Is this what society has come to?

[Wij]

What's the job of a passport @Scouse? Clue, it isn't a little book of making you feel happy about your lifestyle choices. It's job is to verify your identity not your pronouns, and it's also an international travel document, so you have to make every country in the world conform and agree to it's contents, which doesn't mean filling up databases around the world with fields that identify you as a twin spirit or a fucking furry. It is neither simple or necessary.

Don’t forget genderfuck and demiromantic. How could anyone travel without declaring that?

 

[Scouse]

What's the job of a passport @Scouse? Clue, it isn't a little book of making you feel happy about your lifestyle choices. It's job is to verify your identity not your pronouns, and it's also an international travel document, so you have to make every country in the world conform and agree to it's contents, which doesn't mean filling up databases around the world with fields that identify you as a twin spirit or a fucking furry. It is neither simple or necessary.

Not every country in the world has the same standards for passports. And frankly, there's no harm in doing it. Or omitting sex. The fucking biometric stuff should do the trick anyway.

Of course it's not necessary, but it is simple, and we pander to all sorts of illogical shit.

BTW the purpose of a passport is to be a mobile prison to deny you access to places you were, historically, perfectly able to go should you want to. I hate the things and everything they represent. The Queen never had one, btw. She was free.

 

[Scouse]

Prejudiced against dating trans women?

Wilfully misreading what was said. It said "consider if your attractions were in part formed by societal prejudices".

It's an ask to "consider where your attractions come from". Nothing more.

Most people in blighty are straight, right? It's not unthinkable that that's because of societal bias. Especially given that we've many examples throughout history of men having sex with men and women and that being seen as a natural act. The Romans and Greeks would pretty much fuck anything.

 

[Tom]

Females can have cocks apparently so the whole system transphobic nonsense.

If a man loses his penis in an unfortunate accident, and surgeons are able to craft a replacement using skin from his arm and other tissues, so that man can do most of what he used to be able to do - does he have a penis or not?

Bear in mind that penis might be more useful than what some disabled men have. Paraplegics, for example. A paraplegic might not have any use of his penis, it might function only as a tube to pee through. Less function than the penis created by the surgeons I mentioned. Does he have a penis?

 

[Scouse]

No, IMO @Tom.

He's had his cock lopped off and he's got some sort of Frankenstien's cock. It's not a real cock, but it's got some use that's similar.

It doesn't make him not a man* though.


*Edit: Not that that's important, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Wij]

The logical distinction is between a necessary and sufficient condition. A penis is not a necessary condition to be a man but it is a sufficient one.

And skin grafts aren’t penises.

 

[Wij]

Wilfully misreading what was said. It said "consider if your attractions were in part formed by societal prejudices".

It's an ask to "consider where your attractions come from". Nothing more.

Most people in blighty are straight, right? It's not unthinkable that that's because of societal bias. Especially given that we've many examples throughout history of men having sex with men and women and that being seen as a natural act. The Romans and Greeks would pretty much fuck anything.

And lesbians? Should they consider dating trans identified males or consider that they may be prejudiced? That’s the implication and it’s not by accident.

It’s back to ‘you might like cock if you try it’.

 

[Scouse]

And lesbians? Should they consider dating trans identified males or consider that they may be prejudiced? That’s the implication and it’s not by accident.

It’s back to ‘you might like cock if you try it’.

It explicitly states "hey, date who you like. No pressure. But have you considered your preferences may be societally influenced".

That's all it says. It doesn't say anything else. And it applies to everyone. You included.

Have you considered if your preferences are societally influenced? Mine probably have been when I think about it. But it doesn't mean I've changed my mind and I want to chow on cock. And that's fine.

You're reading more into this than there is @Wij. Why are you so angry about it?

 

[Wij]

It explicitly states "hey, date who you like. No pressure. But have you considered your preferences may be societally influenced".

That's all it says. It doesn't say anything else. And it applies to everyone. You included.

Have you considered if your preferences are societally influenced? Mine probably have been when I think about it. But it doesn't mean I've changed my mind and I want to chow on cock. And that's fine.

You're reading more into this than there is @Wij. Why are you so angry about it?

I’m not angry, I’m just right. The implication is deliberately that lesbians who won’t date men are prejudiced. Stonewall actually gave a grant to Morgan Page, a man who ran workshops for straight men (who identify as lesbians) on how to break down the resistance of female lesbians to dating them. Persuade them out of their sexuality. Mainly with guilt. They gave him money knowing that and have never condemned him for it. By explicitly defining lesbians and gay men as same gender, not same sex attracted they are making it plain that not wanting to date someone who identifies as the gender you supposedly like is prejudiced. That’s not reading into it something that isn’t there. It’s explicit.

 

[Wij]

Examples of women being fed up with this:

LESBIANS AT GROUND ZERO

the first research on the #cototnceiling

www.gettheloutuk.com

 

[Scouse]

I’m not angry, I’m just right. The implication is deliberately that lesbians who won’t date men are prejudiced. Stonewall actually gave a grant to Morgan Page, a man who ran workshops for straight men (who identify as lesbians) on how to break down the resistance of female lesbians to dating them. Persuade them out of their sexuality. Mainly with guilt. They gave him money knowing that and have never condemned him for it. By explicitly defining lesbians and gay men as same gender, not same sex attracted they are making it plain that not wanting to date someone who identifies as the gender you supposedly like is prejudiced. That’s not reading into it something that isn’t there. It’s explicit.

Not actually what happened.

Stonewall was given a grant by the national lottery. Morgan Page works for Stonewall but isn't all of Stonewall. I work at a bank, but it doesn't mean the bank officially holds my opinions. Yes, I'm aware of the cotton ceiling shite and the workshop in 2012.

However - that's not what Stonewall said is it? It said "why not consider if you hold prejudice". It doesn't require lesbians to have sex with men and it doesn't state that they are prejudiced if they choose not to. It explicitly says "date who you like" and "nobody should ever feel pressured" - it simply asks you to think, if you want to: "do you have prejudices?". And it doesn't single out lesbians, it's an open question to all.

Just because some people are cunts on Twitter @Wij (and off twitter too) doesn't mean that anyone campaigning for trans rights is a cunt. Or asking people to think about themselves and their biases on a fundamental level is a cuntish thing to do. In fact - that's kind of a really good thing to do, isn't it?

 

[Scouse]

Examples of women being fed up with this:

LESBIANS AT GROUND ZERO

the first research on the #cototnceiling

www.gettheloutuk.com

lol

https://www.gettheloutuk.com/images/LesbianAtGroundZero_Eng2.jpg

"Lesbains"

Tell you what. You can find out all sorts of shit on the internet. I'd like to see some actual real research. But ain't nobody spending money on that.

If someone hits on you and you don't want them to - you tell 'em to fuck off. If they harass you - they're committing a criminal offence and you should be talking to the po-po.

If your mates say "you're being a cunt love, you've got to try the lesbian dick" then they're simply not very good friends are they? You need find some new friends. Fucked up people are fucked up. Vulnerable people are vulnerable. There'll always be that and if it's not this, it'll be something else we can find to be outraged about.

But make no bones about it - nobody is requiring anybody to have sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with. If some cunt manages to "talk you around", then more fool you if you really don't want to. If you're just curious, and you stick a cock in your mouth, you might find you like it.

I knew a gay girl at Uni who sucked a bloke off one evening. She was curious. She had a nice time (apparently). But she never did it again. Got married to her g/f and they're still together (or were last time I heard). Maybe nowadays she'd have sucked a "trans" bloke's cock. Big fucking deal.

 

[DaGaffer]

If a man loses his penis in an unfortunate accident, and surgeons are able to craft a replacement using skin from his arm and other tissues, so that man can do most of what he used to be able to do - does he have a penis or not?

Bear in mind that penis might be more useful than what some disabled men have. Paraplegics, for example. A paraplegic might not have any use of his penis, it might function only as a tube to pee through. Less function than the penis created by the surgeons I mentioned. Does he have a penis?

Thank you captain whataboutery. Next stop, intersex (again).

 

[Wij]

Not actually what happened.

Stonewall was given a grant by the national lottery. Morgan Page works for Stonewall but isn't all of Stonewall. I work at a bank, but it doesn't mean the bank officially holds my opinions. Yes, I'm aware of the cotton ceiling shite and the workshop in 2012.

However - that's not what Stonewall said is it? It said "why not consider if you hold prejudice". It doesn't require lesbians to have sex with men and it doesn't state that they are prejudiced if they choose not to. It explicitly says "date who you like" and "nobody should ever feel pressured" - it simply asks you to think, if you want to: "do you have prejudices?". And it doesn't single out lesbians, it's an open question to all.

Just because some people are cunts on Twitter @Wij (and off twitter too) doesn't mean that anyone campaigning for trans rights is a cunt. Or asking people to think about themselves and their biases on a fundamental level is a cuntish thing to do. In fact - that's kind of a really good thing to do, isn't it?

Wrong. It implies that not wanting to date a trans woman is on the same level as not wanting to date a black woman.

 

[Scouse]

Wrong. It implies that not wanting to date a trans woman is on the same level as not wanting to date a black woman.

Wrong. It makes no qualitative assessment. It just says "perhaps consider your prejudices, if you like". It infers no hierarchy - that's something you're bringing to the party.

 

[Wij]

lol

https://www.gettheloutuk.com/images/LesbianAtGroundZero_Eng2.jpg

"Lesbains"

Tell you what. You can find out all sorts of shit on the internet. I'd like to see some actual real research. But ain't nobody spending money on that.

If someone hits on you and you don't want them to - you tell 'em to fuck off. If they harass you - they're committing a criminal offence and you should be talking to the po-po.

If your mates say "you're being a cunt love, you've got to try the lesbian dick" then they're simply not very good friends are they? You need find some new friends. Fucked up people are fucked up. Vulnerable people are vulnerable. There'll always be that and if it's not this, it'll be something else we can find to be outraged about.

But make no bones about it - nobody is requiring anybody to have sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with. If some cunt manages to "talk you around", then more fool you if you really don't want to. If you're just curious, and you stick a cock in your mouth, you might find you like it.

I knew a gay girl at Uni who sucked a bloke off one evening. She was curious. She had a nice time (apparently). But she never did it again. Got married to her g/f and they're still together (or were last time I heard). Maybe nowadays she'd have sucked a "trans" bloke's cock. Big fucking deal.

Moving from 'no one's saying that' to 'so what if they did'.

BBC Sounds - Nolan Investigates - Available Episodes

Listen to the latest episodes of Nolan Investigates on BBC Sounds

www.bbc.co.uk

This podcast was very informative on Stonewall if you're actually interested. I listened to it when I was in hospital 24/7 with my daughter.

 

[Wij]

Wrong. It makes no qualitative assessment. It just says "perhaps consider your prejudices, if you like". It infers no hierarchy - that's something you're bringing to the party.

It literally puts it on the same level as race:

"But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people"

 

[Scouse]

Moving from 'no one's saying that' to 'so what if they did'.

Stonewall isn't saying that.

I'm saying, if someone says "why not try a cock in your mouth" - that's not automatically a bad thing. If pressure or coercion is involved then it's obviously wrong - if it's a conversation, then it's fine.

It seems like you want to proscribe what is "allowable conversation"?

 

[Wij]

Stonewall isn't saying that.

I'm saying, if someone says "why not try a cock in your mouth" - that's not automatically a bad thing. If pressure or coercion is involved then it's obviously wrong - if it's a conversation, then it's fine.

It seems like you want to proscribe what is "allowable conversation"?

Comparing it to racism isn't coercive?

 

[Scouse]

It literally puts it on the same level as race:

"But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people"

It's a just fucking statement. You can have those words in the same sentence and make no statement on the level of relative "importance" between them. People can hold all sorts of prejudices. The statement is about prejudice, all prejudice. Not a hierarchy of it.

As I've said - it's you who's reading it that way.

 

[Wij]

It's a just fucking statement. You can have those words in the same sentence and make no statement on the level of relative "importance" between them.

As I've said - it's you who's reading it that way.

I think most people would read it that way. It takes a few mental leaps not to.

 

[Scouse]

I think most people would read it that way. It takes a few mental leaps not to.

I think it takes mental leaps to do so tbpfh.

 

[Wij]

I think it takes mental leaps to do so tbpfh.

No it doesn't, especially in the context of how Stonewall has been talking about these issues for years. For them 'trans woman' is just a type of woman, not a type of man. Not wanting to date a trans woman is exactly the same as not wanting to date a black woman in that context and it's not the only similar thing they've said.

Maybe try listening to the podcast. It's not twitter.

 

[Scouse]

Disagree. It's clear: For them, people are people, they're colour, sex, gender, preference and penguin-blind. The statement is clear: "be attracted to whomever you like, that's 100% fine, but why not think about if your attractions are subject to prejudice - are you excluding anyone because of any prejudice"?

That ask is clear. If humans are all equal, then perhaps attraction is subject to prejudices, and it's perfectly acceptable to say to people "perform a mental check".

For them 'trans woman' is just a type of woman, not a type of man.

Who gives a fuck? If you're not attracted to a trans person, is it because of prejudice, or is it because you, like me, simply fucking hate the idea of snogging ugly cock-carriers - trans or not?

Their call applies to me. Do I not want to fuck men because of some learned prejudice? That's a reasonable question to ask. What about black women? I've never fucked one. Is that because I didn't pursue them? Is it because I'm on some level racist?

All of these are reasonable questions to ask. And it doesn't matter if they're black, fat, trans, gay, straight, whatever - is your attraction affected by prejudice.

If you look at this in terms of equality then that question is as simple as that. And stonewall campaigns for equality. You pointing at trans people going "it's a MAN, man" like Austin Powers, is largely irrelevant.

 

[Wij]

You can keep repeating it but it's not OK to equate sexuality with racism. Not fancying any black woman could be considered racist. Not fancying any trans woman, because you are a straight male or a lesbian, is not a prejudice. It is a sexuality. They are not in any way comparable.

'Maybe your sexuality is wrong' is a terrible thing for the CEO of an LGBT organisation to say.

And being associated with Morgan Page knowing he ran such rapey workshops is bad.

T > LGB for Stonewall. And the podcast I pointed you towards can confirm that instead of just taking my word for it.

 

[Scouse]

You can keep repeating it but it's not OK to equate sexuality with racism.

They're not.

You're either misunderstanding the argument or straw-manning. They're saying sexual preference of any kind can be subject to learned bias.

Not fancying any black woman could be considered racist

Or a simple sexual preference. But if it is rooted in racism - that could be (is likely to be) a learned preference.

So far, so uncontroversial. But feel free to set this aside if it's a red line for you. We can agree to disagree? - because as far as I'm concerned it's a distraction from the next bit:

Not fancying any trans woman, because you are a straight male or a lesbian, is not a prejudice

It could be. It could easily be a learned preference.

If you grow up being (prejudicially) taught that men sucking other men's cocks is icky and wrong, then you can incorporate that into your sexual preferences and that could easily be enough to ensure you don't act on any of those impulses, even if your natural inclination in an unbiased world would have been to do so.


If you struggle with the racism bit lets ignore that entire half of the post and just look at the trans/gay bit. Because your sexuality can well be in part learned - so that makes the "please check if you're prejudiced" ask is a reasonable question.

I've been asked that question by a gay man more than once. Why don't you want to suck my cock? Most of the time they were very respectful, but probably they wouldn't bother starting such a discussion if they didn't think there was an outside chance that I might be curious enough to go home with them. One time it was outright harassment.

But I'm a big boy, and I can deal with that line of questioning. Are lesbians not able to? All the lesbians I've ever known have been more socially capable than me and would have dealt with that situation relatively easily.

Or, in your eyes (because you seem to be focussing narrowly only on lesbians, rather than the full spectra of situations where that sort of conversation happens), are women so weak that they can't rebuff people and call them out if they're being dickheads?

 

[Scouse]

This shit is more important than the trans debate:

Call to remove Of Mice and Men from GCSE course

This Belfast student says racial slurs within the book leave her feeling uncomfortable in the classroom.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Oh, hearing words written in 1937 makes me feel so weak!"

Good. That's the fucking point isn't it. You're so coddled in modern blighty that you can't imagine a world like the one in the book. And when you read the book, you're put in that world. And it expands your mind and challenges you - and growth is painful.

That's the reason we don't ban fucking books you cunt. Because if we do everyone grows up a fucking snowflake.

 

[Tom]

The logical distinction is between a necessary and sufficient condition. A penis is not a necessary condition to be a man but it is a sufficient one.

And skin grafts aren’t penises.

Then presenters need to stop asking if women can have a penis, because it's obviously a stupid loaded question.

 

[Scouse]

Then presenters need to stop asking if women can have a penis, because it's obviously a stupid loaded question.

100%. It's idiots talking to idiots and does nothing to help anyone.

Manufactured outrage does get engagement though eh?

 

[Tom]

Well we can't be manufacturing outrage about tax-evading scumbag billionaires who live in tax havens while owning the world's press, can we?

People bitch about Elon Musk and he's obviously a bit of a dick, but at least he's doing worthwhile things with his cash. Even if it will eventually lead to Quaid starting the reactor.