Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[d4m10n]

Do you understand the distinction between "predators" and "rapists"?

Do you understand that I was replying to two different posts?

EC says "99% of predators are male" and you say that is a lie. She also says "99% of all sexual assaults are committed by males" at #3176 and I assume she is talking about the same stat. Once again, my question to you was what do you think the correct number actually is according to the crime stats where you live? Out of all the sexual assaults, how many were committed by males?

 

[stanfr]

And the “right way” is for women in women’s spas or change rooms to put up with seeing penises in their formerly safe spaces?

And before you say “they can complain about this”, Lia Thomas’ female teammates tried this and were threatened with exclusion from the team. Women’s complaints have been and will be ignored.

At least at this point in time, I don't think Lia Thomas should be competing against women, so sorry..your argument falls flat with me.

 

[lionking]

At least at this point in time, I don't think Lia Thomas should be competing against women, so sorry..your argument falls flat with me.

It’s not an argument. It is happening.

 

[stanfr]

Do you understand that I was replying to two different posts?

EC says "99% of predators are male" and you say that is a lie. She also says "99% of all sexual assaults are committed by males" at #3176 and I assume she is talking about the same stat. Once again, my question to you was what do you think the correct number actually is according to the crime stats where you live? Out of all the sexual assaults, how many were committed by males?

It is a lie. I just demonstrated it for you. You should not assume. I go by people's words, just ask Steerman, words matter. Call a predator a predator, call a rapist a rapist. Mixing up the two is false and misleading.

I don't know what the stats are for sexual assaults, as I just pointed out to you there are no really good stats available. I've seen stats ranging from 80% to 98%...don't ask me which is correct. If I had to guess id probably say around 90-95%

 

[stanfr]

It’s not an argument. It is happening.

But it has nothing to do with my position here, which is that relaxing gender ID laws is not gonna make the problem worse. So your point that people are annoyed by Lia Thomas is irrelevant.

 

[stanfr]

This is primarily for stanfr and Vixen. This has been discussed time and time again here. (I rarely post, but I've been reading this for years)

Current laws in many places allow someone self-ID as trans. No doctor, no hormones, no dressing as the other gender, or even attempting to act as the other gender.

While that might make transition easier for the genuinely transgendered people, self ID allows bad actors to game the system for their own, sometimes perverted, ends.

It is those bad actors, and the legislation that allows them to misbehave, that are the problem.

Genuine transwomen may or may not be a threat in female safe spaces, but people who only call themselves transwomen ARE a threat. And there is often no way for the women in those formerly safe spaces to tell the genuine from the imposters. The imposters are there for a reason and the reason isn't good for the poor ciswomen involved.

I think the results of self-ID is what Rolfe and Emily's Cat are complaining about. They have said so upthread. They, and the men who are concerned for women's safety and dignity, are not anti-trans.

For the umpteenth time I am sympathetic to this point, but I am not seeing these "results" as a consequence of the legal changes. I don't see how the relaxation in legal requirements is going to magically increase the number of predators--they've always been out there, they are not going to magically increase!

 

[lionking]

But it has nothing to do with my position here, which is that relaxing gender ID laws is not gonna make the problem worse. So your point that people are annoyed by Lia Thomas is irrelevant.

Do you realise this whole thread started because of the sports issue? My point was entirely relevant and you deciding not to deal with it is very telling.

 

[d4m10n]

It is a lie.

No, it is a misunderstanding. EC was talking about sexual assault.

I just demonstrated it for you.

You didn't come up with any numbers; you didn't even say which table/column/cell to look at.

I don't know what the stats are for sexual assaults

Presumably because you didn't read my post carefully.

Here once again:

I'll pull up some data for the United States, where "[n]early 98 percent of perpetrators are male."

Notice that the DoJ stats are about "Rape and Sexual Assault" in particular, which is what I've been asking about and what EC was talking about at post #3176.

 

[stanfr]

Do you realise this whole thread started because of the sports issue? My point was entirely relevant and you deciding not to deal with it is very telling.

And you obviously haven't been reading my posts, otherwise you'd know that you are barking up the wrong tree. If I don't necessarily disagree with you that Lia should be undressing in front of her female teammates, then why do you feel the need to point that out to me? What does it have to do with me asking for evidence that self-ID laws are going to increase sexual violence against women??

 

[stanfr]

No, it is a misunderstanding...

Fine, that is not the post I was responding to, but perhaps it was a "misunderstanding" How convenient...

You didn't come up with any numbers; you didn't even say which table/column/cell to look at.

Presumably because you didn't read my post carefully.

Here once again: Notice that the DoJ stats are about "Rape and Sexual Assault" in particular, which is what I've been asking about and what EC was talking about at post #3176.

Again, the stats are misleading. (and incidentally, nowhere in any of your cites is "99%" mentioned) The relevant numbers in the table I cited for you are in the FBI table of stats--Im not going to go line for line for you but they show approximately 90-93% of rapists are male. See how 90% does not equal 99%?

 

[The Atheist]

But it has nothing to do with my position here, which is that relaxing gender ID laws is not gonna make the problem worse. So your point that people are annoyed by Lia Thomas is irrelevant.

Way to point out you have no clue what you're typing.

It's been shown time and time again that women cannot compete against men fairly, regardless of whether the guy is wearing a jock strap or panties.

Relaxing gender laws will clearly impact on sports, which will mean women's prizemoney, scholarships and incomes will go to men, when they self-identify as women. Relaxing gender laws benefits a small few while harming all women.

I confess to being amused that after all the iterations of this thread, and the years it's been running, that some people just don't understand that misogyny is at the heart of male support for allowing guys in panties to trample all over women's rights.

But then, I wouldn't expect a misogynist to worry about being a misogynist.

 

[d4m10n]

Again, the stats are misleading.

How so?

(and incidentally, nowhere in any of your cites is "99%" mentioned)

That is correct, the figure comes up in the wiki page you linked.

The relevant numbers in the table I cited for you are in the FBI table of stats--Im not going to go line for line for you but they show approximately 90-93% of rapists are male.

If you mean this table, it is not limited to rape or sexual assault but includes all sexual offenses, e.g. indecent exposure.

See how 90% does not equal 99%?

Keep reading down that page, you'll actually see that "99% of arrestees for rape are male" in at least one study.

It doesn't actually matter that much to me whether we use 99% or 94.22% (FBI table row six), either way the point is that forcible sexual offenders are overwhelmingly male and that is among the reasons why we separate by sex when people are getting naked and feeling vulnerable.

I don't see how the relaxation in legal requirements is going to magically increase the number of predators--they've always been out there, they are not going to magically increase!

The argument is that we shouldn't be increasing their opportunities to offend, such as by tearing down the social norm which formerly allowed females to challenge the presence of males in certain intimate spaces.

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Steersman
You mean the same way that the APA's positions on, say, homosexuality and lobotomies weren't "made-up pseudoscientific theories"? ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-03479-001

Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

Did you bother to read any part of the articles I linked to?

My point was that at one time the "pathologizing of homosexuality", and viewing "prefrontal lobotomy as a means to improve the hospital adjustment of chronic psychotic patients" was seen as gospel truth there at the APA.

Which was more or less shown to be not much better, if at all, than "made-up pseudo-scientific theories".

Rather like the case now with "gender identity" which is clearly so much incoherent twaddle. See the APA's "definition":

Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else ...

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender

If some transwoman claims to have a "gender identity" of "female" then either:
1) their "internal sense of being female" is flatly contradicted by the fact that they are, by conventional wisdom and by definition, a male - i.e., someone with either the past, present, or future ability to produce sperm, according to the quite unscientific structuralist definitions, or present ability to do so according to the standard biological definitions. In which case the APA is simply pandering to the delusions of transwomen.

OR,
2) those transwomen mean something entirely different from what virtually everyone else means by "female" - i.e., someone with either the past, present, or future ability to produce ova according to the quite unscientific structuralist definitions, or present ability to do so according to the standard biological definitions. In which case the APA hasn't got a clue about those biological definitions (see below) or they're being taken in by those transwomen:



Neither case reflects well on the APA, and seems prima facie evidence that they're all madder than hatters, that they are, once again, peddling "made-up pseudo-scientific theories".

 

[theprestige]

But it has nothing to do with my position here, which is that relaxing gender ID laws is not gonna make the problem worse. So your point that people are annoyed by Lia Thomas is irrelevant.

"Relaxing the gender ID laws" is a weird way to put it. But the trend in changing social norms and public policy is happening, and it is already making the problem worse. Examples of this have been provided to you. Also provided is the argument for why we should expect this problem to get worse if the trend continues. The goal is to stop the trend before the problem gets worse. Your position is that the problem needs to get worse, that more harm needs to be done to more people, before you will consider trying to stop it. Your position is literally that you need to see more rape, more sexual assault, more predation on women.

 

[Steersman]

Just thought I'd post this laughable article in the Atlantic, about how maybe women are just as good as men in athletics, they just haven't been given the opportunities:



This strikes me as one of those articles that needed to be written. Somebody had to advance the notion that the only reason girls aren't just as big, fast and strong as boys is sexism. That said, I am kind of surprised that the editors at the Atlantic went ahead and published it.

Fausto-Sterling - the professor of parody - did so Herself several decades ago:

Uniformity in muscular shape, size and strength within sex categories is not caused entirely by biological factors, but depends heavily on exercise opportunities: if males and females were allowed the same exercise opportunities and equal encouragement to exercise, it is thought that bodily dimorphism would diminish (Fausto-Sterling 1993a, 218).

https://newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-gender/#SexClaSolMatBio

No indication of how much exercise she thought it might take to turn ovaries into testicles ...

 

[Steersman]

It's a poor analogy.
And the 'I found one example that proves a premise' argument is tired and disingenuous. Especially when it is used to deny rights to an historically discriminated against group.

Still think you don't quite get the concept of analogies. Or you're virtue signaling. Rolfe wasn't in any way trying to "deny rights to an historically discriminated against group". She was clearly emphasizing that pointing out one common element between vegetarians and Hitler - they're both vegetarians - is a rather fraudulent attack on the former:

Yes, it's Godwinning the thread, but would you tell vegetarians that they should abandon their position because it just happens to coincide with Hitler's position?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13899865#post13899865

The highlighted, on the other hand, is an excellent question. I tend to see Muhammed was either psychotic or a molester or both, but I am not such an expert that I would confidently say that to any Muslim, and perhaps even if I were 100% certain of my characterization I probably would avoid using that language with any Muslim, out of basic politeness and decency. Which is why I might cheer on the Muslim for face-punching. I'm kind of a Vulcan in that respect, keep emotions out of it, stick to the facts!

Glad we agree on Muhammed. But do words now qualify as violence which should be responded to in kind? Bit of a slippery slope there counselor.

 

[Vixen]

Now you're just making stuff up.

Since you refuse to look at the numbers where you live, I'll pull up some data for the United States, where "[n]early 98 percent of perpetrators are male." What are the correct figures where you live?

I can guaranteed that in the UK 100% of rapes are carried out by the male of the species. Why? Because only men can get charged with the offence. Kimo sabe?

 

[Vixen]

Way to point out you have no clue what you're typing.

It's been shown time and time again that women cannot compete against men fairly, regardless of whether the guy is wearing a jock strap or panties.

Relaxing gender laws will clearly impact on sports, which will mean women's prizemoney, scholarships and incomes will go to men, when they self-identify as women. Relaxing gender laws benefits a small few while harming all women.

I confess to being amused that after all the iterations of this thread, and the years it's been running, that some people just don't understand that misogyny is at the heart of male support for allowing guys in panties to trample all over women's rights.

But then, I wouldn't expect a misogynist to worry about being a misogynist.

I love this line of reasoning. "If you do not agree with me you are a misogynist. So there!"

 

[Vixen]

How so?

That is correct, the figure comes up in the wiki page you linked.

If you mean this table, it is not limited to rape or sexual assault but includes all sexual offenses, e.g. indecent exposure.

Keep reading down that page, you'll actually see that "99% of arrestees for rape are male" in at least one study.

It doesn't actually matter that much to me whether we use 99% or 94.22% (FBI table row six), either way the point is that forcible sexual offenders are overwhelmingly male and that is among the reasons why we separate by sex when people are getting naked and feeling vulnerable.

The argument is that we shouldn't be increasing their opportunities to offend, such as by tearing down the social norm which formerly allowed females to challenge the presence of males in certain intimate spaces.

Let's face it. In western culture, 'indecent exposure' invariably refers to what is colloquially known as 'flashing', or, 'man in dirty raincoat'. No wonder it is predominantly men who get charged with this crime as it is quite difficult for a woman in a raincoat to alarm and distress a passing man in a similar manner.

The standards of decency have varied over time. During the Victorian era, for example, exposure of a woman's legs, and to some extent the arms, was considered indecent in much of the Western world. Hair was sometimes required to be covered in formal occasions as in the form of a hat or bonnet. As late as the 1930s – and to some extent, the 1950s – both women and men were expected to bathe or swim in public places wearing bathing suits that covered above the waist. An adult woman exposing her navel was also considered indecent in parts of the West into the 1960s and 1970s, and even as late as the 1980s. Moral values changed drastically during the 1990s and 2000s, which in turn changed the criteria for indecent exposure. Public exposure of the navel has been accepted during the 1990s, such as on beaches, while in the 2000s, the buttocks can be exposed while wearing a thong. For many years, however, it was quite common for women to go topless at public beaches throughout Europe and South America and even some parts of the United States.

wiki

Your belief that women are helpless waifs who cannot commit unwanted sexual acts is touching.

 

[Vixen]

Aren't prisoners supposed to be the dregs of society? The people who rob us, mug us, burgle our homes, steal our bags, laptops and credit cards, sell junk to our kids, threaten people with knives and guns, stab people, shoot people, commit fraud and deception, wipe out the life savings of the elderly and vulnerable? All the people who never cared a darn about the welfare of prisoners before are now suddenly their fiercest campaigners and defenders. These sweet fragrant fragile hot-house flowers are suddenly surrounded by knights in white armour desperate to protect the wilting violets from - gasp! - transgender women.