Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

Activists advocating for moving transwomen convicts into women's prisons carry the evidential burden to show that those people will not substantively impact the population being housed, for example, by making the estate significantly more (sexually) violent.

You might wish that they had that burden... but they don't. You know why they don't have that burden? Because their first step was to redefine what constitutes a "woman" in the first place, and to make it based on an unverifiable subjective feeling. Once you've managed to stake your negotiation from the starting point of "Anyone who says they're a woman *is* a woman", then there is no argument to be made that some "women" increase the risk of other "woman", because they're all "women" and we don't exclude any "women" from the "women's prison" for that reason.

This is why that primary discussion of 1) biological reality versus subjective feelings and 2) what constitutes "real transgender" is an absolutely vital part of the debate that can't just be handwaved away or swept aside.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So where should we put women prisoners who are sex offenders?

We should put *female* offenders of any sort in with other *females*, and we should put *male* offenders of any sort in with other *males*. once that first step has been accomplished, then you can sort by their risk levels into minimum, medium, and maximum security as needed.

 

[d4m10n]

Stonewall has been a focus of discussion in this thread for years, don't play dumb now. You know damned good and well that the overwhelming focus of Stonewall and its offshoots is transgender advocacy.

As I said before, what an activist group does here and now doesn't time travel backwards to when the crimes under discussion were being committed by a gay man doing mainstream gay advocacy. If you want to make the argument that he's a trans activist because of the four letter acronym, it makes just as much sense to call him a lesbian activist.

 

[d4m10n]

You might want to read that quote in its context

As might you. Perhaps you could also explain why you cherry picked stats which weren't from a peer reviewed study after eliding over that quote, which was.

 

[d4m10n]

You might wish that they had that burden... but they don't. You know why they don't have that burden? Because their first step was to redefine what constitutes a "woman" in the first place, and to make it based on an unverifiable subjective feeling.

When arguing about how criminal statistics could be used to justify including selected male convicts in female prisons (a policy still very much under debate in much of the world) this "one weird trick" linguistic shortcut isn't exactly on point.

 

[Manger Douse]

As I said before, what an activist group does here and now doesn't time travel backwards to when the crimes under discussion were being committed by a gay man doing mainstream gay advocacy. If you want to make the argument that he's a trans activist because of the four letter acronym, it makes just as much sense to call him a lesbian activist.

I mean, he wanted to snip the vocal cords of a 12 year old and pump him full of estrogen - that's peak TRA

 

[angrysoba]

I didn't say they were trans. Re-read my post. Here, I'll save you the trouble of having to click back up:

That is why it is a smear. They are not trans; they are "trans-associated".

Pedophiles. It means pedophiles. Specifically, pedophiles who are complicit with actively grooming children, shaping education, and convincing oversight bodies that sterilizing kids and locking them into a pre-pubescent body is somehow a good thing for those kids.

Then take it to the "what should be done with pedophiles?" thread because right now it looks like Rolfe's exhortation to exterminate the brutes burn the lot of them in the trans thread is muddying the waters at best as we have to spend at least three or four times doing a back-and-forth with both of us agreeing that the articles are not actually about trans people, but about pedophiles, but because they are "trans-associated" the trans bit somehow is relevant in some nebulous way.

Again, I'm all for the discussion of what should be done, in terms of policy. "Burn the lot of them" is not a helpful suggestion if it is admitted that it is:
a) not meant literally
b) not even relevant
c) likely to confuse smartcooky who might think that this is the literal next step in his radicalization and may lead to him setting fire to members of his rival pub quiz team.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When arguing about how criminal statistics could be used to justify including selected male convicts in female prisons (a policy still very much under debate in much of the world) this "one weird trick" linguistic shortcut isn't exactly on point.

Sometimes I really don't understand your approach, or your determination to argue over some things.

That "one weird trick" is literally how the advocates got all of this legislation passed in the first ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ place, damion! At no point were they up their arguing "oh, well, they're of course male, but we think a special exception should be made for these males". No, they started from the premise that "they're just as much of a woman as any other woman". It was linguistic shenanigans the entire time.

 

[theprestige]

Sometimes I really don't understand your approach, or your determination to argue over some things.

That "one weird trick" is literally how the advocates got all of this legislation passed in the first ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ place, damion! At no point were they up their arguing "oh, well, they're of course male, but we think a special exception should be made for these males". No, they started from the premise that "they're just as much of a woman as any other woman". It was linguistic shenanigans the entire time.

I'm not sure how many more times I need to say "fiat self-ID" and "trans rights in public policy".

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is why it is a smear. They are not trans; they are "trans-associated".

Then take it to the "what should be done with pedophiles?" thread because right now it looks like Rolfe's exhortation to exterminate the brutes burn the lot of them in the trans thread is muddying the waters at best as we have to spend at least three or four times doing a back-and-forth with both of us agreeing that the articles are not actually about trans people, but about pedophiles, but because they are "trans-associated" the trans bit somehow is relevant in some nebulous way.

Again, I'm all for the discussion of what should be done, in terms of policy. "Burn the lot of them" is not a helpful suggestion if it is admitted that it is:
a) not meant literally
b) not even relevant
c) likely to confuse smartcooky who might think that this is the literal next step in his radicalization and may lead to him setting fire to members of his rival pub quiz team.

Just so you understand where my head is at right now...

You're talking to a handful of females, as a male, about a topic that affects nearly all females a whole lot and affects males not at all... when we've been subjected repeatedly to harassment, intimidation, and threats from trans-advocates (regardless of whether those advocates identify as trans themselves). We've watched teenage females be forced to share showers and changing rooms with males against their will, and seen those females be told that they have no right to expect visual privacy from the opposite sex. We've watched adult males with completely intact genitals expose themselves to females of all ages, then have the gall to call those females bigots for being uncomfortable when a semi-erect penis-haver is sitting in the "female only" hot tub next to their child. We've watched these advocates infiltrate schools and provide gender counseling and supplies like binders and packers and cross-sex clothing for other people's children to use at school without their parent's knowledge. We've watched parents lose custody of their children for not affirming their child's externally incited transgender belief and for not allowing their child to take drugs that will harm their developing bodies. We've watched males in caricatured and sexualized "womanface" invited to talk to kids without the parents being present, to dance with kids as if those children are strippers, to encourage children to shake their asses for cash. We've watched females lose athletic positions and scholarships to mediocre males, and seen those female athletes threatened if they don't accept the male in their midst. We've watched trans advocates physically attack females gathered to discuss the conflict of rights. We've watched trans identified males and their advocates carry signs and proudly wear shirts calling for punching, or killing, or attacking, or raping, or beheading females who don't kowtow to males who wish to invade out spaces. We've been bullied and harassed for well over a decade now....

... And you feel it appropriate to insist that we should be nice?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure how many more times I need to say "fiat self-ID" and "trans rights in public policy".

I'm not sure saying it again will have any more impact. I'm nearly at a loss for how to address it in civil terms. About all I have is that now that enough awareness has been raised of the actual impact... public opinion is shifting, and it's shifting fast.

I just hope we can insulate the LGB that got force-teamed with the T from the blowback that will follow.

 

[angrysoba]

...
And you feel it appropriate to insist that we should be nice?

Nope. I feel it appropriate to insist that you should be relevant.

Maybe that rant is one that you copied and pasted from somewhere else, but save it for when it makes sense in context.

 

[angrysoba]

I just hope we can insulate the LGB that got force-teamed with the T from the blowback that will follow.

The "Burn the lot of them" rhetoric should help there.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nope. I feel it appropriate to insist that you should be relevant.

Maybe that rant is one that you copied and pasted from somewhere else, but save it for when it makes sense in context.

"Oh goodness, expressing your anger at yet more pedos with close ties to trans advocacy and trans identification by using obviously not serious rhetoric like "burn the lot" is just so very unkind, you might hurt someone's feelings" pretty much seems like it merits my rant. And suggesting that I copied and pasted from somewhere has me furious. You come sauntering in here and essentially tell Rolfe that they're being a meanie, and should be nicer, whereas we've been actually dealing with this ◊◊◊◊ in our actual lives, in our actual showers and restrooms and workplaces for decades.

How about you go tell the TRAs that they should tone down their "punch a terf" and "rape them with a barbed wire wrapped baseball bat" rhetoric? That would be really nice.

 

[d4m10n]

That "one weird trick" is literally how the advocates got all of this legislation passed in the first ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ place, damion!

We all already agree on this, so there's really no point in reiterating it yet again, unless you've got some practical tips about to prevent history repeating itself in a different jurisdiction.

Sometimes I really don't understand your approach, or your determination to argue over some things.

In a forum dedicated to reasoning well based on solid evidence, you shouldn't be remotely surprised when someone calls ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on sloppy reasoning from poor evidence. If you think there is a valid and sound argument to be made from the aforementioned crime stats, please make it. No one else has, so far.

 

[angrysoba]

"Oh goodness, expressing your anger at yet more pedos with close ties to trans advocacy and trans identification by using obviously not serious rhetoric like "burn the lot" is just so very unkind, you might hurt someone's feelings" pretty much seems like it merits my rant. And suggesting that I copied and pasted from somewhere has me furious. You come sauntering in here and essentially tell Rolfe that they're being a meanie, and should be nicer, whereas we've been actually dealing with this ◊◊◊◊ in our actual lives, in our actual showers and restrooms and workplaces for decades.

How about you go tell the TRAs that they should tone down their "punch a terf" and "rape them with a barbed wire wrapped baseball bat" rhetoric? That would be really nice.

If they were on this thread, I certainly would.

But anyway, I'm not going to treat you like a snowflake who must be talked to in a particular deferential way.

If I think a claim makes no sense or is irrelevant, I'm not going to be put off because pointing it out might upset someone.

 

[d4m10n]

Also, what's all this nonsense about people being "force-teamed" to work with other activist groups?

What force was applied, by whom?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If they were on this thread, I certainly would.

But anyway, I'm not going to treat you like a snowflake who must be talked to in a particular deferential way.

If I think a claim makes no sense or is irrelevant, I'm not going to be put off because pointing it out might upset someone.

I don't need or expect you to treat me like a snowflake.

On the other hand, I also don't think I should be expected to be copacetic about you chastising Rolfe and I for mean language toward the snowflakes that aren't even here simply because you can't see the connection between [people who advocate for permanent changes to children that keep them childlike under the guise of transgender advocacy] and [people who keep being found guilty of horrific child sex abuse] that keeps rearing its head.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't need or expect you to treat me like a snowflake.

On the other hand, I also don't think I should be expected to be copacetic about you chastising Rolfe and I for mean language toward the snowflakes that aren't even here simply because you can't see the connection between [people who advocate for permanent changes to children that keep them childlike under the guise of transgender advocacy] and [people who keep being found guilty of horrific child sex abuse] that keeps rearing its head.

Okay, how about I put it another way.

If I wrote something like, "Oh look, here's another one of the gays that is interested in children. Has anyone noticed a pattern? Burn the lot of them!" and posted the same three articles, would you think that was fair enough? If I then found a website (and they surely exist) that collates examples of gay men being interested in boys, and also, for good measure a list of "approved-by-liberals" movies and books that appeared to do the same, would that be kosher?

Speaking of kosher, there are no doubt websites, probably a LOT of them, about the unsavoury sexual proclivities of the Jews, or maybe, ya know, not Jewish as that is too direct, but let's call it Zionist. Something Jewish-associated. Someone could just post some articles on Epstein and Weinstein and a few other people who happen to be Jews and say "Burn the lot of them" and get stroppy when it is asked what they mean by that.

The arguments against self-ID in sports, women's prisons and toilets are good, and worth making. The argument that LGBT associations necessarily signal pedophilia, not so much.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also, what's all this nonsense about people being "force-teamed" to work with other activist groups?

What force was applied, by whom?

Sometimes I genuinely can't tell if you're actually arguing from your own beliefs or if you're taking a debate stance.

Across the board, organizations that have historically been focused on gay and lesbian rights have been shifted from "LGB" to "LGBTQ+", frequently without any input from the LGB people. At the end of the day, the TQ+ has nothing at all to do with LGB. They're entirely different topics. But because of the TQ+ got added to the LGB, there's never any discussion about the TQ+ objectives and advocacy. It's "force teamed" because the TQ advocates almost always couch any opposition to their self-id agenda as being "anti-LGBTQ" even though the majority of opponents to males in female spaces are actually very supportive of LGB.