The main flaw in the 'trans rights' argument

The main flaw in the Trans rights argument is that it is complete and utter bollocks.Trans women are men. The End.

@PrelateChuckles I wondered that too. There seem to be a lot of TW posting on Twitter (sending threats to JKR etc.) so I doubted 70% are in prison.

Approx. 70 % of transwomen are in prison for sexual assault. For other men, it is only approx. 17%.

Just to clarify, I assume you meant to start with "Of those people in prison,...."

A gentle reminder (as quite a few faux woke tweeters say): The term 'cis' has been forcibly assigned to most of us who never transitioned from womanhood.

It supposes the existence of an abstract gender identity which just 'happens' to correlate with one's biological sex.

It is an attempt to deny that most women have embodied gender 'identities', i.e. based on living with a female body and on how others treat us because that body is female. Those treatments include sexism and sex-based assaults and sex discrimination and misogyny.

To then replace the definitional basis of 'woman' (and to offer us 'cis' in its place) would erase our ability to organise politically in order to fight sex-based mistreatment. It would also erase our 'identities' in the wider sense and it is already taking away the words we need for very important global work:

Though the term sex-based rights may not be extremely old, sex-based oppression has been around for centuries and is not over. We need to focus on combating that (Afghanistan is not the only place where girls and women are oppressed because of their sex). And for that important work it is absolutely crucial to have names for people of the female sex.

Approx. 70 % of transwomen are in prison for sexual assault. For other men, it is only approx. 17%. It shows that transwomen are highly likely to be MORE dangerous to women and girls than men who do not identify as trans. (I cannot be bothered finding the link to the statistics again. I have already referred to it in at least two other posts. Find it yourself if you will. You don't have to pay to get access to the British government statistics.)

We should be NOT be required to be nice to a point where it puts us in danger of assault. Or even to a point where we are uncomfortable. And why are we uncomfortable when biological males enter female spaces? Because experience has shown us that there is usually a sinister reason for them to enter the space.

Rule number one about kink is that you only include people in the kink if they consent to it. When a transwoman enters a women's space in order to be validated in their gender identity it is to force other people to be included in their fetish roleplay.

What is more alarming is that many posts on twitter and FB show that some transwomen get off on making women and girls feel uncomfortable and unsafe. (No. I am not going to link to posts where transwomen gloat about wanking in women's toilets etc. I do not want that in my algorithm).

cayeli was a PBP. Their topics of choice and posts were familiar.

I think we got to cayeli no 3 before it got to cayelis bedtime and their mum made them turn the pc off.

@Helleofabore I expect you're right. I keep seeing posts that say transgender people are missing rights, but no reference to what is actually missing.

I suspect it's because if they wrote in black and white that men want rights to women's spaces even they would see how this cannot work. Like saying 2+2 can equal whatever you choose it to equal and it's vital to be kind to the number 2 but, when written down, 2+2=5 is clearly wrong.

Oooops! Sorry a future forecast AND a weather forecast.

Sorry.

I suspect that poster will not be back. Cloudy and warm here.

@Cayeli please can you explain what rights transgender people need that are not currently being provided for?

They have rights to facilitaties that match their biological sex first and foremost, so are not excluded, I mean what rights are missing beyond these already provided rights?

I can see pronouns and clothing etc can change, so what is missing?

*I'm saying all humans should have the same rights, regardless of whether they're "male" or "female".

This includes trans women having all the same rights cis women do, without being confined to the "male" rights.*

I'm guessing you are actually talking about (not trans) women and not just the tiny% of women who consider themselves cis?

You misunderstand the situation. Sex-based protections were put in place to provide a safe space for women or to try and level a very uneven playing field. I.e. they are needed as at the moment, all human beings do NOT have the same rights and this is a way to try and redress the balance. As men, transwomen are part of the group of people women need a safe space from and are part of the group of people who has an unfair advantage. So if you let them into women's spaces, you are failing to redress the balance. Hence if you believe that everyone has the same rights it is illogical to think that any men, regardless of identity, should be in a woman's space.

What you are actually arguing for here is no single sex spaces.

This includes trans women having all the same rights cis women do, without being confined to the "male" rights.

Absolutely. What they don't have is the "right" to make women uncomfortable by their unwanted male presence in female only spaces.

Cayeli
98% of sexual attacks are carried out by males. 86% of violent attacks are carried out by males.
There is nothing to suggest that these stats are any different for TW.
Why do you think females should have no safe spaces away from males?

@Cayeli
not sure what you meant in your last post

I think for transsexual people this distinction between ‘gender’ and sex is very artificial and meaningless in practical terms/ everyday life.

I would also argue this is probably true for most people who don't consider themselves transgender, or who may consider themselves agender but don't think that 'counts' as trans.

I don't know about the politics/sensitivities of this, but I feel it's a shame the word 'transsexual' is not considered OK nowadays - I think a distinction would be useful between those who basically want to be treated as if they have changed sex, even if they haven't, and those whose identities are based on an indefinable gender feeling. Because apart from very recently I think that most people think the former is what is meant by 'transgender'.

This whole concept of gender identity has taken over the discussion and I think confused people more than ever. Particularly as no-one can seem to define gender as something concrete separate from sex - the only definition that seems to fit is 'masculinity and femininity', which don't really have anything to do with biological sex.

They do have the same rights , the right to access any spaces relevant to their sex. They can go into any male spaces they like. And women can go into any female spaces they like.

[quote Crcohetmonster]@Cayeli because transwomen are male. Are you saying they should have different rights to other males? Why? And who is imposing anything on trans people?[/quote]
I'm saying all humans should have the same rights, regardless of whether they're "male" or "female".

This includes trans women having all the same rights cis women do, without being confined to the "male" rights.

@Cayeli because transwomen are male. Are you saying they should have different rights to other males? Why? And who is imposing anything on trans people?

When Mary Wollstonecraft wrote on the rights of women she didn't mention gender once. She died in 1797.

As I said Charlie, it was all through my course at uni in the 90s.

Those stating it is 'new' seem to be drawing that off twitter discussions and not actual fact.

Simple. The phrase "sex-based rights" itself did not even exist before this "debate", and was coined specifically to attack and exclude trans people.

Nonsense.

The point of race- and sex-based civil rights law was to treat everybody the same;

Have a guess when that sentence was written and in which context, Cayeli.

I'll help you out. It's from an article written in 1995 about a disability law proposal and that phrase "sex-based civil rights law" is used entirely without definition or elaboration because the audience is wholly familiar with that term. Given that Ruth Bader Ginsburg made her career arguing about sex-based discrimination that's only natural.

reason.com/1995/08/01/unreasonable-accommodation/

The phrasing "sex-based" and "based on sex" in reference to women's rights has been used in legal discourse since at least the 1950s in the US to give you just one example. Women's rights campaigners have used this phrasing even longer.

Women have been oppressed, discriminated against and disadvanted because of their sex. The fight to redress these inequalities has always necessitated talking about the fact they resulted from our sex being treated as inferior. That's why being able to refer to sex is so important to our rights.

As it is for all other equality issues - if you are not allowed to refer to race, religion, sexuality, disability, poverty, age, you cannot discuss discrimination based on these characteristics. It's impossible to redress such inequalities by denying they exist and are the basis for the inequalities to exist in the first place.

There aren't multiple genders - its an invention , it is a trend and one that hopefully disappears. We shouldn't have put this into law in the first place - the problem is that it has crept up on the majority who are now too afraid to speak out.