• 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.
The Atheist said:
You're selling me short - there must be 1000 pages by now.

I don't know where it either and it's not in the first couple of dozen Google returnse, so these should cover it adequately:

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...e-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ater-risk-sexual-assault-transgender-inmates/
Click to expand...

From the latter:

At the time, Ms Monaghan said the policy was put in place despite "the extraordinary vulnerability of female prisoners and the prevalence of a history of abuse and gendered violence". She also claimed MoJ statistics suggested that trans prisoners were "five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates in women's jails than other prisoners are".
Click to expand...

So that is where you got the 'five times as much from'. What you didn't tell us was the next paragraph:

However, Sarah Hannett, representing the MoJ, said the claim was based on "a tiny data sample of seven sexual assaults over ... a four-year period", from which it was "impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion".
Click to expand...


Think about it. Seven sexual assaults over four years...out of how many female prisoners and how many transwomen prisoners...?


Fact is, this is rooted in the Victorian belief that only men are capable of sex crimes. Only men were homosexuals (and thus, being a lesbian was never a criminal offence). Only men can rape. It is well known that female prisons are full of aggressive lesbians who are just as likely to impose themselves on other prisoners. As an example, a young man was recently convicted of being a sex criminal and placed on the sex offenders register, just for touching some woman's arm. These days, sexual assault can simply mean kissing someone or touching them in any way, not necessarily even flesh or a naughty bit. We saw how a senior member of the royal family had to pay £12m in compensation for supposedly 'dating' a prostitute aged 17 even though she was above age of consent in England. So it is not really a surprise that if a transwoman does it it is a 'sexual assault' whereas if the approach comes from another woman, it is laughed off as 'giving someone a sisterly hug' or 'just being friendly'.
 
stanfr said:
And the "side" you are on just happens to coincide with the side that truly denies reality--the Trumpists and right-wing extremists. The religious fanatics and wooists.
Not saying they are wrong--they could be right for the wrong reasons--but it is an interesting correlation.
Click to expand...
It's a standard ad-hominem argument. "look at [a selected subset of] the people who think that; don't look at what they think". It avoids arguing the merits of the issue and as such is a red flag. I am sure Vladimir Putin does not think transwomen are women, and is not hurrying to bestow protections or privileges on them.

On a forum that champions critical thinking, one might suppose that there is very little time for arguing methods like this. However the truth is that folks use ad-hom when it suits them and eschew it when it doesn't.

I will concede that it is interesting though. The trans issue seems to have a unique ability to disrupt the political shorthand of give me the complete list of what my side supports and opposes and I'm sure I will be comfortable signing up to all of them. That is a "good" thing in itself because that is what issues ought to do anyway, IE be debated on their own merits. But most of the time it does not work that way, which I tend to think is societal laziness of a sort.

One could equally note that it is interesting that the side that promotes trans rights includes males who would subvert the rights and protections of females to their whim, whose remedy for those women who object is to threaten to beat, rape and kill them, and to encourage them to be hated by society and vilified and cancelled, and that they overwhelmingly direct their fire at female objectors, not male objectors in this regard. Indeed I and others have noted this over the years.
 
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (at least one conviction for sexual assault):

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%
Click to expand...


I understand that men with Gender Recognition Certificates are counted as women for the purpose of these statistics, so nobody really knows if the 3.3% is actually women or not. Moreover, if you look at individual cases of women convicted of sex offences you discover that a pretty high proportion of them have committed the offence as accomplices of male offenders - Myra Hindley-style. The lone woman committing sex offences is a pretty rare bird.
 
Behind a paywall is a heartrending appraisal of the New Zealand catastrophe.

I would like to post the text here but forum rules preclude.
 
Samson said:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyl...ange-their-gender/TT4LEA5FS7JYWFYWWCCBAEB6JM/
Click to expand...

You're allowed to post short excerpts of copyrighted material. Have you not even paid for a subscription yourself?

Also, if the article in question cites publicly-available data, you can just cite the data itself from its original source, and summarize the article's argument in your own words.

It's not rocket surgery. Quit the passive-aggressive complaints and get on with whatever substantive argument you're trying to make.
 
theprestige said:
You're allowed to post short excerpts of copyrighted material.
Click to expand...

Well okay then, here is a short excerpt:
I’m a medical epidemiologist and my relevant background is in research on sexual and reproductive health, the safety of medicines, and the ethics of research. My colleagues approached me because they’re concerned about the rapid increase in the use of hormones to suppress normal puberty in children and young people who express discomfort with their biological sex. They’re especially concerned that the grounds for accessing these hormones have widened greatly. How do we know this is doing more good than harm?
Click to expand...
 
Just looking at this article on the same site:

'Nick was at his third birthday party when he realised he was a boy in a girl’s body. “I had a butterfly cake. I vividly remember looking at the cake and thinking, ‘I don’t like the look of this. It’s all pink and girlie.”'
 
Elaedith said:
Just looking at this article on the same site:

'Nick was at his third birthday party when he realised he was a boy in a girl’s body. “I had a butterfly cake. I vividly remember looking at the cake and thinking, ‘I don’t like the look of this. It’s all pink and girlie.”'
Click to expand...

Not liking girlie things doesn't make you a boy. Tomboys are still girls.

“I’d do anything to be a boy,” he says. “I get injections to be a boy, but I hate injections. I’m going to go this far just to be me. Some people think that being LGBTQ+ is a choice, that one day we wake up and say, ‘I think I’m trans, I think I’m a boy and I’m just going to become a boy.’ They think one day people can just decide they are this or that. But it’s a feeling you feel deep down, that this is what I am. It is not a choice.”​

This is sad for multiple reasons. First off, this person will never actually be a boy. Second, the pain of the injections will never, ever stop unless they detransition, but even more importantly, the pain of the injections is the least of the medical problems they will face. The other side effects, which haven't kicked in yet but will, are going to be far, far worse. And lastly, while their feelings may not be a choice, medical intervention very much is. And it doesn't sound like this person has a clue about the ramifications of that intervention.

Now, is medical transition right for this person? Maybe, I don't know, and from the outside I don't think we can know. But even if it is, they still don't seem to have any clue about what it really entails. Or if they do, then the author has failed to capture those difficulties in their profile, which may lead other people who are considering transition to think it's simpler than it really is.
 
"They think one day people can just decide they are this or that. But it’s a feeling you feel deep down, that this is what I am. It is not a choice."

I still think Body Integrity Identity Disorder is the closest and most instructive parallel.
 
“I’d do anything to be a boy,” he says. “I get injections to be a boy, but I hate injections. I’m going to go this far just to be me. Some people think that being LGBTQ+ is a choice, that one day we wake up and say, ‘I think I’m trans, I think I’m a boy and I’m just going to become a boy.’ They think one day people can just decide they are this or that. But it’s a feeling you feel deep down, that this is what I am. It is not a choice.”​

This is sad for multiple reasons. First off, this person will never actually be a boy. Second, the pain of the injections will never, ever stop unless they detransition, but even more importantly, the pain of the injections is the least of the medical problems they will face. The other side effects, which haven't kicked in yet but will, are going to be far, far worse. And lastly, while their feelings may not be a choice, medical intervention very much is. And it doesn't sound like this person has a clue about the ramifications of that intervention.
Click to expand...
Also because children do not talk like that off their own bat. Somebody else suggested those words. And up until around 5 - 6 years old, a high percentage of children think that stereotypes are what determine whether a child is a boy or a girl (e.g. a boy who puts on a dress turns into a girl). It's up to adults to help educate them out of this, not reinforce stereotypical thinking.
 
I remember in primary school the class being asked how you tell the difference between a boy and a girl. Proudly, I put up my hand and said, boys have short hair. Everybody laughed at me, including the teacher.

I had genuinely believed there was a difference in the way boys' hair grew that it could be cut like that, and it couldn't be cut like that in a girl. It was explained to me with some humour that this was incorrect.

I have no idea what the right answer was, given that we'd have been about seven. Maybe I missed some actual sex education through being so embarrassed at my mistake.
 
d4m10n said:
An age-appropriate circumlocutory answer may've been that the boys have access to urinals. ;)



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right now, today? Sure. But I have no idea what the right answer would have been in the late 1970s, when I was second grade. "Boys have penises and girls don't" was almost certainly not it, though.
 
Elaedith said:
Also because children do not talk like that off their own bat. Somebody else suggested those words.
Click to expand...

That smacks of exactly the same nonsense christian babble when they say how their little child loves Jesus so much.

They only ever heard of Jesus because the idiot parents ram it down their throat, and I do not buy for a second that children that age even think of gender.

Elaedith said:
And up until around 5 - 6 years old, a high percentage of children think that stereotypes are what determine whether a child is a boy or a girl (e.g. a boy who puts on a dress turns into a girl). It's up to adults to help educate them out of this, not reinforce stereotypical thinking.
Click to expand...

When my son went to kindergarten almost all the kids thought he was a girl because he had long hair.

There might be something in all that, though. He still has long hair and an awful lot of girls stay the night with him, so I suspect he's not just transgender, but a massive dyke with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom