Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boudicca90 said:
No, that's definitely way too extreme no matter who it's aimed at. But that is just one cherry-picked example from the others also shown.

So yes, it's absolutely disgusting. I don't know what else you want me to say.
Click to expand...

You're the one who claimed to see no problem with these statements, and it wasn't all that cherry-picked, it was chosen from the top few posts. And just remaining within the top few posts, what about ******* someone with the business end of a barbed-wire wrapped baseball bat (presumably nonconsensual so also rape)? Or what about slitting someone's throat and severing their spinal cord? Do you think these are normal responses - just like anti-racist activism - for someone's great crime of not considering your pet proposition to be true?
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Of course it does. And in the past (certainly in this country) men who were transitioning with the aid of full psychological and psychiatric support were given to understand that they did not enter any women's single-sex space until their genital surgery was complete. They were given letters to show if necessary, if there was any unpleasantness, that they had transitioned, but these letters could be revoked if their behaviour was deemed to warrant it. They were counselled to be aware of women's reactions to their presence and to leave as soon as they could if they caught a hint that their presence was making a woman uncomfortable.

This was the deal under which women were prepared to accept transwomen in their spaces. Only after completion of genital surgery, and on the understanding that behaviour which upset women was not acceptable.

You want the transwomen's desires to be given priority over the comfort of those whose spaces they are demanding access to. You're demanding that women put up with be-penised men in their spaces, because "surgery takes ages". So what? A more perfect example of the camel's nose problem would be hard to devise. Transwomen are not the centre of the universe and should not expect everyone else to accommodate their convenience. If conceding that post-surgical transwomen may be accommodated only gets us the petulant demand to let penises in because "surgical transtition takes YEARS", then they can all stay out as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

I took my kids to a boutique eatery to celebrate exam results and the fact that my eldest was an adult. The bathroom was unisex.

Guess how many people cared.

Zero.

But for some reason, you care. Explain why? Bet you can't.
 
abaddon said:
I took my kids to a boutique eatery to celebrate exam results and the fact that my eldest was an adult. The bathroom was unisex.

Guess how many people cared.

Zero.

But for some reason, you care. Explain why? Bet you can't.
Click to expand...

Was the bathroom single occupancy?
 
abaddon said:
I took my kids to a boutique eatery to celebrate exam results and the fact that my eldest was an adult. The bathroom was unisex.

Guess how many people cared.

Zero.

But for some reason, you care. Explain why? Bet you can't.
Click to expand...

There are unisex bathrooms everywhere, even in backward Australia. Did you not notice that the main debate when it comes to women's private places has focused on locker rooms, where "women" with penises can strut their stuff?
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, to put it tritely:

"I support transgender rights and I've got nothing against trans women, but I don't want to share facilities such as public changing rooms with any of them".


("Please do so now" LOL)
Click to expand...

Emily's Cat said:
Your trite summation of my position is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Emily's Cat has said over and over again words to the effect of "not on self-ID alone".
 
The Common Potato said:
Emily's Cat has said over and over again words to the effect of "not on self-ID alone".
Click to expand...

She has also said things like 'penises shouldn't be in women's spaces'. Plus she refuses to accept what Self-ID even means and argues that doctor's would be too scare of being branded criminals to ever refuse the certification anyway.

So let's call a spade a spade with respect to what she actually argues for.
 
Meadmaker said:
Not in this sub-topic anyway. I'm pretty sure it'll come up again soon. That's kind of a pity. The topic of transgenders' place in society and the related legal questions really has absolutely nothing to do with race, but I'm pretty sure this won't be the last time it comes up.

ETA: Ninja's by Boudicca90, although not in the usual manner of ninja-ing.
Click to expand...

It's quite difficult to have a discussion on civil rights without referring to past examples of groups seeking to deny those rights to others. I know you don't like to see the equivalencies but when the arguments used are so strikingly similar it's hard not to point it out. Even more so when in many cases it's the same damn groups trying to do the oppressing - the white conservative Christian right.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
She has also said things like 'penises shouldn't be in women's spaces'. Plus she refuses to accept what Self-ID even means and argues that doctor's would be too scare of being branded criminals to ever refuse the certification anyway.

So let's call a spade a spade with respect to what she actually argues for.
Click to expand...

No, she knows exactly what it means. You are deliberately muddying the water with your continued use of the UK legal definition of the term, given away by your capitalising of the term. As I and others have pointed out, UK laws don’t apply to most of the world and I don’t give a **** what they say.
 
cullennz said:
I have not looked into it, bu taking a wild stab in the dark, given the name, I am thinking there might be a slight bit of bias one way.
Click to expand...

They may well be biased in their opinion but they are quoting an easily verifiable fact. One that I took the 30 seconds to google and verify to be true.
Noticeable that at that point it then became the original source that could not be trusted - the allegation apparently being that Lord Keen lied to the House of Lords, presumably because this 66 year old Conservative Lord and one of the UK's most senior lawyers has an agenda to want female prison staff to be raped?

I'm supposed to believe that before I believe that in an interview with GQ a Tory either lied, mis-spoke or misremembered something that happened a few years previously.

On the topic itself, sexual assault in prisons is a hugely complicated topic and a serious issue in both male and female prisons. It is carried out by males and females, staff and inmates some of it under the guise of consensual relationships, some of it for sexual purposes and some of it, which I hadn't even thought about before, for the purposes of 'item retrieval' (phones, drugs, etc). A lot of it isn't reported, and other reports are completely invented.

The 'transgender on ciswoman' element of this is incredibly small relative to both other elements and also to the amount of noise it generates (from people who have an aim of limiting advances on transgender rights). Why do you think that would be?
 
abaddon said:
I took my kids to a boutique eatery to celebrate exam results and the fact that my eldest was an adult. The bathroom was unisex.

Guess how many people cared.

Zero.

But for some reason, you care. Explain why? Bet you can't.
Click to expand...

I bet plenty care but preference falsification is probably in play https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification and it also matters what kind of unisex bathroom — a single stall with a lock is probably more acceptable than a urinal/stall bathroom with no male/female designation to most people.

Can’t speak for Rolfe, but I care about the bathroom issue because a. I don’t want to be potentially assaulted by some deviant man pretending to be trans, or see others assaulted, and b. I don’t want to see trans normalized in any way as some kind of legitimate identity that has to be accommodated like that.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It's quite difficult to have a discussion on civil rights without referring to past examples of groups seeking to deny those rights to others. I know you don't like to see the equivalencies but when the arguments used are so strikingly similar it's hard not to point it out. Even more so when in many cases it's the same damn groups trying to do the oppressing - the white conservative Christian right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is isn’t convincing. Deluded, privileged people wielding a totalitarian ideology who want to control how you speak and think aren’t the same as black people fighting for their human rights. I mean, the entire notion of trans rights, specifically trans women, is predicated on the idea that males don’t have the rights of males. This is all so dumb.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
She has also said things like 'penises shouldn't be in women's spaces'. Plus she refuses to accept what Self-ID even means and argues that doctor's would be too scare of being branded criminals to ever refuse the certification anyway.

So let's call a spade a spade with respect to what she actually argues for.
Click to expand...

She holds the view (I think) that trans-women who are taking steps - HRT, with a view to having surgery - ought to be permitted to use women's facilities. So, it's back to "not on self-ID alone".

It is you that has been restricting this to solely the law recently. There have also been had discussions in these four sub-threads about what might happen if the more vigorous trans-activists get their way. (I've spent the last few days reading all of 'em. :faint: )
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Plus she refuses to accept what Self-ID even means and argues that doctor's would be too scare of being branded criminals to ever refuse the certification anyway.
Click to expand...

Is she wrong? What are the accepted grounds on which a doctor can refuse such a certification? I have asked that question before, nobody seems to know.
 
abaddon said:
Tell me that again when you have had to deal with a 14 year old who has been chucked out of house and home because they are trans.

Tell me that again when you have had to institute a direct intervention for a trans muslim stick in a refugee camp surrounded by devout muslims. Fearing death.

Have you no idea how awful that is for them?

Why do people that have not put boots on the frontline not see the evil they are doing?
Click to expand...

Yeah, uh huh, you’re not helping them by affirming their delusions. This whole trend is going to blow up in TRAs faces and the victims are going to be perfectly healthy males and females who’ve been enabled to destroy themselves because people like you wanted to play hero.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
They may well be biased in their opinion but they are quoting an easily verifiable fact. One that I took the 30 seconds to google and verify to be true.

Noticeable that at that point it then became the original source that could not be trusted - the allegation apparently being that Lord Keen lied to the House of Lords, presumably because this 66 year old Conservative Lord and one of the UK's most senior lawyers has an agenda to want female prison staff to be raped?



I'm supposed to believe that before I believe that in an interview with GQ a Tory either lied, mis-spoke or misremembered something that happened a few years previously.



On the topic itself, sexual assault in prisons is a hugely complicated topic and a serious issue in both male and female prisons. It is carried out by males and females, staff and inmates some of it under the guise of consensual relationships, some of it for sexual purposes and some of it, which I hadn't even thought about before, for the purposes of 'item retrieval' (phones, drugs, etc). A lot of it isn't reported, and other reports are completely invented.



The 'transgender on ciswoman' element of this is incredibly small relative to both other elements and also to the amount of noise it generates (from people who have an aim of limiting advances on transgender rights). Why do you think that would be?
Click to expand...
I couldn't give a rat's **** who this person Lord Keen is. Like a huge amount of people on here I don't live in the UK, so it is basically irrelevant
 
Ziggurat said:
Is she wrong? What are the accepted grounds on which a doctor can refuse such a certification? I have asked that question before, nobody seems to know.
Click to expand...

If that's your opinion then it renders Self-ID meaningless anyway. Its incoherent to argue that changes in Self-ID laws must be opposed to protect women and also argue that the protection offered by not having Self-ID is worthless.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If that's your opinion then it renders Self-ID meaningless anyway. Its incoherent to argue that changes in Self-ID laws must be opposed to protect women and also argue that the protection offered by not having Self-ID is worthless.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, has this forum morphed into a UK only one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom