To think the media over exaggerate trans women and refugees?

[SleepDreamThinkHuge]

I have noticed in the media when trans women and refugees do crimes it is highlighted to such an extent compared to if say men commit rapes. When it is a trans women raping someone it leads to "women being unsafe" and the funny thing is a lot of people doing this faux outrage and pretending they care about women is from some men. It is strange when you hear things like "as a father or mother I worry for my child's safety they are not safe." Ok so what about when most sexual attacks are committed by cis men? You never heard them protest about that.

It is the same with refugees you only hear the bad stories "oh he is gaining the system" "oh a lot of these refugees are rapists." There is no middle ground in both of these issues. Rape/sexual assault gaining the system is done by a minority of all people (black, Asian, White etc..) But when it is refugees or trans men doing crime it is highlighted to such as extent to which other groups that do the same crime e.g. white Brits is less highlighted and outrage is not as much.

most media is equally click-baity about women that commit crime though - particularly murder or sexual crime, but also stuff like fraud.

@TheHoover , I'm interested in why you think its funny, or indeed something to discuss lightly. I work in prison, I see male sex offenders pretending to be women, and I am horrified at the thought of any of them cajoling their way into women's prisons.

The problem with you gaily pronouncing that you are centrist and there must be a lovely middle ground - is that there isn't. If TWAW then they are entitled to go to female prison, or compete in female sport, or change their "dead names" to avoid being spotted on DBS checks. There is no lovely middle ground, there is just a very, very slippery slope.

Most crimes aren't committed by cis men. They're committed by men who have not described themselves in that way and likely don't have a gender identity. Aka men. The issues are not comparable. The reason people worry about crimes committed by TW is that those males are often trying to access spaces reserved for women. And their accolades wrongly spread the idea that they are as likely to assault as women. Wrong. They are are likely to assault as other males. It shows up the pack of lies which in inherent in the 'trans rights' ( they actually mean privilege because it's not a right for any male to be in female spaces) are ot at odds with women's rights. No one is trying to say all refuges are safe, don't vet them, make them above the law. Hence not comparable.

The problem with you gaily pronouncing that you are centrist and there must be a lovely middle ground - is that there isn't.
Well yet more ignorant straw manning. Empathising with and criticising elements of both sides does not mean believing you have a solution.

No. It means your posts lack consistency and often coherence.

For instance let's just look at this one post:

"Oh dear - just had a google and 90% of hits in relation to ‘forced teaming’ are used in gc arguments to reject and minimise transphobia and trans discrimination and in attempts to persuade others that there has been a complete divorce between trans rights and LGB rights . [shakes head slowly]. So just you trotting out the same old practised arguments….."

Here, you have claimed that 'gc arguments' reject and minimise transphobia and trans discrimination.

Yet, you have refused to answer directly whether the points raised in the report YOU posted as being transphobic were transphobic or not. And then you have posted:

"I don’t believe in tw in women’s sports, I definitely would not put tw in enclosed spaces with vulnerable women and I don’t believe in extending the GRA."

So, tell us what exactly then are these 'arguments' that you believe feminists are using to "reject and minimise transphobia and trans discrimination" that you felt you should post this in an attempt to, I don't know, shame me I guess.... "Oh dear - just had a google and 90% of hits in relation to ‘forced teaming’ are used in gc arguments to reject and minimise transphobia and trans discrimination and in attempts to persuade others that there has been a complete divorce between trans rights and LGB rights . [shakes head slowly]. So just you trotting out the same old practised arguments….."

Do you or do you not agree that the following, raised in the report YOU posted are transphobic?

single sex spaces
-rejection that maintaining female single sex spaces is ‘transphobic’.

roles set aside for women where needed
-rejection that maintaining women’s roles for female people being ‘transphobic’,

male breastfeeding
-rejection of males feeding an infant a substance that lacks the nutritional value needed for infants to infants as being ‘transphobic’ rather than safeguarding vulnerable infants from potential abuse of malnutrition.

Because all your posts seem to do is go around and around about how you claim to have some 'middle ground' yet you seem very determined to shame feminists and have even used dehumanising language.

Here, you have claimed that 'gc arguments' reject and minimise transphobia and trans discrimination.
I mean logic really isn’t your strong point. Of course I am not saying all gc arguments reject and minimise transphobia. Just those I read that refer to forced teaming.

I am vehemently opposed to trans hate and disrespectful language towards trans people and there is an absolute ton of it emanating from FRW let alone larger white-van man society. Not everyone but a lot of it. Seems to be ok though because there’s vile hate from the TRA too. Or ok because they are stealing our rights?

But there is no room for centrism?

And I will spend hours arguing against the GRA, cancel culture, hatred etc with the two zedders in my family.

blows your brain that someone can sit in the middle, doesn’t it.

But it doesn't lack coherency with the original usage if you consider female oppression collectively by male people as 'abuse' with the potential for violence. It doesn't lack coherency with the original usage either if you consider that there are aspects that many LGB people find abusive with the potential for violence about the extreme trans rights movement.

What the fuck is FRW?

@Helleofabore
would you like to explain how ‘ploppers’ and ‘just be kind’ labels are not equally dehumanising ?

What the fuck is FRW?
well either you are being purposefully stupid or resorting to pointing out typos as part of your argument. I mean have a guess

Can you please list for me where I have indicated that I too am not "opposed to trans hate and disrespectful language towards trans people". Can you please explain to me what you categorise as trans hate and disrepectful language towards trans people?

Can you please list for me where I have indicated that I do not think there is room for other thoughts?

In fact, maybe you should list what you think my opinion about the rights of trans people should have is.

Because you keep trying to belittle me and other posters yet I can only assume it is because you have a prejudice against people on MN who challenge you about this topic. I can see no other reason for your reactions here.

And no, it doesn't 'blow my brain' that someone can sit in the middle. And I haven't seen much logic from you to understand.

You have repeated it a couple of times now.

No, I am not being purposefully stupid. Are you now being ableist in calling me stupid?

I am asking what you mean because I don't make assumptions about what acronyms mean? In fact, if you have not realised it, I am here asking you many questions about what you mean generally to ascertain your stance and to gain understanding of what you have posted.

Would you like to explain how they are equally dehumanising?

A plopper is someone who comes to post a single post with the intention of shaming people generally, or to not have any intention of engaging. Can you tell us what is dehumanising in that label?

And how is 'just be kind' a dehumanising label? It is a phrase that is used frequently to either justify something that is not kind at all, or it is used to denigrate people for not going along with something that a person feels they should just accept rather than push back against.

Please explain how these have been used as slurs and as ways to dehumanise people so that abuse, threats and violence against them can be dismissed.

this is beyond a joke - I am explaining my centricity rather than accusing you of those things. Literally your comprehension and critical reasoning is sub gcse level. Some more explanation clearly needed:

1.Those 3 things above I do not consider to be transphobic.
2 I consider your continued challenge of every data source available on trans disadvantage and inability to produce any other data to back up your challenge other than this focus on this notion of alpha-trans supremacy is minimising real everyday discrimination and prejudice against trans people in the workplace.

You keep being offensive to posters for no reason.

Of course I am not saying all gc arguments reject and minimise transphobia. Just those I read that refer to forced teaming. so when actual forced teaming happens, if a GC feminist argument points it out, that = rejecting and minimising transphobia? Seems not quite right to me.

I am vehemently opposed to trans hate and disrespectful language towards trans people and there is an absolute ton of it emanating from FRW let alone larger white-van man society.
I lurk a lot on FWR and I think they are some of the most articulate and reasonable people on the site a lot of the time, I have yet to actually see any of this let a lone an "absolute ton of it" there.

What I do see is humour, intelligence, nuance, an ability to see reason, a passion for evidence and fact and understandable anger at how women are being treated. Again and again I see the mostly women on there say how they are not anti-trans at all - and clearly they aren't if you take time to read their words - what they are is pro-women - this seems to be an important fact that TRA aligned people seem to like to misrepresent again, and again.

What I see from your posts is a repeated attempt to discredit the GC side as anti-trans, mocking posts belittling or insulting other posters and using a bad faith type of argument style to muddy the discussion.

You've had answers to your questions and discussion of your links but you've yet to answer (without mocking) any of the further probes on your views of the other things that have been brought up.
You seem to have positioned the questioners as either ridiculous or ready to pounce for a "gotcha" when it's been obvious to me that posters have been trying to get you to think of a different perspective and find out whether you were talking using a common understanding of language and sex based reality - without those in place you (royal) can't really have a discussion, everyone talks at cross purposes.

I thought at first you were open to honest engagement in the discussion when you provided those links (thank you btw - sorry bad manners!), but sadly you don't seem willing to engage in good faith.

You keep using that word centrist - but you can't be centrist when you are belittling one side of the discussion, logically that is.

And let's go through this again.

"Of course I am not saying all gc arguments reject and minimise transphobia. Just those I read that refer to forced teaming."

Which arguments?

Give us examples? Because you have a few times now avoided the arguments that were used in the report YOU posted that were used to support conclusions of significant harassment, discrimination and hate being directed at trans people.

You have completely avoided those, yet have persisted in doubling down to again and again state that 'gc arguments' are dismissing and minimising transphobia.

If you cannot produce any examples of feminist arguments that do this, I think all reading along can only conclude you have none.

What I see from your posts is a repeated attempt to discredit the (other) side, mocking posts belittling or insulting other posters and using a bad faith type of argument style to muddy the discussion.
tell you what, other have used exactly this against me x3

@Helleofabore
see above

Here? In this thread? I must have missed it. It drips off a few of your posts though.

Are you saying that is why you post the way you do?

Or did I misunderstand and you are saying that others have accused you of similar before? If so maybe worth thinking about a bit.

Thank you for answering. Do you understand then that those three things underpinned the report that YOU posted. No one else posted them. You posted that article and report.

So, of course I have challenged your links. Has anyone else provided links that were relevant to the UK situation? So, how have I challenged 'every data source' available. Seriously, if your links were it, then that is a shocking paucity of data to be supporting such serious claims of discrimination .

By the way, would you like me to count the number of times I have posted about the fact that I believe there is discrimination against trans people that needs to be supported and addressed on this thread? I am happy to go back and count the number of times I have stated it. And clearly stated it.

"I am explaining my centricity rather than accusing you of those things."

Tell you what, as you continue to accuse me of stupidity, of having low comprehension and a whole raft of what I can only assume now is meant to be ad hominem attacks, perhaps you can link this sentence to the relevant post where you are 'explaining' your centrity.

Because your superior coherency is not really showing itself in the best light with this post.

For what? Again, which post 'above' am I seeing for what purpose.

I find it interesting that you say you are centrist but you changed my quote

"What I see from your posts is a repeated attempt to discredit the GC side as anti-trans, mocking posts belittling or insulting other posters and using a bad faith type of argument style to muddy the discussion."

To this

"What I see from your posts is a repeated attempt to discredit the (other) side, mocking posts belittling or insulting other posters and using a bad faith type of argument style to muddy the discussion."

If you are a centrist why are GC feminists "the other" side?

@HatThatWearsYou is it possible that if you agree with the context of a post or the argument of a poster you may be somewhat blind to any negativity in the style and tone?

@ attacking flawed argumental constructs
is not as hominem and your logic has been pretty bollocks at times.

and for the second time, posting data sources does not mean I am engaging in discussion in relation to the entire text.

anyway we are back to this: a shocking paucity of data to be supporting such serious claims of discrimination. Which is a very minimising tone. So what do you say to:

56% of young trans people likely to be unemployed
1 in 3 employers would not hire a trans person
1 in 8 trans people have been physically attacked by customers or colleagues