• 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.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Talking of the rape of women by transwomen, the accounts I find most upsetting for some reason are two or three posts that have been made on social media by young lesbian women who have been gaslighted to believe that TWAW and that it is transphobic to refuse to "date" a transwoman. They have been too young and naive to work out how to protect themselves. They have agreed to "date" a transwoman and to take that relationship to a sexual level.

The accounts, and as I said I have only seen two or three, all take much the same course. The young woman is repulsed by the transwoman's male body, and especially by his penis. She's being told it's a "lady dick", or even that it's just a clitoris. She's reluctant, but terrified of being transphobic. She lets the encounter continue, and the man insists on penetrative sex. The young lesbian is left distraught, feeling (and actually being) violated, but also feeling overwhelming feelings of guilt for her transphobia, and for the possibility that her revulsion has upset the transwoman.

If that isn't rape, it ought to be. But at least with the possibility of forming male-excluding lesbian groups and dating pools, it will be a lot easier for young lesbians not to get caught up in such situations.

Yeah, that would be messed up. Anyone should have the right to refuse to date anyone for any reason, and that includes bad reasons such as racism, sexism, and so on.

At the same time, this has nothing to do with who uses what bathroom or who is the stronger.
 
Danny Trejo in lipsticks, just waiting for his chance to ID as a woman so he can enter a woman's bathroom and rape a cis-woman.
You mean something like this guy?

IMG_0061.webp
That’s Isla Bryson. A rapist and a transwoman.
I'm being unfair to Danny Trejo, who I understand is actually a very nice guy.
I’m sure he is. Isla Bryson, however, is not.
 
I think this is wishful thinking on your part. I sincerely support your daughters fighting back... but if you think that your female children could put you in the ICU if you tried to immobilize them, you're wrong.

When I was in college, there were a few areas of campus where sexual assaults and attempted rapes had happened more than once. Lots of trees, dark, not on a main walkway, etc. But also very popular areas for morning jogs, and a definite shortcut if you're coming back to the dorm from the other side of campus. Our brother floor set up a "walk home" program, so that any females taking night classes could arrange for one of them to meet them outside of class and walk them home. There were several very athletic, strong females who insisted they didn't need protection, they could take care of themselves. So some of the average sized males challenged them. The basic objective was that the males would grab and pin down the females one-on-one... and all the females had to do was get away. The males weren't trying to cause any injury or even pain, and the females were allowed to hit, kick, scratch as much as they wanted. And these weren't the big athletic males, they were entirely average sized engineering and math students.

Not a single female got away.

Violence of action can turn the tables on someone who isn't expecting it, and can definitely drive off an uncommitted opportunistic predator - same as having a locked door or a car alarm will drive off opportunistic uncommitted thieves. But violence of action can't overcome a significant physical difference when the opponent is intent on causing harm.

If one of these male athletes who volunteered to escort women were a rapist using it as an opportunity to rape, what would stop them?
 
If one of these male athletes who volunteered to escort women were a rapist using it as an opportunity to rape, what would stop them?
Nothing. But here’s a key difference: they weren’t strangers, they were men that they women likely knew and CHOSE to associate with. That combination of familiarity and choice is absolutely key.
 
Nothing. But here’s a key difference: they weren’t strangers, they were men that they women likely knew and CHOSE to associate with. That combination of familiarity and choice is absolutely key.

There were similar programs when I was in school, and there was absolutely nothing that made the escort familiar with the escorted.
 
And? He’s still a transwoman. Do you think being a transwoman will somehow prevent him from raping again?

Only killing him can guarantee she doesn't rape again.

Look what I found when looking up the case.

"The case is believed to be the first time a trans woman has been convicted of raping women in Scotland."


Neither of the rapes happened in a public bathroom.
 
That transwomen using women's bathrooms means very masculine men can just enter women's bathrooms at will if they say they consider themselves women on a momentary whim, where they will proceed to rape the cis-women found there.
If that is all you think the concerns are, then you haven't been paying attention
 
I have never encountered anyone at a public restroom door enforcing any policy about who can use that restroom or not.
I cannot help but notice that you've failed to state any sort of policy position here.

Can I safely assume that you don't actually care who uses which room, regardless of the signage on the door?
 
Last edited:
Only killing him can guarantee she doesn't rape again.

Look what I found when looking up the case.

"The case is believed to be the first time a trans woman has been convicted of raping women in Scotland."


Neither of the rapes happened in a public bathroom.
If you think rape is the only concern, then you haven't been paying attention.
 
I cannot help but notice that you've failed to state any sort of policy position here.

Right now trans-people already use the bathroom that creates the littlest fuss. I don't think any policy I could suggest is better than that.

Danny Trejo using a woman's bathroom would create a lot of fuss, even if they wear lipstick.

Can I safely assume that you don't actually care who uses which room, regardless of the signage on the door?

You should safely assume my opinion is anything I said it was until I change my mind. I've noticed you only assume straw-men unrelated to anything I said.
 
One case. But we have many many more. Absolute freaking weirdo, nobody could possibly maintain that he wasn't "genuinely trans" given the longstanding existence of the Amy persona and his habit of appearing in public and serving in the shop as Amy. And absolutely using womanface to entice a child into his car, when the child would not have accepted a lift from a man.

All trans-people should be judged by this person's actions.

Right?
 
And you know what? There is no difference between men putting on womanface for one reason or for another...

On one hand you claim to support trans-people, to personally know some, to have such great sympathy for them...

Then you go and say crap like this.

My next door neighbor claims not to be racist, but the first thing he tells you is he doesn't like Rap music, "the blacks" control local politics, and he doesn't think it's fair how black people can use the N-word but he can't.
 
So try this on: If a white person were to put on blackface because they genuinely identify as black... do you think that's meaningfully different from the perspective of a black person to a white person putting on blackface in parody or in mockery or to otherwise appropriate an experience they don't have? How do you think a black person should tell them apart?

People adopt other cultures all the time. White people adopt black culture all the time. They don't need to change their skin colour to fit in.
 

Back
Top Bottom