Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Emily's Cat]

I wonder how far you’d get if you emailed the APA, and/or literally every relevant mainstream clinical & medical field in progressive societies…

Do you consider the Karolinska Institute to be a relevant mainstream medical institution?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Tavistock? A very reputable organisation not far back. Be honest. Was it one of your mainstream medical organisations? It certainly was for many

London John doesn't appear to have any arguments of their own. Just Well-poisoning, Guilt-by-Association, Appeals to (assumed) Authority, and Sophisticated Theology.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

I have a friend who transitioned many years ago. I first met "her" after her transition and she presents sufficiently female to allow me to perceive her as a "her" even though I know she's male.

She told me all about what happened when she transitioned. (By the way I'm pretty certain she's AGP, she has the background for it, ex-military, but she has never come across as fetishistic to me, and this background didn't stand in her way when she transitioned.)

She described a long process of psychological introspection and counselling before any medical or surgical treatment was initiated. This both served to confirm that she was settled in her desire to transition, and to ground her in reality about what was possible and what wasn't. She always knew she'd be getting only a reasonable facsimile of a female body and would remain male. During all this time there was no question of her going into women's single-sex spaces. That was forbidden until after the actual surgery, and if she'd transgressed on this and been discovered, she'd have been thrown off the transition programme as a danger to women.

She also had quite intensive lessons on how to behave in such a way as to appear as much like a woman, and - perhaps more importantly - to appear unthreatening to women. All this happened long before she was given the green light, post-surgery, to use women's spaces.

She was given a letter to carry explaining that she had been through a process of medical and surgical transition, to produce if things ever got really hairy. However the instruction was to try to perceive if a woman was being made uncomfortable by her presence, and in that case to leave the single-sex space as quickly and unobtrusively as possible.

She was informed that if she got involved in trouble in a single-sex space and made women uncomfortable and didn't leave if that was happening, then the letter would be withdrawn and if she entered women's spaces thereafter she was risking being charged with a breach of the peace or something like that.

Now I don't entirely agree with all this. No women were asked, when these male sexologists decided to give males like my friend "permission" to enter women's spaces. However, the process they adopted was at least somewhat sensitive to women's modesty and probable concerns.

Now we're into a situation where any man at all can go where he likes, and if he's challenged he simply accuses his challenger of transphobia and suddenly he is in possession of all the moral high ground and the distressed women are in danger of being criminalised.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For crying out loud! Women cannot be convicted of rape so of course transwomen will show a higher rape statistic. She-eesh.

The UK is not the whole world. In the US females can absolutely be convicted of rape, as the definition is not specific to genitalia. Additionally, while females cannot be convicted of rape specifically in the UK, they can be convicted of a parallel crime that carries the same sentencing guidelines.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"In relation to the 97 sexual assaults in the female establishments between 1st Jan 2016 and 31st Dec 2019, 7 were incidents where prisoners who identify as transgender were involved. And of the 7 incidents, 6 were assaults where a transgender prisoner was the assailant or suspected assailant. In the 7th incident, the transgender prisoner had ‘active involvement’, " ibid

Seven out of 97. Stop it.

How many transgender prisoners were there in the female establishment? What is the proportionality for those 7 incidents?

 

[Rolfe]

The UK is not the whole world. In the US females can absolutely be convicted of rape, as the definition is not specific to genitalia. Additionally, while females cannot be convicted of rape specifically in the UK, they can be convicted of a parallel crime that carries the same sentencing guidelines.

"Assault by penetration", yes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I cannot adequately express how idiotic that article is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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%

Such a huge and material difference between 95% and 99%, it totally changes the outcome. I mean, seriously, at 95% of perpetrators being male, well, that's pretty much totally the same amount as female perpetrators, right?

/s

 

[Emily's Cat]

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



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%?

Do you see how 90% versus 99% doesn't materially alter the argument one whit?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is an inane attempt to shame based on your poor assumptions.

I do care quite a bit about prisoners, and about the justice system. It has a lot of problems and prisoners should NOT be dismissed as subhuman in any way.

Irrespective of my views on the penal system in the US, it remains a fact that the types of crimes committed by males and females show considerable differences. Additionally, there is a not insignificant number of females incarcerated for having attacked or having killed their domestic abuser. The criminal profiles of males and females are dramatically different.

And regardless of what ones opinions of prisoners are... It seems negligently cruel to create a situation that clearly INCREASES the risk of harm.

 

[Rolfe]

Most women in prison are there for non-payment of fines. Many of them have been the victims of domestic violence. Many of them have been caught up in drug-taking. A fair proportion of them are extremely vulnerable.

 

[theprestige]

Huh. I'm used to the trans-activists' Utopian Dodge: "If we solve all the problems of prison violence and prisoner predation, we won't need to worry about housing men with women."

But I think this is the first time I've seen the Dystopian Dodge: "Prisoners are subhuman scum anyway, and let's be honest - prison rape is an unofficial part of the sentencing guidelines. Anyone who gets raped by their cellmate had it coming anyway."

 

[GlennB]

How many transgender prisoners were there in the female establishment? What is the proportionality for those 7 incidents?

A-bloody-men. Just quoting the 7 out of 97 figure is pure statistical ignorance. Probably willful in this case.

 

[Ziggurat]

Most women in prison are there for non-payment of fines. Many of them have been the victims of domestic violence. Many of them have been caught up in drug-taking. A fair proportion of them are extremely vulnerable.

Yeah, but don't forget, those are lower class women. It's not sexist or misogynistic to not care about what happens to lower class women.

Never forget, trans activism is a luxury of the upper and upper middle classes.

 

[Rolfe]

You're right. I forgot.

 

[stanfr]

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.

Cite me on provision in the laws that we have been discussing (particularly the Scottish law or the CA law) that says women can participate in men's sports.
In fact it says no such thing at all.

You should be ashamed of your 'amusment' Can you explain to me if being in favor of tans rights is so misogynistic, why is it that according to Gallup:
74 % of women vs 57% of men feel transexuals should serve in the military.
43% of women, vs 24% of men, feel transexuals should be able to compete in their self-identified gender's sport.
Are those women 'misogynists'??

Galllup

 

[Rolfe]

Oh no not again.

If you ask a question that more or less parses as "should everyone be kind to everyone else" of course you'll get a lot of people in favour, and a majority of them will be women.

If you actually spell out the detail of what all that implies you get very different responses.

 

[stanfr]

"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.

No, my position is that I see no evidence that will happen. What you claim is 'evidence' amounts to speculation based on one or two anecdotal accounts. One can always cherry pick an incident and then claim that it will spiral out of control. It is no different than Trump saying Mexicans are rapists but some are nice people. One Mexican rapist does not condemn a group and should not dictate policy towards a group.

 

[stanfr]

Oh no not again.

If you ask a question that more or less parses as "should everyone be kind to everyone else" of course you'll get a lot of people in favour, and a majority of them will be women.

If you actually spell out the detail of what all that implies you get very different responses.

"spelling out the detail" is your code phrase for ",making **** up"
Those questions are not about "being kind to everyone" they are about conferring rights. Certainly the sport issue is, and I would answer with the male majority there! The point is that women are more likely to be in favor of conferring rights.

 

[Rolfe]

Panelbase, like other reputable polling companies, are not in the business of allowing clients to make anything up when polls are being commissioned.