Follow on thread III - Feeling sad and weary that feminists and trans-women are constantly pitted against one another.

[SophoclesTheFox]

I don't know if it has the legs to sustain a third thread, but kudos to perfectly for the impeccable timing of finally answering a question on the second to last post before the thread filled up. Genius.

here is the second thread

As I am now the OP, I wonder if this gives me the right of veto over the resolutions that we apparently made in the Great Accords of 2017?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justine-greening-delays-divisive-plan-for-easy-gender-swaps-gm77qd9gn

Delaying the decision in the GRA. Still time to show this for the lunacy that it is.

Happy Christmas 🤘

Haven't quite caught up but wanted to say thank you for this brilliant thread and specifically to debbie and perfectly, who as someone said are "peak transing machines".

Equality is a bit of a weird goal. I don’t really want women committing more sex crime or having higher suicide rates. But that would be an equality outcome.

I prefer old school women’s liberation, myself. Gets to the heart of it

Well done everyone for keeping at these threads - three of them! I have been reading them between shopping, cleaning and doing Christmas stuff and it has been very interesting to read.

Although I can't remember who said what, there's been some important thrashing out the difference between a favour/kindness/politeness and a 'right'/'entitlement'/'justified' demand, regarding born males entering women's spaces.

Also there has been very key discussion around transing kids and how it should be, and it will be, regarded as a form of child abuse. And focusing on how the people pushing for it now better be prepared for future legal action for the scandal we are heading for - and I agree screen shots are a very good idea.

Also the perennial issue - of defining the difference between 'equality means equal rights and treatment' and 'being equally free from disadvantage'.

So well done everyone for sticking at it.

SaucySienna wrote - "If a transwoman looks like a woman, and has female parts (sex reassignment surgery), then she's a woman."

Biologically, a transgender-identifying biological male person is not a woman. Such a person is also not a woman because of looks.

Sex reassignment surgery is not magic and therefore it does not change a transgender-identifying biological male person's male body parts into female body parts. The surgery changes the male parts to look like female parts. The surgery perhaps also gives the transgender-identifying biological male person some chance of replacing the typical male sexual response of penis erection with a specifically transgender-male response to sexual intercourse or masturbation (i.e. obviously not an erection because their own penis has been removed, but also not a female response) .

For a transgender-identifying biological male person, reassignment surgery can involve removing the person's penis and using the skin to form something often called a "neovagina". For a transgender-identifying biological female person, reassignment surgery can involve enlargement of the person's clitoris to form something often called a "neopenis". Supporters of transgenderism use these words to deliberately create the misleading impression that surgery has performed a sex change, even though sex change has not actually occurred.

I think it would be more accurate to describe a "neovagina" as a "neopenis" because it is made from a penis, and it would be more accurate to describe a "neopenis" as a "neoclitoris" because it is made from a clitoris.

All of the words the doctors and the trans advocates use to describe the process of transitioning are deceptive. More and more people who have undergone surgical transition are coming forward to complain they were deceived. More and more detransitioners are coming forward to complain that they were deceived.
The suicide rate goes up post surgical transition. It does not get much more damning than that.

Sparton I'm not even a little bit surprised by that.

And there I was, honestly thinking that starting a third thread might be overkill, and here's saucysienna to tell us NAMALT and prove me so very, very wrong

No because the TRAs and their friends the MRAs seem to be sending one or two warriors into trans threads to get us to rehash the same old, same old over and over again, thus keeping us occupied and making us look obsessed and boring while meanwhile Rome burns - they organise not agonise and womens rights and resour es are eroded in other areas; for example in the potential cutting of funding to women's refuges.

YetAnotherSpartacus

I know what you mean, but every time we do rehash it, it is reaching fresh eyes.

The thread about packers for under fives, for instance. That was talked about on here about a year ago.

Now new people are seeing it and are reacting just at one would expect.

Also, if we hold off self-ID, etc, in the UK, it might be a turning point from this from this deranged march to reverse women's rights around the world.

Although there are concerning things like funding cuts for feminists to organise around, this matter is pivotal to make all other thing possible- otherwise, for example, refuges will no longer be for women.

I'm not brave enough todo AIBU, but it might be worth putting the packers up there after Xmas ....

I think it just worries me that last time I checked the topics in FWR (a while ago, ive been busy) there was no thread about the potential loss of funding to women's shelters and yet the incursion of males into these as a result of the GRA is highlighted as a major issue. Also, few posters read FWR. We are putting a lot of effort in fighting a defensive battle and I'm not sure what the gains really are...

Interesting new twist...must say it was only a matter of time.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. No reputable LGBT organisation is promoting peadophilia.

It's a fake homophobic smear www.snopes.com/lgbtp-no-lgbt-is-not-adding-a-p-for-pedosexual/

Men have given it some new names, like minor attracted, but it is pretty much the same heterosexual predatory blokes and their MRA followers that were trying to convince people back in the seventies that sex with children is a natural sexual desire and not a paraphilia, and shouldn't be a crime. They failed again last time the DSM was revised.

Hello all - lurker here. Thanks so much for this thread, it's so good to see women talking sense.

I just wanted to make a small contribution to the statistics on sexual violence, since I've seen a lot of posters write that 98% of sexual offenders are male. I assume this refers to the proportion of prisoners currently imprisoned for sexual offences in England and Wales. The figure is actually more extreme than that for a few reasons:

• sexual offences includes a wide range of crimes aside from rape and sexual assault, incl. crimes that don't involve sexual contact with the victim/s: assisting an offender, procuring a child for prostitution, sex trafficking etc. The 1.5% of imprisoned sex offenders who are female are much more likely to commit these non-contact offences than their male counterparts.
• When women do commit sexual offences, contact and non-contact, they usually do so alongside a male co-offender. They are very unlikely to be the sole offender. Again, this is in contrast to their male counterparts who usually act solo. Often male co-offenders are in abusive relationships with the woman. A typical situation is a man who sexually abuses a woman's children with her help.
• The proportion of sex offenders who are female has risen quite a lot in the last 5 years, from about 0.5% to 1.5%. It's difficult to know why that is because the home office have not been helpful with data. I suspect it's because many more TIMs are being recorded as female.

So in conclusion: very few women commit sexual offences, even fewer commit contact sexual offences, and when they do it's usually in association with a man (often a man they're in a relationship with). Oh and the numbers are changing and we don't know why, but given the recent research published in The Times that found that at least 40% of TIMs in prison are sex offenders, I think we can make an educated guess.

So 98% isn't quite right, although I can't offer a more precise figure. I usually say "at least 99%"

Thank you very much for your post Riveting Rosie.

Can I also add that lumping lesbians in with heterosexual males (be they TIM or not) regarding the potential for sexual offences, ignores the element of power abuse. Do lesbians have power over other women?

Bloody hell thanks for tagging me in that post SpartonDregs I know it was Christmas Eve and you were probably pissed but where to start?

1.	It’s a fake homophobic slur as <strong>Catsrus</strong> kindly pointed out 

2.	It was created to give the false impression that gay people happy to accept pedophilia as a sexual preference and therefore are sexual perverts

3.	It’s actually nothing to do with trans people unless they are gay too as it’s about sexual preference 

4.	A lot of people on this thread are gay and I imagine pretty much 100% support equality for LGB people

5.	You have basically accused everyone on this thread who supports equality for LGB people of supporting pedophilia 

All I can say is I’m glad you and RogueBiscuit are not on my side! With friends like that who needs enemies.

Merry Christmas to the rest of you and keep up the intelligent debate. I don’t have the stamina for a third thread but good luck to those that do.

People should be aware of the history of the Pedophile Information Exchange, understand why people associate paedophilia with the gay community, and so understand why MRA's are able to use this smear tactic.
The more we understand the tactics of the right, the easier we are able to see through them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/pie-and-the-gay-left-in-britain-the-account-by-lucy-robinson-plus-various-articles-newly-online/

Boundry violation however, does not have to involve sexual violence.

It’s not about sexual attraction. It’s about power.

This.

I am not surprised to hear from you, perfectly, that you do not have the stamina for a third thread except, of course, to continue making untrue, irresponsible, and inflammatory, accusations against others in the thread. As you do in each and every thread you comment in.

Thank you rivetingrosie, that was a thought-provoking post

I think people quote the 98% because it's easy to find the stats to back it up. Do you have any good sources for breaking down the stats around female sex offenders?

Does anybody remember this article in the Telegraph about female sex offenders back in March?

pencils I found that article confusing. Why do they have the TIM rapist at the beginning, when it's an article about female sex offenders?