Discuss with just facts?

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

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?

If it increases overall safety? Yes.

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.

True, but my stats are far closer to reality than yours

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.

It isn't sacrificing ciswomen's safety at all to allow trans women anymore than it harms straight women to be housed with lesbians, bigoted fears aside.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If it increases overall safety? Yes.

I don't even know what to say to that. How do you argue with someone who argues that women's safety simply matters less than men?

my stats are far closer to reality than yours

The fact that male people abuse and discriminate against female people doesn't need to be studied further. It has both been demonstrated throughout history, usually to horrific extremes, and already confirmed in studies.

It isn't sacrificing ciswomen's safety at all to allow trans women anymore than it harms straight women to be housed with lesbians, bigoted fears aside.

Except those are women, which have consistently, through both studies and the entire human history, shown not to present the kind of threat to women that men do. Demanding more women to be harmed to demonstrate that men are discriminatory and dangerous to them is the same playing-dumb tactic that conservatives use to shut down women's rights. Meanwhile, the only thing that makes a certain brand of men "safe" to be with women is that they claim not to be men due to a mental illness, which is as valid as a person calling themselves a Messiah or a wolf. Moreover, I acknowledge gay men existing, but I still wouldn't let them in with women.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It seems to me that you are the one placing one groups safety above all else. You would let 100,000 trans women get sexually abused to save 1 cis woman

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Because men assaulting women is such a rarity, amirite? Like where would women get the idea that men who claim to be "safe" and "not sexist" might be lying?

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

Unless it’s 100% it’s still prejudice

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So, the only way women can seek any protection from specifically men is if 100% of men actively abuse them, and if even one man is not, that means it's all just misandrist prejudice.

I don't know why I keep assuming that the trans movement made up of misogynistic men would acknowledge the abuse that women have suffered at their hands and the need to protect women from it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I didn’t invent the definition for prejudice.

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Except you literally just did?

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

Wikipedia:

“Prejudice is an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived, usually unfavourable, evaluation of another person based on that person's political affiliation, sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, complexion, beauty, height, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics.“