AIBU to think a male paedophile rapist should definitely go to a male prison?

[HermioneWeasley]

And it shouldn't just be "likely"?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35726292

FFS.

Actually, across the numerous threads I've read around this, no-one has ever addressed the Rachel Dolezal conundrum.

I.e It is widely accepted that when Dolezal 'identified' as black and lived as and represented black women, it was appropriation, it was inappropriate and that crucially, she wasn't actually black.

The black community who subsequently rejected her as 'one of them' faced no opprobrium whatsoever for doing so.

Why is this different? I don't want trans people to be rejected, but neither do I want us facing opprobrium for discussing it. It has been pointed out that trans racialism isn't a protected characteristic and that transgenderism is, but at the moment, so are women's rights to congregate in penis free environments. That will probably change.

So, what's the difference in intellectual terms between identifying as a different race and identifying as a different sex? Other than the legal position, if we are talking about this being a 'brain' issue and not a biology issue, what's the difference?

A quote from the blog linked to above.

Even if ‘woman’ is redefined in the way the report suggests, female people will still be subjected to male violence, rape, reproductive control, child marriage, female genital mutilation and et cetera. Nobody can identify their way out of biology, yet women will be robbed of the language to describe the social reality inscribed upon their female biology. The concept of single-sex services, facilities and organisations will disappear, as access to these spaces will now be based on gender identity. Without sex-based protection, women will no longer have the right to define their own boundaries, yet the very reasons they may wish to do so are obviously not going to disappear.

Ms Yardley (a transwoman) speaks a lot of sense.

Sleepy I suspect the reason the thread hasn't been deleted is that the discussion is taking place in a respectful manner while making it abundantly clear that nobody wishes any harm upon anybody else.

I'm not sure erasing the right to respectful free speech is the way to go with this issue.

"discussion is taking place in a respectful manner"

Yep. Whereas snide little personal attacks calling someone a bitch are against talk guidelines, and will probably end up deleted.

sleepy calling blueyes a "prize bitch" for daring to understand biology is outrageous, but I'm not going to report, so that everyone can see what we're dealing with. You've used a highly misogynistic term to attack someone for not prioritising men's feelings over women's.

#WomenCanSee

I do hope so

Why are the transactivists so obsessed with the erosion of women's rights? Why not campaign for their own spaces? - I'd fully support unisex toilets, changing facilities, trans safe spaces etc

Because they want their womanhood validated by using woman-only facilities and believe this is more important than the rights of non-trans women.

That was to Beyond - I'm getting behind!

So, what's the difference in intellectual terms between identifying as a different race and identifying as a different sex

Only the fact that belief in 'black brains and white brains' is considered racist but 'female brains and male brains' is a ok

HermioneWeasley - I didn't call her a bitch, suggesting she should enter Crufts is more than insinuating that she wants to be a show dog, isn't it? But please, report away - I did not call that particlaur poster 'a bitch' as an insult, however you dress it up. There have been far worse comments on here, yet as I said, nothing seems to have been deleted.

If this thread was about anything than trans people, it would have been deleted ages ago. Seems MN doesn't like a talk about dogs off leads, but this is a-ok.

Please could you explain why these issues shouldn't be discussed, why it is transphobic to distinguish between women and trans women and how it would be possible to avoid instances where it is necessary to make a distinction between the two.

As a side not - belittling trans peoples struggles by suggesting they would pretend to be a dog to do this that and the other is disgustingly disrespectful. However, please pick and chose what is offensive on here.

Who is suggesting trans people would pretend to be dogs? Are you capable of critical thinking and following an argument? Obviously the notion of identifying as a dog is being offered as a comparison to identifying as the opposite sex.

You can enter (and win!) crufts too, blue eyes

What, as a prized bitch? Well, if she wants to be, I'm sure she'll be excellent at it smile

sleepy you can act all disingenuous now and pretend you think she really identifies as a show dog, but fortunately MNetters are pretty smart and can see exactly what you meant.

And nobody has said that trans people would pretend to be dogs - people are illustrating the absurdity of the "I identify as.....therefore I am..." Argument

You twist your own words and other posters.

Merry - I have no issue against the inital post. It is a debatable area of course, if someone identifies as a woman, but as a male as shown themselves to be a danger to them.

However, a usual, this has just decended into posters explaining why trans-women are beneath them, patting each other on the back when telling each other 'well, you see, biology', how their rights as 'real women' should trump anyone who feels they have been born in the wrong body. If you replaced 'trans' with 'gay' on all these posts, it's very obvious that a lot of these posts are going beyond the pale of usual discussion. Yet, most are actually blind to it - have convinced themselves it's all in the name of debate. Women's rights are important - but no more so than anyone elses.

I must have missed the poster saying that transwomen are beneath them. Care to quote?

Explain "born in the wrong body" using basic biological terms

I think history will look back on current transactivism as the 21st equivalent of Freudian penis envy. Freud identified a genuine problem - women's distress- but attributed it to biology, not to the social constraints on women. Likewise, transactivism (apart from some sane voices like Miranda Yardley) identifies the genuine misery experienced by people who feel they do not fit in the roles that society expects of their gender, but attributes it to their sex, and not to societal constraint.

What is disturbing is that modern medicine has made it possible to mutilate people, rather than try to change society and to alleviate individual distress through counselling etc. I don't think gender dysphoria is a mental illness, except in extreme forms, but I do think it is emotional distress at social constraint and needs help. I believe it is unethical to perform surgery on most transgender people. It is as if doctors had responded to Freud by cutting off women's breasts and grafting on penises. I think we will look back on this era with shame and embarrassment.

how their rights as 'real women' should trump anyone who feels they have been born in the wrong body

Should it be the other way round then? So the person in the OP, who identifies as trans, should trump the women in prison's rights to a safe environment?

I think that's quite a hard sell.

Personally, as others have already said, I'm fully supportive of trans - no problem with trans bathrooms, or whatever, but I don't believe in gender (although I am affected by it), and I believe that sex segregation is important in some circumstances (eg. prisons). Changing your sex is impossible. This doesn't mean I'm looking down on anyone by the way - you live your life as you want, no problems - no problems until you want to affect my rights that is.

I also have a problem with "Born in the wrong body".

The brain controls the levels which hormones are needed for the body which is developing, and growing from the point of conception. If XX at conception, a foetus's gonads stay internal, are ovaries, and will produce estrogen in puberty.
If XY, the gonads will descend, are testes, and produce testosterone in puberty.
All through the signals sent from the brain.

So why say, "Born in the wrong body" and not "Born with the wrong Brain"?

Today 12:58 SleepyBoBo

You can enter (and win!) crufts too, blueeyes

What, as a prized bitch? Well, if she wants to be, I'm sure she'll be excellent at it smile

Today 13:19 SleepyBoBo

HermioneWeasley - I didn't call her a bitch, suggesting she should enter Crufts is more than insinuating that she wants to be a show dog, isn't it? But please, report away - I did not call that particlaur poster 'a bitch' as an insult, however you dress it up

riiight

Plenty of posts around saying 'trans women will only be trans, can never be 'real women'. There are men and women, then there are trans men and trans women. Not-quite-as-good-as-either. Then as soon as anyone brings it up, start shouting 'but biology'.

In very basic terms - it is someone who should have had a penis at birth, but is lacking one. So they have one made for them. Or someone who was born with one, but have to have it removed as it is not an appandage they want attached to them (same as breasts). If someone is deaf, they can have operations to try and fix it, if someone is bron with an extra set of fingers, they can have them removed. Then they carry on being a memeber of society. However, it seems to be an issue if a person is born with the 'wrong' genatalia and want to fix it - that's not ok apparently.

sleepy you might find the reference to dogs offensive. However, people say this kind of thing because they really, really don't understand the logic of being able to self identify as a woman on the basis of gender, given that nobody seems to have a clear idea of what gender is.

It isn't possible to understand a line of reasoning that doesn't make sense.