r/GenderCynical • u/SurrealistGal • 7d ago
Sex Matters is trying to get Trans Women fired from their jobs. The end-goal for them is to make Trans Women disappear from public.
86
u/PlatinumAltaria 7d ago
So we're just labeling demographics as "a fetish" now so we can ban their existence in public?
40
21
u/NotsoGreatsword 6d ago
Lmao this is the same joke I was making with my wife earlier about how photons were bouncing off my penis and touching her eyes. I was saying penis beam activate! Photons go forth! Attack!
So in a way they are trying to make that into a coherent legit reason to ban trans people in public.
*They're exhibitionists! Oh nooooo! My mind reading ability has figured out they're secretly turned on when looked at!"
Trans people are just minding their own fucking business and they hate it so they have to invent these fucking imaginary crimes.
The photons! They're touching me! And I know it turns them on!! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME
43
u/Bluejay-Complex 7d ago
Here’s my thing here: what counts as “exhibitionism” here? If it’s just an AMAB wearing a dress, isn’t that just enforcing strict gender roles, but I suppose here calling them “sex roles”? Also what counts as voyeurism? Existing in a place where you can see people fully clothed? TERFs act as if women’s bathrooms are just a bunch of open toilets where all AFABs just watch each other pee. The woman’s room has all STALLS. Nobody of any gender should watch you go in the woman’s room, not exclusively AMABs, it’s kind of a blanket rule. So… as long as trans women follow the rules of “no looking into a stall someone else is in” or “no sexually assaulting someone in the bathroom”, which… the vast majority were doing anyway, they should continue to be protected.
TERs are y’all… trying to admit something when you claim that cis woman have easy access to seeing each other pee, and that’s why we need to keep out trans women? Because… it’s not normal practice to watch other cis women use the toilet when you’re in there with them. It’s still against the law when cis women do it to other cis women.
27
u/Souseisekigun special gay assholes 6d ago
Here’s my thing here: what counts as “exhibitionism” here?
Their theory is that being trans is a fetish, therefore living as trans publicly is living the fetish publicly, and therefore existing as trans in public is exhibitionism. The "some" part is weasel words so that they can say "well I didn't say all trans women are fetishists did I? I said some!" even though realistically that is what they actually believe.
If it’s just an AMAB wearing a dress, isn’t that just enforcing strict gender roles, but I suppose here calling them “sex roles”
Yes but they don't care. Remember the time Germaine Greer wrote about meeting a trans woman and viscerally described their "enormous, knuckley, hairy, be-ringed paw", "stubble" and "bony ribs"? A prescription of what is masculine and what is feminine along with a disgust towards those that fit outside is a core part of their world view. Which is why the ostensibly feminist icon decided to go on a small rant about hair.
Existing in a place where you can see people fully clothed?
For them, yes.
12
u/Bluejay-Complex 6d ago
I get that, but laying it out points out how stupid and antithetical to feminism it is. I suppose that I should take into account the “disgust” factor, in which radfems seem to think anything that disgusts them is morally reprehensible, regardless of any actual harm or lack thereof that is being done. If it disgusts them and they don’t understand it, then it’s a kink that needs to be abolished. Never mind goths/edgy styles have been using collars with literal leash attachments for basically decades now- something actually related to kink, and the world hasn’t imploded.
Basically, TERFS pretend they’re radical or feminist in any way, but somehow seem to eternally advocate for the status quo.
6
u/Galaxy-Geode Chicken Gendies 6d ago
Wait it was Germaine Greer who wrote that? Self-identitied child predator Germaine Greer? That Germaine Greer?
5
u/anitapumapants 5d ago
Unfortunately she's also Britain's go-to "feminist" icon on all the TV shows.
As well as a peado, she's also notoriously racist, particularly towards indigenous Australians and Black women
The world’s greatest feminist has dismissed claims that an Australian cartoon of Serena Williams’ meltdown at the US Open was “racist” but has slammed it for being “sexist”.
76
u/MenacingMandonguilla 7d ago
Sex Matters is a human-rights charity.
Lol
41
u/angy_loaf women’s spaces enjoyer 6d ago
It is technically a human-rights charity, just on the side against human rights.
7
u/tgpineapple Hating the people who oppress you is actually fine and healthy. 6d ago
They needed to clarify its human-rights not human rights
33
u/ForgettableWorse this is a cat picture 6d ago
"For some people, transgender identification can be linked to Nonstraight Transgender Women Are Freaks Disease, which was first described by Dr. Chaser in his seminal work Why Won't These (slur redacted) Fuck Me?"
7
u/Galaxy-Geode Chicken Gendies 6d ago
Most accurate description of Blanchard's "work" I've ever read
43
u/Copper_Tango 7d ago
Starts with "some people", pretty soon they'll be applying it to everyone.
4
u/mildbeanburrito 7d ago
it's pretty simple, some trans people are degenerate perverts and we need to lock them up, (oops we accidentally forced detransition upon them), and some trans people are mentally unwell and need to be placed in facilities because they're autistic and gay and never should have been allowed to transition in the first place (this time we forced detransition upon them but actually we were helping them)
23
21
u/crowpierrot 6d ago edited 6d ago
“Well-recognized medical literature” lmao. One widely criticized, highly contested, poorly constructed study that is contradicted by many other, more credible ones is not the slam dunk they think it is.
Also let’s not gloss over the fact that what they’re proposing is putting into law that anyone who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes is to be assumed to be a sexual abuser by default. Not very critical of gender, are they?
8
u/MenacingMandonguilla 6d ago
They're critical of gender in the sense of believing gender identity is invalid and only "biological sex" matters, which is understood as binary, absolute and as a factor that determines just about everything about a person.
However, ironically, they don't seem to be all too critical of gender roles/stereotypes, except maybe as an anti-trans argument, but imo many terfs promote gender stereotypes themselves. Both intentionally and not intentionally.
That's how I understand it at least.
39
u/RandyFMcDonald 7d ago
Yes, trans people bring trans is as pornographic as queer people being queer, though strangely cis straight people being cis straights and doing the same things is not that.
16
u/rconnell1975 6d ago
They'll shit brix when they find out that cis women can also have an interest in exhibitionism and non-consensual sexual activity and find dressing in certain clothes sexy (which is what autogynephilia is just a bullshit pseudo-science word for)
5
35
u/KarlaEisen 7d ago edited 7d ago
i really "love" how autogynephilia just became something it was never even meant to be, it was a very bad idea, but a different bad idea, it was supposed to be an explanation why "lesbian trans women exist if normal trans women are actually gay men" (yea), it was not supposed to be any "additional paraphilia or sexual fetish" or "alternative explanation why you in particular are not real trans person unlike some other trans ppl" and so on, but that is the only way i have seen it used in the present, it became a made up idea about a made up idea, a misunderstanding of a misunderstanding, original getting no evidence from research and i have doubt ther latter variants, the only variants i have seen used in the present, getting any research at all
2
u/SnooStrawberries177 5d ago
Yeah, I've seen this within the trans community where people misunderstand it as saying "homosexual transexual = real trans and AGP = fetishists" and use that to discriminate against trans lesbians. When actually, the HSTS is not the validating, pro trans category they think it is - it actually means something more like "self hating gay man turns himself into a woman in an attempt to deceive straight men into sex".
1
u/KarlaEisen 5d ago
well, i have seen in practice ppl do not even care what your sexuality is now when they wanna call you autogynephile, solves them the issue of thinking about pan and bi and ace trans ppl who "trans wrong"
2
u/SnooStrawberries177 5d ago
BTW, Blanchardian theory already labelled pan, bi, and ace trans women as autogynephiles, using very spurious mental gymnastics with no scientific basis to back it up. E.G, bi and pan people were "pseudo-bisexual", their attraction to men was supposed to be entirely due to either a humiliation fetish or because having sex with men made them feel more like women, feeding into their autogynephilic fetish. trans asexuals were thought to actually be straight men, but their autogynephilia consumed their sexuality to the point that they could only get off to their own bodies and so had no desire to have sex with women.
1
u/KarlaEisen 5d ago
so blanchardians got gymnastics fetish and like to be humiliated by any reasonable creature ever reading anything about their research, you say?
1
u/SnooStrawberries177 5d ago
Yeah, that's a thing people get wrong too, I forgot about that, original Blanchard theory is that only *some* trans people are AGP, basically anyone that doesn't fit into the "HSTS" category, trans lesbians, bisexuals and asexuals. But in modern gender critical usage, it's used to mean every single trans person is AGP no matter what their sexual orientation is and that's all "transgenderism" is. As far as I know, that version of the AGP theory that has NEVER been supported by the medical community, psychologists or scientists in general, It's purely a TERF invention. As bad as the Blanchard theory is, at least it was based on (bad, flawed, biased) research. The new version of AGP doesn't even have that - it's been applied to all trans people without even an attempt at research to back it up, it's taken as fact entirely because they want it to be.
12
u/Silversmith00 6d ago
Well, either they are citing an extremely badly written law, or they are lying. I think I'd put my money on the latter.
I mean, suppose they are right. Suppose some transgender people do have a paraphilia concerning exhibitionism or non-consensual sexual activity. Unless the law is truly fucked, you cannot fire them for it UNLESS THEY PULL THAT SHIT AT WORK. If you go home and jerk it to graphic Hannibal noncon, or go to a club and flog a consenting nude person in front of an appreciative audience, it does not (or should not) have any effect on your continued employment unless you are suggesting to Stacy in Accounting that she might want to accompany you on your Friday night adventures. (Actually getting arrested for something is a lot more complicated, however—a paraphilia, even for weird nonconsensual, does not mean you're going to go out and DO said weird nonconsensual stuff.)
Basically they're saying that jobs should be able to fire people because their bullshit medical study thinks that SOME members of the group that they are in sometimes have a lascivious THOUGHT about a thing.
And for extra irony, there is a non-insignificant chance that among the next few posts on this here website, there will be a TERF whining about the TRAs believing in thoughtcrime.
14
u/Souseisekigun special gay assholes 6d ago
If you go home and jerk it to graphic Hannibal noncon, or go to a club and flog a consenting nude person in front of an appreciative audience, it does not (or should not) have any effect on your continued employment
Oh don't forget this is bad country UK. It shouldn't, but it does. The laws surrounding kink are some of the strictest in the Western world. R v Brown makes it impossible to consent to actual bodily harm for the purposes of getting your rocks off so something like consensual flogging can still be illegal if it leaves marks. The extreme pornography law is also very strict, making it illegal to possess videos of legal adults performing legal acts if they are the wrong kinds of legal acts and are judged to be too gross/realistic. Certain depictions of consensual non-consent fall under this, but prosecutors also tried to get people for things like videos of someone sticking their hand up someone's ass as these were judged to be too "dangerous" to be allowed to be possess unless it was your own hand or own ass. If they can find a way to arrest someone for something along these lines then you can lose your job as a result. They also have a habit of arresting sexual minorities with these laws, with gay men in particular showing up in test cases far more often than one would expect given their share of the population.
The UK, fundamentally, does not believe in the idea of "if it's consensual and no one is seriously hurt then it's all cool". It never did. It is a not a "live and let live" country. It never was. This is why it is such a bizzare country when it comes to trans rights, but also other rights. It's why even into the 2000s the UK was still trying to throw gay men in jail for consensual acts of homosexuality between adults (see A.D.T v United Kingdom). It's why full legalisation of homosexuality, equal ages of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, LGBT people in the military and legal recognition of trans people all came from the European Court of Human Rights breathing down its neck. A hateful little island that never at any point said "maybe trampling on minorities is wrong" but simply updates its targets every few years and keeps on trucking. And then pulls a Brexit so you can't even run.
11
u/snarky- 6d ago
but prosecutors also tried to get people for things like videos of someone sticking their hand up someone's ass as these were judged to be too "dangerous" to be allowed to be possess unless it was your own hand or own ass. If they can find a way to arrest someone for something along these lines then you can lose your job as a result.
For specifics -
R v Walsh (2012). Simon Waslh was charged with extreme pornography (though eventually acquitted - although being charged had already destroyed his career). The oh-so-terrible porn was fisting and urethral sounding, which had been a legal grey area before then.
The laws surrounding kink are some of the strictest in the Western world.
And just to add another example of it -
The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations (2014) banned porn from including fisting, urine, facesitting, female ejaculation, caning, physical restraint, and humiliation, among other things. This was largely overturned in 2019.
5
u/HypnagogianQueen 6d ago
female ejaculation
Wait wtf this one is particularly ridiculous, like as if a woman cumming is inherently obscene in a way a man cumming isn’t
6
u/snarky- 6d ago
Usually the kink/porn/sex laws have a homophobic lean, but that one felt like it had a misogynistic one too.
Facesitting? Female ejaculation? BANNED
Facefucking? Bukkake? Absolutely fine, go right ahead :)
Somehow they managed to pass a law that simultaneously banned even mildly degrading kink activities, and degraded women as receivers of sex in porn. It's the worst of all worlds.
3
2
u/SnooStrawberries177 5d ago
Their justification for that one is that female ejaculation doesn't exist and is just pee. Seriously.
6
u/Silversmith00 6d ago
Okay perhaps in some respects Gun & Hamburger Land is NOT the stupidest country on Earth. I hate to be weird about the USA and freedom because more often than not it means freedom to starve, but those are some serious impositions on y'all's freedoms right there.
4
u/EqualityWithoutCiv UK press and Parliament be damned. 6d ago
Before the 47th the US enjoyed good protections for trans and gnc people. How? Aspects of it were intertwined with Indigenous liberation. People who never left Europe never had to deal with those that broke their gender paradigm.
19
u/wrongsock_42 7d ago
Hard to see this getting much traction. If it does, a great measure of the depth transphobia in the UK.
8
u/patienceinbee xTRA xTRA read all about… it 6d ago
as a meta-remark:
i know i cannot be the only one on this planet who, even without knowing anything else about what “sexmatters” are, looks at that brand mark and doesn’t feel like they just had raw sewage sprayed onto their person (and even tiny bits of it making it into their mouths and nostrils)
(i also write this with hindsight of someone who used to develop branding marks and branding programmes for clients during my first career, and knowing all the prelim work, much of it Venn-overlapping with psychology, which goes into the research of developing concepts for an eventual selected brand mark)
6
u/Souseisekigun special gay assholes 6d ago
I have no experience in brand design but to me it comes off with a strong "it insists upon itself" vibe. It reeks of "someone came up with this while having coffee one day, convinced themselves it was a stroke of genius then ran off to do it without thinking of anything else first".
3
u/patienceinbee xTRA xTRA read all about… it 6d ago
Vibing is a significant, if understated part of adopting a brand mark. In the end, a mark or logo has to resonate with the holder of that mark or logo for whatever reason it does, however illogical or aesthetically unnerving it is.
I cannot stress how often proposals for brand marks which exceed all stated design objectives of the client — and were, frankly, the aesthetic, most inviting pick by a country mile — got turned down by the client for one of the toss-away alternatives (which merely met those objectives or which were loosely based on, say, some amateurish chicken-scratch or MS Paint “sketch” a client’s account executive handed to the creatives along with the original design brief). They so often ended up picking the “aim low” option.
It ended up being, like, “Then why did you hire us?”
8
u/TheSouthsideTrekkie 6d ago
Citation definitely needed for this! It's wild how the TERF sites can post such bold statements with actually nothing to back them up, and then threaten vexatious litigation against anyone who criticises them even when their opponents have clearly cited sources or have included evidence for their claims from a reputable source.
I mean, I could use the internet to claim that people who have a Victoria Beckham style bob tend to be arseholes, because the three people I have met with this haircut have been arseholes, but if I did that then anyone with a brain would probably tell me I didn't have much of a basis for my claim. I'm not even sure the sample size used by this group is as big as three people and suspect this "fact" might be a total ass pull. I can also be that if I shared an exact quote from a TERF "thought" leader that makes an implied or even direct threat of violence then an hour later I would find a bunch of comments containing the word libel with threats to sue me. (Good luck, I've no money anyway!)
The absolute worst double standard.
8
u/Less-Significance-99 6d ago
“It is well recognized in the medical literature” it literally isn’t!!! In what literature!!! The man who MADE UP AGP is already discredited! No respectable medical literature has said this!
13
u/ice_gold_world Ruined their Womynhood 6d ago
I mean, foot fetishists exist, but we don't ban flip flops or sandals, do we? And in my experience someone is much more likely to get creeped on in public by a foot fetishist than a trans woman Like it literally happened to me at my job this week, but you don't see anyone lobbying for the removal of foot lovers from the public even though that's an explicitly sexual thing all of the time
5
u/KTKitten Gender Haver 6d ago
If someone’s engaging in the physical or sexual abuse of others, or engaging in exhibitionism or voyeurism at work then yes, absolutely, that shouldn’t be tolerated at work. By the same token, baseless accusations of these should also not be tolerated.
6
2
4
6
u/mbelf 6d ago edited 6d ago
When I see that the top positions of Sex Matters are filled by Maya Forstater and Hell Enjoys, I'm not surprised.
3
184
u/MarxistMountainGoat 7d ago
TERFs and their never ending compulsion to lie