Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[lionking]

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. men

FTFY

 

[d4m10n]

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.

They have the lesser charge of sexual assault in Scotland, as well as England and Wales. You'll notice that this is the phrase I used, rather than rape.

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

My belief is that the sexual assault statistics speak for themselves, once you take the trouble to look them up and break out perpetration by sex.

 

[Rolfe]

There is an equivalent offence of "assault by penetration" which women can be charged with, and which carries exactly the same penalties as rape. So if you refer to sexual assault charges, you'll scoop up both categories.

Women have very occasionally been convicted of rape, as accessories to a male rapist. For example if a woman restrained the victim while a man raped her (or him), she could be charged with rape.

However this is pretty rare, and if you see statistics in Britain including "women" or "females" convicted of rape, it's a pretty safe bet these are actually men with identity issues.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Poor logic. Marjolein being happy doesn't ipso facto detract from anyone else's happiness. Unless, of course, YOU want her to be deprived of happiness.

Holy cow, really? Females shouldn't be expected to set themselves on fire in order to keep poor Marjolein warm. There are other solutions available that protect Marjolein while ALSO not putting any else at risk. But you're happy to pick a solution that protects Marjolein AND makes them happy... and you just willfullly ignore the several females who are made unhappy and placed at increased risk.

You clearly value Marjolein's happiness more than you give a **** about the happiness, safety, and dignity of many females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Marjolein was not deliriously happy at the pervy delight of being amongst semi-dressed 15-year-old girls. She was happy to have been accepted as female at last. But someone has to come along - the nasty hack writing for a nasty tabloid - and twist it into something dirty.

It reflects on their own sordid mind.

Except that Marjolein is NOT female - Marjolein is male. Furthermore, Marjolein is a 30+ year old male, who is sharing a changing room with minor females, Marjolein's dick and balls notwithstanding.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wow, how sexist is that? Females can be extremely violent. Violent female offenders think nothing of slashing the object of a rejected sexual advance across the face with a razor blade between the knuckles.

You really buy the quaint Victorian idea that women are passively sexless.

And you are denying well-documented reality.

So go do your homework and support your assertion - how many females are incarcerated for violent crimes - both as a proportion of inmates and total number? How many females are incarcerated for sexual offenses - both as a proportion of inmates and total number?

I specify total number, because it's incredibly relevant to recognize that females aren't a numerical minority - we're half of the population. And the incarceration rates, as well as the rates of violent offending and sexual offending are not even in the same ******* ballpark.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps do some research and study on the subject matter before confidently asserting that your word is final?

I did not assert, I questioned. You dodged. Granted, the question wasn't directed at you, but since you've seen fit to toss your two cents in with condescension... learn some logic, please.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why is Emily's Cat asking stanfr those questions if he or she has never considered those issues before?

I have considered them. And I've also noted that a fair number of people simply ASSUME that there are these super-distinct "characteristics" that make it super-easy to distinguish male from female in terms of everything EXCEPT actual physical biology.

They hold contradictory positions: On the one hand, they argue that sex is not well defined, is unclear, and is a spectrum when speaking of actual biology. And on the other hand, they hold that there are psychological, emotional, and social distinctions between males and females that are prescriptive - thus asserting that a male who demonstrates female "emotional traits" is actually a "woman".

It's illogical special pleading and contradictory hogwash.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well there was the case of Anneli Auer, whose husband was bludgeoned by a mysterious intruder in black. She got off the murder rap as nobody could quite believe a woman could commit such a violent murder. She might well be innocent but the fact remains, police, courts and juries are reluctant to believe women are capable of cold blooded sadistic acts of violence. Biologically, testosterone does make the male of the species more naturally aggressive but it doesn't follow that transgender women are more prone to committing sexual assault.

More prone than whom? More prone than females? Or more prone than males?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I see a distinct difference for example between chromosomal 'anomalies' (XXXY, XXY etc...) and whether someone has 10 fingers or 11...

You see a distinct difference between genetic anomalies associated with sex development and genetic anomalies associated with finger development?

In what material way is there a distinct difference, aside from the elementary observation that they're different body parts under discussion?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a false dichotomy, and it still fails to address policy arguments. I've been waiting (and waiting...and waiting) for proof that changes in law will result in higher incidences of assault or whatever by trans individuals....still no evidence.

Here's what you, as well as Vixen, keep missing:

It's not that trans are sexual predators; it's that sexual predators are claim trans.


Consider a parallel analogy. Consider an under age 10 child-only space, designed and intended for the safety and happiness of children. In previous years, the age in question has been based on the chronological measurement of age, from date of birth. Similarly, there are requirements for a person to have a minimum age in order to access certain services, such as driving, drinking, and signing contracts.

Recently, there's been an organized push for people to be accepting and supportive of people who identify as transage. These people have been discriminated against and treated as social pariahs, because most people think that identifying as a different age than one has chronologically is strange and deviant. There's been a lot of progress made in accepting that some people truly feel a different age than they are, and in many social situations their chronological age is irrelevant.

There's also been a push to change policy. The desired policy is to allow people, including children, to be treated as the age they identify as, in all scenarios.

If we were to allow transage people to engage in every aspect of society based on their identified-as age, AND we allow that age to be based on self-declaration in order to attain a transage identifier on their various documentation... what are some of the potential downsides and risks that might occur?

• What is the likelihood that a 16 year old might identify as 21, and thus be legally allowed to attain access to alcohol?
• What is the likelihood that a 40 year old with pedophilic leanings might identify as a 9 year old in order to attain legal access to child-only spaces?
• What is the likelihood that a 40 year old might seek to persuade a 12 year old that the 12 year old identifies as 21 in order to legally have sex with them?

In short: What sort of loopholes occur if we as a society were to accept a person's transage as being synonymous with their chronological age, and grant them access to spaces and services solely on the basis of their declared trans age? Are there potential downsides that may be exploited to the deficit of other people? Is there a potential for material harm to befall some people as a result of this policy?

How much harm to other people are you willing to accept in order to assuage the discomfort of those who genuinely identify as transage?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The correlation is EVIDENCE! Trumpets deny evidence because it doesn't suit their ideology. It indicates bias. I have been waiting (and waiting) for evidence that the policy of trans inclusion is detrimental to women, and I haven't seen it yet.

Please stop closing your eyes when you are presented with evidence.
Take some time and peruse the following:
https://www.womenarehuman.com/
https://4w.pub/
https://www.feministcurrent.com/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/
https://reduxx.info/

Some of the opinions and framing in some of those cites are more extreme and biased than I prefer, but the facts and events noted are actual events that actually happened.

The idea of 'pretending' to be women is a red herring. I think if you told any trans individual they were 'pretending' to be the 'other' sex they might punch you in the face. And I might cheer them on.

Is it your assumed position that nobody would ever pretend to be the opposite sex without being genuinely trans in order to gain access to female spaces they would otherwise be barred from?

 

[Rolfe]

You see a distinct difference between genetic anomalies associated with sex development and genetic anomalies associated with finger development?

In what material way is there a distinct difference, aside from the elementary observation that they're different body parts under discussion?

Anyway, people who are XXY or XXXY are still male, so what's the issue?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You wear trousers, shirt and tie and have a short haircut.

So... a female who wears trousers, shirts and tie, and has short hair is actually a "man" regardless of their own view on it? Is gender determined by superficial social trends then?

How the **** is that "progressive"?

Seriously..

Traditionalists: Women do the dishes.
Feminists: Both men and women can do the dishes.
Trans Activists: Whoever does the dishes is a woman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's an outright lie.

Based on... ?

What do you think the stats are? What do you believe the percentage of sexual predators by sex to be, and do you have support for this belief? What do you believe the percentage by sex of victims to be, and do you have support for that belief?

Before you accuse me of dishonesty, perhaps you ought to bother to do some research of your own.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I completely understand and respect all that. My point (and here's) is that trans women have been in women's spaces for decades and I am not convinced that will dramatically change as a result of new laws that are more self-id affirmative...or that the incidence of crime will rise as a result. I get that you and others disagree, I simply am not convinced this is a threat.

A very few transsexual males have used female spaces in the past. They had extensive psychiatric treatment and diagnoses. They made a concerted effort to pass as well as they could. And we females pretended to not know they were male, out of compassion and the assumptions that they had removed their male genitals.

The requirement for a diagnosis excluded predators and those with transvestic sexual fetishes. This served to protect females in those single-sex spaces.

Additionally, we as females were empowered to exclude those males at our discretion - we made case by case exceptions and allowed those very few in.

What you're talking about is a complete revision of the situation. Removing the requirement of diagnosis, and allowing policy acknowledgement on the basis of self-declaration means there is no gatekeeper to prevent predators and fetishists. In fact, self-declaration opens a giant gaping loophole that allows predators and fetishists to exploit females on their say-so.

And by making it a policy acknowledgement, it removes the right of females to refuse consent. You've literally set up a situation where females have no right to refuse a naked male in their intimate spaces against their will. Females have no right to refuse consent to a voyeuristic male who wishes to view those females while they are vulnerable.

The policy simultaneously throws open the door to predators and fetishists while removing any right to consent of females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

yep, and some Mexicans are not rapists...I think I've heard all this before.

Alright. Can you please lay out your reasoning for why sex-separated spaces should be completely outlawed and all spaces where people are vulnerable or nude should be required to be mixed sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you seriously think prisons are putting males with women "against their will"--inviting violence between the two?? Have you ever visited a prison? I used to be in them all the time for my first career--they go out of their way just to avoid that very situation.

******* hell - YES - they are putting males in with females against the will of the females! FFS, do some basic research into what happened with Karen White in the UK, and what is CURRENTLY happening in California!

It IS happening. What I think is irrelevant to the observable ******* reality of what is occurring.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Especially when it is used to deny rights to an historically discriminated against group.

Please provide evidence that males have historically had the right to enter female-only spaces against the will of the females in those spaces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Agreed. I've lost track of the number of times that I, or Elaedith, or Rolfe, or Jihad Jane, or any number of other female posters have expressed this. But I'll say it one more time:

The problem is not transgendered people, the problem is self-declared gender identity overriding the reality of sex. The problem is self-id.