• 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: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Oh dear. Don't you recognise a spoof when you see one? Do you really believe a musclebound 31-year-old male Dutch goalkeeper is going to get anywhere near a team of 15-year-old girls?
Click to expand...

The problem is that it certainly reads like a spoof, but it isn't.
 
We discussed this some time ago, but I think the point has fallen by the wayside.

It is natural for females of the species homo sapiens to seek to limit or curate those males who are allowed to see them in a state of undress, or those males whose bodies they see in a state of undress. You can call it modesty, you can call it agency, you can call it bodily autonomy, you can call it consent, whatever you like.

Whatever you call it, it is about whether the female has control over which male or males she accepts in a potentially sexual situation. Changing rooms, sleeping accommodation, sanitary facilities and so on are proxies for potentially sexual situations, because these are places where the people using them are or are likely to be in a state of undress. Seeing an unwanted male's genitalia, or having an unwanted male see your genitalia, is stressful, embarrassing and a cause of acute anxiety - maybe not to every woman, but to a great many. This is completely separate from whether or not that male has any intention of doing more than expose himself and look at the view.

When women and girls are told, no you have no right not to be exposed to the sight of an unwanted male person's genitalia, and no, you have no right to be able to prevent an unwanted male person seeing more of your body than you want him to see, this transfers control over the potentially sexual situation away from the woman and on to the man who is insisting that she must look at him and he must be allowed to look at her. The social norms that allow women to choose which men see them in an intimate situation have been swept away.

The law accepts, or at least it used to accept, that women should not be subjected to the sight of male genitals they don't want to see. That's why we have the offence of indecent exposure. The law understood that women's modesty and dignity and peace of mind require that they choose which males they want to enter into an intimate situation with, and that they should not be forced there against their will.

This is the fundamental point, far more so than "She might rape you with her penis, you bigot!" It's not all right for a man to force the sight of his genitals on a woman who doesn't want to see them, even if he has absolutely no intention of laying a finger (or other body part) on her.
 
Rolfe said:
You think 15 year old girls would be uncomfortable with a woman of 31 in their changing rooms? Seriously?

You think the fact that this is a man of 31 in their changing rooms is irrelevant? Seriously?
Click to expand...

This is someone who has had serious surgery and hormonal treatment. For a hack journalist to come along and insert the lascivious headline about 31-year-old butch Dutch goalkeeper says being in a changing room with 15-year-old girls was a dream come true should alert you to the fact this is fake news. The author has twisted this woman's heartwarming yearning to be accepted as female into something horrid and dirty.
 
Rolfe said:
We discussed this some time ago, but I think the point has fallen by the wayside.

It is natural for females of the species homo sapiens to seek to limit or curate those males who are allowed to see them in a state of undress, or those males whose bodies they see in a state of undress. You can call it modesty, you can call it agency, you can call it bodily autonomy, you can call it consent, whatever you like.

Whatever you call it, it is about whether the female has control over which male or males she accepts in a potentially sexual situation. Changing rooms, sleeping accommodation, sanitary facilities and so on are proxies for potentially sexual situations, because these are places where the people using them are or are likely to be in a state of undress. Seeing an unwanted male's genitalia, or having an unwanted male see your genitalia, is stressful, embarrassing and a cause of acute anxiety - maybe not to every woman, but to a great many. This is completely separate from whether or not that male has any intention of doing more than expose himself and look at the view.

When women and girls are told, no you have no right not to be exposed to the sight of an unwanted male person's genitalia, and no, you have no right to be able to prevent an unwanted male person seeing more of your body than you want him to see, this transfers control over the potentially sexual situation away from the woman and on to the man who is insisting that she must look at him and he must be allowed to look at her. The social norms that allow women to choose which men see them in an intimate situation have been swept away.

The law accepts, or at least it used to accept, that women should not be subjected to the sight of male genitals they don't want to see. That's why we have the offence of indecent exposure. The law understood that women's modesty and dignity and peace of mind require that they choose which males they want to enter into an intimate situation with, and that they should not be forced there against their will.

This is the fundamental point, far more so than "She might rape you with her penis, you bigot!" It's not all right for a man to force the sight of his genitals on a woman who doesn't want to see them, even if he has absolutely no intention of laying a finger (or other body part) on her.
Click to expand...

Indecent exposure is surely a malicious man deliberately aiming to alarm or distress the intended target. There is no indication this is peculiar to transgendered people.
 
Vixen said:
This is someone who has had serious surgery and hormonal treatment. For a hack journalist to come along and insert the lascivious headline about 31-year-old butch Dutch goalkeeper says being in a changing room with 15-year-old girls was a dream come true should alert you to the fact this is fake news. The author has twisted this woman's heartwarming yearning to be accepted as female into something horrid and dirty.
Click to expand...

The actual words were: (being allowed to change with under 20 yo female team mates is) 'The best gift I could get.'

https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/lees/artikelen/2022/Marjolein-Schepers-.html
 
Vixen said:
Indecent exposure is surely a malicious man deliberately aiming to alarm or distress the intended target. There is no indication this is peculiar to transgendered people.
Click to expand...


Indecent exposure is when a man exposes his genitals to a woman or girl who doesn't want to see them. Whether or not that man identifies as transgender is, or should be, irrelevant. Whether or not the man deliberately intended to cause alarm or distress ought also to be irrelevant. The woman is alarmed and distressed, regardless.
 
Vixen said:
This is someone who has had serious surgery and hormonal treatment. For a hack journalist to come along and insert the lascivious headline about 31-year-old butch Dutch goalkeeper says being in a changing room with 15-year-old girls was a dream come true should alert you to the fact this is fake news. The author has twisted this woman's heartwarming yearning to be accepted as female into something horrid and dirty.
Click to expand...


This person is not a woman, he is a man, and there is nothing heartwarming about it.
 
Rolfe said:
Indecent exposure is when a man exposes his genitals to a woman or girl who doesn't want to see them. Whether or not that man identifies as transgender is, or should be, irrelevant. Whether or not the man deliberately intended to cause alarm or distress ought also to be irrelevant. The woman is alarmed and distressed, regardless.
Click to expand...
Presumably both sexes can be guilty of indecent exposure?
 
Manger Douse said:
The actual words were: (being allowed to change with under 20 yo female team mates is) 'The best gift I could get.'

https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/lees/artikelen/2022/Marjolein-Schepers-.html
Click to expand...

What she clearly states is:

But now Marjolein has not played football for sixteen weeks. Not only because she has a lot of pain in her hips - possibly a result of the administration of female hormones - but mainly because the KNVB does not allow her to play in a team that otherwise only consists of girls younger than 20. I'm 31 years old, but I don't feel that way. I'm full of hormones and I feel like a fifteen year old girl. The KNVB is afraid that I am too strong to play with and against young girls. That is not the case, and you cannot judge that from a chair in Zeist.'
Click to expand...

How horrible to turn it around into something sleazy.

Weren't the claims of being (a) a paedophile and (b) a sexual predator once levelled as a reason not to decriminalise homosexuals?

Yes, some of them will be criminals but most them will not be, same as in the general population.
 
It is sleazy. Any man wanting to play a contact sport with teenage girls and get undressed where they are changing is sleazy.
 
Rolfe said:
Indecent exposure is when a man exposes his genitals to a woman or girl who doesn't want to see them. Whether or not that man identifies as transgender is, or should be, irrelevant. Whether or not the man deliberately intended to cause alarm or distress ought also to be irrelevant. The woman is alarmed and distressed, regardless.
Click to expand...

Criminal law in this says there has to be intent; the intention of causing alarm or distress.

If anything, a transgender woman is more likely to hide her penis for fear of being found out. Also out of consideration. Most people are kind and thoughtful.
 
Vixen said:
Criminal law in this says there has to be intent; the intention of causing alarm or distress.

If anything, a transgender woman is more likely to hide her penis for fear of being found out. Also out of consideration. Most people are kind and thoughtful.
Click to expand...

It’s been widely reported that Lia Thomas doesn’t try to hide their penis. When young women have complained about it they have been threatened with being removed from the swim team and even the University. It’s all in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom