomen try to shame lesbians into having sex with them by saying their aversion to penises is transphobic.

http://secretlyradical.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-cotton-ceiling-links-and-...

A lot of this transactivism looks like nothing more than a post-modernist spin on male privilege.

Thu, 2016-10-27 19:58

#83

6079_Smith_W

Is that last example really helpful? Kind of seems on the order of tropes like gay pedophiles and women throwing babies in dumpsters.

I get the conflict around womens shelters, and there are many in both communities who realize it is not a simple situation . As for bathrooms, ground zero for most conflict for trans people, it is an argument for more ungendered bathrooms.

Thu, 2016-10-27 20:18

#84

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
That's where pre-op transwomen try to shame lesbians into having sex with them by saying their aversion to penises is transphobic.

I've seen this discussed elsewhere. And when I did, it immediately reminded me of the perennial complaints of The Nice Guy toward women:

"YOU say you like nice guys (women). Well, I'm a nice guy (woman) but you won't sleep with me!!! Please explain your dishonest, lying dishonesty!!!"

Thu, 2016-10-27 20:18

#85

Sineed

The cotton ceiling seems to be a fairly mainstream thing in the trans community. This is from a transgender forum.

Quote:

A new year being trans, a new term learned. “The Cotton Ceiling.” I have experienced this first hand in life and on OKCupid, and think that it describes the rift between cis lesbian women and transwomen pretty accurately, although it drives TERFs crrrazyyy. (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists)

The definition: “The cotton ceiling is a theory proposed by trans porn star and activist Drew DeVeaux to explain the experiences queer trans women have with simultaneous social inclusion and sexual exclusion within the broader queer women’s communities. Basically, it means that cis queer or lesbian women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners.

http://www.tgforum.com/wordpress/index.php/the-cotton-ceiling/

Note the "terf" slur. Amanda goes on to make fun of women who don't want to associate with penises. Apparently, women having boundaries is offensive to Amanda.

Fri, 2016-10-28 01:14

#86

6079_Smith_W

Yes, Amanda is trolling and bragging about it. There is nothing in that blog to indicate it is mainstream.

Look, I understand that there is a sharp divide here, and I respect your opinion on this, even if I disagree with some of it. I understand there are jerks on both sides (including those who tried to have Murphy removed from Rabble) but using people who resort to sexual harrassment as an argument against transpeople generally is verging on discrimination.

(edit)

And actually, it seems like the "mainstream" aspect of this is two incidents - the initial statement by Drew DeVeaux, and a workshop, attended by seven people, who talked not about how to rape, but about body image and shame.

There are a few links. I don't want to post them, because virtually all of them (like the blog above) are just offensive about one side or the other, and there really is no need to add fuel to that fire.

Fri, 2016-10-28 23:11

#87

quizzical

i've been thinking about this blaming lesbians because they don't want to have sex with transwoman. like wtf?

how is this even considered a rational thought process? how is anyone supporting this irrational position rational in their own right?

Sat, 2016-10-29 01:33

#88

milo204

i can already see that convo...

"why won't you have sex with me?"

-"well, i'm a lesbian so i like lady bits"

"yeah, and i'm a woman so what's the problem"

-"but you have a weiner, i'm not into weiners"

"well...but it's a womans weiner so it's different..."

-"mmm, sorry, i'm just not into weiners is all"

"well, if you won't fuck me you're oppressing me!"

-"ummmmmm (gets the hell outta there) "

Sat, 2016-10-29 07:02

#89

lagatta

Wiener. The sausages were (supposedly) originally from Vienna. A Weiner is a vintner.

And nobody, gay, straight or bi or trans is obliged to have sex with any other person.

Sat, 2016-10-29 09:12

#90

quizzical

i know lagtta.

reading all the links though provided above and going to other linked pages and reading the words of the promoters of words like "terf" their seems to be people who think otherwise.

the one's i've been reading seem to believe they're being oppressed if lesbians won't have sex with them and are calling them penis phobic and they want lesbians to get over themselves.

i had no idea this was going on out in the world.

Sat, 2016-10-29 12:53

#91

6079_Smith_W

It might be worth asking if there really is a movement of transpeople trying to guilt women into having sex with them.

I am under no obligation to have sex with anyone I don't want to either, but that doesn't mean that people who point out that having preferences in attraction based on race or body type aren't correct in saying we should question ourselves.

Straight white guys like me don't have much to teach other people, but if we do have experience in anything, it is in learning (and re-learning) how not to misinterpret and not take it personally when people with less privilege point out our biases. And that while yes, there is usually a point there, no I don't have to leave my partner and take up with someone who is of another race, or a man in order to prove that I don't have those subtle biases. And even if I did, it wouldn't prove that they don't exist.

More importantly, I seriously doubt activists who point that out are asking that we do that, or that they are guilt tripping or shaming us for their own personal benefit. And even if they cross the line into some stuff that isn't entirely true or fair (and I think Meghan Murphy sometimes crosses this line) they are pointing out systemic biases based on their experience which are important for us to hear and consider.

When some guy starts talking about women being out to attack and abuse men and how they have all the advantages because they have laws and we don't we generally call that out for what it is. The only thing different here is that women are under attack in our society, and some assume that transwomen are really just privileged men who have gone to the great lengths of hormone treatments and surgeries and abuse just to get them into bed, and that their ultimate goal is to erase all women from existence.

Not quite true, and certainly not true of all trans people.

Again, I really don't want to post the links, because most of them really are people saying really nasty and false things about each other, but it seemed pretty clear this is not some great movement at all, but a couple of conversations which got turned into propaganda to needle, and get people enraged.

Sat, 2016-10-29 13:31

#92

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

Wiener. The sausages were (supposedly) originally from Vienna. A Weiner is a vintner.

Correct!

Sat, 2016-10-29 13:49

#93

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Wiener. The sausages were (supposedly) originally from Vienna. A Weiner is a vintner.

Thank you for this. I like to think my spelling and grammar are pretty good, but for my whole life there have been words that I cannot seem to consistenly spell correctly -- typically there'll be two possible spellings and both will look somehow right to me. Not only is "Vienna" a great mnemonic for remembering the "ie" order, but I'm also gratified to learn that weiner is also an actual word.

Now I need help with "wierd".

Sat, 2016-10-29 14:26

#94

lagatta

Yes, that is true, and I have no way of knowing whether those contentions are grounded, as I've never heard anyone I know, either a lesbian or a transperson, ever refer to them. I know several lesbians, including some very close friends, but few transpeople, and none closely (and no, not because I avoid them).

Of course our preferences are socially determined to a large extent, but many people who don't conform to the prevailing canon do find partners.

Sat, 2016-10-29 19:46

#95

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It might be worth asking if there really is a movement of transpeople trying to guilt women into having sex with them.

If so, we might also need to ask what kind of "quorum" is required to make it a movement.

Meanwhile, though, it does fascinate me that any trans-lesbians would be worried about what cis-lesbians want or don't want in partners. If you're a trans-lesbian, why not just try to date other trans-lesbians? No need to prove anything to them, or explain anything to them. Seems absurdly obvious.

Tue, 2016-11-01 13:33

#96

MegB

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It might be worth asking if there really is a movement of transpeople trying to guilt women into having sex with them.

If so, we might also need to ask what kind of "quorum" is required to make it a movement.

Meanwhile, though, it does fascinate me that any trans-lesbians would be worried about what cis-lesbians want or don't want in partners. If you're a trans-lesbian, why not just try to date other trans-lesbians? No need to prove anything to them, or explain anything to them. Seems absurdly obvious.

I really don't like the direction this thread is heading in. To suggest there is a movement of trans lesbians attempting to control who cis lesbians have sex with is akin to suggesting that there is a "movement" of gay men who are pedophiles. The latter is homophobic, the former is transphobic. Period. As such it is in violation of babble policy and rabble's editorial policy as practiced by rabble's editorial team.

There are sound reasons why Meghan Murphy and rabble have parted ways after rabble pulled her blog, and those reasons are cropping up in this thread. I'll keep the thread open for now, but I'm going to take this to our editorial team and see what they think.

Tue, 2016-11-01 14:08

#97

6079_Smith_W

MegB wrote:

The latter is homophobic, the former is transphobic. Period.

And more importantly (not to say that discrimination isn't important) it is completely false.

I really don't want to post the links, because honestly they are also discriminatory in their own right, and won't calm the waters here.

But it is pretty clearly documented that this is not true at all.

Pages

Topic locked