Hungary votes to end legal recognition of transgender people

[Lamahaha]

nationalfile.com/hungary-votes-134-56-to-end-legal-recognition-of-trans-people/?fbclid=IwAR2XMJp7yzVMt9sh4QDOX69znivEA43eJhcSDVlm-zsMaikbANtXxnhd_uo

The amendment would recognize “sex at birth,” making it impossible to change ones gender throughout the course of their life.

On the proposed draft law, Human Rights Watch wrote:

The proposed amendment to the Registry Act would include a clarification regarding the word “nem,” which in Hungarian can mean both “sex” and “gender,” to specifically refer to the sex at birth (“szuletesi nem”) as “biological sex based on primary sex characteristics and chromosomes.” According to the draft bill, the birth sex, once recorded, cannot be amended.

It's the correct vote, but this government is otherwise authoritarian, neo-fascist, against minorities, pretty awful.


Apparently the TRA's are already planning a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that the new law violates European human rights case law...

[FlyingOink]

Abortion isn't a fix for rape.

You're preaching to the choir, sorry I should have made it clearer that what I was trying to avoid was having to have that argument with TRAs who use "unpregnanting" as a gotcha to the rape argument, especially if we give any time to the "but women do it too" nonsense.

Basically I was pre-empting the "what difference does it make if you get raped by a man or a woman, both are equally likely and you can get an abortion" nonsense.

I didn't make that clear.

[FlyingOink]

single-sex and single-occupant spaces are still needed because of the risk of forced pregnancy and regardless of abortion access
And the other aspect to consider is whether forced pregnancy is the worst aspect of rape, if we decide it is then sexual attacks with no risk of pregnancy can be argued to be less impactful.

So it's not the kind of argument I would personally use in favour of women being able to choose single sex facilities.

I totally get that it is a contributing factor and a very important one, I just wouldn't put it front and centre because the nature of debate at the moment is to selectively quote, strawman and obfuscate and I feel that argument offers too much ammunition.

Even if 6% of lesbians, or even 6% of all women, were sexual assailants towards women
As does this. It's important to be really clear on the fact that women really don't pose a risk to other women sexually, not just that women can't get women pregnant.

[ShinyFootball]

Risk of pregnancy is a very serious additional harm with rape that effects only females.

To state this is not to trivialise the horror of rape for women and men that they know will not result in pregnancy, but to acknowledge the additional risk of pregnancy for women and girls of childbearing age and vaginal rape.

Around the world it is a dimension of multiple situations. The girls that were taken by terrorists, most were pregnant when released. The pregnancy was in that situation evidence of sex, their communities were shunning them. Some said they wanted to stay with their Isis husband. They were having a baby with the man. And they knew things would be difficult at home.

Around the world pregnancy birth and looking after children tie a woman or girl to a man. It's a means of control.

Rape as a weapon of war, the possibility of being impregnated as a result and in many parts of the world you have no option but to have the baby is a terrible thing and part of why it is such an important issue.

In countries such as USA and UK, there have been cases of girls bearing multiple children by their fathers.

In the UK in Rotherham and elsewhere, girls were taken for multiple abortions, and in some cases had the babies, as a result of child sexual exploitation.

Is it really trivialising rape that cannot result in pregnancy, to acknowledge that the examples above are serious and the risk of pregnancy is an additional risk for women and girls who are fertile?

[ShinyFootball]

FlyingOink

'And the other aspect to consider is whether forced pregnancy is the worst aspect of rape, if we decide it is then sexual attacks with no risk of pregnancy can be argued to be less impactful.'

I am interested in your thoughts on my post above.

And also why the assumption is that accepting/ flagging/ talking about these types of issues will result in a 'downgrading' of rape with no risk of pregnancy. I'd be interested to know why you feel that the impact of female biology, when it comes to rape, can only result in a 'downgrade' of other rapes?

[FlyingOink]

ShinyFootball

Clearly I haven't made my point very well.

The risk of pregnancy in rape is an additional risk, not the only risk.
The risk of pregnancy in rape is not the only part of rape that causes pain, fear and suffering in the victim.
The risk of pregnancy in rape is not the only difference between the risk that men pose to women and the risk that women pose to other women.

Even if 6% of lesbians, or even 6% of all women, were sexual assailants towards women, not one of them can leave their victim pregnant so single-sex spaces would remain objectively safer for women and girls than mixed ones.

This statement suggests that the risk of pregnancy by rape is the deciding factor between the risk posed by men and the risk posed by women. In posing the "even if" scenario, the pregnancy risk becomes the focus and not the fact that women don't bloody go around raping women.

It says to me that I, as a lesbian, am less of a threat to the women on this thread simply because I can't impregnate them. If you can't see it, let me tell you - it's offensive, and it offers ammunition to TRAs and MRAs who love to paint lesbians as predatory and no less of a risk than men (hence undermining the argument to exclude men).

At no point did I suggest pregnancy through rape was not a big deal.

[FlyingOink]

I'd be interested to know why you feel that the impact of female biology, when it comes to rape, can only result in a 'downgrade' of other rapes?
I don't think that at all.

My post at 22:23 should make that clear.

I am trying to pre-empt TRA and MRA arguments, I do not share those views.

This is why I suggested that the ability of men to impregnate shouldn't be the reason they are excluded from female spaces, but the fact they can attack and rape and kill.

Men who can't achieve an erection still commit sex attacks. Men who are infertile can still rape.

To try to spin this as "you don't care about kidnapped girls" is bizarre.

[bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg]

It says to me that I, as a lesbian, am less of a threat to the women on this thread simply because I can't impregnate them. If you can't see it, let me tell you - it's offensive, and it offers ammunition to TRAs and MRAs who love to paint lesbians as predatory and no less of a risk than men (hence undermining the argument to exclude men).

The kinds of people who paint lesbians as predatory already deny the stats that say that only 1 in 800 women is a sexual offender versus 1 in 16 men. Repeating those stats with sources results in further denial of the stats and conspiracy-theorising about female-controlled research (Lisak and Miller are both men BTW) and female-controlled govt stats departments (most career mathematicians are men) and/or word salad about govt bodies collecting sexed offending stats being somehow transphobic. It's harder for them to deny the biology surrounding pregnancy, although they do try.

Risk of pregnancy is a very serious additional harm with rape that effects only females.

To state this is not to trivialise the horror of rape for women and men that they know will not result in pregnancy, but to acknowledge the additional risk of pregnancy for women and girls of childbearing age and vaginal rape.

You'd be amazed at how many trans people on twitter will wilfully pretend that they cannot see this.

[FlyingOink]

The kinds of people who paint lesbians as predatory already deny the stats that say that only 1 in 800 women is a sexual offender versus 1 in 16 men. Repeating those stats with sources results in further denial of the stats and conspiracy-theorising about female-controlled research (Lisak and Miller are both men BTW) and female-controlled govt stats departments (most career mathematicians are men) and/or word salad about govt bodies collecting sexed offending stats being somehow transphobic. It's harder for them to deny the biology surrounding pregnancy, although they do try.

So you're saying they won't listen to some facts, you hope they'll listen to other facts?

In a thread about Hungary, when we've seen an anti-LGB backlash across eastern Europe and Russia. Because of conflations with homosexuals and paedophiles, or homosexuals and queer theory.

If facts don't work don't pick other facts you think they will like better. FFS there are American politicians who think a woman's body rejects a pregnancy caused by rape and that ectopic pregnancies can be reimplanted, so let's face it there is no shortage of activists unwilling to listen to facts.

Frankly I'll continue to keep it simple - women don't do the raping - and when some noxious transactivist claims that now you've put the line there, all the castrated men are somehow safe to be in women's spaces, you might argue that wasn't what you meant. And when homophobic abuse escalates because the public now conflate homosexuals with paedophiles in leopard print leggings you might argue it wasn't what you meant.

Women don't rape other women but they clearly don't mind chucking them under buses.

Even if 6% of lesbians, or even 6% of all women, were sexual assailants towards women, not one of them can leave their victim pregnant so single-sex spaces would remain objectively safer for women and girls than mixed ones.
"Lesbians are safer than men because they can't get you pregnant, let's not lump them in with "women", let's just call them less dangerous predators".

[FlyingOink]

Two countries over, we currently have this:

balkaninsight.com/2020/02/25/a-third-of-poland-declared-lgbt-free-zone/

PiS leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski has famously warned, “Hands off our children!” — implying that “LGBT ideology” threatens the morality and health of young Poles.

“pressure exercised by homopropaganda” and the “imposition by LGBT activists of […] programmes and an ideology leading to the depravation of children”.

“You are accompanied by a constant fear of physical violence, compounded by a stuffy atmosphere and verbal aggression,” he said. “And you are aware that in case violence happens, you are dependent only on yourself and associations operating in other cities. You know that the police will consider violence for homophobic reasons as unimportant.

“So you adapt to the reality of Rzeszow. There is always anxiety in the back of your head. You maintain superficial social contacts with most people because you assume in advance that they are homophobic. You wonder […] who will laugh at you and who will give you a passive-aggressive lecture. And what these people would be capable of in an extreme historical moment.”

www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20191212IPR68923/parliament-strongly-condemns-lgbti-free-zones-in-poland

Conflation of the nascent gay rights movement in conservative countries with the queer theory nonsense we have now in the UK leads to legislation worse than Section 28. I've only added this because it is vaguely relevant to the OP, it's interesting to see how much less aggressive the Hungarian legislation appears by comparison.


That's it from me.

[FlyingOink]

Ursula2001

We also found that males were much more likely to self-report being victimized by female sex offenders compared with females (40% vs. 4%).

Which is the same with DV, where a slap by a woman rates as equal to ten years of being beaten by the same man in terms of incidences.
Women don't do the raping.

Good night.

[bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg]

So you're saying they won't listen to some facts, you hope they'll listen to other facts?

Do you have a better tactic? Because I don't.

all the castrated men are somehow safe to be in women's spaces, you might argue that wasn't what you meant.

That objection is already something I've thought about: we can't know if a male human is castrated or not, so we must assume that they aren't.

Women don't rape other women but they clearly don't mind chucking them under buses.

I'm not actually heterosexual. I've had the whole "eww" and women moving away from me thing myself. Including from the first two lesbians I ever met when I said I was bi. No one is demonised like.bisexuals are. I wouldn't make the pregnancy argument if I.thought it would make the situation worse.

"Lesbians are safer than men because they can't get you pregnant, let's not lump them in with "women", let's just call them less dangerous predators".

Did you miss "or even 6% of all women"?

To be fair, the jury is out on the % of female sex offenders...

Thank you Ursula for demonstrating my point. The jury is not out on the mechanics of pregnancy.

[bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg]

Certainly, no one can claim that FWR is an echo chamber now.

[bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg]

Stella Creasy had the same reaction when one of her constituents asked why her 11 year old daughter got a flash of an erection.

Source: twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1045687279266791424

[FloraFox]

The Proportion of Sexual Offenders Who Are Female Is Higher Than Thought: A Meta-Analysis

This study tells us next to nothing about the risk for women of sexual assault by another woman. The authors acknowledge a number of shortcomings in the data, including that the sex of the victim was not available in all the data, which is presumably why the scant information in the study about the sex of the victim shows that about 40% of victims of female offenders were male and about 4% were female. Presumably the other 56% were unspecified rather than the multitudes of "other genders"

The report doesn't disaggregate data (because the data were not disaggregated in the studies they were looking at) for offences related to:

• child victims rather than adults
  
• intimate partner or familial relationships (although prevalence of offences against by mothers against children is mentioned at several points)
  
• co-offending with male partners (and within that group, whether the woman played a part in the offence itself or was involved as an accessory)
  
• offences committed by males but recorded as committed by females
  
• the extent to which the offences were forcible or abusive rather than consensual but still criminal (in some jurisdictions consensual sexual activity between older teens or older teens and young adults would be considered crimes although they wouldn't be elsewhere).
  

Also, there is a wide range of differences in the definitions of sexual offences across different jurisdictions, which makes comparisons difficult. One example in the report is that "promoting prostitution of a minor" is considered a sexual offence in the US but not elsewhere (where it might be criminal but not counted as a sexual offence).

As a result, this study does not contradict my own experience of never having once felt at threat of sexual assault from a lesbian contrasted with the experiences of actual and threatened sexual assault from men.

[ShinyFootball]

@FlyingOink

Sorry, I've been dipping in and out of the thread and was I bit pissed last night, I understand where you're coming from. Sorry for suggesting what I did, I got the bit between my teeth a bit.

[ShinyFootball]

My perspective is that we are operating through the male view of the world as that is default.

A man who has had surgery to remove genitals is not a woman. This is a male penis centric view. A woman is 'desexed' man. A non man. Not able to see a woman as a separate, different category. Years of 'science' back this up > penis envy etc.

A lesbian is sexually attracted to women, as heterosexual men are. Therefore, their thought processes and sexual behaviour must be man-like. Because that is the default. See also, men confused about how lesbians can have sex. Is it even sex without a penis involved? If a lesbian is ok with being penetrated with a sex toy by her partner, why the problem with dick? Again a penis centric male default.

A lot of this discourse of driven by the default male sexuality, penis is man view. Penetration is 'real' sex.

Well no. Women are not penis free men. Lesbian sexual behaviour is not the same as heterosexual men. Women are different and most men don't care to see us as whole people. Well. I believe the expression is 'get over it'.