Rolfe
Adult human female
If you say so. You're entitled to your opinion. I strongly disagree with your position.
TERFs crash London Pride
- Thread starter Information Analyst
- Start date
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Ah, I remember grammar-school debate tactics too. They don't age well. Maybe updating your repertoire a bit so you can at least get into the "university freshman" level would help you sound a bit more like an adult, and not a callow child whining about boogeymen.
You've yet to explain how that satirical position on homosexuals is any different from your serious position on transpeople. Especially given that that view of homosexuals is espoused by the same religious right people you go to for justification of your fear of transpeople. How are those two positions any different in real-world terms?
Oh, and I see you've yet to provide any evidence to support any of your anti-trans assertions. Can we take that to mean that you're cognizant of the weakness of your own position? After all, insults and childish taunts are the refuge of those who are unable to debate honestly, and those who realize that they're in the wrong, but cannot bring themselves to admit it.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't have an anti-trans position. I note the empirical, objective fact that biological men cannot transform into biological women, and point out that the mantra "transwomen are women" is in the same category as announcing that night is day.
What I am anti is the legalisation of the opening of all women's protected spaces and categories to men who decide to declare (against all biological reality) that they are women. These men are free to go about their lives exactly as they please. They can wear what they like, take whatever medications they like, and call themselves by any name they select. They are entitled to exactly the same human rights as the rest of us, including marrying anyone who will have them. They deserve to be treated with exactly the kindness and courtesy that they have earned by the kindness and courtesy with which they treat other people. (And I know that in many cases that kindness and courtesy is very great.)
What they are not entitled to, just as nobody else is entitled to it, is to demand access as of right to the spaces and categories reserved for the opposite sex.
If you took the trouble to read what I have written, rather than something completely different you somehow thought I had written, you will see that I stated that not having genital surgery is a choice. This was said in response to Deadrose, who suggested that I considered not having genital surgery to be a "moral failing". (I'm not sure where she got that idea from either.) I don't know what else you would call it. Nobody is forced to have surgery they don't want, and choosing not to have medically unnecessary surgery is clearly a rational option. What's wrong with calling that a choice?
How you get from there to a diatribe about homosexuality being a choice (which it quite clearly is not), and something about keeping perverted homosexuals out of public lavatories, completely escapes me. Public lavatories, shared sleeping accommodation, changing rooms and prisons (among other things) are segregated by sex, not by sexual orientation. I don't have the slightest problem sharing these spaces with lesbian women, who are of course women, and I don't know any other woman who has such a problem. If men have a problem sharing these spaces with homosexual men, that's something for the male half of the population to sort out, I think.
These spaces are segregated by sex, as I said, not by sexual orientation and not by how someone feels in their head. Proposals to change this have far-reaching consequences for the fundamental way women's requirements (in particular) are accommodated by society. Debating this matter is neither childish nor bigoted nor hateful.
The debate so far seems to consist of little more than right-on woke dudbros simply telling women that these guys feel something in their heads they interpret as being the way women feel, so it's unkind and hurtful not to welcome them into women's facilities - penis, testicles, five o'clock shadow, receding hairline, baritone voice and all. This is not good enough.
What I am anti is the legalisation of the opening of all women's protected spaces and categories to men who decide to declare (against all biological reality) that they are women. These men are free to go about their lives exactly as they please. They can wear what they like, take whatever medications they like, and call themselves by any name they select. They are entitled to exactly the same human rights as the rest of us, including marrying anyone who will have them. They deserve to be treated with exactly the kindness and courtesy that they have earned by the kindness and courtesy with which they treat other people. (And I know that in many cases that kindness and courtesy is very great.)
What they are not entitled to, just as nobody else is entitled to it, is to demand access as of right to the spaces and categories reserved for the opposite sex.
If you took the trouble to read what I have written, rather than something completely different you somehow thought I had written, you will see that I stated that not having genital surgery is a choice. This was said in response to Deadrose, who suggested that I considered not having genital surgery to be a "moral failing". (I'm not sure where she got that idea from either.) I don't know what else you would call it. Nobody is forced to have surgery they don't want, and choosing not to have medically unnecessary surgery is clearly a rational option. What's wrong with calling that a choice?
How you get from there to a diatribe about homosexuality being a choice (which it quite clearly is not), and something about keeping perverted homosexuals out of public lavatories, completely escapes me. Public lavatories, shared sleeping accommodation, changing rooms and prisons (among other things) are segregated by sex, not by sexual orientation. I don't have the slightest problem sharing these spaces with lesbian women, who are of course women, and I don't know any other woman who has such a problem. If men have a problem sharing these spaces with homosexual men, that's something for the male half of the population to sort out, I think.
These spaces are segregated by sex, as I said, not by sexual orientation and not by how someone feels in their head. Proposals to change this have far-reaching consequences for the fundamental way women's requirements (in particular) are accommodated by society. Debating this matter is neither childish nor bigoted nor hateful.
The debate so far seems to consist of little more than right-on woke dudbros simply telling women that these guys feel something in their heads they interpret as being the way women feel, so it's unkind and hurtful not to welcome them into women's facilities - penis, testicles, five o'clock shadow, receding hairline, baritone voice and all. This is not good enough.
deadrose
Illuminator
By "this", I meant the entire concept of transgender. Not the surgery.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
This is a very shaky statistic and seem to be based on a total of 60 people and actually excludes anyone who is officially trans (i.e. they got their GRC).
And it also sparks a rather large 'so what' - we are talking about two dozen transgender rapists according to the figures. And how many transgender people? A couple of hundred thousand maybe? I don't know if there are official figures kept reliably anywhere?
Should we really be legislating on a population of 200000 based on two dozen outliers? That would be equivalent of legislating for the population of Bolton based on the actions, desires and needs of the Bolton Wanderers first team squad.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Except that every single thing you've said, and every single source you've cited, gives the lie to that statement. Every single one. The overwhelming majority of the anti-trans rhetoric you've used in this thread could work just as well by substituting "transgender" with "homosexual", and in fact has been used in exactly that way by numerous religious right and other anti-LBTQ bigots.
When you find yourself on the side of some of the worst people in the world, that should be impetus t re-think your position, not to entrench and double down.
Further, your refusal to address transgenderism as anything other than a "choice" and your insistence on misgendering transpeople puts you in the same camp as the bigots who insist that homosexuality is a "choice". You also haven't shown how allowing homosexual people into those spaces is any different from allowing transpeople into those spaces.
And you've yet to provide the slightest shred of verifiable evidence from reliable sources to support any of your assertions. The fact that you just keep banging away at the rhetoric without any supporting evidence makes it quite clear that your "I'm not a bigot, but..." nonsense is just that.
All you've done is engaged in the same soft of rabid fear-mongering and othering that all bigots engage in, and the same conspiracy-theory-mongering to try and justify said bigotry.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Rapists? Is there actually a list of these rapists somewhere? Because from my reading, the majority of transpeople in prison on sex offenses are there for prostitution, not rape.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Rolfe
Adult human female
Maybe if someone could provide evidence that a biological male can turn into a biological female, this conversation could proceed. It appears that I'm being compared to "the worst people in the world" because I note that this is not possible.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Of course the americas were not exactly before the invention of agrigulture and such. Many native comunities certainly did grow crops after all. Prehistoric =/= primordial hunter gatherer.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
yes there was a very sketchy survey done of transpeople in uk jails which amounted to 125 people, 60 of whom were in for sex offences and 27 of whom were rapists. it excluded large swathes of people however including those who had legally changed gender.
i could be wrong but i dont believe prostitution would be regarded as a sex offence here. other offences were child porn, sexual assault, and sex with minors
in any case the numbers are small and not worthy of seriously shaping social policy around.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Yup, because evidence for something no one anywhere has ever claimed is definitely what we need to combat anti-trans bigotry.
Be careful, straw men are highly flammable. And, of course, as we're all aware, they're also the resort of those who know that they're in the wrong but are unwilling to acknowledge that fact.
I'd say this is the most disingenuous thing you've said in this entire thread, but unfortunately it's not.
Of course it has nothing to do with your repeatedly denying the validity of transgender experiences, your persistently misgendering transpeople, nor the fact that you constantly resort to citing religious right hate speech, radical fringe conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence, long-debunked biological essentialism, and flat-out making stuff up about how evil transpeople are to support an anti-trans position that you totally don't have despite the fact that everything you've posted in this thread is profoundly anti-trans.
You're being compared to the worst people in the world because you have, on multiple occasions, cited and quoted them as support for your anti-trans rhetoric. If you get in bed with bigots and oppressors, you shouldn't be surprised when you're lumped in with them.
One more time, you know how this works: Provide Evidence. If you can. I'm betting not, since you haven't yet.
Being trans is not a choice, just like being homosexual is not a choice. The international evidence-based medical community is fully in agreement on that, and the verifiable, reproducible, scientific evidence points to it being innate and immutable. It's only bigots and cranks who still deny this; while the weight of evidence and of history is against both.
Yes, and I've also seem multiple posts where she insisted that being trans is a choice, or a mental illness, regardless of surgery. And all the citations she's posted and propaganda she's quoted insisting that being trans is a choice or a mental illness. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the thread.
Last edited:
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
When people say "transwomen are women", they're not (generally or always) using the standard definition of "adult human female." They're using a "social" definition (a sort of emerging slang), and using it to refer to gender and not sex.
They're using the word "woman" to mean something along the lines of:
A) an adult human female
B) an adult intersex person or an adult human male who self-identifies as having the gender identity of those of female sex
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
It varies, but many jurisdictions do include prostitution in general sex offenses.
Assuming that the numbers are accurate, which not having seen the source I cannot speak to, that would mean that transpeople commit sex offenses at roughly the same rate as the general population.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Nobody's arguing that transpeople are rapier than cispeople. That's not necessary for housing biological males and females together in prison to be a very bad idea.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Right, so transwomen are members of the biological sex class of male. The facilities we've been talking about are sex-segregated. That is biological sex. The proposal is that certain members of the biological sex class of male should be granted, as of right, free access to facilities which are currently reserved for members of the biological sex class of female.
Glad we've cleared that up.
Glad we've cleared that up.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,073
You know there's a really, really good, practical reason why the ladies usually carried all the stuff, don't you?
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
That's not what this thread was about. This thread, if you read the OP, was about the claim that the existence of transwomen erases the existence of lesbians, which you adamantly agreed with and supported as true, and posted a whole lot of conspiracy theories and anti-trans propaganda to support this assertion.
Are you acknowledging that you were wrong in asserting that the existence of transwomen erases the existence of lesbians, and that lesbians are not in any more danger from transwomen than they are from anyone else?
In the UK, which is where we’re talking about, prostitution per se is not illegal.