• 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.
stanfr said:
The solution is to do away with sex entirely by putting us all in cyborg bodies.
As the new Kaylon empire, we all shall stand united! :cool:
Click to expand...
Well, putting all our kids on puberty blockers, castrating them and turning them into sexless eunuchs would probably do this trick. No more gender wage gap, no more all sorts of things. All fixed, nice and tidy.
 
stanfr said:
I understand your point. But from my perspective, the way you phrase it, it is Inherently a problem to house a self-identified woman with another woman, if the former has a penis. It *assumes* the former is a sexual predator. A penis is not necessary to sexually assault another individual, but it certainly could be used that way.
And again, I am mostly playing devil's advocate here (as I have from the start!) because I am not sure it is a good idea, either. But I haven't arrived at your absolute certainty that it is. I think I would literally have to visit a prison (as I once did on numerous occasions as a public defender!) to talk to the parties who are directly affected by this, to arrive at a conclusive opinion about it. I dare say you've never directly talked to the parties whoese interests are directly at stake.
Click to expand...

Prisons have been sex segregated for a long time. Why should that change now? Where are you suddenly getting all these doubts from, about the wisdom of sex-segregated prisons?

Someone tells the warden they want to transcend sex segregation, and for you the conclusion is maybe we should just be housing men and women together all the time anyway?
 
stanfr said:
If it's bias towards basic human rights and equality, it's necessary.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're trying to change the subject away from trans accommodations in public policy, and towards trying to justify bigotry towards Oklahomans. Maybe you should go there and talk to the people directly affected by and involved in these policies, before vilifying them here.

Or maybe just stick to the topic already under discussion.
 
theprestige said:
Prisons have been sex segregated for a long time. Why should that change now? Where are you suddenly getting all these doubts from, about the wisdom of sex-segregated prisons?

Someone tells the warden they want to transcend sex segregation, and for you the conclusion is maybe we should just be housing men and women together all the time anyway?
Click to expand...

That's a really bizarre response. Almost like someone saying "Women have never voted, why should we change a working system now?"

More to the point, consistently in this discussion, you start with the premise that basically *all* trans women are not only biological males, but males in every respect, psychologically, emotionally, societally....
It's almost like you miss the entire idea of what gender is, what gender identification is, the fact that it is not only social construct but biological, both nurture and nature. You completely ignore all of that, because it doesn't fit the neat tidy narrative of 'born male, therefore treated as male in all aspects of policy'

I really find it hard to believe that you 'started out' in this thread defending the rights of trans individuals.

theprestige said:
Well this has degenerated pretty quickly. It's kind of depressing how fast we got from "I'm just here to learn, show me the evidence" to glib dismissals and escalating insults.

At the time I didn't want to poison the well, but now I kinda wish I'd called it at the sunset break. It's never a good sign when someone asks for evidence, and then responds to the evidence by announcing they have better things to do than continue the conversation.
Click to expand...

Oh good grief. More of your condescending nonsense.
You're allowed to yank my chain but god forbid I upset you.
And I'm even chastised for having a full time job and not having 6 hours a day to keep up with your complaints.

It's completely on topic to point out that the patriarchal theocrats who want to abolish women's right are the ones championing *your* position.
Calling me the bigot for pointing that out is the typical Trumpian response.
 
Rolfe said:
A couple of interesting links.

Sex and gender

Trans Activists Stage “Coup” of Women’s Washroom at University, Issue Rape Threats
Click to expand...

These were interesting links, thanks. The second one is particularly interesting since it reminds me that the most common fascist tactic is to divide groups that traditionally you would think could work together. So, pitting the vaguely defined "lesbians, feminists, and trans-activists" against each other seems to meet that end.

I'm half embarrassed to admit that I didn't even know what a TERF was a couple months ago, but now I'm consistently coming across articles like the following:

Rowlingsphobia

So, even if y'all drive me from this thread once with repeated put-downs, bullying, and condescension, at least I'll come away with a much better understanding of the issues involved, so there is some benefit to that...:)
 
Rolfe said:
Well, we were running out of TRAs, so I suppose we should be thankful.
Click to expand...

:D

ETA: seriously though, that's a telling response. The people who are most active in ISF seem to have an inherent need to be engaged in opposition with someone.
When they run out of someone to argue with, the back-slapping gets old. It explains why anyone who comes into these threads (especially late in the game) gets set on by a pack of wolves. Its all ostensibly to "politely" "educate" them but the verbiage becomes increasingly argumentative, personal, and insult-based.
That's probably why the smartest folks are the ones who avoid the scene altogether.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
I'm half embarrassed to admit that I didn't even know what a TERF was a couple months ago, but now I'm consistently coming across articles like the following:

Rowlingsphobia

So, even if y'all drive me from this thread once with repeated put-downs, bullying, and condescension, at least I'll come away with a much better understanding of the issues involved, so there is some benefit to that...:)
Click to expand...

That's an, er, interesting article. It just asserts Rowling's transphobia without actually quoting anything she's written and demonstrating it. Why is that, do you think?
 
Matthew Best said:
That's an, er, interesting article. It just asserts Rowling's transphobia without actually quoting anything she's written and demonstrating it. Why is that, do you think?
Click to expand...

Indeed, because when people go back to what she actually wrote, it was expressing concerns that trans rights are likely to compromise women’s rights. Which, of course, TRAs interpret as transphobia.
 
stanfr said:
:D

ETA: seriously though, that's a telling response. The people who are most active in ISF seem to have an inherent need to be engaged in opposition with someone.
When they run out of someone to argue with, the back-slapping gets old. It explains why anyone who comes into these threads (especially late in the game) gets set on by a pack of wolves. Its all ostensibly to "politely" "educate" them but the verbiage becomes increasingly argumentative, personal, and insult-based.
That's probably why the smartest folks are the ones who avoid the scene altogether.
Click to expand...


I thought we already explained that the thread used to be entirely dominated by the TWAW faction, to the point where I for one bowed out for a while because I was unable to put my point of view using the language I deemed correct without being set upon.

This is a forum mainly concerned with adversarial debate. People come here for a good argument. If they back out it's usually because they percieve they're losing, and I can assure you that for many iterations of the thread, the pro-trans side wasn't backing away simply because it was being overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

Personalising the argument and attacking the arguer rather than the argument are both forbidden by the membership agreement. If you think someone is doing that, report them. If you're right, the mods will sort them out.

But yeah, those of us on the side of reality are currently running out of chew-toys, so the appearance of a new one is not unwelcome.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
This is a familiar trans-activist dodge: If we just solve the problem of prison violence, then we don't have to worry about housing men and women together. Meanwhile, women will just have to put up with having men for cellmates, because there's literally no other way to handle this.
Click to expand...

If only I hadn't posted verifiable evidence showing trans "women" were at least five times more likely to commit sexual offences in jail than women...
 
The Atheist said:
If only I hadn't posted verifiable evidence showing trans "women" were at least five times more likely to commit sexual offences in jail than women...
Click to expand...

Citation please.

I am guessing the 'five times as much' is based on a small figure to begin with and just sounds good. In addition, there are offences that are specific to the male sex, so perhaps the salient reason 'transwomen' get charged with sexual offences in jail more often than biological females is because some sexual offences are 'male only'. (Rape, indecent exposure, frottage.)
 
theprestige said:
It'd be nice if AP could link to the text of the actual bill, or at least cite it by name. I'd like to see if it really specifies transsexual housing of prisoners based on nothing more than their verbal request. I'm curious because we've seen another California law that requires a signed affidavit, recorded by the courts, in order to legally change one's gender identity. It would be tragicomic if the prison housing law doesn't even ask to see that piece of paper.
Click to expand...


"Transgender", not "transexual".
 
theprestige said:
This is a familiar trans-activist dodge: If we just solve the problem of prison violence, then we don't have to worry about housing men and women together. Meanwhile, women will just have to put up with having men for cellmates, because there's literally no other way to handle this.
Click to expand...


1) Are women being asked/forced to actually share a cell with a transwoman? Or are they being asked to share a prison wing with transwomen (with, one would presume/hope, separate times for showers and other ablutions)?

2) Women are not being asked to share prison wings with men. Women are being asked to share prison wings with transwomen. It's really not that difficult to understand.
 
theprestige said:
Just explain to them that the facilities in question are sex-segregated. Gender identity doesn't enter into it.
Click to expand...


Fortunately, most progressive legislatures (which regrettably don't include the US bible belt and former confederate states*) understand this issue a whole lot better than you do, and are legislating accordingly.


* More great fellow travellers for you there! Add them to the list that includes religious nutters and the Daily Mail. Ever get the feeling you're on the wrong side of an argument? :D
 
d4m10n said:
The lawsuit claims to the contrary at ¶ 24: I really don't see this getting far in the courts, but it's interesting to know how progressives are hoping to reshape our ideas about sex and gender.
Click to expand...


Ain't it just?! Just like when them damn progressives was tryin' to... whassat you sayd.... "reshape our ideas".... and tell us that it was normal to be one o' them queer gayboys and givin' them all sorts of rights and all. Disgusting! An' it didn't fool any of us round here who know better! [spoken in redneck hillbilly backward accent]
 
theprestige said:
Nope. Prisons are sex segregated. Transcending that is transsexual by definition. In fact, pretty much all the trans policy challenges we're still facing are transsexual in nature.
Click to expand...


Nope. They are not. And you declaring in your own singular mind that they are does not make it so.
 
LondonJohn said:
Fortunately, most progressive legislatures (which regrettably don't include the US bible belt and former confederate states*) understand this issue a whole lot better than you do, and are legislating accordingly.


* More great fellow travellers for you there! Add them to the list that includes religious nutters and the Daily Mail. Ever get the feeling you're on the wrong side of an argument? :D
Click to expand...

Or Sweden.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom