• 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.
Darat said:
Not everyone carries the same baggage around with them - that's why I try to reply to what people actually post rather than a bag full of assumptions about what people "really mean".

The question was: What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?

The answer was: I would consider that an extreme message

Do you disagree that it was an extreme message?
Click to expand...

It is an extreme message. But you answered with more than just "I would consider that an extreme message". And it's the other part of your prior post that I responded to, and which your post here doesn't really address.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
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.
Click to expand...

MALE exclusion, Turkey. MALE exclusion. How those particular males feel about their subjective gender identities is irrelevant.
 
Darat said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I am baffled that they are capable of holding such an irrational view.

The person next door can come outside and say "The sky is such a beautiful red today" for ten years running. I wouldn't be surprised by that. But I would continue to be bewildered and perplexed that they continue to hold such a bass-ackwards and objectively wrong view.

It's not a matter of not understanding what they believe. It's a matter of not understanding how they can genuinely believe it in the first place.
 
Darat said:
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".
Click to expand...
Don't alter my statements. Your alterations of them make them mean something entirely different from what I intend. It results in you trying to put words in my mouth, or to otherwise tell me what I really think. Please stop, you aren't good at it.

I said males, and I mean males. Specifically, explicitly, unquestionably I mean males. They are female shelters. They are not unisex shelters. FEMALE shelters. For FEMALES. Not MALES. How hard is this to understand?

Darat said:
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?
Click to expand...
It could be different because what you're busy responding to is not what I said, nor what I meant. You are replacing my words with those of your own choosing, so that you can then argue against a strawman. Please stop.

Darat said:
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?
Click to expand...
Homosexual FEMALES are (and have always been) welcome in FEMALE shelters.
 
Darat said:
Not everyone carries the same baggage around with them - that's why I try to reply to what people actually post rather than a bag full of assumptions about what people "really mean".
Click to expand...
Lol, other than the part where you responded to a lot of baggage that you're tacitly assuming other people have? You know, the part where you added your own little bit of opinion piece laden with insinuation? You know... This part:
Darat said:
It's an interesting conundrum isn't it. Who hates trans people, so who is it aimed at? Do you think you hate trans people? If you don't then it is not aimed at you.
Click to expand...

The question was: What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?

The answer was: I would consider that an extreme message[/quote]
Well... actually... that wasn't your direct answer. That was the footnote that you added in parentheticals after having provided your direct response as handwaving it away as "it's only meant for people who actually hate trans"

The parentheses imply this is an afterthought, a diversionary thought, a footnote. That's how parentheses work. See?
Darat said:
(If you want my opinion - I would consider that an extreme message and not one that I think helps anyone, it's not as extreme as if they phrased it as "Kill everyone who hates trans folk".)
Click to expand...



Darat said:
Do you disagree that it was an extreme message?
Click to expand...
And now we're back to playing silly games.
 
And in other news... The author of Females, who gifted us with such misogynistic emetics as:

  • I’ll define as female any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another.
  • To be female is to let someone else do your desiring for you, at your own expense. This means that femaleness, while it hurts only sometimes, is always bad for you.
  • Everyone is female, and everyone hates it.
  • Pornography is what it feels like when you think you have an object, but really the object has you,. It is therefore a quintessential expression of femaleness.
  • To be for women, imagined as full human beings, is always to be against females.
  • The barest essentials of femaleness are an open mouth, an expectant *******, blank blank eyes

Yep that person... has won a Pulitzer Prize.
 
Emily's Cat said:
And in other news... The author of Females, who gifted us with such misogynistic emetics as:

  • I’ll define as female any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another.
  • To be female is to let someone else do your desiring for you, at your own expense. This means that femaleness, while it hurts only sometimes, is always bad for you.
  • Everyone is female, and everyone hates it.
  • Pornography is what it feels like when you think you have an object, but really the object has you,. It is therefore a quintessential expression of femaleness.
  • To be for women, imagined as full human beings, is always to be against females.
  • The barest essentials of femaleness are an open mouth, an expectant *******, blank blank eyes

Yep that person... has won a Pulitzer Prize.
Click to expand...

I see that “Females” was nominated for a non-fiction award. Now that is funny.
 
Emily's Cat said:
MALE exclusion, Turkey. MALE exclusion. How those particular males feel about their subjective gender identities is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
And those abused by FEMALE abusers? Refuges in the UK are set up to provide safe accommodation for women who are victims of domestic abuse. Not all the abusers will be MALES. (Is this some new nomenclature that we have to use capitals?) They are not set up to be MALE free spaces, they are set up to be safe places where female victims of domestic abuse can be safe from their abusers and if they wish be supported in creating a new life apart from their abuser.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Don't alter my statements. Your alterations of them make them mean something entirely different from what I intend. It results in you trying to put words in my mouth, or to otherwise tell me what I really think. Please stop, you aren't good at it.
Click to expand...

I did not say nor even imply that you meant the changed word, I did not say that that is what you thought. Again please read what I've actually posted.


Emily's Cat said:
I said males, and I mean males. Specifically, explicitly, unquestionably I mean males.
Click to expand...

Yes you did, and?

Emily's Cat said:
They are female shelters. They are not unisex shelters. FEMALE shelters. For FEMALES. Not MALES. How hard is this to understand?
Click to expand...

Indeed who has said anything different? Refuges are for women who have experienced domestic abuse.

Emily's Cat said:
It could be different because what you're busy responding to is not what I said, nor what I meant. You are replacing my words with those of your own choosing, so that you can then argue against a strawman. Please stop.
Click to expand...

Nope I am not. I have not created any strawman of your position. I have put forward my opinion. And then asked you about my opinion.

I'll ask again - 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?


Emily's Cat said:
Homosexual FEMALES are (and have always been) welcome in FEMALE shelters.
Click to expand...

On this I know from personal experience you are wrong to make it a categorical statement, at least to cover the UK. Homosexuals have not always been welcomed in refuges for women despite being victims of domestic violence. From a quick google search I can see there is evidence that lesbians are turned away from refuges even in recent times.

One of the stories that came up when I went to search about the topic was this one: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vdqz39/lgbtq-domestic-violence-survivors-cant-access-shelters

Now most of that article is about trans women and male victims of domestic violence however there was a small segment that I think illustrates that it is abusers that need to be excluded from access to refuges regardless of their sex, it is not males that need to be excluded it is abusers. Which is why I said it should be up to those running the refuges as to who they allow in.

...As a survivor named Sylvia described in the NCAVP report, she was afraid to enter a shelter once learning there was no way to guarantee her abusive girlfriend would be barred from entering. For lesbian and bisexual women, the threat of an abuser following them into a shelter is a very real prospect...​
 
Darat said:
And those abused by FEMALE abusers? Refuges in the UK are set up to provide safe accommodation for women who are victims of domestic abuse. Not all the abusers will be MALES. (Is this some new nomenclature that we have to use capitals?) They are not set up to be MALE free spaces, they are set up to be safe places where female victims of domestic abuse can be safe from their abusers and if they wish be supported in creating a new life apart from their abuser.
Click to expand...

And there's the problem with sweeping MALE exclusion (am I doing it right EC?) is what do you do with mothers of male children. Do you make them chose between receiving help to escape a violent home or keeping their family together? Can't have any 14 year old boys in the shelter right?

It's a known issue:

https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/escaping-violence/escaping-with-older-kids

1. Not all shelters accept male teenagers. While the Family Violence Prevention Services Act requires any program receiving its funding to accept all genders and ages, “Depending on how they’re staffed, some shelters may only take male children under a certain age—usually the limit is somewhere between 12 and 18,” says Anita Martin, MSSW, former domestic violence advocate and creator of Love magazine. “It really depends on the size and staff resources of the shelter.” Age limits on males aren’t meant to be a barrier to leaving, though it can make escaping more difficult.

What to do: There are many shelters that accept children of all ages. Start by calling larger shelters with more staff, as they’re most likely to accept male children. If one doesn’t, ask for a referral to a shelter that does. In an emergency, another idea would be to ask a close friend or relative to house a child until other arrangements can be made. You can also go to DomesticShelters.org and search for a shelter near you, then check its demographics section under “Populations Served.” This will indicate if they accept teens, but it’s always a good idea to call and double check.
Click to expand...

Seems a policy of allowing these shelters to best assess their own abilities and make their own policies seems most wise, unless you're a transphobe with an axe to grind.
 
Last edited:
Normally I'm reluctant to cherry pick from social media, but I think this illustrates an interesting problem with TERF brain.

A cis-gendered woman being accosted and aggressively harassed by some transphobe who mistakenly clocked her as a trans woman. Gotta keep the bathrooms safe by, let's check, waiting outside someone's toilet stall so you can ambush them and interrogate them about their crotch.

A viral TikTok video has shown a cisgender woman confronted over her gender identity in a public toilet because she had short hair – which her harasser assumed meant she was trans.
Click to expand...

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/10/31/cis-woman-harassed-transphobe-female-toilet-short-hair/

Given the relatively low % of the population are actually trans women, I'd say the risk of transphobes misidentifying insufficiently feminine presenting cis women as trans is actually quite high. There's probably more butch or otherwise not stereotypically femme cis women out there than actual trans women. Butch lesbians or just hetero women who prefer short haircuts or looser clothing better be on notice that the penis police may detain them. God forbid you have committed the unforgiveable crime of having broader than average shoulders or an otherwise unfeminine body type.

Better grow your hair out, wear a full face a makeup, and wear a dress just to make sure these freaks don't bother you. You know, to protect women.

Kinda seems to me that the biggest threat and perverts in the bathroom aren't trans woman just trying to take a piss, but unhinged transphobes who feel entitled to question strangers about their private parts.
 
Last edited:
Students sever ties with Oxford Union over ‘toxic environment’

Students sever ties with Oxford Union over ‘toxic environment’

6ac2adb166ba4a7d4b2a8b1b448e03e1.jpg


https://archive.is/Srlmb
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Seems a policy of allowing these shelters to best assess their own abilities and make their own policies seems most wise, unless you're a transphobe with an axe to grind.
Click to expand...

Given that the trans activists don't want shelters to be able to make their own policies, does that mean that they're transphobes? :confused:
 
d4m10n said:
Students sever ties with Oxford Union over ‘toxic environment’

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230511/6ac2adb166ba4a7d4b2a8b1b448e03e1.jpg[/qimg]


https://archive.is/Srlmb
Click to expand...

Given what I know about many of the clubs at the top universities I can well believe it has a toxic environment. Just look at the people who come out of such clubs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom