|
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 30 2025 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 00:31 Razyda wrote: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. 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. 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.
"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."
Yes languages dont map perfectly on one another, however statements to be correct, need to be correct in each of the languages in which they can be expressed. Word transgender exists in 86 languages, while cisgender exists in 58. So we have 86 languages developed enough to make this statement, however only in 58 of them it would be correct.
"If I add the word cis "to make it work", as you say, then it... works." That is correct, apologies, my bad, my statement should be " it is merely used to avoid false equivalency in statement "trans women are women"
"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."
I am not getting mad at all. In this argument it is very much you who is doing the addition:
On April 29 2025 09:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 09:02 Razyda wrote:
It is whether there is difference between trans woman and woman, or trans men and men. Basic reality is, that there is. There is a difference between trans women and cis women, yeah. That's what the word "trans" is there to show. Do you believe that trans women are unaware that they're trans? That's a pretty insane thing to believe.
I am not denying existence of the word, I am questioning whether its existence have impact on correctness of the statement "trans women are women" Think of it that way: You can easily say: "all military age men, are women" Yeah there are differences between military age men and cis women, but nobody is arguing that they are cis woman.
|
On April 30 2025 00:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
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?
I am not saying that if there is no word to describe something in some language then that thing doesnt exists. I am arguing that for statement to be correct, it must be correct in every language you are able to express it.
|
United States10501 Posts
On April 29 2025 20:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 20:23 BlackJack 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 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?
Ok... and the 2 children that died of measles in Texas also represents 0.0001% of measles deaths. But notice how I don't make dumb posts like "people want to focus on the 0.0001% while ignoring the 99.9999%." Of course if I were on your side and tasked with defending locking women up with men that commit sexual assault I might resort to whataboutism to attack the sincerity of my opponent as well. So I don't fault you for that.
|
United States42689 Posts
It's not whataboutism if it's what about the exact same issue.
If I say "we should provide AIDS medication to people in subsaharan Africa" and you say "what about homeless veterans" then that's whataboutism, especially given that you're not doing anything about homeless veterans.
If you say "we shouldn't lock people up with physically stronger rapists" and I say "I agree, but that doesn't imply that trans women shouldn't be in women's prisons and in 99.99% of situations in which that happens there isn't a trans woman involved at all so the solution really needs to be a lot broader" then that isn't whataboutism.
The very specificity of your initial complaint and the scenarios that it deliberately excludes allow it to be summarized as "the wrong kind of prison rape is happening". That's why people are reacting with "hold up, what's the right kind?"
|
Northern Ireland25334 Posts
On April 30 2025 03:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 20:32 Nebuchad wrote:On April 29 2025 20:23 BlackJack 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 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? Ok... and the 2 children that died of measles in Texas also represents 0.0001% of measles deaths. But notice how I don't make dumb posts like "people want to focus on the 0.0001% while ignoring the 99.9999%." Of course if I were on your side and tasked with defending locking women up with men that commit sexual assault I might resort to whataboutism to attack the sincerity of my opponent as well. So I don't fault you for that.
Measles is an infectious disease that was borderline eradicated in the West, and is mounting a minor comeback.
I’m not seeing a huge amount of equivalence here.
|
"trans women in women prisons are bad cause rape"
"Rape is bad and happens way to much in all prisons, its not an issue limited to trans"
"amagad whataboutism"
Oo
|
United States10501 Posts
On April 30 2025 04:06 KwarK wrote:
It's not whataboutism if it's what about the exact same issue.
What? What's your source for such a claim?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/whataboutism-origin-meaning
There are many examples offered of whataboutism on the "same issue." For example in that Trump is accused of whataboutism to defend his pardons by saying "what about the people Clinton pardoned?" The example isn't Trump defending his pardon because "what about Clinton getting blowjobs?"
On April 30 2025 04:09 WombaT wrote:
Measles is an infectious disease that was borderline eradicated in the West, and is mounting a minor comeback.
I’m not seeing a huge amount of equivalence here.
I thought it was obvious but the equivalence here is on the scale of the "problem" and the accusation that someone lacks sincerity if the "problem" is 99.9% worse elsewhere and they aren't talking about the elsewhere. Of course the "problems" aren't equivalent.
|
He managed to whatabout whataboutism. This is great.
|
You all are going "what about the other rapists?". Which is basically exactly how you guys typically use the accusation of whataboutism around here.
It's not "whataboutism" because we all know the problem is people getting raped in prison by staff and other inmates regardless of gender, and no one is going to do anything about that.
As a result, you all are also pointing out the limited scope of BJ's concerns around rape may have nefarious motives, which BJ is rightly offended by (especially if your suspicions are true).
|
Northern Ireland25334 Posts
On April 30 2025 04:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 04:06 KwarK wrote:
It's not whataboutism if it's what about the exact same issue.
What? What's your source for such a claim? https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/whataboutism-origin-meaningThere are many examples offered of whataboutism on the "same issue." For example in that Trump is accused of whataboutism to defend his pardons by saying "what about the people Clinton pardoned?" The example isn't Trump defending his pardon because "what about Clinton getting blowjobs?" Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 04:09 WombaT wrote:
Measles is an infectious disease that was borderline eradicated in the West, and is mounting a minor comeback.
I’m not seeing a huge amount of equivalence here. I thought it was obvious but the equivalence here is on the scale of the "problem" and the accusation that someone lacks sincerity if the "problem" is 99.9% worse elsewhere and they aren't talking about the elsewhere. Of course the "problems" aren't equivalent.
You chose to invoke it, not I.
People weren’t especially concerned specifically re few kids dying independently, but if it’s part of a trend that doesn’t lead to good places.
It’s not a big problem, but it could become one. And become one completely needlessly.
There also isn’t another analogue, some measles-like disease that people ignore for the sake of clutching one’s pearls on measles.
|
On April 30 2025 03:29 Razyda wrote:
Yes languages dont map perfectly on one another, however statements to be correct, need to be correct in each of the languages in which they can be expressed. Word transgender exists in 86 languages, while cisgender exists in 58. So we have 86 languages developed enough to make this statement, however only in 58 of them it would be correct.
I suspect I'll be the only person who reads this post, so I just wanted to highlight the part where you doubled down and said that words exist in languages only if they have a wiki page about them. Transgender has a wiki in 86 languages which is how you came to the conclusion that it existed in 86 languages. This is amazing.
On April 30 2025 03:29 Razyda wrote:
I am not denying existence of the word, I am questioning whether its existence have impact on correctness of the statement "trans women are women" Think of it that way: You can easily say: "all military age men, are women" Yeah there are differences between military age men and cis women, but nobody is arguing that they are cis woman.
Well, if some of the words I used didn't exist and if I had said something else instead that doesn't map with reality instead of what I said, that does, then I'd be in the wrong. That is a point. I'm not sure it's a good one, but it is certainly a point.
On April 30 2025 03:46 BlackJack wrote:
Ok... and the 2 children that died of measles in Texas also represents 0.0001% of measles deaths. But notice how I don't make dumb posts like "people want to focus on the 0.0001% while ignoring the 99.9999%." Of course if I were on your side and tasked with defending locking women up with men that commit sexual assault I might resort to whataboutism to attack the sincerity of my opponent as well. So I don't fault you for that.
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here.
|
United States10501 Posts
On April 30 2025 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here.
I've clearly demonstrated that it is a trans issue. It's just not exclusively a trans issue. The perplexing thing is why you seem to think that women's prisons are obligated to solve the issue of rape between cis-men in order to discuss what should happen in women's prisons. Seems like you're the one that doesn't want to talk about what should happen in women's prisons because all you've done is deflect to the rapes not happening in women's prisons. You haven't made a single point besides attacking my sincerity on the issue. But hey since that's the only round in your holster, fire away.
|
So what do you think should be done to tackle the problem?
|
On April 30 2025 05:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here. I've clearly demonstrated that it is a trans issue. It's just not exclusively a trans issue. The perplexing thing is why you seem to think that women's prisons are obligated to solve the issue of rape between cis-men in order to discuss what should happen in women's prisons. Seems like you're the one that doesn't want to talk about what should happen in women's prisons because all you've done is deflect to the rapes not happening in women's prisons. You haven't made a single point besides attacking my sincerity on the issue. But hey since that's the only round in your holster, fire away.
Maybe I missed it, but what is your solution?
|
On April 30 2025 05:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here. I've clearly demonstrated that it is a trans issue. It's just not exclusively a trans issue. The perplexing thing is why you seem to think that women's prisons are obligated to solve the issue of rape between cis-men in order to discuss what should happen in women's prisons. Seems like you're the one that doesn't want to talk about what should happen in women's prisons because all you've done is deflect to the rapes not happening in women's prisons. You haven't made a single point besides attacking my sincerity on the issue. But hey since that's the only round in your holster, fire away.
Again, as you know, that is not true, I've made the point that what you described as a trans issue wasn't a trans issue at all, and I've explained how you would talk about the issue if you really wanted to do something about it, and how applying the solution the right wants wouldn't do much at all to impact the issue.
Maybe it would help if we applied the same logic to a group you care about, like white people or billionnaires. So what I'm going to do now is focus on some white issues, such as forming gangs. First I'm going to demonstrate that gangs are a white issue: here's a gang, they're white. Sure gangs are not *exclusively* a white issue, but it would be whataboutism to bring that up, so I'm covered. Let's discuss how we can restrict the rights of white people in order to solve the issue of gangs, what are your opinions?
|
On April 30 2025 05:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here. I've clearly demonstrated that it is a trans issue. It's just not exclusively a trans issue. The perplexing thing is why you seem to think that women's prisons are obligated to solve the issue of rape between cis-men in order to discuss what should happen in women's prisons. Seems like you're the one that doesn't want to talk about what should happen in women's prisons because all you've done is deflect to the rapes not happening in women's prisons. You haven't made a single point besides attacking my sincerity on the issue. But hey since that's the only round in your holster, fire away. We're not attacking your sincerity, we're denying its existence.
The inmates gender or genitals are not relevant to solving the issue of rape in prison. There is no difference in how you would 'solve' rape in a women's prison or a men's prison. whether its between men, between women or involving trans.
|
Northern Ireland25334 Posts
On April 30 2025 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 05:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here. I've clearly demonstrated that it is a trans issue. It's just not exclusively a trans issue. The perplexing thing is why you seem to think that women's prisons are obligated to solve the issue of rape between cis-men in order to discuss what should happen in women's prisons. Seems like you're the one that doesn't want to talk about what should happen in women's prisons because all you've done is deflect to the rapes not happening in women's prisons. You haven't made a single point besides attacking my sincerity on the issue. But hey since that's the only round in your holster, fire away. Again, as you know, that is not true, I've made the point that what you described as a trans issue wasn't a trans issue at all, and I've explained how you would talk about the issue if you really wanted to do something about it, and how applying the solution the right wants wouldn't do much at all to impact the issue. Maybe it would help if we applied the same logic to a group you care about, like white people or billionnaires. So what I'm going to do now is focus on some white issues, such as forming gangs. First I'm going to demonstrate that gangs are a white issue: here's a gang, they're white. Sure gangs are not *exclusively* a white issue, but it would be whataboutism to bring that up, so I'm covered. Let's discuss how we can restrict the rights of white people in order to solve the issue of gangs, what are your opinions?
That is a fucking brutal conundrum lmao, well-played.
|
United States10501 Posts
On April 30 2025 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 05:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here. I've clearly demonstrated that it is a trans issue. It's just not exclusively a trans issue. The perplexing thing is why you seem to think that women's prisons are obligated to solve the issue of rape between cis-men in order to discuss what should happen in women's prisons. Seems like you're the one that doesn't want to talk about what should happen in women's prisons because all you've done is deflect to the rapes not happening in women's prisons. You haven't made a single point besides attacking my sincerity on the issue. But hey since that's the only round in your holster, fire away. Again, as you know, that is not true, I've made the point that what you described as a trans issue wasn't a trans issue at all, and I've explained how you would talk about the issue if you really wanted to do something about it, and how applying the solution the right wants wouldn't do much at all to impact the issue. Maybe it would help if we applied the same logic to a group you care about, like white people or billionnaires. So what I'm going to do now is focus on some white issues, such as forming gangs. First I'm going to demonstrate that gangs are a white issue: here's a gang, they're white. Sure gangs are not *exclusively* a white issue, but it would be whataboutism to bring that up, so I'm covered. Let's discuss how we can restrict the rights of white people in order to solve the issue of gangs, what are your opinions?
If someone said what should we do about white gangs like the Aryan brotherhood it would be a pretty dumb counterargument to be like "what about all the non-white gangs?!?" "You don't actually care about gangs because why aren't you talking about the black and latino gangs?? Or the yakuza? Or somali pirate gangs?! Gangs aren't a white issue!" I'm not sure why you think this is some mic drop argument but to each their own. /shrug
|
On April 30 2025 06:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2025 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:On April 30 2025 05:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2025 05:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Others have answered well, if you're going to bring up rape in prison as a reason why the right makes sense on trans issues and I'm answering showing that rape in prison isn't a trans issue at all, it isn't whataboutism, it's the exact topic that you brought up. You just didn't actually want to talk about the topic, which we had all figured out already.
Neither of these conversations is doing much to convince me that I need to go out of my echo chamber and/or steelman the rights' arguments, I must say. Instead it looks like you don't have much at all, and whatever you have is hastily put together nonsense. I enjoyed experiencing that though, I believe the kids say "absolute cinema" here. I've clearly demonstrated that it is a trans issue. It's just not exclusively a trans issue. The perplexing thing is why you seem to think that women's prisons are obligated to solve the issue of rape between cis-men in order to discuss what should happen in women's prisons. Seems like you're the one that doesn't want to talk about what should happen in women's prisons because all you've done is deflect to the rapes not happening in women's prisons. You haven't made a single point besides attacking my sincerity on the issue. But hey since that's the only round in your holster, fire away. Again, as you know, that is not true, I've made the point that what you described as a trans issue wasn't a trans issue at all, and I've explained how you would talk about the issue if you really wanted to do something about it, and how applying the solution the right wants wouldn't do much at all to impact the issue. Maybe it would help if we applied the same logic to a group you care about, like white people or billionnaires. So what I'm going to do now is focus on some white issues, such as forming gangs. First I'm going to demonstrate that gangs are a white issue: here's a gang, they're white. Sure gangs are not *exclusively* a white issue, but it would be whataboutism to bring that up, so I'm covered. Let's discuss how we can restrict the rights of white people in order to solve the issue of gangs, what are your opinions? If someone said what should we do about white gangs like the Aryan brotherhood it would be a pretty dumb counterargument to be like "what about all the non-white gangs?!?" "You don't actually care about gangs because why aren't you talking about the black and latino gangs?? Or the yakuza? Or somali pirate gangs?! Gangs aren't a white issue!" I'm not sure why you think this is some mic drop argument but to each their own. /shrug
You have changed my argument, I'm not concerned with white gangs, that would be racist; I'm concerned with gangs. So my solution in order to reduce the amount of gangs is to restrict the rights of white people. Nothing against white people myself, it's just that I've noticed a white issue: white people are forming gangs, so we have to do something about that.
|
Northern Ireland25334 Posts
Look BJ is just a centrist fellow looking for truth, I’m not sure why everyone interrogates him so closely
Like he’s got a great grasp on general UK politics and gives his 50 cents a lot, which I appreciate. He doesn’t just pop in when it intersects with his like 2 pet issues. Which he doesn’t have attachment to anyway. Because he’s an enlightened centrist, devil’s advocate type who is just interested in fair debate and exposing hypocrisy and has zero positions of his own that can be plotted on some ideology matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
