• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think the majority of men, who are not particularly creepy nor in any way perverts, realise what a large minority actually are, and how much care women have to take because of this.

Sexual fetishism and a predisposition to commit sexual assault are extraordinary rare in females. Not non-existent, before someone googles up a "man bites dog" newspaper report of one who was, but extraordinarily rare. The relative conviction percentages between the sexes are to some extent indicative, but the fact is that most problematic men have not and never will be convicted of anything. Even rape is notoriously difficult to get a conviction on.

One of the biggest eye-openers for me in this debate is the extent to which men really have no idea what it's like being a woman. And in this I mean perfectly normal, well-intentioned, non-creepy men. They just don't have the life experience. And don't get me started on how little the men who fondly believe they have lady brains understand about the actual life experiences of being a woman.
 
I've seen the "creep" accusation thrown at bascially every dude tryna score at TAM.

(Maybe it's not wrong?)

Maybe women want a break from the creepy when we're getting undressed or having a wee. Go and try "scoring"somewhere else.
 
Exactly. Women in this thread have constantly been explaining how the Ladies room is used as a refuge from importunate men. We've all met Mr Too-many-hands. At least we can excuse ourselves and get away into the loo. The idea that he could just follow us in there is not one most women relish.
 
The first question is an absolute prerequisite for the other questions. If your answer to the first question is "no", then none of the other questions are even relevant.



It's key in the sense that this is where most of the disagreement is. But again, it's irrelevant if the answer to the first question is "no".

I have yet to hear you say what your answer to the first question is. Much of what you have said suggests your answer is "no", but you seem to be deliberately avoiding answering the question directly. Rather curious.

I think I understand what he's getting at. Suppose you decide that A and B ought to be separated (A and B in this case are men and women, but the logic doesn't require it) and then when you try to answer question number 2, you determine there are no distinguishing features that you can use to distinguish between A and B?

That's not a fatal flaw in the framework. The three questions interact with each other. Part of the point is to examine the implications of one upon the others. The three questions don't need to be ordered.*

Moreover, for this particular distinction, regardless of how you decide who is a man and who is a woman, we all pretty much understand how to categorize most people, and why to categorize most people. Based on most people, we can pretty much get a handle on whether we think the sexes ought to be separated for a given activity or location. If, when we try to be more specific about criteria, we decide to revisit the original conclusion about question 1, that's ok.

*ETA: However, your point was also valid. If you answer question 1 negatively, then question 2 and 3 really don't matter.
 
Last edited:
Can't we believe that Trans-women are not true women, but still believe that Trans-women should be respected and have their choice not mocked and ridiculed? That sorta how I feel.

The way I see it, if you're a guy and willing to go through sex change surgery, dress as a woman, grow your hair as a woman, live your life as a woman, we should try our best to treat you as a woman.

.....Even though I still don't think they are women. Not sure how to reconcile that.
 
Polka, I don't know what sex you are but if you don't know that creepy men are all over the place I doubt if you're a woman or have ever been a girl.
I was talking about how many sexual offenders there were in a population, then relating that to the 2% v 98%. Being 'creepy' isn't a sexual offense and has nothing to do with the risks you have been pushing.


I don't think the majority of men, who are not particularly creepy nor in any way perverts, realise what a large minority actually are, and how much care women have to take because of this.
It seems your position is that men that aren't particularly creepy nor in anyway perverts are in a large minority?

I would suggest that you are being over paranoid, I could be wrong though which is why I would love to know the percentage of sexual offenders v general population.

you seem to think it's over 50%, hence non-pervert men are in a minority according to you,
I think you are seeing danger everywhere,
seeing the data of sexual offenders v population might sort this.

Sexual fetishism and a predisposition to commit sexual assault are extraordinary rare in females. Not non-existent, before someone googles up a "man bites dog" newspaper report of one who was, but extraordinarily rare. The relative conviction percentages between the sexes are to some extent indicative, but the fact is that most problematic men have not and never will be convicted of anything. Even rape is notoriously difficult to get a conviction on.
One of the biggest eye-openers for me in this debate is the extent to which men really have no idea what it's like being a woman. And in this I mean perfectly normal, well-intentioned, non-creepy men. They just don't have the life experience. And don't get me started on how little the men who fondly believe they have lady brains understand about the actual life experiences of being a woman.
re:the hilited
wow.
so even if one looks at the data, according to you 'the most problematic men have not and never will be convicted of anything'.

how irrational, do you just follow where your chip on the shoulder leads?
 
Can't we believe that Trans-women are not true women, but still believe that Trans-women should be respected and have their choice not mocked and ridiculed? That sorta how I feel.

The way I see it, if you're a guy and willing to go through sex change surgery, dress as a woman, grow your hair as a woman, live your life as a woman, we should try our best to treat you as a woman.

.....Even though I still don't think they are women. Not sure how to reconcile that.
That is my position. trans-women are not women, but if they want to be treated as a woman then I'm fine with that as it's just a gender role and if it makes people happy Im fine with that.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
In most cases, trans people aren't trying to erase gender differences, they're trying to become the other gender
Again you are speaking for a majority of group of people while not showing that you have talked to even one.
Do you actually disagree with the statement by Ziggurat that "In most cases, trans people aren't trying to erase gender differences, they're trying to become the other gender"?
 
Can't we believe that Trans-women are not true women, but still believe that Trans-women should be respected and have their choice not mocked and ridiculed? That sorta how I feel.

The way I see it, if you're a guy and willing to go through sex change surgery, dress as a woman, grow your hair as a woman, live your life as a woman, we should try our best to treat you as a woman.

.....Even though I still don't think they are women. Not sure how to reconcile that.

Agree with this.

Except I get the point of some females not wanting to give up long fought gains and spaces for women etc.

Particularly womens refuges and prison.

Think with the last sentence, I don't think it is possible.
 
Last edited:
Can't we believe that Trans-women are not true women, but still believe that Trans-women should be respected and have their choice not mocked and ridiculed? That sorta how I feel.

The way I see it, if you're a guy and willing to go through sex change surgery, dress as a woman, grow your hair as a woman, live your life as a woman, we should try our best to treat you as a woman.

.....Even though I still don't think they are women. Not sure how to reconcile that.


First, less than 10% of the guys who call themselves transwomen have had sex change surgery. The ones who have are not generally the problem, in fact many of the ones who have had the surgery are staunch allies of the women who are protesting the "TWAW" mantra. Kristina Harrison has been giving evidence to support a woman who was recently sacked because she said on social media that men could not actually turn into women. Debbie Hayton, Miranda Yardley, lots of others, some I only know by their twitter handles, all understand this.

Second, nobody should be mocked or ridiculed. Nobody is mocking or ridiculing any individual who has behaved in a reasonable manner - by saying this I am reserving the right to say what the hell I like about JY and a bunch of others like him.

Third, who is this "we", kemo sabe? It's fine for men to say they're happy to treat transwomen as women, it requires nothing from you. However, it demands that women accept people who are actually men, into women's intimate spaces.

Putting the first point beside the third point, you realise this isn't just a request to accept men who have had surgery to produce a facsimile of female genitals as women, you're demanding that women accept any man at all who claims to be a woman, without any physical changes whatsoever. Because that is the core demand of the modern trans lobby, and it is the main reason for the current upsurge in concern among women.

That is my position. trans-women are not women, but if they want to be treated as a woman then I'm fine with that as it's just a gender role and if it makes people happy Im fine with that.


Sure, that's fine. If you're a man. You can call the person ma'am and hold doors open for her and whatever else it is you do that indicates you're interacting with a woman not a man. But the stakes are a lot higher for women.

And now I have to explain again about autogynaephilia and the psychology underpinning the majority of male-to-female trans people. They are masculine. They are heterosexual. They have a sexual fetish that involves regarding themselves as women. Becoming what you love. Being their own idealised woman. Their behaviour is however masculine. It's demanding and assertive. Indeed, it's bullying. They demand everything from women, and will allow women to have no sex-segregated space or activity at all because that's "discrimination".

Now that isn't all MtF trans people. Some aren't like that. Some are not autigynaephiles. Some autogynaephiles are not narcissistic bullies. But a significant number of MtF trans are autogynaephilic narcissistic bullies, and these are the ones most prominent in the trans rights movement. And women have no way to screen these people out, indeed they are the very ones who are most exercised to gain every possible legal "privilege" that women have.

They infest lesbian groups and lesbian dating sites, insisting that they are women and therefore lesbians and it's transphobic of a lesbian not to consider them as a sexual partner. They publish articles about how to overcome lesbians' reluctance to have sex with them (google "cotton ceiling") and how-to manuals to tell lesbians how "lesbians with girl-dick" like to be stimulated.

They attack meetings of women who are concerned about this attack on women's rights, screaming and banging on windows. They attack them on social media, posting fantasies about killing terfs, raping terfs to death, beating them with barbed-wire-covered baseball bats (painted baby-blue and candy-pink).

They demand, if they are criminals, including sex offenders, to be imprisoned in women's prisons with vulnerable women prisoners, whom they proceed to harrass, assault and rape. They demand to be Girl Guide leaders and go with the children to camp. They demand to be housed in women's domestic violence shelters, and if the rape victim who is forced to share a room with them expresses discomfort, it is the traumatised woman who will be tossed out into the street, not the "woman" with the fully-functional penis. They demand to be included in women-only short-lists for business and political positions and awards.

These are the stakes for women. If you're a man and you just want to be polite to men who have decided to remove themselves from your category and join the other category, it's easy enough. But if you're a woman, and especially if you're a lesbian, it's your category that is being colonised. It's your intimate spaces that are now no longer single-sex. It's your sisterhood that now has a man in a dress talking over everyone and insisting that any topic relating to female biology cannot be mentioned as it's transphobic.

Can't talk about periods, or breast-feeding, or childbirth, or cervical cancer, or abortions or contraception, because that's "triggering" as it reminds them that they are not and cannot be female. Our very vocabulary is being erased, because referring to pregnant women or breast-feeding and so on upsets transwomen. Never mind if actual women are upset by the new terminology.

No doubt I'll be called a bigoted terf yet again for saying all this again, but it has to be understood. Men have nothing to lose here. Men are simply passing the problematic men over to women and leaving us to deal with it, while we're being told to be kind. Well these guys want more from us than simply to have a door held open and to be called ma'am.
 
Last edited:
First, less than 10% of the guys who call themselves transwomen have had sex change surgery. The ones who have are not generally the problem, in fact many of the ones who have had the surgery are staunch allies of the women who are protesting the "TWAW" mantra. Kristina Harrison has been giving evidence to support a woman who was recently sacked because she said on social media that men could not actually turn into women. Debbie Hayton, Miranda Yardley, lots of others, some I only know by their twitter handles, all understand this.

Second, nobody should be mocked or ridiculed. Nobody is mocking or ridiculing any individual who has behaved in a reasonable manner - by saying this I am reserving the right to say what the hell I like about JY and a bunch of others like him.

Third, who is this "we", kemo sabe? It's fine for men to say they're happy to treat transwomen as women, it requires nothing from you. However, it demands that women accept people who are actually men, into women's intimate spaces.

Putting the first point beside the third point, you realise this isn't just a request to accept men who have had surgery to produce a facsimile of female genitals as women, you're demanding that women accept any man at all who claims to be a woman, without any physical changes whatsoever. Because that is the core demand of the modern trans lobby, and it is the main reason for the current upsurge in concern among women.




Sure, that's fine. If you're a man. You can call the person ma'am and hold doors open for her and whatever else it is you do that indicates you're interacting with a woman not a man. But the stakes are a lot higher for women.

And now I have to explain again about autogynaephilia and the psychology underpinning the majority of male-to-female trans people. They are masculine. They are heterosexual. They have a sexual fetish that involves regarding themselves as women. Becoming what you love. Being their own idealised woman. Their behaviour is however masculine. It's demanding and assertive. Indeed, it's bullying. They demand everything from women, and will allow women to have no sex-segregated space or activity at all because that's "discrimination".

Now that isn't all MtF trans people. Some aren't like that. Some are not autigynaephiles. Some autogynaephiles are not narcissistic bullies. But a significant number of MtF trans are autogynaephilic narcissistic bullies, and these are the ones most prominent in the trans rights movement. And women have no way to screen these people out, indeed they are the very ones who are most exercised to gain every possible legal "privilege" that women have.

They infest lesbian groups and lesbian dating sites, insisting that they are women and therefore lesbians and it's transphobic of a lesbian not to consider them as a sexual partner. They publish articles about how to overcome lesbians' reluctance to have sex with them (google "cotton ceiling") and how-to manuals to tell lesbians how "lesbians with girl-dick" like to be stimulated.

They attack meetings of women who are concerned about this attack on women's rights, screaming and banging on windows. They attack them on social media, posting fantasies about killing terfs, raping terfs to death, beating them with barbed-wire-covered baseball bats (painted baby-blue and candy-pink).

They demand, if they are criminals, including sex offenders, to be imprisoned in women's prisons with vulnerable women prisoners, whom they proceed to harrass, assault and rape. They demand to be Girl Guide leaders and go with the children to camp. They demand to be housed in women's domestic violence shelters, and if the rape victim who is forced to share a room with them expresses discomfort, it is the traumatised woman who will be tossed out into the street, not the "woman" with the fully-functional penis. They demand to be included in women-only short-lists for business and political positions and awards.

These are the stakes for women. If you're a man and you just want to be polite to men who have decided to remove themselves from your category and join the other category, it's easy enough. But if you're a woman, and especially if you're a lesbian, it's your category that is being colonised. It's your intimate spaces that are now no longer single-sex. It's your sisterhood that now has a man in a dress talking over everyone and insisting that any topic relating to female biology cannot be mentioned as it's transphobic.

Can't talk about periods, or breast-feeding, or childbirth, or cervical cancer, or abortions or contraception, because that's "triggering" as it reminds them that they are not and cannot be female. Our very vocabulary is being erased, because referring to pregnant women or breast-feeding and so on upsets transwomen. Never mind if actual women are upset by the new terminology.

No doubt I'll be called a bigoted terf yet again for saying all this again, but it has to be understood. Men have nothing to lose here. Men are simply passing the problematic men over to women and leaving us to deal with it, while we're being told to be kind. Well these guys want more from us than simply to have a door held open and to be called ma'am.

You seem to be very picky about throwing around percentages when it suits you.

How about posting proof of both of these in actual numbers
 
re:the hilited
wow.
so even if one looks at the data, according to you 'the most problematic men have not and never will be convicted of anything'.

how irrational, do you just follow where your chip on the shoulder leads?

It's not irrational. It's observation of human behavior.

It's not even a controversial statement.
 
Can't we believe that Trans-women are not true women, but still believe that Trans-women should be respected and have their choice not mocked and ridiculed? That sorta how I feel.

The way I see it, if you're a guy and willing to go through sex change surgery, dress as a woman, grow your hair as a woman, live your life as a woman, we should try our best to treat you as a woman.

.....Even though I still don't think they are women. Not sure how to reconcile that.

I certainly think so.

Question 1. Yes. Segregate.
Question 2. Traditional definition.
Question 3. Exceptions: If you're willing to do all that stuff, we'll pretend, and no harm done.

I think an awful lot of people, indeed I would say a significant majority of people (not enough to count as "vast majority") would go along with that.

Darat's suggestions even allow someone who does less than that to gain some of the privileges they seek, and I think a majority of people would be ok with that, too.

However, some will not, so we can go a few more continuations of this thread.
 
I'm not sure I buy this line, if someone is showing unreasonable bias then the likelihood of engaging with them successfully is limited, and only going to encourage them to make more disagreeable statements.

Plus when statements have been challenged with facts and the 'reasonable' arguments rebutted we just get more vitriol and anecdote in return.

If people want to discuss the issues, as some have here, then it's possible to discuss the issues in a sensible way. If people want an argument then they will get an argument too. And when people just want to spout nonsense laden with bigotry that will be called out.

You will notice how quick some people here are to throw themselves on the grenade and claim to have been accused of bigotry as if somehow that's a trump card. It's the exact parallel of what they CLAIM others are doing. Oh look you called me a bigot, I win and will just keep making my ridiculous claims.

I disagree with some of this, but in reply one thing I'd like to say is that my post that you replied to could have been interpretted as suggesting the TM shouldn't be calling Rolfe out for some of those statements. I certainly don't think that. I think it's good to call out people's errors (when we consider them errors, and if we're wrong a conversation can ensue that hopefully will make that clear).

What I was objecting to was what seemed to me to be the idea that because Rolfe said some things that most of us disagree with, that the rest of what she is saying can be ignored.

If we can dismiss someone's arguments by pointing out that they've been wrong or biased in other ways, then we can dismiss most people. I think if we're really interested in the truth it's more useful to engage with the ideas, an in particular to give even the devil his due when he makes valid true statements.

(By the way, I don't post as much as many people and get a little behind in these fast moving threads, but there were one or two posts you made in response to me that I didn't reply to but should have. You made some reasonable points that, while I didn't agree with everything you said, I found some of it valid and was having a hard time figuring out how to articulate exactly where that line of disagreement was. I think my view has actually shifted slightly based on that, even though it might seem like I was ignoring your response.)
 
And now I have to explain again about autogynaephilia and the psychology underpinning the majority of male-to-female trans people. They are masculine. They are heterosexual. They have a sexual fetish that involves regarding themselves as women. Becoming what you love. Being their own idealised woman. Their behaviour is however masculine. It's demanding and assertive. Indeed, it's bullying. They demand everything from women, and will allow women to have no sex-segregated space or activity at all because that's "discrimination".

Where are you getting your information from, Rolfe, regarding the bolded and highlighted?

Is this a scientific fact which you can demonstrate with a link to research and the relevant quote(s)?
 
Last edited:
Problem I have is I actually get Rolfe's argument, re losing things.

Tend to agree with it.

Then it all turns to **** with the anti men and trans women are all loaded guns just wanting to go off speile, she adds on after (I am assuming she is female).
 
It's not irrational. It's observation of human behavior.

It's not even a controversial statement.

This touches on the major hurdle that has to be crossed in this issue.

There are a number of behaviors "accepted as true" so readily that it's hard to get society to gather inertia in changing those behaviors.

Example: Nudity is sexually provocative

No, it's just nudity. The problem is that since it is accepted as true, nudity is frowned upon outside of sexual contexts and efforts are taken to shield others from situations where nudity occurs. Which means one typically observes nudity almost entirely in sexual contexts. This makes it difficult to observe nudity in any context without sexual thoughts forming by simple association. Ergo, most people* accept as true that nudity "does that."

Which leads me to my next point, blaming something external for an internal impulse rather than blaming lack of impulse control/self-discipline. Once I really grasped how this works, I never heard a love ballad the same way again. Take the phrase "she really turns me on" and pick it apart. This goes all the way back to the bewitching/beguiling/feminine wiles trope. Thinking back on my own initial sex ed (2 days of videos and a little Q&A at the very end of elementary school), there was a lot of "don't lose control" type of talk and women I've talked with about their version was along the lines of "be careful not to make them lose control."

So where I'm going with all of this is that until we find a way to break these kinds of social maladies and really come to grips with sexuality and reigning in exploitative and abusive behaviors, there's an eventual impasse on all of the other stuff about orientations and genders.

But the self-reinforcement (and even amplification because of the very pathologies it creates) of, for lack of a better term, puritanical attitudes about sex has proven hard to break. I admit the consideration of when it is appropriate to stop an alarmingly high amount of harmful behavior by running a gauntlet of a dangerous transition period is probably nigh-impossible to try and wrap your head around on this one. Probably another reason the can seems to have been kicked down the road this far already.

*some cultures differ, obviously
 
Last edited:
Does anyone here ever get laid? :rolleyes:

Are we the only mammal on the planet that generally asks permission before jumping on a female? Then stop complaining! We've come so far!

"Oh no nooo! We're going to change men!" That seems to be the fantasy.

How about we deal with reality a little? Men have dicks and are slaves to them to varying degrees at different times. We act like men sometimes. And I'm not talking about rape, I'm talking about the Gillette commercial where it's bad to take a second glance at a lady.

"Not cool bro", was the line I believe. You know what? **** you, bro. Nobody agrees with you or acts like that. You tried the "Metro Man" thing already - give it up, nobody is buying it. We're still men!

I honestly feel that some people don't think humans are actually human anymore. We are supposed to rise up to some mythical mode of behavior that no mortal has ever achieved. No bad thoughts, no whistling at girls, no inappropriate Halloween costumes from 30 years ago.

"My boob was brushed up against in high school. I'm a surVIvor" No you're not, you're a ******* whiner. I don't usually asterisk here but **** this **** already.

Anyways, no, Trans women are still not women, no matter how you...slice it.
 
Does anyone here ever get laid? :rolleyes:



Are we the only mammal on the planet that generally asks permission before jumping on a female? Then stop complaining! We've come so far!



"Oh no nooo! We're going to change men!" That seems to be the fantasy.



How about we deal with reality a little? Men have dicks and are slaves to them to varying degrees at different times. We act like men sometimes. And I'm not talking about rape, I'm talking about the Gillette commercial where it's bad to take a second glance at a lady.



"Not cool bro", was the line I believe. You know what? **** you, bro. Nobody agrees with you or acts like that. You tried the "Metro Man" thing already - give it up, nobody is buying it. We're still men!



I honestly feel that some people don't think humans are actually human anymore. We are supposed to rise up to some mythical mode of behavior that no mortal has ever achieved. No bad thoughts, no whistling at girls, no inappropriate Halloween costumes from 30 years ago.



"My boob was brushed up against in high school. I'm a surVIvor" No you're not, you're a ******* whiner. I don't usually asterisk here but **** this **** already.



Anyways, no, Trans women are still not women, no matter how you...slice it.

Your apparent yearning for the good old days is misplaced as you seem unaware that the social proscriptions on how we have to behave today are immensely less than the good old days.

Society is always changing, as is culture but in countries like those in the EU and the USA it has been towards more freedom for more people to live as they want without being proscribed, censored or discriminated against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom