• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
What exactly is “conversion therapy”? From what I can tell, it’s any therapy that doesn’t involve reinforcing trans identity.

But we know that some people who think they are trans are really just trying to cope with other issues. You want to outlaw therapists from effectively helping them. That doesn’t protect trans people. That harms people.
 
It's possible that the joke was that Sphensic was parodying "talking over and ignoring" me. Now I've spotted that I think it's quite funny. (I was distracted to start with because her post corrected a small typo I had made - "ignore" for "ignored".)

It would probably have worked better if you were aware I'm not a woman/female/ova-genetator or ever been inclined to use their pronouns. Tough crowd...still no-one's slapped me, so I'm going to count that as a win.
 
I wasn't sure, to be honest, because I had a vague memory of you saying that before, but then I went by the avatar.

It was actually funny once I got the joke. Blame me for being slow on the uptake.
 
Completely ignoring the very valid point. Why should any female be respectful of India Willoughby?

What valid point - that there are horrible, nasty people out there? I hardly think that is something in doubt by anyone or needs to be stated. This India Willoughby may be a terrible person but since they are a human being I will respect their individual rights the same as I respect everyone's individual rights.
 
I wasn't defining myself at all. I was attempting to highlight the point that male rights activists (like yourself, indeed) always aim the "be respectful, be kind" scolding at women, when it's the male interlopers who are being anything but kind or respectful towards women.

India Willoughby has just posted a stunning example of his lack of respect for women, and I was trying to see if you might understand that it's him you should maybe be directing your scolding at.

Fat chance.

A load of nonsense Rolfe, I have not scolded anyone since my nephew and niece were children. That you read that into what I posted says a lot for the fantasy in your head and is not related to reality in the slightest.

Do you really think that India Willoughby's rights as an individual can be ignored or denied them?

What rights do you think they should have removed?
 
What valid point - that there are horrible, nasty people out there? I hardly think that is something in doubt by anyone or needs to be stated. This India Willoughby may be a terrible person but since they are a human being I will respect their individual rights the same as I respect everyone's individual rights.

Obsessing about trolls and boogiemen and extrapolating wildly about all trans people based on the behavior of individual cranks or bad actors seems to be a central plank of the anti-trans ideology.
 
This, combined with the Tory government failing to outlaw trans conversion therapy as promised, has lead to broad withdrawal of all but the TERF groups from an upcoming conference.



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stonewall-trans-conversion-lgbtq-protest-b2050586.html

I think that is very short sighted of them, how are they going to argue their points if they aren't willing to talk to the "gate keepers"? It is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I think "conversion therapy" is badly named - it is not therapy it is witch doctoring so I do think it should be banned like all such nonsense "alternative" medicine.

There is an issue that can be difficult to bring up and is often used to attack people (from both sides) and that is we do consider gender dysmorphia a matter of health. That means you need to be careful in how you define conversion therapy - too wide and you will outlaw those seeking therapy for their gender dysmorphia, whatever that therapy is, indeed gender re-assignment surgery could fall under a too wide definition.
 
What exactly is “conversion therapy”? From what I can tell, it’s any therapy that doesn’t involve reinforcing trans identity.

But we know that some people who think they are trans are really just trying to cope with other issues. You want to outlaw therapists from effectively helping them. That doesn’t protect trans people. That harms people.


There's a real "moral panic" going on, stirred up by horrific descriptions of abuse of homosexual men that happened in the past, including electric shock therapy and forced hormone treatment intended as chemical castration. (Ironically, using the very same drugs they now use as "puberty blockers" on chikdren who want to be the opposite sex.) All these things are illegal anyway and haven't happened for many decades.

These outdated and hyperbolic descriptions from the past are being bandied around to paint "conversion therapy" as "torture" with calls to ban it. But what is targeted by the proposed ban isn't that at all.

There are some reservations about a blanket ban even among homosexuals, because it would also cover voluntary treatment, if a himisexual person sought something like CBT in an effort to become straight. We might not think that's a particularly good idea, and doomed to failure, but should the person be banned from seeking it?

The situation on the trans side is very different from the LBG aspect too. Being trans, unlike homosexuality, is liable to set someone on a medical pathway for life. It may involve drugs that have serious side-effects, and/or surgery that is painful and often goes wrong. In the past it has been accepted practice for people wanting to go down this path to have a fairly intensive course of psychotherapy to make sure they understood what they were getting into, were doing it for what seemed to be the right reasons, and weren't likely to regret it. This would be banned by the proposed legislation.

It's even worse with children. In the past it has been observed multiple times that gender-nonconforming children usually grow out of it and become adults perfectly comfortable with the sex they are. Many are simply gay. Nowadays these children are being set on a path that is medically a lot more serious than the adult pathway, as it involves drugs to block puberty (same thing as was given to Alan Turing as "conversion therapy" to stop him being gay) which will cause loss of fertility and secual function in adulthood, as well as having other problems of increasing disease risk.

We know that most of these children, handled sympathetically without drugs or pronouns, will grow up to be normal gay adults, with healthy bodies. But instead the activists insist that they should be pushed on to the transition pathway with nobody allowed to say, could there be another reason for your discomfort with your body and might you be happier in the end if we addressed that.

So basically gay kids are being fed into the trans machine with the aim of producing heterosexual (asexual more like) adults. Doesn't that sound like the real conversion therapy?
 
Last edited:
A load of nonsense Rolfe, I have not scolded anyone since my nephew and niece were children. That you read that into what I posted says a lot for the fantasy in your head and is not related to reality in the slightest.

Do you really think that India Willoughby's rights as an individual can be ignored or denied them?

What rights do you think they should have removed?


I do not believe that male people should have any legal right to use female single-sex facilities. I am on the side of the right of women to have facilities for sleeping, changing, washing and elimination that are female-only.

The Equality Act has been sytematically misrepresented by Stonewall among others to brainwash organisations into believing that women have no right to single-sex spaces. This new clarification confirms that we do have that right and we always did have that right.

I want our rights recognised and enforced, and India Willoughby can take a hike. His issues are not my responsibility.
 
Last edited:
There's a real "moral panic" going on, stirred up by horrific descriptions of abuse of homosexual men that happened in the past

No, it is stirred up at the descriptions of conversation therapy going on in the woods ran by religious groups today.
 
Obsessing about trolls and boogiemen and extrapolating wildly about all trans people based on the behavior of individual cranks or bad actors seems to be a central plank of the anti-trans ideology.

It is a common human behaviour. You are never going to satisfy extremists of any kind so I think it is a waste of time trying. The issue is always made worse because our media is about getting clicks and eyeballs and extremism of any kind seems to work best for that.

The latest advice in the UK - linked to above - is not going to satisfy extremists because the extremists do want to supplant the rights of others and there will always have to be compromises in this issue. But I think the advice is good, what it does is say that we should be as inclusive as we can be whilst acknowledging that sometimes there will be circumstances when a trans person can be legally excluded based on their sex rather than their gender.

I'm old enough to remember when the L was added to the G in LG and then appended by the B. Back then when the T was added it stood for transvestites which tended to be straight men that liked to "cross dress" rather than those who wanted to permanently be a different sex, it was illegal to be a homosexual when I was born. I mention these not as analogies but as examples of how times change and what society "tolerates" changes as well. Perhaps in 50 years we will have moved on and no one will care what biology anyone has, who knows? But I do know that such change will not happen when we allow extremists to control the agenda.
 
I think that is very short sighted of them, how are they going to argue their points if they aren't willing to talk to the "gate keepers"? It is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Withdrawing support of the conference is talking to the gate keepers, it's expressing dissatisfaction in a very public way meant to draw attention to the issue. This is a political process, not a debate society.
 
I see we're back to "but my side is the right side of history" as an argument. There's probably a specific name for that fallacy. Smearing people on the other side with words such as "extremists" is another dishonest debating tactic. It is not extreme to support single-sex facilities for situations where people have to undress. Indeed there are charities working hard to supply such facilities for disadvantaged girls in the third world to allow them to attend school.

It is quite extreme to insist that any man who says "I am a woman" or even "I am non-binary" should have automatic legal right to use female single-sex spaces without making any modifications at all to his body or his appearance. Or so it seems to me. But I can argue against it without calling people who support this "extremists".
 
I do not believe that male people should have any legal right to use female single-sex facilities. I am on the side of the right of women to have facilities for sleeping, changing, washing and elimination that are female-only.

So you are in agreement, as I am with the new advice.

...snip... This new clarification confirms that we do have that right and we always did have that right. ...snip...

If you had stopped paying attention to extremists you would have heard the many, many voices that agreed with you. Don't let extremists control the dialogue. I know that can be difficult but as the new advice shows when the extremists aren't allowed to control the dialogue progress can be made even when there are conflicts regarding individuals' rights.
 
It is quite extreme to insist that any man who says "I am a woman" or even "I am non-binary" should have automatic legal right to use female single-sex spaces without making any modifications at all to his body or his appearance. Or so it seems to me. But I can argue against it without calling people who support this "extremists".

Nah, that seems reasonable to me.
 
Withdrawing support of the conference is talking to the gate keepers, it's expressing dissatisfaction in a very public way meant to draw attention to the issue. This is a political process, not a debate society.

I understand it is a meant to be a tactic but it's not in any meaningful manner, it is as I said cutting your nose off to spite your face, not talking will not move forward anyone's agenda.
 
I think "conversion therapy" is badly named - it is not therapy it is witch doctoring so I do think it should be banned like all such nonsense "alternative" medicine.


What do you actually think is being referred to here? Because that sounds like a very strange way to describe psychological counselling of deeply disturbed young people with multiple issues incliding being on the autism spectrum, anorexia and self-harming, to explore whether their identity issues may be rooted in these other issues and whether they might find a way to come to terms with their healthy bodies rather than having their breasts cut off.
 
I see we're back to "but my side is the right side of history" as an argument. There's probably a specific name for that fallacy. Smearing people on the other side with words such as "extremists" is another dishonest debating tactic. It is not extreme to support single-sex facilities for situations where people have to undress. Indeed there are charities working hard to supply such facilities for disadvantaged girls in the third world to allow them to attend school....snip...

Since this has to be addressing my post this again shows that you are reacting and addressing a fantasy you have created and be dammed the reality.

It is quite extreme to insist that any man who says "I am a woman" or even "I am non-binary" should have automatic legal right to use female single-sex spaces without making any modifications at all to his body or his appearance. Or so it seems to me. But I can argue against it without calling people who support this "extremists".

Of course that is an extremist position, any view that attempts to ignore or remove individuals' rights is an extremist position. And that position does that. Extremists exist at both ends of the issue.
 
Talking and rational argumentation do not resolve all problems. Or, they do in the sense that the side that thinks rational argument is the way to resolve the problem loses. Many disagreements are non-rational. There isn't always a middle-ground compromise. Sometimes there has to be a side that completely wins and a side that completely loses.

The trans-debate is not a rational battle, it is an emotional battle.
 
Here's a new twitter thread demonstrating the behaviour of these men who want to access female single-sex spaces, and their supporters. These are the people we're constantly being lectured about respecting and being kind to. More and more women have had enough of this.

No legal right for any male to use a female single-sex space is the only solution. I do not think there is any way of saying, "only nice, discreet, unthreatening transwomen allowed."

https://twitter.com/WitchyMcWitch/status/1511286306072109060
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom