Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

the physical danger of forcing a medically transitioned, testosterone-suppressed individual into a men's facility

Obviously no adult male, however he identifies, has any business being in female spaces.

However, the blog very much wants us to consider the quote above - ie just how dangerous is it to expect a trans identifying man to use the men's facilities.

For whom? For other men, not dangerous. For the trans identifying man? Not dangerous either, according to the transwomen who already use the men's facilities (see Miranda Yardley and others.)

Even if there were a very unlikely risk, (which I don't accept) - all the many physical advantages of male puberty are still present in a transwoman (see Emma Hilton's work). Therefore a transwoman can defend himself against another man - unlike an actual woman against a transwoman.

And again, even if a transwoman was at risk, that has nothing to do with women.

Men, including transwomen, can sort their issues out themselves. Build separate spaces, or just be more accommodating and compassionate towards your fellow males. You are not our problem to solve.

In my experience, which is fairly long, men are often surprisingly unaware of how they come across to women.

In this instance, you have come onto a feminist board on a site called Mumsnet, and earnestly proceeded to tell us all we are wrong, without once even pausing to consider things from our point of view, listen, or ask questions.

You have no idea of the history or background of women on here. You appear to assume we are doing it wrong, without even stopping to check.

Which is why your posts come across as arrogant and patronising and tone deaf.

That is my good faith response to you.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned but he's written about us!

"There is apparently a whole sprawling thread on Mumsnet about me. Multiple pages. Many opinions. Several amateur biologists. Quite a lot of people very confidently explaining what I am, what I am not, where I may pee, where I may not change, and why civilisation will collapse if I stand too near a locker."

"apparently" - yeh, like you haven't read this thread yourself FTF <waves>

It's in the post Today I Built a TERF Annihilation App Because Apparently I Needed a Hobby

This guy really does have too much time on his hands. The rubbish in this new post cannot be summarised here, but I note that he thinks pro-women activists are doing feminism wrong.

We’ve done all this it’s been considered from every angle. It’s still a no.

I feel I should admit at this point that nothing in this thread has yet compelled me to go and read the article.

@Seethlaw
"Then by all means, tell us what the cost is to transwomen."

For example, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/safety-in-restrooms-and-facilites/?hl=en-GB
In the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, 12% reported being verbally harassed, physically attacked, or sexually assaulted when using a restroom in the last year.
In the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey, 6% of respondents reported being verbally harassed, physically attacked, or experiencing unwanted sexual contact when accessing or using a restroom in the last year.

That is the actuarial cost on the other side of the ledger.
Now, the crucial point: acknowledging that data does not mean you have to change your boundary.
You can look at that data and say, "That is terrible, but ensuring the safety of natal women is my absolute priority, so my boundary remains," which is still a perfectly coherent, highly protective ethical stance.

Something was bothering me, but I couldn't place it. It just occurred to me:

Discussion is not supposed to be about winning arguments.

When you get into a discussion with the outlook of winning it, you've already declared yourself intellectually dishonest, since it necessarily means you won't be open to re-examining your position if you come across something that doesn't fit with it:

In short: by titling his post in that way, the author declares that there's no point talking to him because he's not honestly discussing in the first place. Kind of an own goal, really.

Nothing says "angry trancel male" more than overreacting to criticism by building an app with "annihilation" in its name

🎯

Seriously have no interest in his further sophistry.

There is no ledger. There is no cost/benefits analysis required. Men are men. They don’t have any title to women’s spaces.

Quite.

People can't change sex. Men cannot become women. This is law in the UK as well as biological fact.

If some men are in danger from other men in men's toilets, this is a problem for those men, but the solution isn't for them to be allowed into women's toilets. There are other categories of men who might also be in danger from other men, for example, disabled men, gay men, and boys who are too old to go into the women's with their mums. Do you think all of them should be allowed to use the women's? If not, why not? What is the difference? They're all men (or boys), and some are likely to be unable to defend themselves against attack from another man - particularly young boys and disabled men.

Men need to stop being so violent to each other, and if another space is necessary for the vulnerable ones, they need to campaign for it.

I find the spirit of genuine intellectual enquiry is very present on these boards, not least because a lot of us are thinking that this is so crazy that we wish someone would say something that will make it all make sense!

It makes it so disappointing when we get no nearer to a synthesis, either here or irl.

EG

Miranda Yardley: good news! We're safe in the gents!

TRAs: transphobe! Burn the witch!

A paradigm shift will have to happen.

I second this, although in the interest of full disclosure I stopped reading the posts of this one pages back. It became just boring drivel cluttering up the thread about page 6.

The breathtaking arrogance of the man.

He's built a flow chart to tell us why he's right and we're wrong.

My flow chart:

Are you biologically
male yes/no

yes: you can’t use women’s facilities

no: you can use women’s facilities

In 2022 . . . . . 6% of respondents reported [being] verbally harassed, physically attacked, or experiencing unwanted sexual contact

versus what percentage of women experiencing harassment and unwanted contact when men use women's facilities?

Exhibitionism and voyeurism are sex crimes, soiling the facilities is a nuisance. Women hardly ever report either because we know we'd just be laughed at.

Thanks so much for confirming exactly what we've been saying for many years.

Here's a fact check for all you fact fans out there.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

'in the UK at least, a trans person is less likely to be murdered than the average person'

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6182901

And more! Facts everywhere.

'This paper .... analyzes all homicides involving transgender people in Britain from 2000 to 2025. Victims were outnumbered by perpetrators, even excluding those who declared a transgender identity after imprisonment. Almost all cases involved natal males identifying as transwomen. The victim-perpetrator ratio among these individuals closely resembles that for males overall and differs markedly from that for females. BBC News published more than four times as many articles on transgender victims as on perpetrators, contributing to perceptions of exceptional vulnerability. '

Aside from that, whether or not males are at risk of male violence, the solution to this is not to put them in with the women.

The argument that because a certain man is vulnerable from other males, so he must be put in with females, who are vulnerable to him, can only in any way be justified if one prioritises men's feelings, safety, and preference over that of women's.

If you are transgender you are more likely to be a murderer than to be murdered.

Nice, I'm glad you recognise that

Cor you lot have been patient with this clown

he has kept my scrolling thumb busy