TERFs crash London Pride

[Mycroft]

This extreme bullying is such typically male behaviour even as the poor wee marginalised souls bleat about their pink feminine lady brains. No self awareness at all. And I've seen some screenshots of posts by the ball-waxing guy (and others) that are stomach churningly gross. Not a fetish? Really?

From my point of view, your insistence on misgendering trans-women as men is mean-spirited bullying.

 

[Mycroft]

The same way you explain anorexia, not by pretending that one is born anorexic, but by recognizing the effects of socialization in a society such as ours (ie structurally patriarchal, including beauty standards in particular in this case). Statistically speaking there will always be some people who, through various exacerbating circumstances, "crack" under those pressures to develop mental health conditions.

Just because something makes sense in your head doesn't make it true. You don't have the educational qualifications to make assessments like that.

If gender dysphoria is a case of a "male brain stuck in a female body" or some such, then how do you explain the high comorbidity with other mental health conditions? Besides, not all cases of gender dysphoria are the same, some are just narcissism (the "cult" referred to above, a minority but a particularly destructive one), some are autism (problems with rigidity in terms of social roles, in this case gender roles), some are fetishistic or predatory (male rapists demanding to be put in female prisons who then go on to rape them), some - probably most - are as per the above problems with gendered socialization, some are body dysmorphic ("My body should be made to look female" - akin to people presenting with, say, a request to amputate a leg because it "shouldn't be there"), and some are delusional ("I am a female" as said by a male).

How many male rapists do you think become trans-women and get thrown in prison so they can rape prisoners do you think exist? Can you name one?

 

[caveman1917]

Just because something makes sense in your head doesn't make it true. You don't have the educational qualifications to make assessments like that.

Sure whatever, I'll stick to my own assessment, thanks.

How many male rapists do you think become trans-women and get thrown in prison so they can rape prisoners do you think exist? Can you name one?

Of course, Karen White for one. But you already knew this since in an earlier thread you feigned the same ignorance about it and had already been provided with evidence for this, so I'm concluding you willfully want to put female prisoners at risk of rape. Your plainly bizarre claims about homosexuality a few posts ago aren't helping either.

 

[caveman1917]

I personally think we lean patriarchal as a species, and have tendencies towards things like genocide, as well, but an inclination is not the same thing as set-in-stone "destiny".

If what you say is true then nomadic foragers (the social organization of most of humanity's existence) should show this, but they show the opposite.

 

[kellyb]

If what you say is true then nomadic foragers (the social organization of most of humanity's existence) should show this, but they show the opposite.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-native-americans-before-europeans-showed-up/

"Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."

 

[pharphis]

Sure whatever, I'll stick to my own assessment, thanks.



Of course, Karen White for one. But you already knew this since in an earlier thread you feigned the same ignorance about it and had already been provided with evidence for this, so I'm concluding you willfully want to put female prisoners at risk of rape. Your plainly bizarre claims about homosexuality a few posts ago aren't helping either.

I think we went over this about 4 months ago but female prisoners are already at risk of rape. Including a biological male doesn't necessarily increase that risk, or if it does to such a significant degree that this needs to be avoided at all costs. Just the act of being in prison puts you at a much higher risk of rape. You know, an actual rape culture. Should we not put anyone in prison? Should we make sure prisoners have no human contact other than with guards?

 

[Mycroft]

Sure whatever, I'll stick to my own assessment, thanks.

The very definition of hubris.

Of course, Karen White for one. But you already knew this since in an earlier thread you feigned the same ignorance about it and had already been provided with evidence for this, so I'm concluding you willfully want to put female prisoners at risk of rape. Your plainly bizarre claims about homosexuality a few posts ago aren't helping either.

I asked how many male rapists you think become trans-women and get thrown in prison so they can rape women, and you should me someone already in prison who becomes trans so they can be thrown in another prison. Similar? Sure, but not quite the same.

If we agree that this person isn't really trans and only pretended to be trans to gain access to victims, as Rolfe seems to believe is true of a good percentage of trans-people, then a "solution" of discriminating against all trans-people makes no sense. Faulting actual trans-people for the misdeeds of fake trans-people is discrimination. Especially since it would be very easy to come up with a policy that separates the groups and treats them differently.

 

[luchog]

From my point of view, your insistence on misgendering trans-women as men is mean-spirited bullying.

As tempting as it would be, I would disagree that it's necessarily mean-spirited as such. As in, not deliberately malicious. From my reading, Rolfe's attacks on transwomen is predominantly a result of fear, fear of the "other" and of social change. This fear is fed by conspiracy-theory-mongering elitists seeking to maintain their own social status and privilege as cisgendered (and almost invariably white) women and leaders of their little cliques.

The resort to religious right anti-trans propaganda shows a desperation born from that fear, resulting in a willingness to accept any association that provides justification of that fear, and an easy answer to address it. Politics is not the only thing that makes strange bedfellows.

Fear of the "other" is the most common cause of bigotry, and that certainly seems to be the case here.

 

[luchog]

Just the act of being in prison puts you at a much higher risk of rape. You know, an actual rape culture. Should we not put anyone in prison? Should we make sure prisoners have no human contact other than with guards?

You do realize that prison guards are themselves responsible for a large percentage of prison rape, right?

 

[caveman1917]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-native-americans-before-europeans-showed-up/

Blogs aren't scientific journals. Besides, it's not even the right kind of tribes, most Native American tribes were semi-sedentary and did not have the nomadic forager structures that early humans had. Statistical evidence (actually published in a journal rather than blog, and well-referenced) that I've already provided refutes this:

Although the mobile forager data support a clear conclusion that this form of social organization is not conducive to war, nonetheless, as Fry and Söderberg (2014) observe, “A conflagration is raging over whether nomadic foragers are peaceful or warlike” (p. 256). This issue is being debated in academia (Bowles, 2009; Endicott, 2014; Fry and Söderberg, 2013a; Guenther, 2014; Lee, 2014; Wrangham & Glowacki, 2012) as well as presented in the popular press (Gat, 2006; Pinker, 2011; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). Why is the question of forager warlikeness/peacefulness getting this attention? Fry and Söderberg (2014) suggest that “nomadic forager data are seen as crucial or at least relevant to much larger issues: How old is war? Are humans inherently warlike? Is war an evolved human trait? Can war, ironically, be credited with the development of altruism and cooperation?” (p. 256)

In an attempt address such questions using nomadic forager data, Fry and Söderberg (2013a) decided to investigate lethal violence of all types without labeling, on an a priori basis, particular killing events under categories such as war, feud, homicide, or manslaughter. Instead, these authors examined in detail the features of all cases of lethal aggression reported for a sample of 21 mobile forager societies selected via a systematic methodology from the SCCS (Fry & Söderberg 2013a, 2013b, 2014).

The key findings were that for the 21 mobile forager societies, a total of 148 lethal events of various types were reported in the primary source ethnographies that were written as early as the 1600s but in most case in the 19th and 20th centuries (White, 1989). All 148 lethal events were analyzed in the study. The mean number of lethal events per society was 7.05 (SD = 14.64), with a range from zero to 69. At one end of this distribution, three societies had no lethal events reported, whereas at the other extreme, one society, the Tiwi of Australia, provided 69 lethal events of the 148. The distribution was skewed, as reflected by the fact that the next highest society had 15 lethal events and the third highest had 10. In other words, the Tiwi, with almost half (47 percent) of the lethal events for the entire sample, was an outlier. If the Tiwi data are removed, the mean number of lethal events per society for the remaining 20 societies is nearly cut in half, with the new mean being 3.95, down from 7.05.

If we think of warfare as lethal aggression between different communities, then the Fry and Söderberg (2013a) findings contradict in various ways the presumption that war is typical of nomadic foraging societies. First, 55 percent of the lethal events involved only one person killing only one person. This does not accord with typical definitions of war as intergroup aggression. Another 23 percent of the lethal instances involved more than one person killing only one person. In other words, 78 percent of the lethal acts involved only one victim. Second, at the very least, 36 percent of the killers and victims were living within the same group as neighbors, fathers and sons, husbands and wives, and so forth. Killing within the same group is not war. Third, an examination of the motivations for lethal aggression revealed that interpersonal reasons were more typical than intergroup causes, whether or not killers and victims were from the same or different groups. Interpersonal jealousy, insults, and revenge were common reasons for killings. However, in a typical lethal scenario wherein a wife leaves her husband for another man and then someone in the love triangle ends up dead, this is not warfare. Similarly, the occasional cases of starvation cannibalism, hunting accidents, or within-group executions do not qualify as examples of warfare. Overall, Fry and Söderberg (2013a) conclude that most lethal aggression cases among the mobile forager societies in the SCCS-derived sample are homicides, a few others are feud, and only a minority could be considered war.

 

[Mycroft]

As tempting as it would be, I would disagree that it's necessarily mean-spirited as such. As in, not deliberately malicious. From my reading, Rolfe's attacks on transwomen is predominantly a result of fear, fear of the "other" and of social change. This fear is fed by conspiracy-theory-mongering elitists seeking to maintain their own social status and privilege as cisgendered (and almost invariably white) women and leaders of their little cliques.

The resort to religious right anti-trans propaganda shows a desperation born from that fear, resulting in a willingness to accept any association that provides justification of that fear, and an easy answer to address it. Politics is not the only thing that makes strange bedfellows.

Fear of the "other" is the most common cause of bigotry, and that certainly seems to be the case here.

You are more charitable than I am. To me, all that still falls under the heading of "mean spirited".

 

[Myriad]

You are more charitable than I am. To me, all that still falls under the heading of "mean spirited".

As I mentioned before, there's quite a close analogy here with immigration issues. The claim is essentially that illegal gender immigrants (in this case, Brits who represent as trans despite not having the proper government license to do so), some of whom commit gender crimes, might be getting into protected gender spaces despite the big beautiful gender wall intended to keep them out. The wall already exists in this case, so the contentious argument is whether to keep it.

 

[caveman1917]

I think we went over this about 4 months ago but female prisoners are already at risk of rape. Including a biological male doesn't necessarily increase that risk, or if it does to such a significant degree that this needs to be avoided at all costs. Just the act of being in prison puts you at a much higher risk of rape. You know, an actual rape culture. Should we not put anyone in prison? Should we make sure prisoners have no human contact other than with guards?

Female prisoners are already at risk of rape so we shouldn't mind putting male sex offenders (half of transgender inmates in the UK are in prison for sex offences) with them as well? And by your logic we should indeed not put anyone in prison, after all people are already at risk of murder so we shouldn't mind releasing murderers back into the general population.

 

[Rolfe]

You frame it as women giving up something, but I see it as women being included in something.

Every argument you make is dependent on not recognizing trans-women as women. Maybe you should make a strong argument for that, then your other arguments will fall into place from that premise.

I can't believe you're even saying this. It is not possible to convert a biological male into a biological female, no matter what hormones or surgery you employ. The best that can be managed is a cosmetic facsimile of a female body, but even that is a feminised male body. This is reality.

Moreover, the majority (around 80%) of trans-identifying males still have their male genitalia and most of these have absolutely no intention of changing that. Facial feminisation surgery, Adam's-apple reduction and breast implants are more popular than genital surgery.

Woman is not a costume. It's not a LARP persona. It's not make-up and heels. And it's not a feeling in anyone's head. Of course I don't "recognise" transwomen as women, any more than I recognise sugar pills as being medicine or contrails as being chemical sprays or Uri Geller as being able to bend spoons with his mind. For crying out loud!

Can I be a transwoman? No, of course I can't, because the primary attribute necessary to be able to become a transwoman is being a man. Maybe that tells you something?

And spare me the pious platitudes about women "being included in something". Self-ID (which is what this is all about) ends women's protected sex-segregated provisions, for absolutely everything.

 

[Rolfe]

From my point of view, your insistence on misgendering trans-women as men is mean-spirited bullying.

From my point of view, the insistence of male-bodied men on being allowed to get their kit off in women's protected spaces in front of adolescent girls is rather worse than mean-spirited bullying.

Although I fail to see how referring to men as men out of their hearing can be bullying anyone. If you catch me somehow "misgendering" a trans-identifying person to his or her face (difficult as that is, because "you" is not gender-specific), get back to me on that one.

 

[Rolfe]

But, y'know, just carry on assuming that the position you disagree with is "mean-spirited" and morally indefensible. I'm sure it gives you such a warm glow to believe you're on the moral high ground and throw insults around. Avoids actually having to justify the absolute woo-woo nonsense that underpins all this.

 

[deadrose]

And just how many medical insurance plans cover genital surgery? Does the NHS? It's a tremendously expensive, complicated surgery, unaffordable to many. It's no great wonder then that people would put their money into the surgery that has visible results first. Those surgeries make it easier to get a job and save money - although in this current climate just staying housed is enough of a challenge for middle class and lower.

You tend to frame every part of this as if it's a moral failing or being done out of spite, instead of considering that their might be perfectly legitimate reasons.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not a moral failing or being done out of spite, it's simply a choice. I admit it was a surprise to me that the term "pre-op" for a trans person that has not had genital surgery is in fact misleading, but indeed the majority have no intention of having genital surgery. They don't want it. That's fine, but it's highly relevant when it comes to this nonsensical statement that "transwomen are women".

 

[caveman1917]

And just how many medical insurance plans cover genital surgery? Does the NHS? It's a tremendously expensive, complicated surgery, unaffordable to many. It's no great wonder then that people would put their money into the surgery that has visible results first. Those surgeries make it easier to get a job and save money - although in this current climate just staying housed is enough of a challenge for middle class and lower.

You tend to frame every part of this as if it's a moral failing or being done out of spite, instead of considering that their might be perfectly legitimate reasons.

Actually yes the NHS covers it, as do many (most?) other health care systems in Europe. The fact that the NHS covers it has been a factor in the debates regarding imprisoned male sex offenders seeking to transition, since their surgery is covered by the taxpayers.

 

[luchog]

It's not a moral failing or being done out of spite, it's simply a choice.

Just like being queer is a choice, and therefore a good reason to keep all those perverted faggots and dykes out of public restrooms where they can molest and recruit innocent children.