• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emily's Cat

Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
25,410
Location
The Wettest Desert on Earth
Discussion continued from here. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous parts of this thread. But please use your best endeavours to stick to your MA when composing and submitting your posts.
Posted By: Agatha



There are no actual concerns here, just "what if" scenarios and slippery slopes.

:mad: They are all things that are ALREADY happening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suppose these girls want to keep their cisgender male classmates out of the same room, for the same reasons. Should that also be termed prejudicial?

This kind of argument has been used many times before in this thread and no, it wouldn't be. I have never argued for males (either cisgender or transgender) to be given access to the same facilities as females, only that transgender females aren't excluded by cisgender females.
 
That's a classic begging of the question. These facilities, when set up, were segregated by sex. You have given no explanation at all why you suddenly insist they should be segregated by "gender", other than your own personal feelings.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: Paranoid and delusional fantasies, eh?

females don't have the right to prevent males from looking at them when they're naked
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/SPP_OrderMotiontoDismiss.pdf
Judge Alonso concludes that young girls have no right to visual privacy - they have no right to prevent males from looking at them naked without their consent. That is pretty much equivalent to legalizing peeing toms and voyeurism.

nor will females have any right to object if a male exposes their penis to a female
The law came down on the side of Colleen Brenna, and sided with that person's right to have her penis viewable by minor females in the changing room, regardless of whether those girls wanted to see it. Pretty much legalizing flashing and exhibitionism.

Females will certainly not have a right to compete in sports fairly.
Well, Biden just took care of that, didn't he?

they won't have the right to fair representation in politics or to fully participate in the economy on equal footing.
NY has a completely untransitioned transwoman as the "female" representative, supposedly to uphold the needs and interests of female constituents. A few female seats in the UK have been taken by transwomen, which reduces the representation of females in politics. A transwoman was named the most successful female CEO. Eddie Izzard was named the funniest female comedian.

They won't even have the right to be reasonably protected from sexual assault in prison, because the won't have the right to expect that penises won't be present.
California has led the way with that one, allowing transwomen to be placed in female prisons on the basis of their self-identification. Canada has done the same, and also the UK. There've already been several cases of female prisoners' being raped by testicle-having prostate bearer's penises as a result.

So... tell me again how my view of things that have already happened and are continuing to happen are "paranoid and delusional"? :rolleyes:

These are your very one-sided interpretations of these events.
 
This kind of argument has been used many times before in this thread and no, it wouldn't be. I have never argued for males (either cisgender or transgender) to be given access to the same facilities as females, only that transgender females aren't excluded by cisgender females.

You do not understand what 'female' means....
 
A perfect example of why I genuinely feel this issue will never be fully resolved (either here or in meatspace). When the phrase "a female can have a penis" is uttered unironically then one side is discussing from a PoV so utterly divorced from reality that sane (let alone productive) conversation won't be possible. If someone truly believes that a female can have a penis there is no amount of reason capable of cutting through the brain-fog necessary to hold that belief.
 
Last edited:
This kind of argument has been used many times before in this thread and no, it wouldn't be. I have never argued for males (either cisgender or transgender) to be given access to the same facilities as females, only that transgender females aren't excluded by cisgender females.

Again... How are we supposed to distinguish between a transgirl and cisboy?
 
These are your very one-sided interpretations of these events.

So we've gone from "paranoid and delusional" to "well, that's just your interpretation". :rolleyes:

These are things that are already actually happening. They are neither paranoid nor delusional. They are very real. And they have very real negative consequences for females.
 
A perfect example of why I genuinely feel this issue will never be fully resolved (either here or in meatspace). When the phrase "a female can have a penis" is utter unironically then one side is discussing from a PoV so utterly divorced from reality that sane (let alone productive) conversation won't be possible. If someone truly believes that a female can have a penis there is no amount of reason capable of cutting through the brain-fog necessary to hold that belief.

That link to the article comparing creationism to sex-denialism kinda has a point.
 
So we've gone from "paranoid and delusional" to "well, that's just your interpretation". :rolleyes:

These are things that are already actually happening. They are neither paranoid nor delusional. They are very real. And they have very real negative consequences for females.

I'm saying that these are for the most part good decisions for trans equality, and you interpret it differently.
 
Why not, though? Why is it okay (in your view) for the girls to discriminate based on gender but not genitals?

Because it fits her own needs.

Boudicca must not know that in every 30 person locker room of youth girls, there are very likely at least 3 or 4 who experience sexual assault from a male, usually known to them. They often develop PTSD.

Their mental health and trauma doesn't matter to Boudicca because she doesn't even know it exists, how her presence may be a trigger, and actually believes that she is the one who needs to be affirmed by THEM...not knowing the severe damage it can cause.

Boudicca won't even concede for transgirls to use a separate single space area to alleviate the stress it causes on some of these females- again, because she doesn't know about it or, if she does, does not consider it as important as her own needs. She stated that these cases are female girls being discriminatory to transpersons instead of even considering other options like them coping and avoiding reliving a reminder of their trauma again and again and again.
No wonder many girls might just choose NOT to use those types of co-ed rooms, or may even change schools. I think most parents might do it quietly, or the girl will feign some drastic need to leave. Anything to get out of it with the least confrontation which could be just more triggering. That's why a lot of these cases don't get reported or brought to court. That process is horrible too.
They are statistically certain to exist in most of these spaces. There will be abuse survivors trying to cope while others yell at them for being transphobic. They might not have the courage to even say why they cant cope.

If you think this is anecdote, just look at stats, though not every girl is affected the same. Sometimes stats use rape, attempted rape, or other types of assault. Some abuse is way worse than others and I'm not going into it. She can look for herself to see. There may be 6 in the room, and there may be none and they will have reactions unique to themselves.

These spaces are important to them and some girls are frankly not going to handle a male body in their changing space very well. If it is a family member abusing them, this may be the only safe space they know.
The reaction may depend on the personality of that trans person though, perhaps if they were friends beforehand, and how caring and connected the male-bodied person is or can appreciate the reality of those issues to offer appropriate consideration of the girl's absolute need to feel safe there. Many of the other girls also won't know. At this age it is pretty secret and often shameful so they may say different reasons for their actions to not want to be in that space. Even adult women do this. Shame lasts a long time.

Hopefully it is just simple ignorance on the topic.
Maybe she will read a bit about it and find out more about girl's lives.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that these are for the most part good decisions for trans equality, and you interpret it differently.

Good decisions for trans equality, bad decisions for females. I suppose that's a matter of "interpretation"

Still neither paranoid nor delusional though.

Are you walking back your prior claim that this is all in the heads of females? Would you rather clarify your position to be clearer that it's a matter of you not caring that these policies harm females?
 
I do find the goalpost shifting to be... interesting, I suppose.

Boudicca90 said:
Once again, these paranoid and delusional fantasies of a dystopian future for cisgender women are completely unfounded.
Boudicca90 said:
There are no actual concerns here, just "what if" scenarios and slippery slopes.
These are your very one-sided interpretations of these events.
I'm saying that these are for the most part good decisions for trans equality, and you interpret it differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom