“How do you reach these people”
Ah yes the old “some women are so ugly they look like men unlike sexy pretty womany me” says the man who calls himself a woman.
Tip Jar
Ah yes the old “some women are so ugly they look like men unlike sexy pretty womany me” says the man who calls himself a woman.
How helpful, Monty transplaining a subcategory of “transphobe” as being women who don’t meet the preferred stereotype. Being an actual female isn’t enough for transclusion, you have to woman better. What a clown.
…So let me be even pettier than that by pretending I’m not taking shots at their appearance even though I am.
A real classic of passive-aggression.
So does the fact that I don’t wear make up or perfume, I don’t wear a dress or high heels, render me one of those “transphobes” in the mind of this deluded male? Because most women I know you can tell they are women even if they don’t look “feminine” enough to suit the AGP or the trans- cult ideal of a woman.
Yes, there are occasionally people who are not obvious as to their sex; that’s usually easily resolved. But it really isn’t that difficult to tell a woman from a man, even an unattractive woman or a non-stereotyped woman from a man in a dress and a wig.
Yes, “Katie”, it is an attack on appearance that you made. You are calling the women ugly and manly. Why? Because they have what you want – womanhood.
Asshole.
Colin and Jonathan W continue to insist they “woman” better than actual women…..
The use of the verb ‘to pass’ gives up the farm from the beginning. Actual women don’t have to ‘pass’, regardless of how they look.
In their eagerness to blur the boundaries of sex they pretend most of us make only random guesses as to who’s a man or woman using simple cues like breasts or beards. It’s true that women are better than men at detecting sex (possibly an evolved trait for safety) but surely it’s easy to test this capacity. The fact that Genderists aren’t setting up or promoting controlled studies on real people suggests they’re pretty sure it won’t go their way.
Ophelia, how did you discover this Montgomery guy in the first place? Is he famous in certain circles? I know that Willoughby appears on TV, and I think has publicly debated Kellie-Jay Keen, but Montgomery?
Poor Monty. He’s singularly obsessed with women, like a creepy stalker. He really should take up golfing, or something; get a nice hobby, get outside, fresh air. It would do him a world of good, and spare the rest of us this constant stream of tweeted insecurity.
GW – I first encountered Montgomerie at The Freethinker. I wrote a column for it for years, and when The Freeth got moved to Patheos, Montgomerie started commenting on the column.
Aha! Was he into the trans thing at the time?
Of course; he was calling himself Katie – it wasn’t all that long ago. (Three years maybe?) He’s not a newbie.
Sastra:
For sure. An announcement was made a few weeks ago that there was a new scientific discovery showing that gender identity has a biological basis, which can be tested objectively!
This, needless to say, did not go down well with the trans crowd, who knew perfectly well that they’d ‘fail’ the test. There were so many outraged complaints made that the people in question later announced that they wouldn’t be making their research public after all. Hilarious.