• 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: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
You didn't know that almost all trans murders are of sex workers? Most of them in Brazil? And that almost all the rest were victims of ordinary murders with no suggestion that their being trans had anything to do with it?
Click to expand...

No, didn't know that. I just now went to a web site listing 44 transgender murders in the USA in 2020, and there was no mention of sex work.
 
Collin237 said:
https://logcabin.org/
Click to expand...
[emoji86]
d396ed6fb2b96519f962593caa94c7a2.jpg
 
Meadmaker said:
No, didn't know that. I just now went to a web site listing 44 transgender murders in the USA in 2020, and there was no mention of sex work.
Click to expand...

They do mention it in aggregate terms as an issue but when most media speak of the specific 'transphobic' murders, they avoid mentioning sex work.
See my post above yours.
 
theprestige said:
Ironically, Log Cabin is a conservative gay rights group.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being ironic. The Intersectionalists -- who are mostly straight white men -- have captured the trans lobby. Log Cabin, because it's conservative, is a safe place for trans people to escape.

theprestige said:
But really, what is TERF but a repudiation of intersectionalism?
Click to expand...

TERF relpaces the many intersecting axes with the one axis of man-woman. That's not repudiating. That would be like saying that monotheism repudiates religion.
 
Rose of Dawn posted a video about kids transitioning. Mostly, it's about Tavistock and she goes into a little detail about what the case was and was not about. It's about 18 minutes long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vR016DoJfA

Most of you probably aren't familiar with her. She is a British trans-woman with a YouTube channel. She also, I think, considers herself a conservative. I'm not sure how high profile she is, though I know she's made some media appearances. I think she's a bit controversial because she has a series of posts calling out what she considers the absurd end of the trans-rights movement.

I guess the tl/dw for this would be:
  1. The Tavistock case was about how well infomed children are about transitioning, hormones, etc. when they go on puberty blockers and subsequent steps.
  2. The Tavistock case does not say anything about the effectiveness of the treatment.
  3. While it has been characterised as an attack on trans-rights, it is not. (see point 1 above)
  4. Clinicians/psychologists etc. are being pressured not to question young patients and explore the nature of their condition to make a diagnosis as opposed to essentially accepting a child's self-diagnosis.
  5. She touches on conversion therapy. Mentions torture camps (bad), but also notes that groups consider asking questions like "Are you sure?" or the possibility they might grow out of it to also be conversion therapy.
  6. Rose herself thinks that it would have been easier for herself if she had transitioned earlier...but....
  7. She still thinks that the minimum age for transitioning should be 16.
  8. She thinks that anyone who thinks kids under 16 (in general) can fully understand what they are getting into is lying. Says there are no studies that show kids are capable of understanding enough to consent at that age.

Rose actually thinks the treatment itself is helpful when appropriately applied. She cites a couple other trans- youtubers who transitioned young and had a great outcome. I think her concern is the possibility and consequences of misdiagnosis. Or more bluntly, that the diagnosis step seems to be lax or, at some clinics, effectively skipped due to political pressure from some activist groups.

Anyway, it's an interesting listen. It's not a Contrapoints melodrama. She gets to the point.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I suppose, but bear in mind that I'm trying to guess which pronouns and social conventions to use (masc/fem) rather than chromosomal sex.
Click to expand...

No, you're trying to determine someone's sex. What you're doing here is called moving the goalposts.
 
Last edited:
Sherkeu said:
Here's the list. The only 'man' on the list is Jordan Cofer, a victim of the Dayton shooter, his/her brother.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50903718442_7f481675dc_z.jpg[/qimg]2019-transgender-murder-victims by https://www.flickr.com/photos/155114068@N02/

You will not find much about "sex work" in the top media articles about the deaths though, likely out of respect for the victims. Must drill down another level to get at those facts.
Click to expand...

Being a sex worker can be pretty risky for anyone, including females, males, whether transgender or not. Lots of serial killers target prostitutes, including famously Jack the Ripper.

Transgender sex workers are also at risk from homophobes.
 
Puppycow said:
Being a sex worker can be pretty risky for anyone, including females, males, whether transgender or not. Lots of serial killers target prostitutes, including famously Jack the Ripper.

Transgender sex workers are also at risk from homophobes.
Click to expand...

Sex work is often seen as the profession of last resort for desperate people, especially in places where sex work is criminalized.

Trans people disproportionately face economic vulnerability are are often on the most extreme edges of poverty and homelessness, so it should come as no surprise that many trans people resort to survival sex work, which can be extremely dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Sherkeu said:
They do mention it in aggregate terms as an issue but when most media speak of the specific 'transphobic' murders, they avoid mentioning sex work.
See my post above yours.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear is it your view that if they are sex workers their murders don't count or matter less or somehow doesn't make them transphobic?

I'm not sure what point you are making.
 
Rolfe said:
We've seen it time and time again in this thread. "Oh but if you were discriminating against homosexual people that would be wrong. Oh but if you were discriminating against black people that would be wrong."

But we're not.
Click to expand...

So it's OK to discriminate against trans people because they aren't black or gay. Interesting logic.
 
Sherkeu said:
It is odd isn't it that one of the main arguments for the change is that trans women are "in danger of physical assault" if they go into male spaces whereas female spaces are much safer for them.

But on the other hand, males get mad if it is said that males in female spaces pose a larger risk- because that is unfair, as most of them pose no risk at all. Which is true and all of us females know that already.

The vast majority of humans are not a risk, but some are higher, and in that group nearly all of them are male.

Either females and males have differing safety profiles or the need for trans women to avoid male assault by joining the female spaces is a false belief and males are no real threat to them.

Pick one!!
Click to expand...

False dichotomy.
 
Sherkeu said:
It is odd isn't it that one of the main arguments for the change is that trans women are "in danger of physical assault" if they go into male spaces whereas female spaces are much safer for them.

But on the other hand, males get mad if it is said that males in female spaces pose a larger risk- because that is unfair, as most of them pose no risk at all. Which is true and all of us females know that already.

The vast majority of humans are not a risk, but some are higher, and in that group nearly all of them are male.

Either females and males have differing safety profiles or the need for trans women to avoid male assault by joining the female spaces is a false belief and males are no real threat to them.

Pick one!!
Click to expand...

as far as I can tell, most of the arguments for trans inclusion into female spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms has more to do with human dignity and psychological impact rather than any particular safety concern.

the anti-trans bathroom defenders are the ones raising the specter of danger of physical violence. The claim that allowing trans people into bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would result in violence against women and children there has been debunked.

Excluding trans women is usually seen as a form of gender-identity harassment. Trans women aren't in particular danger if they are forced to use the men's washroom, but it is certainly outs their trans status in a very embarrassing way. It is needlessly cruel and serves no legitimate purpose.

Physical safety is more of a concern when it comes to things like domestic abuse shelters or prisons, but that's a significantly different context than bathrooms.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
No, you're trying to determine someone's sex. What you're doing here is called moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
Please take the time to scroll back before making baseless accusations like this. It should've been obvious from #2563 onward that while you were talking about determining sex (when assigning pronouns) I was arguing against your claim that pronouns are really about sex rather than gender.

To be clear, my goalposts are to show that assigning pronouns is about gender. Your goalposts are to show that "using the pronoun 'he' ... is nothing more than describing [someone] as male." It is not a legitimate argumentative tactic to assign your goalposts to someone else. Bit of an own goal, IMO.
 
d4m10n said:
Please take the time to scroll back before making baseless accusations like this. It should've been obvious from #2563 onward that while you were talking about determining sex (when assigning pronouns) I was arguing against your claim that pronouns are really about sex rather than gender.

To be clear, my goalposts are to show that assigning pronouns is about gender. Your goalposts are to show that "using the pronoun 'he' ... is nothing more than describing [someone] as male." It is not a legitimate argumentative tactic to assign your goalposts to someone else. Bit of an own goal, IMO.
Click to expand...

It's hardly my claim, it's what the mainstream definitions (dictionary, wikipedia, and google) for the pronouns "he" and "she" are, ie as referring to male/female humans or other animals.

Of course, your actual goalposts are showing your definition of man/woman to be proper. You have not done so, nor have you addressed any of the objections which have been raised against it. Whenever a rebuttal is made you basically just go off on a tangent. For example scroll back a bit more and see how we even got here: You propose a definition of "woman" as "anyone generally expected to perform femininity." I point out that, by this definition, we would have to know whether transwomen are "generally expected" to perform masculinity or femininity before we can use this definition to determine the truth-value of the claim that transwomen are women. Did you address this rebuttal?

No, you started going on about pronouns as an example of "expecting someone to perform masculinity/femininity." This doesn't address the rebuttal because you weren't asked for an example of "expecting someone to perform masculinity/femininity" but to show that transwomen are generally expected to perform femininity. Furthermore, it's wrong on account of pronouns referring to sex and not gender (as I pointed out), on account of that merely using a particular pronoun for someone does not entail putting any expectations on them performing masculinity/femininity (as I also pointed out), and on account of that even if we accept for the sake of argument that pronouns refer to gender then this mere observation does not mean transwomen are "generally expected" to perform femininity.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
as far as I can tell, most of the arguments for trans inclusion into female spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms has more to do with human dignity and psychological impact rather than any particular safety concern.

the anti-trans bathroom defenders are the ones raising the specter of danger of physical violence. The claim that allowing trans people into bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would result in violence against women and children there has been debunked.
Click to expand...
It has?

I agree with your first paragraph. That is the more common discussion, but I think there are also safety concerns, and I'm not aware of any debunking that has happened.

I think the numbers involved are very small and it's rather difficult to get any statistics.

Excluding trans women is usually seen as a form of gender-identity harassment. Trans women aren't in particular danger if they are forced to use the men's washroom, but it is certainly outs their trans status in a very embarrassing way. It is needlessly cruel and serves no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...

I think another way that transwomen might be outed is if they reveal their penises in a locker room.

Physical safety is more of a concern when it comes to things like domestic abuse shelters or prisons, but that's a significantly different context than bathrooms.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is true, and it's one reason why an awful lot of people are willing to compromise on public toilet use. Not everyone is, but an awful lot of people are.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom