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).

What is "subconscious sex"?

In Jungian psychology we all have an inner 'other' - a cross sex image, a constellation of characteristics which we are drawn to - but which form an essential part of our own psyche. The anima and the animus.

But this is psychology......not the body. Sex is in the body. It is in the DNA.

Yet the evidence and testimony of those who have adopted trans identities often confirm this. Have you ever watched the documentary on Netlfix called 'Regretters'? You should...very interesting

"Mikael and Orlando, both in their 60s, look back at their individual journeys through gender-affirming surgery in this award-winning documentary"

I imagine many FWR visitors will have watched Dr Az Hakeem on You Tube, but if you haven't and you would like to explore an alternative viewpoint to @Lostcat 's above, here is the link:

His book 'Detrans' is very much worth a read too

☄️

I am beginning to think that Lostcat is playing Devil's Advocate. Their arguments are so weak and unconvincing that they are confirming to me that having a grounding in reality (human beings cannot change sex) is essential.

"Nor do I think it’s in any way rational to believe that sex segregation (based on reproductive capacity) in society is the solution to VAWG and protects women from rape. Like I say- this is the logic of groups like the Taliban, and it restricts women’s freedoms and in no way prevents violence against women and girls.
None of this is logical."

I now believe that you have assigned a different meaning to the word 'logical' than what is generally understand to be.

Of course it is 'logical' to segregate spaces as needed based on 'sex'. I am very happy to repeat the post addressing your misconceptions about safeguarding if you want.

No safeguarding protocol will work 100% and I don't believe anyone claims that it will. However, for female people, removing access for the part of the population that commit 98% if the sex crimes is a very solid start. And that part of the population has been identified as being male. Despite all your attempts to philosophically deflect from this proven and established fact - it is male people.

Once the large segment of the population that is at high risk is excluded, other protocols can come into place.

There is no way currently for anyone in society to recognise an unknown person as being a sex criminal or not. There fore the only option available is to apply the safeguarding protocols over all people in particular groups.

*'As for statistics demonstrating the overrepresentatjon of trans people in prisons- even if we do have appropriate comparative data to demonstrate this (we don’t) it in no way demonstrates the natural propensity of trans women to commit crimes.

This is also false. 'it in no way demonstrates the natural propensity of trans women to commit crimes.' It DOES indeed contribute toward demonstrating the natural propensity of male people with gender identities to commit crimes. Because if they did not commit crimes, they would not be charged with crimes.

Are you trying to say that society or discrimination is at play and that these male people with gender identities are being unduly influenced to commit crime and their 'natural propensity' is much lower than the statistics show?

Or are you trying to say that they have a lower rate for committing sex crimes but because they are specifically targeted for discriminatory purposes that they are more likely to be convicted for their crimes?

It is not inaccurate to make the statement that MALE people in the UK who have a transgender identity have not to have been found to have the same level of risk, or lower, of committing sex crimes than FEMALE people

And if ever and until proof that that specific group of male people in the UK has been found, they should be considered to be a higher risk to female people and therefore excluded from female single sex spaces.

'There is a huge overrepresentation of people with certain minority ethnicities in the criminal justice system, this isn’t because these groups are more “naturally” violent, it’s because of structural racism/ social and economic disadvantage, etc.'

Again, this is not a credible argument against sex segregation.

You have now attempted to leverage racial issues into your argument and it continues to fail. Because in the UK at the moment we do not segregate spaces open to the public based on race due to what is considered the risk of committing crime by race. This would be an act of illegitimate discrimination.

It is however a legitimate discrimination to exclude male people from female single sex spaces.

I believe you are trying now to conflate illegitimate and legitimate discrimination in order to support your point.

Where did you get your PhD?
I'd say the data about male people committing 98% of crimes of sexual violence are pretty robust.
What discipline or school of thought were you researching within that doesn't trust this fairly universally accepted stuff?
Or is it an epistemological claim you / your research school are making, that we can't trust any data, can't really know anything, and so therefore ... can't have boundaries?
I'd also go easy on the racial equivalence. The numbers there are NOWHERE NEAR 50% of a population committing 98% of crimes of sexual violence for any demographic grouping apart from sex. IMO yours is a racist equivalence.

I really don’t recommend developing opinions on this based on watching a specific documentary. Of course there are all sorts of people and experiences in the world and not everybody’s will be the same. For example, I have a friend who became a lesbian after she was raped at university. It doesn’t follow that lesbianism is an “identity” “adopted” after trauma - for the vast majority of lesbians this of course is not anything like the pathway into lesbianism. - rather being a lesbian is something that they always were and were going to be, a fundamental - most probably innate - characteristic of their person, not an “identity” that they did or didn’t “adopt”. So it is for the majority of trans people.

I'd say the data about male people committing 98% of crimes of sexual violence are pretty robust

but it doesn’t logically follow that sexual violence is caused by biology. It’s rooted in power and patriarchy, If x% of crimes are committed by y ethnicity, does it follow that this race is biologically programmed to commit these crimes? Of course not, there are social reasons for this due to structural / environmental factors.

Sexual crimes are indeed an abuse of power.

You can argue all you like that it is a 'societal' problem and not a innate human problem. And people might agree in part or in full with you.

However, it takes some disconnected thinking to believe that right here and right now that female single sex spaces should not be maintained for female sexed people. That falls into the realm of evangelical thinking, in my opinion. It is like a a discussion with someone who believes that Ayn Rand's ideals should be attempted in today's society. Or a discussion about getting rid of prisons.

It is an idealist declaring that protective structures be completely removed and that people in today's society will simply be the very best people that they can be. That is lovely to think society could be like that. But the reality is that it is not.

Reading this brings to mind Chappell's interview where Chappell declared that it didn't matter that there would be an increase in harm to female people to allow male people into female single sex spaces.

And all the arguments about nature vs societal imbalances are actually irrelevant in the discussion on how to safeguard female people in today's world. Because we live in a society that is driven by power. What you are advocating for has the outcome of increased harm for female people.

Tell us, please, do you have a number of additional female people who are acceptable collateral to be harmed in any way so that your societal 'ideal' can be lived?

This is but one testimony. There are plenty out there. But if you are really interested in what trans identified people have to say about their experience..then 'Regretters' is an excellent watch. Both men transitioned long before 'trans' became a social movement.

Also, you do realise that some of us have trans identifying children, partners, husbands, parents, friends, relations don't you? That some of us are teachers, lecturers, mental health specialists and so on. You know, people with real life experience.

There are plenty of women ( including lesbian women) on this board who would have adopted trans identities if they had been a thing when they were young.

Your points about nature vs societal influences are irrelevant for the robust safeguarding of female people.

And your use of race is conflating illegitimate discrimination with legitimate discrimination.

Also wonder where you acquired the, frankly, preposterous notion that the Taliban are motivated by a desire to protect women from rape?

Yet there are plenty of people who have adopted trans identities that did so suddenly...in ther teens; especially girls. Girls who had shown no previous indication of gender dysphoria - outside of what is normal in childhood development. Most of them lesbians, or else girls on the autistic spectrum.

In fact this is the largest group of transitioners, apart from those men motivated by erotic cross dressing urges.

It’s absolutely a justification for a range policies- covering of women from head to toe- keeping women/ girls at home. To protect their dignity / honour/ risk of sexual violence / rape/ pregnancy etc.

The misuse of race and the fucking Taliban just continues to show the massive holes in the support of the points that are attempted to be strengthened with their usage.

It is using catastrophising as a cognitive distortion device.

But if you are really interested in what trans identified people have to say about their experience

I am very interested in this subject , hence years of scientific study and research. Documentaries are entertaining but I don’t see them as being a reliable source of scientific knowledge. Documentaries are typically build around interesting (and often unique) personal stories, they are based around story telling and the construction of a particular narrative and designed to be intriguing/ entertaining.

Could you please start posting the links to the scientific study and research that convinced you?

That way we can maybe see your arguments more clearly.

☝

Again, is this something you were taught at your university?
Where are you getting this from?
Yes, the Taliban are motivated by a desire to protect honour: the honour of the (male members of) the family. That is why Afghanistan has one of the hightest rates of honour killing in the world. Most women who are raped are then killed by family members. (I guess there may be many more women who manage to preserve their lives by keeping their rapes completely hidden but we don't know).
The Taliban are not motivated by a desire to protect women.
Yes, the Taliban are motivated to prevent women becoming pregnant to someone other than their husband. This motivation is not in any way connected with a desire to protect women.
Sexual politics in Afgahnistan is even more messed up than that, because the rates of sexual abuse of boys is astronomical. It's not something that's well reported on in our media. I'd say it's not something that we (anyone outside Afgahnistan) have much understanding of.
It's a country that's been riven by war and occupation and internal strife and generation upon generation of trauma and I don't think appealing to "the Taliban" and their supposed similarities to sex realist and gender critical women is in any way edifying.

In support of this analysis, and borrowing from a link on another thread:

In the extremists’ logic, if the patriarchal social system can control practically every aspect of females’ lives, especially in the public space, then the risk of temptations for committing sins in the eyes of God is mitigated.

It is totally about the men and shockingly naive to imagine otherwise

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jan/06/2002918533/-1/-1/1/JIPA%20-%20ALVI%20-%2022.PDF

'I'd also go easy on the racial equivalence. The numbers there are NOWHERE NEAR 50% of a population committing 98% of crimes of sexual violence for any demographic grouping apart from sex. IMO yours is a racist equivalence.'

It can validly be argued that it is racist to leverage the illegitimate discrimination of a group to support the access of a group of people who have shown no evidence what so ever that they should no longer be considered male people for the purposes of safeguarding assessment.

Those racial groups are not a prop for another group's political argument against 'legitimate' discrimination.

The conflation of illegitimate and legitimate discrimination comes from an angle of believing any discrimination is harmful or 'bad'.

Plus as you say thecourseoftheriverchanged, the numbers also do not stand up to scrutiny. They do not support the claim.

of course it is a profoundly violent and patriarchal regime - I’m not debating that, that is exactly the point.
Protecting women and girls’ privacy / dignity / honour/ risk of sexual violence / rape/ pregnancy etc. is absolutely a very typical discourse/ narrative/ justification for sex segregation policies in these types of cultures/ settings. It is how ordinary , perfectly decent people, who love their wives/ daughters, often understand these policies in everyday settings. is also a common justification for child marriage of girls. There is a tonne of research on this- look it up.

These sorts of policies are justified with reference to a “naturalised” account/ understanding of sexual violence (the type we are debating) - eg women should cover up their bodies because men can’t control their biological sexual urges .

Could you please start posting the links to the scientific study and research that convinced you?

That way we can maybe see your arguments more clearly.

Yes, please do @Lostcat

And while @Lostcat is chanelling her inner Enoch Powell, I just want address the fact that distinct ethnic and racial groups are overrepresented in crime statistics. But if you then look at the numbers using poverty and level of education as well as race or ethnicity these differences are no longer evident. In other words, if a demographic group (Travellers, Indigenous Australians, Hmong migrants, whatever you pick) is overrepresented among people who grow up in poverty and acheive poor educational outcomes they will be overrepresented in crime statistics, and that poverty / education actually provides a more statistically reliable indicator of likelihood to be convicted of crime than race or ethnicity. I'm not describing this very well, and I'm not saying it's a slam dunk (there are plenty of rabbit holes you can dissapear down online if you want to argue over the numbers further). I just think it's important to point out that there are differences between crime statistics where ethnic or racial groups are overrepresented and the overrepresentation of male people in violent crimes and sexual violent crimes. For one thing, the overrepresentation is orders of magnitude higher when we're talking about sex. For another, male people, as a class, are wealthier than female people, not more impoverished, not more likely to have grown up in poverty.
(I don't want to teach FWRs to suck eggs I just feel a bit dirty reading some of @Lostcat's more recent contributions).