Discuss with just facts?

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from self.GCdebatesQT

I was wondering if we could discuss some areas of contention, but solely based on facts, no emotions and no theories that have been disproven. I don’t expect anyone to address every point lol

Do trans rights/needs interfere with the rights of others?

Women’s bathrooms and other female specific spaces- why should/shouldn’t TW and women share those spaces?

Female sports- why should/shouldn’t TW participate?

Male sports- why should/shouldn’t TM participate?

Female/male specific jobs, representation, or opportunities- same question

Can transwomen be lesbians, and can transmen be gay men?

What is the difference between sex and gender?

What is gender identity, and how can we see that TW and women (and TM and men) share this identity?

What is the difference between gender as a concept, and gender identity? How to they relate?

Are TW men or women? Are TM women or men? (I’m asking for an explanation as to why)

What is considered transphobic and why?

What is “cis privilege”?

Is it true that there’s a significant amount of violence committed against trans people? And if so, is it relevant that most instances seem to involve poc and or sex work?

Define woman, man, male, and female.

I realize this is a lot, I left a lot out, too tho. Idk if anyone will respond, I just figured it could be an interesting and maybe worthwhile discussion if some people did. It’s not meant to be offensive or a gotcha, I just think it would be worth attempting to discuss these things from a purely fact based POV.

top 100 commentsshow all 187
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My answers:

*Do trans rights/needs interfere with the rights of others?

I think that “trans rights are human rights” is an accurate statement. I don’t think trans rights means that TW should access female specific rights. I think women’s rights are female specific rights intended for equality and making those rights accessible to transwomen nullifies them. So, I guess I’m saying trans rights don’t infringe on female rights, until it comes to transwomen demanding female specific rights as their rights.

*Women’s bathrooms and other female specific spaces- why should/shouldn’t TW and women share those spaces?

My full answer is simply that female spaces are for biological females. I don’t think we even need to explain why TW shouldn’t access them, they are male. The spaces were never intended for them, they were intended to keep them out.

*Female sports- why should/shouldn’t TW participate?

Again, simply because they are male. Even if the playing field were level, it still deprives a female of the opportunity. Sports are segregated not just for safety, also opportunity. I also believe that TW will always have even just a slight advantage over females.

*Male sports- why should/shouldn’t TM participate?

It’s tricky because they take testosterone. I’d say the testosterone should disqualify them from female sports, but I don’t think it gives them an advantage over males.

*Female/male specific jobs, representation, or opportunities- same question

Same answer. Female specific rights and opportunities should remain for female people.

*Can transwomen be lesbians, and can transmen be gay men?

No. Lesbians are females attracted solely to females. Gay men are males attracted solely to males. I’d say a “transbian” is a straight male and a “gay TM” is a straight female. Whether they are pre or post op.

*What is the difference between sex and gender?

Sex- function, anatomy, chromosomes, etc. Fact.

Gender- social construct, social roles and expectations, the sexes as applied to society, not biology, function, or health. Basically how society treats us and what society expects from us because of our sex. I don’t see it as something we choose or identify into, gender matches sex, always imo

*What is gender identity, and how can we see that TW and women (and TM and men) share this identity? What is the difference between gender as a concept, and gender identity? How to they relate?

Gender identity to me is a concept made up to destigmatize being trans. I can’t take it seriously personally. It usually sounds like one gender’s internal understanding of the opposite gender (using gender because you can identify into social roles, you can’t identify into a sex. Sex is not mental). I think there’s ample evidence that TW don’t share a gender identity with women, and TM don’t share one with men. I think the difference is that gender is societal, it’s shared and inflicted on everyone, gender identity is personal and as such, can be anything to anyone and I’ve noticed that some trans people’s explanation of gender identity contradicts others. This is a huge flaw in the concept for me, that and the fact that I can’t relate to TW explaining their gender identity, and I know many women and men who contradict the explanation of it.

*Are TW men or women? Are TM women or men? (I’m asking for an explanation as to why)

Transwomen are men, because they are male. Full stop. Entire reason why. Transmen are women, because they are female. Full stop. Entire reason why. Sex cannot be changed. “Woman” and “man” are sexed terms, not gendered terms.

*What is considered transphobic and why?

I think real transphobia is hateful speech and actions, I think it’s wishing harm or causing harm in someone, because they are trans. I do not think not accepting TWAW/TMAM/non binary as a concept is transphobic. I don’t think people not wanting to share spaces, date, use preferred pronouns or any of the “invalidating” things are transphobic.

*What is “cis privilege”?

I have no clue. I think TW hold privilege over women. I’m starting to think transmen do as well. I don’t think “cis privilege” is a thing. I think TW benefit from male privilege, and that they exert it over females constantly.

*Is it true that there’s a significant amount of violence committed against trans people? And if so, is it relevant that most instances seem to involve poc and or sex work?

I do think there is violence committed against trans people for being trans. I do not think it is something that happens on a large scale. From what I can see, trans people as a whole are less likely to be murdered or harmed than other demographics, even when we take into account the size of the trans community in comparison to the rest of us. I think it’s very telling that the overwhelming majority of trans deaths are poc, specifically black people, as black people have a higher rate of being killed already. And sex work is a dangerous job, I do think that many TW that are sex workers are harmed/killed are harmed/killed because they are trans, but I’ve also seen that despite many of these deaths being sex work related, it is still more likely that a female sex worker will be harmed than a TW.

Eta- I’m not dismissing violence against trans people, I’m only saying I think the claims of violence are inflated and exaggerated for their narrative.

*Define woman, man, male, and female.

Gonna go with the classic definitions as we’ve known them for centuries. I have never seen an alternative definition that makes sense.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not if they are based on trans status instead of self-identification. Gay rights don't interfere with women's rights, unless gay men started insisting that they are women & therefore shouldn't have gay rights, but women's rights.

Making single-sex spaces unisex would defeat the purpose of single sex bathrooms. There would only need to be one unisex bathroom. The men's room is already equipped with facilities that accommodate trans-womxyn's biology.

World Rugby found that trans-womxyn's inclusion in the high-contact sport increased the risk of injury to female players. Caitlyn Jenner won gold in the men's decathlon, so there is no reason why trans-women can't play in men's sports. Sports are single-sex, not ideologically-affirming playgrounds.

The real question is can trans-womxyn be gay men? The real question is why is homosexuality overrepresented in the trans population? Trans-womxyn who are attracted to women should be content with calling themselves gynaephiles, because straight women are statistically more likely to date them, meaning if you start terming trans-womxyn as lesbians, then their straight gfs have to also be called lesbians or bisexual. Lesbians who are willing to date transpeople are more likely willing to date trans-men than trans-womxyn, meaning that you'd have to start calling these lesbians bisexual as well. Why re-name the whole world to accommodate the religious beliefs of a tiny minority? There are trans-women who recognise that trans-women are men.

Sex is biology, gender is sociology. Sex is nature, gender is nurture. Sex is innate, gender is cultural. Sex is male/female, gender is masculinity/femininity. Sex & gender are different, trouble is 'gender' is not a synonym for "preferred sex". Gender is a term axiomatic in sociology & other relevant disciplines & is determined by gendered socialisation. Our up-bringing is gendered & our resulting behavioural patterns are concordant with the gender we were inculcated with. In short, trans-womxyn's gender & sex match, because their sex was known to their parents. We are socialised according to our sex, not our preferred sex. Trans-women received the upbringing that a male infant received & lack the upbringing that a female one does.

Trans-womxyn & men share the same gender identity & trans-men & women share the same gender identity, hence why the male sex commits more crimes than the female sex, regardless of how they identify, likewise 2-3x more members of the female sex report having attempted suicide than the male sex, regardless of how they identify. Why are trans-womxyn behaving like men & trans-men behaving like women? Because like "cis" people, their gender identity is sex-congruent due to their conditioning.

Gender can refer to: gender identity, gender roles, or act as an umbrella term for masculinity & femininity. The trans movement uses it to refer to self-identification/preferred sex, for some inexplicable reason. They insist it does not refer to gender expression, but they can't define what they mean by gender. They sometimes even say that it's biological, which would contradict the statement "sex & gender are not the same thing".

Trans-womxyn's male sex is unambiguous, they were socialised accordingly & follow sex-congruent behavioural patters, like the ones I mentioned earlier, they also benefit from male privilege. There is nothing within the icd-11, or queer theory or any other academic source that even claims that trans-womxyn are women, let alone proves that they are.

Genuine transphobia isn't even transphobia, it's often homophobia, but more accurately it's GNC-phobia, which affects more people than just trans people, like gay people & a substantial number of GC feminists. GNC-phobia is also one of the major root causes of homophobia. Genuine "transphobes" don't differentiate between trans people & GNC people. It's the GNC aspect they have a problem with.

Cis privilege doesn't exist, at least not for women. "Cisgenderism" is clearly androcentric. It refers to the comfort that most men feel within their gender, this is not the case for most women, hence why the vast majority of detransitioned people are female.

Ethnic minorities, sex workers, homosexuals & GNC individuals are more vulnerable to male violence.

I don't have to define any of those terms, since science & dictionaries do that for me. My unique definitions would be invalid. Female is defined as the sex that produces ova & male produces sperm. Woman refers the female sex who are a) human & b) adults. Woman isn't a gender, since a feral child, brought up by wolves, with no concept of gender, is still a woman when she reaches the age of maturity. 'Femininity' is the correct term for the gender associated with women. There are femboys who saturate themselves in feminizing gender indicators & there are butch lesbians who do anything but, however, their gender non-conformity is just superficial. Both still behave concordantly with their respective demographics. Gender expression or gender roles are performative, but gender identity is a social condition, like any other social identity/demographic.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Making single-sex spaces unisex would defeat the purpose of single sex bathrooms. There would only need to be one unisex bathroom. The men's room is already equipped with facilities that accommodate trans-womxyn's biology.

Good article about that: https://womansplaceuk.org/gender-neutral-toilets-dont-work-for-women/

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Trans-womxyn who are attracted to women should be content with calling themselves gynaephiles

But what about the million other genders?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

fact [fakt] NOUN a thing that is indisputably the case. "a body of fact" 

synonyms: reality · actuality · certainty · factuality · certitude · truth · naked truth · verity

Thought this might be helpful for some people...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Notice how we are actively disputing your definitions, not the underlying factual reality because, again, crafted definitions are not factual things.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Youre not disputing shit. You’re just saying words don’t have real definitions. Which- if words have no definitions we can’t communicate to discuss anything. And we can’t understand each other. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back since for once you found a co-signer for your bullshit

It’s like you jumped to disputing definitions because you can’t back yourself up with facts. This is not a plus for you. It’s another deflection. I can’t believe you pointed this out like it made you look like you made a good point lol

“I don’t use your definition” is where you always go when you have no rebuttal (that and pointing out that we are somehow morally obligated to sacrifice ourselves for you). The reason I got so agitated on this post is because I asked you to come with facts. You couldn’t -shocker- so you resorted to pretending that definitions of words aren’t actually real because you cannot support your claims through facts. I saw this coming once I asked you to cite your claims and you admitted that you couldn’t.

I don’t even get what you thought pointing this out would accomplish. Yes, of course I noticed how when I asked you to discuss solely using facts you could not do so so you resorted to the tra trick of “wHat doEs WoRd MeaN aNywAy?”

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You haven’t made any more factual claims than I have. Language isn’t objective, that’s how it works.

There’s no factual claim that can be made because ultimately you care about harm inflicted on trans people or you don’t. And you don’t.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Lmao it’s like you think if you keep repeating yourself people will think you’re right.

Words have meanings. Unfortunately, the meaning of the word “woman” excludes transwomen. This fact has nothing to do with whether or not I care about transwomen. However your comments regularly show that you don’t care about women.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There’s a difference between utilitarian meaning and objective meaning. Yes words have meanings understood by the speaker and audience but those meanings vary. If you say woman to many people they assume you mean trans women as well.

There not some objective truth to language. It doesn’t work that way. And now you are falling back on the calling me a mysogynist like you always do despite me not hating women. Fix the record. It’s broken.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well then, enjoy your “clever” exit line. This is a clear waste of time and you just want the last word so you can have it.

You’re still wrong and we can all still see how misogynistic you are. I love when males tell females what is and isn’t misogyny 🙄

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (175 children)

Do trans rights/needs interfere with the rights of others?

Not necessarily. Solutions could be crafted.

Women’s bathrooms and other female specific spaces- why should/shouldn’t TW and women share those spaces?

Single occupancy spaces are best but absent that, trans women in women’s maximizes overall safety.

Female sports- why should/shouldn’t TW participate?

Trans women shouldn’t be in any contact sports. They probably maintain some small advantage that could render a contact contest with women unfair. But are also hopelessly outclassed by men in such sports. No sports is the only solution.

Female/male specific jobs, representation, or opportunities- same question

I would have trans women considered women and trans men considered men for such things. I have never seen a reason why not.

Can transwomen be lesbians, and can transmen be gay men?

Of course.

What is the difference between sex and gender?

Sex is chromosomes. Gender is identity.

Is it true that there’s a significant amount of violence committed against trans people? And if so, is it relevant that most instances seem to involve poc and or sex work?

Yes, and it may be relevant but marginalization into sex work is the result of general discrimination against us.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (64 children)

  1. What solutions would be crafted?

  2. Transwomen in women’s spaces maximizes safety for the transwomen, right? Not the women? Not arguing, I’m asking if that’s what you mean. Do you think it infringes on females having the right to sex based spaces, even if you think it’s necessary?

  3. This is both the sports and the point you made after- a huge issue I have is that, even if there were a level playing field, it still takes away an opportunity from a female. I don’t think you offered a reason to consider TW as women or TM as men in those cases. I agree no sports (or sports on their sex’s teams/leagues) is the solution, I disagree that TW should be considered for female specific positions or opportunities (because that takes an opportunity from a female, and the whole point is to give females equal opportunity, and also because I don’t think TW can effectively and adequately represent females). Allowing tw to take opportunities meant for females sounds like taking away equal opportunity imo. I think trans leagues would be fair, but idk if there are enough trans athletes to make that happen.

  4. “of course”isn’t really a fact based answer lol

  5. If gender is identity then what is “gender identity”? What’s the difference between gender and gender identity? And why don’t most people see gender as a sense of identity, rather than a social division of the sexes? Are you saying sex is solely chromosomes, not function, anatomy, or primary characteristics?

  6. Can you cite evidence of a prolific amount of violence? I know violence occurs, I’m asking if it’s a significant amount? I just got an email with the names of all the trans deaths this year (in America) and it was about 30 names, which for me, suggests that there is violence committed against trans people, but significantly less than other demographics.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (63 children)

  1. Requiring third spaces, split quotas, meaningful protections. There are may approaches.

  2. For everyone. Trans women surrounded by men are at a greater danger on numbers than the imagined ideas of fake infiltrators into women’s rooms. If you count eveyone. That’s the safer option. But single occupancy is better.

  3. There aren’t numbers for trans leagues so I think no sports is it. But that being said why shouldn’t trans women have access to equal opportunity but natal women should outside of sports. What’s the non emotional argument for excluding us from those programs?

  4. There’s no rational reason not to allow us to be lesbians of trans men to be gay men.

  5. Gender = gender identity

  6. Not accurate statistics. We are oft reported in death as gay men for instance. And most will go unreported absent death.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

  1. cough Karen White cough. That's no argument. Why not allow gay men into women's spaces too, since they don't pose a threat "either"?

  2. If Caitlyn Jenner could win gold in the men's decathlon, trans-womxyn will be fine in men's sports.

  3. So every straight woman in a relationship with a trans-woman has to identify as bisexual? So every lesbian in a relationship with a trans-man has to identify as bisexual? There is no rational reason to describe trans-womxyn attracted to men as homosexual.

  4. And gender identity is not self identification, it's a product of socialisation. Trans people's gendered upbringing matched their sex, hence why their gendered behaviour matches their sex: crime, suicide, media representation etc. the sex ratios are consistent regardless of identification.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

  1. At minimum gay men are physically superior to trans women and aren’t equivalent dangers.

  2. She didn’t do it on hormones or post surgery.

  3. They don’t have to identify as anything. It’s each persons place to label their own sexuality.

  4. That’s not correct. Even the oft quoted Swedish study found a reduction in criminality in the layer cohort.

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  1. No, I'm saying, even if you could prove that some sub-set of men don't pose a danger to women, that wouldn't be an argument to make single-sex spaces unisex. They ought not exist if they are unisex. The idea that gay men pose a threat to women is totally made up on your part btw. Them being physically more powerful is no excuse, seeing as trans-womxyn are physically stronger than women too. Trans-womxyn still pose a rape threat, like Karen White, unlike gay men.

  2. How is that the least bit relevant? If Jenner can win gold in men's sports then why on Earth should she not play in men's sports? It makes no sense.

  3. lol no trans-womxyn who insists on being called a lesbian would ever allow their gf to identify as straight.

  4. compare like with like, if men commit the vast majority of crimes compared to women, then trans-men should be the ones who commit the vast majority of crimes compared to trans-womxyn, but that isn't the case.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. Violence comes in forms other than rape and yes gay men are stronger than trans women therefore more dangerous. In addition mens propensity to violence and general hatred of trans women means we are at an extreme danger in isolated men’s spaces. You are just discounting our safety entirely so you aren’t talking about overall safety.

  2. Because we are talking about hormone controlled or even post op trans women. They can’t hope to compete with men and it would be intractably dangerous for them to try given their weakness and almost certain targeting for injury based on transphobia among “manly men”.

  3. I literally have spoken with couples that use those labels. You are just being wildly closed minded here.

  4. I can’t speak to anything about trans men. I’m not one and don’t claim to know anything about them. I respect their identities but I cannot understand on any level someone wanting to be manly or a man. More power to them but I do not get it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

cough Karen White cough. That's no argument. Why not allow gay men into women's spaces too, since they don't pose a threat "either"?

If they truly didn't pose a threat than gay men should be allowed in. Overall safety should be the goal.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There many causes when gay men were still attacking women, just not rape them. So they are "safer" to women than other males in general, but safer does not mean "completely safe".

And allowing everyone in women's toilets is not a solution. Public women's toilets already have 2 times less spaces than men's toilets (because of urinals), women's toilets are used for menstrual needs as well, so women will use toilet longer on average, more often, and require more safety, and at same time women whave two times less places already. So putting more people to go into women's toilets will make situation even worse for women, as there can appear deficit of places.

Men need to sort out violence between themselves, to protect gay and gnc men much better, and de-stigmatize them in society. "Just combine them with women" is not the solution, and will fix nothing, only hurt women in long run. Women has nothing to do in men versus men problems, so it is just wrong to use women as shield in that fight.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (56 children)

  1. I agree that there are ways to make things fair and equal- though I don’t think TW want fair and equal. They seem to want special consideration masked as equality. Idk what you mean by split quotas.

  2. I disagree. I think it’s safer for TW, and does nothing for women. It can make some women feel unsafe and uncomfortable. And unless the rules are changed, as it stands it does seem like any male can claim an identity that allows them access to female spaces. We (well, not “we” but some) are also teaching females not to even take note of males in these spaces, which I think is a bad thing.

  3. Saying that TW aren’t female is not related to emotion. Allowing a male to participate in a female specific thing is literally taking an opportunity from a female when the opportunity was designated for a female. They are excluded because they aren’t the sex the program was meant to offer an opportunity for. Saying that they shouldn’t be excluded is coming from emotion. It’s just a fact that TW aren’t female.

  4. It’s not about allowing lol. TW aren’t female. Lesbians are female. Transmen aren’t male. Gay men are male. This is just a fact.

  5. I have no gender identity but I know what gender I am and I know my gender solely because I know my sex.

  6. Can you cite this?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We (well, not “we” but some) are also teaching females not to even take note of males in these spaces, which I think is a bad thing.

Oxford's university put sign on women's and only women's toilets that is encouraging anti-safeguarding, sign that welcome's any criminal and creep in there.

It says that "if you see someone that you think do not belong to that place or someone you do afraid - do not call the police and do not ask them what they are doing here, just continue doing your stuff and be nice to them". Yeah, no way I will be cleaning my menstrual cup when there is some bearded man standing.

This even created problems in some USA schools/colleges, where teen boys were coming to women's toilets and filming girls washing faces and trying to catch them pee'ing. And boys when caught just declared that they found that they are feeling like a women and they are trans in reality to get free of charge and get no punishment for their actions.

It is just bad and wrong practice.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (54 children)

  1. I mean having diversity incentives for trans women parallel with natal women rather than shared categorization.

  2. It is much safer for trans women and not much more dangerous for natal women. Hence overall safety improves. Their could be some standards of access or some such but again single occupancy is the best option from my perspective anyway.

  3. Why is female the relevant category in areas other than sport? As opposed to womanhood. Why ought trans men be included in women’s programs that would harm them by exposure at least while trans women should be excluded?

  4. I and may others wouldn’t use your definitions. I’m not a lesbian but a women trans or not who is only attracted to women trans or not is a lesbian to me. Your definition has men being lesbians and women attracted to men being lesbians which makes no sense to me. Why should your definition control and not mine?

  5. I don’t believe your logic holds. My gender is in fact the exact opposite of my sex as in most trans people. So it’s not a matter of gender simply following sex. Otherwise trans people wouldn’t exist.

  6. I’m on mobile so I don’t recall what this is asking about. Im assuming I don’t have a ready citation.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (53 children)

  1. Aaah. I agree with that of you mean trans people should have opportunities and representation designated specifically for them.

  2. Disagree. Overall women are safer if any and all males are excluded from female spaces. I agree single occupancy is best. I also personally agree that there could be a standard of access (for me it’s bottom surgery) however I don’t know that I have the right to say that and dismiss how other females may feel. If a female says she feels uncomfortable or unsafe with any male, regardless of GRS or identity, being in her space, I feel like I have to respect her and her sense of safety. I don’t think I have a right to say what terms allow a male access to a female space. I think all females (or at least like 90% or more) would need to agree and all safety concerns would need to be addressed and dealt with. Also- we have no way of monitoring things to ensure that only males who meet that standard of access are entering those spaces. So to me it’s best to keep things sex based, and accept that a passing TW will slip through.

  3. Womanhood is female. Only females experience womanhood. A passing TW experiences life as a male who is perceived as a woman- if people don’t know they’re trans. It’s not the same at all. A non passing TW doesn’t even experience that. Transmen don’t have to participate in female specific opportunities. They should have the option because they are female. This is what I’m saying- these are opportunities for the female sex. That’s it. If you aren’t a female, you have no right to the programs. TW should be excluded because they are the opposite sex. That’s the full reason imo

  4. This is exactly why I said fact based answers only. It is not a fact that TW are women and TM are men. My definition (it’s not even mine, it’s the actual definition) doesn’t have men being lesbians, it’s literally saying this is impossible. It doesn’t have women attracted to men being lesbians. It’s literally saying that’s also impossible.

  5. I’m not seeing a fact based answer here. So I think it’s your logic that doesn’t hold. You haven’t presented an explanation that factually shows how a trans persons gender identity is their actual gender or how gender identity equals gender. Another user has very clearly explained why this isn’t the case, imo

  6. I’m asking you to cite the claims you made about violence against trans people.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

however I don’t know that I have the right to say that and dismiss how other females may feel. If a female says she feels uncomfortable or unsafe with any male, regardless of GRS or identity,

I would not feel comfortable with any male in such spaces. When I was on a walk with my transsexual friend, who I am very sure is safe (homosexual one, 20+ years after surgery, etc) - I was still feeling uncomfortable, and either waiting until they finished and only then going to the toilet, or asking them to wait until I finished, gladly they were respecting my request (I still would prefer to enter second). Especially when I am on my period, or have some other issues with my body due to my health conditions - I will just feel very-very uncomfortable when someone who can't understand my struggle and can poses any potential threat or make fun of me or find disgusting what I am doing (like imagine changing your cup - go to cubicle, then go out of it and wash it out from blood, then go back to cubicle - and do this all while there male is present and watching it. Or imagine having miscarriage or cramps... I just can't, really, urgh). Especially in modern society, which removes tampon advertisements for showing periods from TV, because it is considered either "too gross" or "sexual". Menstruation stigma and taboo is way too powerful in any society in the world for now. I don't know how many more years or decades we need so society and men especially realise it is same as just breathing, or pee'ing, or anything, it is normal and natural, it is happening for dozen of years starting from when we are 10 years old and repeats monthly. There nothing sexual, gross or dirty in it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Disagree. Overall women are safer if any and all males are excluded from female spaces.

But are people overall safer was the issue, not just a subset of those people.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I already addressed this. If you’re not concerned about “just a subset of people” then there’s no way to argue that TW need to use female spaces. TW are the subset. Women are not. TW aren’t even a subset of women or females.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Considering trans people make up about 1% of the human population, it’s safe to say that overall, people are safe with sex based spaces remaining sex based. At least roughly 99% of people are safe.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'm sorry but you're redefining the meaning of "people overall" if you mean people to only mean cis women. Cis women are irrefutably a subset of the people in this situation because the situation involves both them and trans women as those are the groups we're discussing.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Lmao women are a subset of humans. Men are as well. So TW are a subset of a subset and you still don’t make sense.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (29 children)

It is not a fact that TW are women and TM are men.

I disagree

My definition (it’s not even mine, it’s the actual definition) doesn’t have men being lesbians, it’s literally saying this is impossible. It doesn’t have women attracted to men being lesbians.

Trans men are men and trans women are women by my definition. Your definition isn’t any more factual. This is a semantic disagreement not a factual one.

  1. Again it’s not a factual question, but a semantic one. You can shout your definition as correct but that doesn’t make it more factual than one.

  2. What claims? It’s common knowledge that trans people are marginalized. We don’t interact with police unless absolutely necessary and many of us are forced into sexual work. Thats common knowledge. It doesn’t need studies because we all know it.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

You can disagree if you want but the whole premise of the post is to make only fact based arguments and you haven’t done that so your disagreement won’t be taken seriously until/unless you back it with fact lol. There are people who vehemently disagree that the earth is round, even they can explain why they think it, even if we can disprove their reasoning. It’s odd to me that you try to act like the definitions most people use aren’t valid and accurate. When you yourself have said in the past that you don’t even have a clear alternative definition. I don’t think this is a good post for you, you argue from a place of everything but fact. “My” definitions are literally factual, there’s no way around that truth.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

You aren’t making fact based arguments either. We are as always just arguing over definitions. Your definition isn’t more factual than mine. They’re both just definitions.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Lmao my definitions are literally fact based. Words have meanings. You want to change the meaning or reinterpret them, that doesn’t mean your meanings are accurate. I’m not gonna waste time arguing with someone who can’t follow the premise of the post. I’d rather discuss with people who understand what the word “fact” means and intend to respond to the post with facts. So, I guess that means we’re done here.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You preferring your definitions over thiers isn't a fact based argument either.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It’s not my definition. It’s the actual definition that’s been used since definitions exist. It’s silly to act like humans haven’t had a clear definition for women and men since they discovered the differences between women and men. Woman definitively means adult female human. Provide an alternative definition that makes sense or stop trying to act like this definition isn’t factual.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

Of course.

Such beliefs are homophobic and opening arms for homophobic conservatives, as they are supporting the very conservative claim that homosexuality is just a preference and genital fetish. Which is not true.

Homosexuality (and any sexuality) is not something we can chose, not something we can change or "unlearn". It is same as being born tall, or with red hair, or with any color skin. It is not something that you can identify into by making some cosmetic changes to yourself.

Same with arousal and attraction, even if we (lesbians) will really want to be aroused by TW, our body will not respond, even if we really like them as a person and had a good date and TW is very well passing. It just will not happen, body will not respond and that is it. And there no way to make body respond. So it is just not working concept.

Concepts like "everyone is bisexual just don't know it" are lies as well. Sexuality - is just biological reality, and that is it.

Word "sapphic" was appropriated from being synonymous to lesbian to mean loving women while being anyone. So TW can use it instead of calling themselves "lesbians", because they are not lesbians and can never be, same as women attracted and aroused by them are bisexual or straight, and never can be lesbians either. So calling them "sapphic" is decently good solution as for me.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Homosexuality (and any sexuality except bisexuality) is not something we can chose, not something we can change or "unlearn".

Hold up, you think bisexuality is a choice?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I meant they can chose between men and women to date. I worded it poorly, yeah. Thank you for noticing.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (35 children)

Homosexuality (and any sexuality) is not something we can chose, not something we can change or "unlearn". It is same as being born tall, or with red hair, or with any color skin. It is not something that you can identify into by making some cosmetic changes to yourself.

Is there evidence for that? I've struggled with my sexuality and found no research to support sexuality is innate. I know we needed that conversation in the 80s and 90s to combat the religious persecution of homosexuality, but it's time to be honest - the data isn't there to support it.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

Ah yes, it is just homosexuals in Iran are masochists and do not want to change sexuality even in fear of death.

There nothing bad or weird in bisexuality to accept it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (33 children)

Yes, I understand as I'm a member of this community who has deeply struggled with my sexuality. But there isn't evidence to support sexuality is innate. I'd like to see it instead of a lazy emotional appeal.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

How and why did you struggle with your sexuality if it’s not innate?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

Because I can't tell if I am attracted to women or live in a society with a hyper focus on sexualizing women which is socialization that all women get in addition to men.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

So why aren’t all people attracted to women?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

The majority of men are. Women are more likely to be bisexual it's now 13%, up from 2% just a decade or so agoor say, "everyone's a little bi." Plus, many women are still raised in cultures, even in the U.S. where there's a deep chance of social rejection for acknowledging same-sex attraction. Those who are raised more open but marry men are less likely to claim the identity, (because it is an identity) because they feel guilty since they aren't "living that life." If they were able to marry and pass, why would they ever acknowledge?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

That’s not what I asked you. I’m aware the majority of men are attracted to women. I’m asking you why some men aren’t, and why some women aren’t?

Also- willingness to acknowledge same sex attraction has nothing to do with whether or not same sex attraction (or opposite sex attraction) is innate. If anything, it sounds like you’re saying sexuality is in fact innate, but many people suppress it.

You asked if it’s true that sexuality is innate, yet have offered no real reasoning as to why it’s not. Why would someone choose to be a sexuality that would get them ostracized? Why wouldn’t lgb people be more open to trans people who claim to be homosexual (but are definitively heterosexual) (also, why would trans people want yet another label -homosexual - that would ostracize them)? Why would homosexual people in countries where being homosexual could get them killed still engage in homosexual relationships if it’s not innate?

Basically- how is sexuality not innate? Exposure to oversexed media makes no sense as an answer because homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality all existed before media.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You get wet and aroused from a naked woman you like nearby? Or it is just visual liking and romantic stuff?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We've gotten far from my ignored point that there is zero evidence sexuality is innate. And I promise you won't solve my sexuality via the internet, when I've been struggling with it for a long time. Similarly, I've learned not about to share my personal history with people on the internet.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was answered. Researches, experiments and conversion therapies that were saying it is not innate - all failed and found no support for their claim. In science it is very often used "proof to the contrary" methodics, when laws are proven and concluded from making an assumption that law is incorrect and going from there, finding that opposite to the law can't be true, and though law is true. So, as a former scientist, I see all those failed researches, experiments and conversion theraies as evidence for sexuality being innate. Plus it is corresponds with living esperience with majority of homosexual people. Even for bisexual people sexuality is seems to be always staying constant, if they are liking men for 80% and women for 20%, after 30 years, even if lived with women - they still have same ration on how they are liking men and women.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Experience of homosexual people is not enough of an evidence? Especially in countries, where lesbians are forced into marriage, and yet lesbians are failing to get aroused from men even with long time living with hem or with different ones (I was married on a man as well).

The fact that all tried conversion therapies failed is not enough of an evidence?

The fact that all researches on "fluidity over life" failed to is not an evidence? Even if it not covers all the cases and there some exceptions (which are most likely not exist), it says that vast majority of homosexual people can not change sexuality.

What it should be then to make it more clear?

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (66 children)

Solutions could be crafted.

Solutions other than women's spaces falling apart and femaleness being reduced to hormonal imbalance, plastic surgeries and baseless claims?

trans women in women’s maximizes overall safety.

Women's spaces were made to protect women. As such, how much male people, trans or not, can feel safe in women's spaces is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant how secure a male person feels women should feel around him, as this has repeatedly been shown to backfire. Women's spaces cannot exist with men inside them, regardless of whether those men claim to be safe, gay, asexual, female etc.

I have never seen a reason why not.

Beneficial socialisation. Same reason why male trans people are overrepresented in male areas compared to women. Though I wouldn't be against this being used as evidence of their dude-brains, just to fight fire with fire.

Gender is identity

If gender is whatever you want, why are sex reassignment surgeries a thing? Why don't male trans people decide to grow an artificial tail and split their tongues to feel more like women? Why do made-up gendered patriarchal standards increase dysphoria? Why do trans people use pronouns signifying the opposite sex?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (65 children)

I already noted several possible solutions.

Women's spaces were made to protect women. As such, how much male people, trans or not, can feel safe in women's spaces is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant how secure a male person feels women should feel around him, as this has repeatedly been shown to backfire. Women's spaces cannot exist with men inside them, regardless of whether those men claim to be safe, gay, asexual, female etc.

I’m talking about overall safety not “feelings of safety”. If safety is the purpose overall safety is the logical metric. Why should only women’s safety Matter?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Why should only women’s safety Matter?

Because we are discussing a space intended solely and specifically for women and girls.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Why does only their safety matter as opposed to overall safety?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Why would we consider overall safety if we are talking about a space that is segregated by nature and intent?

Also- overall, males don’t need to access female spaces. So overall safety is considered.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

As Duncan said: "The only safe males in women's toilets/spaces are the ones who will not enter them even if they will be allowed to".

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree they shouldn’t be in there at all, but I don’t think that’s gonna happen. That’s why I’m saying I’d personally be comfortable if women and girls got to decide what circumstances would need to exist for them to be okay compromising. Ideally we don’t have to compromise at all and none of them have access to female spaces, but I just don’t think that’s going to happen. To me the compromise should be- female spaces remain sex based, and we just accept thst passing TW may use those spaces undetected, but we have the ability to ask an obvious male to leave. It’s sad that women can’t dictate who has entry to our own spaces, but all I meant with tm comment is that because we can’t stop it fully, I’d personally be okay with certain requirements being in place so at least we could stop the majority of it in theory.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

compromising

Why it is WE who need to compromise? Why always women?

To me the compromise should be- female spaces remain sex based, and we just accept thst passing TW may use those spaces undetected, but we have the ability to ask an obvious male to leave.

It is still not a solution, and again imposted on us without our consent, ignoring us in general.

From possible "choices" it is the best one. But when you chose between "the worst", "very bad" and "not too bad" - it is not a choice.

became randomly mad, as it always happens to women, through millenias

I’d personally be okay with certain requirements being in place so at least we could stop the majority of it in theory.

Yeah, anti-safeguarding like in Norway by law (if you ask clearly man to leave, they can sue you to 3 years in jail, and that even can happen with just regular man who is not TW, as they can go after that and in the internet through site change their Self-ID and sue you as TW), or like in "Brenda not a Wolf" child's book that teaches kids to trust creepy guys near the van giving them candies, or like Oxford's university which invites any men inside, so creepy men can easily use that opportunity.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’m agreeing with you that we shouldn’t have to compromise lol. I’m saying despite that truth, we most likely will have no choice but to compromise. I’m not saying it’s a solution, I’m saying that’s the best we’d realistically get. I don’t really know of a way that we’d check to ensure everyone is female, but if we uphold the sex based spaces and accept that potentially a rare passing transwoman is going to slip through undetected, that’s a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

If the moral argument is based on safety then overall safety should be the aim not just safety of one subset.

Overall safety pits single occupancy as idea but failing that trans women in women’s spaces because men pose an extreme Danger to them especially in concentration and isolation.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Overall safety is considered. You want the specific safety of a small group of males to overpower the safety measures in place for all people overall.

Females are not a subset of their own sex. You just said overall safety should be the aim not just safety of one subset...

Transwomen are the subset (of males, not females/women). This is a blaring contradiction.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Overall safety is maximized by making sure trans women aren’t near men when a comparatively low risk is applied elsewhere. If everyone counts that’s the logical solution.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That’s not what you said lmao. I’ll just leave it alone and let everyone else see how you once again contradicted yourself.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hey I just want to say that I think you've put forth some good responses to these questions, and that some people are ignoring the implications of your argument to just focus on the aspects of the situation that matters more to them.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Because segregating is just a means to increase the overall safety not a goal in and of itself?

Also it would seem that do to the rate at which trans women are sexually assaulted in prisons. trans women being housed in women's prisons decreases the number of sexual assaults unless we are presuming that more trans women sexually assault than are sexually assaulted which seems unlikely.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

What do y’all think “overall safety” means???

Overall, males don’t need access to female spaces. It is being argued that a small subset of males should be able to access them. This is not overall safety. This is an exception to the safety measures in place to ensure overall safety.

Transwomen can have their own wings in male prisons. I don’t care. Women shouldn’t be forced to be housed with them. Females have rights and I see no justification in stripping females of those rights to accommodate males. That’s misogyny, plain and simple. That’s TW exercising their male privilege. TW are the biggest flex of male privilege I can think of. Transwomen are not women and they are not females. Therefore, the solutions to their problems should not involve females at all.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

What do y’all think “overall safety” means???

The safety of everyone?

Overall, males don’t need access to female spaces. It is being argued that a small subset of them should be able to access them. This is not overall safety. This is an exception to the safety measures in place to ensure overall safety.

If a non-rapist would be raped in prison A but not raped in Prison B then irrespective or any other factors, less rapes would happen overall if they were housed in Prison B. Do you disagree?

Transwomen can have their own wings in male prisons. I don’t care.

Perhaps we should just put every prisoner into solitary confinement, after all that's by far the "safest" option.

Females have rights and I see no justification in stripping females of those rights to accommodate males

Which right is being violated?

Transwomen are not women and they are not females. Therefore, the solutions to their problems should not involve females at all.

That's your opinion on a definition. Other people have other definitons

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Females are not safe when spaces are opened up to include males. We have seen instances of women in prison being raped by TW. If there are no transwomen in female prisons- they can’t rape women. Males get raped in prison. It’s shitty. But it’s not specifically a transwoman issue. A lot of different types of males have been raped in male prisons. That’s a male issue. It has nothing to do with females. You can make allowances for any type of male, that’s not going to stop rape in male prisons from happening. You’re asking for TW to be given special privileges that a smaller man who isn’t trans wouldn’t get. It solves no problems for anyone but transwomen, and causes problems for women. So no, less rape won’t be the result- the result is just that a different man will get raped.

Or perhaps we should put men who are deemed at particular risk in their own wings or solitary confinement instead of causing discomfort and increased risk to people who aren’t responsible for the shit that could happen to some males?

The right to be housed without men.

Lmao like I said- definitions are intended to explain things, offer a clear fact based definition of woman that includes males. You can use a different definition all you want. Doesn’t mean it’s accurate or makes sense or that anyone who isn’t a part of your gender cult will accept it. The definitions gc uses are accepted by almost 100% of the world. The narcissism you must possess, to think that because you disagree with what a word means, the meaning we attribute to it must be wrong lol. I didn’t make up the definition, I didn’t discover it. It’s just what these words mean.

I get why people say tras are mras. I can’t imagine being misogynistic enough to think that female rights should be nullified for men.

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

I’m talking about overall safety not “feelings of safety”.

What does this even mean? What do you think "feelings of safety" entail?

If safety is the purpose overall safety is the logical metric.

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss? We have an entire history to show that this is the case, and that men cannot be trusted on the basis of saying "I'm safe and I wouldn't hurt a fly!". Sadly it's normal for people to play dumb over the abuses that women have had to endure year after year and to keep insisting we just need a few more "experiments" to prove that, no surprise, more men lowers a woman's quality of life, and more men in spaces meant for vulnerable women is straight up dangerous.

Why should only women’s safety Matter?

Um...because they're women's spaces made for the safety of women? You know, because that's the purpose to their existence? That's like asking "Why should only the safety of a human in their own house matter, why doesn't this endangered tiger deserve to be safe there as well?" I care very much for preservation of species, and the tiger can gets its own cage and survival taken care of, but it can't get into the person's house no matter how "safe" and "tamed" it is claimed to be.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Masks- “overall safety should be the aim not just the safety of a subset”

Also Masks- this subset of males should be granted special access to a female specific space.

There’s no reasoning with Masks. They refuse to acknowledge the holes in their arguments.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

What does this even mean? What do you think "feelings of safety" entail?

I’m talking about actual safety, not feeling safe. What’s not clear?

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss?

Trans women are at minimum less able to inflict injury than men because we are weaker. Lower testosterone implies less aggression as well. And non motive to violence from prejudice. Whereas trans women in men’s rooms are subject to the stronger, aggressive, and hate motivated men. How is the first not generally safer than the second?

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

I’m talking about actual safety, not feeling safe. What’s not clear?

No. In what way is this supposed difference relevant to the discussion?

Trans women are at minimum less able to inflict injury than men because we are weaker.

Tons of men are weaker. And tons of men have lower testosterone. And tons of men are non-aggressive. Hell, tons of men aren't even interested in women, and have suffered bullying themselves. Tons of men are old. Do we let all of them in?

Male trans people still keep their advantages such as higher bone density and larger size, same reason why they've shown to be such a terrible idea in female sports. So this idea that they turn into scrawny little children is not consistent with what actually happens. Moreover, with self ID, men don't even need to lower their testosterone, as that's seen as fascist gender policing.

Lower testosterone implies less aggression as well

Um, yeah, that has certainly not been consistent with the kind of behaviour male trans people show towards people who invalidate them.

And non motive to violence from prejudice.

Are you implying that male trans communities are not misogynistic? Hey, why not? You know what, male people aren't misogynistic at all. They simply aren't. Let them all into female spaces. They're just normal people, right?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (24 children)

No. In what way is this supposed difference relevant to the discussion?

It’s not feelings, it’s literally likelihood and severity of harm .

Male trans people still keep their advantages such as higher bone density and larger size, same reason why they've shown to be such a terrible idea in female sports.

Bone density and hieght drop with hrt. Upper body muscle mass also substantially drops. Also still weaker than men which is the point.

I’ve made no secret I consider men hopeless monsters. Trans women are better than men morally and less capable of violence. They represent less of a risk of harm than men.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

HRT does not undo androgenisation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

What you call androgenisation can occur more in some cis women then some trans women. Why are they allowed to complete.

[–]SnowAssMan 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

WTF are you talking about? Androgenisation is something the male body undergoes during puberty. It gives them a physical advantage that cannot be undone by HRT. And no, what I am talking about does not occur in the female players. Plus, everyone already knows that women with elevated testosterone are typically not allowed to compete in women's sports competitions. So if they can reject literal women who have been considered to have a biological advantage, of course they can reject trans-womxyn.

Why the f*ck would someone like Caitlyn Jenner who could win gold in men's sports not just play men's sports? Why on Earth should they be playing in women's sports instead? You haven't answered that question yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns :

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

Crucially those advantages are not reduced when a trans women takes testosterone-suppressing medication, as was previous thought - “with only small reductions in strength and no loss in bone mass or muscle volume or size after testosterone suppression”.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It shows a reduction in muscle Espescially upper body muscle, reduces bone density, and leads to a notable drop in cardiovascular endurance.

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

it’s literally likelihood and severity of harm .

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss? We have an entire history to show that this is the case, and that men cannot be trusted on the basis of saying "I'm safe and I wouldn't hurt a fly!". Sadly it's normal for people to play dumb over the abuses that women have had to endure year after year and to keep insisting we just need a few more "experiments" to prove that, no surprise, more men lowers a woman's quality of life, and more men in spaces meant for vulnerable women is straight up dangerous.

Bone density and hieght drop with hrt.

And they also menstruate, right?

Also still weaker than men which is the point.

Actually no, the point is 1. Not being stronger than women 2. Not being raised with messed up male socialisation. Also, for male trans people, I'll add another point that I simply do not want to be around men who fetishise and see womanhood as a costume.

Trans women are better than men morally and less capable of violence. They represent less of a risk of harm than men.

Because you say so. Doesn't matter how aggressive and misogynistic their spaces are, they're harmless angels because, well, you say so. Uuuh, testosterone, right! What a convenient scapegoat! I guess all those misogynistic male trans people are just showing their femininity in a special way that just so happens to coincide with male-pattern behaviour.

You'll excuse me if I feel 0 pity for men who want us to accept that we should put up with the patriarchy as long as men have testosterone just because they want to validate their fetish or wishful thinking. God, did my patience for this kind of behaviour in men erode over the years.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You are literally denying proven facts of estrogen on our physiology and apparently ignoring what I actually type while pretending I said other stuff so I’m gonna go ahead and block you. This is an absolute farce.

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except 1. modern trans movements don't even expect you to get HRT in order to count as the opposite sex 2. Male bodies are proven to have advantages due to being male regardless of hormones, hence why trans people in sports is such a terrible idea. A hormonally imbalanced male body is not equivalent to a female body. 3. Male shittiness goes beyond just physical danger, it also includes the kind of misogyny that is rampant in any male spaces, including trans spaces

I addressed and quoted what you said. If the only thing you can provide is non-sequiturs, then I'm glad you realise you've lost the argument.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss?

You're begging the question. You haven't shown that to be true. If 1% of trans women are rapists but 50% of all trans women would be raped in men's prisons, then you end up with 5000% more rapes with trans women housed with men than with women.

[–]YoutiaoLover 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The solution is so obvious: just let transwomen rape and assault women in women's prison, amirite?

Trans people can make their own space instead of barging into women's space. It's not impossible to make a separate wing for TW in men's prison. That way TW would be safe from other men without sacrificing the safety of women.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Women do not need to prove that male people are a threat to female people, and in fact the very suggestion is offensive after the amount of violence women have consistently endured. We have literally the entire history of this happening, which is why female spaces exist in the first place. Why do we need to prove the most obvious thing in existence, that men are a threat to women?

If 1% of trans women are rapists but 50% of all trans women would be raped in men's prisons, then you end up with 5000% more rapes with trans women housed with men than with women.

  1. Countless men are at an above-average risk of male violence, including the kind of violence you just mentioned. Should we put all of them in with women?
  2. I can pull out and inflate stats like that as well. If 1% of women are rapists but 50% of male trans people in prisons are rapists, then you end up with 5000% increase in rape. It always comes down to trans safety trumping women's safety.
  3. Men abusing each other is unfortunate and needs to be addressed without sacrificing female safety and blaming male abuse on women. It is not up to women to fix or accommodate men by sacrificing their own spaces, just as it wasn't up to women to open female spaces to gay men or to black men. I don't want tigers to go extinct and I support special enclosures to ensure their survival, but I refuse to house one in my house, no matter how tame and traumatised it is claimed to be.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

trans women in women’s (intimate spaces such as toilets) maximizes overall safety.

"Overall safety" for whom? Only for natal males who call themselves trans.

But certainly not for the bulk of female people, especially young and usually timid girls, elderly women, disabled girls & women, pregnant women, women with several young children in tow, women needing to attend to matters of female biology that are alien to males and females should be able to deal with in privacy and dignity, away from "the male gaze" - menstruation, bladder issues and hemorrhoids due to pregnancy, miscarriage, menopausal or fibroid flooding, clothing stained by blood or breastmilk, urinary and fecal incontinence due to injuries sustained during pregnancy/childbirth or post-menopausal changes.

How does letting some male people into female spaces benefit and enhance the safety of girls and women?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Overall safety" for whom? Only for natal males who call themselves trans.

For everyone. Thats why it said overall. Trans women in men’s spaces are in more danger than natal women from trans women in women’s spaces so the safer overall choice if all people are equal is the second.

[–]PassionateIntensity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Women’s bathrooms and other female specific spaces- why should/shouldn’t TW and women share those spaces?

Single occupancy spaces are best but absent that, trans women in women’s maximizes overall safety.

I don't think this is true for either women or transwomen. We know it's less safe for women but there are also way more reports of transwomen being physically attacked because they used the women's bathrooms than there are because they went into the men's. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place for evidence?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Men won’t come into women’s rooms to attack us. That means it will be attacks in public as opposed to the isolated space of a bathroom. That’s safer. There’s room to run and the possibility of someone helping. That’s not true in a men’s room.

Trans women by and large don’t use mens rooms because they are death traps. That’s why their aren’t many reports. We know better and those who are stupid enough to will never call the cops.

I personally was attacked in a men’s room the last time I used one. I didn’t report it because I wasn’t in need or emergency help and you don’t trust cops.