Can a woman have a penis?

Although of course all intersectional feminists here do care about the awfulness in Texas does that really need saying when it stands to reason that the vast majority of women care?

It clearly isn't fake although I can understand why some may prefer to think it is. It isn't a good look is it.

Glorianny

OMG do I really need to condemn it.
I would of thought it was painfully obvious.
No matter
The shadows are very odd as well. Very foreshortened because the sun was high but a clear piece of sunlight between purple skirt and the others.
Sorry if you don't like this but there is an awful lot of photoshopping goes on these days..

So, despite the fact it was on film, on certain London news, it might be fake?

Ok, if you think that. 🙂

Goodness! Really?

Here are more views of the same banner on Twitter. Are these fake, too?

twitter.com/yarnydeb1/status/1662793584951656449

It does look a bit odd glorianny

I don't think we need to worry about arming trans youth here though, guns are illegal here, they aren't in Texas where it originated

Although of course intersectional feminists here do care about the awfulness in Texas

OMG do I really need to condemn it.
I would of thought it was painfully obvious.
No matter
The shadows are very odd as well. Very foreshortened because the sun was high but a clear piece of sunlight between purple skirt and the others.
Sorry if you don't like this but there is an awful lot of photoshopping goes on these days..

Though it could be as described by Doodledog or Smileless2012.

Well what’s strange about people turning their backs to a poster which they want to hold up, but don’t want people e.g. employers to know that they are there, if the poster gets torn down?
It’s a bit like wanting the anonymity provided by posting on GN
that an AHF can have a penis.
Or finding fault with how people are holding a poster whilst refusing to condemn the evil intention on the poster.
Re the hand:
Stand with your back to something, put your hands by your sides, palms facing backwards and curl your fingers up.

Yes that's how it looks to me too. Maybe the one is the skirt has their back up against it to stop it blowing back as only one person's holding the other end.

Glorianny

DiamondLily

Glorianny. - well, here's the image from the articles. Looks pretty clear.

Thanks I have looked at this and there are a couple of strange things about it. Firstly who is holding it.? The woman in the purple skirt would seem to have one end, but her feet are facing the other way. So can that be her hand at the bottom?
Very confusing

I'm not confused. It looks as though the person in the blue trousers is holding it with both hands while the one in the purple skirt is simply standing behind it.

DiamondLily

*Glorianny*. - well, here's the image from the articles. Looks pretty clear.

Thanks I have looked at this and there are a couple of strange things about it. Firstly who is holding it.? The woman in the purple skirt would seem to have one end, but her feet are facing the other way. So can that be her hand at the bottom?
Very confusing

I find it odd because it is odd. As you say DL a penis is the essence of maleness so surely any man who believes he's in the wrong body, because he should have a female body, would resent his phallus maybe even be revolted by it.

I find it a bit odd that a man who genuinely wanted to be a woman would use his penis as a tool for enjoyment.

A penis is, literally, the essence of "maleness" and I would gave thought he would resent having an organ that meant he would never be a "biological" woman.

Discussion about vibrators is off whack. Many, many women, of every type and circumstances, use vibes....Anne Summers etc did not become global selling places because of selling a few sex aids to a few people.🙄.

When Anne Summers went online, and introduced the rabbit", postmen were staggering under the weight of deliveries.😉

They are simply a battery driven tool towards female orgasm.

Nothing to do with trans. They have been around for donkey's years. Long before any trans issues.

They are harmless - unlike the more radical branch of the trans lobby.🙁

I second that Doodledog. I wonder if the questions asked in points 2 and 3 will be answered.

Well said, Molly.

VS
So I see no issue for a trans woman to enjoy sex with their partner using their penis as a tool... The other option is that the trans person must hate their own currently existing body and not be able to enjoy or participate in sex.

1. Nobody said a TW couldn’t use his penis as a tool for enjoyment, except on an unwilling lesbian, who he then calls transphobic for her unwillingness to participate in an heterosexual activity. If he uses it on a female willing to have heterosexual activity with a man claiming he’s a woman, that’s their business, not ours on GN.

2. If he wants to use his penis as a tool for his enjoyment, why claim to be an AHF? Real women do not have a penis.

3. If the trans woman likes rather than hates his own body, then why is he claiming to be a woman. We’ve been told that TW hate their bodies. We’ve been told that TW can simply feel like an AHF, but women do not have a penis.

JaneJudge

People can have whatever sex they want as long as it is consensual and between two adults

Agreed

I also agreed with glorianny saying that several pages back

People can have whatever sex they want as long as it is consensual and between two adults

JaneJudge

Not all vibrators and sex toys for women are shaped like male genitalia

No they aren't, all sorts of designs exist

But my point was that a dildo in penis form is used by many as a tool to enjoy sex and it does not mean a man is attached to it

So I see no issue for a trans woman to enjoy sex with their partner using their penis as a tool... The other option is that the trans person must hate their own currently existing body and not be able to enjoy or participate in sex

AFAIK the 'if it walks like a duck' saying is based on Occam's Razor, which suggests that if something seems obvious it probably is, so you shouldn't jump to conclusions - the phrase often used to exemplify it is 'if you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras', which is taught in medicine to tell doctors not to make unnecessary assumptions when looking at symptoms. It really doesn't apply to false penises, which require numerous assumptions to be made before anyone could assume them to be real.

The 'quacking penis' line was obviously a joke, based on what an already an attempt at humour, so I can't see how it could be taken as disrespectful. There is a huge difference between that and a 'LOL' at someone's post, or an 'I'm ignoring you' comment that basically cancels someone's contributions to a debate.

Not all vibrators and sex toys for women are shaped like male genitalia

Madgran actually the main problem faced is the ability of others to accept an explanation

The play on words was in response to discussion about whether a penis created by surgery was a real penis

Now if we look at my response to the question "Why would a trans women want to use their penis to have sex"

My answer was that dildos exist, I added that many people use them, even lesbians because a dildo is not a man. I further added that as long as a trans woman's partner is amenable there should be no issue for a trans woman to use their penis as a tool for both to enjoy sex.

This was taken to mean that I thought lesbians should be attracted to and have sex with trans women. This is false.

Now despite my historically saying that consent is consent and that no one should be attracted to anyone and despite clarifying and explaining several times...

Was my explanation accepted? Was the matter dropped after I clearly became upset someone would assign that view to me to the point I reported it when I rarely report? Did it stop after several protestations?

No. No it did not. It continued to be asserted that it was my fault that was said to me, no apology was offered and no acceptance that I didn't mean that was given.

So please tell me why I would waste my time defending any comment when I know it will likely not be accepted anyway by the person rudely demanding I give one

Smileless2012

Even if it was in response to that VS that banner was displayed in Hyde Park in London, not in Texas and suggesting children be armed for any cause is wrong.

Well reasonable people would think so, Smileless2012, whichever country the children are in.
Implying the poster has a different meaning from what it says is unreasonable and I’m surprised to find posters offering excuses for it.
That poster is like an endorsement of children who go into school carrying knives and stab each other.
Saying that any kids trans or not should be armed - is appalling.

Arm trans kids?
1. It suggests that there are children should be armed, who have been encouraged into transition before they are old enough to understand how it will affect their future life.
2.Also, because I’m told that many children wanting transition have ASC, they could be even less likely to understand the ramifications of their actions with the arms they have been given.

VioletSky

You asked politely Madgran so I answered

That was a play on words but I think I got it wrong

I think it is "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck"

Completely harmless as you can see

Have we cleared it up now?

Well yes that statement is completely harmless although I'm not sure about its use in this context. I'm not sure we were clearing anything up.

But really my comments were just trying to explain the possible difference between a solitary LOL and my own humourous comment re quacking penises. Anyway I hope my attempted explanation is helpful

Even if it was in response to that VS that banner was displayed in Hyde Park in London, not in Texas and suggesting children be armed for any cause is wrong.

glorianny

I thought the "arm trans kids" thing was a response to the Texas governor in the US taking away trans rights and protections and telling Texans to report parents of trans youth who are gender affirming to CPS for child abuse to have their children taken away?

It's not literal I don't think