• 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.
Samson said:
Conflating gay rights with trans rights without any attempt to elicit a difference.
Click to expand...
I thought the episode did a relatively good job of pointing out how both conservative and progressive partisans pivoted from gay rights to trans rights issues in the years following Obergefell v. HodgesWP.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I don't think anyone has claimed that trans people are uniquely enlightened individuals that do not commit crime or other antisocial behavior. hell, I wish every schoolyard beating got this much care and concern from the public, kids in my school rarely got more than a week's suspension for acts that in other contexts would be criminal assault.
Click to expand...

Do you accept:
physical assaults are much more likely to be carried out by males than females?
transwomen offending is very similar to the male pattern?
 
Aber said:
Do you accept:
physical assaults are much more likely to be carried out by males than females?
transwomen offending is very similar to the male pattern?
Click to expand...

Kinda seems like you're beating around the bush.

The data that would be most useful would be whether trans people are more likely to commit offenses within these gender segregated places as a result of inclusive policies.

I will repeat what I have often said about these examples involving minors at schools, these anecdotes are particularly not useful because it's often illegal for the schools and authorities to speak plainly about what happened in the interest of protecting the confidentiality of children in their care.

What exactly do we know about this incident, for example? What was the nature of the assault and the relationship between the two involved? Probably not ever going to find out unless one or both (ideally both) go public, which strikes me as unlikely.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Kinda seems like you're beating around the bush.

The data that would be most useful would be whether trans people are more likely to commit offenses within these gender segregated places as a result of inclusive policies.

I will repeat what I have often said about these examples involving minors at schools, these anecdotes are particularly not useful because it's often illegal for the schools and authorities to speak plainly about what happened in the interest of protecting the confidentiality of children in their care.

What exactly do we know about this incident, for example? What was the nature of the assault and the relationship between the two involved? Probably not ever going to find out unless one or both (ideally both) go public, which strikes me as unlikely.
Click to expand...

Denial is the name of this post.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Kinda seems like you're beating around the bush.

The data that would be most useful would be whether trans people are more likely to commit offenses within these gender segregated places as a result of inclusive policies.

I will repeat what I have often said about these examples involving minors at schools, these anecdotes are particularly not useful because it's often illegal for the schools and authorities to speak plainly about what happened in the interest of protecting the confidentiality of children in their care.

What exactly do we know about this incident, for example? What was the nature of the assault and the relationship between the two involved? Probably not ever going to find out unless one or both (ideally both) go public, which strikes me as unlikely.
Click to expand...

Why are there places segregating based on sex in the first place?

If you don't have an answer to this question, you should actually be campaigning to completely remove sex segregation in such places.

If you do have an answer to this question, you now know why some people don't want to make exceptions for transgendered people.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Kinda seems like you're beating around the bush.
Click to expand...
:boggled: Tap dancing around a direct question is beating around the bush. Asking direct questions is not. Aber is asking very specific questions, for a very specific reason. You've avoided the questions, then turned the whole thing sideways, and then pretending that it's a completely different question altogether.

TurkeysGhost said:
The data that would be most useful would be whether trans people are more likely to commit offenses within these gender segregated places as a result of inclusive policies.
Click to expand...
No, this is deflection and gaslighting. The reality is that MALES who have previously not had access to these SEX segregated spaces are more likely to commit offenses in them than FEMALES are likely to do so.

Analogy: We have a chicken coop. For decades, the chicken coop has been exclusively limited to chickens, no other critters have been allowed. Once in a while some hens get into it and someone ends up with a scratched eye or a broken egg. But it's still only chickens allowed in the coop.

Along comes a group of Animal Inclusion Activists (AIAs) who are trying to provide protection for foxes that identify as chickens. Some few of those foxes convert to an insectivorous diet, and cover themselves in feathers. Most however, continue to be carnivores, but they still cover themselves in feathers.

What you're doing here is equivalent to the AIAs demanding that they be given large amounts of "evidence" showing that the chicken-identified foxes are more likely to eat chickens when they're allowed into the coop on the basis of them being covered in feathers.

Which is a ridiculous ask. First it requires that we let the feather-covered-foxes (FCFs) into the coop, AND that we allow them to eat some unspecified threshold number of chickens, THEN we spend some time evaluating whether or not it's a "high enough risk to the chickens" before we even consider limiting access to the coop for the FCFs.

It's ridiculous, because we already have two types of studies in hand. The first set of studies, of which there are MANY, and which has been observed throughout the entire planet and over all known times, is that foxes are far, far, far more likely to eat a chicken than a chicken is to eat a fox. Sometimes a fox kills and eats another fox. And sometimes a chicken kills and eats another chicken. But when you look at the data - which has been consistent for a very long time - you find that 95% of the victims of killing/eating are chickens, and that 99% of the perpetrators of killing/eating are foxes. So we already know, actually KNOW not just suspect, that there is a staggeringly higher risk to chickens than to foxes.

The second set of studies, for which there are only a few, is that without consideration of coops at all, FCFs are more likely to have been found to have killed and eaten chickens than foxes that go about their day as foxes. That means that FCFs represent a HIGHER level of risk to chickens than "CisFoxes" do.

We also, by the way, have a few documented cases of FCFs killing and eating chickens in the coops that have decided they're FCF-Inclusive, and let Feather Covered Foxes into coops on their own recognizance.

You are however, asking that we ignore all of that evidence, and we ignore the documented cases of FCFs killing and eating chickens in coops. You're asking that we pretend none of that exists, we ignore what we already know to be true. You want us to adopt a fantasy as out starting premise, and instead we spend some unspecified number of years tracking the number of FCFs that kill and eat chickens while inside of coops... so YOU can decide what YOU think is an acceptable number of chicken deaths that should be allowed to happen so that the FCFs can feel accepted.

TurkeysGhost said:
I will repeat what I have often said about these examples involving minors at schools, these anecdotes are particularly not useful because it's often illegal for the schools and authorities to speak plainly about what happened in the interest of protecting the confidentiality of children in their care.

What exactly do we know about this incident, for example? What was the nature of the assault and the relationship between the two involved? Probably not ever going to find out unless one or both (ideally both) go public, which strikes me as unlikely.
Click to expand...

Once again, we've got the cycle of gaslighting and denial.

"I'm not going to accept your risk until you can show me evidence that it has already happened"

"Oh, I see that it happened, but it's just an anecdote, it doesn't count"

"Besides, you don't know what actually for realsies happened, maybe the chicken started it and the chicken had it coming."

At the end of the day, you've made it exceedingly clear that the safety, dignity, and rights of females don't count. You've communicated very well that you're willing to sacrifice some unspecified number of females so that males who want to be in female spaces can have good feelings about themselves.

So fine. You've picked your position. Go ahead and flesh it out:
What is the threshold? How many females do you think should be the allowable number of females hurt by males in female-only spaces before you'll even consider excluding males?

How many females do you think are an acceptable level of sacrifice in order to bolster the feelings of males?
 
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: Tap dancing around a direct question is beating around the bush. Asking direct questions is not. Aber is asking very specific questions, for a very specific reason. You've avoided the questions, then turned the whole thing sideways, and then pretending that it's a completely different question altogether.


No, this is deflection and gaslighting. The reality is that MALES who have previously not had access to these SEX segregated spaces are more likely to commit offenses in them than FEMALES are likely to do so.

Analogy: We have a chicken coop. For decades, the chicken coop has been exclusively limited to chickens, no other critters have been allowed. Once in a while some hens get into it and someone ends up with a scratched eye or a broken egg. But it's still only chickens allowed in the coop.

Along comes a group of Animal Inclusion Activists (AIAs) who are trying to provide protection for foxes that identify as chickens. Some few of those foxes convert to an insectivorous diet, and cover themselves in feathers. Most however, continue to be carnivores, but they still cover themselves in feathers.

What you're doing here is equivalent to the AIAs demanding that they be given large amounts of "evidence" showing that the chicken-identified foxes are more likely to eat chickens when they're allowed into the coop on the basis of them being covered in feathers.

Which is a ridiculous ask. First it requires that we let the feather-covered-foxes (FCFs) into the coop, AND that we allow them to eat some unspecified threshold number of chickens, THEN we spend some time evaluating whether or not it's a "high enough risk to the chickens" before we even consider limiting access to the coop for the FCFs.

It's ridiculous, because we already have two types of studies in hand. The first set of studies, of which there are MANY, and which has been observed throughout the entire planet and over all known times, is that foxes are far, far, far more likely to eat a chicken than a chicken is to eat a fox. Sometimes a fox kills and eats another fox. And sometimes a chicken kills and eats another chicken. But when you look at the data - which has been consistent for a very long time - you find that 95% of the victims of killing/eating are chickens, and that 99% of the perpetrators of killing/eating are foxes. So we already know, actually KNOW not just suspect, that there is a staggeringly higher risk to chickens than to foxes.

The second set of studies, for which there are only a few, is that without consideration of coops at all, FCFs are more likely to have been found to have killed and eaten chickens than foxes that go about their day as foxes. That means that FCFs represent a HIGHER level of risk to chickens than "CisFoxes" do.

We also, by the way, have a few documented cases of FCFs killing and eating chickens in the coops that have decided they're FCF-Inclusive, and let Feather Covered Foxes into coops on their own recognizance.

You are however, asking that we ignore all of that evidence, and we ignore the documented cases of FCFs killing and eating chickens in coops. You're asking that we pretend none of that exists, we ignore what we already know to be true. You want us to adopt a fantasy as out starting premise, and instead we spend some unspecified number of years tracking the number of FCFs that kill and eat chickens while inside of coops... so YOU can decide what YOU think is an acceptable number of chicken deaths that should be allowed to happen so that the FCFs can feel accepted.



Once again, we've got the cycle of gaslighting and denial.

"I'm not going to accept your risk until you can show me evidence that it has already happened"

"Oh, I see that it happened, but it's just an anecdote, it doesn't count"

"Besides, you don't know what actually for realsies happened, maybe the chicken started it and the chicken had it coming."

At the end of the day, you've made it exceedingly clear that the safety, dignity, and rights of females don't count. You've communicated very well that you're willing to sacrifice some unspecified number of females so that males who want to be in female spaces can have good feelings about themselves.

So fine. You've picked your position. Go ahead and flesh it out:
What is the threshold? How many females do you think should be the allowable number of females hurt by males in female-only spaces before you'll even consider excluding males?

How many females do you think are an acceptable level of sacrifice in order to bolster the feelings of males?
Click to expand...

Gonna be real with you chief, I ain't reading all that.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
The data that would be most useful would be whether trans people are more likely to commit offenses within these gender segregated places as a result of inclusive policies.
Click to expand...
Seems obvious to me that we can go with the data we've already got (base rates of violent offenses committed by natal females and natal males) basically for the reasons given at #2827.
 
Last edited:
It ought not be humiliating to acknowledge that another's perspective has caused one to further consider (and even reconsider) one's own. This exemplifies both skepticism and intelligence. I would like to see more of it, both on a forum like this and in general.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Gonna be real with you chief, I ain't reading all that.
Click to expand...

It seems that your position relies on you demanding that people provide you "evidence" of the risks, then you dismissing that evidence as "anecdotes" that don't count, then people giving you well-thought-out and comprehensive discussions of the problems... which you completely ignore and pretend don't exist... so you can demand "evidence" again.

If you're not going to engage in good faith, why bother engaging in this thread at all?
 
Emily's Cat said:
It seems that your position relies on you demanding that people provide you "evidence" of the risks, then you dismissing that evidence as "anecdotes" that don't count, then people giving you well-thought-out and comprehensive discussions of the problems... which you completely ignore and pretend don't exist... so you can demand "evidence" again.

If you're not going to engage in good faith, why bother engaging in this thread at all?
Click to expand...

I mean, you say it yourself. I ask for evidence and I receive anecdotes and personal musings.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I mean, you say it yourself. I ask for evidence and I receive anecdotes and personal musings.
Click to expand...

You receive evidence which you ignore, you shift the goal posts, you dismiss it as "anecdotes" and you handwave and smokescreen.

You are not engaging in good faith. What is your purpose here?

FFS, let's go back a bit on this very page:
Aber said:
Do you accept:
physical assaults are much more likely to be carried out by males than females?
transwomen offending is very similar to the male pattern?
Click to expand...

Let's start here - do you accept those two items?

Those are items that we have REPEATEDLY given you evidence for. Multiple times, over and over. Do you accept them as being evidenced?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: Tap dancing around a direct question is beating around the bush. Asking direct questions is not. Aber is asking very specific questions, for a very specific reason. You've avoided the questions, then turned the whole thing sideways, and then pretending that it's a completely different question altogether.


No, this is deflection and gaslighting. The reality is that MALES who have previously not had access to these SEX segregated spaces are more likely to commit offenses in them than FEMALES are likely to do so.

Analogy: We have a chicken coop. For decades, the chicken coop has been exclusively limited to chickens, no other critters have been allowed. Once in a while some hens get into it and someone ends up with a scratched eye or a broken egg. But it's still only chickens allowed in the coop.

Along comes a group of Animal Inclusion Activists (AIAs) who are trying to provide protection for foxes that identify as chickens. Some few of those foxes convert to an insectivorous diet, and cover themselves in feathers. Most however, continue to be carnivores, but they still cover themselves in feathers.

What you're doing here is equivalent to the AIAs demanding that they be given large amounts of "evidence" showing that the chicken-identified foxes are more likely to eat chickens when they're allowed into the coop on the basis of them being covered in feathers.

Which is a ridiculous ask. First it requires that we let the feather-covered-foxes (FCFs) into the coop, AND that we allow them to eat some unspecified threshold number of chickens, THEN we spend some time evaluating whether or not it's a "high enough risk to the chickens" before we even consider limiting access to the coop for the FCFs.

It's ridiculous, because we already have two types of studies in hand. The first set of studies, of which there are MANY, and which has been observed throughout the entire planet and over all known times, is that foxes are far, far, far more likely to eat a chicken than a chicken is to eat a fox. Sometimes a fox kills and eats another fox. And sometimes a chicken kills and eats another chicken. But when you look at the data - which has been consistent for a very long time - you find that 95% of the victims of killing/eating are chickens, and that 99% of the perpetrators of killing/eating are foxes. So we already know, actually KNOW not just suspect, that there is a staggeringly higher risk to chickens than to foxes.

The second set of studies, for which there are only a few, is that without consideration of coops at all, FCFs are more likely to have been found to have killed and eaten chickens than foxes that go about their day as foxes. That means that FCFs represent a HIGHER level of risk to chickens than "CisFoxes" do.

We also, by the way, have a few documented cases of FCFs killing and eating chickens in the coops that have decided they're FCF-Inclusive, and let Feather Covered Foxes into coops on their own recognizance.

You are however, asking that we ignore all of that evidence, and we ignore the documented cases of FCFs killing and eating chickens in coops. You're asking that we pretend none of that exists, we ignore what we already know to be true. You want us to adopt a fantasy as out starting premise, and instead we spend some unspecified number of years tracking the number of FCFs that kill and eat chickens while inside of coops... so YOU can decide what YOU think is an acceptable number of chicken deaths that should be allowed to happen so that the FCFs can feel accepted.



Once again, we've got the cycle of gaslighting and denial.

"I'm not going to accept your risk until you can show me evidence that it has already happened"

"Oh, I see that it happened, but it's just an anecdote, it doesn't count"

"Besides, you don't know what actually for realsies happened, maybe the chicken started it and the chicken had it coming."

At the end of the day, you've made it exceedingly clear that the safety, dignity, and rights of females don't count. You've communicated very well that you're willing to sacrifice some unspecified number of females so that males who want to be in female spaces can have good feelings about themselves.

So fine. You've picked your position. Go ahead and flesh it out:
What is the threshold? How many females do you think should be the allowable number of females hurt by males in female-only spaces before you'll even consider excluding males?

How many females do you think are an acceptable level of sacrifice in order to bolster the feelings of males?
Click to expand...


Equating transgender people to "foxes dressing up as chickens" is as ridiculous as it is nasty. Unsurprisingly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom