Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Interesting how some people were able to respond to the story without actually being able to read it.
Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
- Status
Interesting how some people were able to respond to the story without actually being able to read it.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Dismissing the argument on account of who has put the argument forward rather than on the merits (or otherwise) of the argument is the very definition of argumentum ad hominem.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Rolfe
Adult human female
Francesca R
Girl
Disagreed. Moreover that is a position born of intolerance.
Francesca R
Girl
No. Do you?
And do you, Emily's Cat, believe that legally entering a female only space on claimed gender identity (IE a male-born trans woman doing it), regardless of any intention (see previous post), constitutes predatory behaviour against women?
Rolfe
Adult human female
This is a very important thread from the Missouri Attorney General about this case.
https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1623803010898952194
Francesca R
Girl
I assumed that's the case. I have no real idea. If it was not, it rather changes things. IIRC it was a bathroom at "Booz Allen Hamilton" which I recall was offered to access based on gender identification. Think that was written in various tweets, I am not familiar with that organisation.
Francesca R
Girl
It will take less time if you stop trying to shut down your opposition the same way a religious zealot would try to demonise alternative faiths.
Especially since you yourself have conceded that trans women are not women.
Rolfe
Adult human female
It was three and a half years ago. I have no idea. I attempted to cover both possibilities. The fact is that the transwoman quite clearly knew he would be read as male by women, and that that was likely to cause a woman in the women's toilet distress, but he chose to go there anyway because he wanted to do that, and what he wanted was more important than the feelings of the women in there.
Then, when the distress happened, rather than showing remorse for having been the cause of that distress, at best he thought only of himself and his hurt feelings at being read as male. I am not on Adrienne's side here regardless of whether the intent of the tweet was to gloat.
However, the central point is not the fragrant Adrienne, but the (possibly equally fragrant) ripx4nutmeg, whom you seem to have a particular and inexplicable down on. You disagreed with that account's interpretation of Adrienne's tweet, which is perfectly legitimate. However, despite the fact that many other people also put the "gloating" interpretation on the tweet, you decided that ripx4nutmeg didn't really believe the gloating interpretation, but had tweeted that interpretation out of malice. I see no evidence of malice, the "gloating" interpretation is just as reasonable a reading of the tweet as the "poor me" one. I believe your attribution of malice to ripx4nutmeg is unjustifiable.
Then, on the basis of that attribution, you proceed to label the account "transphobic". That again is unjustifiable. That account is simply one of many that tweets from a gender critical perspective, and which has a surprisingly large number of followers too.
You then appeared to imagine that I should have remembered all this from mid 2019, in early 2023, and have refrained from linking to an entirely unrelated tweet from the ripx4nutmeg account, because I should have taken on board your three and a half year old opinion (which I do not share) that the account is "transphobic" and that you have therefore deemed it not to be referenced.
You then seemed to be inferring, on the basis of your earlier (very much disputed) assessment of the account's tweeting about the Adrienne affair, that everything the account tweets must be false. This led to something approaching a defence of "Danielle" suck-my-cock Muscato, on the grounds that if ripx4nutmeg had tweeted something derogatory about the not-so-fragrant Danielle, then Danielle might be presumed to be another injured innocent.
I've been following ripx4nutmeg for about a week now, I have seen no evidence of "transphobia" other than the generalised transphobia attributed to everyone and anyone who doesn't unreservedly agree that TWAW, and indeed the most marginalised of all women, a group who can do no wrong and who should be granted every privilege society can grant (and a few more besides).
I therefore reserve the right to link to any ripx4nutmeg tweet that I consider relevant, and I will not be amused by any protestations that "that account is transphobic" therefore anything it tweets may be dismissed. That's an argument for the likes of those who think that "that is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist publication" is all they need to say to dismiss a long, detailed legal analysis of the law and practice relating to males in the female prison estate.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
What do you consider to be an extremist position, and why?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Yes, yes, those "extremist activist" females who object to having male prisoners placed in with females against the females' will. So extreme. So very, very extreme. It's hard to imaging how ANYBODY in their right mind could consider supporting such an extreme position.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
No, you didn't fix anything. You overlaid your own bigotry against females onto it... and then further used the fact that this is an article by a FEMALE to dismiss it out of hand. You use the sex of the author as a way to demean, attack, and dismiss the entire article out of hand.
This is your rampant bigotry on display. Again.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Using the fact that the LAWYER in question is a FEMALE who does not kowtow to your beliefs is 100% ad hominem. Specifically, it is poisoning the well.
You declare the author to be {intentionally insulting epithet}, without ever bothering to read the content. Then you insinuate that the content can be dismissed without consideration, because of the author's supposed category of {insulting epithet}.
Why don't you just be honest and admit that if something is written by an unsubmissive female, you consider it to be valueless?
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I wrote a lengthy, well articulated, well thought out rationale for my position... and your only response is to insinuate that I'm "intolerant" of people who knowingly and intentionally violate social norms in a way that are guaranteed to make people feel intimidated and frightened?
Did you even bother to read and consider what I wrote? Or are you just hell-bent on virtue signaling and insulting other posters?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Not at all.
I oppose it being made LEGAL in the first place. That's the entire point here.
And yes, at present I DO consider it to constitute predatory behavior. Just as I would consider it predatory behavior for an adult to insist on using the child's bathroom in an elementary school, when there is a perfectly accessible adult restroom easily available.
A person who is knowingly and intentionally transgressing norms in a way that any reasonable person would EXPECT to cause fear, discomfort, and concern in others is 100% behaving in a predatory manner.
I *might* consider extenuating circumstance in some very specific instances. But as a general statement, yes it is predatory.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Will you please take some time and give some thought to your assumption?
Let's momentarily pretend you have no knowledge of the author of the article, no predisposition toward them at all. All you have are facts presented in the actor's own words:
They are male
They entered a female-only space
Male spaces are easily available and accessible to this male individual
A female entered that space and was intimidated and frightened by the presence of a male
The female left and was thus unable to access a space intended for the use of females
Why is your immediate assumption to think that the male had a LEGAL RIGHT to be there? Why is your immediate reaction to dismiss the concerns of the female who was frightened out of a space intended for female use?
Why is your reaction to defend the male who is in a female-only space?
Rolfe
Adult human female
And here's another one.
Woman distributed indecent images over WhatsApp then claimed it was 'role play'
Child pornography. Shocking, and an especially shocking thing for a woman to have done, no?
Oh, we all know where this is going by now. There is a photo of "Ketan", and "Ketan" is indisputably a man. A long long way down the article we finally get to it, in the judge's sentencing remarks.
So the judge decided to spare this man a prison sentence.
This is not to tar all gender-confused men with the same brush. However the sheer frequency with which these stories appear is disturbing. Please note that all the stories I have linked to are current - within the past two or three days unless I have made a mistake. They all appear in my Twitter feed, unsolicited. I am not Googling for things and finally coming up with something from over three years ago inIndia Tblisi, as John has done. The push to force women to #bekind and accept this group of men into their intimate spaces is generally founded on the assertion, explicit or implicit, that trans-identifying men are harmless, considerate, even vulnerable individuals.
Some of them may be. But many of them demonstrably are not.
Woman distributed indecent images over WhatsApp then claimed it was 'role play'
Child pornography. Shocking, and an especially shocking thing for a woman to have done, no?
Oh, we all know where this is going by now. There is a photo of "Ketan", and "Ketan" is indisputably a man. A long long way down the article we finally get to it, in the judge's sentencing remarks.
So the judge decided to spare this man a prison sentence.
This is not to tar all gender-confused men with the same brush. However the sheer frequency with which these stories appear is disturbing. Please note that all the stories I have linked to are current - within the past two or three days unless I have made a mistake. They all appear in my Twitter feed, unsolicited. I am not Googling for things and finally coming up with something from over three years ago in
Some of them may be. But many of them demonstrably are not.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Here is a factual assessment of the new Scottish Prison Service policy on transgender prisoners.
New Policy Will See Trans Prisoners in Scotland Initially Housed According to Birth Sex
So they've rowed back to the point where only a history of violence against women or girls is a complete deal-breaker. Violence against men is fine, then. Or a non-violent offence such as Andrew Burns committed when he stalked a 13 year old girl. Maybe vile child pornography offences, like the Liverpool "woman" committed. All fine.
(It's interesting that the statement says that all transgender prisoners will initially go to the male estate. I don't think the Justice Secretary even envisages a transman being sent to prison.)
Well yes, we knew this, because we actually read what was being said, rather than the wild misreporting in a lot of newspapers.
Susan has put her finger on it, and other people have noted the same thing. Even in the House of Lords, peers were blocking sensible moves to keep people like Andrew Burns reined in, by invoking the spectre of the long-transitioned transwoman, a timid, considerate individual, who might be imprisoned for some petty offence (though probably stealing £20 from the till is not going to get anyone a custodial sentence). On the basis of consideration for this mythical being, laws are drafted that let rapists, murderers and perverts into the female prison estate, always intact men and often large and intimidating men. It is reported that half the incarcerated men who have declared a trans identity only began to transition after their conviction (like Adam Graham).
As Susan points out, there is no such person currently in custody, and as far as I know nobody has ever identified such a case. It's long past time that society in general recognised that the long-transitioned, post-surgery, quiet and considerate transwoman is not representative of the demographic we are dealing with here, and that legislation and safeguards put in place in the belief that all trans-identifying men are like that are putting women in fear and in danger.
Women's groups will continue to highlight this until the SPS recognises that the only biological male people who should be in the female prison estate are the likes of Jazz Jennings, and even then only if the offence is a non-violent and non-sexual one.
New Policy Will See Trans Prisoners in Scotland Initially Housed According to Birth Sex
So they've rowed back to the point where only a history of violence against women or girls is a complete deal-breaker. Violence against men is fine, then. Or a non-violent offence such as Andrew Burns committed when he stalked a 13 year old girl. Maybe vile child pornography offences, like the Liverpool "woman" committed. All fine.
(It's interesting that the statement says that all transgender prisoners will initially go to the male estate. I don't think the Justice Secretary even envisages a transman being sent to prison.)
Well yes, we knew this, because we actually read what was being said, rather than the wild misreporting in a lot of newspapers.
Susan has put her finger on it, and other people have noted the same thing. Even in the House of Lords, peers were blocking sensible moves to keep people like Andrew Burns reined in, by invoking the spectre of the long-transitioned transwoman, a timid, considerate individual, who might be imprisoned for some petty offence (though probably stealing £20 from the till is not going to get anyone a custodial sentence). On the basis of consideration for this mythical being, laws are drafted that let rapists, murderers and perverts into the female prison estate, always intact men and often large and intimidating men. It is reported that half the incarcerated men who have declared a trans identity only began to transition after their conviction (like Adam Graham).
As Susan points out, there is no such person currently in custody, and as far as I know nobody has ever identified such a case. It's long past time that society in general recognised that the long-transitioned, post-surgery, quiet and considerate transwoman is not representative of the demographic we are dealing with here, and that legislation and safeguards put in place in the belief that all trans-identifying men are like that are putting women in fear and in danger.
Women's groups will continue to highlight this until the SPS recognises that the only biological male people who should be in the female prison estate are the likes of Jazz Jennings, and even then only if the offence is a non-violent and non-sexual one.
Last edited:
- Status