Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
wanker
Ah I was set up so beautifully I couldn't resist, and its only because I love you.
Also your assertion spans decades and continents.
!you're falling into the trap of thinking terfs represent women's thoughts on this topic. they don't. statistics show that the majority of women are pro trans rights. most transphobes are men.
most women are perfectly happy for trans women to use their spaces, just as they have always done (legally). most women understand that trying to enforce this practically actually harms women - how are you enforcing this in public bathrooms exactly? checking genitalia? will cis women who don't look traditionally feminine get thrown out too? now that's what i call feminism.
most women understand that all the statistics show that this perceived threat from trans women is basic fear mongering, hate-fueled lies. you can find evidence of this by researching countries with self id already in place - Portugal, NZ - and the fact they have had no issues at all once that policy was put in place.
you say that 'The majority of violent threats towards trans people of course come from males, not radfems. Which ironically is kind of the point.' - whilst missing the point. all terfs want to do is blame trans women, when in reality, as you say, men are the problem. the terfs answer to this is, of course, that trans women are men, and therefore remain a danger to them. hence the very valid accusations of transphobia.
and you, like terfs, only focus on trans women. the existence of trans men is largely forgotten because it dilutes every terf talking point. the existence of trans men tells all of us that this isn't just some willful act of men to infiltrate women's spaces. there are women who also do not identify with their sex. it can and does happen to both sexes. it always has.
Utterly predictable that when something which actually impacts women's rights comes along (like the overturning of Roe vs. fecking Wade) she ignores it entirely.
It's also just a giant non-sequitor, deliberatly planned. To the extent that terfs are labelled as a hate group it's not because they send mean DMs, that has close to nothing to do with it. The tactic is to find instances of your group getting harassed or insulted, claim that your opponents are the hateful ones, and use this to deflect from the fact it's the actual views that are hateful. This isn't a terf thing, it's what e.g. racists have done since forever as well.
The irony of talking about tactics to push an agenda, while we discuss a movement which labels people transphobic and bigots for believing in sex-segregated spaces and sports. If people were willing to have a fair natured discussion on the merits of gender ideology, they’d get one. Ultimately, this discussion is always very bad-natured full of personal insults, so I'm not going to engage further after answering these couple of posts.
The whole narrative around gender being a social construct is that the roles and behaviours associated with being female are a result of social conditioning rather than biology. It’s really not my fault that gender ideologues simultaneously believe gender is an objective biological category in itself that exists without any social conditioning, but at the same time labels gender a social construct imposed on us by the patriarchy. We can play all the mental gymnastics we want to pretend this is a coherent idea but it simply is not. If people are born trans, the implication is they could be raised in a completely gender-less world where male/female are treated the exact same, and they would still be transgender. This means gender identity and gender are ultimately disconnected, all the discussions around societal gender roles, culturally imposed masculinity/femininity are a red herring.
We could theoretically have a biological male who never experiences any of the socially imposed constructs of gender, but still has a gender identity of female. So it begs the question, what is gender identity? It’s an internal feeling of being female, but not female as dictated by societal gender roles or cultural femininity because even in a world where these cultural differences aren’t imposed on anyone, then they would still have a gender identity of female, since they were born with it. And I think we agree they’re not identifying as the female sex, because sex and gender are different, and we do not allow people to self-identify into biological categories that they don’t objectively belong. So if they’re not identifying as a biological female, or a sociocultural female, then what? We're getting into the circular logic of "anyone who identifies as female is female" in which female doesn't actually have a definition.
If you’re arguing that males/females have naturally different temperaments which in part results in the stereotypical gender differences we see, and a male can be born with a female temperament then it’s an idea that at least makes more sense, if we replace the word “temperament” with “gender”. The issue is, there’s no such thing as a uniquely and exclusively female temperament. It’s called variance from the average. The category of sex is there to represent what is unique, distinct and exclusive between males and females. When it comes to “gender” is no such thing as an inherently male/female trait, only those that are more common in males/females. It makes no sense to organise our society around a distinction that isn’t even distinct. And it comes back to the concept of gender reinforcing stereotypes and gender roles, perpetuating the idea that there is something inherently male/female about a behaviour, interest, thought or feeling.
You say the actual views of terfs are hateful. The views being that women should have sex-segregated prisons, sports, and communal changing rooms, for example? You consider that hateful?
Terfs would consider the idea that women should have no right to sex-segregated prisons, sports, and communal changing rooms to be hateful. They also find it hateful when their identity as a biological woman is displaced by the idea that they are a social construct.
So as always, this is where the impasse lies, and we go round in circles.
Do we have a large-scale representative survey asking women if they themselves would be happy to share a prison with biological males, for example? Or a large-scale representative survey asking women if they are happy for biological males to compete in women’s sports, for example? “Trans rights” in this context is incredibly ambiguous. Even in if we could unequivocally prove that over 50% of women are content to share their spaces with biological males, I don't think that necessarily means it should be imposed on women who want to keep sex-segregated spaces and sports. The majority of opponents to gender ideology are of course women, that’s why we have the term “TERF” and there is no term used to describe males with the same views. Men on the whole are simply not interested in being involved even if they don’t grasp the concept of gender. It’s why any protests or campaigns are female dominated, and why the protestors in Manchester the other week who were intimidated by men in balaclavas were almost exclusively women. We also have to take into account how many women do not want to speak their views due to fear of being shamed, insulted, threatened or attacked.
The argument around being unable to police bathrooms feels rather bizarre because it doesn’t acknowledge that the whole point of gender-segregated is so women (including transwomen) could have space free from cis-men. How are they going to keep cis-men out? In which case, men/women bathrooms are pointless since it doesn’t actually segregate cis-men from women, so we should just switch to solely gender-neutral spaces? Are the gym changing rooms going to be gender-neutral also since transwomen aren’t actually safe from cis-men in the women’s spaces, so what’s the point of them in the first place? Any way you choose to organise it, it’s an imperfect system but you choose the most practical solution and enforce it as best you can culturally. In the cases of prisons and sports for example, there can be a check of someone’s registered sex so these can be practically segregated but increasingly they aren’t.
The problem with “no issues at all” is any cases of women being attacked are written off as isolated incidents and therefore ultimately meaningless. Despite there being plenty of isolated incidents if you follow the discourse closely (which almost none of us do). And we're limited to the cases that actually make it to mainstream media, which of course not all cases do. Karen White assaulting women in women’s prisons for example, the victims have basically been written off as collateral damage. In the greater good for fair and equal treatment for transwomen, what’s the odd female victim, right?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ho-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
Or how about the case in Loudoun county where the assault of a girl in the bathroom was covered up by the school, and when the father confronted the school about the incident, he was dragged out and labelled a transphobic bigot? Again, all these types of incidents are just “statistically insignificant” to gender ideologues.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...g-says-daughter-raped-boy-girls-bathroom.html
In the case of Lia Thomas, a biological male (who is attracted to women) was competing with biological females in their sport, and sharing the changing rooms with the women on this team. Reportedly Lia would often not cover their male genitalia when around the women in the changing room. When many of the women complained about this situation to the university, they were told they needed to seek therapy to fix their transphobia. Does this seem right to you? Even if no “crime” was deemed to be committed?
The point regarding violent threats is it’s commonly male-pattern behaviour. That’s why Terfs receive so many violent and sexual threats, it’s coming from biological males. It’s just much less common for women to make these types of threats. The reason you view “men” as the problem rather than “males”, is most likely down to population bias. There is infinitely more cis-men compared to transwomen, so of course they make up the majority of the crime. You would have to look at it in percentage terms however it’s very difficult to accurately reflect population percentages since it’s a giant question mark. Terfs believe, rightly or wrongly, that the biggest predictor in determining a individual’s threat to women is their biological sex, not their gender identity. If we’re to re-organise society around gender self-ID, we would have to unequivocally prove that not only does a the avergae trans identified male pose less of a threat than the average cis-male, but a trans identified male poses the equivalent level of threat to that of the average biological female.
In 2019 - 76 of the 129 transwomen prisoners known to be in prison UK are convicted sex offenders. That’s 58.9%. In comparison to ciswomen, 3.3%. In comparison to cis men, 16.8%. The stats we have in percentage terms certainly don’t seem to suggest transwomen have the same temperament and pattern of criminality as cis-women. The Swedish study into this issue also suggests the same.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-sex-offenders-are-moved-into-womens-jails-wmfb9k5n0
I foresee the argument, “you can’t hold other people responsible for crimes they didn’t commit”. That’s fair. The ironic thing is, you can apparently, because that’s exactly what gender ideologues seem to do to “cis-men”. Secondly, there’s a very clear difference between holding someone personally responsible for another person’s crimes, and thinking it’s reasonable to have sex-segregated spaces. We expect over 99% of males to accept that it’s reasonable they’re not allowed to share certain spaces with women even if the majority are completely safe and innocent, but for a small minority we’re meant to believe it’s a personal attack on their character and identity. And if we're making the argument that with self-ID we can reduce violence against transwomen by slightly raising violence against cis-women and it's a fair trade-off to make, sorry but no. Biological women shouldn't have to bare the brunt of reducing violence between biological males.
Last edited:
He strikes me as someone who lacks the self-awareness needed to realise how much of a parody he comes across as.
How is this a debating position? You do understand that genetics weren't invented and predate humanity's understanding of the means of inheritance? Whether the poster you reply to's point is correct or not, the point at which humans understood genetics is irrelevant as to whether genetics is or isn't a factor in any actual phenotypic traits just like you could still be struck by lightning in the 17th century.
you'll have to point out the part of TERF that describes it as a woman-only term.
how do you keep cis men out of bathrooms right now?
karen white terf bingo card
what is your expectation exactly? that no trans person can ever do anything wrong, or else they all should be punished? your argument is that we should discriminate an entire subset of a population based on the actions of a few. this is not a sensible approach. never mind the fact we don't apply this rationale to any other group.
individual cases are always shocking. but they are irrelevant to the wider discussion around policing and trans rights.
the prison UK survey is another terf bingo card item, but it's essentially meaningless. we do not actually know how many trans people are in the prison system. there are plenty of rebuttals to it. as for the Norway study, this is commonly misused by terfs who willfully misinterpret it. here is the author of the studies own words:
Dhejne: The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.
As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.
The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.
men don't want to share women's spaces. the analogy is flawed.
show me the data where countries that introduced self ID saw an uptick in violence against cis women. i'll wait.
I don't understand how it's even remotely possible to believe that most opponents to "gender ideology" are women. In my experience they are overwhelmingly men.
The Dhejne stuff is circulated to such an extent because it's literally written into copy/paste ready sheets in their forums, subreddits and discord channels. Then it's ever-present on their twitters as well, of course.
More common than the crime rate stuff is the claim that it shows physical transitioning to not even be ineffective but even counterproductive, because post-op trans people have a higher suicide risk.
This is of course nonsense, because the control group is cis people. That physical transitioning isn't a miracle cure that brings a vulnerable group does of course not mean that the treatment is ineffective, and the claim that it heightens suicide risk is just flat out wrong because the study doesn't even compare trans people pre and post transitioning.
That this misinformation spreads like wildfire is completely unsurprising, it's standard online propaganda tactics. The zealots are just straight up lying. They've made the same claims hundreds of times, or even more, and they've seen the corrections. When someone corrects them they'll either change to their next prepared talking point, or they'll go silent. Then they'll start again in a new place because they know more often than not there won't be anyone familiar enough to rebut. This is the exact same receptive popularized by places like Stormfront in the late 90s and early 00s.
It then spreads further because a portion of the readers will accept their claims, and then repeat misinformation even though they're not consciously spreading lies. They accept the claims either because they're gullible enough and/or too lazy to check, which is somewhat understandable because reading studies takes time. Or they do check, but are too scientifically illiterate to understand what is written.
As for this particular guy, I'd be extremely surprised if Redcafe is his first rodeo, and I'd also be very surprised if he hasn't seen or been corrected multiple times.
This turned into a rant.
Not disagreeing with you but how does anyone know what the relative numbers are? It’s all subjective and will depend on how/where you’re most engaged in the “debate”. For example, I talk about football most on redcafe so this gives me the false impression that almost all football fans are ugly male virgins with mummy issues and weird handbag fetishes.
When I got sucked in to watching the whole Glinner meltdown on Twitter I definitely came away with the impression that the leading figures on the TERF side of this particular skirmish were mainly (cis) women.
polling shows women (along with younger, left wing supporters as you'd expect) have far more progressive attitudes to trans rights than men. Where does the British public stand on transgender rights? | YouGov
there are certainly some very vocal terf women on twitter though. but they don't represent the majority of women.
Women statistically have more progressive attitudes than men on just about anything, so in general it's a safe bet.
In case people here haven’t seen this interesting clip pertaining to the neurophysiology of people with gender dysphoria:
credit to the mod and poster who helped archive the deleted posts:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/woke-liberal-madness-compilation-thread.468639/page-3#post-28434040
It looks a bit like @Dominos regularly orchestrates attacks on women and women's rights, and then in a different discussion will attack trans women and trans rights, and then try to play it as a fight between them. Also @Dominos heavily deletes his posts (I assume it's him) after disseminating harmful material, making it hard to trace the pattern of behaviour. The way he deliberately covers his tracks looks suspiciously like calculated hit and run posting.
Last edited:
Classic wummery.
Typical lefties. Straight to discrediting the source.
That tweet was posted a month and a half before the event I'm referring to occurred. In that month and a half she posted over 20 tweets critical of 'gender ideology'. In fairness, she has about an hour ago posted a tweet about Roe vs. Wade after the ruling. Including that tweet, she's posted tweets containing any of the terms 'RoevsWade', 'Roe', 'Wade' or 'abortion' a total of 4 times since joining twitter in 2009.
Edit: looking at her timeline, it appears she was inspired to post the tweet you've linked to after seeing a tweet which called out GC activists for not giving a shit about reproductive rights.
Last edited:
That was really interesting to listen to
That ia Glaston’s modus operandi in every thread.
That’s a little on the nose.
If I had known Dominoes was a Ben Shapiro fan I wouldn’t have even bothered engaging him
If i were glaston i would disagree and turn this into a 20 page argument about noses.
Which is probably the reason for why he's now (seemingly) banned.
This is what happens when the right picks a topic for the culture war. People who didn't previously really have an opinion on it are now suddenly convinced it's deeply wrong.
They might be winning, but at least we'll always have this:
says Tory voters pay little to no attention to this issue, according to the report
But the likes of Rowling push a victim narrative that swings “moderates”
I hear what you are saying and you are possibly correct. its not just her there are many youtubers and others talking about it all the time and making documentaries. You have Piers Morgan, Navratilova and Sharon Davies always talking trans issues. I think Rowling influence is overstated. A lot of people don't listen or understand what she is on about as it dont affect them.
well that’s why I said the likes of Rowling, although I do think you underestimate her influence given how many people grew up on her books and the film adaptations yeah, lots of people are spouting the same stuff and/or using her complaints as their talking points.
Doesn't help when terms like 'birthing people' are introduced though. The right doesn't always have to manufacture outrage, sometimes all they need is to jump on existing sentiments.
Another way of describing it is that it says 74% of Tory voters paid some attention to the issue.
The numbers also show that the attitudes of Tory voters shifted much more (negatively) than Labour voters.