Trans athlete claims lesbians are transphobic for not liking penises
Dr. Rachel McKinnon, philosophy professor, cyclist, trans woman, came to fame in 2018 when she made history by being the first trans athlete to win the women’s 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships. McKinnon is a vocal trans advocate who has spoken out in favour of trans women competing in women’s sports, has physically dominated biological women in her own sport of cycling, and, most recently, has taken to Twitter to pen endless threads against the so-called “cotton ceiling.”
If you haven’t heard of the cotton ceiling, consider yourself lucky. Per Curve Magazine , the phrase was “coined by porn actress and activist Drew DeVeaux in 2015. It’s been used to refer to the tendency by cisgender lesbians to outwardly include and support trans women, but draw the line at considering ever having sex with them.” In short, if you’re a lesbian and you’re not attracted to trans women because they don’t have female genitals, you’re a transphobe, a no-good, prejudiced, privileged, cis-gendered bigot.
YouTuber Riley J. Dennis made a video to explain this issue. She asks “Would you date a trans person? Honestly? I’ll give you a second to think about it. Ok? Got your answer? Well if you said “no,” I’m sorry, but that’s pretty discriminatory. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you’re a horrible person who hates trans people. There was probably a time in my life when I would have said I wouldn’t date a trans person. But since then I’ve thought critically about it and I’ve changed my mind.”
The idea here is that if a lesbian just thinks about it hard enough, and examines her internal biases, then she will find that there’s no logical reason she shouldn’t be attracted to trans people. In fact, she might find that there’s no reason she should not be attracted to any people. According to McKinnon, only the sexual orientation “pan,” otherwise known as “no preference of type of sexual partner,” is moral.
This whole thing of criticizing lesbians for being into women is so perplexing, but this is how we got here. The word woman became inclusive of persons who are not female but have a strong feeling that they were meant to be women. Because women are typically so amiable and conditioned to please, they just went along with it, out of compassion. Trans women said they were not just living as women, but actual women. After these leaps of logic were made, this reasoning comes into play: if a lesbian is a woman who is sexually attracted to other women, and trans women are women, then lesbians should be attracted to trans women, if there’s not, there’s something wrong with those lesbians.
It’s like a tongue-twister, where a woman can come to understand that the right thing to do is to conform to another person’s idea of what her sexuality means, in order to not be a bad person. The thought process lesbians are supposed to undertake in order to correct their sexual preference goes like this: I am a lesbian who is attracted to women, women are not defined by their bodies, therefore if a man who says she is a woman says she is a lesbian, I should find her sexually attractive despite her male body.
Okay, sure! Makes total sense. The only problem is that sexual attraction isn’t logical. Sexual attraction is not really a mind over matter enterprise. Sexual attraction is not a human characteristic that falls under the heading of rationalism.
In fact, the gay rights movement was able to gain mainstream societal acceptance precisely due to the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, but an innate characteristic, just like heterosexuality, or green eyes. If McKinnon, Dennis, and others who rail against the “cotton ceiling” want to overturn the idea that sexuality is innate, they might find themselves on unstable ground in the fight for trans acceptance. Once a thread is pulled, the whole sweater unravels.
Parker Molloy, Editor-at-Large for Media Matters and trans ally, pushed back.
But McKinnon did get some people thinking about their own complicity in the transphobia of sexual preference.
If being a lesbian who doesn’t like penises isn’t acceptable, and being a gay man who isn’t into vaginas isn’t alright, then what do these words and concepts even mean? Perhaps this is why movements to “Get the L Out” of the alphabet soup of gender and sexual identities has been picking up steam in the lesbian community. Lesbians are pushing back against LGBT advocacy groups like Stonewall UK, letting them know that they are no longer representing their best interests.
Lesbians’ sexual preference isn’t prejudiced against trans people, and the notion of a “cotton ceiling,” the cotton undies that “bar” trans women from women-only-attracted lesbians, is a complete insult to lesbians. Lesbians don’t owe anyone anything—not their bodies, not their voices, not their acquiescence. If McKinnon wants someone to enjoy her penis, she should find a sexual partner who digs that, instead of throwing shade on the people who don’t.
"by being the first trans athlete to win the women’s 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships."
Dr. Rachel McKinnon must really hate women.
Someone told me that the photo with the article is Ivanka in her Halloween costume.
Leaker !
You'll have to ask directly.
Wait ….. What ?
Looks more like Amy Farrah Fowler to me.........................
Then that begs the question:
Do you believe what some freaking idiot told you, and figured it bears repeating?
OK can I redirect the subject to the content of the article?
I am on the lesbian side of this. The whole reason women are lesbians is that they don't want to be with men. If a transexual is not fully transitioned, why would a lesbian want to be with them? It is a different story if they are fully transitioned, but if hey still have their naughty bits, they are not a woman. End of story.
lesbian porn makes me happy,
" It is a different story if they are fully transitioned, but if hey still have their naughty bits, they are not a woman. "
They are not women after"transition" surgery either.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that sexual preference is not something you can choose and then turn around and try to talk people into choosing a sexual preference.
I would have to agree with you about this Tacos, and I think that is where the lesbian community is at.
I can understand why some lesbians are transphobic when their lesbian partners tell them they prefer the real meat stick to the fake one.
Off topic but, it's Wednesday another 95 degree day here in North Carolina with not a drop of rain in sight. Soooo, that being the case, today must be referred to as dry hump day.
Gotta run.
I'm curious.
Are any accusations or name calling going on against straight women who don't want to date lesbian transvestites? Or who don't want to date male transvestites?
What happened to that thing where people are allowed to date, or not to date, whoever they want without having to give a reason? And without it being anyone else's business? Bodily autonomy, I think it's called.
If a person doesn't want to date another person because they have bad breathe, or because they chew with their mouth open, or because they are really short, or really tall, or fat, or bald, or dumb is there a special acronym for them? Of if they don't want to date someone without any specific reason?
Are these women kind of the transvestite version of incels? If so, why? If not, why not?
I can't disagree with anything you have said here Wheel. I think we are free to date or not date whoever we please. And it isn't anyone's business.
Excellent question. In a way, I think they are, since they feel they have the right to tell lesbians how to live. That's just not cool.
I agree.
"I get to decide my preferred sexuality and what sexual partners I agree to have sex with for myself." Yes, no doubt about it.
"I get to judge you for your preferred sexuality and choosing the sexual partners that you agree to have sex with." No, just no.
I think most people who identify with a certain group do so for a reason and are not about to be bullied into dating outside their preferences. What percent of straight Men do you think would be willing to date a Transvestite? I think most people wouldn't consider a Man as "Straight" if he knowingly dated a Transvestite. What percent of straight Women do you think would knowingly date a Man who also dates Transvestites?
What percent of straight Men do you think would be willing to date a Transvestite?
During my time in the Navy I must have heard a 100 stories about Navy guys unwittingly dating transvestites. Especially when in the Philippines. Usually, it ended poorly. I would advise transvestites to let it be known, right from the start, what the situation is It's not the kind of surprise that anyone wants.
I think most people wouldn't consider a Man as "Straight" if he knowingly dated a Transvestite.
As long as both parties know the situation from the start, more power to them.
Hi Wheel!
Totally agreed. I still don't think I would date a trans man. I can respect a person's gender identity, but I'd still feel like I was dating a woman. Other people may not care, and that's fine with me.
Everyone should be able to date whoever they feel comfortable with, and not expect people to date them if the other person isn't comfortable.
There is unfortunately some conflict between some transsexuals and some cis-women to whom they refer as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). Some feminists don't consider trans women to be women, and some trans women believe that any exclusion of them from traditionally female things such as Pap smears and women's sports is unjustified discrimination. Trans women who have a problem with "TERFs" are generally the same ones who think lesbians should be open to dating trans women. Small minorities in each group have polarized to the point of deathwishing each other at trans or feminist rallies.
Frankly, it's become a bit ridiculous. Both sides have some points to their arguments, IMO, but neither side wants to admit that the other might be right.
There is no reason that any person's dating decisions should be subject to the decisions of others who are uninvolved, period.
This is a hard-saying. Already with the acronyms, trans-women really? Deathwishing? What is going on here?
People can't live and let live, and some folks can't accept medical realities - I have to say, trans women demanding Pap smears makes me roll my eyes pretty hard.
Now that each group is pissed at a small subset of the other, they extend their anger to include the entire group (feminists and/or lesbians and transgender people as a whole), assume that each is trying to deny the other rights, and there you have it. You end up with two groups who have always been oppressed by society in general, doing their damnedest to oppress each other.
This is what you call unforeseen outcomes. Feminist are realizing that trans women will dominate women's sports, etc, and thus seeing genetic women falling by the wayside.
With lesbians, it's just a matter of attraction. You can't force someone to be attracted to another person... any person for that matter. Calling them out for not being attracted is wrong.
Agreed on both points.
Additionally, we're been sharing among ourselves across many discussions this summer how much sexual attraction involves spiritual connection, or if that is a too strong (or divisive) a word, lets go with the deepest meanings which bond two (or more) people to a desire to explore life together.
I am shocked and appalled even to learn that some trans-women want to displace cisgender (born) women and 'rule' over them. This can not be what true diversity is about! It will cause the proper definition of the word: resentment.
Pap smears?! Isn't that a literal example of something that would perfectly illustrate the old country saying, "That's as useless as tits on a boar hog?"
Do they want D&C's too? How would that even be administered? Rectally, I suppose.
As far as XY competing with XX in sports, that's just idiotic. If a person chooses to be called Janet instead of John, cool. If that person wants to wear dresses and gowns instead of suits and ties, or in addition to, have at it, buy American, look for the Union label. If that person has a preferred set of pronouns, just let me know, pronouns are flexible and so am I. If that person wants to date someone of any gender or no fixed gender, it's none of my business, I wish the 2...or 3 or whatever of you good luck. But, whatever the person feels most comfortable being addressed as, or being dressed as, XY chromosomes give certain, very specific physical advantages that are widely recognized, long tested, and undeniable. Including greater bone length and density, greater muscle mass and density, physical advantages of speed and strength that simply can't be denied.
In short, if you need a jock to play sports, then stick to playing against other jock wearers.
I have read articles about trans women in England objecting to the fact that the NHS won't pay for their Pap smears. They don't have cervices and therefore don't need Pap smears. That doesn't make them any less women. I no longer have a cervix, and I'm still a woman.
And agreed about trans women in women's sports. I played baseball with boys, and did fine. I can still throw and hit as well as some men. But at an elite level, men have a distinct advantage in most sports.
I bet very few trans women want to compete on the balance beam in gymnastics. Their physiology would be a disadvantage there.
Why is it necessary to date "on demand"? Isn't this the whole point of gaining a system where one can live one's own truth? Without cordoning others to live in one's selfish lie state?
Got me CB. It's gotten to a point where I think even the word "truth" is fungible.
That being said, although I am a live and let live person, I think that these transvestites are being very judgy.
As I read this article and watched the video, I am having a bit of time grasping exactly what these transgender 'reps' chief complaint is:
What's the one point that is driving this article? And oh yes, I read the article and all the comments too.
Two more observation. In the most diverse country whereever it may appear on Earth, many former outcasts (and some new types) will redefine norms and associated truths. We will pass away eventually accepting all that we can and the "babies" will have to incorporate further diversity in time.
Yes, I can see an imposition being put forward in Riley's argument. She seems to be orienting the public to consider her in a different perspective. I get that part-its survival. It's wanting to be accepted by all. However, we can not persuade people to ignore their appetites to taste our own.
Acceptance is the thing. Let it be its own reward. I'll say.
I have much to say on this subject. I'll see how the article proceeds.
Even as a Christian, I am sophisticated enough (and want to stay curious enough to learn) to know that some trans-persons are indulging themselves in playing around with transition 'states.' For instance. There is the woman (appearing as a bearded man on Oprah) who once sensationalized herself as "the first pregnant man." Of course, nothing could have been farther from the truth. Then, there is this trend of transitioning men appearing naked with male personas and functioning vaginas engaging in sexploitation movies (Yes, I have seen it with my own two eyes).
These people seem to be 'formulating' a new genre: "Bi-sexed" (I made it up) or "In-betweens."
On this one. Many years ago, I became aware of men who are heavily attracted to lesbian sex. That is, these men have a fetish for videos of two women with no males images representing themselves in the frames. At the time I thought how curious and odd that is—seeing that the men watching are well, males. Now science inadvertently may have provided a means (of sorts) for these men to 'explore' gender line-crossing. Whereas, a male can transition to become a woman in order to indulge lesbian fantasies or a full-fledged spiritual connection. I am wondering is this is what is occurring in some cases in this community (above).
Let me be clear at this point. I have seen startled by the fact that there are women passing as men which may cross my path in male-only facilities like public bathrooms. At first, I found the thought repulsive, then 'frightful,' then I felt exposed and compromised. Worse of all, when I saw the muscle mass on some of these fully transitioned men - I wondered. . . are they fooling around with other gay men unbeknown? Finally, I wondered about the in-betweens. Even going so far as to imagine if they have the best of both worlds? That being a male physique and female sex organs. It can be quite. . .a remarkable and intriguing relationship???
I agree with your remarks on this. Diversity requires that people locate and stay on the 'happy median' between themselves without causing undue stresses, shame, or violence. This notion that it is a "winner take all" proposition is disturbing and dangerous—to trangender people the most!