Cotton ceiling tweet
The tribunal had a very interesting discussion today on the cotton ceiling and whether or not it’s coercive to call lesbians “exclusionary” for not wanting to have sex with men who claim to be women (aka “trans women” in the jargon). Ben Cooper questions CM (Cathryn McGahey QC) for a long time; it feels like shoveling very heavy wet snow.
One tweet and the rest as dialogue, with some punctuation and other tweaks for clarity which the tweeter doesn’t have time to include.
BC: go to page 767, just follow through the substance of the claimant’s response, she is explaining the basis of her tweet. CM: yes BC: she then provides part of the material you had at the time that identifies ‘overcoming the cotton ceiling’.
CM: overcoming the reluctance of lesbians to have sex with trans individuals. BC: AB goes on to explain cotton ceiling. CM: I always understood that. BC: reading out AB’s explanation that requiring lesbians to have sex with a man (trans) or shaming them is coercive 11454.
BC: let’s break it down. If there is a basis to describe what’s going on as coercive then the tweets are reasonable. CM: it’s important to understand what happens or happened at the workshop. There is nothing in the material put out by PP Toronto that advocates coercion.
BC: that is your conclusion about the material. Let’s take it in stages. Do you agree with me that coercion does not involve physical action? That coercion can be emotional, social etc. CM: Yes. I’m not giving my opinion on the content of the workshop. Absent any detailed information, there are many possibilities, and coercion is one of them but not a necessary conclusion. BC: shaming can be a form of coercion. CM: that’s fact specific, it may be. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that shaming is part of the workshop.
It’s enough to make you scream. A “workshop” about “the cotton ceiling” i.e. lesbian underpants i.e. lesbians not having sex with men who identify as women. That’s a grotesque thing to have a “workshop” about in the first place, and of course it’s coercive. Calling it “the cotton ceiling” is calling it an unfair arbitrary anti-equality injustice for lesbians not to have sex with men who identify as women. Lesbians don’t have to have sex with anyone they don’t want to have sex with. Yes of course it’s coercive to have “workshops” about how to convince lesbians to stop deciding for themselves which people they want to have sex with.
BC: lets explore that. In the bottom right – this is part of the material the claimant provided, it explains ‘cotton ceiling’, refers to underwear. Ultimately, transwomen are accept[ed] in many ways but not sexually. Can you accept that the meaning of ‘cotton ceiling’ is referring to getting into lesbians’ knickers? CM: yes, that is clear. BC: connection to glass ceiling implies discrimination. CM: yes, lesbians don’t want to have sex with transwomen. Discussion glass ceiling workshops. It’s wrong to say that because there is fear the workshop is advocating coercion. BC: the difference is that no reasonable person holds the view that women shouldn’t rise up the corporate ladder. CM: yes. But some men are prejudiced against women. BC: The difference is – it is not a matter of prejudice for lesbians to be same sex attracted. CM: do not understand the question. What are you getting at? BC: In relation to the glass ceiling. AH: complaining about BC question refrain from characterising earlier answers. EJ: you are trying to put a view about cotton ceiling and glass ceiling. And witness not understanding. Do you want a break to work on it. BC: No. I may simply not be able to express it. No one disputes that women should be able to rise up the corporate ladder and break the glass ceiling. But lesbians are defined by being attracted to other women. Hence, the cotton ceiling. CM: I now see your point. BC: you can see why lesbians are deeply offended by lesbians being told their same sex attraction is discriminatory.
You’d think, but no. Huh? Discriminatory?
CM: I don’t see how the workshop is discriminatory? BC: Overcoming the cotton ceiling is coercive. CM: I don’t see that the workshop is necessarily coercive. We have no information about the contents of that workshop. AB’s opinion that it must be coercive is not substantiated.
[shouting] The very existence of the workshop is coercive! The way a workshop titled “Why do women think they get to say no to sex with me?” would be coercive.
Skipping a couple of repetitions of the pattern “You see it now?” “No, what mean?” to include yet more repetitions of the pattern.
BC: inherent in the workshop is that sexual barriers that transwomen want to overcome are rooted in transmisogny and transphobia. AB’s claim – it is inherently coercive to label lesbians as transphobic for failing to have sex with transwomen.
CM: I don’t see the coercion. It is appalling to coerce or shame anyone into sex. I don’t see that in the workshop. BC: this workshop on its face is labelling lesbians as transphobic and trying to coerce them.
CM: back to South Africa rugby world cup. CM: the point I am making is no evidence of coercion. BC: the workshop is sexually and socially coercive. CM: I’m not saying that is acceptable for the workshop to say that to any individual lesbian. But we don’t know what the workshop is about. I have no knowledge and no personal interest. I was looking from a professional standards point. AB did not have a basis for this tweet, cannot substantiate and there may be a problem here. Not trying to express a view on the merits of the workshop.
BC: still believe workshop is inherently coercive. CM: No, it is similar to South Africa attempting to racially integrate society. Morning break.
NO! No no no no no no no. It is not like that. That’s the whole point. Pushing lesbians to fuck men who call themselves women is not like South Africa’s attempting racial integration of society.
I could never be a lawyer, I’d be having a tantrum five minutes in.
I’ve never understood this. Why would anyone be so insistent on having sex with a class of people who find one of their body parts repulsive? I’m sure there are a lot of women out there who’d be willing partners, even if they don’t call themselves lesbians; what’s the point of trying to force themselves on women who, by definition, are not attracted to them? (Yes, I know, men. But as a heterosexual man myself, I don’t understand this compulsion.)
Also, yes, lesbians are exclusionary. It’s definitional: lesbians are only attracted to other women (if they’re also attracted to men, then surely they’re bi). That excludes about half of the population right off the bat. But then, just about every human is exclusionary to some degree–nobody finds everyone sexually attractive. Being exclusionary in your sexual preferences is not a bad thing.
Men have wanted to have sex with lesbians for a long time. “Forbidden fruit”, one of the many instances of that kind of intent. See also “corrective rape”, “you just haven’t met the right man”. There are many, many instances of men determined to have sex with women who reject them for any of a variety of reasons. Conquest.
Yes, I know, but I still don’t understand it.
And the trans ideology seems to be very good at intensifying and inflaming that wanting to conquer. The trans ideology is ALL ABOUT the bullying.
Perhaps a better analogy in South Africa would be if the white population was trying to force the black population to have sex with white people who identify as black. At that point, the analogy would hold. But that makes the opposite point than CM is trying to make.
Also, every time (s)he says “No evidence of coercion”, all I can see and hear is DJT saying “No collusion.”
They’re splitting hairs. As they see it:
It’s perfectly okay for a lesbian to turn down any particular “transbian.”
It’s also acceptable— barely — for a lesbian to have a preference for lesbians that don’t have dicks. A mild preference, of course. She’s open to the possibility.
What’s NOT allowed is for a lesbian to think transbians aren’t lesbians. Or for that preference to be absolute.
Watch how the trans activist keeps directing every attempt to deal with that last position towards the first and second position. They’re not being coercive. They can say “no.” Of course they can. Nothing to see here, move along.
Why in the world are men with penises, who nevertheless insist they are women, trying to “date” (have sex with) women who don’t have — and don’t want to have — PIV sex? Why aren’t they trying to “date” the pool of women who DO enjoy PIV sex? If they want a sexual relationship with someone, try the group who want the kind of sex you have to offer?
Of course, the be-penised men who say they are women are after more than just sex. A necessary component is “validation.” If a man with a penis has sex with a non-lesbian (heterosexual) woman, that’s just heterosexual sex. The guy *could* try to get some validation out of it by telling the heterosexual woman that she’s now a lesbian, because she’s had sex with a “trans woman,” but that’s a pretty hard sell. The guy knows that heterosexual women, like lesbians, are not interested in “dating” an aberrant individual like him. Why doesn’t he try to break THEIR “cotton ceiling”? Why aren’t there “workshops” on that? Because there’s nothing remarkable about having sex with women who choose male partners. It’s the reparative rape fantasy that turns them on. It’s all about coercion, boundary-breaking, and power. That’s the real attraction, not just sex. Putting it over on those evil lesbians is the thrill, the incentive. It’s coercion all the way down.
That “morning break” is kind of like a mic drop, isn’t it. I imagine a record scratching, birds falling out of the sky, everyone shattering their water glasses in their grip and having to go for a lie down.
The cotton ceiling analogy is itself absolutely insane, the very idea is that trans identified males are being systematically and unfairly discriminated against because lesbians would like very much to have sex with other lesbians should make absolutely everyone furious. It made everyone absolutely furious when it was incels making exactly the same demand, but when it’s incels in frocks? Totally fine.
But the South Africa thing?
I have to admit, I’m only just beginning to process it. Every time I try I have to start again because it just keeps getting worse.
Yes, that “morning break” right there is classic. At that point, the morning broke. It was very loud.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
Alcohol helps.
(I mean, you have to wait until the end of the day, of course.)
Of course. (nods head understandingly).
Also, following on from comments by WaM, Sackbut, and Maddog1129, all of whom make good points, I don’t think there are very many non-lesbian or NB women who would be interested in having sex with a trans woman. The trans woman would be perceived as either too much into the woman spectrum, and therefore not of interest to a hero woman, or if more masculine in appearance just too weird. I suspect the Venn diagram would show little overlap.
There will always be some people who will be prepared to partner with trans people because they genuinely see the person as attractive. There will be some who want to have sex with them because of the kink (it is after all one of the standard porn categories). Sadly, there will also be some, mostly women, who feel obligated to prove they are not transphobic. Very few guys would allow themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into sex they didn’t want – it’s not how we’re socialised. Using emotional blackmail and coercion to get sex, that’s sadly a different story.
This tribunal is bringing out all the TRA cult’s dirty laundry.
Full points for maddog. It is become more and more clear every day that these TIMs at the forefront of the gender cult are acting out of sexual fetish or compulsion. The entire architecture of gender ideology is designed so they they can be applauded for raping women.
Imagine if a frat house at an American university, or a men’s club at an English university, held a similarly-titled seminar. “I Phelta Thigh presents Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling.” They would probably be thrown out of university. Would it be any different, though? That’s the trick – instead of being pilloried for holding a strategy session about how to get into the pants of unwilling women, these guys have figured out how to make everybody ignore it.
Fetishists, perverts, and rapists everywhere you look. Just ask Thomas Johnson, who helped develop “standards of care” he can jerk off to.
“I Phelta Thigh” – that got a shriek of pre-dawn laughter.
Here’s the advertisement for the ‘Cotton Ceiling’ workshop preserved in its original context. Full transcript below; all emphases added by me.
According to Tribunal Tweets CM said ‘We have no information about the contents of that workshop’, or something very like it. In a strictly literal sense this is true. We don’t know what went on during the actual event. But anyone with even a modest capacity for close contextual reading should be able to recognise that the language in this abstract is violent and oppressive: ‘overcoming’, ‘breaking down … barriers’, ‘strategize ways to overcome’ and utterly dehumanizing: ‘cotton ceiling’ – lesbian women reduced to what is in their knickers, their right to agency denied.
The whole premise is saturated in misogyny and sexism: lesbians (those bitches) have been rejecting our demands! We must force them to understand that the point of their existence is to service the fantasies of heterosexual males with a cross-dressing fetish, and alleviate (whisper it quietly) our painful awareness that we are imposters.
[…] a comment by NightCrow on Cotton ceiling […]
No. Not ignore it. Support it. They’ve turned a massive chunk of the population into accomplices and enablers.
Helen Joyce has a good post on McGahey’s evidence.