• 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.
Elaedith said:
‘How dare you pretend to be disabled?’

'For anti-ableist activists, transabled people do not count as disabled. They are perceived to: be falsely disabled; steal resources from disabled people; and be disrespectful by denying, fetishizing, or appropriating marginalized realities.'

Seems to be clear the objection is to not being counted as genuinely disabled?
Click to expand...

I think it's derived from disability social justice. A paraplegic isn't disabled. That's pejorative and othering and diminishing. Rather, they're differently abled or transabled. That's complimentary and inclusive and empowering. Removing healthy limbs isn't becoming disabled. It's becoming differently abled in the way that you always knew deep down you were. Transabled.

I call this a "nested Orwell".
 
Freaking hell.

Ontario High School Teacher Seen Wearing Massive Prosthetic Bust to Teach

I thought there might be dress and presentation codes for teachers, but then they probably wouldn't even have dreamed that this needed to be considered.

Apparently the magazine has checked and double-checked the story and it does not appear to be a hoax. Now, not all trans people and all that, but if anyone was in any doubt that some "transwomen" are mentally unbalanced fetishists who should have a restraining order keeping them from going within half a mile of any school building, this might enlighten them.

This is what self-ID and "this is a valid lived identity" and similar ideological nonsense is leading to.
 
I have to admire the elegant simplicity of their logic, though: It is absolutely prohibited to harass a woman about the size of her breasts, or even the existence of her breasts. Not only is it rude, it's also harassment, and in many jurisdictions a hate crime. There's literally no socially acceptable way for anyone to object to this, or to tell this person they're not allowed to have large boobs.

ETA: On the other hand, this illustrates my point perfectly, about the actual point of friction being transsexualism, not transgenderism. "Huge knockers" is not a socially-constructed gender role. It's a sexually-dimorphic phenotype. Or an absurd parody of same.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Poison the well much?

It's not just misgendering. Even if some is misgendering, the increase is across the board and you're attempting to downplay it because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Precisely. We don't know the breakdown, so we have actually no idea if there's been an increase in anti trans hate crimes, let alone what might be driving it or if it's even a real increase vs. an increase in reporting.

Ah, the old "unless the perp admits it was driven by transphobia, I won't accept it"
Click to expand...

No. Unless there's some reason to think it was driven by transphobia, there's no reason to assume it was. Most crimes are not hate crimes. A count of total crimes tells us nothing about the fraction which are hate crimes. And behaviors other than being trans are also highly correlated with being the victim of crime, so there are plenty of possible explanations for the higher rate of victimization other than anti-trans hatred.

There are literally hundreds of reputable publications saying hate crimes against trans have risen
Click to expand...

Your own latest Vice source brushes over the distinction between reported crimes and actual crimes in its opening, but keep digging and you'll find this tidbit:

The figures show occasions when a hate crime has been reported to police, not an arrest or conviction, and some police forces believe the increases show more people trust them to tackle hate crimes.​

The fact that reporting rates may not be constant has been brought up before, but you didn't seem to understand its significance now. Well, we aren't the only ones saying it's relevant.
 
Myriad said:
Your "correction" is an oxymoron. Eunuchs by definition are men. Historically, many of them (depending on the anatomical details of how they became eunuchs) were fully capable of performing the traditionally and conformationally male role in penetrative sexual intercourse.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which - Eunuch is now declared a gender identity in the World Professional Association of Transgender Health guidelines just published.

Eunuch is indeed a gender identity that only those 'assigned male at birth' can have (which is a bit strange if one assumes that the assignment is supposedly arbitrary and unimportant). What if somebody is assigned female at birth but later identifies as male? If they can't identify as a eunuch, is this not denying their identity?

'Eunuch individuals are those assigned male at birth (AMAB) and wish to eliminate masculine physical features, masculine genitals, or genital functioning.'

'As with other gender diverse individuals, eunuchs may also seek castration to better align their bodies with their gender identity'

'the greatest wealth of information about contemporary eunuch-identified people is found within the large online peer-support community that congregates on sites such as the Eunuch Archive'

Quite, why bother with systematic research when you can ask online groups.

'Like other gender diverse individuals, eunuch individuals may be aware of their identity in childhood or adolescence. Due to the lack of research into the treatment of children who may identify as eunuchs, we refrain from making specific suggestions'

Watch this space.
 
Last edited:
That does not sound like a professional approach to transgender health at all. That just sound like normalizing delusion and self-harm.

---

"Wouldn't that mean you identify as a woman?"

"What? No, of course not. A woman wants to cut off her dick and replace it with a vagina. I just want to cut off my dick. Full stop."

"That raises more questions than it answers. What about women who already have a vagina?"

"You mean cis women? **** 'em. Nobody here gives a **** about cis women."
 
Last edited:
Wait, I think we just found an invalid gender identity! If somebody is assigned female at birth and wants to identify as a eunuch, this must be an invalid gender identity.
 
The new WPath guidelines are shocking. They remove age limits for medical transition apart from being in Tanner stage 2 of puberty (which can be as early as 9 or 10) and eliminate recommendations for psychotherapy and treatment of mental health problems prior to 'gender affirming' care.

This goes against what is happening in countries outside the US where medical transition for minors is being rolled back.

Good thread about it here.
 
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...

Why are you assuming that this person has had extensive surgery? According to them, they haven't even been on hormones long enough to develop enough breast-like tissue to feel comfortable playing with adult females rather than pubertal females.

And it's their OWN WORDS that using the female changing room (with a bunch of minor females) was "The best gift I could get".

Don't substitute the narrative that you WANT to be true. Wishes aren't reality.
 
stanfr said:
IThe other side of the argument, already discussed, is that 'predators' are independent of gender identification, and I think that's a worthy argument to bring up.
Click to expand...

This is true: Predators are independent of gender identification.

They are, however, almost exclusively MALE. I (and most of the other posters on the critical side of this discussion) genuinely do not care about someone's identity. We care about their sex - and our own. Because sex is real. It's observable. And it has significant impacts on our lives. And someone saying magic words out loud that they're the other "gender" is pretty much just wishes - it does not change their sex one bit.

The gender identification of predators is irrelevant, the fact that about 99% of predators are male is highly relevant, as is the fact that about 95% of their victims are female.
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is true: Predators are independent of gender identification.

They are, however, almost exclusively MALE.
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification. There are actually a lot more female sexual predators than is commonly understood.

But they don't follow the same pattern as male sexual predators. They rarely use violence to obtain sex from their victims, and they generally don't target strangers. For example, female sexual predators often target willing but underage boys, from a position of familiarity or even authority (for example, teachers who have sex with students).

So while there are still plenty of female sexual predators out there, the differences in their patterns of predation make their threat profile very different as well. And one of the consequences of that difference is that access to private sex segregated spaces doesn't really change the risk profile for female sexual predators. But for male sexual predators, who often do use violence and often do target strangers, access to sex segregated spaces is a significant risk factor.
 
theprestige said:
As far as I can tell, the beginning and the end of LJ's appeal to science is what he infers from the APA deciding that trans identity without mental distress is not a mental disorder.
Click to expand...

I find it entertaining that LondonJohn's set of "relevant authorities and experts" keeps shrinking.

LJ is British. In the beginning, their set of "experts" was all developed european countries or something like that. Then Sweden and Finland changed their minds and have started to track back from the ideology. Then came the entire Tavistock debacle and the CASS review, and now LJ can't even reference their own country as an "expert". Now, LJ is reduced to citing the American Psychiatric Association as the "leading experts". Of course, LJ also has to pretend to not know about the research done by Karolinska, CASS, and Finland, or the actual scientists and medical practitioners pushing back against the whole thing. They have to pretend to have never seen any of that, to not know it exists.

At this rate, LJ will be reduced to proclaiming that Asst. Secretary of Health Rachel Levine is "the leading expert" and hang their hat solely on the opinion of one person who has a clear bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom