Reflections on Trans Arguments

So I'll take people that oppose them any day thanks.

That is deeply fucked up I'm afraid. I will fight the MAGA extremists and their cheapo UK avatars as long as I breathe.

Until one of the many posters I have politely asked to explain, not even exactly what "trans" is, but simply why it should be assumed to override physical sex in language and provisions that only ever existed because of physical sex, I am forced to conclude that what "Trans" means in practice is "whatever I need it to mean to get what I want"

The 3 that opposed the Supreme Court judgement were all put into their positions by Obama who was put into his position by the Prizkers who are extreme TRAs what with one being a man who says he is a woman.

So I'll take people that oppose them any day thanks.

You of course would be free to write to the Supreme Court explaining what 'Trans' is to assist them. If you think you know better than the brightest and best of the USA Trans Activists and Lawyers who were unable to even explain the basics.

I'm pretty sure the rape crisis sector said trans women weren't a problem too, and in a shocking turn of events that turned out not to be true.

I seriously wouldn't take the Republican-controlled US Supreme Court as the moral benchmark here. Trump and his useful idiots are in bed with misogynistic fundamentalists who are keen to reinforce the patriarchy, not redress wrongs against women. Sometimes the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' doctrine really doesn't work.

This s nagging away at the back of my mind but I’m sure I remember one of the researchers who’d been commissioned to look at this issue saying they’d been told not to include any dissenting voices in
The published report 🤔 it was a few years ago which is why im not 100%

“Personally I trust the refuge workers who say that genuine trans women are never the problem but I'd love to see any data.”

it rather begs the question as to why a philanthropist had to set up a woman only rape refuge, using the law in order to exclude men.

Ugh. The naked racism in this post makes me sick. How many times have we read TRAs parroting ‘if Black women can be a subset of women then so can men’? And the blokes who say this imagine they are making a liberal/progressive argument rather than being grotesquely racist.

I tried telling my GP I identify as a TW so that I could access laser hair removal on the NHS (PCOS beard) apparently I can't be a TW. Even though TWA (apparently) W .
So if TWAW then why aren't women transwomen?

😁

“Personally I trust the refuge workers who say that genuine trans women are never the problem but I'd love to see any data.”

And yet a few years ago there were a series of posts from women recounting the negative impacts in refuges because male people were there. And they were scared to speak out because some still had need of the services so did so anonymously.

Stories such as how much inappropriate behaviour there was, intimidation too, sexual abuse. There was one woman who reported sharing a room with one who masturbated in the room when she was there.

And then came the stories of how when women complained, they were told that if they had an issue they should leave.

So I would not be trusting any person stating that male people are never the problem in refuges. But each to their own.

The raging hypocrisy of the majority of posters on this thread is off the scale.

You bleat about fairness in one breath and in the next you are using reason and logic to engage in a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

Shame on you all.

You ask for data from the opposing point of view
Data please. Show me evidence that...
and then follow it with anecdote to support your point of view
Personally I trust the refuge workers who say that...
and finish by asking for data from the opposing point of view again
but I'd love to see any data.

Do you not see how poor that makes your argument look? You are literally undermining yourself. Your argument is based on double standards. You've destroyed your own credibility. When I was talking about bad faith this is erxactly what I meant. Not that your point of view is opposed to mine, that's fine, but that your argument is based on double standards. And you call my argument a parody, you should take a look in a mirror.

They hate us 'cos they ain't us.

Young and pretty. The ‘pretty’ was probably the most rage inducing part.

I do. It was hilarious. And they were young women too, which really puts the entire 'wait for the old women to die, there will be more acceptance' theory in the bin.

There is so much confusion in this post.

And it also seems that there is confusion as to what is considered legitimate discrimination and illegitimate discrimination for the purpose of 'rights'.

It is legitimate to separate spaces based on sex based on male patterns of criminality which can be measured, plus the fact that male people are more powerful than female people on average. In fact, we know from the studies that in regards to power, iirc, the lower quartile of male people are still more powerful than the top decile of female people.

Hence it is not just pattern of behaviour, it is also the impact of that behaviour.

This has been forgotten when people start to discuss the 'rights' of some male people which end up being additional privileges. Because when looking at what is a reasonable accommodation for society to make for people in regards to their 'human rights', both those factors, behaviour patterns and impact need to be considered.

So your pivot to looking at female on female attacks is actually not something tends to be considered in the separation of spaces. It would be unworkable for one. But also there is no expectation that anyone has the right to be in a separate space to the rest of their sex in the provision of publicly accessed single sex spaces.

However, I am actually feeling like whatever you post, we have to clarify just who you are referring to. This is where precise and accurate language is needed.

When posters get mixed up with transwomen and transmen the way you have, it then makes discussion very difficult. Confusion reigns.

So given that you obviously know biologically female people exist and are different to male, and presumably would not claim that being biologically female has not historically and still today lead to significant social constraints and risks that are specific to being biologically female, why is it so important to the TWAW crowd that women (in the original sense of female people) should not be allowed their own sex-specific rights, spaces and protections, not even allowed the language to speak of hiw being female impacts their lives for good or bad?

Why is it that they will only accept trans women being respected and protected if it also takes rights, protections and language away from women?

Why do they hate women so much?

What, so they can pretend to be us but we can't pretend to be them?

I think the most hilariously lack of self aware reaction was from transwomen who said 'my gender is not your costume'.

The reactions were priceless

Talk of appropriation. How these women couldn’t possibly know what it was like to be a transwoman. All said with zero self awareness.

I'm here, with pencil, waiting to take notes! I may get RSI doing this all day...

Remember those two women who were on Only Fans who put bananas down their pants and pretended to be men who say they are women?

The drama! They sold out of smelling salts that day I believe.

Exactly.

We don't want to rape you really isn't the gotcha these people think it is.

Well, I don't want you in here.

Now what?

Because there's absolutely no answer to that that doesn't constitute a threat!

I must say I’m looking forward to finally finding out why I’m wrong. Because I’m certain there’s a really good, coherent argument as to why I should consider a self selecting group of men women about to be posted.