Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Emily's Cat]

Lately, the arguments I've been hearing from the trans side have had less to do with safety and more to do with "validation" and outing. (Outing, however, can be dangerous as it could lead to assault outside the facility.)

So, here's the deal. This is a BS argument. If a transgender identified male passes so incredibly well that using the male facilities would actually "out" them... then they could also use the female facilities without being viewed as a male transgressor.

Genuinely - if nobody can tell that they aren't female... then nobody can tell that they aren't female. And that "can't tell they're not female" necessarily includes them not showing their intact penises.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, the article does bring the prostitutes in Brazil into it.

It doesn't seem to, actually. Although, the actual article is not much longer than the abstract, and doesn't provide clear definitions of many terms. That said, it does seem to be explicitly limited to victimization in the US in 2018 and 2019.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's in the article, and that's clearly a reference to the Brazilian prostitutes thing. That's what, for me, makes the whole thing smack of "activist lawyer".

Nah, that's just virtue signaling. According to the actual report, there wasn't a material difference in race or ethnicity for transgender identified people versus others:

Compared with cisgender people, transgender people
had similar racial and ethnic and educational distributions but were younger and more likely to have never been married.

One thing they don't mention, and which I would like to know, is whether or not the victimization occurred during a period of time in which they were actively presenting and identifying as trans... or whether the victimization occurred prior to that period. They also don't provide any information about the circumstances of the victimization. Thus it could be the case that a high percentage of the personal victimization experienced by transgender identified males occurred in the course of prostitution. Not necessarily, but I believe there is evidence that a much higher proportion of transgender identified males engage in prostitution than do females.

Oh, also:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt7c3704zg/qt7c3704zg_noSplash_bdcad281b67fab6fb166297adfc6b4a8.pdf?t=qqfomk

 

[Emily's Cat]

You may consider it pedantic, but I work with data. When statistical claims, such as rates are mentioned, I like to see something to back them up.

It appears to me that data has not been collected and organized in such a manner that it can be analyzed to either support or debunk some of these claims.

ETA: If you torture the data long enough, it will admit to anything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you might mean "transgender identity is a thing".

Unless you - London John - are taking the position that ALL transgender identified people also have the disorder of autogynephilia... I rather think Rolfe meant EXACTLY what they said.

The transvestic sexual disorder of autogynephilia is a helluva thing.

 

[d4m10n]

...one of the largest bastions of objection to SELF-ID in the US is coming from left-leaning females.

I'm fairly skeptical of this claim, but I'm happy to change my mind given sufficient evidence that U.S. women are banding together to preserve some given set of sex-based rights.

Last I checked, American women are "more likely than men to say a person should be able to legally self-identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth," and liberal Democrats are particularly likely to "say a person’s gender can be different from sex at birth." There may be an entire bastion of left-leaning females objecting to self-i.d. but they sure as hell aren't showing up in the survey data.

I'm guessing you found them on social media?

 

[theprestige]

I'm fairly skeptical of this claim, but I'm happy to change my mind given sufficient evidence that U.S. women are banding together to preserve some given set of sex-based rights.

Last I checked, American women are "more likely than men to say a person should be able to legally self-identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth."

Saying you don't agree with it on a survey is different from standing up and opposing it as public policy.

 

[Rolfe]

Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 79,436 signatures, so 118 new signatures today. Dying on its arse again.

The new magic number is 289.6.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm fairly skeptical of this claim, but I'm happy to change my mind given sufficient evidence that U.S. women are banding together to preserve some given set of sex-based rights.

Last I checked, American women are "more likely than men to say a person should be able to legally self-identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth," and liberal Democrats are particularly likely to "say a person’s gender can be different from sex at birth." There may be an entire bastion of left-leaning females objecting to self-i.d. but they sure as hell aren't showing up in the survey data.

I'm guessing you found them on social media?

Different statistics, my friend.

More females than males are accepting of trans people. This is true. But it's also true that one of the largest groups of people who are opposing self-id are left-leaning feminists.

Most females are not left-leaning feminists.

 

[d4m10n]

But it's also true that one of the largest groups of people who are opposing self-id are left-leaning feminists.

How can you claim to know this if it's not showing up in survey data?

The political parties with the most feminists and the most left-leaning people are also the most in favor of self-i.d. here in the U.S.

So far as I can tell, this supposedly large group isn't having any actual effect on their fellow feminists on the left.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] an occasional tendency to perceive opposition in the slightest of disagreements.

That's not a good thing. It smacks of spending all your time in a centrifuge, or echo chamber that pulls one's position to an extreme. We are the hammer club, and everything, everywhere out there is a nail.

 

[Ziggurat]

The frustration comes in because a whole lot of those recently-active males have a tendency to look around in shock at what's going on. They had no idea it was happening.

That's true of most people, I suspect. I mean, a lot of it is so crazy that it's a natural reaction to think, "that can't be real". Shock is a pretty understandable reaction, I won't hold that against anyone. And for most people, how would they learn what's been going on? It's been kept largely under the radar, on purpose.

Then they tend to make statements like "where have all the feminists been? Shouldn't feminists have been fighting this already?"

I haven't really seen that, but selection bias might be at play for both of us. But I can understand why that would be frustrating if you do come across it.

But trust me - we are appreciative of those of you who have been involved for a long time.

Take allies wherever you can get them, including latecomers.

 

[d4m10n]

Shouldn't feminists have been fighting this already?

I'd say this is a fair question. Late model and right thinking men have been raised to defer to feminism on matters of womanhood and such, and ever since gender critical second wave feminists got pushed aside by intersectional feminists that has meant that we tend to go along with whatever the party line is coming from establishment feminism.

https://twitter.com/NationalNOW/status/1594378048887046145

Rolfe says men need to get their house in order, but I'd argue that feminists should go first. If the gendercrits cannot convince their fellow feminists—people who claim to prioritize the needs and rights of women—what hope do you have convincing those of us with much less skin in the game?

 

[Francesca R]

My position is that the intent of the male in question is irrelevant. Whether they *intended* to frighten or intimidate females is of no account.

If a trans woman isn't breaking any law being in a place, and is not intending to be predatory, I call it transphobic to claim that they are without any evidence (and/or with manipulated evidence).

I don't think it is transphobic to express opposition to them having access, but that is not the issue I had with this case.

Why do you believe that this specific individual merits special pleading with respect to their intent, when we have so very many other individuals who have made their intent and their schadenfreude abundantly clear?

It's possible to have gender critical views yet not believe that every trans woman, or a typical trans woman is deliberately and delightedly intimidating cis women in this situation. I suspect that is a difference between you and me.

You may choose to think that this makes me a gender identity ideologist and/or a TRA. You would be incorrect, and I believe it would just be polarised (extremist) thinking on your part again. If you're not 100% with me, you're against me, etc.

 

[theprestige]

If a trans woman isn't breaking any law being in a place, and is not intending to be predatory, I call it transphobic to claim that they are without any evidence (and/or with manipulated evidence).

The laws under discussion are written in a way that enables predation, and that criminalizes women who raise concerns about the risk of predation.

That's the problem. We wouldn't have to worry about discerning predatory intent if the law allowed women to enforce female-only spaces at their discretion.

There is also the problem of TRAs as yet being able to articulate a non-predatory reason for a male to want access to female spaces.

You might say that such access is necessary to treat gender dysphoria, but TRAs seem to have dismissed the question of psychological disorders and their treatment entirely from the conversation.

 

[Rolfe]

If a trans woman isn't breaking any law being in a place, and is not intending to be predatory, I call it transphobic to claim that they are without any evidence (and/or with manipulated evidence).

I don't think it is transphobic to express opposition to them having access, but that is not the issue I had with this case.

It's possible to have gender critical views yet not believe that every trans woman, or a typical trans woman is deliberately and delightedly intimidating cis women in this situation. I suspect that is a difference between you and me.

You may choose to think that this makes me a gender identity ideologist and/or a TRA. You would be incorrect, and I believe it would just be polarised (extremist) thinking on your part again. If you're not 100% with me, you're against me, etc.

The issue here is not your opinion that a male going into a female single-sex space knowing that he would be "read" as male by the women there was an OK thing for him to do. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I don't think there was ever a suggestion that he was deliberately trying to alarm the women, rather that he was aware that his presence was very likely to alarm them, but because he wanted to go there he put his wants above women's comfort and went anyway. But then when the inevitable happened, rather than being remorseful he was - at best, at your own assessment - thinking of himself and his own disappointment, and - at worse and quite probably - gleeful.

The issue is that because ripx4nutmeg, whoever she is, saw the situation differently from you, you insist on interpreting that not as a difference of opinion, but inferring somehow that ripx4nutmeg somehow knew that the interloper was benign but made him out to be non-benign out of malice. You then took that further to decide that the ripx4nutmeg account is not only "transphobic", but should be disbelieved as regards anything it posts.

You then ported that opinion, formed some three and a half years ago, into the thread as it is now, and castigated me for posting an entirely different link from the ripx4nutmeg account, a link about the appalling Danielle "suck-my-cock" Muscato. Apparently I was supposed to have taken on board your idiosyncratic opinion from 2019, and remembered never to post anything from that account again because Francesca has decided she doesn't like it.

You then seemed to be implying that Muscato is another poor wee flower of a vulnerable transwoman who shouldn't be criticised. Because, of course, you had decided that anything ripx4nutmeg posts must be the opposite of the truth.

Sorry. I see nothing wrong with the ripx4nutmeg account. I consider that her opinion as regards to bathroom interloper was sincere and not unreasonable. Even if you have a different interpretation. And we have ample evidence that Muscato is a scumbag, a conclusion that had been amply evidenced and agreed before you decided to rejoin the thread.

 

[Nick Terry]

Now there are whistleblowers from US gender clinics.

Jamie Reed, who calls herself a queer woman and is married to a trans man, worked at a university gender clinic for several years and relates a familiar story of disturbed teenagers with numerous comorbidities, some from broken homes, being uncritically affirmed and rushed onto hormones etc.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids

It's a very long piece so here's a hopefully fair use sample:

Until 2015 or so, a very small number of these boys comprised the population of pediatric gender dysphoria cases. Then, across the Western world, there began to be a dramatic increase in a new population: Teenage girls, many with no previous history of gender distress, suddenly declared they were transgender and demanded immediate treatment with testosterone.

I certainly saw this at the center. One of my jobs was to do intake for new patients and their families. When I started there were probably 10 such calls a month. When I left there were 50, and about 70 percent of the new patients were girls. Sometimes clusters of girls arrived from the same high school.

This concerned me, but didn’t feel I was in the position to sound some kind of alarm back then.There was a team of about eight of us, and only one other person brought up the kinds of questions I had. Anyone who raised doubts ran the risk of being called a transphobe.

The girls who came to us had many comorbidities: depression, anxiety, ADHD, eating disorders, obesity. Many were diagnosed with autism, or had autism-like symptoms. A report last year on a British pediatric transgender center found that about one-third of the patients referred there were on the autism spectrum.

Frequently, our patients declared they had disorders that no one believed they had. We had patients who said they had Tourette syndrome (but they didn’t); that they had tic disorders (but they didn’t); that they had multiple personalities (but they didn’t).

The doctors privately recognized these false self-diagnoses as a manifestation of social contagion. They even acknowledged that suicide has an element of social contagion. But when I said the clusters of girls streaming into our service looked as if their gender issues might be a manifestation of social contagion, the doctors said gender identity reflected something innate.

 

[Francesca R]

The laws under discussion are written in a way that enables predation [ . . . ] That's the problem.

I agree that is a problem. Do you think that that problem legitimises transphobia? Or even defines it from existence?

Or if you don't like the label of transphobia, does this problem justify publicly portraying trans women as if they are predators without knowing that they are, as the twitter user did in this case?

Or do you not think the twitter user actually did publicly portray the relevant trans woman as a predator?

 

[Rolfe]

Define "predator".

She portrayed the transwoman as someone who had entered a women's single-sex space, knowing that he would be read as male and aware that it was likely that one or more women would be alarmed and/or distressed by his presence there. Check. She portrayed him as going in there despite that awareness, because his desire to be there was more important to him than the comfort and modesty of the women present. Check. I think it's difficult to dispute this, up to that point.

She then interpreted his reaction to the realisation that he had caused distress and alarm as glee or satisfaction. You don't agree with that. You believe that his actual reaction was hurt feelings, because the woman's distress had reminded him that he was perceived by others as being male.

You wanted ripx4nutmeg to take your point of view that the transwoman was only expressing his hurt feelings, rather than any satisfaction. You seem to have no understanding that both interpretations are supportable on the basis of the facts known. Numerous people have come down on the "satisfaction" side.

If you believe that the focus on the transwoman's hurt feelings is a better take on this than satisfaction, fine. Personally, I think remorse that he had caused distress might have been a better reaction.

But where that gets to "predator" I really don't know. And where that gets to calling ripx4nutmeg names, castigating her as malicious and attempting to put a blanket ban on everyone else in the forum linking to any of her tweets, because you have decided that she's a liar, I don't know either.

ETA: And why you are still pushing this three-and-a-half-year-old issue is another thing I don't know. I don't care a button about "Adrienne" other than to hope that he stays out of women's single-sex spaces until he can genuinely appear feminine enough not to cause alarm and distress to the women whose spaces he so desperately wants to occupy. And I don't have the slightest intention of obeying your injunction not to link to any tweet by ripx4nutmeg in the future, or to regard her as a malicious liar. I have no evidence at all to support that judgement.

And finally, Danielle "suck-my-cock" Muscato is still a scumbag, even if ripx4nutmeg's voice was added to the existing pile of evidence proving that.

 

[Rolfe]

I see the thing that never happens has happened again.

Trans-Identified Male Care Worker Accused Of Sexual Assault By Multiple Women

Let's dial down the temperature a little, because it seems to be two women, but each making multiple allegations of sexual assault. Also, the women were employees of the assailant, not clients being given care. At least as far as is reported at the moment.