Typed out of obligation
It’s always always always about…not-you-but-me. Always about yes yes you have needs too, of course I get that, but
me me me me me me me me
Man tells woman “Yeah sad about your miscarriage but you still have to let me join you in the toilets.”
Who is this Katy Montgomery person? I’ve seen his tweets cited here and there (including on this blog, I … think?), and they tend to be appalling.
So we “blindly assert” that miscarriages don’t happen to transwomen? Not blind, Katy. They don’t happen to transwomen. Because transwomen are not able to get pregnant. Unless they are a woman who identifies as a man identifying as a woman, in which case…WTF? That would mean they are a woman.
GW, yes, I’ve shared some KM tweets before. They are indeed appalling.
I think that this kind of obfuscation, which makes the reader confused and start to second-guess themself, is behind a lot of TRA lingo. “Woman currently going through the process of transitioning have been blocked from the women’s bathroom” — does that mean men, or women? Well, of course the TRAs mean men (whom they call “women’), but the reader is confused, and thinks: “Women are being blocked from the women’s bathroom? Just because they’re going through the process of transitioning?” And then the reader thinks: “Transitioning to what? Well, to male appearance, presumably, becuase they’re women, right? And if they’re transitioning, it must be to non-women, i.e. men. Well, if they’re women, it’s terrible that they’re being kept out of the women’s pissoir.”
Yeah, Monty is just plain awful. But he’s also a self-owning machine. Can be entertaining if you like watching metaphorical car crashes and can stomach the misogyny for more than half a miniute. But generally it’s just the same old recycled non-arguments, round and round and round. The tweets in this post are very typical of Monty’s output.
latsot@5:
So if I want to save myself the effort of following his tweets, I can simply keep my browser open to this post, and read it over and over and over again?
Well, there was a good thread a while ago where some even younger and even more misogynistic trans women accused Monty himself of being transphobic, and there was one just the other day where Monty lamented a deliberately sexist and toung-in-cheek British chocolate bar advertising campaign from the 80s/90s… before complaining that the company never sent him any free vouchers for the chocolate when he complained…
… but otherwise, yes. Let’s say you won’t learn anything from Katy.
What supposedly twanzfobic thing did the you find accuse Katy of saying?
Katy conceded that some lesbians might not be attracted to penises, even if they were girl-dicks.
Strange, why wouldn’t everyone like penises? Maybe because he doesn’t?
The improbably large number of trans women who claim to be lesbian and don’t want their dicks cut off tells a story. Especially with the additional few who say the quiet bit out loud ‘lesbians can’t reject them just because of dick.’
rob@11:
I bet some of them are even asexual … but only toward men.
I recommend a Youtube video by a young Englishman, who appears under the name ‘Rationality Rules’: Google ‘Youtube. Rationality Rules: Do Transgender Athletes Have an Unfair Advantage?’ It seems very fair. Connected with it is another ‘Rationality Rules’ video entitled ‘Reflections on the Essence of Drama’ in which you may see certain trans-women criticising the actions of (originally male) trans-activists, as well as examples of egregious bullying by one of those trans-activists.
Ah, I remember that video. Shortly after publishing it, the TRA hate machine stoked anger against him and caused many otherwise rational people to withdraw from any association with him. One of the organisations that did so was The Atheist Experience, and Matt Dillahunty being insufficiently ashamed of his association (even though he did acquiesce to the demands) caused a schism within the organisation itself. This was the incident that prompted Tracy and several others to sever ties and make their own show.
Funny, isn’t it, how advising caution in how to treat youngsters who think they might be transgender is met with accusations of advocating for enforced deconversion therapy, yet insisting that lesbians need to learn to love dicks is somehow perfectly fine.
Thank you, Holms. In fact this the second video he has made on the subject of trans-gender athletes. The first he apologised for & scrubbed after being persuaded that there were holes in his argument, and that he should look at the matter more carefully. This second video seems very fair to me, but that has not of course stopped the trans-activists from attacking him and any & all who have any kind of association with him.
The other video I mention is worth watching since it details the kind of bullying & dishonesty that certain trans-activists engage in.
I watched “Do Transgender Athletes Have an Unfair Advantage?”, He tries hard to be fair, and I think he makes many good points. I disagree on several points that I think are important: TIMs do not receive “female puberty”, for example, and I think it’s misleading to refer to it that way. Similarly, they don’t receive “HRT”, they receive cross-sex hormones.
The main point he misses, and lots of people miss, is that he claims sports are segregated by sex because of morphology. I would say that sports are segregated by sex to provide women opportunity and encouragement to play sports. This is true even in sports where men and women can compete on an equal basis. Morphology plays into that, strongly, but it isn’t the whole picture. But morphology is key to the physical fairness issue, and that’s the point of the video.
Sorry to bang on about Katy Montgomerie but there’s this, too:
Here, Monty is horrified that men are being criticised for taking up the time and resources needed to protect women from breast cancer. I have a personal reason to be furious about this because mrs latsot had breast cancer a few years ago. She survived, but it was a rough time for her. The thought that other women could be suffering because autogynephiles are getting thrills from unnecessarily using valuable medical resources causes obsidian to shatter in my grip.
latsot@18, my understanding (maybe it’s wrong) is that men with breasts (i.e. men suffering from gynecomastia) are at increased risk for breast cancer. Wouldn’t this be true also if the men artificially produce those breasts by taking hormones? And if so, wouldn’t it be necessary for them to get regular mammograms? Yes, the very fact of “transitioning” in the first place, and thus putting themselves at risk for breast cancer, steals resources from women, but once they’ve done it, shouldn’t physicians be regularly screening them?
GW: note that I specified autogynephiles: people who are putting themselves at that risk because of their paraphilia.
They are at increased risk from breast cancer, yes, and I don’t wish breast cancer upon them. I’m not uncaring and I don’t think I’m being unkind. But I can’t agree that taking limited resources away from women who can’t opt out of their risk of breast cancer is justified to satisfy the misplaced sexual appetites of men.
I agree that it’s tricky, though. The line is difficult to draw. I don’t think we should refuse treatment to those who abuse substances or are overweight, so why am I objecting to this? Are autogynephiles who push their paraphilia this far victims of their own psychology?
I don’t know and I’m willing to be persuaded. But the apparently autogynephilic trans women most visible in places like Twitter certainly aren’t doing a lot to persuade me.
Well, certainly this is a reason to refuse autogynephiles the option in the first place to take hormones and the like: “You’re going to put yourself at increased risk for breast cancer, and that’s going to take valuable resources away from women, who can’t opt out of this.”
Of course, the AGP could respond: “What do you mean, they can’t opt out? They could cut off their breasts and transition into
amazonsmen! Then they would be totally safe, and the resources could be reserved for me me me.”I wouldn’t want to prevent autogynephiles from transitioning, but I object to their using NHS resources to do it and to stay safe afterwards. These consequences everyone seems to be so keen on these days, when they apply to other people…
Of course if such a person needed screening on the NHS and couldn’t afford to do it privately, it should be done. But I don’t have to be happy about it and I’d object to being told off by the likes of KM for being unhappy about it.
But this is the problem.
If you don’t want to prevent them from transitioning, then they’re going to need screening in order to say safe, and yes, many or even most are not going to be able to afford it themselves. And at that point, it would be immoral to refuse them screening and put them at risk of dying. So the only point at which it’s possible to protect the resources for women, without putting these men at risk, is at the beginning, by refusing to give them the resources to transition in the first place.
Not letting William transition to Wilhelmina is literally putting lives at risk? Bollocks. Letting William transition to Wilhelmina is literally put lives at risk, his own and that of the women from whom he’s robbing resources. Why should doctors perform these elective treatments for him? Let him go to medical school and perform the treatments on himself, if he wants them so much.
Obviously I’m not attributing that position to you, latsot.
I don’t see that anyone can or should prevent people transitioning. I have no interest in deciding what other people do with their bodies. Doing it to children or persuading them onto a pathway that makes it almost inevitable that they themselves ‘choose’ to transition is another matter, of course.
Which is why I oppose the NHS providing those resources unless transition really is considered essential to that person’s future health and happiness. I know, I’m one of those awful gatekeepers. Hormone and surgical interventions should be considered as a last resort and the consequences well understood, including the responsibility of the recipient as a life-long patient.
Is transition essential for autogynephiles? Perhaps there are cases where it is, I don’t know. But I struggle to see how that case could be made. Severe dysphoria might well be another matter. How that condition is diagnosed and how it should be treated before transition is considered is central to all this, but I don’t want to get into it here.
But if autogynephiles want to use their own resources to transition, that’s their business even if it puts a burden on the NHS. All I’m saying is that I don’t have to like it.
*hoping my recollection of how blockquotes work holds*
Hmm. Well, if the women could cut off their breasts to be safe, then the men could too, surely? So often, I find that what’s good for the goose apparently mysteriously cannot possibly be applied to the gander.