Emma wrote on Jan 24^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:



Someone who is overly sensitive and believes all their problems are due to being "oppressed" by an "other."

Emma wrote on Jan 25^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:



This was a catfight between feminists (Moore, Burchill) who made remarks about transsexual "women" (men who cut off their own d!cks and pretend to be women). The latter took umbridge.
At issue: they say that these feminists (a victim category) are victimising them. Trannies want to be woman victims on speed.
The women, rightly, told them to get a grip (except, being d!ckless blokes pretending to be 'women', they don't actually have anything to grip).
Who is right? Who has the proper claim to special consideration?

More importantly, can biological women withhold feminist endorsement (victimhood status) from men who happened to have cut off their d!cks and are now pretending to be even more sensitive to feminist issues than actual women.

At heart - what makes a woman? Is it really nothing more than lack of a penis???

The d!ckless wonders want to enforce this line.

The natural born women want to maintain gender difference based on BIOLOGY!
How fooking topsy-turvy is THAT??? Women insisting on biological difference!

Feminists set themselves up as victims. Feminism is predicated on the belief women are controlled and defined by a patriarchy. The major drive of feminism is to break free of this control.

Soren wrote on Jan 25^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:



Biologically, female is defined by having the bigger sex cells (eggs are many times bigger than sperm)

Thus no eggs, you're not female and never will be.

Emma wrote on Jan 25^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:


Be still, my beating heart. Mind - take over for a little minute.

The article, and the controversy, is about women who know what it is to be women on the one hand, and men who have cut off their d!cks and so want the privileges of the oppressed and disadvantaged that comes with being a woman in a hetronormative, phallocentric, sexist society such as ours, on the other hand.

Can a d!ckless bloke be as much of a woman as you, to put it as crudely as I can.

The article, and the controversy, is about women who know what it is to be women on the one hand, and men who have cut off their d!cks and so want the privileges of the oppressed and disadvantaged that comes with being a woman in a hetronormative, phallocentric, sexist society such as ours, .....

[/quote]

Good grief Charley Brown.... 
the PRIVILEGES ............................................that comes with being a woman in.........................???? Que?? 

what privileges, ?? what a joke....    Oh you mean like the privilege of being raped, like virtually all women have... like in India... THEN blamed.??

The privilege of working for unequal pay, or no pay..  ??  any more PRIVILEGES you can think of??? 

oppressed and disadvantaged,  yeah?

Like... when I hear people whinging because they think first Australians,  and now ironically newest Australians are getting much too much  .... handed on a plate/....... and I ask them.... So,  you'd really prefer to be one of them.. then,  because they have it so good.???

What a bad sad joke.

Emma wrote on Jan 26^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:


What a load of biologically determinist tosh. Gender is a socially constructed ideological phenomenon. It consists of power and knowledge (to put it crudely).

We at the Faculty of Pakistani and Post Colonial Queer Studies will not truck with such empiricist, hegemonic male ideology. You really need to read Deluze, dear.

Get with the program.

How do you get oppressed by a 'social construction'?