TERFs crash London Pride

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

In what kind of situations do you worry about being raped?

I don't put myself in such situations but personally only when I'm drinking around strangers/acquaintances. Rape isn't a very high fear on my list, though, since it's not all that common compared to simpler things like random violence (ex/ being jumped and beaten by strangers - which has happened to me)

But I'm not a woman so I haven't been taught my entire life that being out in the dark, alone, etc. is a unique risk for women, despite men being more likely the victims of most violent crime.

What about you? Do you fear being raped in the washroom? Domestic violence shelter? change room?

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

In what kind of situations do you worry about being raped?

How is that relevant? Is it your opinion that transwomen are secretly undercover male rapists?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by pharphis

*shrug* seems like a weird reason

It's a novel definition of sex: "whatever is necessary for my group to wield more political power"!

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

How is that relevant? Is it your opinion that transwomen are secretly undercover male rapists?

That does seem to be the fear. Because their sex is male, any one of them could be a surprise rapist or murderer in a female space. Not like women can do those things.

[JoeMorgue]

And the irony is... I should be enjoying this.

I've long criticized certain progressives as being far too focused on both labeling of smaller and smaller special categories and of "victim ranking" where everything a nested meta-discussion about who has privilege over whom and I have always sort of had a feeling it was only a matter of time before two groups each claimed victimhood under the other it was going to be fun watching progressives try to make sense of it all and I actually figured gender would be where it would happen.

I should enjoy pointing and laughing at two groups both claiming the moral superiority of being the victim.

Now that I'm seeing it for real it's a lot more toxic and icky. It's not fun.

[Mid]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Male or female lesbians, I wonder?

They simply pitched up to join what was supposed to be an inclusive march. Funny how the "lesbians" marching with the pink baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire and labelled things like "TERF-basher" were allowed to participate unhindered.

Ok, really not keen to join this thread but the highlighted seemed unusual. Are you claiming London Pride allowed people to march with weapons? I've done a quick google and found nothing, but my google powers are weak. Anyway I assume you've got a photo link?

[Rolfe]

I certainly saw a couple of photos of it. It was similar weapons to the things that were exhibited in the San Fransisco library a month or two ago. Maybe the library exhibits inspired their creation, I don't know. It was an overt demonstration from the "punch a TERF" contingent and no attempt was made to prevent it.

I saw a twitter thread where someone was challenging one of the "lesbian with a penis" contingent about this apparent incitement to violence and he started backtracking and claiming it was only symbolic to show these uppity women who was boss, of course nobody would dream of actually using the things, so it was all fine. And besides, it was entirely justified because refusing to recognise a man as a lesbian and even referring to him as "he" is "literal violence" which more than deserves a violent response. It was all pretty unpleasant.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Again I agree with your point, mostly.

Said men are not doing it for other men, they are doing it to get laid. It's just not hip to not confirm to sjw standards. Same guys were wearing ed hardy, pink good shirts and switched right from rock to rap. Not because they like these things but because it was hip and would score them points.

No one here is making an argument against TERFs and for trans acceptance to get laid. I think the only person skilled enough to possibly increase their chances of getting laid with a post of any kind on this forum is TragicMonkey.

Your assertion that people don't make that argument in good faith is totally irrelevant here. You can assume that those of use arguing against TERFs actually do believe they are wrong. Some of us just aren't looking here to get some.

[Rolfe]

I don't think you even know what you're arguing against. You perceive the "trans cause" as being in support of a group that has been presented to you as marginalised and vulnerable, and so worthy of your support. You don't have the first idea of the concerns of the people who are being negatively impacted by this "cause", whose hard-won rights are being taken away without any consultation, and who are being called every nasty name in the book (including by you) for daring to try to discuss the issue.

I think you're in blind denial of the sort of people who are riding along on the trans bandwagon, and the harm they're doing to women, to children and to genuine trans-sexual people. I think this bubble is going to burst in the short to medium term and it will be regarded as the equivalent of the satanic abuse/recovered memories craze of the late 20th century. The reactions will be interesting, particularly as so many people's right-on support of these bullies has been committed to the internet in perpetuity.

So no, I don't think you're insincere, just woefully, ignorantly, blindly one-sided.

[Rolfe]

I'm a little surprised nobody has commented on this yet.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/680443...orkshire-jail/

Quote:

It is claimed the first attack *happened within days of the transgender prisoner’s arrival at high-security New Hall, Wakefield, West Yorks. The alleged victim — an inmate with whom she had struck up a friendship — said the remand prisoner stood close to her and touched her arm while her erect penis was sticking out from the top of her trousers.

"Her erect penis" - we're not in Kansas any more, Toto. Would someone try to explain why the asserted feeling in this guy's head that he's a woman is sufficient reason to put often vulnerable women prisoners at risk of rape?

[pharphis]

Aren't women already at risk of rape in prison?

[Rolfe]

By the way, for all you people who won't believe that something is happening unless your informant can reel off statstical prevalence studies, there are some figures in this web site.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Aren't women already at risk of rape in prison?

Not if there aren't any men there, no.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I don't think you even know what you're arguing against. You perceive the "trans cause" as being in support of a group that has been presented to you as marginalised and vulnerable, and so worthy of your support.

I've seen them marginalized and been made vulnerable.

Quote:

You don't have the first idea of the concerns of the people who are being negatively impacted by this "cause",

That's wrong. I've been involved and studying feminism and LBGTQ issues literally from age 12. Having a concern doesn't make you right. Believing you are being negatively impacted doesn't make it so. It certainly doesn't mean I don't have the first idea of those concerns.

Quote:

whose hard-won rights are being taken away without any consultation,

Did you not see the march? Do you believe these things aren't discussed in the broader LGBTQ community? You're simply, factually, wrong again. That your arguments aren't winning, that you aren't given everything you demand, in no way means you weren't consulted, and it certainly doesn't mean the group you're a part of wasn't. They generally don't even agree with you.

Quote:

and who are being called every nasty name in the book (including by you) for daring to try to discuss the issue.

'Cis' and 'TERF' aren't even in the book of nasty names. You are making up offense.

Quote:

I think you're in blind denial of the sort of people who are riding along on the trans bandwagon, and the harm they're doing to women, to children and to genuine trans-sexual people. I think this bubble is going to burst in the short to medium term and it will be regarded as the equivalent of the satanic abuse/recovered memories craze of the late 20th century. The reactions will be interesting, particularly as so many people's right-on support of these bullies has been committed to the internet in perpetuity.

So no, I don't think you're insincere, just woefully, ignorantly, blindly one-sided.

More nasty names?

Your concerns are very much of the 'Satanic Panic' type ironically enough. Rationalize my holding my position any way you like; your opinion of that neither interests me nor changes a thing about the arguments presented. It doesn't matter that I think you're having the exact same reaction as white Americans insisting that others gaining rights, acceptance, and civil liberties means you're losing (any of those or other privileges). 'Riding along with'. You know, that is exactly the argument against immigrants. Yeah, there are trans people who are ******** and even sexual predators. This is because, as most everyone knows, trans people are people. Some even like pineapple on their pizza.

You're on the wrong side of history, and it isn't even like it's a hard call anymore. I wish I could say your position is even an extreme for TERFs, but it's pretty middle of the road there.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Not if there aren't any men there, no.

Staggering wrong.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm a little surprised nobody has commented on this yet.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/680443...orkshire-jail/




"Her erect penis" - we're not in Kansas any more, Toto. Would someone try to explain why the asserted feeling in this guy's head that he's a woman is sufficient reason to put often vulnerable women prisoners at risk of rape?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8334556.html

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Staggering wrong.

The case in question was in England. The Pride march being discussed was in England. The law in England defines rape as penetration by a penis. If someone does not have a penis then they cannot, by definition, be guilty of rape. Women may well assault other women in different ways, but under the jurisdiction under discussion, they cannot possibly rape them.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8334556.html

Which is why cases need to be carefully and sensitively discussed and decided on their individual merits. That's a lot different from transferring every violent man from Ian Huntley down to a women's prison just on his say-so.

[Rolfe]

God save us all from men who have studied feminism.

[Rolfe]

I expect this has been shown before, but on the left is the group of lesbians that Pride tried to throw out and on the right is an example of those who tried to get them thrown out.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhq28RIXcAAJH4n.jpg:large

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Not if there aren't any men there, no.

Are women not able to rape other women?
Are they able to rape men?

Do they just never choose to? I'm wondering how you're willing to make such an extreme statement.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The case in question was in England. The Pride march being discussed was in England. The law in England defines rape as penetration by a penis. If someone does not have a penis then they cannot, by definition, be guilty of rape. Women may well be assault other women in different ways, but under the jurisdiction under discussion, they cannot possibly rape them.

ah I was ninja'd.

So it's just a legal statement, then. What is the legal definition for rape there? Penetration? (presumably not just with a penis - I don't know)

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

God save us all from men who have studied feminism.

What does this mean? What about the women who have studied feminism?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The case in question was in England. The Pride march being discussed was in England. The law in England defines rape as penetration by a penis. If someone does not have a penis then they cannot, by definition, be guilty of rape. Women may well assault other women in different ways, but under the jurisdiction under discussion, they cannot possibly rape them.

Well that's horrifying.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Which is why cases need to be carefully and sensitively discussed and decided on their individual merits. That's a lot different from transferring every violent man from Ian Huntley down to a women's prison just on his say-so.

Or it's a good reason to not try to extrapolate the behavior of people already in prison to any non-self selecting group outside of prison.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by pharphis

ah I was ninja'd.

So it's just a legal statement, then. What is the legal definition for rape there? Penetration? (presumably not just with a penis - I don't know)

Google says it's 'assault by penetration'.

Originally Posted by pharphis

What does this mean? What about the women who have studied feminism?

It means that if you disagree with Rolfe, your characteristics as a human can be used as a way to dismiss your argument.

I'm a cis man. This means that I can't even know of the concerns of cis women, let alone have opinions on them. Even if that's to simply quote cis woman feminists.

Yes, it is persistently one of the worst arguments in feminism that many have been trying to fight against, and is one of the reasons for the 'Radical' part of 'TERF'.

Sorry, I know my input in these threads consistently becomes the target of the anti-trans acceptance crowd. Probably best to step out again. You know, because I'm a straight cis man who actually cares and thus is a super acceptable target.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by pharphis

ah I was ninja'd.

So it's just a legal statement, then. What is the legal definition for rape there? Penetration? (presumably not just with a penis - I don't know)

As I said, the legal definition of rape is (non-consensual) penetration by a penis. The penis only has to go in a very small distance. In Scotland and England that's what rape means. So yes, a woman in prison cannot possibly be raped if there are no men there.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Well that's horrifying.



Or it's a good reason to not try to extrapolate the behavior of people already in prison to any non-self selecting group outside of prison.

Although it's maybe not relevant to the discussion, I do wonder if Rolfe thinks the definition should be expanded to include female perpetrators of men via forced envelopment OR penetration.

It seems that lots of people in general minimize male rape (by female perpetrators) and you can see this every week there is a rape of a male student by a female teacher. You'd think feminists would be better at sympathizing but I'm not sure they're better (or worse) than average, considering the lens they use for violence in general (males are violent, females are victims - the end)

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Google says it's 'assault by penetration'.

I don't see the word "rape" anywhere on that page.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

It means that if you disagree with Rolfe, your characteristics as a human can be used as a way to dismiss your argument.

I'm a cis man. This means that I can't even know of the concerns of cis women, let alone have opinions on them. Even if that's to simply quote cis woman feminists.

Yes, it is persistently one of the worst arguments in feminism that many have been trying to fight against, and is one of the reasons for the 'Radical' part of 'TERF'.

Sorry, I know my input in these threads consistently becomes the target of the anti-trans acceptance crowd. Probably best to step out again. You know, because I'm a straight cis man who actually cares and thus is a super acceptable target.

Where is that gif of the extremely tiny violin when you need it?

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Google says it's 'assault by penetration'.



It means that if you disagree with Rolfe, your characteristics as a human can be used as a way to dismiss your argument.

I'm a cis man. This means that I can't even know of the concerns of cis women, let alone have opinions on them. Even if that's to simply quote cis woman feminists.

Yes, it is persistently one of the worst arguments in feminism that many have been trying to fight against, and is one of the reasons for the 'Radical' part of 'TERF'.

Sorry, I know my input in these threads consistently becomes the target of the anti-trans acceptance crowd. Probably best to step out again. You know, because I'm a straight cis man who actually cares and thus is a super acceptable target.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

As I said, the legal definition of rape is (non-consensual) penetration by a penis. The penis only has to go in a very small distance. In Scotland and England that's what rape means. So yes, a woman in prison cannot possibly be raped if there are no men there.

I don't see the word "penis" there...

Quote:

A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with
a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

edit: ninja'd. Rolfe, can you link the law you're referring to?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Although it's maybe not relevant to the discussion, I do wonder if Rolfe thinks the definition should be expanded to include female perpetrators of men via forced envelopment OR penetration.

It seems that lots of people in general minimize male rape (by female perpetrators) and you can see this every week there is a rape of a male student by a female teacher. You'd think feminists would be better at sympathizing but I'm not sure they're better (or worse) than average, considering the lens they use for violence in general (males are violent, females are victims - the end)

Why would you wonder that? The definition is what it is. I think there's enough redefining of words (like "woman" and "lesbian") going on in this thread without adding another one.

Sexual assault of any kind is bad, m'kay? It doesn't have to have a particular label in order to be bad.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by pharphis

I don't see the word "penis" there...

edit: ninja'd. Rolfe, can you link the law you're referring to?

You don't see the word "penis" and I don't see the word "rape".

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Why would you wonder that? The definition is what it is. I think there's enough redefining of words (like "woman" and "lesbian") going on in this thread without adding another one.

Sexual assault of any kind is bad, m'kay? It doesn't have to have a particular label in order to be bad.

Do you think non-consensual envelopment should have a different specialized name?

and why specifically "with a penis"?
Why not "penetration with _something_" if you're going to use such a definition? You don't think it should be called rape when a man uses some other object to penetrate a woman without her consent?

[pharphis]

Apparently it was the previous one:

http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003...n/1/2009-11-12

Quote:

1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Do you think non-consensual envelopment should have a different specialized name?

and why specifically "with a penis"?
Why not "penetration with _something_" if you're going to use such a definition? You don't think it should be called rape when a man uses some other object to penetrate a woman without her consent?

I don't think anything. It's the law. Whether you or I think the semantics should be different is neither here nor there.

Different jurisdictions have different names for some offences. In England libel is written defamation and slander is verbal defamation while in Scotland there's no distinction and whether written or verbal it's just defamation. Libel means something completely different in Scots law. Killing someone without the necessary mens rea for it to be murder is manslaughter in England and culpable homicide in Scotland. It's the same actual offence.

Do you want to lobby for libel to include slander as well? I mean, don't you think it should be libel just because it's not written down? Do you object to the offence being called manslaughter in England because that doesn't sound as bad as culpable homicide to you, and you know it's bad?

See how ridiculous this is?

Obviously it's against the law to penetrate someone non-consensually with anything. You're not going to get off just because the word on the charge sheet (or "libel" in Scotland) isn't "rape".

It may be that the legal definitions of various sexual offences are different where you are. But we were talking about an incident in England, and the thread is about another incident in England. It's entirely true that a woman in a women's prison in England cannot by definition be raped if there isn't a man in the prison. Why does this outrage you so much?

[pharphis]

Well, there's your "rape culture". Male victims are completely erased by law.

The CDC is bad for this iirc as well.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Although it's maybe not relevant to the discussion, I do wonder if Rolfe thinks the definition should be expanded to include female perpetrators of men via forced envelopment OR penetration.

It seems that lots of people in general minimize male rape (by female perpetrators) and you can see this every week there is a rape of a male student by a female teacher. You'd think feminists would be better at sympathizing but I'm not sure they're better (or worse) than average, considering the lens they use for violence in general (males are violent, females are victims - the end)

Anecdotally, feminists in general are more supportive than the general population, but those who are not are very unsupportive (such as accusing you existing stealing the concern that should be going to true women victims and thus endangering them more).

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I don't see the word "rape" anywhere on that page.

I was answering what they call rape that doesn't fall under their definition of rape. Which, of course, they wouldn't call rape.

Quote:

Where is that gif of the extremely tiny violin when you need it?

That's not a denial, it's just crass mockery of my concern or distress (which you couldn't possibly know about).

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Well, there's your "rape culture". Male victims are completely erased by law.

The CDC is bad for this iirc as well.

They totally are not erased. You penetrate the anus of a male, non-consensually, with your penis, and R-A-P-E is going to be right there on the charge sheet.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I don't think anything. It's the law. Whether you or I think the semantics should be different is neither here nor there.

Different jurisdictions have different names for some offences. In England libel is written defamation and slander is verbal defamation while in Scotland there's no distinction and whether written or verbal it's just defamation. Libel means something completely different in Scots law. Killing someone without the necessary mens rea for it to be murder is manslaughter in England and culpable homicide in Scotland. It's the same actual offence.

Do you want to lobby for libel to include slander as well? I mean, don't you think it should be libel just because it's not written down? Do you object to the offence being called manslaughter in England because that doesn't sound as bad as culpable homicide to you, and you know it's bad?

See how ridiculous this is?

Obviously it's against the law to penetrate someone non-consensually with anything. You're not going to get off just because the word on the charge sheet (or "libel" in Scotland) isn't "rape".

But we were talking about an incident in England, and the thread is about another incident in England. It's entirely true that a woman in a women's prison in England cannot by definition be raped if there isn't a man in the prison. Why does this outrage you so much?

Fine, I get your point under that specific set of restrictions.

So, your concern originally was that having a trans women would lead to a risk of rape. Is that really such a concern (relative to adding a woman), since the "label doesn't matter" and since all sexual violence is bad (agreed).


Does adding a trans woman increase the risk of rape so much more that it overcomes the risk of non-penis sexual violence from an arbitrary female criminal that would have been in their place??

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Well, there's your "rape culture". Male victims are completely erased by law.

The CDC is bad for this iirc as well.

The CDC calls both 'forced penetration' and 'made to penetrate' as 'sexual violence', and iirc call both 'rape'. I don't know that there are any states that don't do basically the same; both are 'rape'.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I was answering what they call rape that doesn't fall under their definition of rape. Which, of course, they wouldn't call rape.

It isn't rape. It's sexual assault.

I don't know what your problem is with this. I noted, correctly, that a woman in prison in England could not be raped if there wasn't a man in the prison. That's it. Of course she could be assaulted in some other way, including sexually, by another woman. But she couldn't be raped.