Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

That is trying to sneak in a new meaning for the word "discomfort" to make a false equivalence.

Discomfort means in the context SuburbanTurkey used it:

make (someone) feel uneasy, anxious, or embarrassed.
"he appeared to be discomforted by the questioning"​

No, Darat. It's SuburbanTurkey who is equivocating here. He's the one who has recast safety, privacy, and rights to be "discomfort". He's the one who has consistently denigrated the safety risks that females are concerned about and framed them as bigotry.

So if you want to point fingers at someone playing disingenuous linguistic games, you're currently pointing the wrong direction.

 

[Olmstead]

You missed out the word 'I' there between know and completely. I was going to add it for you but that would probably be presumptuous.

Do you have anything useful to say about why segregating black people from white people is the same as segregating men from women?

If you just want to complain about someone bringing up the same argument over and over again, go bother the people that keep bringing up ridiculous analogies instead of engaging in an actual discussion.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do you have anything useful to say about why segregating black people from white people is the same as segregating men from women?

Yes, I do. It's strange that people can't get their head around what is a very simple analogy. I'm trying not to assume they are thick so I think what they are doing is pretending not to see what's right under their nose because it suits their argument. I suppose it's possible that they are so emotional on the topic that they actually are blinded to what is right under their nose but I find that hard to believe.

Some people just have problems understanding analogies I guess.

 

[Meadmaker]

Some people just have problems understanding analogies I guess.

Indeed.

But which people?

 

[Olmstead]

Yes, I do. It's strange that people can't get their head around what is a very simple analogy. I'm trying not to assume they are thick so I think what they are doing is pretending not to see what's right under their nose because it suits their argument. I suppose it's possible that they are so emotional on the topic that they actually are blinded to what is right under their nose but I find that hard to believe.

Some people just have problems understanding analogies I guess.

If your analogy breaks down the moment someone starts examining it with a critical eye, it's a bad analogy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it your position that the statistics citing the prevalence of sexual violence toward females are just made up bigotry?

Do you believe that all of the females who spoke out as part of the #MeToo thing were just making things up? Or were they just hysterically overreacting?

Yeah.....when you have reliable data on the per-capita adjusted prevalence of sex attacks against (cis) women by males who choose to identify as women*..... come back to us and we can discuss this alleged threat to women from trans women (because, remember, the alleged threat from trans women is the only thing that's relevant here, not the threat from all males)


* Because if/when you ever do, I can all but guarantee that there will be virtually no prevalence (even on a per-capita basis) of males identifying as women who conduct sex attacks upon women; on the other hand, virtually all sex attacks upon women (even on a per-capita basis) will have been carried out by males who identify as men.

 

[Olmstead]

Yeah.....when you have reliable data on the per-capita adjusted prevalence of sex attacks against (cis) women by males who choose to identify as women*..... come back to us and we can discuss this alleged threat to women from trans women (because, remember, the alleged threat from trans women is the only thing that's relevant here, not the threat from all males)


* Because if/when you ever do, I can all but guarantee that there will be virtually no prevalence (even on a per-capita basis) of males identifying as women who conduct sex attacks upon women; on the other hand, virtually all sex attacks upon women (even on a per-capita basis) will have been carried out by males who identify as men.

You're absolutely right, the threat from transwomen is the only thing that is relevant. Would you actually change your mind about segregation if data showed you were wrong though?

 

[LondonJohn]

You're absolutely right, the threat from transwomen is the only thing that is relevant. Would you actually change your mind about segregation if data showed you were wrong though?

What data?

 

[LondonJohn]

And I'd also be interested in the data on sex attacks by females against women in women-only segregated spaces, if you're in the mood to provide data.....

 

[TomB]

Do you have anything useful to say about why segregating black people from white people is the same as segregating men from women?

If he did, it would not support allowing trans-women into sex-segregated spaces. It would support ending segregation of men from women.

What this whole argument comes down to is that most seem to agree that sex and gender segregation are both valid in various circumstances, but we can't agree which type of segregation is appropriate in each instance.

 

[Olmstead]

What data?

Hypothetically, if data showed that there is a significant number of sexual attacks perpetrated by transwomen against cis-women, would you care?

Your post implied that you would care.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Is it your position that the statistics citing the prevalence of sexual violence toward females are just made up bigotry?

Do you believe that all of the females who spoke out as part of the #MeToo thing were just making things up? Or were they just hysterically overreacting?

Interesting anecdote, I was at a "back the blue" counterprotest this weekend in Mansfield, MA that included our local neo-fascist group, NSC-131. (The fash were pro-cop. A shock, I know!)

When a local journalist type gave them an opportunity to expound upon their views, statistics about black crime against whites was their underlying point for why coexistence of the races could no longer be tolerated. In fact, parroting statistics about black crime is so common among the racists, it's cliche to the point of being a 4chan-style copypasta.

Not sure why this is coming to mind, I'm sure it's just an irrelevant analogy.

Adopting discriminatory policies against trans people because you feel they belong to some larger inherently criminal class of people sounds like extremely regressive thinking. I suppose it accomplishes your goal, but it strikes me as morally bankrupt.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hypothetically, if data showed that there is a significant number of sexual attacks perpetrated by transwomen against cis-women, would you care?

Of course I would. That's why I suggested that we should talk only once those data have been obtained. If the data show that there is a significant threat level to cis women of sex attacks from trans women, then I'd absolutely be prepared to accept that this should be seriously taken into account.

"Would I care"? My very post indicated that I would care, otherwise I wouldn't have written it, would I?


(I did say that I bet very strongly that the data - if obtained/obtainable - would show that there was a tiny relative level of threat to cis women of sex attacks from trans women; but I indicated very clearly that this wasn't any form of conclusion on my part, but rather that I'd wait for the data themselves before forming any such conclusion)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you have anything useful to say about why segregating black people from white people is the same as segregating men from women?

If you just want to complain about someone bringing up the same argument over and over again, go bother the people that keep bringing up ridiculous analogies instead of engaging in an actual discussion.

As far as I can tell, his intention is to cast females as being bigots and oppressors who are keeping male-bodied people who identify as women down.

 

[Olmstead]

Of course I would. That's why I suggested that we should talk only once those data have been obtained. If the data show that there is a significant threat level to cis women of sex attacks from trans women, then I'd absolutely be prepared to accept that this should be seriously taken into account.

"Would I care"? My very post indicated that I would care, otherwise I wouldn't have written it, would I?


(I did say that I bet very strongly that the data - if obtained/obtainable - would show that there was a tiny relative level of threat to cis women of sex attacks from trans women; but I indicated very clearly that this wasn't any form of conclusion on my part, but rather that I'd wait for the data themselves before forming any such conclusion)

Okay, just making sure. I agree with you. If data shows that there is no statistically significant threat from transwomen, arguing to keep them out of female spaces is wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah.....when you have reliable data on the per-capita adjusted prevalence of sex attacks against (cis) women by males who choose to identify as women*..... come back to us and we can discuss this alleged threat to women from trans women (because, remember, the alleged threat from trans women is the only thing that's relevant here, not the threat from all males)

Just stop. This has been clarified multiple times, so please quit ignoring it and pretending that it's something else.

The argument is against self-declaration alone as sufficient to entitle a male-bodied person to be treated as if they were female.

The are relevant questions that have been asked in the context of self-declaration, and ignored:

• How does one differentiate between a self-declared transwoman who presents as male and a cismale?
• How does one differentiate between a malicious cisman in a dress and a genuine transwoman who doesn't pass very well?
• On what basis do you assume that the rates of sexual violence and aggression for male-bodied transwomen are materially different from those of male-bodied cismen?

Just because you keep ignoring these questions doesn't make them nonexistent. And just because you keep reframing this as if females are irrationally and hysterically afraid of transwomen specifically (rather than very reasonably skeptical of males in general) doesn't magically change the argument into that.

For a less polite approach, allow me to say: Quit ******* misrepresenting other people's arguments. If you keep erecting all of these goddamned strawmen, you're going to set the whole ******* forum alight.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, and as a policy/law suggestion:

Once the law changes in all right-thinking countries to allow all transgender people to use the gender-segregates spaces which match their trans gender (as will happen),

laws on things like physical and sexual assault could be amended/addended to include a more severe offence (with more severe sentencing guidelines) if a person enters a gender-segregated space which doesn't match their own gender identification, and commits a physical or sexual assault while within that space.

In other words, for example, a cis man who improperly entered a women's changing rooms and there physically/sexually assaulted a woman would be charged with a more serious offence (plus sentence, upon conviction) compared with a cis man who carried out a similar level of physical/sexual assault upon a woman in any other place.


Incidentally, we already do this sort of differential crime/sentence in things like drink-driving. It's not against the law to get drunk. But if one drives when drunk, then any crime committed (eg running over and killing a person on a pedestrian crossing) automatically becomes a greater crime (and sentence, upon conviction) than if a sober person carries out the same act.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're absolutely right, the threat from transwomen is the only thing that is relevant. Would you actually change your mind about segregation if data showed you were wrong though?

No, he wouldn't. Every time information and data is presented that doesn't fit his narrative, he dismisses it as "anecdotal" or "biased" or "fringe cases" or just pretends it doesn't exist. Like, literally not responding to the posts that have that information in them and acting as if nothing were ever posted at all...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting anecdote, I was at a "back the blue" counterprotest this weekend in Mansfield, MA that included our local neo-fascist group, NSC-131. (The fash were pro-cop. A shock, I know!)

When a local journalist type gave them an opportunity to expound upon their views, statistics about black crime against whites was their underlying point for why coexistence of the races could no longer be tolerated. In fact, parroting statistics about black crime is so common among the racists, it's cliche to the point of being a 4chan-style copypasta.

Not sure why this is coming to mind, I'm sure it's just an irrelevant analogy.

Adopting discriminatory policies against trans people because you feel they belong to some larger inherently criminal class of people sounds like extremely regressive thinking. I suppose it accomplishes your goal, but it strikes me as morally bankrupt.

So... that's a yes then? You DO believe that all the statistics are made up overreactions by hysterical females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course I would. That's why I suggested that we should talk only once those data have been obtained. If the data show that there is a significant threat level to cis women of sex attacks from trans women, then I'd absolutely be prepared to accept that this should be seriously taken into account.

"Would I care"? My very post indicated that I would care, otherwise I wouldn't have written it, would I?


(I did say that I bet very strongly that the data - if obtained/obtainable - would show that there was a tiny relative level of threat to cis women of sex attacks from trans women; but I indicated very clearly that this wasn't any form of conclusion on my part, but rather that I'd wait for the data themselves before forming any such conclusion)

Study suggests that transwomen exhibit a male pattern of criminality

Transwomen are 6 times more likely to commit a crime and 18 times more likely to commit a violent crime compared to female controls.

But transwomen commit crime, including violent crime, at a similar rate as any other males in the general population.