Always been at war with
Meanwhile Peter Tatchell steps up.
Notice that “a significant number of” isn’t the same as “all” yet he leaps from the first to the second for his stupid analogy. Also notice how glibly he simply shrugs off the part about men pressuring lesbians for sex. Not a problem for Peter so he’s not going to take it seriously or even discuss it honestly, in fact he’s going to try to shut down discussion of it. Male privilege much?
Updating to add:
That clip is revolting.
“A significant number” in itself is misleading. In principle it could mean statistically significant (which itself is a concept that’s not well understood by the general public), but Lowbridge found just one survey to cite, and points out that it’s not necessarily representative. So that’s not it.
It could also mean “meaningful”, which perhaps gets nearer to the point of the article, which is roughly “this is a thing that happens, and it can have a negative effect on the lives of lesbians.” But to acknowledge that, you’d have to admit the truth of that statement. So that’s probably not how he’s using it.
Instead, I think he’s using it in the more colloquial sense of “large”, and then takes a few giant steps to get to “all”. Lowbridge says it happens to a large number of lesbians (not true; she’s careful to hedge about the prevalence of the phenomenon in her article), so by extension she’s claiming it’s a large number of trans women doing it (nice non sequitur you’ve got there), and from there there’s just one more giant step to “all”.
But Peter, you forgot to say “Mother, may I?” Back to the starting line you go.
The initial report didn’t even go as far as saying “a significant number”, saying only “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”. Going from ‘some’ to ‘all’ is not even a subtle lie.
Gee, Peter, are you going to start a #notalltranswomen thing?
Pretending that Jihadi violence is really just ‘oppression,’ and that every single self-proclaimed Muslim is really a champion of peace? That’s worked a treat so far.
How many rapists are you willing to endorse on the basis that they’re not numerous enough to acknowledge?
Regarding that video, again I ask, why the focus on “cis” lesbians? A trans woman who truly believes that biological sex shouldn’t matter in choosing a partner has a pretty large pool of potential partners who in principle wouldn’t be turned off by what’s under the skirt–heterosexual women, gay men, other trans folks. Surely within that pool they can find a willing fish, so why focus on the fish who are turned off by the bait?
I really don’t think Peter should’ve made the Muslim comparison, because it doesn’t do his cause well. After all, it’s generally acknowledged that there is, in fact, a streak in Islam, mainly in its most extreme adherents, that has normalized terrorism, and that radicalization occurs to push moderate (and oftentimes, raised-mostly-secularly) Muslims to support or even join that movement. It’s not claiming that all Muslims are jihadi, but rather asks, “What can we do to stop radicalization?”
I think this would be a very interesting question to apply to the TRAs….
What a Maroon@4:
I know someone on here posted a poll at one point showing that “translesbians” were the LEAST likely to regard a transwoman as a potential partner. The focus is on “cis” lesbians because this is all about ‘validation’ and ‘affirmation’ of their chosen identity–from that point of view, dating (and fucking) a woman who is into women-only is the pinnacle of affirmation.