International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Trans Women are not Women (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325369)

TomB 29th May 2019 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12709780)
Blanchard may have overestimated the role of autogynephilia as a cause of desire to transition to the opposite sex, but I don't think anyone could question the reality of the phenomenon, or reasonably deny that it plays a role in some transgenderism.

(Snipped post down to last paragraph as I'm not responding point by point.)

I think I mostly agree. Autogynophilia exists.

I also think that autoandrophilia exists. Though Blanchard instead calls it "autohomoeroticism" which he defines as "a female's love of (the idea of) herself as a *gay* man." (https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/sta...33413588877313)I'm not sure how he defines a condition where a female loves the thought of herself as a straight man. One respondant posted an article that suggests that some women do fantasize about being a male without the homoerotic element Blanchard posits. (https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/autoandrophilia-survey-results/) I think there are a few gaping holes that Blanchard doesn't address.

I also agree that these auto____philias can potentially lead someone to actually transition to the opposite sex. But I question the proportions. First, because subsequent work suggests that there are those who don't fit Blanchard's categories, and second because I find it difficult to determine the direction of causation in each individual case.

In any event, you are correct that the criticisms of Blanchard have been used as a means of dismissing Autogynophilia entirely, which is incorrect, and not what the critics themselves seem to do. But it's also true that Blanchard's theories have been used by the other side as a club to say "See! They're just delusional perverts!" Which is equally incorrect. (And, I think, a mischaracterisation of Blanchard.)

JoeMorgue 29th May 2019 07:59 AM

I don't think we have to split some infinite regressive hair over "At what point does exact level of thought Y equate to exact level of wanting to be the other gender X" since wanting to be something doesn't make it so.

theprestige 29th May 2019 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolfe (Post 12709941)
All these murders of transpeople. The fact is that statistically it's safer to be trans than either male or female in England and Wales.

Safer in terms of overall murders per capita? Or safer in terms of murders per transperson?

If ten out of a hundred people are murdered, but only one of them is trans, then it certainly looks safer to be the transperson than to be one of the other nine men and women who got murdered. But if only two out of a hundred people are trans to begin with, then it looks like half of all transpeople are getting murdered.

Ugh.

I'm terrible at statistics. I know I didn't explain that properly. I hope someone will figure out what I'm trying to say, and say it more clearly than I can.

theprestige 29th May 2019 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12709991)
I don't think we have to split some infinite regressive hair over "At what point does exact level of thought Y equate to exact level of wanting to be the other gender X" since wanting to be something doesn't make it so.

The question of whether wanting to be something makes it so is exactly the question we're debating here, and which our larger society is also debating. Policy is being crafted. Activists are acting. The question of how much wanting clears the bar of being needs an answer. Your answer of "none" is no longer sufficient - at least not without going back to first principles and re-hashing several thousand years of organic social development around biological gender.

But kudos for wanting to stick with several thousand years of "this is how we do it, and nobody has a good idea for how to change it", if possible. We'll make a conservative of you yet!

quadraginta 29th May 2019 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12710014)
Safer in terms of overall murders per capita? Or safer in terms of murders per transperson?

If ten out of a hundred people are murdered, but only one of them is trans, then it certainly looks safer to be the transperson than to be one of the other nine men and women who got murdered. But if only two out of a hundred people are trans to begin with, then it looks like half of all transpeople are getting murdered.

Ugh.

I'm terrible at statistics. I know I didn't explain that properly. I hope someone will figure out what I'm trying to say, and say it more clearly than I can.



I thought you did fine.

Add to this that most of the time these people are being murdered (or beaten, or sexually abused) specifically because they are trans. Not because someone wanted their money, or because of jealousy, or any of the other common causes that get most people who aren't trans murdered.

TomB 29th May 2019 09:45 AM

Illinois' governor is expected to sign a law that makes all public single stall bathrooms gender neutral. Seems like common sense to me. There is a small expense involved, I suppose, for signage.

I mentioned it to my wife, who works security at a library. She said that the trans people use the bathroom for whichever gender they are dressed as. There's never been an issue.

As for the violence statistics. I think it would take some significant statistical analysis to get anything meaningful. What you would want to compare is people assaulted or murdered because they are trans vs. people assaulted/murdered because they are natal male or natal female. That excludes a lot of violence: assault during a robbery/drug deal, assault during arguments over football games, etc. Sexual assault would be included.

quadraginta 29th May 2019 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12710116)
Illinois' governor is expected to sign a law that makes all public single stall bathrooms gender neutral. Seems like common sense to me. There is a small expense involved, I suppose, for signage.

I mentioned it to my wife, who works security at a library. She said that the trans people use the bathroom for whichever gender they are dressed as. There's never been an issue.


Possibly because no one every made an issue of it. If someone complained about a man in the bathroom and they were asked to leave, then refusing would be trespassing.

When NC passed their HB2 bill it would have been outright illegal, because government facilities were covered by a requirement that multiple occupancy bathrooms only be used by people of the appropriate natal gender.

Quote:

As for the violence statistics. I think it would take some significant statistical analysis to get anything meaningful. What you would want to compare is people assaulted or murdered because they are trans vs. people assaulted/murdered because they are natal male or natal female. That excludes a lot of violence: assault during a robbery/drug deal, assault during arguments over football games, etc. Sexual assault would be included.

I don't think it should be if the assault resulted from the discovery that the person assaulted was trans and not a "real" woman.

Rolfe 29th May 2019 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12710014)
Safer in terms of overall murders per capita? Or safer in terms of murders per transperson?

If ten out of a hundred people are murdered, but only one of them is trans, then it certainly looks safer to be the transperson than to be one of the other nine men and women who got murdered. But if only two out of a hundred people are trans to begin with, then it looks like half of all transpeople are getting murdered.

Ugh.

I'm terrible at statistics. I know I didn't explain that properly. I hope someone will figure out what I'm trying to say, and say it more clearly than I can.


In terms of murders per capita of the demographic group in question. Men have the highest rate, women next, and transwomen (not sure if it included transmen) the lowest rate. Overwhelmingly the murderers are men. However the per capita rate of violent offending among transwomen is similar to the rate among men and well above the rate among women,

Francesca R 29th May 2019 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12709914)
But where does all this anger and hatred start?

Do you think there is, what, some kind of social hatred-equiibrium that is symmetric between those who agitate for transwomen to access female segregated spaces and those who oppose them? I think that is demonstrably lopsided actually. But that may be just me.

However if you are asking "who initiated the conflict" or even "who has the more compelling grievance", I would probably give an answer that couldn't be freed from bias.

In any case neither group is going to admit it is them. And it doesn't have a whole lot of moral or practical relevance on who will prevail either. I don't think the opposing objectives can reach compromise. because their interests are wholly opposed. I would personally argue for one side over the other for vested personal reasons (I am female, do not want biological males intruding on a host of segregated spaces). And I would big up the argument of there being, what, predatory imposters who corrupt the case for transwoman access, unfortunate as that is for many transwomen who, believe it or not, I have sympathy for.

Francesca R 29th May 2019 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolfe (Post 12710147)
In terms of murders per capita of the demographic group in question. Men have the highest rate, women next, and transwomen (not sure if it included transmen) the lowest rate. Overwhelmingly the murderers are men. However the per capita rate of violent offending among transwomen is similar to the rate among men and well above the rate among women,

I never spend a lot of time worrying about being murdered. That may be "just me".

I do spend considerably more time mindful of sexual violence (or just violence). With respect to that, as I have said before, and as I am positive is also the case for transwomen, and transmen, actually, reported statistics can with respect go whistle. Every woman knows perfectly well that they are an entirely useless metric of risk. I know of no woman who gives them any weight.

Or, don't try to prove anything in this realm of enquiry with crime stats.

(. . . . I would however concede that under reporting of murder is less of an issue than sex crime)

theprestige 29th May 2019 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadraginta (Post 12710105)
I thought you did fine.

Add to this that most of the time these people are being murdered (or beaten, or sexually abused) specifically because they are trans. Not because someone wanted their money, or because of jealousy, or any of the other common causes that get most people who aren't trans murdered.

Thanks!

I want to say there's a kind of "ghetto effect" (Warsaw, not inner-city). Jews/Homosexuals/Transsexuals are quite safe - as long as they stay in their ghetto. It's only when they try to interact with the rest of society, as first-class citizens and human beings, that life suddenly becomes disproportionately dangerous for them.

Personally I think such ghettos are a bad idea, whether self-selected or externally imposed.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure that Rolfe's statistic doesn't hold, once you start controlling for open transsexuals interacting with society at large.

Francesca R 29th May 2019 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12710166)
I want to say there's a kind of "ghetto effect" (Warsaw, not inner-city). Jews/Homosexuals/Transsexuals are quite safe - as long as they stay in their ghetto. It's only when they try to interact with the rest of society, as first-class citizens and human beings, that life suddenly becomes disproportionately dangerous for them.

The same can be said about women in many parts of the world today, and in more parts of it before now. The trend towards reduced danger has depended on additional social and practical arrangements being made by societies.

Not surprising there is large pushback about the trend being driven into reverse in certain areas.

TomB 29th May 2019 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12710157)
Do you think there is, what, some kind of social hatred-equiibrium that is symmetric between those who agitate for transwomen to access female segregated spaces and those who oppose them? I think that is demonstrably lopsided actually. But that may be just me.

However if you are asking "who initiated the conflict" or even "who has the more compelling grievance", I would probably give an answer that couldn't be freed from bias.

I think it's less lopsided than you think. It's my observation in discussions like this, there is a higher bar of what constitutes hateful rhetoric for ones own side than the opposite side. I see it in liberal/conservative debates, male/female debates, cis/trans, gay straight etc. It's impossible to be truly objective. (As you point out in your second paragraph.)

For example, I've watched a lot of YouTube videos that address these issues. Some of them (on both sides) get pretty angry and emotional. But they all feel that they are reacting to hate, not generating it. And there are mini-arguments in the comments section as to whether a particular portion (or comment) was offensive or hateful.
(Note: There is a danger in gauging the attitudes of a community based on YouTube videos. Only the most invested make videos, and of those only the most radical or controversial get noticed. Also, the producers often get paid per view. The more controversial, they are the more views they get, which = $$$. Take social media with a grain of salt. They are shock jocks.)
Quote:

In any case neither group is going to admit it is them. And it doesn't have a whole lot of moral or practical relevance on who will prevail either. I don't think the opposing objectives can reach compromise. because their interests are wholly opposed. I would personally argue for one side over the other for vested personal reasons (I am female, do not want biological males intruding on a host of segregated spaces). And I would big up the argument of there being, what, predatory imposters who corrupt the case for transwoman access, unfortunate as that is for many transwomen who, believe it or not, I have sympathy for.
And the point is not who started it. (My questions were rhetorical.) At this point it's impossible to say who started it. And it doesn't really matter.

So some trans activists spew hateful things. So do some activists on the other side. I think we are all better served to leave the activists on both side out of the conversation. (Or at least the most strident activists.) I think that reasonable people on both sides can at least respect and empathize with the other side even if finding a good solution is hard.

ponderingturtle 29th May 2019 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12703623)
As best I can tell, "Men can't have babies." is a bigoted statement, according to the Official Field Guide to Bigotry.

What if I say "Trans women can't have babies."

Exactly it is right and proper that trans people die of cancer that could be treated because the doctors refuse to threat them. To actually let them have access to medical care would be wrong and against basic logic.

Most gynecologists refuse to treat trans men for example and I am sure you agree with that.

https://rewire.news/article/2016/05/...e-health-care/

ponderingturtle 29th May 2019 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12706452)
Aye. In all my years I've only been 'propositioned' twice by men, both times in a gay pub in London, and both times the encounter was 'polite' for want of a better word. Never cat-called or wolf-whistled by the male oafs up the scaffolding on the building site, never groped by a man on the bus or train.

Women put up with far more crap in this regard than men do, and I can see no good reason to allow self-certified 'women' into female safe spaces to add, perhaps massively, to that crap.

And these fake women of course deserve all the sexual harassment they can get.

Meadmaker 29th May 2019 12:07 PM

And on that note, I think it's time to bow out.

Belz... 29th May 2019 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12710222)
And these fake women of course deserve all the sexual harassment they can get.

And BAM! I knew you couldn't resist bringing that strawman back.

Lying about other people's posts is your signature move.

ponderingturtle 29th May 2019 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12710262)
And BAM! I knew you couldn't resist bringing that strawman back.

Lying about other people's posts is your signature move.

It was clear, only real women deserve protection from sexual harassment, trans women should be thrown to the sexual harassing men. That is the simple logical tandem of the stated view in the post. Real women need protection from sexual harassment and assault, but trans women should not get it.

The only way this isn't obvious is if one pretends that trans women are not sexually harassed and assaulted. But that of course is totally untrue.

Francesca R 29th May 2019 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12710212)
And the point is not who started it. (My questions were rhetorical.) At this point it's impossible to say who started it. And it doesn't really matter.

Think I . . . covered this in the bit you quoted.

Quote:

I think we are all better served to leave the activists on both side out of the conversation. (Or at least the most strident activists.) I think that reasonable people on both sides can at least respect and empathize with the other side even if finding a good solution is hard.
That may sound quite Mahatma Gandhi-ish but I don't think it is a highly flyable idea.

Reasonable trans women wish to be able to access female space with the full rights women enjoy. Reasonable women do not want any bio-male access to female space due to the danger of intrusion of predatory male imposters. You would have to consider both groups one of which includes yours truly, as "the most strident activists" and "leave them out of the conversation". You would find a non solution that was stillborn as wholly irrelevant I expect.

TomB 29th May 2019 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12710305)
That may sound quite Mahatma Gandhi-ish but I don't think it is a highly flyable idea.

Reasonable trans women wish to be able to access female space with the full rights women enjoy. Reasonable women do not want any bio-male access to female space due to the danger of intrusion of predatory male imposters. You would have to consider both groups one of which includes yours truly, as "the most strident activists" and "leave them out of the conversation". You would find a non solution that was stillborn as wholly irrelevant I expect.

No, actually, I think you would not be in the strident activist group. Without reviewing posts, I think you have responded and considered arguments from the other side. Which means I think you can discuss the issue in a reasonable manner. By strident I mean "OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALL PERVERTS!!!!" or (on the other side) "IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE UNDRESSING IN FRONT OF ME YOU'RE A BIGOT!!!!"

Reasonable people can talk reasonably to people on issues of conflict.

For the record, I tend towards your side of the argument for changing rooms and showers, but I think restrooms are areas where accommodation is more practical.

I don't know that there is a solution. But at least we can stop throwing insults (Pervert! Transphobe!) around and try to understand the other side.

ponderingturtle 29th May 2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12710350)
For the record, I tend towards your side of the argument for changing rooms and showers, but I think restrooms are areas where accommodation is more practical.

Why do you not care about the safety of trans people in such changing rooms? They are more likely to be victims by far than predators but you are happy to hand them to the predators.

It is about feeling safe and keeping the other out, the other just changes with the time.

GlennB 29th May 2019 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12710222)
And these fake women of course deserve all the sexual harassment they can get.

No, they don't. And I didn't even come close to saying that. My post was about protecting women within the spaces where they are accustomed to feeling safe. Because men are, were, and possibly always will be a threat to them in a way that women will never be a threat to men.

TomB 29th May 2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12710357)
Why do you not care about the safety of trans people in such changing rooms? They are more likely to be victims by far than predators but you are happy to hand them to the predators.

It is about feeling safe and keeping the other out, the other just changes with the time.

Because there are two sides to the issue. Whichever side you choose, someone is left vulnerable to "predators." It's a complicated thing when making one group feel safe makes the other feel unsafe.

There is no one clear answer that is correct in all cases, and there won't be one as long as people feel vulnerable when naked with strangers of the opposite sex.

TomB 29th May 2019 01:42 PM

Interesting bathroom story here from a trans man. Note how he was treated when he tried to use the restroom for his biological sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1xAcJ2qi1o

theprestige 29th May 2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12710407)
Interesting bathroom story here from a trans man. Note how he was treated when he tried to use the restroom for his biological sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1xAcJ2qi1o

yt;dw - What happened? Did everyone stand up and clap?

TomB 29th May 2019 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12710455)
ty;dw - What happened? Did everyone stand up and clap?

No.

He was prodded by both men and women that he should be in the men's room line when he was standing in line for the women's room to the point where he switched to the men's room.

Normally, he would use the men's room, but in this case, the men's room had three stalls, two of them completely open and the third only had a curtain that hung down above waist level if sitting down, so he wasn't comfortable using it.

He ended up finding another transman awkwardly waiting to use the women's room and they kind of stood guard over each other on the men's side.

Neither men nor women liked the idea that he was using the women's room. That said, he did not explain that he was biologically female.

TomB 29th May 2019 02:47 PM

I hate to dump videos, but here are a couple things I think are relevant, just to get different perspectives.

These two are from Blaire White. If you don't know, she's a conservative transwoman, who is controversial. She thinks bathrooms yes, but if you have male genitals you shouldn't be in a women's locker room (or vice versa). She is also against children transitioning. They are short (5 minutes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCHRuGF4Rnk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siJ-tlWZQ4A

This is Harrison Browne (FTM Hockey Player) talking about his first time in the men's locker room. Basically he was nervous about it, but it turned out not to be a big deal, though he did try to hide his scars and genitals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNYBqrhLBqo

cullennz 29th May 2019 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12710471)
No.

He was prodded by both men and women that he should be in the men's room line when he was standing in line for the women's room to the point where he switched to the men's room.

Normally, he would use the men's room, but in this case, the men's room had three stalls, two of them completely open and the third only had a curtain that hung down above waist level if sitting down, so he wasn't comfortable using it.

He ended up finding another transman awkwardly waiting to use the women's room and they kind of stood guard over each other on the men's side.

Neither men nor women liked the idea that he was using the women's room. That said, he did not explain that he was biologically female.

Gave up after 7 minutes of the 15 minute video which he could have said in 2 minutes, as it was just one long whiny moan session

p0lka 29th May 2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12709322)
Or we could all put our energies into making all restrooms safe for everyone to use.

Just a thought.

But how would that be possible?

For instance, a smaller than average sized male in a male restroom would be surrounded by 'potential male rapists' that are on average bigger than them?

ooh, shouldn't be allowed, according to some peoples logic.

TomB 29th May 2019 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12710587)
Gave up after 7 minutes of the 15 minute video which he could have said in 2 minutes, as it was just one long whiny moan session

But he was trying to do what you advocate for: using the bathroom that matched his genitals. And he was met with harassment and "you shouldn't be here."

An ideal situation for him...what would have been "affirmation" I guess...would have been to be ignored, or rather not noticed. He wanted to go in, do his business, and leave without attracting any more attention than anyone else. Normally, he can do this. At this particular location, it was not possible. So what's he to do?

Try to consider a point of view other than your own. Not to convince you you're wrong, but to understand the other side.

Puppycow 30th May 2019 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolfe (Post 12710147)
In terms of murders per capita of the demographic group in question. Men have the highest rate, women next, and transwomen (not sure if it included transmen) the lowest rate. Overwhelmingly the murderers are men. However the per capita rate of violent offending among transwomen is similar to the rate among men and well above the rate among women,

May I ask what source you are relying on?

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...le-murdered-uk

Quote:

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) confirmed to FactCheck that “it is not possible to identify transgender victims in current homicide statistics” and “the sex of a homicide victim is determined by the police force that records the crime”.
They go on to use some kind of unofficial figures, but the whole thing seems rather dubious since it is not possible to identify transgender victims in the official homicide statistics.

What we may be seeing here is that something that has not been measured by the official statistics may be being undercounted.

Rolfe 30th May 2019 04:28 AM

I think that Channel 4 article is pretty fair. One point it does bring out is that if you exclude the situation in Latin America (particularly Brazil), where there is a particular problem of transwomen sex workers being murdered, there is no evidence of any massive epidemic of trans murders, and indeed it appears that they are at less risk of murder than the rest of the general population.

Similar conclusions are reached by this article. How often are transgender people murdered?

The alarmist rhetoric we hear from the trans lobby about the horrific murder rates of trans people, the enormous dangers they face going about their daily lives, are entirely predicated on the situation in Latin America. Take that out of the equation and the picture is entirely different.

Another concern is that accurate statistics are not being kept. The mantra that people should be recorded as their personal identity and not by their biological sex is absolutely pernicious and a huge barrier to getting accurate statistics. (Under a different heading someone pointed out the other day that in one year three transwomen - that is, men - committed sexual assaults. These were recorded as crimes committed by women, thus more than doubling the rate of sexual assaults committed by women in one fell swoop.)

So in this climate where accurate information recording is condemned as transphobic it will always be possible to rubbish the statistics and claim any damn thing you like. But it is going to take one hell of a leap to go from "as far as we can tell, transgender people are significantly under-represented among murder victims", to a claim that transgender people face a horrifically high murder risk.

ponderingturtle 30th May 2019 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12710361)
No, they don't. And I didn't even come close to saying that. My post was about protecting women within the spaces where they are accustomed to feeling safe. Because men are, were, and possibly always will be a threat to them in a way that women will never be a threat to men.

Yes, and you deny trans women that safety. Own the consequences.

ponderingturtle 30th May 2019 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12710400)
Because there are two sides to the issue. Whichever side you choose, someone is left vulnerable to "predators." It's a complicated thing when making one group feel safe makes the other feel unsafe.

There is no one clear answer that is correct in all cases, and there won't be one as long as people feel vulnerable when naked with strangers of the opposite sex.

Just like there is no clear answer as long as people feel vulnerable when naked with homosexuals or people of other races.

Rolfe 30th May 2019 04:55 AM

A couple of pages back I posted a long screed about the transing of children and young people, which generated pretty much no comment. It is however a very serious issue amounting to an epidemic of child abuse, and children are being sterilised, deprived of any adult sexual functioning and put at high risk of serious diseases in later life in horrifying numbers.

This article is a report of an evidence-taking session in the House of Lords in Westminster on this subject. It raises some extremely important points not only about consent, but about the relentless pressure coming from transgender organisations to fast-track confused children into medical and surgical transitioning without any counselling or attempt to explore whether this is really the best thing for them long-term.

First do no harm - the ethics of transgender healthcare

This is scary stuff. Last month the Swedish government woke up to the situation very suddenly as a result of the documentary I linked to earlier.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

In Sweden all medical and surgical treatment aimed at changing the sex of a person are now banned before the age of (I think) 25.

There is no doubt that the pressure to alter healthy children's bodies with hormones and surgery before they have reached any normal age of consent is coming from adult trans activists, most of whom transitioned as adults and most of whom still retain their original genitalia. It seems to be part of their obsession for "validation" - if there are all these children who are trans, even before puberty, then obviously it's a real thing and not a sexual kink. Then of course the children must be affirmed, and since for the adults "passing" is such an important thing they promote the pre-puberty transing of little boys especially, so that they can achieve a feminine appearance in adulthood. Do they even realise that these children will have no adult sexual functioning either as males or females?

This is where society has let itself be led, by following the entirely false mantra that trans people are wholly benign, and are the most oppressed and marginalised group on the planet. From this we're told that only trans people should be consulted on anything trans related and any other interest group which expresses concerns must be outlawed as bigoted and transphobic and punished for this by removal of its privileges.

I hope more people are now starting to wake up to this, but it has become so all-pervasive it's going to take some time and meanwhile more and more children and being sterilised, mutilated and prescribed dangerously harmful drugs.

GlennB 30th May 2019 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12711078)
Yes, and you deny trans women that safety. Own the consequences.

By that token you'd be denying women the same safety. The balance leans heavily towards protecting the much larger number (women in women's spaces).

cullennz 30th May 2019 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomB (Post 12710677)
But he was trying to do what you advocate for: using the bathroom that matched his genitals. And he was met with harassment and "you shouldn't be here."

An ideal situation for him...what would have been "affirmation" I guess...would have been to be ignored, or rather not noticed. He wanted to go in, do his business, and leave without attracting any more attention than anyone else. Normally, he can do this. At this particular location, it was not possible. So what's he to do?

Try to consider a point of view other than your own. Not to convince you you're wrong, but to understand the other side.

They were humming and hurring over a bog because some bloke spewed in one and felt uncomfortable using the 3. Yes three dude options no one would give a rats about as it is a trans dude and not a trans chick.

Just use the fricken bog

ponderingturtle 30th May 2019 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12711108)
By that token you'd be denying women the same safety. The balance leans heavily towards protecting the much larger number (women in women's spaces).

Only if you think that trans women are likely sexual predators. I know I know that stereotype is as ingrained as the rampaging rapist black man, but that doesn't make it valid.

Rolfe 30th May 2019 05:43 AM

This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.

Everything is transphobic

Actually, it is hilarious.

Francesca R 30th May 2019 05:44 AM

1) It is not necessary to view trans women as (more) likely sexual predators in order to wish to prevent anybody self-IDing as female from using female segregated facilities. (Unless "anybody self-IDing as female" is the same as trans woman, then it is, and appropriately so)

2) Allowing anybody self-IDing as female to use female segregated spaces does not protect trans women from sexual predation anyway. Just like it doesn't protect women.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.