Obama administration issues guidance on transgender access to school bathrooms
- Thread starter SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
- Start date
Pumpkin Ninja
Kage in the Making 👑
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2012
- Messages
- 15,554
- Reaction score
- 1,857
A little confused but say a man just wants to dress up like a woman. Isn't that just involving the social constructs because gender dysphoria makes it sound like they are different mentally.
Punk Hazard
Sage of Six Posts 🔮
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 59,557
- Reaction score
- 4,729
Read what I said carefully. Your application of your premise to transgenders but your failure to apply it to adoptive parents is a bias, thus, it shows bigotry. I didn't call you a bigot for having an argument against transgenders, I'm calling you a bigot because you choose to apply that argument to transgenders and not to another population, even though it applies just as much.
EVERYTHING brings complications, we still have to deal with them.
Format your posts better please, I have no idea what this is a response to.
Same as the previous part, I have no idea what part of my post you're actually arguing here.
No one said give them extra stuff.
Yes, you can bring the government into play. It's impossible for human beings to be solely objective or solely subjective. No matter what the issue is, there WILL be both subjectivity and objectivity. By this logic, the government won't be able to get into any issues.
Stop saying issues will become complicated. It's already complicated, it's not supposed to easy. We still have to deal with it anyways.
Hypocrisy. You don't care about a transgender's security, and vouch for them not to be able to go into the bathrooms they identify as because of the "predators and perverts" and making it more likely for them to hurt people. You vouch for the security of cis people and then say "I don't care about transgenders' security." Yeah, no bias here.
This shows you don't even have a clue what this bill is actually about then, since this thread was never about giving them extra stuff, just giving them the same stuff as everyone else. What are you even arguing anymore?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 20,751
- Reaction score
- 4,013
My problems is with the idea that transgender that includes a long range of people with varied behaviour and sexual IDs, some of which are barely cross-dessers or just claim to be transgender getting entry in places which are used by women as relatively safe personal spaces without any measure to ensure safety and comfort of women.
>Statistics Show the Difference in Rates of
You must be registered for see links
’ Versus Non-Transgender Males is Zero.The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concludes that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women. Are all transwomen predators? Not at all- They are predators at exactly the same rates as any other males.
You must be registered for see links
or when they claim to be transgender and go rape women in women's cell -
You must be registered for see links
Paul Witherspoon is a biological male who was convicted in 1990 for sexually assaulting one teenage girl and indecency involving sexual contact with another teenage girl.
Matthew Harks, of Calgary, Canada, has a strong preference for girls ages 5 to 8. He claimed that he had victimized some 60 girls and committed some 200 offenses with them. But he was convicted of sexual assault against only one—a 7 year old girl in British Columbia. He is on probation now, and in 2012 he changed his name to Madilyn, announcing that he was a transgendered woman.
Richard J. Masbruch today identifies as transgendered. But in 1991, Masbruch brutally attacked the female manager of an apartment complex. He pulled a gun on her, hogtied her, and blindfolded her. Then he used a makeshift electrical device to deliver painful electrical shocks up and down her leg as well as to her arm, warning her that this was an example of how badly he could hurt her. Masbruch then unzipped the woman’s pants and vaginally raped her. After that, he sodomized her. Masbruch was convicted of rape, sodomy, and torture, along with other counts, and was sentenced to two life terms in prison. He says he is transgendered. So California moved Masbruch to a prison for women and placed him with the female population.
Christopher Todd Gard is a cross-dresser who, in September 2013, assaulted an 8 year old girl inside a bathroom at a convenience store in Oklahoma City. The little girl had to go to the bathroom. A family member walked her to the bathroom, and the little girl went in by herself. Unbeknownst to the family member or the girl, Gard was waiting inside. He locked the door. Gard was wearing nothing but women’s underwear. He grabbed the girl, put a shirt around her neck, and began choking her. She began screaming. The family member frantically tried to get into the bathroom but could not because the door was locked. An employee quickly opened the door with a key and the girl ran out..
Richard Boule is a transvestite from Marlborough, Massachusetts, who is accused of groping an 18 year old woman at a gas station in September 2013. Boule allegedly walked over to the young woman, pulled down his pants to reveal he was wearing woman’s thong underwear, and said “Let’s play.” He then allegedly reached down the front of the young woman’s skirt and groped her through her underwear.
Carl Dahn was arrested in August 2013 by police in Bergman, Arkansas for computer child pornography and internet stalking of a child. He had sent explicit messages to an undercover investigator, who Dahn believed to be a 14 year old girl. When the undercover officer arrived, Dahn was dressed in women’s clothing.[12]
Tyler Holder is a cross-dressing biological teenage male who abducted, raped, and murdered a six year old girl in Dallas, Texas, in July 2013. After he raped little Alanna Gallagher, he wrapped her head in plastic bags and smothered her.
In 1984, a male transvestite prisoner in a prison in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, allegedly raped a female prisoner while she was taking a shower. According to the woman, a man dressed like a woman, with “some feminine features,” entered the shower with her, held a sharp object to her neck, and raped her. It was not clear why the biological male was in the women’s unit of the prison.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Transgender woman, 25, is jailed for eight years for raping a 15-year-old girl before she changed *** from male to female
You must be registered for see links
Studies made by people who do not believe women have a right to hope for safety are biased and discriminatory against women. The thinkers who make statements that women shouldn't hope for safety because they are never safe anyway are the ones that get their voice heard more.
There is that third option for transgender people (single-occupancy restrooms and showers), this option has been largely struck down, and employees are prohibited from suggesting it, as it is considered discriminatory and emotionally damaging to a group of people who are working so hard to fit in. The solution? Anyone can use whatever restroom he or she wants without being questioned.
You must be registered for see links
@ the suggestion that such males could perhaps be served by “Gender Neutral” areas has been widely rejected . “I will pee on the floor before I use a gender-neutral bathroom”- TransSupport.Org founder Robin Lynn Frank.
So basically 18 girls can be forced to use one family room for privacy but one transgender cannot use that family room because they need to fit in not just use the washroom...
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Never mind. It's of little use arguing when shared women's facilities supporters consider women's safety is a non issue on the premise that since they cannot be 100% safe they shouldn't even hope to be safe and comfortable.
Last edited:
Claymantan
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,712
- Reaction score
- 229
To JG:
@Bold: "Relatively safe," but you posted a bunch of stories about perverts getting in anyway even when transgender access isn't treated as explicitly legitimate. So, relative to what? Male bathrooms? A trans-inclusive female bathroom? Evidently, this female space touted as safe isn't really as safe as you're framing it to be. Doesn't seem to be an argument against trans-inclusiveness.
I recognize the study is relevant to what you're saying, though, but I'll talk about the study down below, when discussing the other link you posted from Gendertrender (both of which cite the same source, by the way).
The stories you posted:
Of these stories, only three actually refer to transgender people. Those three stories are about crimes committed pre-transition. Hall was already a prisoner during the time she transitioned. Either way, transgender people commit crimes =/= transgendered people don't have a legitimate claim to the gender identities with which they identify.
This would be a good argument, if the studies were made by people who don't believe women have a right to safety. Discussing that more in the last paragraph of my current post.
Cite these studies.
AFAI could tell this was a story about a rape survivor with an opinion. All she did was make the same arguments that you had made. What does this add?
Yo, does Gendertrender ever post an article within which all its hyperlinks are functional? I have to go hunting for the source of every claim they make. It's annoying. This article has been reblogged somewhat in social media, and I cannot find a reblog that provides the source for this statement. I'd like some context besides Gendertrender's biased reframing.
What is this claim based on?
So? I'll pick something out:
Sure, let's have this discussion. It's not like having such a discussion is mutually exclusive from providing trans access to spaces that correspond to their identified gender. It may be fully possible to create a shared space with which everyone is comfortable. So far, the oppositional rhetoric seems to be what Gendertrender accuses trans-supporters of:
Okay, I didn't know much about gendertrender, but I can now affirmingly state that this site is garbage. They stated this, in this article:
Incidentally, the claims made by your first article referencing Gendertrender and the second article referencing Gendertrender are plainly inconsistent. One argues that SRS males have more criminality than the rest of the general population; the other ones says they're the same. And both arguments cite the same source. What?
In other words, the study is only statistically valid for one generational cohort. Aside from that, these researchers made no claim about the legitimacy of *** reassignment in their paper.
I also ran through Google Scholar to see what researchers have said on this topic in general (did a search for all studies after this study which cited this study in their papers).
Perverts exist. And? Is the arugment that transgendered acceptance will increase the perverts (does this imply that a lack of transgendered access is preventing perverts - because evidently not)? It's a convenient theory, and might be relevant if accepting trans claims to male and female was the same thing as accepting sexual harassment and voyeurism. Unfortunately, the two are not equivalent.
It's a convenient theory that this is how trans-inclusive thinkers think. This supposed "premise" is not even a general feminist approach to trans rights. So this is a pretty baseless statement, since many of the supporters of trans rights are indeed women, and as far as I know have never substantially made this claim that women cannot expect safety (considering this is the opposite goal of feminist movements).
You realize you cite radfem thinkers (e.g. Gendertrender, which
The debate is, in a world where we don't pretend radical feminists are the majoritarian voice of women and the only form of feminism, in reality: radical feminists who claim to support women's safety but exclude transwomen from that definition of women's safety (supported by some other feminists, some LGB groups who adhere to traditional interpretations of gender, conservatives who don't care about women's safety, traditionalists, some governments, and some centrists and male allies), versus mainstream and intersectional feminists that claim to support women's safety, and include transwomen in this goal (supported by the transgendered and some LGB groups and some male allies, some governments, some progressives, and, according to you, some group of people who don't care about women's safety, just trans people).
It's an ingenious reframing of trans-support to discredit trans-support. As far as I can tell, that's all it is, though: An oppositional reframing that doesn't even seem to engage with any credited trans-inclusive feminist thinkers, and is based upon the trans-exclusive arguments of radical feminist thinkers.
To Pumpkin Ninja:
Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition based on the incompatibility of gender to *** (DSM-V does indeed list it). Gender is not only dressing up like a man/woman, gender is the entirety of behaviors that comrpise male and female in society. Someone with gender dysphoria desires to be perceived as generally a gender that does not socially correspond to their biological *** in all interactions, excepting personality variations and whatnot.
So while someone crossdressing does play with aspects of gender, it is not the same thing as gender dysphoria. It's the same as any condition; a symptom =/= the condition.
@Bold: "Relatively safe," but you posted a bunch of stories about perverts getting in anyway even when transgender access isn't treated as explicitly legitimate. So, relative to what? Male bathrooms? A trans-inclusive female bathroom? Evidently, this female space touted as safe isn't really as safe as you're framing it to be. Doesn't seem to be an argument against trans-inclusiveness.
I recognize the study is relevant to what you're saying, though, but I'll talk about the study down below, when discussing the other link you posted from Gendertrender (both of which cite the same source, by the way).
The stories you posted:
Of these stories, only three actually refer to transgender people. Those three stories are about crimes committed pre-transition. Hall was already a prisoner during the time she transitioned. Either way, transgender people commit crimes =/= transgendered people don't have a legitimate claim to the gender identities with which they identify.
This would be a good argument, if the studies were made by people who don't believe women have a right to safety. Discussing that more in the last paragraph of my current post.
Cite these studies.
AFAI could tell this was a story about a rape survivor with an opinion. All she did was make the same arguments that you had made. What does this add?
Yo, does Gendertrender ever post an article within which all its hyperlinks are functional? I have to go hunting for the source of every claim they make. It's annoying. This article has been reblogged somewhat in social media, and I cannot find a reblog that provides the source for this statement. I'd like some context besides Gendertrender's biased reframing.
What is this claim based on?
So? I'll pick something out:
Sure, let's have this discussion. It's not like having such a discussion is mutually exclusive from providing trans access to spaces that correspond to their identified gender. It may be fully possible to create a shared space with which everyone is comfortable. So far, the oppositional rhetoric seems to be what Gendertrender accuses trans-supporters of:
Okay, I didn't know much about gendertrender, but I can now affirmingly state that this site is garbage. They stated this, in this article:
and cited
You must be registered for see links
as the evidence for their claim (this is the same cited in the first quote, where I said I would talk about this study, by the way). Now, I don't know if you know this, but slimreaper, as well as that other dude who made the other thread where we discussed this topic, have both cited this source, and have outright misrepresented the claims made by this source. Because no one actually reads the source.Incidentally, the claims made by your first article referencing Gendertrender and the second article referencing Gendertrender are plainly inconsistent. One argues that SRS males have more criminality than the rest of the general population; the other ones says they're the same. And both arguments cite the same source. What?
You must be registered for see links
(link is to the same source, just to the results section):In other words, the study is only statistically valid for one generational cohort. Aside from that, these researchers made no claim about the legitimacy of *** reassignment in their paper.
I also ran through Google Scholar to see what researchers have said on this topic in general (did a search for all studies after this study which cited this study in their papers).
You must be registered for see links
, no one seems to treat this crime claim as something significant.Perverts exist. And? Is the arugment that transgendered acceptance will increase the perverts (does this imply that a lack of transgendered access is preventing perverts - because evidently not)? It's a convenient theory, and might be relevant if accepting trans claims to male and female was the same thing as accepting sexual harassment and voyeurism. Unfortunately, the two are not equivalent.
It's a convenient theory that this is how trans-inclusive thinkers think. This supposed "premise" is not even a general feminist approach to trans rights. So this is a pretty baseless statement, since many of the supporters of trans rights are indeed women, and as far as I know have never substantially made this claim that women cannot expect safety (considering this is the opposite goal of feminist movements).
You realize you cite radfem thinkers (e.g. Gendertrender, which
You must be registered for see links
) to make your arguments, right? This is relevant, because you seem to be framing the debate as "women who care about women vs. people who don't care about women's safety." That is so not the case. Radical feminism is a subsection of mainstream feminism and is not coincident with intersectional feminism, both of which include women who are supportive of women's safety and access to safe public space, and who also happen to coincide with the supporters of trans rights significantly. The debate is, in a world where we don't pretend radical feminists are the majoritarian voice of women and the only form of feminism, in reality: radical feminists who claim to support women's safety but exclude transwomen from that definition of women's safety (supported by some other feminists, some LGB groups who adhere to traditional interpretations of gender, conservatives who don't care about women's safety, traditionalists, some governments, and some centrists and male allies), versus mainstream and intersectional feminists that claim to support women's safety, and include transwomen in this goal (supported by the transgendered and some LGB groups and some male allies, some governments, some progressives, and, according to you, some group of people who don't care about women's safety, just trans people).
It's an ingenious reframing of trans-support to discredit trans-support. As far as I can tell, that's all it is, though: An oppositional reframing that doesn't even seem to engage with any credited trans-inclusive feminist thinkers, and is based upon the trans-exclusive arguments of radical feminist thinkers.
To Pumpkin Ninja:
Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition based on the incompatibility of gender to *** (DSM-V does indeed list it). Gender is not only dressing up like a man/woman, gender is the entirety of behaviors that comrpise male and female in society. Someone with gender dysphoria desires to be perceived as generally a gender that does not socially correspond to their biological *** in all interactions, excepting personality variations and whatnot.
So while someone crossdressing does play with aspects of gender, it is not the same thing as gender dysphoria. It's the same as any condition; a symptom =/= the condition.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 20,751
- Reaction score
- 4,013
Pre transition crime? You think it makes them innocent for the previous rapist record as soon as they transitioned?
This would be a good argument, if the studies were made by people who don't believe women have a right to safety and care little about discriminating their rights to and decreasing their spaces in public places. Discussing that more in the last paragraph of my current post.
Demonstrating your utter disregard for women's feeling on this unless they are supporting your view- that are the only valid view in your opinion- seeing you keep citing random 2000 people survey from an election rally to prove that women want them in their washroom.
Use Google. It's not linking internet but citing law cases.
The link to the case was given.
Come back when you make such a place in the meanwhile the people whose interest you are ignoring, are the one having to pay the price. If it leads to somehow managements and offices increasing those tiny limited number of places they alot to women we will see. For now they just threw more people in already crammed places.
You need to pay more attention to language and not take things out of context. And don't try to use strawman argument. And here it's what your new source says:
Criminal activity, particularly violent crime, is much more common among men than women in the general population. A previous study of all applications for *** reassignment in Sweden up to 1992 found that 9.7% of male-to-female and 6.1% of female-to-male applicants had been prosecuted for a crime.[33] Crime after *** reassignment, however, has not previously been studied. In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the *** reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females. By contrast, female-to-males were at a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls and did not differ from male controls, which suggests increased crime proneness in female-to-males after *** reassignment.
Now go back to your first line where you tried to tell me that it was ok since barring three other crimes were made before the transition. So exactly what do you think you are proving? That even transmen are more likely to commit crimes after the "treatment"?
See above. Also, what did the other researches say? Males are kept out of female spaces for safety of female. Can you bring me a study which says that now that the transgender males are less of a threat to females? Because so far I don' see any other research which gives data about Crimes transgenders are involved themselves. Why not study the topic and if there are such studies why to skip them? They could help your argument better instead of strawman reply.
No one is researching it, nor wants to check it out either it seems. I think it's very legit topic which should be put up if stats can support trananything claim.
So make it easy for them?
Who gets to decide who is feminist and who isn't? We know feminists who run business that exploits women's labour.
.
Strawman. Rad feminism has it's issue some taking it too far or talking in extreme, but it doesn't mean their apprehension regarding the issue are to be discarded because of that label.
on the other hand you use strawman argument to ignore their concerns and skipping on long term issues beyond a washroom stall.
Nor you show a survey of 2000 people from an election rally as proof of 43% of women supporting it being voice of the majority, And act as if just because it may slight majority minority voice is wrong because of it being minority.
So? You dismiss the women who oppose the idea as not being part of the hip feminist groups. Feminism is not a religion where people have the same belief on every issue. On the other hand your data and sources often are about only transsexuals and you conveniently ignore that the word trans gender includes a much larger group not just them. You are not letting just normal genuine transsexuals in, you are making it easier for pervs to operate without obstructions. You want them to be acceptable by lumping them on women and at the same time you are also telling women to be more cautious and suspicious of people in washroom than previously.
You are providing them any safety measures? No, you are saying if he rapes and molests you we will penalize him - next we know you would be telling us that the rapist is a woman so after raping women in washroom, he is to be put in women's cell if he gets convicted.
Another question I never get reply for is what about sports?- At first we are told transsexual women are alright since the hormone therapy takes the advantage away- but no it doesn't change the body shape, bone structure and other such advantages. On top of it now, I don't know if the people who haven't gone through transitions and only deem themselves to be a girl, where do they fit in? Do they get to participate in female sports just because they claim to think being a woman while keeping all the advantages of their original male body? What's your stand on cross dressers who are otherwise normal male beyond this kink? Do they get to participate in women's sports or men's? considering they have a right to women's washroom.
Last edited:
Claymantan
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,712
- Reaction score
- 229
A lot of this post is going to be me saying things equivalent to “I didn’t say that,” so I wonder who’s really making strawman arguments.
Did I say this? No, it shows that they didn't use transitioning to commit crimes against women. xD
Women's opinions only exist if they're in agreement with yours? And it wasn't to prove women want them in the washroom, it was to prove that trans-inclusiveness being something that must necessarily remove the sense of safety in washrooms is not self-evident.
What is this the argument in this quote anyway? "As long as there are women who are more comfortable with segregated restrooms, any movement towards integrated restrooms is utter disregard for women's feelings, even if there are women's who are comfortable with and support integrated restrooms." You're utterly disregarding women's feelings on this too, seeing as you keep denying that any women who support trans-rights have any relevance whatsoever.
Finally, 2000 people is statistically significant in the United States, although I don’t know if you were calling this into question or not.
They provide a link to the quote - and the link is broken. This quote is not readily accessible on Tumblr, Google, or, like, Bing. You're the one citing the quote as evidence for your arg, so.
Then you have an extremely convenient definition of "forced," considering those 18 girls up and left once they saw someone with a beard walk in.
Yeah, I’m not ignoring their interest. I examined whether or not this interest was being threatened in any demonstrably substantial way, and determined that it was not. Therefore, the good direction of creating more comfortable shared spaces does not preclude the need to create trans-inclusive spaces, but these things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either.
It wasn't a strawman, since I was addressing Gendertrender's argument, and yeah, they did misrepresent the SRS claim, since they literally claimed that SRSes commit more crimes than everyone else in one of the links you provided.
Okay, so you said I made a strawman argument, right? And that I took this out of context? Well here was my response earlier:
And here is what the title of the paper is:
Now, aside from that, the researchers even told you why you shouldn’t try to use this study to make such claims, because the generation of trans people that has emerged today has emerged in conditions that are different from the 70s and 80s:
In context, this statement about the limitations of the study was made in reference to health and psychosocial outcomes of SRS. This also applies to criminal outcomes, because the criminal outcomes are considered to be related to the psychosocial outcomes (which is why they studied them in the first place), because institutional factors also affect crime.
So yes, the study is only statistically valid for one generational cohort. And the circumstances under which this study took place do not correspond to modern circumstances. So yes, Gendertrender drastically misrepresented this study, because they said nothing about the generational specification in their article. No strawman to be found in my argument.
But let’s talk about the paper some more. The stats also showed that transmen tended to adopt male behaviors after transitioning. What this implies is that the criminality was socially learned (this should be obvious). In a more trans-inclusive world, the argument could be made that criminality for MtFs could move in the opposite direction, if the identity of being female is treated legitimately. Criminality is social, not biological, so it doesn’t even matter anyway, and has no bearing on whether or not transgendered people have a legitimate claim to the female identity. And this is another reason that the generational aspect of the study matters immensely.
Now, you might argue that there is a biological component, since things like sexual assault happen specifically because of the biological component. Well, do the statistics even show that the criminality was violence of MtFs against women? Here’s something Gendertrender said that you quoted earlier:
Was never stated anywhere in the paper. The paper only studied aggregate statistics (violent, nonviolent). Aggregate statistics are definitely not why bathrooms are segregated. Bathrooms aren’t segregated to protect people from generalized criminality. They’re segregated due to concerns about modesty and sexual violence/harassment (and probably other things too, but my main point is that general crime statistics aren’t one of them).
Now, let’s talk about an actual strawman: You’re implying that trans-inclusive supporters are arguing that transwomen have the same criminal behaviors as ciswomen. Gendertrender outright argues this. Please cite this, anywhere. Cite me, even. The closest thing I remember saying is that it can’t be shown that women’s sense of safety is at risk, or being compromised. Well, that remains true, as shown above.
Again, not what I said. What I actually tried to tell you that people aren't using transitions to commit crimes more easily, since all those cases were of people having committed crimes pre-transition. This is definitely not shown by anything you’ve provided.
You’re right, there are not enough statistics about transwomen and crime, unfortunately. I would like more.
However, let’s use some basic logic (Gonna cite Wikipedia here, but the claims are referenced; still, be forewarned):
So as far as a claim that transwomen are less dangerous to women than men goes in terms of, say, sexual violence – yeah, it’s more likely than unlikely.
Or, like I said, the data is not statistically significant for the modern day. Aside from that, a follow-up study would require something similar to be done in the United States, so this is probably why. Conspiracy theory about scholarship is less likely.
However, I am surprised at the lack of sociological research on the topic, but this is probably an issue of access. Whereas the Swedish study was based on archival data, furthering understanding of the data would require things like interviews – which are highly impractical for dealing with some population group like criminal TG persons who have gone through SRS.
The primary intention of that paper, anyway, which everyone conveniently ignores, was to evaluate the actual outcomes of SRS, and the overwhelming use of that paper has been to devise institutional measures which will improve post-SRS outcomes.
It's difficult now? There isn't any demonstrable difference. It's an arbitrary distinction based on the idea that because people are uncomfortable with the idea of transpeople having access to their spaces, trans people have no legitimate claim to those spaces.
I didn't say anything where I decided anybody wasn't feminist. I said there were different categories of feminists. Why I brought this up is below:
Not a strawman: I was addressing your argument that people who support trans-rights don't care about the safety of women. What your argument implies is that women themselves don't support trans-rights. I argued that this is false, since radical feminists do not represent all feminists, and therefore do not represent all women. If you weren't implying this, then it makes no sense to say that trans-inclusive advocates don't care about the safety of women.
@Bold: No, that's not what I said. I cited it as proof that shared spaces =/= women must be uncomfortable. I cite it as proof that women support trans-rights more than men. So I cite it as proof that the claim that people who support trans rights don't care about women is fundamentally flawed. I absolutely did not say anything like "the majority of Americans support X, so X is correct." xD
And I advocate for shared spaces because they logically lead to increased comfort. If we waited until everybody was comfortable with everything nothing would get done, because there is no such thing as a legislation on identity politics that occurred during a time where everyone was comfortable with everything.
2000 people is statistically valid.
@Bold: I engaged with their central argument, that women’s safety is at risk, and found it lacking and not really couched in convincing evidence. Obviously I dismiss it, on what I perceive to be reasonable grounds. You use the word “dismiss” very liberally, as though it’s something no one should ever do for any reason.
@Underlined: It’s unlikely that I ignore that transgender includes people that haven’t had SRS, since I pointed that out earlier in this very thread. Aside from that, then don’t make claims about transgendered people and the risk they pose to women, if there’s no data about non-transitioned people? xD You’re just pointing out further that your own argument lacks substance. If I make claims about SRS people, it’s still relevant, because SRS and transitioning people are indeed going to be a significant part of the people laying claim to the female identity. So what we have here is no evidence ("trans-inclusive = unsafe for women") vs. some evidence based on post-SRS trans ("trans people have a legitimate claim on the female identity").
@The Rest: Mostly strawman responses based on things I never said or directly said the opposite of (ex: I blatantly pointed out that there is ideological variance in feminism). I definitely never told women to be more cautious and suspicious of people in the washroom than previously, because there is no demonstrable reason for this to happen. Perverts are already getting in.
I thought the issue at hand was whether or not perverts would be more easily able to go into bathrooms where they're not supposed to be. Did I argue that the perverts committing the crimes you were referencing (the ones I dismissed as irrelevant, not the three cases of pre-transition transpersons) should be considered as female? xD They were all male. Strawman.
Anyway, are you providing safety measures? Like you’ve pointed out abundantly, this is already happening, and we don’t even have trans-inclusive bathrooms as a legal statute. Seems like no one was really all that worried about this until the idea that trans people who are coming into the bathroom to do their own business showed up. Like I’ve been emphasizing, the distinction is incredibly arbitrary.
I did reply to this in one of the other two or three threads that manifested on this topic, and I pointed out that they have regulatory measures (in the U.S.) in place already. The things like body shape, bone structure, etc. are generally considered to be within a reasonable range assuming things like how long the transitioned have to be off hormones (I think it's something like two years for MMA in the States) and so on.
It varies though. In soccer,
Regardless, accepting trans-inclusiveness in specific spaces doesn’t mean rejecting all biological realities in all situations. Don’t slippery-slope.
Did I say this? No, it shows that they didn't use transitioning to commit crimes against women. xD
Women's opinions only exist if they're in agreement with yours? And it wasn't to prove women want them in the washroom, it was to prove that trans-inclusiveness being something that must necessarily remove the sense of safety in washrooms is not self-evident.
What is this the argument in this quote anyway? "As long as there are women who are more comfortable with segregated restrooms, any movement towards integrated restrooms is utter disregard for women's feelings, even if there are women's who are comfortable with and support integrated restrooms." You're utterly disregarding women's feelings on this too, seeing as you keep denying that any women who support trans-rights have any relevance whatsoever.
Finally, 2000 people is statistically significant in the United States, although I don’t know if you were calling this into question or not.
They provide a link to the quote - and the link is broken. This quote is not readily accessible on Tumblr, Google, or, like, Bing. You're the one citing the quote as evidence for your arg, so.
Then you have an extremely convenient definition of "forced," considering those 18 girls up and left once they saw someone with a beard walk in.
Yeah, I’m not ignoring their interest. I examined whether or not this interest was being threatened in any demonstrably substantial way, and determined that it was not. Therefore, the good direction of creating more comfortable shared spaces does not preclude the need to create trans-inclusive spaces, but these things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either.
It wasn't a strawman, since I was addressing Gendertrender's argument, and yeah, they did misrepresent the SRS claim, since they literally claimed that SRSes commit more crimes than everyone else in one of the links you provided.
Okay, so you said I made a strawman argument, right? And that I took this out of context? Well here was my response earlier:
And here is what the title of the paper is:
You must be registered for see images
Now, aside from that, the researchers even told you why you shouldn’t try to use this study to make such claims, because the generation of trans people that has emerged today has emerged in conditions that are different from the 70s and 80s:
In context, this statement about the limitations of the study was made in reference to health and psychosocial outcomes of SRS. This also applies to criminal outcomes, because the criminal outcomes are considered to be related to the psychosocial outcomes (which is why they studied them in the first place), because institutional factors also affect crime.
So yes, the study is only statistically valid for one generational cohort. And the circumstances under which this study took place do not correspond to modern circumstances. So yes, Gendertrender drastically misrepresented this study, because they said nothing about the generational specification in their article. No strawman to be found in my argument.
But let’s talk about the paper some more. The stats also showed that transmen tended to adopt male behaviors after transitioning. What this implies is that the criminality was socially learned (this should be obvious). In a more trans-inclusive world, the argument could be made that criminality for MtFs could move in the opposite direction, if the identity of being female is treated legitimately. Criminality is social, not biological, so it doesn’t even matter anyway, and has no bearing on whether or not transgendered people have a legitimate claim to the female identity. And this is another reason that the generational aspect of the study matters immensely.
Now, you might argue that there is a biological component, since things like sexual assault happen specifically because of the biological component. Well, do the statistics even show that the criminality was violence of MtFs against women? Here’s something Gendertrender said that you quoted earlier:
Was never stated anywhere in the paper. The paper only studied aggregate statistics (violent, nonviolent). Aggregate statistics are definitely not why bathrooms are segregated. Bathrooms aren’t segregated to protect people from generalized criminality. They’re segregated due to concerns about modesty and sexual violence/harassment (and probably other things too, but my main point is that general crime statistics aren’t one of them).
Now, let’s talk about an actual strawman: You’re implying that trans-inclusive supporters are arguing that transwomen have the same criminal behaviors as ciswomen. Gendertrender outright argues this. Please cite this, anywhere. Cite me, even. The closest thing I remember saying is that it can’t be shown that women’s sense of safety is at risk, or being compromised. Well, that remains true, as shown above.
Again, not what I said. What I actually tried to tell you that people aren't using transitions to commit crimes more easily, since all those cases were of people having committed crimes pre-transition. This is definitely not shown by anything you’ve provided.
You’re right, there are not enough statistics about transwomen and crime, unfortunately. I would like more.
However, let’s use some basic logic (Gonna cite Wikipedia here, but the claims are referenced; still, be forewarned):
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
(with reference to their self-identified gender, 38% bisexual + 35% homosexual). Even we account for all trans people, not just transitioned transpersons, it’s pretty unlikely that the sexuality spread for all trans people is congruent to that of cispersons. So as far as a claim that transwomen are less dangerous to women than men goes in terms of, say, sexual violence – yeah, it’s more likely than unlikely.
Or, like I said, the data is not statistically significant for the modern day. Aside from that, a follow-up study would require something similar to be done in the United States, so this is probably why. Conspiracy theory about scholarship is less likely.
However, I am surprised at the lack of sociological research on the topic, but this is probably an issue of access. Whereas the Swedish study was based on archival data, furthering understanding of the data would require things like interviews – which are highly impractical for dealing with some population group like criminal TG persons who have gone through SRS.
The primary intention of that paper, anyway, which everyone conveniently ignores, was to evaluate the actual outcomes of SRS, and the overwhelming use of that paper has been to devise institutional measures which will improve post-SRS outcomes.
It's difficult now? There isn't any demonstrable difference. It's an arbitrary distinction based on the idea that because people are uncomfortable with the idea of transpeople having access to their spaces, trans people have no legitimate claim to those spaces.
I didn't say anything where I decided anybody wasn't feminist. I said there were different categories of feminists. Why I brought this up is below:
Not a strawman: I was addressing your argument that people who support trans-rights don't care about the safety of women. What your argument implies is that women themselves don't support trans-rights. I argued that this is false, since radical feminists do not represent all feminists, and therefore do not represent all women. If you weren't implying this, then it makes no sense to say that trans-inclusive advocates don't care about the safety of women.
@Bold: No, that's not what I said. I cited it as proof that shared spaces =/= women must be uncomfortable. I cite it as proof that women support trans-rights more than men. So I cite it as proof that the claim that people who support trans rights don't care about women is fundamentally flawed. I absolutely did not say anything like "the majority of Americans support X, so X is correct." xD
And I advocate for shared spaces because they logically lead to increased comfort. If we waited until everybody was comfortable with everything nothing would get done, because there is no such thing as a legislation on identity politics that occurred during a time where everyone was comfortable with everything.
2000 people is statistically valid.
@Bold: I engaged with their central argument, that women’s safety is at risk, and found it lacking and not really couched in convincing evidence. Obviously I dismiss it, on what I perceive to be reasonable grounds. You use the word “dismiss” very liberally, as though it’s something no one should ever do for any reason.
@Underlined: It’s unlikely that I ignore that transgender includes people that haven’t had SRS, since I pointed that out earlier in this very thread. Aside from that, then don’t make claims about transgendered people and the risk they pose to women, if there’s no data about non-transitioned people? xD You’re just pointing out further that your own argument lacks substance. If I make claims about SRS people, it’s still relevant, because SRS and transitioning people are indeed going to be a significant part of the people laying claim to the female identity. So what we have here is no evidence ("trans-inclusive = unsafe for women") vs. some evidence based on post-SRS trans ("trans people have a legitimate claim on the female identity").
@The Rest: Mostly strawman responses based on things I never said or directly said the opposite of (ex: I blatantly pointed out that there is ideological variance in feminism). I definitely never told women to be more cautious and suspicious of people in the washroom than previously, because there is no demonstrable reason for this to happen. Perverts are already getting in.
I thought the issue at hand was whether or not perverts would be more easily able to go into bathrooms where they're not supposed to be. Did I argue that the perverts committing the crimes you were referencing (the ones I dismissed as irrelevant, not the three cases of pre-transition transpersons) should be considered as female? xD They were all male. Strawman.
Anyway, are you providing safety measures? Like you’ve pointed out abundantly, this is already happening, and we don’t even have trans-inclusive bathrooms as a legal statute. Seems like no one was really all that worried about this until the idea that trans people who are coming into the bathroom to do their own business showed up. Like I’ve been emphasizing, the distinction is incredibly arbitrary.
I did reply to this in one of the other two or three threads that manifested on this topic, and I pointed out that they have regulatory measures (in the U.S.) in place already. The things like body shape, bone structure, etc. are generally considered to be within a reasonable range assuming things like how long the transitioned have to be off hormones (I think it's something like two years for MMA in the States) and so on.
It varies though. In soccer,
You must be registered for see links
I don’t know what the consensus on this issue is in the LGBT and specifically trans community, so I can’t speak on it much.Regardless, accepting trans-inclusiveness in specific spaces doesn’t mean rejecting all biological realities in all situations. Don’t slippery-slope.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 20,751
- Reaction score
- 4,013
That's not what strawman argument is.
Who said they use transitioning to commit crime? You complained that I gave only one example of transgender crimes so you got some more. Besides some of them repeated the crime while in Jail since the claim to be a trans put them in women's facility- so they used their supposed transgender status to gain access to women's cell.
I was not the one trying to bring in survey among 2000 people from election rally and use it to show a global support for shared washrooms. Sense of safety and comfort cannot be measured with such random surveys in political rallies. There is no data on how many of those 2000 people were women who voted in that pool either if I remember correctly. So exactly what's the point?
Those women are maybe OK with sharing restroom for a number of reasons but it's not like their feelings are going to get hurt because the transgenders( or any of the rest of the woman for that matter) are using family washrooms or unisex washrooms. So it doesn't equal to not caring for their feelings. If their personal feelings and comfort are getting hurt because of NOT being able to share a washroom with some particular type of stranger then probably those strangers need to look over their shoulder.
Don't try to use them as representative of rest of millions. Besides how many of those 2000 people were actually women and what age group? Ciswomen or transwomen? Why the news article didn't link the actual source?
I was talking about lack of link here:
You must be registered for see links
I don't see any link broken or otherwise. Not that broken links would be any good but it's not there at all.
Well bearded man walks in and 18 girls leave girl's washroom and you are trying to talk semantics to evade a direct reply?
Forced:
forced
fɔːst/
adjective
adjective: forced
1.
obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power.
"there was no sign of a forced entry"
synonyms: enforced, compulsory, obligatory, mandatory, involuntary, exacted, coerced, imposed, demanded, compelled, required, requisite, stipulated, dictated, ordained, prescribed; More
necessitated, unavoidable, inescapable;
de rigueur
"a programme of forced industrialization"
antonyms: voluntary
(of a plant) having its development or maturity artificially hastened.
2.
(of a gesture or expression) produced or maintained with effort; affected or unnatural.
strained, laboured, unnatural, artificial, false, feigned, simulated, contrived, stilted, wooden, stiff, studied, mannered, self-conscious, overdone, overworked, affected, unconvincing, insincere, hollow;
fɔːst/
adjective
adjective: forced
1.
obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power.
"there was no sign of a forced entry"
synonyms: enforced, compulsory, obligatory, mandatory, involuntary, exacted, coerced, imposed, demanded, compelled, required, requisite, stipulated, dictated, ordained, prescribed; More
necessitated, unavoidable, inescapable;
de rigueur
"a programme of forced industrialization"
antonyms: voluntary
(of a plant) having its development or maturity artificially hastened.
2.
(of a gesture or expression) produced or maintained with effort; affected or unnatural.
strained, laboured, unnatural, artificial, false, feigned, simulated, contrived, stilted, wooden, stiff, studied, mannered, self-conscious, overdone, overworked, affected, unconvincing, insincere, hollow;
You have told me more than once that most girls/women are comfortable with the idea and that example doesn't show me that. Convenient is that survey you have been using.
See above.
I didn't pay attention to that particular comment but if that's the only point you could pick on that long essay and try to use it to discard rest of it ...
Last edited:
FoxesInWonderland
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,528
- Reaction score
- 144
Transgender Restroom
Do you agree with transgendered being allowed to use the same restrooms as the gender they identify with?
I don't, I think it's weird. Not only that, it'll probably cause a lot of complications. If anything they should just make them have their own restrooms. As silly as that sounds, it's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Do you agree with transgendered being allowed to use the same restrooms as the gender they identify with?
I don't, I think it's weird. Not only that, it'll probably cause a lot of complications. If anything they should just make them have their own restrooms. As silly as that sounds, it's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Desiigner
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 3,338
- Reaction score
- 443
Re: Transgender Restroom
I think it would be more complicated if they weren't allowed. Imagine a female "man" going into the men's bathroom. I bet she'd get beat up by some idiots.
Not sure on the opposite case though. Some men would most likely be dumb enough to beat a "woman" for going into the men's restroom.
I think it would be more complicated if they weren't allowed. Imagine a female "man" going into the men's bathroom. I bet she'd get beat up by some idiots.
Not sure on the opposite case though. Some men would most likely be dumb enough to beat a "woman" for going into the men's restroom.
ChicagoJhawk
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 4,577
- Reaction score
- 422
Re: Transgender Restroom
I think you should go to whichever restroom that fits your anatomical makeup whether it be a ***** or ****
I think you should go to whichever restroom that fits your anatomical makeup whether it be a ***** or ****
Melanin
Kage in the Making 👑
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 18,927
- Reaction score
- 1,266
Tyris
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
- Reaction score
- 238
Re: Transgender Restroom
ill stop drinking publicly if some "dude" gets beside hermself in the mens room... ***** gon' git hurt tryna be a man in dere talking jive...
also dont agree with shims using the women's restroom either... like tht n*****a bruce-bruce who still out chea long dicking chicks...
if u gotta **** with tits or any triv not from birth yo ass needs yo own lane...
ill stop drinking publicly if some "dude" gets beside hermself in the mens room... ***** gon' git hurt tryna be a man in dere talking jive...
also dont agree with shims using the women's restroom either... like tht n*****a bruce-bruce who still out chea long dicking chicks...
if u gotta **** with tits or any triv not from birth yo ass needs yo own lane...
FoxesInWonderland
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,528
- Reaction score
- 144
Re: Transgender Restroom
So a woman who becomes a man, vice versa, should be allowed to use the restroom designated for her/his "new" gender? As that what you are saying?
If so why do you believe this? And do you think it is a good idea?
So a woman who becomes a man, vice versa, should be allowed to use the restroom designated for her/his "new" gender? As that what you are saying?
If so why do you believe this? And do you think it is a good idea?
Tyris
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
- Reaction score
- 238
Re: Transgender Restroom
its not a "woman" tho breh.. its a dude by/of they own volition... so the guy beating the trans aint dumb just disgusted amidst the drinkage before even angry
the problem is them and everyone else picking n choosing when a trans is "man"/"girl".. they're changing their bidies so the language has to change and stay tht way till they revert or die...
its simple imo
wanna be a dude get yo ass whooped like one...
wanna be a girl then take **** like one...
dont flip flop in retrospect of some form of altercation.
*had to edit
its not a "woman" tho breh.. its a dude by/of they own volition... so the guy beating the trans aint dumb just disgusted amidst the drinkage before even angry
the problem is them and everyone else picking n choosing when a trans is "man"/"girl".. they're changing their bidies so the language has to change and stay tht way till they revert or die...
its simple imo
wanna be a dude get yo ass whooped like one...
wanna be a girl then take **** like one...
dont flip flop in retrospect of some form of altercation.
*had to edit
Last edited:
AllKnowingShinobi
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,901
- Reaction score
- 93
Re: Transgender Restroom
if you have to go the go, im a man and i finds the men bathroom ****en down to shit but if it is respectable and at least manageable to take sit down on i will but if it anit i will go to the womens room to finish my business. honestly ive taken shitts at the mountains and piss at parks but no one told me not to because it doesnt matter.
if you have to go the go, im a man and i finds the men bathroom ****en down to shit but if it is respectable and at least manageable to take sit down on i will but if it anit i will go to the womens room to finish my business. honestly ive taken shitts at the mountains and piss at parks but no one told me not to because it doesnt matter.
Tyris
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
- Reaction score
- 238
Re: Transgender Restroom
lol shouldn't you use: "homosexuals" in leiu of "gays" in this instance provided you care?
lol shouldn't you use: "homosexuals" in leiu of "gays" in this instance provided you care?
Guy Fawkes
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 3,011
- Reaction score
- 178
Re: Transgender Restroom
Exactly..I wanna know if they are being politically correct, or just comfortable with trannys peeing next to them. Women are you comfortable with a man who think he's a women because he got rid of his penis so he gets to be around you in your most vulnerable moments?
Exactly..I wanna know if they are being politically correct, or just comfortable with trannys peeing next to them. Women are you comfortable with a man who think he's a women because he got rid of his penis so he gets to be around you in your most vulnerable moments?
Last edited: