Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

I no longer assume that there's such a thing as a "sincere transwoman". Some are undoubtedly better than others at behaving in a way that gains women's trust. But how many, behind that simpering, bashful exterior, are getting off on listening to women pee and change their tampons? Or even just getting off on the whole "here I am in a female space being treated as a woman" thing. The entire concept is grotesque. They're still men, and wanting to pretend to be a woman is a mental illness whatever way you slice it. Even assuming there are a few who aren't explicitly doing it for fetishistic reasons, which is not an assumption I'm ready to make any longer. I don't want mentally ill men in women's spaces, however well they have perfected the "sincere" act.

And for the millionth time, it's not only about the risk of being assaulted. For me, that's not something I really lose sleep over. It's about loss of the modesty, dignity and comfort we have in female-only spaces. I am not prepared to give that up just because a few autogynaephiles are cunning enough to fool some women into believing they're some sort of "sincere true trans". Nice act if you can get it.

 

[Thermal]

I always found it funny when people obviously have the time to spend days arguing an issue, but don't have the time to read half a dozen pages or so back to see the evidence already presented. Repeatedly. I mean, we're on page 54, and you had some statistics for sex offences in message #1,940 on page 49. That's literally just 5 pages back.

And it actually was just 1 (ONE) page back or so when you joined the fray on page 50. Literally the previous page. And was still being discussed on the same page 50 where you joined the discussion. My last message discussing that statistic was literally on the same page 50 where you joined, exactly the 16th message from the bottom of the page at that point.

The statistics in Rolfe's post had literally nothing to do with the question I asked. Additionally, it was posted without comment and the link was called The Rorchach Test, making it seem so irrelevant that it was easily glossed over (the lifted text on mobile was not readily readable, and the title of the link with no comment made it a fly-over post).

I didn't ask about conviction rates of trans sex offenders. I asked about predators being emboldened by permission to enter, which I think is largely a matter of indifference to an actual offender. Additionally, the conviction sex offenders are not shown as being safe space predators or not. For all we know, there may be dead zero safe space predators represented there.

I mean, think it through. An actual trans woman rapist will walk in with a wig and dress whether they have permission or not. If there are too many people around (ie more than one even within hearing range), their attack would probably not be do-able. If there was no one else around, it pretty much doesn't matter what the sign says or if they have permission. They can commit their crime unhindered.

I mean, I dunno, if you're not interested in something to do even that absolutely minimal reading, fair enough, but maybe you shouldn't be arguing about it, rather than insisting that we have another reset and it goes round and round like the wheels on the bus just for you. Just an idea.

I mean, if you complain about the thread being a mile long, that's how it got to be this long in the first place.

And I did breeze over to catch up, but the arguments seemed all over the place, and not related to what I was curious about.

 

[Thermal]

I no longer assume that there's such a thing as a "sincere transwoman".

That's an admirable level.of cynicism. I don't have to assume anything. I know one personally. I watched her go from gay teen boy to young adult woman who lives and passes as a natural born woman by any standard.

 

[lionking]

Which is the reset argument at its core: why do we accept self ID for sex/gender and nothing much else? Race, height, weight... all objectively observable and non negotiable (race can be a little dicey). Why does what someone's self image in terms of gender outweigh the others?

Because in this particular scenario women would get badly hurt. This has been covered countless times.

 

[Thermal]

Because in this particular scenario women would get badly hurt. This has been covered countless times.

If it was "covered" like the last link I was referred to, it wasn't covered at all. The response wasn't even loosely related to the question.

No one gets "badly hurt" by being allowed in a rest room with private stalls. An attack is an attack, and can happen anywhere, no matter what the sign on the door says.

 

[theprestige]

If it was "covered" like the last link I was referred to, it wasn't covered at all. The response wasn't even loosely related to the question.

No one gets "badly hurt" by being allowed in a rest room with private stalls. An attack is an attack, and can happen anywhere, no matter what the sign on the door says.

Sounds like you're working your way back around to endorsing fiat self-ID.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, caught that the first umpteenth times. It's what we continue to talk about.

What are the stats on predators posing as women actually assaulting women? Are they as great or greater than in any other private or public setting?

FFS, you come breezing in here after having not participated for some time, expecting, no, demanding that others catch you up, and then get pissy with them when they won't. Just who the hell do think you are?

The stats have been repeated in this iteration of the thread at least a dozen times in the last couple of months - do your own catching up!!

 

[Rolfe]

That's an admirable level.of cynicism. I don't have to assume anything. I know one personally. I watched her go from gay teen boy to young adult woman who lives and passes as a natural born woman by any standard.

Not AGP then. But still a sexual fetish, to appear to be a woman for the purpose of homosexual sex. HSTS transwomen usually pass much better than AGPs, so women are less likely to notice them, that's all.

And you know what? The more I find out about trans-identifying men of all descriptions, the more cynical I get.

 

[Rolfe]

Here is a recent Twitter thread covering the high rate of sexual offending among trans-identifying men.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1874087232325161210

And then there's this.

Over half of transgender women in prisons are serving for sex offences

Some 151 of the 245 legally male trans women in jail at the end of March 2024 were sex offenders, according to data revealed in response to a written parliamentary question.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Also this. Now, it doesn't say that any of this happened in women's single-sex spaces, but do we really think this "weirdo" is meekly going into the Gents to pee? And if he's jailed for this, which prison will he be held in?

Trans woman sprayed urine over a schoolboy after sex chat at a shopping centre

A TRANS woman sprayed urine over a schoolboy – after previously frightening young females with sinister sex chat at a shopping centre. Francesca Bartkus, 62, soaked the 14-year-old using a sp…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

 

[Pixel42]

No one gets "badly hurt" by being allowed in a rest room with private stalls. An attack is an attack, and can happen anywhere, no matter what the sign on the door says.

Once again: actual attacks are just the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that has ever stopped the flasher from the common from walking into the women's showers and exhibiting himself whilst ogling their naked bodies is the knowledge that he's likely to end up in court, charged with indecent exposure. Opportunity, and a reasonable chance of getting away with it, are all a lot of men require. Just ask Gisele Pelicot. Allow self ID, and there will no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.

 

[Thermal]

FFS, you come breezing in here after having not participated for some time, expecting, no, demanding that others catch you up, and then get pissy with them when they won't. Just who the hell do think you are?

The stats have been repeated in this iteration of the thread at least a dozen times in the last couple of months - do your own catching up!!

I didn't demand a damn thing, Liar. I initially asked, after skimming over what appeared to be borderline psychotic discussion, if any progress had been made that I didn't see among all the sniping. A simple "no" would not seem like too begrudging an ask

The stats I was referred to had literally nothing to do with another question I later asked, which i had not seen the answer to while slogging through pages and pages of bickering. If you don't like a question asked honestly to someone else, not responding to it is likely the brighter move. But make no mistake about it: yours was the only pissy reply thus far.

 

[Thermal]

Once again: actual attacks are just the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that has ever stopped the flasher from the common from walking into the women's showers and exhibiting himself whilst ogling their naked bodies is the knowledge that he's likely to end up in court, charged with indecent exposure. Opportunity, and a reasonable chance of getting away with it, are all a lot of men require. Just ask Gisele Pelicot. Allow self ID, and there will no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.

I am not suggesting self ID as acceptable, and have said so fairly repeatedly. I'm asking, in the context of open discussion, if there might be a middle ground that could work, and what that might be, because I value the legit trans folk as well as vehemently wanting to protect safe places.

 

[Thermal]

Sounds like you're working your way back around to endorsing fiat self-ID.

No, and I've been about as adamant as possible about refusing self ID.

I'm reminded now of why I don't regularly follow this thread. Literally no one is hearing anyone else, and projects whatever crazy ◊◊◊◊ springs to mind onto any discussion raised.

 

[Paul2]

I am not suggesting self ID as acceptable, and have said so fairly repeatedly. I'm asking, in the context of open discussion, if there might be a middle ground that could work, and what that might be, because I value the legit trans folk as well as vehemently wanting to protect safe places.

How dare you saunter in here trying to identify reasonable positions on both sides in order to reach accommodation! Have you no shame?

 

[Pixel42]

I am not suggesting self ID as acceptable, and have said so fairly repeatedly. I'm asking, in the context of open discussion, if there might be a middle ground that could work, and what that might be, because I value the legit trans folk as well as vehemently wanting to protect safe places.

Sadly I don't think there is, at least I can't see one. The feelings and needs of transwomen are in direct conflict with the feelings and needs of women. There's no way of accommodating both, a decision must be made as to whose will take priority.

The best that could be done, I think, is a return to the status quo that prevailed before TRAs started making unreasonable demands. That is, the women using any particular safe space could choose to allow (or at least turn a blind eye to) transwomen they know and trust also using it. But I don't think this would be ever be enough for TRAs, they want legal recognition of their belief that objective reality is actually changed by the thoughts in their heads.

 

[Rolfe]

What we want is the right to object to any man in women's spaces, and to have that objection acted on. Not the de facto situation at the moment, where any woman objecting to a man in a woman's space is likely to be told that "we allow everyone to use the space they're most comfortable with," possibly followed by "you bigot, you transphobe, I'm reporting this as a hate crime."

If a man thinks he passes well enough that he won't be clocked, or if he thinks that the women will give him a free pass because he seems to have made an effort and he's not obviously ogling or flashing anyone, let him try. But if a woman is upset by his presence, he is the one in the wrong, not her.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Most of us would find clothing we like in the "Mens" (whatever that may mean ) department at Macy's.

HAve you ever considered that most males find clothing from the "Mens" section more comfortable simply because it was designed to fit a male body type?

Males and females are shaped differently. Female jeans are cut shorter in the rise because we don't have balls. Male jeans are cut straighter through the thighs and hips, because your waistline is in a different location and you don't have to worry about that baby-making apparatus. Seriously, you should give this a go. It's pretty entertaining - go find a pair of female jeans in your size and try them on... then report back on the fit and comfort of them

 

[Trausti]

 

[Emily's Cat]

Going back to the above: it's the social aspect (making this kind of a Miss Manners discussion). Say were all in a group here. One member is a trans woman. A few members keep referring to her as a man, despite her objections, saying they can't be denied the right to assert biological reality. This thread is in the Social Issues forum, so I think its fair game to talk about how we confront this issue in a social setting.

Okay, let's talk social setting and preferences and being nice.

Let's say you're at a holiday party, and one of the people present is a catholic priest. Generally speaking, it's polite and respectful to refer to them as "Father O'Brien". We all get that, we know that.

But you're not catholic.

If you were told that it was a horrific sin to refer to "Father O'Brien" as "Jim" or "Mr. O'Brien"... and that you are a horrible bigot if you refuse to use the religious honorific that Jim prefers, would you be okay with that? Would you be okay with being obligated to make the sign of the cross and give religious responses when interacting with Jim?

Now let's take it a step closer to the reality here. Let's say you're at a party with Alex Smith, who is an electrician... but they think of themselves as a medical doctor, they identify as a medical doctor. You know damned good and well that they are NOT a medical doctor. You know they're an electrician, they fixed your outlet last week! But they identify as a doctor.

Are you okay with being told that you MUST refer to them as "Dr. Smith" because failure to do so is bigoted and offensive?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Which is the reset argument at its core: why do we accept self ID for sex/gender and nothing much else? Race, height, weight... all objectively observable and non negotiable (race can be a little dicey). Why does what someone's self image in terms of gender outweigh the others?

Many of us do NOT think that their self-image outweighs objective and observable reality.

And for this transgression, we are called transphobes, bigots, and right-wing propagandists full of hate. After a while it gets really tiresome.