[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Emily's Cat]

Does that make the horrible violation of a rape any less traumatic?

No, but this is a dodge. I still contend that Agatha is correct, and that forcible penetration by an object is traumatic, but is less traumatic in general but not always than forcible penetration by a penis. Part of that generally but not always reduced trauma is because there is not a risk of pregnancy or disease from an object. That object isn't squirting semen into them.

Step away from your ideological basis here, and give it some real consideration, please.

Would you rather that a predatory male stuck a carrot up your anus, or that a predatory male pinned you down and stuck their penis into your anus until they ejaculated into you?

Would you rather that a predatory female forced you to put your fingers into their vagina, or that a predatory female forced you to put your penis into their vagina?

Which is more of a violation? And no - you cannot say "they're equal". You have to pick one. These are forced choice questions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you really want an answer, I can't see how fertility makes much of a difference at all in determining how much of a violation a forcible rape is.

Seems to me the primary damage of sexual assault is psychological, the violation of bodily autonomy and the forcing of unwanted vulnerability. It is no less heinous to forcibly rape a woman who's had a hysterectomy (or a trans person, or a man) than a person who could become pregnant.

I suppose people who see women as little more than walking reproductive parts might see it differently.

Quite frankly, this makes it pretty apparent that you have never actually been sexually assaulted or raped.

But please, do continue to tell females all about what females are like, and how we should feel, and what is most important or most violating to us. We, being mere females, clearly can't figure that out for ourselves.

 

[Emily's Cat]

God forbid anyone give any consideration to those freaks

This is blatant and intentional misrepresentation. I'm quite happy to give consideration to transgender people, who I do not view as freaks.

But I am not willing to sacrifice the safety and rights of females as an entire class of people in order to grant entitlements and privileges to transgender identified males.

It would be extremely refreshing to see you give some consideration to females - something you have completely failed to do throughout this discussion. Rather, you have repeatedly denigrated, mocked, and dehumanized females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And yet, we still segregate prisons, and no one can come up with a reason why.

I mean, some people can come up with a reason, but those people are wrong.

Not so much anymore! Scotland, Canada, and several US States now allow some male people to be housed in female prisons, as long as they know the special password.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Say the quiet part out loud. Society accepts that rampant violence, including sexual violence, in men's facilities is acceptable, if not desirable. So long as it's contained, nobody cares about this massive human rights violation.

This is completely false. Most people care, and I certainly do. But I do not accept that SHIFTING that risk onto females, who are more vulnerable than males, is anywhere near a rational way to solve that problem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The risk that trans women face in men's facilities does not merit concern?

So fix the problem in male prisons, or house transgender identified male prisoners separately.

Why should females be forced to accept materially increased risk, when females are not the source of the problem?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The obvious solution is to focus on bad behavior, like violence, and not categorically damn trans people and men for the sins of their peers.

How is it a solution to damn females for the sins of males?

 

[Emily's Cat]

So is the primary problem that trans women are in women's facilities, or that unchecked violence in prisons is tolerated?

I would say that the actual primary problem is that males exhibit a massively higher tendency to and propensity for violence of all types, and sexual violence in particular.

Shifting some males to female prisons reduce the risk to those particular males, but it does so by increasing the risk to females. It does nothing whatsoever to address the underlying aggression and violence, nor does it reduce the amount of violence faced by and caused by males in prison.

Unchecked violence in prison should NOT be tolerated. It also should NOT be "solved" for a subset of males by shifting that violence onto females.

 

[theprestige]

How is it a solution to damn females for the sins of males?

It's not. I think after this many laps on the merry-go-round it's become clear that the more militant trans activists don't have a solution. In fact, there may not even be a good solution.

Unfortunately, the lack of a good solution tends to undermine the orthodoxy of automatic trans acceptance. So in place of a good solution we get bad solutions and demonization of anyone who insists there's actually a problem in the first place.

I think at this point it wouldn't be fair to keep pestering people for answers they clearly don't have. The rest of us should just proceed without them.

 

[d4m10n]

And yet, we still segregate prisons, and no one can come up with a reason why.

I'd say it's for roughly the same reasons we segregate world rugby: Men hit harder, for the most part.

(Even if sexual assault wasn't a thing, we'd still have the problem of ordinary assault in the institutions set aside to house those who readily resort to violence.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It does. But I don't think that concern can be addressed by simply transferring the risk to a different group of people.

I agree, instead addressing root causes seems like the only just solution.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Quite frankly, this makes it pretty apparent that you have never actually been sexually assaulted or raped.

But please, do continue to tell females all about what females are like, and how we should feel, and what is most important or most violating to us. We, being mere females, clearly can't figure that out for ourselves.

Sure, and you feel free to tell trans people how they should feel about the risks they face.

 

[Meadmaker]

It seems Darren Merager "may" sue the LAPD and also the women who complained at Wi Spa.

I know it's early, but I still expected to see a story along the lines of "Darren Merager, who goes by the name of 'Tammy'....." So far it's all Darren.


(Note: Until I hear further, I'm going to use "he/him" for Darren, because....Darren. I don't like "they" or "ze", so, for the moment, it will be "him". I might change. Maybe I'll alternate days.)

I certainly hope the women don't get sued, and above all, that they don't lose. That would be ridiculous.

The LAPD? Well, they know a lot more about Mr. (at least temporarily) Merager than I do. If it turns out the he lives as a woman all the time, acts like a woman, identifies as a woman, etc.....then what he was doing is clearly legal, in which case suing the LAPD seems sensible. On the other hand, if it turns out not so womanly, it seems like he's a guy who's a real problem and will be enjoying the hospitality of the State of California.

In one article, I saw him claim that his is "legally" a woman. So, I wonder what it says on his driver's license, assuming he has one.

No word on exactly what his long ago priors were, but his recent issues both involve exposing himself in women's locker rooms or changing areas, which, if he is actually a woman, would be normal.

Will we see an actual trial to determine whether someone is a man or a woman? I wonder what California law says about how to make that determination?

I suspect there are reporters out there asking questions of people who knew him, although he was described as "transient", so it might also be that no one knew him.

ETA: Come to think of it, I don't think "transient" could mean "broke and homeless" in this case. He had enough money to get into a spa.

 

[Olmstead]

It seems Darren Merager "may" sue the LAPD and also the women who complained at Wi Spa.

I know it's early, but I still expected to see a story along the lines of "Darren Merager, who goes by the name of 'Tammy'....." So far it's all Darren.


(Note: Until I hear further, I'm going to use "he/him" for Darren, because....Darren. I don't like "they" or "ze", so, for the moment, it will be "him". I might change. Maybe I'll alternate days.)

I certainly hope the women don't get sued, and above all, that they don't lose. That would be ridiculous.

The LAPD? Well, they know a lot more about Mr. (at least temporarily) Merager than I do. If it turns out the he lives as a woman all the time, acts like a woman, identifies as a woman, etc.....then what he was doing is clearly legal, in which case suing the LAPD seems sensible. On the other hand, if it turns out not so womanly, it seems like he's a guy who's a real problem and will be enjoying the hospitality of the State of California.

In one article, I saw him claim that his is "legally" a woman. So, I wonder what it says on his driver's license, assuming he has one.

No word on exactly what his long ago priors were, but his recent issues both involve exposing himself in women's locker rooms or changing areas, which, if he is actually a woman, would be normal.

Will we see an actual trial to determine whether someone is a man or a woman? I wonder what California law says about how to make that determination?

I suspect there are reporters out there asking questions of people who knew him, although he was described as "transient", so it might also be that no one knew him.

ETA: Come to think of it, I don't think "transient" could mean "broke and homeless" in this case. He had enough money to get into a spa.

Of course, none of that really matters because "woman" needs to be an inner state and not how a person "presents", because the latter doesn't make sense, as it would just limit how people can behave based on their gender, which seems wrong.

Yes, round and round we go.

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course, none of that really matters because "woman" needs to be an inner state and not how a person "presents", because the latter doesn't make sense, as it would just limit how people can behave based on their gender, which seems wrong.

Yes, round and round we go.

But this is the first case I've ever heard of, at least in the past decade since trans awareness was a thing, where the police claim someone is a man, and the person claims that she is a woman, and the difference is whether or not the person goes to jail.

I remember the Colleen Brenna incident, but in that case the police were summoned, determined that Colleen was a woman, at least by law, and that was the end of that. This time, they took some time, so they have some more information, and they think Darren is a boy.

 

[Olmstead]

But this is the first case I've ever heard of, at least in the past decade since trans awareness was a thing, where the police claim someone is a man, and the person claims that she is a woman, and the difference is whether or not the person goes to jail.

I remember the Colleen Brenna incident, but in that case the police were summoned, determined that Colleen was a woman, at least by law, and that was the end of that. This time, they took some time, so they have some more information, and they think Darren is a boy.

It should set an interesting precedent based on how they go about determining that.

As a cis-man I can act and dress as "feminine" as I want, no one can sentence me for using the men's changing room (I think? I haven't been keeping up with cross-dressing laws).

The same right should be afforded to transmen and transwomen if this is how things stand.

 

[TomB]

Sure, and you feel free to tell trans people how they should feel about the risks they face.

Please demonstrate where anyone has disputed the risks trans people face or told them how to feel. You know things like they are overreacting or just being hysterical.

And yes, I know EC has asserted that violence statistics are skewed due to a high risk subgroup. It should be noted that female prostitutes are also more vulnerable to violence. I'm not sure how the violence rates between the two groups of prostitutes compare. If similar, is the implication that a higher proportion of trans people are driven into prostitution to support themselves? If so, that would be a problem to be solved as well.

With the exception of that single statistical dispute, I haven't seen anyone disputing the way trans people feel. Nor does anyone currently on this thread seem unwilling to consider and address those concerns.

The issue is that while you focus on addressing the concerns of one marginalized population, you ignore the potential effects that your solutions may have on another marginalized population. The answer is not to ignore either populations issues, but to try to address both. Of course, that means no one gets everything their way, but perfect solutions are unlikely.

In the past LondonJohn has stated that if issues arise, laws can be revised. However, you've demonstrated that if an issue arises, your knee-jerk reaction will be to label those who complain as anti-trans losers. I don't think this reaction is uncommon, which is why I believe that possible problems should be anticipated and addressed proactively rather than reactively.

 

[theprestige]

Honestly I'd have great respect for ST's position if he stated outright that he believes women's concerns are necessarily subordinate to trans inclusion. If he declared openly that this is how he believes it needs to be, for social justice to be realized.

If he articulated his reasoning for these beliefs, I'd have even more respect.

The fact that he does neither, but resorts to vilification and dodges when pressed on these points, tells me there's nothing respectable in his position.

I've been open and honest about what I believe and why. I ask only the same from ST.

 

[Ziggurat]

One of the problems with how the subject is debated is that trans people are often discussed as if they were one monolithic group. And that simply isn't the case. For example, a fully medically transitioned transwoman is very different than a transwoman who has had no medical intervention at all. A number of posters want to conflate them, but that is a mistake. The refusal to acknowledge the difference acts as a form of motte and bailey argument. That's why so many of the "pro" trans people refuse to answer how one even determines what counts as valid trans status. Doing so require acknowledging such differences exist, and they can matter.

 

[theprestige]

One of the problems with how the subject is debated is that trans people are often discussed as if they were one monolithic group. And that simply isn't the case. For example, a fully medically transitioned transwoman is very different than a transwoman who has had no medical intervention at all. A number of posters want to conflate them, but that is a mistake. The refusal to acknowledge the difference acts as a form of motte and bailey argument. That's why so many of the "pro" trans people refuse to answer how one even determines what counts as valid trans status. Doing so require acknowledging such differences exist, and they can matter.

Rolfe's distinction between autogynephiliacs and transsexuals comes to mind.