• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Yup, and how long will it be before some violent & abusive ex-husband/ex-boyfriend declares himself to be a woman to try to gain access to the women's refuge where his ex is located? In some jurisdictions, simply saying he's a woman would guarantee his legal access.
Click to expand...

Kinda seems like a blanket "no abusive partners of current clients" is a pretty easy rule to implement that isn't trans exclusionary.

Surely there are lesbian, cis-women who would also benefit from this. Really not a hard problem to solve unless you're trying to exclusively view it through an anti-trans lens.
 
The Atheist said:
...snip..

What you're doing is reinforcing my long-ago point that the problem is on the fringes. The overwhelming majority of people aren't using violent imagery or statements.

...snip..
Click to expand...

And sadly it seems our biology compels us to pay attention to the ones that scream the loudest, may have been a good survival response in our evolutionary past but today it causes huge distortions in our perception of society. Seeking sensationalism seems to be hardcoded into us.

Which means those with the most... er.. passion garner the most attention.

The Atheist said:
...snip..

Again, that's something I've said multiple times.

If the onus is on society to treat trans women as women, then the onus is on trans women to create a system where we can be assured those trans women are actually genuine and not some bloke self-identifying as trans for nefarious reasons.
Click to expand...

I agree with that - being a fully-paid-up member of society comes with costs as well as benefits.
 
Cain said:
In tennis, he confidently predicted the Williams sisters could compete against the top 50 men, but Venus and Serena were famously crushed by a 200-ranked player in a friendly match (where he drank beer and smoked cigarettes between sets). If your predictions are wrong, maybe it's time to rethink your assumptions. Unless you're an economist.
Click to expand...

That's insane. Sports is such an obvious example in which pretty much any competitive level in nearly any sport, would end up with men winning against women.

That said, pretty sure the one where the guy was drinking and smoking between sets was the Billie Jean King game, an earlier battle of the sexes game.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Kinda seems like a blanket "no abusive partners of current clients" is a pretty easy rule to implement that isn't trans exclusionary.

Surely there are lesbian, cis-women who would also benefit from this. Really not a hard problem to solve unless you're trying to exclusively view it through an anti-trans lens.
Click to expand...

It is a real problem, lesbian domestic abuse exists and is like all abuse it's a terrible issue. But a lesbian abusive partner turning up at a woman's refuge is not going to get access to their partner and that is based on them being an abuser, this really is a case of sex/gender doesn't come into it. Now could a lesbian abuser use the fact that they are female somehow trick someone to gain access? I suppose it could happen but given my limited knowledge of how shelters are run it seems unlikely. That a male could turn up and say "I'm a woman let me in" isn't going to happen, places in shelters are limited and often under tight pressure - they are going to have to be able demonstrate they are a victim of abuse to begin with.

I do think there is a genuine issue that needs to be resolved - if a trans woman has been subjected to domestic violence and needs shelter can they, should they be housed in the same refuge as women?

If the answer is they shouldn't where do trans women go if they are domestically abused? In the UK at least there are very few refuges full stop - mostly run and funded by charities. I doubt there would be funding to make refuges just for trans women available across the UK.

It's a shame we can't discuss these types of genuine issues instead of having to repeatedly respond to the screams of the extremists.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
You haven’t really been following this thread, have you?

This query of yours has been dealt with many times.
Click to expand...

In the UK no one can demand access to any refuge simply by saying they are any sex. All the refuges will decide based on the nature of abuse, what steps are appropriate, what their capacity is and so on. No refuge has to allow anyone in. Smartcooker said "In some jurisdictions, simply saying he's a woman would guarantee his legal access." I was wondering in which jurisdictions was there such a right for woman - never mind trans women?
 
Darat said:
It is a real problem, lesbian domestic abuse exists and is like all abuse it's a terrible issue. But a lesbian abusive partner turning up at a woman's refuge is not going to get access to their partner and that is based on them being an abuser, this really is a case of sex/gender doesn't come into it. Now could a lesbian abuser use the fact that they are female somehow trick someone to gain access? I suppose it could happen but given my limited knowledge of how shelters are run it seems unlikely. That a male could turn up and say "I'm a woman let me in" isn't going to happen, places in shelters are limited and often under tight pressure - they are going to have to be able demonstrate they are a victim of abuse to begin with.

I do think there is a genuine issue that needs to be resolved - if a trans woman has been subjected to domestic violence and needs shelter can they, should they be housed in the same refuge as women?

If the answer is they shouldn't where do trans women go if they are domestically abused? In the UK at least there are very few refuges full stop - mostly run and funded by charities. I doubt there would be funding to make refuges just for trans women available across the UK.

It's a shame we can't discuss these types of genuine issues instead of having to repeatedly respond to the screams of the extremists.
Click to expand...

The extreme scarcity of adequate social services seems to be a running theme of these debates about trans people. Be that poorly run prisons that can't adequately safeguard prisoners or social services for the impoverished, the common problem is that there's intense competition among the most desperate for limited resources.

It's often an extreme zero-sum situation because there is far more need than is being met. I don't really see why that automatically means trans women are going to get the short straw though. Someone not hell-bent on screwing over trans people might recognize that they actually have common cause with them in these regards, and the root issue is that domestic violence shelters are not receiving the funding they need to provide adequate service to those in need.

I also see no reason to assume that all women using these shelters share these extreme prejudicial sentiments. Often the very people running these shelters are the strongest voices against these anti-trans policies supposedly being advocated on their behalf. It's very common for the TERFs to presume to speak for all women and paint their extremist line as the mainstream.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost;14069384. Often the very people running these shelters are the strongest voices against these anti-trans policies supposedly being advocated on their behalf.[/QUOTE said:
Maybe they don't want dead rats nailed to their door or told that the rape victims inside need more rape like trans rights advocates have done in the past?
Click to expand...
 
One of the reasons Tavistock was allowed to ruin children's lives for so long was the fear staff had of having Mermaids "set upon then"
 
The Atheist said:
Clearly extreme and despicable.

What you're doing is reinforcing my long-ago point that the problem is on the fringes. The overwhelming majority of people aren't using violent imagery or statements.
Click to expand...

What do you consider "the overwhelming majority of people"? Are you relying on the sophomoric observation that only a minority of people ever go to rallies and protests of any sort?

Here's the core of my point. A lot of people tend to talk about the invective and hate from "both sides". But the "both sides" aren't the actual sides.

On one hand we have a cadre of extreme right wing nutcases who 1) were not ever invited to any of these gatherings or meetings and 2) are not welcome at any of these gatherings or meetings. That cadre of idiots make unacceptable comments largely on-line. The worst I've seen for actual in-public comments is the one above questioning whether drag performances aimed at children are actually grooming endeavors. That's the worst I've seen for real-life in-public documented rhetoric.

On the other hand we have a cadre of trans activists who routinely show up at female meetings and gatherings intended to allow females to discuss the impact of trans demands on female rights. Those trans activists frequently show up with t-shirts declaring their desire to harm "terfs" or "transphobes". They show up with placards saying "decapitate terfs" and get photographed with MPs. They are DOCUMENTED hurling abuse, threats, and wishes for harm at females. On multiple occasions they have been so zealous that legal gatherings get shut down by ILLEGAL mobs. They have physically attacked and injured females.

I get really irritated when the actions of an unwanted, uninvited, and despised group of ******** gets assigned to females who have nothing at all to do with their behavior and do not approve of it. And then that false assignment gets used to make the claim that both female rights groups and trans activists are "just as bad" on the fringes.

No. One of them is bad out in the open, proudly declaring their hatred of females who oppose their views, holding placards that call for violence, trying to set lesbians on fire, punching females in the face, physically attacking females who have done nothing to them at all.

It is not at all the same, and it's not at all comparable. Foisting off the bad behavior of an unrelated group of uninvited ******** doesn't even remotely even the odds.

If you want to bitch about the completely unacceptable behavior of insane far right looneys, by all means do so - I agree with you. But do NOT pretend that their behavior can in any rational way be placed on the backs of females who don't want them there in the first ******* place.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
That's the same thing that still baffles Emily's Cat. As I said to them I'm baffled how that can still baffle someone after discussing that key point for all these years and all these thousands of posts and all the many articles and videos we have read and watched.

Perhaps we are using baffle to mean different things? To me baffle is as its top line definition has it "totally bewilder or perplex". When I don't agree with someone after they've explained their position many, many times does not mean I am baffled as to why they think as they do. I just don't agree with them.
Click to expand...

After years and years of knowing it's there, I'm still baffled by people who believe the earth is flat.

Knowing of their existence, no matter how long they've been around, doesn't make it any less baffling.

It's a completely irrational, unsupportable, and frankly insane belief. That anyone actually holds it to be true is an affront to intelligent humans.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Kinda seems like a blanket "no abusive partners of current clients" is a pretty easy rule to implement that isn't trans exclusionary.
Click to expand...

So pretty much "any males that the management decides are safe" regardless of whether or not it deepens the existing trauma of the females using those spaces?

Do you also take the position that a female rape victim should not be allowed to request a female medical examiner, but should instead be forced to allow a male to examine them as long as that particular male isn't the one who raped them?
 
Emily's Cat said:
So pretty much "any males that the management decides are safe" regardless of whether or not it deepens the existing trauma of the females using those spaces?
Click to expand...

I would trust management to better cater to the individual needs of their clients than a bunch of TERFs with an axe to grind.

I have no problem with care being very deferential to the needs and comfort of the people seeking aid, but that means actually asking clients/patients what they want rather than presuming they want total trans exclusion. Again, TERFs like to presume that all women in these shelters are as unhinged and prejudiced against men and trans women as they are.

Emily's Cat said:
Do you also take the position that a female rape victim should not be allowed to request a female medical examiner, but should instead be forced to allow a male to examine them as long as that particular male isn't the one who raped them?
Click to expand...

Is this a real scenario you're referencing or just a hypothetical. Forgive me if I don't trust your characterization of real events. If this is actually from the news a source would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
After years and years of knowing it's there, I'm still baffled by people who believe the earth is flat.
Click to expand...

There really isn't any need to be baffled by it. There are many accessible sources that can explain to you why people believe such nonsense - often from their own mouths on Youtube.

Emily's Cat said:
Knowing of their existence, no matter how long they've been around, doesn't make it any less baffling.

It's a completely irrational, unsupportable, and frankly insane belief. That anyone actually holds it to be true is an affront to intelligent humans.
Click to expand...

I have to conclude that you are using the word baffle in a quite different way to me. As I said when I don't agree with someone after they've explained their position many, many times does not mean to me that I am baffled as to why they think as they do. I just don't agree with them.
 
Emily's Cat said:
So pretty much "any males that the management decides are safe" regardless of whether or not it deepens the existing trauma of the females using those spaces?

...snip...
Click to expand...

I would alter your statement to remove the word "males" and replace it with "body" so we have: "So pretty much "anybody that the management decides are safe" regardless of whether or not it deepens the existing trauma of the females using those spaces".

How could it be anything different? Who else but the people in control of a refuge will make decisions as to who they allow to enter? Who else but themselves should set their policies for them?

The change also would help ensure that a homosexual who has been abused is as protected as much as a heterosexual. Granted numbers of homosexuals are a lot less than the number of heterosexuals but why not have a policy that provides as much safety to homosexuals as it does to heterosexuals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom