Why aren't trans women allowed models only access?

[Pluot]

I am genuinely confused by this.

A Member Confess post on Twitter brought this to my attention. I re-read the verification instructions for model status, and male and transgender models have been grouped together and not allowed access to the forum?

This makes me really uncomfortable. I'd like to have a discussion about this.

And yes, I am aware that I cam on MFC, which does not allow trans models. This doesn't mean I'm okay with it.

Why can't we include trans women into a space for women? Trans women ARE women. Genitals don't define gender. There is so much helpful information in the Models Only section- I'm sure that many trans women would benefit from access. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

[Tilly]

It's been discussed here at length. Check out some of the past posts as to why
https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/t...els-cant-get-verified-here.19521/#post-559612

 

[Deleted member 35180]

It's been discussed here at length. Check out some of the past posts as to why
https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/t...els-cant-get-verified-here.19521/#post-559612

Thanks this is helpful.

Still sucks

 

[Pluot]

It's been discussed here at length. Check out some of the past posts as to why
https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/t...els-cant-get-verified-here.19521/#post-559612

Thanks for linking this.

Okay, so what I'm basically understanding, is that this discussion was closed after folks stated that they have nothing against transgender models, but still can't accept them into a models only space for fear of people with ill-intent. Like, what? Also, this thread is from 2014. It would be cool to have an updated discussion on this, especially considering the current political climate.

You definitely DO have something against trans women if you are actively excluding them.

 

[Guy]

Okay, so what I'm basically understanding, is that this discussion was closed after folks stated that they have nothing against transgender models, but still can't accept them into a models only space for fear of people with ill-intent.

If Trans camgirl is verified as a model a camsite, why would she be a threat?

 

[LaceyRoyce]

I posted this in models only but I'll post it here as well. It's really important to me that I make my voice heard on this.

I'm so fucking tired of seeing trans people excluded - from bathrooms and this forum and so much more.
I respect 100% that this is Ambers forum to do as she wants with but it is a pillar of the camming community and it says bad things about us when we aren't inclusive.

I'd love it if people kept thinking and talking about this. Men are unlikely to pretend to be female to get in here.. just like they are unlikely to do so to get into womens bathrooms. And even if they do, we've long associated models only with the RISK that anything we say in here could be leaked. I refuse to believe this is just about forum security for those in the community that argued against this.

I say this with so much love and respect for this community. i wish we would do better on this. We are better than this.

 

[Submissivemaid]

Trans women are women just like all the rest of us (camgirls that are allowed in model's section). Also, transfeminist are usually a big support for us, sex workers and I think that we should support them too. I'm so sick of all the TERF and SWERF bullshit... Togheter we're powerful.
Support your sisters, not your cisters.

 

[Pluot]

I posted this in models only but I'll post it here as well. It's really important to me that I make my voice heard on this.

I'm so fucking tired of seeing trans people excluded - from bathrooms and this forum and so much more.
I respect 100% that this is Ambers forum to do as she wants with but it is a pillar of the camming community and it says bad things about us when we aren't inclusive.

I'd love it if people kept thinking and talking about this. Men are unlikely to pretend to be female to get in here.. just like they are unlikely to do so to get into womens bathrooms. And even if they do, we've long associated models only with the RISK that anything we say in here could be leaked. I refuse to believe this is just about forum security for those in the community that argued against this.

I say this with so much love and respect for this community. i wish we would do better on this. We are better than this.

Yes, I'm with you 100%! I agree, we are better than this! Just because MFC is not inclusive does not mean we have to follow suit. We could even be the start of a new wave of acceptance in the cam community- and maybe help to push for more equal rights for trans women.

MFC's definition of what makes a woman a woman is incredibly ignorant and outdated- and if more and more people are coming together to push back against it, it could help to change people's views.

I'm so glad we're talking about this.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I'll play the other side of this discussion since I understand, and agree with it. It's a matter of distinction. @AmberCutie has already stated if they identify as female and can be verified on some site as female they can be granted access. So that's not in debate, they are allowed.

Outside of that, where do you draw the line? We know full out penis waving testosterone oozing males are not allowed. So at what point in between those two points do you say nope?

It's rather easy to wake up one day and tell a forum, and a camsite, I think i'm a woman. Give me all the rights thereof. What if they only wear female clothes? Why would you discriminate against them at that point? After all, if I put on a bra I should be allowed in the MO section too. Why you hating on us cross dressers? I'm so fucking tired of seeing people who tried on a bra once in the 8th grade excluded from this forum! That's not right in this day and age. You must live by outdated definitions of whatever I decide to define things as.

Where's the line? And more importantly, how the fuck does anyone confirm that? Impossible. Oh, large burly hair filled chested man with a 3 foot beard, you SAY you identify as a woman. Welcome in! Fucking nonsense. Once you start pushing the line back, you might as well throw out the standard all together. Because I promise you once you do that, then the next person who 'just barely' doesn't get approved will be bitching up a storm about how dare we in this day and age not allow this and that.

Well, it's a private site, not a democracy. Even though some models do like to run roughshod over the owner enough to get her to pull entire threads because of their mislaid illusion of safety. The line can be drawn whereever the owner wishes. Personally I think if you're going to make a distinction it's easier this way, with a clearly defined line that doesn't allow much room for ambiguity. If the line is moved, it won't stop until all men are allowed access too. I'll be right among them complaining constantly until they are, I can assure you of that.

There's entirely free forum software out there for starting up a place inclusive to anyone you wish, should you decide this is such a bad thing. But I guarantee you, as soon as you do someone will come along complaining they aren't included. I'll sign up and join them just for laughs.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

I'll play the other side of this discussion since I understand, and agree with it. It's a matter of distinction. @AmberCutie has already stated if they identify as female and can be verified on some site as female they can be granted access. So that's not in debate, they are allowed.

Outside of that, where do you draw the line. We know full out penis waving testosterone oozing males are not allowed. So at what point in between those two points do you say nope?

It's rather easy to wake up one day and tell a forum, and a camsite, I think i'm a woman. Give me all the rights thereof. What if they only wear female clothes? Why would you discriminate against them at that point? After all, if I put on a bra I should be allowed in the MO section too. Why you hating on us cross dressers? I'm so fucking tired of seeing people who tried on a bra once in the 8th grade excluded from this forum! That's not right in this day and age. You must live by outdated definitions of whatever I decide to define things as.

Where's the line? And more importantly, how the fuck does anyone confirm that? Impossible. Oh, large burly hair filled chested man with a 3 foot beard, you SAY you identify as a woman. Welcome in! Fucking nonsense. Once you start pushing the line back, you might as well throw out the standard all together. Because I promise you once you do that, then the next person who 'just barely' doesn't get approved will be bitching up a storm about how dare we in this day and age not allow this and that.

Well, it's a private site, not a democracy. Even though some models do like to run roughshod over the owner enough to get her to pull entire threads because of their mislaid illusion of safety. The line can be drawn whereever the owner wishes. Personally I think if you're going to make a distinction it's easier this way, with a clearly defined line that doesn't allow much room for ambiguity. If the line is moved, it won't stop until all men are allowed access too. I'll be right among them complaining constantly until they are, I can assure you of that.

There's entirely free forum software out there for starting up a place inclusive to anyone you wish, should you decide this is such a bad thing. But I guarantee you, as soon as you do someone will come along complaining they aren't included. I'll sign up and join them just for laughs.

Do you also feel this way about private establishments and bathroom access for trans people? Just curious.

 

[Pluot]

I'll play the other side of this discussion since I understand, and agree with it. It's a matter of distinction. @AmberCutie has already stated if they identify as female and can be verified on some site as female they can be granted access. So that's not in debate, they are allowed.

Outside of that, where do you draw the line? We know full out penis waving testosterone oozing males are not allowed. So at what point in between those two points do you say nope?

It's rather easy to wake up one day and tell a forum, and a camsite, I think i'm a woman. Give me all the rights thereof. What if they only wear female clothes? Why would you discriminate against them at that point? After all, if I put on a bra I should be allowed in the MO section too. Why you hating on us cross dressers? I'm so fucking tired of seeing people who tried on a bra once in the 8th grade excluded from this forum! That's not right in this day and age. You must live by outdated definitions of whatever I decide to define things as.

Where's the line? And more importantly, how the fuck does anyone confirm that? Impossible. Oh, large burly hair filled chested man with a 3 foot beard, you SAY you identify as a woman. Welcome in! Fucking nonsense. Once you start pushing the line back, you might as well throw out the standard all together. Because I promise you once you do that, then the next person who 'just barely' doesn't get approved will be bitching up a storm about how dare we in this day and age not allow this and that.

Well, it's a private site, not a democracy. Even though some models do like to run roughshod over the owner enough to get her to pull entire threads because of their mislaid illusion of safety. The line can be drawn whereever the owner wishes. Personally I think if you're going to make a distinction it's easier this way, with a clearly defined line that doesn't allow much room for ambiguity. If the line is moved, it won't stop until all men are allowed access too. I'll be right among them complaining constantly until they are, I can assure you of that.

There's entirely free forum software out there for starting up a place inclusive to anyone you wish, should you decide this is such a bad thing. But I guarantee you, as soon as you do someone will come along complaining they aren't included. I'll sign up and join them just for laughs.

Wow, reading this made me really sad. This is the exact kind of "fucking nonsense" ideology that helps to perpetuate the exclusion of trans people and in turn perpetuate violence against them.

 

[Submissivemaid]

Beard and hair chest doesn't make you a man. Having a vagina doesn't make you a woman. We need to provide a cam profile to have access to private forum. If a person broadcast with the "trans woman", if a person identifies herself as a woman, I'm OK with that.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Do you also feel this way about private establishments and bathroom access for trans people? Just curious.

Private establishments? Yep, they have the right. If I owned a private business would I try to enforce that? No. But I do believe the next person who does, has the right to do so if they choose. It's their business. Or should we allow the federal government to step in and regulate the lives of every one's private affairs now? And just to be clear here, I'm not talking about federally funded places. Strictly a privately owned asset.

There again it's a matter of where do you draw the line? Your beliefs that it should be allowed may be in direct opposition to those of the owner who doesn't. Your rights end where the next person's begins. Suppose this were reversed and you were forced to do something in your private life that was against your beliefs. Should the government mandate you do it anyway because others are protesting?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

This is the exact kind of "fucking nonsense" ideology that helps to perpetuate the exclusion of trans people and in turn perpetuate violence against them.

Forcing a privately owned site to conform to ambiguous standards would be fucking nonsense.

Having a vagina doesn't make you a woman.

Yes. It really does. Pretty much the gold standard there.

 

[Lexi Emerson]

I just don't get the whole "men could pretend to be trans and get private info". Women can easily release any info from model's only if that want and some even have.

Not trying to argue with Amber, if she really doesn't want to allow some people that's her prerogative. Just something that's popped in my head a few times.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I'll play the other side of this discussion since I understand, and agree with it. It's a matter of distinction. @AmberCutie has already stated if they identify as female and can be verified on some site as female they can be granted access. So that's not in debate, they are allowed.

Outside of that, where do you draw the line? We know full out penis waving testosterone oozing males are not allowed. So at what point in between those two points do you say nope?

It's rather easy to wake up one day and tell a forum, and a camsite, I think i'm a woman. Give me all the rights thereof. What if they only wear female clothes? Why would you discriminate against them at that point? After all, if I put on a bra I should be allowed in the MO section too. Why you hating on us cross dressers? I'm so fucking tired of seeing people who tried on a bra once in the 8th grade excluded from this forum! That's not right in this day and age. You must live by outdated definitions of whatever I decide to define things as.

Where's the line? And more importantly, how the fuck does anyone confirm that? Impossible. Oh, large burly hair filled chested man with a 3 foot beard, you SAY you identify as a woman. Welcome in! Fucking nonsense. Once you start pushing the line back, you might as well throw out the standard all together. Because I promise you once you do that, then the next person who 'just barely' doesn't get approved will be bitching up a storm about how dare we in this day and age not allow this and that.

Well, it's a private site, not a democracy. Even though some models do like to run roughshod over the owner enough to get her to pull entire threads because of their mislaid illusion of safety. The line can be drawn whereever the owner wishes. Personally I think if you're going to make a distinction it's easier this way, with a clearly defined line that doesn't allow much room for ambiguity. If the line is moved, it won't stop until all men are allowed access too. I'll be right among them complaining constantly until they are, I can assure you of that.

There's entirely free forum software out there for starting up a place inclusive to anyone you wish, should you decide this is such a bad thing. But I guarantee you, as soon as you do someone will come along complaining they aren't included. I'll sign up and join them just for laughs.

I really appreciate you adding another pov to the discussion here, however, outright stating that'd you be the first to jump in line to be one of the ones ruining it for the legitimate female identified folk who haven't quite yet made it onto a camsite as such is kinda lame. Also we aren't talking about people who woke up one day thinking they're women, or people who are simply crossdressers, we're talking about people who are sure of being female. How do you prove the difference to Amber when you attempt to access the M.O. section? I dunno, thoughts anyone?

I agree it would be tricky to find the line, but I don't disagree the line should be moved.

I really appreciate your comment on this being Amber's site to run how she wishes, and that if people don't like it they can create their own forum. I personally would like to see more forums for cam girls/fans, with different ways of running things. I'm kind of sick of seeing the cam girls on the few forums available bitching about how the forum they're posting on or on how some other forum is run shittily, but leaving it at that, bitching, name calling, and whining. Not to say that's happening on this thread, and I apologize if I'm digressing to ranting too much right now.

 

[Submissivemaid]

So do you agree with JUST WHITE PEOPLE or other segregation stuff if it comes from a private establishment, then, I suppose. Private or public, everything should be based in equality and respect.

 

[SaffronBurke]

Women can easily release any info from model's only if that want and some even have.

This is so important to remember. Making MO access cis-women only doesn't automatically make it a safe haven where nobody is at risk, and allowing trans women won't automatically make it more dangerous. Individual people are individually crappy.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

So do you agree with JUST WHITE PEOPLE or other segregation stuff if it comes from a private establishment, then, I suppose. Private or public, everything should be based in equality and respect.

SNAP

I was trying to think of something to say to refute, but you nailed it.

 

[Pluot]

Private establishments? Yep, they have the right. If I owned a private business would I try to enforce that? No. But I do believe the next person who does, has the right to do so if they choose. It's their business. Or should we allow the federal government to step in and regulate the lives of every one's private affairs now? And just to be clear here, I'm not talking about federally funded places. Strictly a privately owned asset.

There again it's a matter of where do you draw the line? Your beliefs that it should be allowed may be in direct opposition to those of the owner who doesn't. Your rights end where the next person's begins. Suppose this were reversed and you were forced to do something in your private life that was against your beliefs. Should the government mandate you do it anyway because others are protesting?

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that people should be allowed to discriminate in peace?

 

[Phoenix4987]

I didn't come here to argue psychology vs biology (It really is as simple as that), but just to echo that all members (camgirls or not) have joined a community where someone pays $ of their own pocket for a domain name so everyone can share information, laughs, pics, etc. How she chooses to administrate her own site is her own business that, whether we like it or not, she can do as she sees fit.

She has chosen a non-political set of guidelines she wishes to follow and that's that. Them's the rules. It doesn't prevent you from messaging models who have access and sharing information or making topics not in the MO section for advice. I've never seen a girl who didn't have access to MO not receive advice and nothing but support from the community who made a thread outside of MO.

So it seems less about "there's advice I can't get anywhere else" and more about trying to shove a social agenda on ACF using a victimizing approach about secret info you just can't find anywhere else.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I didn't come here to argue psychology vs biology (It really is as simple as that), but just to echo that all members (camgirls or not) have joined a community where someone pays $ of their own pocket for a domain name so everyone can share information, laughs, pics, etc. How she chooses to administrate her own site is her own business that, whether we like it or not, she can do as she sees fit.

She has chosen a non-political set of guidelines she wishes to follow and that's that. Them's the rules. It doesn't prevent you from messaging models who have access and sharing information or making topics not in the MO section for advice. I've never seen a girl who didn't have access to MO not receive advice and nothing but support from the community who made a thread outside of MO.

So it seems less about "there's advice I can't get anywhere else" and more about trying to shove a social agenda on ACF using a victimizing approach about secret info you just can't find anywhere else.

"It's really as simple as that" That's your opinion.

I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong Amber, not going to tag you in case you don't end up reading through this entire thread) that she gets BAF referrals and exposure from us ALL being here, so I believe this is a giant symbiotic community, not just one selfless model creating a forum for the rest. You're right, as stated above, how she chooses to run it is her own perogative and anyone who doesn't like it can go start their own forum. That being said, I don't think Pluot is wrong in bringing up a topic about how she'd like to see things change in the way that they're run here (again, correct me if I'm wrong Amber) that hasn't been in debate here for two years from what's been shown here. Clearly there's a lot of models who are thinking/feeling the same way.

I haven't been around long enough to comment on whether or not models receive "nothing but support" in the models only section, but I can guarantee you that I've seen there is less trolling, and it is a safer space to talk about whatever, at least until if/when someone on the inside leaks it out, which as has been said, could happen anytime, regardless of if it stays somewhat Trans exclusive or not.

I really see this as less of a "Shoving a social agenda" and more of a bringing up a respectable question thread.

 

[Tilly]

Thanks for linking this.

Okay, so what I'm basically understanding, is that this discussion was closed after folks stated that they have nothing against transgender models, but still can't accept them into a models only space for fear of people with ill-intent. Like, what? Also, this thread is from 2014. It would be cool to have an updated discussion on this, especially considering the current political climate.

You definitely DO have something against trans women if you are actively excluding them.

I linked one of the many threads we have regarding the issue. It is a tough call to make, but it is what it is, and maybe it won't always be that way. For now, Amber has a tough enough time keeping the models only space safe for all of us. It takes a lot of work to run ACF! She is already always swamped doing model verifications, and imagine throwing trans models into the mix. It would be even tougher to weed out who is truly a member of the broadcaster community, or just someone who is doing this on a whim, or worse yet, as a ploy to fish for models' personal info. I hope that makes a little bit of sense and sheds some light on things. It's a discussion we have had often on here, and I know it wasn't an easy decision to make.

 

[JickyJuly]

I don't think it has anything to do with men pretending to be women.
Amber is an MFC model and started ACF as an MFC based place. For a transwoman to be on MFC, she has to do so on the DL.
So, if there are trans models on ACF model's only, they're probably on the DL too.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I linked one of the many threads we have regarding the issue. It is a tough call to make, but it is what it is, and maybe it won't always be that way. For now, Amber has a tough enough time keeping the models only space safe for all of us. It takes a lot of work to run ACF! She is already always swamped doing model verifications, and imagine throwing trans models into the mix. It would be even tougher to weed out who is truly a member of the broadcaster community, or just someone who is doing this on a whim, or worse yet, as a ploy to fish for models' personal info. I hope that makes a little bit of sense and sheds some light on things. It's a discussion we have had often on here, and I know it wasn't an easy decision to make.

Thank you for the link. Thank you for adding that it was one of many. Maybe one of these threads will be the last one before things change? Maybe not.

I'm just going to reiterate what has already been stated above and what Amber tells us herself about the model section: There is no guarantee of safety. Period.

Any model could have it out for another model. It's happened, a lot. No one should be posting personal info that is that sacred in there as it is.

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I don't think it has anything to do with men pretending to be women.
Amber is an MFC model and started ACF as an MFC based place. For a transwoman to be on MFC, she has to do so on the DL.
So, if there are trans models on ACF model's only, they're probably on the DL too.

But it's not just a MFC based place anymore, so...?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Also we aren't talking about people who woke up one day thinking they're women, or people who are simply crossdressers, we're talking about people who are sure of being female.

That's entirely my point. Once you move that line, then the next in line ARE the 'simply crossdressers.' And then they will be just as adamant about not being allowed in as you are about trans-gendered in this thread. Make the line gray, and it will get contested non stop until you obliterate the line. Also, how do you confirm those people are sure of being female? You just made an assumption there. How does Amber determine they are sure of being female? There's no possible way a person can quantify how sure someone else is of being anything.

Again, if I publicly stated tomorrow that I was female. How would you prove me wrong? By your definition that's all it takes to be allowed access. There's no way to confirm that I was lying, or any other male who showed up here. There goes the private female club ya got back there in the MO section. On the other hand, being verified on a cam site as female by an independent company who checks ID's, maybe that's a good standard that isn't so gray of a line. It definitely is a legal one.

So do you agree with JUST WHITE private establishments, then, I suppose. Private or public, everything should be based in equality and respect.

Such a leading question. But you do bring up an interesting point. Do I personally think there should be whites only establishments? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. Do I think private establishments should have the right under the law to make white only places? Well...

Hate to burst your bubble, but private and public are two completely different issues under the law. And 'just white' private establishments are completely legal. So are private establishments that don't allow women, or Jews, or homosexuals, or even taxi drivers from Finland for that matter. Anything you want to discriminate in your privately owned club is entirely legal. Hell, there's clubs where you have to be smart to join. If you can't pass an IQ test, MENSA tells you to take your dumb self out the door.

The Federal law you are no doubt thinking of right now about discrimination against a person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Well, that primarily pertains to employment discrimination. But wait you say, there's also laws against discriminating in clubs! The boy scouts had to open their membership to girls after all. There's several cases like that happening!!!

Well, that's public clubs. Private ones can still discriminate any way they wish. As long as it is not open to the public for membership, they can rule out anyone. This forum has a public section that is open to all, including trans-gendered. But the private section, aka models only, is a private club that has the stipulations of being female, and publicly camming on a site as a female, to enter. Perfectly legal. Another example is Curves for women fitness clubs. Private exercise clubs for women only where males are not allowed to join. Don't like it? Start up your own fitness center that allows everyone.

Ironically there would be first and fourteenth amendment issues at play if someone tried to force Amber to accept people she didn't want to. Because that would then be infringing on the legal rights of a persons privately owned asset. Yeah, she's more protected under the constitution for having the rule in place, than someone is if they try to force her to do away with it.

 

[JickyJuly]

But it's not just a MFC based place anymore, so...?

I disagree. There's info here for lots of sites, but Amber is still only on MFC, and it's her site. So?

 

[Deleted member 35180]

I disagree. There's info here for lots of sites, but Amber is still only on MFC, and it's her site. So?

Oh I'll agree full force on the "it's ultimately her site and her decision, if people don't like it they can start their own" bit, but just because she's MFC only, doesn't mean she's kept her forum that way.

Dunno if it ever was an MFC only forum? Don't know if it should matter now that it's not anyway.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I just don't get the whole "men could pretend to be trans and get private info". Women can easily release any info from model's only if that want and some even have.

Not trying to argue with Amber, if she really doesn't want to allow some people that's her prerogative. Just something that's popped in my head a few times.

I don't really have a strong feeling on the subject. But in my six+ years on MFC and ACF I can say that I've seen very little information move from the model only section to the general public not only on ACF but on MFC in general.

I know I'm not the only male member of ACF who's been interested in learning what exciting secrets lay behind the models only area. (Orgy planning etc :) Eventhough, I've been told numerous times it is really not that interesting. The allure of forbidden fruit is pretty strong. Now, it isn't worth to go through an entire sex change operation to gain access to models only.

However, I'm pretty sure that 18 or 19 year old me, with a higher testosterone level and some decent hacking skills would have devoted time and energy to becoming a verified trans model. It is doubtful that would have resisted the temptation to share some of what I learned in models only with other members. It seems to me this would have a chilling effect of what's posted in MO.