Would DOCTOR Veronica be getting a feature in Bicycling mag if he were still racing as a man? Would he still be doing a two day photo/video shoot if he were still racing as a man?
Of course not. He was a dud as a cyclist of the male category. Nobody would be paying the smallest attention to his cycling if he hadn’t jumped over to the other side, where it’s so much easier for a man to grab the top spot.
It’s a win-win, because he gets to steal medals that belong to women, and he gets to milk the resulting objections and anger for publicity and photo shoots.
It’s an excellent wheeze if you can get away with it.
Also in Peak Philosophy, Veronica Ivy explains that laws cannot be questioned or criticized, much less flouted (goodbye civil rights movements and protests all over the world). If it’s the law it’s pointless for you to say it’s mistaken or sinister or just plain evil. Nazi law? Slave state law? Saudi law? Never you mind whether they’re just or not, they’re the law. Sit down.
Peak philosopher Ivy McKinnon is framing a disagreement about the ontology of the category “woman” as hate speech which must be reported to “the appropriate authorities” and flagged up to Michael Robinson’s sponsors, clearly in the hope that they will all drop Robinson instantly and with public opprobrium.
Veronica Ivy (formerly known as Rachel McKinnon) has another piece on How Evil Are The Feminists. It’s almost as if this trans thing is an excellent grift for Veronica Rachel.
Still full of lies though. Lies are not a great look on a philosopher.
Hate speech has no place in a free and democratic society. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. And yet, constantly, people in a position of relative power or authority seem to be saying that they should have the right to say or write rude, vile, violent or discriminatory things about their fellow citizens. But even more, they think that they should be legally protected from any and all consequences of those actions, even if their speech has negative consequences on the people to whom it is addressed.
By “rude, vile, violent or discriminatory things” he of course means things like “he.”
In early September 2018, Forstater had been a consultant to the Center for Global Development, which focuses on economic inequality, when she began using her personal Twitter account to tweet about her opposition to potential changes to the U.K.’s Gender Recognition Act, writing, “I share the concerns of @fairplaywomen that radically expanding the legal definition of ‘women’ so that it can include both males and females makes it a meaningless concept, and will undermine women’s rights & protections for vulnerable women & girls.”
He actually thinks (or is pretending to think, which would be much less surprising) he’s presenting an example of “rude, vile, violent or discriminatory things.”
How is that misgendering? What’s the pronoun for gender-fluid? Is there one? How many pronouns do we have to memorize, and how many rules for knowing who is what?
He goes on to say that Bunce has said he “defaults to” she, but if he expects us to think that’s a binding law that applies to all of us, he expects in vain.
This, then, is what Forstater wanted the courts to uphold: Her right to make her co-workers uncomfortable; her right to place her nonprofit organization in an untenable position vis-à-vis potential donors (like Credit Suisse senior directors); her right to be, even as she defines it, rude and disrespectful in social and professional contexts; and her right to disrespect U.K. law, which defines transgender women as women and transgender men as men if they jump through the right legal hoops. (As Judge James Tayler noted in his ruling against her: “If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate that person is legally a woman. That is not something that the Claimant is entitled to ignore.”)
The judge said we’re not entitled to ignore other people’s “Gender Recognition Certificates”? We’re not? So because people have a certificate, we’re required to believe or pretend to believe they are the sex we don’t perceive when we perceive them?
Well, I guess I’ll have to become an anarchist now.
Courts, of course, tend to look askance at being asked to rule that an employee should be allowed to harm their employers and co-workers based on “philosophical beliefs” they’ve decided are both “biological truths” and tantamount to religious canon.
What? They do? It comes up that often? I’m betting it doesn’t come up at all, this case excepted. McKinnon does make such sloppy claims for a philosopher. If he’d stopped at “co-workers” he’d have had a point, but the rest of it is just absurd.
Then he rants about Rowling for a few paragraphs, and sums up:
So, J.K. Rowling: Write whatever you please. Call yourself “gender critical,” if you like. Support any transphobic adult who’ll discriminate with you. Live your best life with your piles of Muggle money. But force cis, trans or intersex women to live with hostile work environments because of the fairytales that transphobes tell themselves? No. #TransRightsAreHumanRights #WhatDrillAreYouTalkingAbout
Ah yes the fairytales that people who don’t believe men can become women tell ourselves – we’re the ones living on fantasies.
DOCTOR McKinnon did a piece for Vice attacking Rowling yesterday, because of course he did. The byline is Veronica Ivy, and a sentence at the end says:
Veronica Ivy, PhD, is a philosophy professor and athlete who has previously gone by Rachel McKinnon.
Before that he went by Rhys McKinnon. Anyway – the usual lies are summoned.
“Gender critical” is a neologism that refers to a loose collection of people focused on opposing equal rights for trans people, and specifically trans women.
Big lie. We do not oppose equal rights for trans people.
They claim that, for example, trans women are really male/men and should be excluded from women-only spaces, and should not have the legal protections against discrimination on the basis of being women.
And that’s not equal rights, is it, so it’s not “for example,” it’s “for non sequitur.” It is true that we say men should not have legal protections against discrimination on the basis of being women, any more than white people should have legal protections against discrimination on the basis of being black people. That’s what “discrimination” means.
The U.K. has had a recent rash of news media, demonstrations, and events targeting the rights of trans women.
What rights though? The “rights” of trans women to demand all the protections in theory offered to women (though we often have a struggle to find them) while retaining all the entitlement and aggression of men?
Some “gender critical” people have tried to claim that trans women are male and, as Forstater claimed, that sex is immutable, or unchangeable. They use phrases like “biological reality” and “sex matters” to express this sentiment. Their view is that since trans women are really “male,” then allowing trans women equal rights as women removes the rights of cisgender women to be in female-only spaces.
But this is, of course, nonsense. Legally and medically speaking, trans women are women; trans men are men.
Spoken like a true philosopher: if the legal and medical disciplines label men as women then that’s the end of it; there are no other categories. Similarly, if priests and rabbis say there is a god, it is nonsense to say there isn’t. Nonsense of course.
J.K. Rowling’s use of the hashtag #IStandWithMaya, expresses Rowling’s support for Forstater’s legal battle for her right to express anti-trans hate speech.
Another obvious, vulgar lie.
I would go so far as to say that Rowling, who claims she wants people to “live your best life in peace and security,” is contributing to a violation of trans people’s basic human dignity, and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, and offensive environment, like Forstater. And as Judge Tayler put it, “The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
What kind of environment has Veronica Ivy-Rachel McKinnon been creating for female athletes, I wonder.
Rachel McKinnon — the so-called defending “world champion” of women’s track cycling — is a man. I’ll repeat that so my meaning cannot be misconstrued. He is a man.
Maybe my kind-hearted reader is offended by this blunt phrasing. Why am I calling McKinnon a man — when, perhaps for complicated reasons, he would rather be called a woman? Why don’t I compromise and call him a “trans woman,” as others do? Or be polite and address him by “she/her” pronouns, like everyone else in the media?
I doubt that many readers of National Review have that particular brand of kind-heartedness – the kind that humors identity bullshit. Capitalism bullshit, market bullshit, antifeminist bullshit, yes, but identity bullshit, no. Not their thing. Once in awhile that makes them right.
This is precisely the well-meant, tragically naïve logic that has enabled a structure of lies and tyranny to be erected around us, a structure that most cannot opt out of without incurring an enormous social cost. It is a structure in which cheating and viciousness are rewarded while civility and truth-telling are punished. Rachel McKinnon is the perfect example of how this structure works and operates, as well as why we should resist it.
He is. He is more so than for instance Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv, because he has a respectable job as an academic, and is much better at righteous rhetoric than Yaniv is. He doesn’t come across as flaky the way Yaniv does; instead he comes across as a determined malevolent conscious cheat and bully.
For context: McKinnon lived unambiguously as a man (called “Rhys”) until the age of 29. In addition to male puberty, he has had a full experience of modern academia where he developed a particular enthusiasm for the philosophy of lies (literally) and for “gender studies.” Graduating first from the University of Victoria in British Columbia, he completed a Ph.D. from the University of Waterloo with a thesis on assertions, “Why You Don’t Need to Know What You’re Talking About” (the literal subtitle).
And later a book. Of course he did.
While serving as an associate professor at the College of Charleston, S.C., McKinnon decided to get into sport cycling. (Fair.) He won the 200-meter sprint record for women in the 35–39 range in 2018, and then the UCI Masters World Track Cycling Championship in the Women’s Sprint. (Not fair.)
This month, he defended his title. From the news last week: “Rachel McKinnon successfully defended her track World Championship title in Manchester,” per Cycling Weekly; “Prominent trans rights campaigner McKinnon has defended her right to compete,” per the BBC; “[McKinnon] found herself defending her title against a critic — the president’s son,” per CBS News; “McKinnon keeps dominating women’s cycling. And she keeps creating controversy all the way,” per the New York Post.
McKinnon keeps dominating women’s cycling because of that whole not being a woman thing.
Because McKinnon being a man is directly relevant to the argument that he should not compete against women, in calling him something other than a man, we obfuscate that argument — and all for the sake of a very recently invented set of blasphemy norms (e.g. “misgendering” and “deadnaming”) that don’t apply to us non-believers.
That’s a good way of putting it. They’re blasphemy norms in a religion we don’t adhere to or admire so leave us out of them.
Second, by pretending that McKinnon is not a man — but rather a vulnerable woman — we have forsworn all expectations of accountability and decency. The most egregious example of this, and the precise moment I decided to stop lending McKinnon special courtesies, was when he lauded the terminal illness of a young woman, Magdalen Berns, whom I held (and still hold) in great esteem.
Berns believed strongly that men cannot be women. As she lay on her deathbed in Scotland, at the age of 36, surrounded by her loved ones, McKinnon tweeted that he was “happy” when bad people died, that this feeling is “justified,” that Berns is a “trash human,” and further advised his followers “don’t be the sort of person who people you’ve harmed are happy you’re dying of brain cancer.”
That’s McKinnon. He should write a book on how it’s possible to be seen as progressive while calling women names day in and day out on Twitter.
So, can you compromise or appease a tyrant? You can certainly try. In a surprisingly balanced interview with Sky News — in which the interviewer explained that the science shows that even after taking testosterone suppressants, men retain indisputable physiological advantages that are especially pronounced in a sport like track — McKinnon explained why he thinks skeptics like me, who consider the science of sex, are wrong:
I’m legally and medically female. But the people who oppose my existence still want to think of me as male. They use the language that I am a man . . . If you think of trans women as men then you think there’s an unfair advantage.
Of course, nobody is questioning McKinnon’s existence — for how could the continually aggressive presence of such an unpleasant man be denied? What is being disputed is his belief that he is a woman and his sense of entitlement to compete against actual women. But for those who might be more sympathetic, or for those who don’t know quite how much of a thug he is, he makes the classic cartoon-villain mistake: overreach. Those who are not with him entirely, he explains, must be entirely against him:
[Sport] is central to society. So, if you want to say, “I believe you’re a woman for all of society except this massive central part of sport” then that’s not fair. So, fairness is the inclusion of trans women.
As it happens, I do not have an ideological commitment to gender terminology or pronouns one way or another. For struggling, respectful souls, I’m happy to lend special courtesies (in fact, I frequently do). But for cheats and liars, for bullies and tyrants, for those who seek to use my words to propagate deceit and injustice? Oh, just drop it, sir — I’ll never call you “ma’am.”
Missgendering is a HUGE trigger for suicidal ideation. Every time u MISGENDER a trans person YOU become responsible for their suicide attempts. If u have ever misgendered someone and as a result they committed, then YOU are to blame for said person losing their life. #transrights
Seriously? Is that true even if the “misgendered” person is not present when you “misgender” zem? And how does anyone know the person who “committed” did it because YOU “misgendered” zem?
If both of those claims are true then talking to or about people at all becomes a terrible hazard. Maybe we’d better all just stop doing it?
Don’t forget, McKinnon is an academic, whose field is philosophy. McKinnon teaches philosophy to students, and also retweets (to endorse, one must assume) the nonsensical dreck above.
Masters women’s track cycling is a rare and special thing. It allows us to extend our competitive careers and not think so much about contracts or going to the Olympics. We’re a small community, and we should take GOOD CARE of each other.
Like, by not competing against each other if we’re not actually women? That kind of GOOD CARE of each other?
Think about the optics of your behaviors. My new friend, multi time Danish elite national champion is now a friend. We bonded. And she chose to wear one of my #sportisahumanright stickers on her jersey on the podium!! That’s a powerful, small action to show her support for me and what I’m doing.
Pat pat pat. His new friend, whose full name he can’t remember (or can’t be bothered to say). His new friend who went along with his pretense. She’s the good kind of woman, the one who doesn’t make a fuss and lets men do whatever they want.
But someone is characteristically and conspicuously off to the side, not sharing the embrace, instead putting her hand behind her back. I had hoped for better from her.
Do better people.
He had hoped for better from her – he, the selfish narcissistic asshole who stole her first place win by cheating his way into the race, he had hoped she would smile in a friendly way as he walked all over her.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Updating to add: there’s more scolding on the next post.
I’ll just let this photo to stand for itself. Two new friends, and a serious supporter of my racing, sharing the joy of achieving hard-won goals. Can’t wait to see Kirsten next year. …and then another who is somewhat less enthused to lose a race against me…off to the side. It’s traditional for everyone on the podium to put their arms around each other’s backs. It’s a group photo.
Hey, you know what else is traditional? For men to race against men. For men not to cheat their way onto women’s teams by announcing that they’re women in a political climate in which people aren’t allowed to respond with “No you’re not.” For competitors not to cheat. That’s what. Self-righteous lectures by a cheater aimed at the woman he cheated out of her win are not needed or wanted.
When one athlete purposefully put that hand behind her own back communicates something that matters. It’s bad sportsmanship.
I have a LOT more to say about this long mess of a week and how much transphobia was just EVERYWHERE.
Bad sportsmanship.
Says the cheating cheater after his successful cheating won him a prize he would never have won if he’d raced against other men.
We have a LOT more to say about this long mess too, and by god we’re saying it.
I have yet to meet a real champion who has a problem with trans women.
Real champions want stronger competition.
If you win because bigotry got your competition banned… you’re a loser.
Real champions may want stronger competition but that doesn’t mean they want unfair competition. Champion footballers age 12 no doubt want to play against the best age 12s, that doesn’t mean they want to play against the best adult players.
What a truly gruesomely self-serving self-flattering dishonest thing to say – that conceited selfish narcissistic piece of shit telling the women he’s doing them a favor by upping the competition when in fact he’s stealing their chances.
It’s not being a loser for women to race against women without having hulking Rhys McKinnon thrown into the mix. The loser is Rhys McKinnon insisting on racing against women.
Babes…those assholes are spending their day off harassing and stalking trans women…
…just leave them to their dad pathetic lives.
Do something more productive than argue with fuckwhistles.
“Fuckwhistles”?
We’re not the ones with the whistle or the dad issues, Rhys.
I’ll just let this photo to stand for itself. Two new friends, and a serious supporter of my racing, sharing the joy of achieving hard-won goals. Can’t wait to see Kirsten next year.
…and then somewhat less… https://www.instagram.com/p/B31KuybliJC/?igshid=6bg9xqlm7maw …
Third place, Kirsten wore my #sportisahumanright sticker as a sign of solidarity. We hugged, and are embracing here in celebration. Second place kept her distance and put her hand behind her back as her own sign… signifying something like poor sportsmanship.
Except that “second place” was actually first place, but Rachel stole her medal by cheating. Rachel has some nerve accusing the woman she stole a gold medal from of “poor sportsmanship.” Some.brass.nerve.
And babes, facts don’t care about your feelings: medical professionals (WHO, AMA), mental health practitioners (both APA’s), and sport (IOC) all say that trans women are *real* women, are really female. Cry about it all you want. Your feelings won’t change the facts that we are.
That’s hilarious, especially coming from a philosopher. Institutions saying things=those things are FACTS. Real, true, irrefutable FACTS, unlike your stupid fluffy FEELINGS. Medical professionals, by which I mean the people who write policy statements for institutions like the WHO and the AMA, say that trans women are real women, and so that claim becomes a stone cold fact.
There’s no need for me to change *your* misguided opinion on the matter. You *don’t* matter.
Sorry. You don’t.
So we can be swept away then? Like so much rubble?
He’s so trumpy.
Everyone who *does* matter already says we’re real women, really female.
My birth certificate, passport, US green card, etc etc all say I’m really female.
Note, again, the risibly unphilosophical treatment of various official certificates as guarantees of absolute truth.
This is why I refuse to debate, live or otherwise, whether trans women are *really* women.
That debate is over.
You lost. Your feelings don’t trump our rights and basic human dignity.
Get a better hobby. Obsessing and harassing trans women is not a good hobby.
Our feelings don’t trump his rights…but apparently his feelings do trump our rights. Why is that, exactly?
The thing is, the people who oppose trans women’s full and equal rights think that the ‘facts’ are on their side.
This is why they always come back to “common sense.”
That’s not an argument, loves. It’s the last refuge of the ignorant. It means you’ve already lost, bad.
No, we don’t always come back to “common sense,” and the accusation is laughable coming from someone who claims PR releases from institutions=absolute unarguable truth.
“I might have an advantage, but I don’t always win”
Male logic for why it’s ok for males to compete in female only events — apparently as long as they don’t win EVERY single time, it’s fair.
This male athlete smashed another women’s cycling world record yesterday. He gets to race against women because he “feels like a woman” inside. When will all you still staying quiet on this issue join us in the fight to #savewomenssport? Find your voice.
Some notable female athletes have said transgender athletes should not compete in female competitions.
They claim women who were born biological males retain a competitive advantage in some sport and have called for more research into the issue.
They don’t “claim” that, they simply point it out.
Ex-swimmer Sharron Davies said it will take female athletes “being thrown under the bus” at Tokyo 2020 before changes are made to transgender rules.
Prominent trans rights campaigner McKinnon has defended her right to compete, but said: “I’ve thought about giving up about half a dozen times a year at least.
“It’s so stressful to even show up for me given the sort of attention I get.
“Every athlete has physical advantages and we’re all trying to exploit them. So to single out a trans woman, when I lose most of my races, is a little unfair.”
Of course it’s not. It’s not any amount of unfair to “single out” a man who insists on competing against women. It’s the man doing that who is unfair, and not a little. Just imagine being the woman who was bumped down to silver because of him. Imagine being the woman who won no medal because of him.
Former British Masters champion Victoria Hood, who competes in the same category as McKinnon but is currently injured, told BBC Sport that other riders “sacrificed” the opportunity to compete at the World Championships because “they don’t want to compete” against McKinnon.
“The science is there. The science is clear – it tells us that trans women have an advantage,” she said.
“The world record has just been beaten today by somebody born male, who now identifies as female, and the gap between them and the next born female competitor was quite a lot.
“The world record was two tenths of a second. I know that doesn’t sound like a lot but it is.
“The gap between them and the next female competitor was four tenths, which to put into perspective in a sprint event like this, that would be 15m of the track, when sprint events are usually won by centimetres.
“It is a human right to participate in sport. I don’t think it’s a human right to identify into whichever category you choose.”
But Hood called on sports’ governing bodies to “step up”, saying they were “excluding” athletes born female.
“If people want to push this through some misguided idea that they are being inclusive, it is not inclusive. It is excluding women and girls from their own category. It’s not fair,” Hood said.
“The IOC need to make fair policies that are based on the science that we have, because if they can’t then they are not fit for purpose.
“They are washing their hands of it and it is becoming more political than it is about science and biology.”
So that’ll be what prompted DOCTOR McKinnon’s self-important “statement” and “press release” then.
McKinnon’s campaign to get more attention and fraudulent medals and attention is in high gear today. Just 15 minutes ago he announced:
WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY? She says GOLD! Back-to-back world sprint champion!! Way too many people to thank. Thank you especially to the dozens of fans cheering your heads off, and I’m glad to have met a new friend…
Yeah baby! Cheater’s gold! Awesome athlete Rachel – formerly Rhys – McKinnon wins GOLD by racing against women!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: “DR. RACHEL MCKINNON RESPONDS TO BRITISH CYCLIST VICTORIA HOOD”
Let me guess. Hood suggested that men shouldn’t lie their way into women’s competitions, and McKinnon responded that oh yes they should, at least when their name is Rachel McKinnon they should.
DOCTOR McKinnon doesn’t half think well of himself, does he.
A big giant thank you to everyone who got me to where I am. I set a personal best in the 500m TT last night of 36.911, and missed out on gold by only 0.010s. it’s rough to miss gold by so little, but I hit the… https://www.instagram.com/p/B3rjZhlFT76/?igshid=17whl107r92i3…
Same. I feel like I’m being labelled here — as a gay man — as being somewhat problematic or “immoral” for being exclusively attracted to other men. I feel like I deal with enough of that kind of oppressive & invalidating rhetoric already, & I feel somewhat attacked by it tbh
Do you think it’s wrong for someone, who is sexually orientated to include men, not to date a trans man because he has a vagina?
I’ll just format the rest like play dialogue for ease of reading.
Harrop: I think choosing to be or not to be intimate with a man with a particular genital configuration or indeed any type of physical characteristic is a matter of personal choice, made by an individual for their own personal reasons, & a private matter for the individuals concerned.
McKinnon: That’s not quite an answer. Do you think it’s wrong or transphobic?
Harrop: It really depends on the basis for reaching one’s conclusion. Finding someone physically unattractive & thus excluding them as a potential sexual partner is not the same as invalidating & delegitimising their gender identity.
McKinnon: You’re still not quite answering my question. If someone is sexually orientated in a way that includes men, is it transphobic for them not to date a trans man with a vagina? This isn’t a question about consent.
Harrop: No I don’t think it is – it’s a matter of personal preference. Having preferences for certain physical attributes and characteristics, as a component of one’s sexuality, is a totally normal if not almost universal experience for human beings.
McKinnon: Fine. I think it is transphobic.
You can disagree with me, but the vitriol is not acceptable. I think it’s transphobic. I think it’s transphobic because genital preferences produce this outcome. This I think genital preferences are transphobic. Disagree. Fine. But at least understand my position.
Harrop: I think you’re entitled to your opinion Rachel, for sure. But I do think it lacks substance, and that it ignores multiple aspects of the reality of human sexuality. I figure we’ll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.
It seems to have ended there for now.
What’s fascinating about this is how Harrop can see it when it applies to him but it hasn’t – so far – caused him to budge a centimeter from his position that women who see it are hateful TERFs who need to be bullied and harroped out of public life.
I‘ve stayed out of a certain discussion today — if you know, you know. However, what I will say is that it’s so disappointing to see such disrespect & division between folks within our community. I hope that folks will, in the fullness of time, try to find some common ground.
There is always room for debate and disagreement. Everyone sees things through the prism of their own life experience, and often our individual “takes” will come into conflict with one another. But please — for want of a better expression — let’s try to keep it above the belt.
When folks make things personal, & make disparaging or disrespectful remarks about each other, it does nothing to serve the needs of the wider community. Indeed, doing so tends to feed ammunition to our shared enemies, who’ll have been gleefully observing this whole thing unfold.
Here’s the thing I think some of people’s opposition to this is about sexual orientation. I don’t think sexual orientation is inherent or immutable either.
Hear me out.
No seriously.
But it sounds like what homophobes have been saying to same-sex attracted people for decades…a small improvement on throwing them into prison, but still a long way from Not Telling Them Which Genitals To Desire.
I think people bristle & boch at this because they think saying this means that non-heterosexual orientation arr not valid. No. That does not follow at all. That is not an implication of what I just said. It’s a mistake to think that it is.
Uncareful people I think that this is the same thing as homophobic people saying that non hetero sexual orientations are unnatural and so you should just change to being hetero. I’m not saying that at all. Kind of literally the opposite.
I actually think any sexual orientation other than pan is immoral because sexual genital preferences immoral. But that means I think hetero people are just as bad off.
In other words…everyone on the planet should get rid of genital preferences entirely, and that way trans people will no longer have such difficulty finding people willing to have sex with them. Seems fair.
I’m just thinking about all the gay people who’ve felt pressured to be attracted to their opposite gender but simply don’t, and have been bullied, ostracized, and killed for it. To then imply that their complete lack of opposite sex attraction is immoral feels like further harm.
Right? It’s fine to do that to “cis” women…but anyone else? Hey now!
Same. I feel like I’m being labelled here — as a gay man — as being somewhat problematic or “immoral” for being exclusively attracted to other men. I feel like I deal with enough of that kind of oppressive & invalidating rhetoric already, & I feel somewhat attacked by it tbh [feeling attacked emojis not included]
tbh, a guy’s genitals *are* a factor in whether I find them sexually attractive or not – in the same way that many other aspects of a guy’s physicality type are. I’d theoretically be open to challenging these “preferences”, but I’m not going to pretend it wouldn’t be difficult…
… the idea that this gets me labelled as immoral or transphobic is frankly, ridiculous. And let’s face it, if you’re making someone like me feel this way & start to doubt himself, god knows how folks less familiar with this discourse would feel looking in from the outside.
Or…women? How women would feel looking in from the outside? Is that relevant at all? Or nah?
