Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

Lol, I know a few people who were naturally left handed and weere forced to be right hsnded at a young age, because they were told they must be to conform. They are quite literally left handed people in a right handed body. Did you really think this one through?

No, they're not internally left handed in a right handed body. They're internally and somatically left handed, who have learned to use their right hand sufficiently to get by. That's not the same thing as literally being right handed, having grown up using your right hand as your dominant hand, and deciding that you identify as left handed, and you feel like a left handed person without every having been capable of that experience!

 

[Thermal]

But that's not the same! Looking down and seeing an innie where you expected an outie is a reaction to a somatic variance - the body isn't what your brain expects to see. That's NOT what transgender people describe when they say they "feel like a female". It's not surprise at their body, it's an entirely internal, emotional thing. They describe it as having a female personality, female behaviors, liking things that females like, etc. That's not at all what you're saying above.

That's the version I was given by the one traswoman I was close enough to talk about it with. If you are resistant to the truth of it, being a ciswoman, imma have to go with the actual transwoman's account.

d4m10n and you and all other males have the somatic experience of being male, and there is no possible way any of you could credibly know how it feels to be a female. No more so than you could know how it feels to be 85 or how it feels to be Basque or how it feels to be epileptic.

Right. But I do know how it feels to be a male, because I'm a cis hommie. Being trans is when that feeling doesn't jibe with the body, I'm told. They see women and think 'that's like me', and see men and think 'that's not'. For whatever reason, I'm sympathetic to that.

 

[Myriad]

It felt kind of trite to give such a thoughtful post a 'like', but I'm not sure how to respond while I'm driving. I'm mostly here for the petty hyperpersonalized squabbling and snide snarky one-liners, so the heady stuff goes right by me sometimes. Will properly respond when in smoking jacket and brandy.

No problem and no hurry. I've had that post open for a week, since you posted the post it quoted, and I think I still fell a little short of connecting all the dots I intended to connect.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's the version I was given by the one traswoman I was close enough to talk about it with. If you are resistant to the truth of it, being a ciswoman, imma have to go with the actual transwoman's account.

You're going to take the word of a male with a transgender identity on what it feels like to be a female over the word of an actual female? Again, they might very well feel discomfort with their body, but they LITERALLY CANNOT know what it actually feels like to be female. At the very best, they might feel like what they imagine females feel like - and that's not at all the same thing.

Right. But I do know how it feels to be a male, because I'm a cis hommie. Being trans is when that feeling doesn't jibe with the body, I'm told. They see women and think 'that's like me', and see men and think 'that's not'. For whatever reason, I'm sympathetic to that.

So yeah. There are a very, very few people how report the "surprise at the body" experience. They exist, I know one. But here's the thing, that's an extreme minority among the people who currently identify as transgender. These are the "old school transsexuals".

But it's NOT what is described by a very large number of males with transgender identities when they say they feel like a woman. So don't erroneously assume that all of them are like the one single person that you know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No problem and no hurry. I've had that post open for a week, since you posted the post it quoted, and I think I still fell a little short of connecting all the dots I intended to connect.

It was an excellent post.

 

[smartcooky]

BTW, when you and others were lecturing me about not respecting women, you seem to have overlooked smartcooky's representation of men versus women: males having a dick and bals, and women a 'card swiper and knockers'. Yeah, totally no disrespect for women here.

Oh FFS go get yourself a sense of humour transplant!

I think you will find the women you insult here so regularly here have no problem will how I express myself.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm bored with repeating to you that I am opposed to males in the girls shower.

That's not why I mentioned him. I mentioned him because his case contradicts your claim that self ID rules don't make any difference to predators. They made a difference to him.

Was Cox arrested, or left alone to do as he pleased? How did that work out again?

He was left alone in Fairfax. Did you not know that?

 

[Pixel42]

statistics and lack of reports back this up)

That's not true. You are artificially limiting the problem to reach this conclusion.

So you keep saying, unconvincingly.

These are the things you are saying are not a problem:

1. Women being made uncomfortable by the presence of a male in what used to be a female only facility, but can do nothing because they know he's now entitled to be there

2. Women being flashed at by a male in what used to be a female only facility but don't raise the alarm or complain, as they would previously have done, because they know he's now entitled to be there

3. Women who are no longer going to places they use to frequent because they know they no longer have female only facilities

 

[smartcooky]

These are the things you are saying are not a problem:

1. Women being made uncomfortable by the presence of a male in what used to be a female only facility, but can do nothing because they know he's now entitled to be there

2. Women being flashed at by a male in what used to be a female only facility but don't raise the alarm or complain, as they would previously have done, because they know he's now entitled to be there

3. Women who are no longer going to places they use to frequent because they know they no longer have female only facilities

Both of my daughters tick boxes #1 and #3. One of them ticks Box #2

What no TRA, either on this forum or elsewhere has yet explained at all (and certainly not to my satisfaction) is why, if the minuscule, less than 0.2% of the population who are transgender identified males are so uncomfortable, and find it so demeaning, degrading and vitiating to their dignity if forced to use male facilities, why it is OK for them to make 50% of the population (the females) feel uncomfortable, demeaned, degraded and to vitiate their dignity.

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2001954068512788948

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't point out statistics like that, because it plays into a negative stereotype, and that's not allowed even if it's true. Statistics can only be used to support the TRA side, never the gender critical side.

 

[Rolfe]

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5653570-activists-suppression-of-research-on-gender-affirming-care-needs-to-stop/

 

[smartcooky]

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5653570-activists-suppression-of-research-on-gender-affirming-care-needs-to-stop/

View attachment 67235

... and here is some detail surrounding that fight between WPATH and Johns Hopkins University

Scandalous suppression of research on transgender health

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has suppressed evidence that contradicts its policies, influenced by activist clinicians. Unsealed documents reveal WPATH’s e…

can-sg.org

Documents unsealed in a US lawsuit reveal that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has suppressed publication of systematic reviews of the evidence on transgender health that WPATH had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University (JHU) because WPATH was not happy with the results. The reviews had found little or no evidence to support WPATH’s policies of promoting gender affirming medical and surgical interventions.​

​

... and for @Thermal's benefit...

WPATH and the World Health Organisation​

Even before the recent revelations about research suppression CAN-SG was very concerned that WPATH members had a prominent role in the development of WHO transgender guidelines and along with other organisations wrote to WHO about our concerns. As a result WHO clarified that the new guidelines would only cover adults, not children, extended the consultation period and recently announced additional members of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) in an attempt to widen the representativeness of the group. However most of the additional members work in affirmative gender clinics and there is no-one that brings perspectives that are potentially critical of the affirmative approach, such as those of detransitioners.​

WHO gets its information from WPATH - a bunch of unethical criminals. It is telling! Nothing else needs saying except that WHO is not to be trusted on any matters relating to the transgender issue so long as there remains ANY relationship between they and WPATH.

------
"Documents" link from the article https://archive.is/20250716015643/h...arch-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated

 

[smartcooky]

... and more revelations show the true nature of WPATH's perfidy...

WPATH evidence on trial

In the past three years, the US federal government has been strongly in favour of so-called “gender-affirmative” treatment, while over 20 US states have

sex-matters.org

​

WPATH’s standards of care are not evidence-based​

​

The WPATH standards are based on a structured process of building expert consensus. WPATH says that its methodology managed conflicts of interest; used the “GRADE framework” for systematic evidence reviews to tailor recommendation statements based on the strength of evidence; and drew on systematic literature reviews conducted by an independent team from Johns Hopkins University. The state of Alabama says its “discovery revealed a different story”(pp 28–34).​

​

In August 2020, the head of the Johns Hopkins team commissioned by WPATH wrote to officials at the US Department of Health and Human Services about its research into “multiple types of interventions (surgical, hormone, voice therapy…)”. She reported: “We found little to no evidence about children and adolescents.” The Johns Hopkins review team also told officials that WPATH was “trying to restrict [its] ability to publish” the findings. There was no systematic review on the chapter about the care of adolescents.​

​

Exhibits put into evidence show that some SOC8 authors opted to conduct no systematic evidence reviews precisely because doing so would make the lack of evidence more obvious. One chapter lead wrote:​

​

“Our concerns, echoed by the social justice lawyers we spoke with, is that evidence-based review reveals little or no evidence and puts us in an untenable position in terms of affecting policy or winning lawsuits.”​

​

Records disclosed in the discovery process for the Alabama litigation revealed authors discussing the concerning lack of evidence, and seeking to downplay it in the guidance. One wrote they were concerned that using language such as insufficient evidence and limited data would “empower” people who were concerned “that research in this field is low quality (ie small series, retrospective, no controls, etc…)”.​

​

One of the lead authors, Dr Marci Bowers, apologised in a private email to other WPATH leaders for going public with concerns about puberty blockers, and wrote:​

“Like my [female genital mutilation] patients who had never experienced orgasm, the puberty blockaded kids did not know what orgasm might feel like and most experienced sensation to their genitalia no differently than if it had been a finger or a portion of their thigh… My concern culminated during a presurgical evaluation on a young trans girl from a highly educated family whose daughter responded when I asked about orgasm, “what is that?” The parents countered with, “oh honey, didn’t they teach you that in school?” I felt that our informed consent process might not be enough…. It occurred to me that how could anyone truly know how important sexual function was to a relationship, to happiness? It isn’t an easy question to answer.”​

​

The people at WPATH are just pure evil, and those who just go along with the crap they dish out are just as bad.!​

 

[Thermal]

These are the things you are saying are not a problem:

1. Women being made uncomfortable by the presence of a male in what used to be a female only facility, but can do nothing because they know he's now entitled to be there

Then you have not understood my clear and repeated position. I oppose force of law in permitting transwomen in a 'female only facility', whatever that may mean.

2. Women being flashed at by a male in what used to be a female only facility but don't raise the alarm or complain, as they would previously have done, because they know he's now entitled to be there

Then you have not understood my clear and repeated position. I oppose force of law in punishing a women who raise the alarm or complain about a transwoman in a 'female only facility', whatever that may mean.

3. Women who are no longer going to places they use to frequent because they know they no longer have female only facilities.

Elective self-banishment is an issue between the ears, and my opposition to 1&2 above negate the issue anyway. My argument is, and has consistently been, the status quo of self policing is likely the best solution.

 

[Thermal]

You can't point out statistics like that, because it plays into a negative stereotype, and that's not allowed even if it's true. Statistics can only be used to support the TRA side, never the gender critical side.

It's interesting how you don't levy the same criticism of Rolfe's statistics that you did against mine. Do you believe that her data controls for variables such as being poor or having poor representation etc in those conviction rates? Why not?

We can of course consider the data presented in her tweety. The source link was provided in the comments.

First off, the data compiler was playing fast and loose with who was a transwoman. They decided to use UK census data which acknowledged a specific identification as a trans woman (48,000 respondents) in order to keep the overall count low, thus raising the rate per million. The census indicated that the majority of responedents who answered 'no' to the question 'does your gender align with your sex assigned at birth?' were ignored in this statistic.

The author notes that pre 2017, using the percentages believed to represent transpeople at the time, convicted sex offenders who were bio males were either far less dramatically more, or even slightly less likely to be convicted than cis males. But then around COVID, there''s a massive spike (from 60 convicts to 92, in a jurisdiction of 69 million). You know what else happened around that time? Convicts popularized opportunistic trans-IDing, getting preferred treatment in the corrections institution. So very likely, this otherwise inexplicable sudden spike in offenders represents the imposter transwomen we have posited. The author even concludes by noting a British Journal of Criminology paper which notes that inmates were known to 'go trans' when incarcerated, then 'untransed' upon release. Funny thing, that.

And of course, when discussing offender rates, it is stunningly stupid to represent a visual graph showing 1,591 offenders lined up when the total nationwide number is only 92. It's incredibly dishonest to grow the numbers like that to make a huge misrepresentation in a graph. The odds of meeting a bio female sex offender are actually higher.

 

[Thermal]

... and for @Thermal's benefit...

...and for smartcooky's benifit (for the third time), I didn't say they were right or wrong. You said only a small percentage of the medical community supported the views being discussed. I pointed out your massive factual misunderstanding here, and that in fact the vast majority supports it. Rightly or wrongly is a separate matter.

 

[Thermal]

What if they say they've felt like a cat for as long as they can remember?

Look, there's a nuance here that is nearly always swept under the rug and ignored. I'm going to try to explain it.

I have always felt taller than I actually am. Genuinely - I'm not making this up for illustrative purposes. My mental image of myself is realistically about 5'8". I feel like I'm at eye level with my boss. I feel like I'm only a small bit shorter then my 6'2" spouse. I've always felt taller. I'm 51, and I still end up slightly surprised when I can't reach things on the top shelf at the grocery store. Logically, I know that I'm 5'1", and I know that I've always been short relative to my same-age peers.

I've had several discussions with my spouse and my family and friends about this. They believe me when I say I feel taller than I am. They don't think I'm making it up. They believe that I feel this thing, but they don't believe the thing itself. I'm not taller than I am, I'm not eye-level with my boss, I'm not near-in-height to my spouse, and I can't reach the top shelf at the grocery store. That's objectively true, it's factual. My feelings about it are irrelevant, and the sincerity of my feelings has no bearing on reality for myself or for anyone else around me.

Whether you or I or anybody else believes a male who says they've always felt like a female for as long as they remember doesn't matter. Their feelings about it don't actually matter, nor does our evaluation of whether they're sincere about their feelings. The factual reality is that they're male. They might feel like they're the opposite sex, but they are not the opposite sex.

I can believe that a schizophrenic genuinely and sincerely feels that aliens are whispering the secrets of the universe to them. They can sincerely believe it, and I can acknowledge that their belief seems sincere to me. But that does not in any fashion mean that aliens are actually whispering to them. And it definitely doesn't suggest that I should pretend that the aliens are real, or that I should accommodate their false belief and false feelings.

That's what a delusion is - it's a false belief. A hallucination is a false perception. In this context, saying that a male with a transgender identity is delusional isn't a moral judgement - it's a statement that their belief is false. They are NOT the opposite sex. The genuineness of their feelings is irrelevant to that. They were not born in the wrong body, that's impossible.

We've been over this a hundred times: transwomen KNOW they are not bio females. If they thought they were, literally, there would be no trans discussion at all. There would just be a bunch of guys (who literally thought they were female) wondering what all the fuss was about.

And that's why I narrow my eyes at you when you make this claim. A delusion means you believe your thing is real. You 'feeling tall' is not something you literally believe to be true. I actually share a version of that- I'm 6 foot and 225 lbs, but I think I am much smaller, and am somewhat stunned when I see a picture of myself with others.

But I don't think it is literally true that I'm 5'8" and 160 lbs. It's a vague feeling that doesn't change my core identity. Being trans, I am told, does, and I believe them. They know it is not factually true, but the feeling is far more encompassing than feeling taller or shorter.

 

[Ziggurat]

The author notes that pre 2017, using the percentages believed to represent transpeople at the time, convicted sex offenders who were bio males were either far less dramatically more, or even slightly less likely to be convicted than cis males. But then around COVID, there''s a massive spike (from 60 convicts to 92, in a jurisdiction of 69 million). You know what else happened around that time? Convicts popularized opportunistic trans-IDing, getting preferred treatment in the corrections institution. So very likely, this otherwise inexplicable sudden spike in offenders represents the imposter transwomen we have posited.

Ok. So let's extrapolate: what might this mean for the future of allowing males who ID as trans into women's bathrooms? You noticed that these stats can change over time, but you don't recognize that the stats you appeal to could as well.

People respond to incentives. When you incentivize sexual predators to identify as trans, more of them will identify as trans. Prison isn't the only place where TRA policies create such incentives. Noting this isn't the win you seem to think it is.

 

[Thermal]

Ok. So let's extrapolate: what might this mean for the future of allowing males who ID as trans into women's bathrooms?

Living in such a State, it evidently means nothing.

People respond to incentives. When you incentivize sexual predators to identify as trans, more of them will identify as trans.

Yet we continue to see that not happening. Unless you have that long requested data that indicates said increase, finally? I've been asking you for it for a long time now. You only respond with more wailing that it is inevitable, as you do again here.

More to the point you are evading. The tweety author was being dishonest, and fear mongering. Like some do here.