RatRolyPoly
"I'm afraid. Jaycee..... has mentioned domestic responsibilities, caring for a parent, concern for a partner and not wanting to expose loved ones to any public backlash."
This is true - as I said NATWALT just as NAMALT
"where your evidence is for colouring the majority of transwomen this way is. I suspect it's a handful of loudmouths on Twitter and the odd high-profile transwoman (see footnote)."
My evidence comes from having watched documentaries, read articles, interacted with tw on many different internet forums, personal experience in real life and from observing trans women in the media.
And of course there have been trans women I've encountered who have been kind understanding and concerned just as there are many men like this. However over ridingly trans women have appeared to have a preponderance of male socialised traits. This is hardly surprising and Stephen attests to it himself.
I particularly resent the ' trans women are no threat to women claim'. On what basis are trans women no threat to women? Purely because they identify as women? So if I identify as a nice person I can't be a risk to anyone? Since when was self assessment the best way to determine this? What about actual facts showing risk?
It used to be that men who identified as good people were taken on trust. It was thought they were above other men and to accuse them of being a risk was considered an awful and unthinkable thing to do. That carried on for many years until the preists paedophile scandals finally emerged.
It turns out identifying as good or godly has absolutely no effect on a man's risk of being a sexual offender. It remains exactly the same as for other men. Likewise if a man has a penis I suspect it makes not a blind bit of difference whether he identifies as a man or a woman.
I shall raise the commonly responded straw man- so you're saying all tw are sex offenders? No not at all. I'm saying that the have exactly the same rate as men. And we know most men aren't sex offenders in fact it's a minority but a substantial and prolific one.
It is because of this minority of males that we have sex seperated spaces for women to feel more comfortable and safer when vulnerable because of undressing or sleeping etc. It is because we can not tell which men are sexual assaillants and which aren't. Given that being male is by far the biggest risk factor we err on th side of caution. Is that discriminating against all men on the basis of the actions of the minority? Yes it is
I'm sure trans women sans penis do pose less of a sexual threat to women which is how the sex change legislation managed to get through in the first place - because it was assumed people would at least at some point have the op. But when a policy of self ID is proposed it's an entirely different kettle of fish.
I could say so let's look at the stats - what are the sex crime rates for tws compared to men and women? But this does tw no favours at all because it brings into play the second issue with self ID- that any non trans male can simply lie and say he's trans and must be accepted as such.
Even the gender specialists now admit they were naive to think no one would seek to take advantage of the idea. They and the British Psychological Society have warned the government of a huge rising tide of male sex offenders now claiming to be women in prison. They think most of these are false claims.
The number of tws in prison nearly doubled in a year and about half of this total are sex offenders now claiming they are women and demanding access to women's prisons. If you believe they are telling the truth then you must accept that tw pose more of a threat to women then men do in which case why would you allow them but not men into women's prisons?
If you accept that they are probably fake claims then you acknowledge that unscrupulous men are taking advantage of the system. In which case how can you claim that self ID as a system poses no threat to women? When it in fact acts as an invite to the very men that women only spaces are designed to exclude? It's like a giant welcome mat for sex offenders. Why do you think that putting women at risk in this way is Ok? Are you telling me that you think the feelings of 0.6% of males are more important than the safety of females? Because that sounds pretty misogynistic to me.
As for sports - well is a complete fiction trans women have no advantage - in most of the sports they have entered they've done very well. Unlike any trans men. To pretend that reducing one testosterone to 5x the average women's level creates parity is simply fantasy. Again males rights are considered more important. It's little wonder women are peeved when their safety and sports not to mention political places are under threat.
I'm all up for the increased acceptance of trans people by society but this needn't be at the expense of reality, fairness or womens rights. There are other solutions to these issues but so long as the religious dogma of tw are w is promoted it's unlikely they will be sought. Take a look at Thailand where there is social acceptance and yet people do not think tw are the same as w. They have a third gender marker in speech to identify themselves and use men's spaces. The difference there is that men are accepting. That's what we need to work towards. Not bullying women into believing fantasies.
"It highly likely in fact that the fact there are high profile transwomen and far fewer transmen is society's own increased.... fetishizing of the female aesthetic, combined with a preference for hearing a male-socialised viewpoint."
Yes I agree with you on this point.