Three-day ban on Reddit for “hate”

[ConversingWithStrangers]

The only thing I can think of is posting on a UK sub about male violence. A man said that it’s not just men who have a problem with being violent because he’d been assaulted by a trans woman. I replied, “how did you know your assailant was trans?”.

They literally have subs for men to masturbate to videos of women who have a look of being “dead behind the eyes” they’ve been abused so much.

(It’s either that or somebody doesn’t like my crochet advice).

Lostcat:- Look, I know all the lesbians.

ie there is a way that people who are women think that is different to people who are men think that is an a priori fundamental quality of women not simply a result of sex differences or of the different sexes being treated differently by society.

Im baffled as to how you got that from what I said.

Thats not what I said at all.

The rest of your post is not intelligible to me unfortunately.

But they aren’t though.

But I know you said earlier that you were very happy to tell millions of lesbians that they aren’t lesbians, so I don’t know what more there is to say 🤷🏼‍♀️

They are not female according to sex as observed / assigned / registered at birth but they are female according to subconscious/ psychological sex.
Why do you think that the former should automatically be prioritised over the latter in social / legal policy ?

People with female sexed bodies, regardless of their subconscious sex, have unique needs and vulnerabilities directly related to their female sexed bodies. For example, only people with female sexed bodies have the potential to become pregnant. People with female sexed bodies are also, generally, at much more of a biological disadvantage wrt strength and speed.

People with male sexed bodies, regardless of their subconscious sex, have the potential to impregnate people with female sexed bodies. People with male sexed bodies are also on average much stronger and faster than people with female sexed bodies due to skeletal and muscular differences. On top of this, people with male sexed bodies commit the vast majority of sexual assaults against people with female sexed bodies. This risk factor does not change according to the gender of the male sexed person.

Therefore, people with female sexed bodies need their own laws and protections, and the option of private spaces away from people with male sexed bodies. This is particularly important when they are in a situation where they would otherwise be at risk of sexual assault from a person with a male sexed body.

In less vulnerable situations, a person in charge of a women's space may include physical or subconscious female people as they wish.

Excellent post.
I would just add that if a person in charge of a women's space includes subconscious female people then they must make it crystal clear to the rest of us that they are doing so, becaue it will of course now be a mixed sex space

edited for typo

But they ARE. What do you think the word bisexual means? Do you not know?

Most of the examples you have given are not necessarily either true, or relevant to most policy situations.

Meanwhile the impact of subconscious sex, the vulnerability of trans people, has not been once taken into account in your perspective.

It’s not proportionate and it’s not balanced.

The former is prioritised because it is the status quo and to change the status quo in a democracy you have to convince the majority that there are very good reasons for doing so.

It's not taken into account as it's not a thing that exists.

That’s your conception of justice? The status quo?

If the good reasons for maintaining the status quo outweigh the good reasons for changing it, of course

See it more as not giving up hard won rights without a very good reason.
You may be determined to hand women's rights over to men, but the rest of us aren't so quick to capitulate.

Question.
Has anyone reading or participating on this thread learned anything from it, or in anyway (at least even slightly) changed or broadened their perspective or looked at things in a different way, or from a different angle as a result of the discussion?

How about you answer that question first?

Which of my provided examples are not true or relevant?

Very simply, because the social / legal policies that relate to "women" to which you refer were created based on the needs of people who had been called women because of their sex not their psychology.

Now if you believe Woman was the wrong name for those people that's fine, but the implication of that would be that those social/legal policies were wrongly naned and need to be renamed. What it does not imply is that the social/legal policies created specifically for the needs of one group of people were somehow really intended for a different group of people but nobody realised because the nanes were mixed up!

Seriously, no objection whatsoever for people with the quality of self identified subconscious sex of Woman to go out and organise and lobby and protest to get the social/legal policies they need to support them with the challenges of being subconsciously women. If they make a good case (and no reason they would not) I'll probably support them.in that.

But to say that the people for whom women's rights were originally set up continuing to enjoy those rights instead of people that were nothing to do with the need for or the creation of those rights is is somehow an "injustice" is absolutely backwards (as in cart before horse) thinking. We created the rights based on the needs of the people, we didn't make them up in a vacuum then find some people to give them to!

I would def learn something if you answered this @Lostcat

Or as Phoebe sang in Friends, some people say they’re just kidding themselves.

We’ve heard it all before and it’s convincing no one (sensible)

Well for example- without getting into the whole complex relationship between fertility, gender , sex and transition, what on earth is the relevance of who can get who pregnant to sex segregation in social, political , public , legal life? Sounds like something a member of the Taliban or Isis would say to justify covering women/ girls from head to toe and never allowing them to leave the house, or attend school, incase someone might get them pregnant?

Feel free to join @ellenback21 in telling all those lesbians they are just kidding themselves about their sexuality and aren’t really lesbians.

I think you'll find almost everyone but you knows that lesbians attracted to men aren't lesbians.
I've never met a lesbian who didn't know it, or amyin else as far as I can tell.

But you seem adamant that there are many fake lesbians out there....

You’ve never met a lesbian who finds some trans women attractive? I think you need to expand your social circle.

...to include bisexuals

Honey, we've already covered this. Transwomen are men.
Have you ever met a lesbian who is attracted to men? I think you need to expand your social circle, include some people who understand basic biology and can help you out.

Btw, finds attractive and is attracted to are two very different things. You are so terribly confused.