• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
Like I said, **** those dumb chicks who think they deserve rights. Don't they know they don't count as much as males do? Who the **** cares if their rights get taken away, they don't deserve them anyway, they're just worthless ******* females...
Click to expand...

Quite right - we gave you the damned vote, not STFU!

I wonder if some guys perversely support extreme trans rights just because it claws back some of the rights women fought for? Going by people who vote for someone they detest just to piss off people they detest more, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
These trans bathroom panic-mongers spend a lot of time worrying about trans invaders in the ladies room, but trans-men rarely get a mention.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

This series of threads has discussed it many times, and each time I've noted that trans men probably have the most to fear when using the bathroom of their chosen gender.

Their safety gets ignored by the extreme position of trans women demanding the right to use women's spaces, instead of the sensible option of non-binary rest/changing rooms.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That would be because transmen aren't male. And the overwhelming majority of sexual offenders are male.
Click to expand...

Hey, it's only 98.2% or so. No big deal.

What amuses me most is the utter refusal of the extreme trans women to accept any kind of middle ground.

You'd think that having been on the margin for centuries, the middle would look pretty attractive, but nope, gotta catch 'em all*.


*Would "Pokemon" be a good new descriptive word for trans women who don't have medical intervention? Seems to work on a couple of levels.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yes, the most sacred right of all, the right to not be around trans male people.
Click to expand...
You *do* realize that the set of people from whom they are hoping to be free in selected spaces (e.g. changing rooms) is several times larger than indicated above; like 100-200x larger. Given that knowledge, it seems highly disingenuous to narrow your focus this tightly, considering the actual size of the set of people they hope to exclude and (come to think of it) considering that you are also a member of that group.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
I realize that not everyone agrees on the terms for sex (male/female) and gender (man/woman) but we can either argue about terminology or agrue about issues. Issues are more interesting.
Click to expand...

Amen! [emoji119]
 
Five pages in one day? And at part 4 already? I currently have a strong stake in this issue but can't force myself to slog through the detritus that I'm sure is clogging these threads.

My great-nephew (20 yo) has recently decided to go this route. He's been my protege of sorts since he was about 8 years old. Apparently he's been thinking along the lines of transitioning for a couple years, and I had no clue whatsoever. I had only found out through my gossipy sister about a month ago, and last night was the first time I'd seen him in months, at a family outing for his brother's birthday. His hair was down to his shoulders (quite pretty, actually) and he was wearing tomboy-ish clothes. While at the table his brother referred to him as "her" and "she" a couple times. Obviously his family is supportive. I only had a little small talk with "her" as I wasn't there very long. I know my opinion/feeling is very important to him/her, and I'm concerned that my lack of engagement may be taken badly. (I left quickly because of Covid-19 concerns, not because of this issue.)

I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, and it will take some time to deal with. S/he may be staying with me for some time in a few weeks, and I'm sure I can sort myself out then.

Unfortunately, I can't be following this thread because I know the type of stuff (arguments) I'll be reading, and it will not help at all.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I've been trying to talk about issues throughout the whole thread(s). I've been subjected to invective and insult repeatedly. Eventually, I run out of patience.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome of these debates (ETA: aside from the vicarious joys of women's rugby) it has been my observation that the "TRA" side is quicker to resort to invective, name-calling, and shaming in order to quell their ideological opponents. Might just be this thread, though.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Why should we listen to you when you repeatedly dismiss the concerns and challenges faced by females as being not real or as exaggerated?
Click to expand...


Speaking personally: I think that those challenges and concerns feature some that are real and valid, others that are invalid, and others that are potentially feasible but cannot yet be measured. I also believe that yes, female cis women (and yes, male cis men also) will have to make some concessions and give up a small section of their rights, in order to accommodate the greater good. But I say that with the belief that females in particular will need to be assured of maximum reasonable efforts being made to safeguard their physical safety*.

And to go back to my good ol' analogy (though everyone PLEASE note - again - that I am not drawing a direct-mapping comparison between race civil rights and transgender civil rights, but instead I'm ilustrating a principle only...), I can imagine a white man speaking in Alabama in around 1955:

I have real concerns and challenges for myself, my wife and my kids, when it comes to this "equal rights for black people" stuff. Firstly, I don't want to have to sit next to a black man or woman on the bus: they will probably smell bad, and they might well try to steal my wallet or physically assault me. Secondly, I don't want black people to be allowed to attend the sorts of schools and universities that are currently open to white people only: they might be allowed to get the kind of education which will end up with them competing for my job or my kids' future jobs. Thirdly, I don't want black people being given proper voting rights: I think all white people can forsee exactly the horrific consequence of that!

I think you'll all agree that these concerns of mine are totally valid: I might have to sit next to a thieving black person on the bus; a black person might end up doing me or my kids out of a job; and state & federal government might end up becoming chaotically bad and causing me and my family real harm. I rest my case.
Click to expand...


* For example, to use the well-worn chestnut of the gym changing rooms example, I would expect local and national laws to enforce things like the installation of multiple panic buttons in the women's changing rooms, and maybe even also the installation of CCTV in women-only spaces, to be viewable by accredited female members of staff.
 
Oh and the white guy in 1950s Alabama forgot to add:

My wife is only 5'1" tall, and she's of very slender build. She has to take the bus into work and back each day. Yet they're talking of allowing a situation where, for example, a 6ft powerfully-built young black man would be allowed (yes, allowed!) to sit right alongside her on a small two-person bench seat on the bus.

I hardly need tell anyone of the obvious danger this would place my wife in. We all know that young black men are sexually deviant and that most of them also beat their own women. I therefore have serious - and entirely valid - concerns that my wife now risks getting either sexually or physically assaulted while travelling on the bus. Heck, the driver might not even notice, and if most of the others on the bus are also black, they'll probably do whatever they can to prevent any intervention. In fact, they might well be cheering on the man who's assaulting my wife - we all know that they're not far short of being savages.
Click to expand...
 
Oh gosh, now the white guy in 1950s Alabama is complaining:

I keep telling "black rights" supporters about my real and valid concerns over my wife's safety: where before only white people were allowed to sit next to her on the bus, now it seems that any muscle-bound black deviant will be allowed to place his body right up against hers. And they have the audacity to reply that yes, it's possible that my wife might occasionally be more at risk of physical or sexual assault on the bus, but that this (apparently!!) is a price worth paying for granting black people equal rights. I can't quite believe that these "black rights" people are seemingly prepared to force white women into accepting increased risk like this.
Click to expand...
 
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12
here's what I'm trying to illustrate:

In the Southern states of the US in the 1950s and 1960s, it's an unarguable truth that the white population had to accept certain negative consequences (to white people) as an outcome of civil rights legislation. For example, as I said above, it's unarguable that single white women on municipal buses had to place themselves at increased personal risk - whether real or perceived - as a direct consequence of black people gaining the right to sit right alongside white people on a double bus seat. And there are the other sorts of things that I mentioned in my first post.

So what I was saying was this: yes, sometimes it's an inevitable consequence of civil rights laws/rules that one group of people are going to find themselves in a worse situation (and perhaps with a diminuation of their own rights) as a consequence of those laws/rules. And while this is obviously undesirable, it's deemed by a mature, liberal, educated society to be a price worth paying in order to promote a greater good.


I thought the analogy was almost laughably easy to understand for what it was. I shouldn't keep overestimating, I suppose. My bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LondonJohn said:
I thought the analogy was almost laughably easy to understand for what it was.
Click to expand...

It is, as long as one buys into your central theme that oppressing an entire race is equivalent to stopping a tiny minority of women dictating to the rest of them how to act.

I don't, so I think your analogy is laughably stupid.
 
LondonJohn said:
...before only white people were allowed to sit next to her on the bus, now it seems that any muscle-bound black deviant will be allowed to place his body right up against hers.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that black passengers on mass transit are indeed more dangerous than white ones? If so, then your analogy might just work, since we can (without bigotry) say that males are incontrovertibly more dangerous than females, given violent crime stats from, well, anywhere on Earth at any point in human history.
 
Last edited:
Refresh my memory at what point in the Civil Rights movement did we go "Wait I've got, black people have to sit at the back of the bus, white people have to sit at the front of the bus, but everyone just gets to define what race they are, that's the same thing as equality right?"
 
When I first heard of TERFs I looked at some articles linked (here?) and saw an aspect of the situation that I haven't seen brought up here (though it might have been). Some lesbians were claiming they were being labeled transphobic because they were not willing to have sex with someone with balls and a penis. It must have been a somewhat theoretical argument as no one has suggested they literally owe sex to any given individual - or have they? Were people who said these things attacked as bigots?

Maybe that was just a minority shooting off their mouths, but I would think that this ultimate test might be a bridge too far.

It stood out, I think, because this wasn't an article about intersex people or shared restrooms or dressing rooms. It went right to who you could properly decline to have sex with. Like someone was pushing this as a talking point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom