|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On April 29 2025 20:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 18:28 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 16:14 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 13:22 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:
Is your contention that rape doesn’t happen when prisoners of the same biological sex are housed together? Because if not I don’t see where you’re going with this. Prison rape isn’t some new problem caused by trans predators, the specific failings of the prison in this instance would have been unchanged had the cellmate been the same biological sex.
Do you care about addressing prison rape or is this purely about maximizing the problems trans people face? Because I’m certain that most prison rape doesn’t involve trans perpetrators and yet you’re seemingly not concerned about any of those victims.
And do you think that prison rape involving trans people will go down if female presenting trans women are housed in male prisons? I question that as an anti rape strategy.
If anything you could reasonably conclude your stance as a rape maximalist stance. People with penises are overwhelmingly the ones committing rape. People with vaginas are overwhelmingly the victims of rape. Do you think forcing these 2 groups to share a cell is the rape minimizing strategy? Is your best attempt to steelman why women would be against biological males being in womens prison somewhere between “wanting to maximize the problems trans people face” and wanting trans people to be raped in men’s prisons? It’s almost like there is an ocean of room for alternatives and compromise between forcing women to share a cell with a man and forcing a femme appearing trans woman into gen pop of a male prison. The fact that you prefer to ignore that ocean and foist the worst arguments onto the other side nicely proves my point that you’re not anymore interested in nuance and good faith discussion. It's not "women" my friend, women are more likely to be supportive of trans rights than men. It's another of the very common tactics encountered, "Lesbians clearly don't want to date trans women and I'm on their side", (polls come out that show the large majority of lesbians support trans people), "Ah well nevertheless"... There might be an "ocean of room for alternatives" but what I am quite convinced of is that you haven't spent a single minute thinking about any of them, because you don't care about this at all. So, you know, describe those alternatives that you think would be better, go for it. Wrong. More women (and men) think that trans women with penises should go to a men's prison than a women's prison. By a fairly wide margin. Women and men’s views are largely identical: 57% of men and 61% of women say this type of offender should go to a men’s prison, with only 14-15% saying they should go to a women’s prison. Personally I try to judge the goodness of something on my own and I don't really care what opinion polls say, but if you're going to cite opinion polls as some type of argument you should at least make sure they agree with your stance. Not what I claimed, I said "supportive of trans rights". Especially in the context of the UK, it is very common for trans exclusionists to act as if they are standing up for women, when it is very clear that trans rights are a feminist issue and fighting against trans rights is, well, not that. Because of that rhetorical strategy, the women of Terf Island are now more likely to be transphobic than the women of other places on this planet, but they're still usually either more supportive than men or at an equal level to men depending on the specific question. You quoted a source that says "Women and men’s views are largely identical" to describe the "fairly wide margin" by which more women support this particular claim, which I find amusing. Anyway, let's summarize this exercise in steelmanning, shall we? According to those last few exchanges, the "good arguments" that the right has on the topic of trans rights are: "here's a trans woman who raped someone in prison" and "if trans women are women then nobody is trans"? Those are terrible arguments, I would definitely have to deny basic reality in order to consider them. Anything better? I don't know why you'd have to ignore basic reality to consider that women have been raped in women's prison by men claiming to be women. I even gave you the article saying as much. Here's another. And another. And another. All you have to do is believe women. See I think this is bad. I think it's bad because I follow the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I were a vulnerable women I would not want to be locked in a cage with a person with a penis knowing that they are statistically far more likely to commit sexual assault and knowing they are far more likely to be physically stronger than me. Hell, it's almost like there's a reason we have separate prisons for men and women in the first place. You seem to think it's okay because either a) We're suspicious that BJ doesn't care enough about rape in men's prisons or b) there's an obvious dichotomy where either we have to force women to share prison cells with people with penises or we have to let trans women be raped in men's prisons and there's no middle ground. Arguments that are so nonsensical I don't even know how to approach them.
But you do know why, though, because Kwark and I have already told you why. You not answering back is not the same as the thing not having been said. Rape in prison isn't a trans women vs cis women issue, it's in the overwhelming majority of cases a cis men vs cis men issue. An honest approach to dealing with rapes in prison isn't "let's exclude trans people", as that would make it so that, what, 99,99% of the rapes that are happening in prison are still happening. As such, it is very clear that your interest in bringing this up is just the exclusion of trans women, and not the safety of rape victims, and if I were to pretend otherwise it would not be rooted in reality.
I had a similar exchange with someone who talked about sexual assaults. They had an issue with trans women assaulting women outside of prisons, women are unsafe. They quoted some data to support their point, in which 60 trans women were currently in prison in the UK for sexual assault. In the same data, 13452 cis men were in prison for sexual assault. I noticed that 13452 was a larger number than 60 and pointed it out to them. They didn't want anything to be done about cis men though, cis men aren't making them feel unsafe. Only trans people. See the issue?
|
We're not okay with trans women raping women. In fact, we're simply not okay with rape in general. You don't need to make a specific distinction there. It's not difficult to understand. Being against rape automatically means that trans women raping women is not okay. This is a non-discussion made, again by BJ, into a stupid discussion.
|
|
|
On April 29 2025 20:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 18:28 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 16:14 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 13:22 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:
Is your contention that rape doesn’t happen when prisoners of the same biological sex are housed together? Because if not I don’t see where you’re going with this. Prison rape isn’t some new problem caused by trans predators, the specific failings of the prison in this instance would have been unchanged had the cellmate been the same biological sex.
Do you care about addressing prison rape or is this purely about maximizing the problems trans people face? Because I’m certain that most prison rape doesn’t involve trans perpetrators and yet you’re seemingly not concerned about any of those victims.
And do you think that prison rape involving trans people will go down if female presenting trans women are housed in male prisons? I question that as an anti rape strategy.
If anything you could reasonably conclude your stance as a rape maximalist stance. People with penises are overwhelmingly the ones committing rape. People with vaginas are overwhelmingly the victims of rape. Do you think forcing these 2 groups to share a cell is the rape minimizing strategy? Is your best attempt to steelman why women would be against biological males being in womens prison somewhere between “wanting to maximize the problems trans people face” and wanting trans people to be raped in men’s prisons? It’s almost like there is an ocean of room for alternatives and compromise between forcing women to share a cell with a man and forcing a femme appearing trans woman into gen pop of a male prison. The fact that you prefer to ignore that ocean and foist the worst arguments onto the other side nicely proves my point that you’re not anymore interested in nuance and good faith discussion. It's not "women" my friend, women are more likely to be supportive of trans rights than men. It's another of the very common tactics encountered, "Lesbians clearly don't want to date trans women and I'm on their side", (polls come out that show the large majority of lesbians support trans people), "Ah well nevertheless"... There might be an "ocean of room for alternatives" but what I am quite convinced of is that you haven't spent a single minute thinking about any of them, because you don't care about this at all. So, you know, describe those alternatives that you think would be better, go for it. Wrong. More women (and men) think that trans women with penises should go to a men's prison than a women's prison. By a fairly wide margin. Women and men’s views are largely identical: 57% of men and 61% of women say this type of offender should go to a men’s prison, with only 14-15% saying they should go to a women’s prison. Personally I try to judge the goodness of something on my own and I don't really care what opinion polls say, but if you're going to cite opinion polls as some type of argument you should at least make sure they agree with your stance. Not what I claimed, I said "supportive of trans rights". Especially in the context of the UK, it is very common for trans exclusionists to act as if they are standing up for women, when it is very clear that trans rights are a feminist issue and fighting against trans rights is, well, not that. Because of that rhetorical strategy, the women of Terf Island are now more likely to be transphobic than the women of other places on this planet, but they're still usually either more supportive than men or at an equal level to men depending on the specific question. You quoted a source that says "Women and men’s views are largely identical" to describe the "fairly wide margin" by which more women support this particular claim, which I find amusing. Anyway, let's summarize this exercise in steelmanning, shall we? According to those last few exchanges, the "good arguments" that the right has on the topic of trans rights are: "here's a trans woman who raped someone in prison" and "if trans women are women then nobody is trans"? Those are terrible arguments, I would definitely have to deny basic reality in order to consider them. Anything better? I don't know why you'd have to ignore basic reality to consider that women have been raped in women's prison by men claiming to be women. I even gave you the article saying as much. Here's another. And another. And another. All you have to do is believe women. See I think this is bad. I think it's bad because I follow the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I were a vulnerable women I would not want to be locked in a cage with a person with a penis knowing that they are statistically far more likely to commit sexual assault and knowing they are far more likely to be physically stronger than me. Hell, it's almost like there's a reason we have separate prisons for men and women in the first place. You seem to think it's okay because either a) We're suspicious that BJ doesn't care enough about rape in men's prisons or b) there's an obvious dichotomy where either we have to force women to share prison cells with people with penises or we have to let trans women be raped in men's prisons and there's no middle ground. Arguments that are so nonsensical I don't even know how to approach them. Because everyone knows you don't give a shit. You just want to rage against trans people.
you want to focus on the 0.0001% while ignoring the 99.9999% that is simple 'rape is bad'.
|
On April 29 2025 20:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 20:12 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 19:21 Nebuchad wrote:
Cis women were assigned female at birth, and trans women were assigned male at birth? That's a pretty big difference? What are you even saying lol Considering that you are rather selective in your answers I'll just go for the bolded. "That's a pretty big difference?" - Why? A penis and a vagina look different, which I believe you should be aware of at this point. Also different hormones, different secondary sexual characteristics, different gender expectations in society, one group gets pregnant and the other doesn't. Let me know if you require some further elaboration, I'll be here.
Seems then that we agree then that trans women are not women? Differences you mentioned seem rather significant?
|
On April 29 2025 21:00 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 20:19 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 20:12 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 19:21 Nebuchad wrote:
Cis women were assigned female at birth, and trans women were assigned male at birth? That's a pretty big difference? What are you even saying lol Considering that you are rather selective in your answers I'll just go for the bolded. "That's a pretty big difference?" - Why? A penis and a vagina look different, which I believe you should be aware of at this point. Also different hormones, different secondary sexual characteristics, different gender expectations in society, one group gets pregnant and the other doesn't. Let me know if you require some further elaboration, I'll be here. Seems then that we agree then that trans women are not women? Differences you mentioned seem rather significant?
Again, are you under the impression that trans women think they were born with female sexual organs, or that anyone else thought so? This is literally what the word "trans" exists to say, that they were not.
|
On April 29 2025 21:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 21:00 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 20:19 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 20:12 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 19:21 Nebuchad wrote:
Cis women were assigned female at birth, and trans women were assigned male at birth? That's a pretty big difference? What are you even saying lol Considering that you are rather selective in your answers I'll just go for the bolded. "That's a pretty big difference?" - Why? A penis and a vagina look different, which I believe you should be aware of at this point. Also different hormones, different secondary sexual characteristics, different gender expectations in society, one group gets pregnant and the other doesn't. Let me know if you require some further elaboration, I'll be here. Seems then that we agree then that trans women are not women? Differences you mentioned seem rather significant? Again, are you under the impression that trans women think they were born with female sexual organs, or that anyone else thought so? This is literally what the word "trans" exists to say, that they were not.
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
Regarding prison talk:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
page 3:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent
official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =16.8%
|
On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations.
|
On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 21:11 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:00 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 20:19 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 20:12 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 19:21 Nebuchad wrote:
Cis women were assigned female at birth, and trans women were assigned male at birth? That's a pretty big difference? What are you even saying lol Considering that you are rather selective in your answers I'll just go for the bolded. "That's a pretty big difference?" - Why? A penis and a vagina look different, which I believe you should be aware of at this point. Also different hormones, different secondary sexual characteristics, different gender expectations in society, one group gets pregnant and the other doesn't. Let me know if you require some further elaboration, I'll be here. Seems then that we agree then that trans women are not women? Differences you mentioned seem rather significant? Again, are you under the impression that trans women think they were born with female sexual organs, or that anyone else thought so? This is literally what the word "trans" exists to say, that they were not. I am not sure how you reached this conclusion? I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this. Regarding prison talk: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/page 3: Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners): 76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9% 125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3% 13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =16.8%
Though, this is specifically for people who have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence.
So, not a measure of sexual offences commited while in prison.
|
Northern Ireland25339 Posts
On April 29 2025 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 18:28 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 16:14 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 13:22 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:
Is your contention that rape doesn’t happen when prisoners of the same biological sex are housed together? Because if not I don’t see where you’re going with this. Prison rape isn’t some new problem caused by trans predators, the specific failings of the prison in this instance would have been unchanged had the cellmate been the same biological sex.
Do you care about addressing prison rape or is this purely about maximizing the problems trans people face? Because I’m certain that most prison rape doesn’t involve trans perpetrators and yet you’re seemingly not concerned about any of those victims.
And do you think that prison rape involving trans people will go down if female presenting trans women are housed in male prisons? I question that as an anti rape strategy.
If anything you could reasonably conclude your stance as a rape maximalist stance. People with penises are overwhelmingly the ones committing rape. People with vaginas are overwhelmingly the victims of rape. Do you think forcing these 2 groups to share a cell is the rape minimizing strategy? Is your best attempt to steelman why women would be against biological males being in womens prison somewhere between “wanting to maximize the problems trans people face” and wanting trans people to be raped in men’s prisons? It’s almost like there is an ocean of room for alternatives and compromise between forcing women to share a cell with a man and forcing a femme appearing trans woman into gen pop of a male prison. The fact that you prefer to ignore that ocean and foist the worst arguments onto the other side nicely proves my point that you’re not anymore interested in nuance and good faith discussion. It's not "women" my friend, women are more likely to be supportive of trans rights than men. It's another of the very common tactics encountered, "Lesbians clearly don't want to date trans women and I'm on their side", (polls come out that show the large majority of lesbians support trans people), "Ah well nevertheless"... There might be an "ocean of room for alternatives" but what I am quite convinced of is that you haven't spent a single minute thinking about any of them, because you don't care about this at all. So, you know, describe those alternatives that you think would be better, go for it. Wrong. More women (and men) think that trans women with penises should go to a men's prison than a women's prison. By a fairly wide margin. Women and men’s views are largely identical: 57% of men and 61% of women say this type of offender should go to a men’s prison, with only 14-15% saying they should go to a women’s prison. Personally I try to judge the goodness of something on my own and I don't really care what opinion polls say, but if you're going to cite opinion polls as some type of argument you should at least make sure they agree with your stance. Not what I claimed, I said "supportive of trans rights". Especially in the context of the UK, it is very common for trans exclusionists to act as if they are standing up for women, when it is very clear that trans rights are a feminist issue and fighting against trans rights is, well, not that. Because of that rhetorical strategy, the women of Terf Island are now more likely to be transphobic than the women of other places on this planet, but they're still usually either more supportive than men on at an equal level to men depending on the specific question. Fighting against rights for trans people has never been a feminist thing, since the good old days of Glinner and Rowling allying themselves with hardcore Christian fundamentalist anti-abortion groups. They'd rather see women have fewer rights than trans people have more rights. Its a hate based movement, nothing more. I'm not surprised by this court decision. The UK is a uniquely transphobic country, considering how relaxed we are generally about social issues.
Yeah, Glinner is a great example of someone who clearly became deranged by hatred of trans people over time, way over and above any plausible concern for women. Rowling’s rhetoric and rationales less so, but she’s consciously allied with some real shitbags.
Glinner’s probably not one that US folks are super familiar with, although Irish he was well on his way to ‘national treasure’, legendary status having written some of our all-time most beloved sitcoms, and contributed to many others.
I’m not sure the UK is comparatively that transphobic, but it’s hard to get a real gauge of sentiment on the ground elsewhere, especially countries I don’t speak the language of.
Hasn’t really been mentioned but a good litmus test for what motivates sentiment on this issue approaches, least in the UK. I still think we’ve a way to go regardless, but I don’t know if we’re less tolerant than say, Germany or France or w/e, I don’t get that exposure to their particular cultural zeitgeist.
Anti-trans activists have, in recent years mostly been given everything they claim to be asking for.
1. Sporting bodies have been forming their own guidelines, and frequently this involves segregation by birth gender. At professional/elite ranks, and frequently at high levels all the way down, say an under 18s regional/national competition. Some allow some intermingling below high levels of outright/age-level competition, some have gone with blanket bans.
2. This particular rally of ‘bathroom tennis’ has seemingly been won.
3. Seemingly those born male aren’t going to be sent to women’s prisons based on the SC ruling.
Now, to reiterate, I think the ‘concerns for women and girls’ covered by 2 and 3 are inflated and stoked to begin with. But even if it was predicated on mostly bullshit IMO, it’s been addressed right?
One might naturally expect much of this to die down in the UK subsequently, but if I were a betting man I wouldn’t personally expect it to. Perhaps the middle ground folks who aren’t for trans erasure but do have concerns will be less receptive, but I don’t think much of the pushback we’ve seen the past decade or so is truly predicated in these concerns to begin with.
I would like to be proven wrong, we shall have to wait and see there. My intuition is a lot of it is driven by disgust and bigotry, but presented with a reasonable-foot-forward approach.
|
On April 29 2025 20:36 Uldridge wrote:
We're not okay with trans women raping women. In fact, we're simply not okay with rape in general. You don't need to make a specific distinction there. It's not difficult to understand. Being against rape automatically means that trans women raping women is not okay. This is a non-discussion made, again by BJ, into a stupid discussion.
I'd like to add that the core problem should simply be that there is apparently way too much rape in prisons. That sounds like a problem that is worth solving on its own, no matter who rapes whom.
Way too many people seem to be kinda okay with male on male prison rape (kinda as part of the punishment for doing a crime?), and only get angry about it when trans people might be involved.
|
On April 29 2025 22:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2025 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 18:28 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 16:14 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 13:22 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:
Is your contention that rape doesn’t happen when prisoners of the same biological sex are housed together? Because if not I don’t see where you’re going with this. Prison rape isn’t some new problem caused by trans predators, the specific failings of the prison in this instance would have been unchanged had the cellmate been the same biological sex.
Do you care about addressing prison rape or is this purely about maximizing the problems trans people face? Because I’m certain that most prison rape doesn’t involve trans perpetrators and yet you’re seemingly not concerned about any of those victims.
And do you think that prison rape involving trans people will go down if female presenting trans women are housed in male prisons? I question that as an anti rape strategy.
If anything you could reasonably conclude your stance as a rape maximalist stance. People with penises are overwhelmingly the ones committing rape. People with vaginas are overwhelmingly the victims of rape. Do you think forcing these 2 groups to share a cell is the rape minimizing strategy? Is your best attempt to steelman why women would be against biological males being in womens prison somewhere between “wanting to maximize the problems trans people face” and wanting trans people to be raped in men’s prisons? It’s almost like there is an ocean of room for alternatives and compromise between forcing women to share a cell with a man and forcing a femme appearing trans woman into gen pop of a male prison. The fact that you prefer to ignore that ocean and foist the worst arguments onto the other side nicely proves my point that you’re not anymore interested in nuance and good faith discussion. It's not "women" my friend, women are more likely to be supportive of trans rights than men. It's another of the very common tactics encountered, "Lesbians clearly don't want to date trans women and I'm on their side", (polls come out that show the large majority of lesbians support trans people), "Ah well nevertheless"... There might be an "ocean of room for alternatives" but what I am quite convinced of is that you haven't spent a single minute thinking about any of them, because you don't care about this at all. So, you know, describe those alternatives that you think would be better, go for it. Wrong. More women (and men) think that trans women with penises should go to a men's prison than a women's prison. By a fairly wide margin. Women and men’s views are largely identical: 57% of men and 61% of women say this type of offender should go to a men’s prison, with only 14-15% saying they should go to a women’s prison. Personally I try to judge the goodness of something on my own and I don't really care what opinion polls say, but if you're going to cite opinion polls as some type of argument you should at least make sure they agree with your stance. Not what I claimed, I said "supportive of trans rights". Especially in the context of the UK, it is very common for trans exclusionists to act as if they are standing up for women, when it is very clear that trans rights are a feminist issue and fighting against trans rights is, well, not that. Because of that rhetorical strategy, the women of Terf Island are now more likely to be transphobic than the women of other places on this planet, but they're still usually either more supportive than men on at an equal level to men depending on the specific question. Fighting against rights for trans people has never been a feminist thing, since the good old days of Glinner and Rowling allying themselves with hardcore Christian fundamentalist anti-abortion groups. They'd rather see women have fewer rights than trans people have more rights. Its a hate based movement, nothing more. I'm not surprised by this court decision. The UK is a uniquely transphobic country, considering how relaxed we are generally about social issues. Yeah, Glinner is a great example of someone who clearly became deranged by hatred of trans people over time, way over and above any plausible concern for women. Rowling’s rhetoric and rationales less so, but she’s consciously allied with some real shitbags. Glinner’s probably not one that US folks are super familiar with, although Irish he was well on his way to ‘national treasure’, legendary status having written some of our all-time most beloved sitcoms, and contributed to many others. I’m not sure the UK is comparatively that transphobic, but it’s hard to get a real gauge of sentiment on the ground elsewhere, especially countries I don’t speak the language of. Hasn’t really been mentioned but a good litmus test for what motivates sentiment on this issue approaches, least in the UK. I still think we’ve a way to go regardless, but I don’t know if we’re less tolerant than say, Germany or France or w/e, I don’t get that exposure to their particular cultural zeitgeist. Anti-trans activists have, in recent years mostly been given everything they claim to be asking for. 1. Sporting bodies have been forming their own guidelines, and frequently this involves segregation by birth gender. At professional/elite ranks, and frequently at high levels all the way down, say an under 18s regional/national competition. Some allow some intermingling below high levels of outright/age-level competition, some have gone with blanket bans. 2. This particular rally of ‘bathroom tennis’ has seemingly been won. 3. Seemingly those born male aren’t going to be sent to women’s prisons based on the SC ruling. Now, to reiterate, I think the ‘concerns for women and girls’ covered by 2 and 3 are inflated and stoked to begin with. But even if it was predicated on mostly bullshit IMO, it’s been addressed right? One might naturally expect much of this to die down in the UK subsequently, but if I were a betting man I wouldn’t personally expect it to. Perhaps the middle ground folks who aren’t for trans erasure but do have concerns will be less receptive, but I don’t think much of the pushback we’ve seen the past decade or so is truly predicated in these concerns to begin with. I would like to be proven wrong, we shall have to wait and see there. My intuition is a lot of it is driven by disgust and bigotry, but presented with a reasonable-foot-forward approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-transgender_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom
In trans circles GB is known as 'TERF island'.
|
On April 29 2025 22:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 29 2025 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 18:28 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 16:14 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 13:22 BlackJack wrote:On April 29 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:
Is your contention that rape doesn’t happen when prisoners of the same biological sex are housed together? Because if not I don’t see where you’re going with this. Prison rape isn’t some new problem caused by trans predators, the specific failings of the prison in this instance would have been unchanged had the cellmate been the same biological sex.
Do you care about addressing prison rape or is this purely about maximizing the problems trans people face? Because I’m certain that most prison rape doesn’t involve trans perpetrators and yet you’re seemingly not concerned about any of those victims.
And do you think that prison rape involving trans people will go down if female presenting trans women are housed in male prisons? I question that as an anti rape strategy.
If anything you could reasonably conclude your stance as a rape maximalist stance. People with penises are overwhelmingly the ones committing rape. People with vaginas are overwhelmingly the victims of rape. Do you think forcing these 2 groups to share a cell is the rape minimizing strategy? Is your best attempt to steelman why women would be against biological males being in womens prison somewhere between “wanting to maximize the problems trans people face” and wanting trans people to be raped in men’s prisons? It’s almost like there is an ocean of room for alternatives and compromise between forcing women to share a cell with a man and forcing a femme appearing trans woman into gen pop of a male prison. The fact that you prefer to ignore that ocean and foist the worst arguments onto the other side nicely proves my point that you’re not anymore interested in nuance and good faith discussion. It's not "women" my friend, women are more likely to be supportive of trans rights than men. It's another of the very common tactics encountered, "Lesbians clearly don't want to date trans women and I'm on their side", (polls come out that show the large majority of lesbians support trans people), "Ah well nevertheless"... There might be an "ocean of room for alternatives" but what I am quite convinced of is that you haven't spent a single minute thinking about any of them, because you don't care about this at all. So, you know, describe those alternatives that you think would be better, go for it. Wrong. More women (and men) think that trans women with penises should go to a men's prison than a women's prison. By a fairly wide margin. Women and men’s views are largely identical: 57% of men and 61% of women say this type of offender should go to a men’s prison, with only 14-15% saying they should go to a women’s prison. Personally I try to judge the goodness of something on my own and I don't really care what opinion polls say, but if you're going to cite opinion polls as some type of argument you should at least make sure they agree with your stance. Not what I claimed, I said "supportive of trans rights". Especially in the context of the UK, it is very common for trans exclusionists to act as if they are standing up for women, when it is very clear that trans rights are a feminist issue and fighting against trans rights is, well, not that. Because of that rhetorical strategy, the women of Terf Island are now more likely to be transphobic than the women of other places on this planet, but they're still usually either more supportive than men on at an equal level to men depending on the specific question. Fighting against rights for trans people has never been a feminist thing, since the good old days of Glinner and Rowling allying themselves with hardcore Christian fundamentalist anti-abortion groups. They'd rather see women have fewer rights than trans people have more rights. Its a hate based movement, nothing more. I'm not surprised by this court decision. The UK is a uniquely transphobic country, considering how relaxed we are generally about social issues. Yeah, Glinner is a great example of someone who clearly became deranged by hatred of trans people over time, way over and above any plausible concern for women. Rowling’s rhetoric and rationales less so, but she’s consciously allied with some real shitbags. Glinner’s probably not one that US folks are super familiar with, although Irish he was well on his way to ‘national treasure’, legendary status having written some of our all-time most beloved sitcoms, and contributed to many others. I’m not sure the UK is comparatively that transphobic, but it’s hard to get a real gauge of sentiment on the ground elsewhere, especially countries I don’t speak the language of. Hasn’t really been mentioned but a good litmus test for what motivates sentiment on this issue approaches, least in the UK. I still think we’ve a way to go regardless, but I don’t know if we’re less tolerant than say, Germany or France or w/e, I don’t get that exposure to their particular cultural zeitgeist. Anti-trans activists have, in recent years mostly been given everything they claim to be asking for. 1. Sporting bodies have been forming their own guidelines, and frequently this involves segregation by birth gender. At professional/elite ranks, and frequently at high levels all the way down, say an under 18s regional/national competition. Some allow some intermingling below high levels of outright/age-level competition, some have gone with blanket bans. 2. This particular rally of ‘bathroom tennis’ has seemingly been won. 3. Seemingly those born male aren’t going to be sent to women’s prisons based on the SC ruling. Now, to reiterate, I think the ‘concerns for women and girls’ covered by 2 and 3 are inflated and stoked to begin with. But even if it was predicated on mostly bullshit IMO, it’s been addressed right?
I agree with this, though I think that point 3 probably needs more data on to give a proper and fair assessment.
On April 29 2025 22:14 WombaT wrote:
One might naturally expect much of this to die down in the UK subsequently, but if I were a betting man I wouldn’t personally expect it to. Perhaps the middle ground folks who aren’t for trans erasure but do have concerns will be less receptive, but I don’t think much of the pushback we’ve seen the past decade or so is truly predicated in these concerns to begin with.
I would like to be proven wrong, we shall have to wait and see there. My intuition is a lot of it is driven by disgust and bigotry, but presented with a reasonable-foot-forward approach.
I think that's the hope to be honest, Scotland kind of kicked this whole thing off and this ruling I think kind of goes against what Starmer has previously said, he's now changed his mind and this has played well for the Tories... which I think will mean that they might push this issue a bit more, but I'm not sure how much energy this has for the loudest voices, which come from the right.
Labour has no real reason to relitigate this as it's an area they're weaker on that the Tories politically, and the Tories are so weak politically, seems unlikely they'll be able to get anyone to care about much they have to say, at least with Kemi as leader.
The more I read about the Scotland bill that kicked this whole thing of, the more of the opinion I am that the bill was always designed to be a political weapon for the SNP to try and attack the then Tory UK Government. They could have amended and changed key aspects of the bill they proposed in order to give it a much better chance of passing, like removing the age from 18 to 16, and other aspects that would have caused conflict with existing UK law... but instead (IMO) they wanted to use this as a weapon, and failed.
|
On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations.
Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
In top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. )
If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty.
Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are?
|
United States42691 Posts
On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are?
This is a very strange argument. We're arguing things in and out of existence based on the existence of words for them now? The trans issue seems less pressing than the dragon one at this point.
|
On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are?
Sorry mate I was under the impression that we were speaking english, one of the languages in which the word "cisgender" exists? Maybe if you want to continue in northern andamanese we'll get different conclusions.
English is also a language in which the word "false equivalence" has a specific meaning, so maybe you'll be able to explain to me how the fallacy works in this case?
|
On April 29 2025 23:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are? This is a very strange argument. We're arguing things in and out of existence based on the existence of words for them now? The trans issue seems less pressing than the dragon one at this point.
Isnt the entire Nabuchad argument that statement "trans women are women" is true, based on the fact that cis women are woman and trans women are women. If you remove cis (which is relatively new word) his argument doesnt hold.
On April 29 2025 23:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are? Sorry mate I was under the impression that we were speaking english, one of the languages in which the word "cisgender" exists? Maybe if you want to continue in northern andamanese we'll get different conclusions. English is also a language in which the word "false equivalence" has a specific meaning, so maybe you'll be able to explain to me how the fallacy works in this case?
I was under the impression that we arguing whether statement "trans women are women" is true. If it is, it should be true in any language.
False equivalence - women believe they are women, some men believe they are women, therefore those men are women. To make it work you need to add something like "cis" on the very beginning this statement.
|
On April 30 2025 00:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 23:48 KwarK wrote:On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are? This is a very strange argument. We're arguing things in and out of existence based on the existence of words for them now? The trans issue seems less pressing than the dragon one at this point. Isnt the entire Nabuchad argument that statement "trans women are women" is true, based on the fact that cis women are woman and trans women are women. If you remove cis (which is relatively new word) his argument doesnt hold. Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 23:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are? Sorry mate I was under the impression that we were speaking english, one of the languages in which the word "cisgender" exists? Maybe if you want to continue in northern andamanese we'll get different conclusions. English is also a language in which the word "false equivalence" has a specific meaning, so maybe you'll be able to explain to me how the fallacy works in this case? I was under the impression that we arguing whether statement "trans women are women" is true. If it is, it should be true in any language. False equivalence - women believe they are women, some men believe they are women, therefore those men are women. To make it work you need to add something like "cis" on the very beginning this statement.
First, the number that you gave was just the amount of languages that have a wiki page on this topic. It doesn't mean that the word only exists in 58 languages. Let's use your insane logic on another word, "crime"! It has only 110 pages on wiki, which means that there are around 6900 languages where crime doesn't exist! Silly.
Second, this is (obviously) not how anything works. Languages don't map perfectly on one another, you'll always find some words that don't exist in other languages. Especially since a lot of languages are endangered and spoken by very few people in remote areas. Do you reckon that the word "computer" exists in the language of every tribe in the Amazon forest? No? Then you know your point is flawed.
We could check how many of the languages that are widely spoken have a word for "cisgender", maybe? But then that would be all of them, wouldn't it, and you wouldn't like that. That's probably why you went to ethnologue instead.
This is actually so stupid that it's making me angry, lol. I don't expect much from reactionaries trying to use logic but even I expected better than "there is no word for thank you in dothraki".
"False equivalence - women believe they are women, some men believe they are women, therefore those men are women. To make it work you need to add something like "cis" on the very beginning this statement."
If I add the word cis "to make it work", as you say, then it... works. A false equivalence, by definition, doesn't work, otherwise it wouldn't be fallacious. You getting mad at the existence of words is not the same as your opponents having faulty logic. It's also not "me" who's doing the addition, you know, the word exists in english and in a bunch of other languages as we've established earlier, it is recognized in academia, medicine, sociology, pretty much everywhere? You are the one with the special opinion, trying to deny that something that obviously exists in the real world exists in the real world. It's a you thing.
|
On April 30 2025 00:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 23:48 KwarK wrote:On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are? This is a very strange argument. We're arguing things in and out of existence based on the existence of words for them now? The trans issue seems less pressing than the dragon one at this point. Isnt the entire Nabuchad argument that statement "trans women are women" is true, based on the fact that cis women are woman and trans women are women. If you remove cis (which is relatively new word) his argument doesnt hold. Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 23:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 23:36 Razyda wrote:On April 29 2025 21:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 21:27 Razyda wrote:
I am not sure how you reached this conclusion?
I asked you to name differences between trans women and women, you named some, I stated that this are significant enough to invalidate statement: "trans women are women" and that it seems that we are in agreement on this.
It doesn't invalidate the statement "trans women are women", because you can be a woman who is cis or a woman who is trans. It invalidates the statement "trans women are cis women", a statement that nobody made. You did a good job of explaining why that statement was wrong though, congratulations. Yes it does, because cis is irrelevant, it is merely used to create false equivalency between trans women and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CisgenderIn top right corner you can see that word cisgender exists in 58 languages, there is around 7k live languages ( https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/#:~:text=7,159 languages are in use today.&text=And beyond that, the languages,fewer than 1,000 users remaining. ) If using one of those languages are transwoman not woman? Seems kinda racisty. Before 1900 were transwomen not women? and now they are? Sorry mate I was under the impression that we were speaking english, one of the languages in which the word "cisgender" exists? Maybe if you want to continue in northern andamanese we'll get different conclusions. English is also a language in which the word "false equivalence" has a specific meaning, so maybe you'll be able to explain to me how the fallacy works in this case? I was under the impression that we arguing whether statement "trans women are women" is true. If it is, it should be true in any language. False equivalence - women believe they are women, some men believe they are women, therefore those men are women. To make it work you need to add something like "cis" on the very beginning this statement.
This is insanity.
If I go to a tribe in the middle of nowhere with very little human contact, and learn their language, and discover that they don't have a word for 'spaceship', can I conclude that spaceships can't exist, because if they exist, they must exist in every language?
If we accept that general relativity is a true physics theory, can you explain it to someone who's language doesn't have words that describe concepts like spinors and the cosmological constant?
Of course not.
The big question here is, WHY do you feel the need to bend and stretch the very fundamentals of logic in this way just to prove that trans women aren't women? Like what is your motivation here?
|
Northern Ireland25339 Posts
Funnily enough if you open that particular door, you also open the door to cultural practices and by extension languages in which words exist to describe individuals who don’t fit into our gender binary conceptions.
The flip side of ‘a word doesn’t exist for x in other languages’ is ‘what words exist to describe things in other languages that don’t exist in ours?’
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
