Womens hostility to Trans women.

[jillian]

This is part of a growing worldwide trend for disturbed people to become obsessed with any issue involving sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, and gender. It accomplishes absolutely nothing of any good use to anyone. All it amounts to is a gigantic show of psychological insecurity.

There is nothing wrong with simply accepting people for who they are and treating people with respect and kindness, and everything right.

While scrolling down the linked article, I came upon one Kaitlin Bennett and googled her. What a dipshit. Why is she running around confronting people? She's got biiiiggg problems.

The issue starts when SJW twats like you force people to accept things like this OR ELSE.

Do you honestly think biological boys should be able to compete in girls sports?

No. The issue starts with bigotry from angry misogynist white supremacist pretend Christians

 

[2aguy]

Labour’s Lisa Nandy vows to ‘redouble her efforts’ standing up for trans rights after barrage of ‘hate and anger’

This is a link to a UK article but I suspect it holds true the world over.

Why are women so hostile to trans women ?

Tommy, are these "hostile women" considered misogynists because of this? what if they are "hostile" because they see/feel men have found another way to oppress them by becoming them? do you think transgender women are just as much women as those women that are mad at them? or do you believe this is nothing more than women just being mad at each other so it's nothing new? do you really believe that if something in the UK is true of women it then has to be true of all women?...do you think "liberal thinking" is an oxymoron or a double negative? ...man what an upside down lot

No its a genuine question. My philosophy in life is to accept people as they would like. Good manners cost nothing. This just seems to be an anomaly.I struggle to see it as a conspiracy against women. I might add that the hostility seems to be coming from left wing groups of women who are generally sound on the big issues.

It isn't simply "accepting people as they would like..." since there are now demands being made by the men pretending to be women group. They want to use women's bathrooms...they want to compete against biological females in sports.......so your simple view isn't simple at all....

 

[Polishprince]

It looks like the Labour party are taking action on this.
Labour Campaign for Trans Rights launches to challenge transphobic rhetoric within party

The Labour Party just got royally schlonged in the big election last year. One would think they would do the smart thing and move toward the centre if they plan to make a comeback and actually rule over the realm again, instead of moving even further to the left and alienating everyone affiliated with Normative Sexuality.

 

[jknowgood]

Tommy, are these "hostile women" considered misogynists because of this? what if they are "hostile" because they see/feel men have found another way to oppress them by becoming them? do you think transgender women are just as much women as those women that are mad at them? or do you believe this is nothing more than women just being mad at each other so it's nothing new? do you really believe that if something in the UK is true of women it then has to be true of all women?...do you think "liberal thinking" is an oxymoron or a double negative? ...man what an upside down lot

No its a genuine question. My philosophy in life is to accept people as they would like. Good manners cost nothing. This just seems to be an anomaly.I struggle to see it as a conspiracy against women. I might add that the hostility seems to be coming from left wing groups of women who are generally sound on the big issues.

Some might contest that good manners would preclude declaring oneself the same as a woman (or other) and imposing that on the vast majority that has not joined one's reality.

But where is the victim in all this.Surely we can identify ourselves as we see fit ?

They are taking over women' sports. You cannot change your DNA.

Er no. You have the most psychologically warped view if the world.

Er yes they are especially in track. You loons are ignorant.

 

[Lysistrata]

Is Lysistrata really a frustrated male to think that women do not object to this kind of treatment?

My guess is that [B]LIE[/B]-sistrata once tried to organize a “sex strike”, in the manner of her famous fictional namesake, and was sent over the edge by the realization that nobody cared, as nobody wanted to have sex with her or the one or two others she got to go along with it, anyway. Perhaps she supports the “transgenderism” nonsense because she thinks that having mentally-deranged male perverts who “identify” as women intrude into her restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and such, is the only way that she has any hope of getting any of the sort of male attention that she desperately craves.

Your "guess" about my love life is totally vulgar and indicates that you are, frankly, a disgusting person, even though you claim to be religious.Try to treat other people with respect and think on a higher plane. Try to have some dignity. I thought of responding with some details from my life experiences, but that would only feed into your psychosis. Let's just say that I never scared any horses.

This "girls' sports" and "transgender" nonsense is just a wedge issue that is being drummed up by the right-wingers to divide women and herd us, particularly the young ones, into the hands of cult-led patriarchy, a word that fills your ilk with such terror that you can't even utter it, let alone discuss this phenomenon intelligently.

Moreover, this is not something that I just heard about in the awful "media," but read first-hand on the websites of right-wing "religious" organizations, which have, among other things, included female submission in all subjects, including sexual, and also on the websites of groups that help women and girls escape this life.

You have long supported misogynistic and sexual-dominance cults on USMB.

Around the time that I was in college (decades ago), someone found a gay club that was the best dance club in town (DC). It soon found itself integrated. We all had a great time. We "real girls" shared the women's restroom with the honoraries. They were good people and nothing bad happened, except that they did hog the mirror. I once was the only "real girl" in another club, where I went with the guy I was dating and his gay brother and his gay brother's boyfriend. As luck would have it, a guy in drag called me by name and gave me a big hug. I did not recognize this person until he started talking. It turned out that I had worked with him in court, but that night he was in his female persona.

This stuff harms no one. There is no reason for this to affect your personal life or happiness. So drop the hysteria.

 

[Polishprince]

This stuff harms no one. There is no reason for this to affect your personal life or happiness. So drop the hysteria.

So you don't think that the Nation's Moral Fiber is anything worth protecting, and Times Square in the 1970's, where homosexuals, lesbians, voyeurs ,She-Males, Pimps, Hoes, and Johns congregated and socialized was perfectly wholesome?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There are women who want other women to fail when pitted against Male superiority. Get used to the end of women's competitive sports. It's inevitable.

 

[there4eyeM]

Special events for these special people should be held where they compete against others. The simple fact that this tiny minority insists upon their personal identification is no obligation on others to believe the same.
Women should refuse to participate in such mixed competitions and they would soon end.

 

[Lysistrata]

This stuff harms no one. There is no reason for this to affect your personal life or happiness. So drop the hysteria.

So you don't think that the Nation's Moral Fiber is anything worth protecting, and Times Square in the 1970's, where homosexuals, lesbians, voyeurs ,She-Males, Pimps, Hoes, and Johns congregated and socialized was perfectly wholesome?

What is the "Nation's Moral Fiber" anyway? And who is supposed to be in charge of defining and policing such a thing? The essence of the concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" is that people have a choice of what they will think and do. What I think or you think of someone else's activities in Times Square in the 1970's is totally irrelevant. There is enough space in our huge country for you, me, and Blaylock and everybody else to live our own lives as we see fit.

BTW: I think that your beloved "president" was stalking around Manhattan in the 1970's ready to get laid at the drop of a pin. He certainly has indicated that this was the case.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Special events for these special people should be held where they compete against others. The simple fact that this tiny minority insists upon their personal identification is no obligation on others to believe the same.
Women should refuse to participate in such mixed competitions and they would soon end.

Refusal to participate is exactly when the lunatics wants. When a biological male claiming to be female ousts a biological female from competition it is just another woman that won. They don't really care that biological women are being excluded.

Many years ago when I was in school some lunatic of brilliance thought it would be good for me to be on team sports. The lunatic forced the school to include me. I made sure that my team lost whatever contest it was. In softball I threw the ball in the other direction. In track I shuffled along stopping to tie my shoes once in a while. In volleyball I'd walk to the nearest opposing team member and hand them the ball. My poor teammates could do nothing but swallow the loss. I understand what women in competitive sports are going through. They cannot win no matter how hard they work. The awards, scholarships, money, all of the accoutrements of success are now denied to them. Forever. Just like those on my team.

Mary Gregory, a failure in men's weightlifting set for world records for women's weightlifting in a single day. Those records will stand until another man in a dress breaks them.

Unfair Advantage: Transgender Weightlifter Breaks Several Women's World Records

There are women okay with this.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have long supported misogynistic and sexual-dominance cults on USMB.

As with nearly everything that you post, that's a lie, and you know damned well that it is a lie.

There is not any organization that can honestly or rationally be described as a “misogynistic and sexual-dominance cult” that I support; and you know damn well that you have absolutely no basis on which to make such a claim about me.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You have long supported misogynistic and sexual-dominance cults on USMB.

As with nearly everything that you post, that's a lie, and you know damned well that it is a lie.

There is not any organization that can honestly or rationally be described as a “misogynistic and sexual-dominance cult” that I support; and you know damn well that you have absolutely no basis on which to make such a claim about me.

Actually, she's on entirely different subjects. Ones that have nothing to do with women's sports.

 

[Polishprince]

This stuff harms no one. There is no reason for this to affect your personal life or happiness. So drop the hysteria.

So you don't think that the Nation's Moral Fiber is anything worth protecting, and Times Square in the 1970's, where homosexuals, lesbians, voyeurs ,She-Males, Pimps, Hoes, and Johns congregated and socialized was perfectly wholesome?

What is the "Nation's Moral Fiber" anyway? And who is supposed to be in charge of defining and policing such a thing? The essence of the concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" is that people have a choice of what they will think and do. What I think or you think of someone else's activities in Times Square in the 1970's is totally irrelevant. There is enough space in our huge country for you, me, and Blaylock and everybody else to live our own lives as we see fit.

BTW: I think that your beloved "president" was stalking around Manhattan in the 1970's ready to get laid at the drop of a pin. He certainly has indicated that this was the case.

The hopes of Modern Trannies and Shemales is to make the moral standards of old school Times Square the nation's standards today.

As far as what President Trump did or didn't do in Manhattan in the 1970's, I wouldn't take his on-air discussions with Howard Stern as the gospel truth. Trump was seeking to build a persona and entertain the audience. Not give an accurate report of his activities. Stern has an entertainment program on the radio, not a news program. I'd take Mr. Trump's statements on Stern's programs with the same degree of seriousness I would take Rodney's statements to Johnny Carson about his wife, kids, and dentist and the amount of respect they were alleged to have given him.

 

[Lysistrata]

You have long supported misogynistic and sexual-dominance cults on USMB.

As with nearly everything that you post, that's a lie, and you know damned well that it is a lie.

There is not any organization that can honestly or rationally be described as a “misogynistic and sexual-dominance cult” that I support; and you know damn well that you have absolutely no basis on which to make such a claim about me.

You have supported both Southern Baptists and Mormons, both misogynistic sexual-dominance cults. Read your own material.

 

[Olde Europe]

This stuff harms no one. There is no reason for this to affect your personal life or happiness. So drop the hysteria.

Quite. That should be obvious, should it not? The question is, whence come the venom and the hysteria?

I'd suggest, the sources are two-fold: First, someone, anyone, to look down upon would provide a chance to demonstrate their own supremacy. That's when Those People come in handy. Second, there has to be some victim at the hands of Those People, vicarious, imaginary, because the victim status justifies the most brutal, dehumanizing assault on Those People. It isn't hard to see, that's structurally the same as racism, and the justification for lynch mobs. That structure never really changes.

The above describes the entirety of the explanation why eight out of ten White Evangelicals stand with Trump, the vulgar, misogynistic, mendacious clown.

 

[Lysistrata]

This stuff harms no one. There is no reason for this to affect your personal life or happiness. So drop the hysteria.

So you don't think that the Nation's Moral Fiber is anything worth protecting, and Times Square in the 1970's, where homosexuals, lesbians, voyeurs ,She-Males, Pimps, Hoes, and Johns congregated and socialized was perfectly wholesome?

What is the "Nation's Moral Fiber" anyway? And who is supposed to be in charge of defining and policing such a thing? The essence of the concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" is that people have a choice of what they will think and do. What I think or you think of someone else's activities in Times Square in the 1970's is totally irrelevant. There is enough space in our huge country for you, me, and Blaylock and everybody else to live our own lives as we see fit.

BTW: I think that your beloved "president" was stalking around Manhattan in the 1970's ready to get laid at the drop of a pin. He certainly has indicated that this was the case.

The hopes of Modern Trannies and Shemales is to make the moral standards of old school Times Square the nation's standards today.

As far as what President Trump did or didn't do in Manhattan in the 1970's, I wouldn't take his on-air discussions with Howard Stern as the gospel truth. Trump was seeking to build a persona and entertain the audience. Not give an accurate report of his activities. Stern has an entertainment program on the radio, not a news program. I'd take Mr. Trump's statements on Stern's programs with the same degree of seriousness I would take Rodney's statements to Johnny Carson about his wife, kids, and dentist and the amount of respect they were alleged to have given him.

It's hilarious that you refer to the orange whore as "Mr. Trump." This guy was regularly seen at Studio 54 and claimed that his "battle" against STDs was the equivalent of serving in Vietnam.

Turning to the larger picture, I repeat, just what is the "nation's moral fiber" and just who is authorized to define it and police it? I think that you are just refusing to admit that you want to sacrifice our liberty and turn this nation into a theocracy headed by scum like graham.

I repeat. There is enough space in this country for the likes of you and Blaylock to exercise your freedom to pursue your own lifestyles and no one is preventing you from doing so. You are free to have your own families, houses of worship, get-togethers, holidays, prayers, parades, and walks down the street. No one is restricting your freedom. However, you have no right to dictate to others or keep them from making their own choices.

 

[Polishprince]

It's hilarious that you refer to the orange whore as "Mr. Trump." This guy was regularly seen at Studio 54 and claimed that his "battle" against STDs was the equivalent of serving in Vietnam.
.

All of the A list celebrities were seen at Studio 54 back in the day.

As far as Mr. Trump's "claim" about STD's , that was what is known as a "joke". It was said on a humor program hosted by Howard Stern.

You might not think that is was funny, and you may not have been entertained by the Stern-Trump banter. But that doesn't change the fact of what it was, an attempt to be funny, not an attempt at a serious discussion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have supported both Southern Baptists and Mormons, both misogynistic sexual-dominance cults. Read your own material.

It is certainly a lie to so characterize the Mormon religion. No, we most certainly are not a “mysogynistic sexual-dominance cult”. I have nothing to do with the Southern Baptists, but as far as I know, your characterization of them with that slur is likely just as wrong and just as uncalled-for as your use if that slur against my religion.

 

[Lysistrata]

This stuff harms no one. There is no reason for this to affect your personal life or happiness. So drop the hysteria.

Quite. That should be obvious, should it not? The question is, whence come the venom and the hysteria?

I'd suggest, the sources are two-fold: First, someone, anyone, to look down upon would provide a chance to demonstrate their own supremacy. That's when Those People come in handy. Second, there has to be some victim at the hands of Those People, vicarious, imaginary, because the victim status justifies the most brutal, dehumanizing assault on Those People. It isn't hard to see, that's structurally the same as racism, and the justification for lynch mobs. That structure never really changes.

The above describes the entirety of the explanation why eight out of ten White Evangelicals stand with Trump, the vulgar, misogynistic, mendacious clown.

Agreed in the entirety! These people need a scapegoat because they are insecure in their own ways. The contrast is remarkable between people who just go their own way, like the Amish and the Mennonites, and those who lie about and direct aggression outward toward certain targeted groups, and insist that everyone on the planet live their same lifestyle.

 

[Lysistrata]

It's hilarious that you refer to the orange whore as "Mr. Trump." This guy was regularly seen at Studio 54 and claimed that his "battle" against STDs was the equivalent of serving in Vietnam.
.

All of the A list celebrities were seen at Studio 54 back in the day.

As far as Mr. Trump's "claim" about STD's , that was what is known as a "joke". It was said on a humor program hosted by Howard Stern.

You might not think that is was funny, and you may not have been entertained by the Stern-Trump banter. But that doesn't change the fact of what it was, an attempt to be funny, not an attempt at a serious discussion.

Is this the way you defend someone who has been immoral all of his life, according to the standard that you purport to support, all the while rambling about the nation being "wholesome" in some way? Your opinion of someone else's lifestyle is irrelevant.

If someone else's "morality" would ever be your business, and if the standard that you purport to be "wholesome," no same-sex relationships of whatever sort, and heterosexuals going by the rule of no sex until marriage, and no sex with anyone but one's marriage partner afterward, go take a poll, even among your friends, folks at the neighborhood bar, and military buddies, and find out how many people have actually ever adhered to it. How many men and women were eligible to wear white garments at their weddings?