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).

🤷🏼‍♀️ there’s nothing I can say if you won’t open your mind to the possibility of someone else’s experience.

You know that the overwhelming majority of trans women keep their penis, right?

Lia Thomas has been very clear about the fact that he wants to keep his penis because he enjoys using it to have sex with women.

Once again, regardless of whether it is possible for a male person to experience life as female (which it isn't), why should someone else's perception of themselves have an impact on my rights?

So raping someone with a real penis is a female experience and getting pregnant and giving birth is a male experience?

Keep talking, everyone’s listening…

What?
ok good night all

Lostcat is truly lost.

Ok. But it's still a disconnect between the inner self image and the external physical reality. The trans woman may "experience" himself as female but his body is still factually male both in its own abilities and reactions and in how others respond to him. Regardless of what he may experience himself to be, in the objective reality he shares with other people he has never experienced what it is to be objectively female in the physical world and in society.

So while his "experience of himself as female" may be a real phenomenon, what he is experiencing is still not the same thing as female people experience, and treating him as if it is belittles the needs and experiences of the people who do exist as physically female.

@FlirtsWithRhinos @Heggettypeg i appreciated some of the exchange xx

As mike drops go, claiming the man raping a woman is the one having a “female experience” is a helluva way to go…

#OperationLetThemSpeak

Bizarre

The stupid thing is that @Lostcat doesn't even believe that trans women are women.

If she did, she would have no problem telling trans women that their needs are unimportant.

The constant attempt to elevate trans women over women in the social hierarchy shows that she recognises and treats them as men. Actions speak louder than words.

It truly is, isn’t it? Here we are in the Upside Down where Isla Bryson is experiencing life as a woman/female in your eyes.

And somehow you can’t explain how trans ideology isn’t steeped in misogyny…

Are you lost?

The point was about Isla Bryson.

Isla Bryson is a trans identifying convicted rapist.

Do you seriously believe that Isla Bryson's brain was experiencing itself as female whilst he was using his penis to rape female victims?

This is the bit I struggle to get my head round - the content of an "experience of being female" in the absence of being in a female body. The closest I can get to it is a few times when I have dreamed I am a man, but that's still a "woman's dream about being a man" with no way of knowing that it correlates in the least to any man's experience of being a man.

Do I recollect you to say you are not a transwoman? If so, it's probably unfair to ask you to explain the female without female body thing as we are both wrestling with something we haven't personally experienced. Have any of the transwomen you know been more illuminating on the subject?

Maybe the female experience of Isla was still subconscious while he was doing the raping, then it somehow became conscious when he was being sent to prison and led to him putting on pink leggings.

I have no idea, it’s Lostcat’s logic, but there seems to be a lot of males whose subconscious femaleness somehow becomes conscious when incarceration is involved.

Lostcat

So if a transwoman isn't thinking or feeling like a woman, because they wouldn't know what that was, or if, indeed, such a thing exists, and they're not experiencing any physical sensation as a woman, but they are still a woman, what are they basing that feeling on?

You're an expert in this, you have all this experience, and with all the words in the English language at your disposal, what actual criteria are they using to conclude that they are a woman and not a man.

How do they end the sentence 'I know I'm a woman because...'.

Yes, I have and I'm very grateful for your post of 3/1/2025 @ 18:26, with your explanation of your beliefs about the existence of subconsious sex.
This, IMO, meets the criteria for internal coherence which is required in UK legal system for a belief to be WORIADS, and I think it might be the first time I've come across such on these boards.
You've given me alot to think about with your description of your beliefs about subconcious sex, in terms of how we rub along together in society - people like you who believe in subconsious sex and it's centrality to personhood, and people like me who think this so-called "subconcious sex" is a misapprehension of some combination of externally imposed sex-based expectations, and internal personality traits.
I also think you've very succinctly hit upon the nub of the issue with this question posted on 3/1/2025 @ 20:02 -:
"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 ?
why does that look like justice to you?"
This is a good question and I'll be thinking about this for a while.
But my preliminary response would be to lean on empirical data. The first that come to mind are the results of the Swedish population based matched cohort study which was published in 2011, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3043071/
The findings of this study demonstrate that trans women follow male patterns of offending for violent and sexually violent crimes, even decades after transition.
When it comes to sincerely held beliefs, in a pluralistic society, I think we have to fall back on emprirical data (I'm aware that post-structuralist thought, and following on from this, Queer Theory, seeks to "disrupt" empiricism, but I think this serves the most powerful in society and not the least - therefore, IMO, not, as you put it, what justice looks like).

Holy fucken moley how to undo all the productive foundation building with one seriously seedy wink emoji.

ETA: @Lostcat , simple question, if indeed this is easy to acheive what is the reason this was not acheived in, for example, the case of Karen White? Or, indeed, Isla Bryson (who would have been transferred to the female estate if not for the intervention of the meddling tabloids)? What is it about the process in England and Scottish prison systems that means they failed to safeguard prisoners with both a female bodily sex and female subconscious sex in their case-by-case risk management of trans women prisoners?

Subconcious sex is something like a depressed person's mood, or a psychotic delusion.

That's a fascinating thesis.

But I can't think of much evidence for it?
Hijra in India are subject to different legislation and social obligations to female-body-sex people (of any subconscious sex). The same is true in Thailand of Ladyboys, and of Fa'afafine in Polynesian cultures. I can't think of any example, in any culture and at any point in history, where legal and social expectations differ on the basis of subconscious-sex without regard to body-sex of members of said society.
You have helped me understand why academics who use (subscribe to?) Queer Theory have attempted to posthumously "trans" people like Anne Lister. It provides evidence from history to this idea that gender comes first, and sex derives from it. Lister, of course, got away with wearing pants in spite of her body-sex because of her wealth. Her subconscious sex had nothing to do with it.
That also connects with the Amnesty statement about the Taliban oppressing people who "identify as women and girls."

Sorry, I'm getting into thread spamming territory with yet another post, but I have another question for you, @Lostcat.
Why should the mental aspects of a trans person be taken seriously in society (including in legislation), but not the mental aspects of trans-maxxers?

What do you mean by “male” in this sentence?

This entire 'subconscious sex' concept fails completely though because it is built on a false categorisation. It is really very simple.

A person in a male body can never have a 'subconscious sex' of female because it is simply only ever their concept of what a female person's 'subconscious sex' would be.

And I am sure that everyone has read this following plenty of times now, but, this remains true for this 'subconscious sex' as much as it does for just answering the usual feels like a woman posts.

_

No male can ever experience life as a woman. They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman. (Therefore, their 'subconscious sex' is only ever what they believe is how a female person lives, experiences, lives and feels)

Even when they 'act' like a woman, they are acing as they believe a 'woman' should act.

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way.

Even when they have extreme body modifications, it is to be their own concept of what a female looks like to them. It is not what a female is. How can it be?

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life). It really doesn't matter though. Their motivation is irrelevant to the outcome. And I consider the outcome can only be described as misogyny.

Which is that they will always be just a male who believes they are something they are objectively not.

How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

The logic cannot be any different than that I am afraid.

This is a most concerning post. And it lacks any knowledge or intuitive understanding about safeguarding.

Fucking hell. What a post. And I know it has been addressed but I am just now catching up.

Safeguarding will never 100% protect the person or the group of people the processes and policies are there to protect. The aim is to provide the maximum protection that is possible for that situation.

It is possible for same sex sexual assault to happen. I doubt that any person would disagree that this is a possibility. However, it is less likely to happen than a male person sexually assaulting a female person. And if you then consider the physical strength aspect a same sex sexual assault has more chance (and this is not saying that it will be always successful) of being fought off than a male person assaulting a female person.

And 'privacy'? In the general population of female people, and we can use the MoJ statistics to approximate this, there are less predatory female people than there are male people.

Therefore, having female people segregated will have a very small risk of having a predatory female person who impinges the privacy of another female person in a sexualised manner. And from anecdotal evidence, I believe that female people who have same sex attraction, because they understand the discomfort of female people, are therefore even less likely to be predatory in invading the privacy of another female person. But that is just my understanding and I have not researched it. But the MoJ statistics on sexual predation still indicates a much lower risk of female people committing sexual crimes.

'So yes safeguarding and protecting privacy is important but “sex segregation” isn’t the panacea for achieving that that you think it is.'

And no protective measures on this planet currently is going to provide 100% safety. However this is no reason to remove sex segregation as a safeguarding process.

but they are. This is what you have to try to imagine/ understand, because this is what it is, as impossible as that sounds to you,

No, no and no.