Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[The Atheist]

\Does that make me a sow or a boar?

Sow, definitely.

Can you arrange some canine drugs so I can call you a bitch?

 

[gnome]

I remember it was discussed briefly, and dead ended right away. Something about how mental processes are brain processes, and brain processes are biological processes. Therefore whatever mental process causes her to believe she's female is the biological fact of being female.

One wonders what Boudicca makes of the mental processes of hypochondria, Munchausen by proxy, and paranoid schizophrenia.

That's not correct. The argument, as I recall, related to hormones rather than brain function. But we risk going in circles of course chasing this down. I do not think Boudicca is conflating biology with subjective identity. If you still disagree I'd rather just accept that I failed to persuade you of it and leave it be.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Maybe the grievances aren't unrelated. Maybe it's not only true that a genderfluid male has been raping adolescent females and the district is covering it up, but the same district folks are also going about with marxist indoctrination. Maybe the coverup and the indoctrination are part and parcel of the same toxic ideological push from public educators in America. Maybe the guy doesn't just have a beef with them on this one particular issue. Maybe he has a beef with them across the board, because of their across the board toxicity.

Anyway, "who cares if his daughter got raped by a gender-abuser? As soon as I apply a bigoted stereotype, that problem just goes away!" is a terrible look for pro-trans activism. I don't think you could make the cause look any more monstrous if you were actually false-flagging on purpose.

It's a shame that legitimate business couldn't be discussed, like this parent's concern over the handling of a criminal assault occurring on school grounds, because a bunch of Facebook poisoned anti-CRT freaks decided to shut down the meeting.

I don't see how there's a "cover up". The student was criminally charged with sex assault and abduction, very serious charges indeed. The man's gripe seemed not to be directed at the school board, but at another person who downplayed the sex assault in their comment, causing a violent outburst from the father.

And he said he was provoked during a meeting by a woman he knew personally, who made comments about his daughter, discounting the alleged assault. Deputies attempted to restrain Smith, and he was dragged to the floor.

Smith was later charged with two misdemeanors and convicted by Judge Thomas J. Kelley. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail, all suspended, contingent on a year of good behavior. His attorney, Elizabeth Lancaster, argued for a moderate fine and no jail time, pointing to Smith’s largely clean record, his long residency as a small business owner in Leesburg, and his anger about the assault of his daughter. Smith is appealing the verdict to the Circuit Court, where a jury trial is scheduled for March 12, 2022.

It sucks that someone is downplaying the severity of the crime that occurred to his daughter, and his anger is understandable, but I don't see what this has to do with CRT, crypto-marxism, or the school board other than a pack of raving freaks insist it does.

It's going to be very hard to for the board and the community to address real business and fix real problems if every meeting is going to end prematurely because a bunch of lunatics can't restrain themselves from hooting about invented problems like CRT and making veiled death threats.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I have a higher likelihood of getting a hysterectomy approved if I claim I'm transgender than if I stick with the truth that I'm at high risk of a recurrence of sever fibroids, as well as high risk of endometriosis, and I'm past childbearing age so I'd really like to remove the organ that could cause me severe internal damage and harm, including potentially death.

The damned thing already tried to kill me once. But for whatever reason, having actual female health problems related to a uterus is not a sufficient reason for approving a hysterectomy... but feeling like I'm a man would work.

I might have to claim a non-binary gender identity just so I get appropriate female health care.

American healthcare sucks, you don't have to convince me of this. Not sure why it's trans people's fault that your insurer would rather let you suffer from a treatable condition. Take it up with those responsible (hint: it's not trans people)

 

[Myriad]

It's a shame that legitimate business couldn't be discussed, like this parent's concern over the handling of a criminal assault occurring on school grounds, because a bunch of Facebook poisoned anti-CRT freaks decided to shut down the meeting.

That particular piece of legitimate business could not be discussed at that meeting because the school board denied it had occurred, and then had the parent who wanted to correct that false claim arrested, dragged away, and prosecuted.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That particular piece of legitimate business could not be discussed at that meeting because the school board denied it had occurred, and then had the parent who wanted to correct that false claim arrested, dragged away, and prosecuted.

Is that so?

My reading of the article is that someone denied it, the man had a violent outburst, and was arrested. The article cited does not say whether or not this person was a board member or an audience member.

 

[LondonJohn]

So, I've had recent, very personal experience with the whole gender thing. We are currently estranged from my daughter and her family, for reasons that are irrelevant. I still see her posts on Facebook, though. On "National Coming Out Day," my daughter came out as non-binary/genderfluid. She says she sometimes feels womanly and sometimes feels manly and sometimes neither. She says she is fine with "he/she/they," as they all fit and she doesn't want to give people a hard time when she doesn't even exactly know what she's feeling just yet. She says this doesn't really change anything about her, she isn't "trans" per say, but she doesn't feel like any one particular gender.

Now, growing up, my daughter never really expressed any confusion about her gender. However, she has always been kind of free thinking on these matters. She will often dress as male celebrities/characters for Halloween. She also dresses as "sexy" female characters (I don't mean that to sound weird, but that's what they are - "sexy" nurse, slave Leia, etc). Day to day, she usually chose female clothing but was also comfortable in t-shirt and jeans. Outside of costumes, she has never dressed or acted more "manly," whatever that actually means. So I've always known that she thinks very openly about gender matters but I've never seen any signs of some deep-seated gender conflict in her from birth to age 30, when we stopped talking. We were very close before that and we spoke openly with each other when she reached adulthood, so I think I would have had some clue . . . but maybe not?

She has always been a staunch supporter of LGBTQIA+ rights. We have had some disagreements about this because, full disclosure (and this really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has seen my arguments on this forum), I used to have some pretty wrongheaded ideas about these things (eh, I probably still do, but I'm trying to be a better person). In fact, arguing with her is one of the reasons I've changed my mind on a lot of these issues.

I think my daughter is an excellent example of the whole "social contagion" thing. It's cool to be queer. She has a natural affinity to those causes and many of her favorite celebs have come out (Demi Lovato, Eliot Page) and she wants to be a part of it on a more personal level. As she herself says, this changes nothing about her fundamentally -she's still a mom, still a wife, still female. She just doesn't always feel like a woman or a man. I really don't think she's saying anything different than what Emily's Cat shared about herself earlier or even what I have said about myself. What's happening with my daughter is that she is from a different generation that 1)has a much more open mind about sexuality and gender and 2) feels this narcissistic need to label themselves, whereas EC and I are from a generation where there was more taboo around sexuality and gender and we were kind of forced to conform to certain roles.

TL;DR: My daughter coming out as non-binary only reinforces, because I know her on pretty deep level, my view that much of this current shift in "personal gender identity" is rooted in narcissism and social dynamics, rather than any deeply-held internal "identity."

I see. You disbelieve your daughter when she expresses her current gender identity, because you've decided (on her behalf) that she's been somehow led astray by, ummmm, social trends and role models, and a narcissistic desire to play along with those social dynamics?

And you say that you're comfortable reaching that conclusion because you "know (your daughter) on a pretty deep level". Well, has it occurred to you that maybe you don't know your daughter nearly as well as you think you do?


(I'll say one thing: if I'd stated that I now identified as transgender, when I was in (say) my 30's, and my parents had said that a) they didn't believe me and b) I was effectively only "playing" at being transgender owing to social pressures and my own narcissism..... well, I'd probably have become estranged from them on that matter alone.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Is that so?

My reading of the article is that someone denied it, the man had a violent outburst, and was arrested. The article cited does not say whether or not this person was a board member or an audience member.

I like the idea that a school board could have the power to have a member of the public "arrested, dragged away, and prosecuted" merely because that person "wanted to correct a false claim"....

 

[Myriad]

Is that so?

My reading of the article is that someone denied it, the man had a violent outburst, and was arrested. The article cited does not say whether or not this person was a board member or an audience member.

The school board publicly stated in open meeting that no assault had ever occurred in the school rest rooms. That was the false claim the rape victim's father rose to challenge. (The "woman he knew personally" subsequently said something to him face to face that "enraged" him enough to call her an indecorous word.)

 

[Myriad]

I like the idea that a school board could have the power to have a member of the public "arrested, dragged away, and prosecuted" merely because that person "wanted to correct a false claim"....

Well, we see differently on that. I don't like the idea at all; it speaks of a frightening degree of authoritarianism, vindictiveness, and callousness on the part of government officials being overzealous in their pursuit of an unpopular progressive agenda. I think the voters of Virginia will be able to perceive that, and will also dislike it, even if you can't and don't.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well, we see differently on that. I don't like the idea at all; it speaks of a frightening degree of authoritarianism, vindictiveness, and callousness on the part of government officials being overzealous in their pursuit of an unpopular progressive agenda. I think the voters of Virginia will be able to perceive that, and will also dislike it, even if you can't and don't.

I think you're misreading that comment.

LJ is humbly suggesting that the father wasn't arrested simply because he objected to the tyrannical board, but because he was engaged in unruly behavior that was rapidly escalating to violent confrontation. The cops didn't grab this guy because he engaged in wrongthink, they grabbed him because it seemed like he was about to start a fight. He has since been convicted on rather petty charges, all in all not a huge deal. We might be sympathetic to his anger, but we don't have to pretend that cops preventing a member of the public from punching a school board member on the nose is the Gestapo.

Still not seeing how there's any coverup. The student has been charged in both cases, and with quite serious charges (forcible rape, abduction).

The student is a juvenile, so unless they are charged as an adult it's likely that many of the details may remain partially hidden from the public. While the parents and other members of the community may wish to see the alleged criminals head on a spike outside the schoolhouse, the board does not have complete discretion to publicly discuss such details about their students, even criminal students.

 

[Matthew Best]

LJ is humbly suggesting that

This has never happened!

 

[Myriad]

LJ is humbly suggesting that the father wasn't arrested simply because he objected to the tyrannical board, but because he was engaged in unruly behavior that was rapidly escalating to violent confrontation. The cops didn't grab this guy because he engaged in wrongthink, they grabbed him because it seemed like he was about to start a fight. He has since been convicted on rather petty charges, all in all not a huge deal. We might be sympathetic to his anger, but we don't have to pretend that cops preventing a member of the public from punching a school board member on the nose is the Gestapo.

Smith (the father) was guilty, even by his own admission, of being disruptive of the meeting via indecorous language. Specifically, he called the woman who told him his daughter's rape never happened a bitch.

I agree that decorum in public meetings is important and it's proper to remove participants who become disruptive, as forcefully as necessary if they resist this. No one has described any violence nor physical action towards violence by Smith (your "about to punch a school board member" fantasy notwithstanding) until after a police officer grabbed his arm. By his account, he pulled his arm away, whereupon multiple officers piled on him and beat him. Of course, he might very well be omitting or understating how much resistance he offered. It's impossible (even when there's video, which to my knowledge there isn't in this case) to tell how much resisting someone is doing in such action. Could Smith even see the officer who grabbed his arm when he first pulled away, or was it from behind? How violently did he drive his face into a police officer's unprotected fist during the ensuing scuffle? We can't take his word for it and must consider the possibility that the police applied only the minimum force necessary to control him and keep the public safe, something I'm sure you'll enthusiastically agree with the next time a similar question arises in a "...while Black" thread.

There are cliques and factions in any politically charged public meeting. I think it's quite possible that the provocation by the "woman he knew" was deliberate and intended to silence him. Of course that's literally a conspiracy theory. In any case, the School Board already knew exactly what he wanted to say and why, but chose to allow him to be ejected, not to inform the public of that reason, and to later allow false statements to be widely published uncorrected that Smith's motivations were racist and that he might exemplify a terroristic threat to school boards everywhere. They also later added an additional excuse that he was not "on the list to speak" at that meeting, suggesting that they wouldn't have permitted him to speak no matter how decorously he'd behaved.

Still not seeing how there's any coverup. The student has been charged in both cases, and with quite serious charges (forcible rape, abduction).

The student is a juvenile, so unless they are charged as an adult it's likely that many of the details may remain partially hidden from the public. While the parents and other members of the community may wish to see the alleged criminals head on a spike outside the schoolhouse, the board does not have complete discretion to publicly discuss such details about their students, even criminal students.

Smith's daughter was assaulted on May 28th.

The meeting where he was arrested was on June 22nd. That's also the meeting where the Superintendent (not a School Board member as I erroneously stated in an earlier post) stated publicly on the record: "To my knowledge, we don't have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms."

On August 11th, the School Board voted to approve a new policy on transgender and gender-ambiguous students. The public was still unaware of the rape.

On August 17th, Smith was found guilty of the charges, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. These are minor charges, usually dismissed after the defendant apologizes to the judge when the defendant has a clean record. In this case, the Commonwealth's Attorney showed up (very unusually, for such a minor case) and personally prosecuted the case, requesting a maximum sentence including a fine and anger management, contrary to her usual policy of leniency that she had run on and consistently exercised in other cases. Smith was given a 10 day prison sentence, suspended contingent on a year of "good behavior."

On October 6th, another girl was assaulted in the school the rapist had been moved to.

Within a few days, Smith decided to go to the press with his story, and here we are today. The rape in May—not the identity of the perpetrator or victim, or other details protected by law, but the very fact that it had happened at all—had remained unknown to the parents of the students in the county (and the general public) for over four months. Not only unacknowledged but explicitly and publicly denied by the Superintendent speaking for the School Board ("...we don't have any record...", unless he had a mouse in his pocket). That conveniently covers the period between the rape and the completion of the enactment of the new progressive gender policy. (How fortunate that the rapist helped keep the bad optics at bay by holding out for so long before attacking again.)

Oh, there was one other detail I was unaware of a few days ago, so allow me to correct myself. Moving the rapist to a different school was not the only precautionary measure the school officials and law enforcement officials took. They also had him on an ankle monitor. I suppose that was to prevent him from leaving the school where he assaulted the second victim.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Smith (the father) was guilty, even by his own admission, of being disruptive of the meeting via indecorous language. Specifically, he called the woman who told him his daughter's rape never happened a bitch.

I agree that decorum in public meetings is important and it's proper to remove participants who become disruptive, as forcefully as necessary if they resist this. No one has described any violence nor physical action towards violence by Smith (your "about to punch a school board member" fantasy notwithstanding) until after a police officer grabbed his arm. By his account, he pulled his arm away, whereupon multiple officers piled on him and beat him. Of course, he might very well be omitting or understating how much resistance he offered. It's impossible (even when there's video, which to my knowledge there isn't in this case) to tell how much resisting someone is doing in such action. Could Smith even see the officer who grabbed his arm when he first pulled away, or was it from behind? How violently did he drive his face into a police officer's unprotected fist during the ensuing scuffle? We can't take his word for it and must consider the possibility that the police applied only the minimum force necessary to control him and keep the public safe, something I'm sure you'll enthusiastically agree with the next time a similar question arises in a "...while Black" thread.

There are cliques and factions in any politically charged public meeting. I think it's quite possible that the provocation by the "woman he knew" was deliberate and intended to silence him. Of course that's literally a conspiracy theory. In any case, the School Board already knew exactly what he wanted to say and why, but chose to allow him to be ejected, not to inform the public of that reason, and to later allow false statements to be widely published uncorrected that Smith's motivations were racist and that he might exemplify a terroristic threat to school boards everywhere. They also later added an additional excuse that he was not "on the list to speak" at that meeting, suggesting that they wouldn't have permitted him to speak no matter how decorously he'd behaved.




Smith's daughter was assaulted on May 28th.

The meeting where he was arrested was on June 22nd. That's also the meeting where the Superintendent (not a School Board member as I erroneously stated in an earlier post) stated publicly on the record: "To my knowledge, we don't have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms."

On August 11th, the School Board voted to approve a new policy on transgender and gender-ambiguous students. The public was still unaware of the rape.

On August 17th, Smith was found guilty of the charges, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. These are minor charges, usually dismissed after the defendant apologizes to the judge when the defendant has a clean record. In this case, the Commonwealth's Attorney showed up (very unusually, for such a minor case) and personally prosecuted the case, requesting a maximum sentence including a fine and anger management, contrary to her usual policy of leniency that she had run on and consistently exercised in other cases. Smith was given a 10 day prison sentence, suspended continent on a year of "good behavior."

On October 6th, another girl was assaulted in the school the rapist had been moved to.

Within a few days, Smith decided to go to the press with his story, and here we are today. The rape in May—not the identity of the perpetrator or victim, or other details protected by law, but the very fact that it had happened at all—had remained unknown to the parents of the students in the county (and the general public) for over four months. Not only unacknowledged but explicitly and publicly denied by the Superintendent speaking for the School Board ("...we don't have any record...", unless he had a mouse in his pocket). That conveniently covers the period between the rape and the completion of the enactment of the new progressive gender policy. (How fortunate that the rapist helped keep the bad optics at bay by holding out for so long before attacking again.)

Oh, there was one other detail I was unaware of a few days ago, so allow me to correct myself. Moving the rapist to a different school was not the only precautionary measure the school officials and law enforcement officials took. They also had him on an ankle monitor. I suppose that was to prevent him from leaving the school where he assaulted the second victim.

Seems to be an awful lot of fanfic going into filling the huge gaps in this story with a pernicious conspiracy theory.

Does the school board even have the authority to prevent a student from attending a public school while they are accused of a crime? What authority does the board have to expel a student from all public schools?

I'm not seeing how moving a student to a different school away from an alleged victim is anything but a prudent action.

It seems safe to say that the school had nothing to do with a student being required to wear an ankle monitor. Sounds like it was a condition of a pretrial release or as part of a criminal conviction. Schools don't have authority to make students wear GPS anklets.

 

[d4m10n]

So... If Eddie Izzard and Alex Drummond were to commit crimes that land them in jail... would you argue that they be placed in the male prison or the female prison?

Just looked up Alex Drummond for the first time. Fascinating!

I identify as lesbian as I'm female and attracted to women...

It's difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that Alex's female partners are indeed practicing lesbians but perhaps that word (much like "female") has expanded significantly since I learned English the first time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Seems to be an awful lot of fanfic going into filling the huge gaps in this story with a pernicious conspiracy theory.

Does the school board even have the authority to prevent a student from attending a public school while they are accused of a crime? What authority does the board have to expel a student from all public schools?

I don't think anyone is suggesting the school board itself has that power. But the superintendent very well may. But regardless of who has the power to do what, this was a major crime that took place on school property. The superintendent should have known about it. If he did, then he's lying and that's bad. If he didn't, then he doesn't know what's going on in his schools, and that's also bad. There's no good answer for why he denied knowledge of the crime.

I'm not seeing how moving a student to a different school away from an alleged victim is anything but a prudent action.

It was a demonstrably insufficient action.

It seems safe to say that the school had nothing to do with a student being required to wear an ankle monitor. Sounds like it was a condition of a pretrial release or as part of a criminal conviction. Schools don't have authority to make students wear GPS anklets.

Obviously. That falls under actions taken by law enforcement, as Myriad said.

 

[Myriad]

Seems to be an awful lot of fanfic going into filling the huge gaps in this story with a pernicious conspiracy theory.

Feel free to point those gaps out, keeping in mind that I've taken some pains to verbally distinguish between what appears to be well-established facts, what's been reported but is not necessarily accurate, and what's my own speculation.

Does the school board even have the authority to prevent a student from attending a public school while they are accused of a crime? What authority does the board have to expel a student from all public schools?

Of course they do, or their employees do, for the schools within their district (or in this case, apparently, county). I don't know what would happen if the student's family moved elsewhere or enrolled him in a private school, but that's irrelevant to this case.

I'm not seeing how moving a student to a different school away from an alleged victim is anything but a prudent action.

Really? That's what you're going with here? I can't even... Do you think sexual predators are only a threat to one designated victim apiece?

It seems safe to say that the school had nothing to do with a student being required to wear an ankle monitor. Sounds like it was a condition of a pretrial release or as part of a criminal conviction. Schools don't have authority to make students wear GPS anklets.

You're probably right. So what? On the other hand:

In its statement, the [Sheriff's] office noted it “is not involved in school discipline (nor the placement of students).”

link (Washington Post)

So the School Board's statement that tries to imply that the predator was whisked away by the police and later placed in another of the county's schools under the cloak of secrecy without any school officials' permission or knowledge doesn't quite convince.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the school board itself has that power. But the superintendent very well may. But regardless of who has the power to do what, this was a major crime that took place on school property. The superintendent should have known about it. If he did, then he's lying and that's bad. If he didn't, then he doesn't know what's going on in his schools, and that's also bad. There's no good answer for why he denied knowledge of the crime.



It was a demonstrably insufficient action.



Obviously. That falls under actions taken by law enforcement, as Myriad said.

Yeah, probably would have been nice to get some clarification on this, but a bunch of shrieking reactionaries mad about made up problems brought the public meeting to a grinding halt. That's kinda my point.

Maybe they could have got an explanation from the board, satisfying or not, and asked more probing questions, but they were too busy screeching about crypto-Marxism to stay on task.

 

[Myriad]

Maybe they could have got an explanation from the board, satisfying or not, and asked more probing questions, but they were too busy screeching about crypto-Marxism to stay on task.

An explanation of what? The rape they didn't know about until three months later? You seem to be confused about the timeline here, even though I just laid it out.

Anyhow, in the June 22nd meeting, some members of the public did ask probing questions about the possibility of sexual predators in school bathrooms. And were told by the Superintendent that such predators absolutely do not exist, and that no such incident had ever happened in their schools.

What other precognitive probing questions should they have asked? "In your previous statement, were you lying?" I'm sure that would have elicited an immediate confession.

 

[xjx388]

I see. You disbelieve your daughter when she expresses her current gender identity, because you've decided (on her behalf) that she's been somehow led astray by, ummmm, social trends and role models, and a narcissistic desire to play along with those social dynamics?

And you say that you're comfortable reaching that conclusion because you "know (your daughter) on a pretty deep level". Well, has it occurred to you that maybe you don't know your daughter nearly as well as you think you do?


(I'll say one thing: if I'd stated that I now identified as transgender, when I was in (say) my 30's, and my parents had said that a) they didn't believe me and b) I was effectively only "playing" at being transgender owing to social pressures and my own narcissism..... well, I'd probably have become estranged from them on that matter alone.)

Well, I’m still processing the whole thing. It’s not so much that I disbelieve her. I don’t even think she’s been “led astray.” Not sure where you got that particular idea.

No. What I think is that she is feeling perfectly normal feelings that most of us probably feel at some point or another. The idea of gender is nothing but certain roles we are expected to fit into because of the sex we were born as. But individuals don’t work so neatly. The degree to which our feelings, attitudes and behaviors fit into one category or another is going vary with each person. Therefore, I reject gender as some ineffable, inborn trait and recognize it for what it is: stereotypes. If gender is a real thing, then it’s highly individual and thus, utterly meaningless and impossible to label broadly. I would simply call that individual expression of feelings, attitudes and behaviors, “personality.”

I don’t know what else to call needing a label for your personality other than narcissism.