QT: Why TM don't mind using women's spaces when it suits them? And why TW don't follow their example?

submitted by BiologyIsReal from self.GCdebatesQT

So, TMAM according to you. Stating that females who identify as "men" (aka "transmen") are women is "transphobic" to you and that is why you justify new terms like "pregnat people", "menstruators", etcetera. Also, gay men need to regard them as potential partners if they don't want to be called bigots. And of course, they go to men's spaces... except when they don't.

Despite that we are told to accept females who identify as "men" as real men, many times they willingly go into certain women's spaces like women's sports, schools or prissons. Apparently, they may even delay taking testosterone if with this they can compete in women's sports. This is contranst with males who identify as "women" (aka "transwomen"), who don't want to share anything with males who don't deny their sex.

How can women's spaces include both females who identify as "men" and males who identify as "women"? If you recognize there are enough differences between men and females claiming to be "men" to explain this practise, then why is it "transphobic" to point out the differences between women and males claiming to be "women"?

all 51 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Obligatory not QT, but trans. I feel like there could be a few different answers. As u/Beris was saying, it just might not be as safe and men could be more likely to be upset by your presence. Maybe trans males might feel less sense of community or kinship with men/boys from growing up than trans females might feel with women/girls. I don’t know that for sure, but I feel like it would explain a lot. There is a part of just respecting boundaries less too, especially in instances where a person is obviously male. Females are socialized to care more about others feelings and males often times aren’t. I know GC isn’t happy any trans males using women’s bathroom, but if you pass, it is usually less disruptive in public to use the bathroom that matches how you look.

[–]beris😎 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I know the common response to the argument is "it's not women's job to sort out men's problems", but I've always felt that's too much of an oversimplification of the issue. I personally don't feel it's my responsibility to take on part of the collective burden toxic masculinity has on trans people, but at the same time I don't think its reasonable to put that on the backs on people with zero social power to enact that change. Go to the bathroom you look like you're supposed to use, don't use changing rooms or any other more intimate women's spaces, the world will continue to rotate.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Who decides what bathroom it looks like any particular individual is supposed to use, though?

[–]beris😎 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is wishy-washy make-believe scenario where everything fits nicely and pass/don't pass is an easy question to answer. The real world isn't, so there is no one size fits all answer. Besides, you know, just respect women and don't use women's facilities, but we're well past expecting that.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What make believe scenario? There’s no scenario, it was question.

You said to use the bathroom it looks like you should use, I was just wondering who decides which bathroom it looks like any individual should use. Some people think if you’re at least attempting to “pass” that’s enough, others think if you pass go for it, and still others think it doesn’t matter how you look but how you identify. It’s a valid question to ask, based on your answer.

I agree “just respect women”, but that’s not what you said, a lot of people will think that the attempt to look “like a woman” is respectful and enough to grant access to female spaces, and as mentioned, others think you don’t even have to do that.

To me there is a one size fits all answer- use the bathroom meant for your sex. It’s the most fair for the most people. I believe it works for like 99% of us.

[–]beris😎 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

And it's one I cant answer because I'm not arbiter of nothing. I mean hell I'm mostly blind so I can literaly not be the deciding factor. In a perfect world scenario trans people would be their own best judge of passing and decide based on that. This isn't a perfect world, and a lot of them have no respect, it's just how I personally feel on the matter.

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

In a perfect world scenario trans people would be their own best judge of passing and decide based on that.

My idea of "a perfect world" is different. In my perfect world scenario, everyone would be raised to know what their sex is, to understand why we have sex separate facilities like loos and change rooms in the first place, and to have great respect for other people and their boundaries.

In your perfect world scenario, "trans" persons don't have to respect social conventions or other people's boundaries. So long as they personally believe they pass, they get free rein to ride roughshod over other people's right to privacy, dignity and safety. There are many problems with this individualistic arrangement in my view. It privileges trans people, assumes they all act in good faith, and puts all the power in their hands. It also assumes all trans people are accurate in their self-perceptions and judicious and fair-mined in the conclusions they reach. When the reality is, many, many more trans people - particularly the males - think they pass than actually do - and like everyone else, they are subject to errors in judgment and reasoning due to their own self-interests and selfish biases.

There are tons of male trans people in the world who think they pass because that's their view, and that's what their friends and family have told them. They take as affirmation of their belief that they pass the fact that they've never been challenged when they've used women's spaces like toilets. They are completely unaware that women can see full well they are male, but we don't say anything for a host of reasons - fear of provoking anger and perhaps an assault, confusion, discomfort, pity, not wanting to be impolite, not wanting to cause distress. So we keep our mouths closed, our heads down and get away as fast as we can.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I actually don’t disagree with you, at this point, I’m just wondering why that was your response if you know it’s not really something that would work irl?

I do disagree that trans people are the best at judging passing, I don’t know that they realize that there are tells that the rest of us notice. A lot of them (incorrectly) think they pass, particularly because the rest of us don’t tell them otherwise and they’re being told they pass by each other. I personally think that bathrooms should be sex based, and trans people can take a gamble on their passability if they want (meaning a woman should be able to tell an obvious male to exit a female space if she wants) but even that is flawed because I don’t think most women would say something when we notice a TW in our space.

I do get that in the real world we just have to deal, regardless of how we feel.

[–]beris😎 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I do get that in the real world we just have to deal, regardless of how we feel.

That's the crux of it, for me I guess. I agree most women wouldn't say anything to a nonpassing TW, so that makes "go where you'd look normal going" harder. But again like, at the end of the day, I'm happier if the absolute minimum to infringe on women's spaces is happening. Sorry if im not explaining myself well it's past my bedtime, I'm getting too sleepy.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I get what you mean now.

And good night!

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

I'm not sure what your stance is on IDs but on the OG reddit r/GC sub I think I once said something to the extent of "At the end of the day no one really wants to police bathrooms but on the chance that weird things are going on and someone doesn't look like they belong, women would like the ability to have that person removed or otherwise informed that there are more appropriate bathrooms for them," which is to say if an obvs M is in the W bathroom, and probs doing more than just beelining to a toilet and back out with a hand wash - someone may talk with management.
Generally it was heavily upvoted and most GCs inc IIRC u/lovesloane agreed that that was pretty much the realistic GC take.

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

Do you not believe that there are appearances that are inherently cis or trans?

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

Nobody looks “cis” because “cis” is bullshit.

I believe that most of the time we can all very clearly discern someone’s sex. I do think there are some (honestly probably most) trans people who are “visibly trans”.

So who gets to decide which spaces “visibly trans” (in other words, obviously not the sex they wish to be seen as, but clearly trans) people get to use?

That’s my point, “use the bathroom it looks like you’re supposed to use”- but when someone is clearly trans but also clearly male, which one do they look like they are supposed to use? QT would say the women’s room, others, myself included, would say the men’s.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There is no looking trans or male, just people whom think some appearances look trans or male. So they should use the bathroom they identify with

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s absurd and laughable to act as if nobody looks male or obviously trans lol. I can name, off the top of my head, a dozen transwomen who look both visibly trans and obviously male. And half the human population looks (and is) male.

They identify as trans- give them a trans bathroom.

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

I don't think its reasonable to put that on the backs on people with zero social power to enact that change.

Why do you think they have no social power? So far trans identified people have the support of several goverments, political parties and big companies. They have conviced lots of people that "misgendering" is an unforgivable offense and even news outlets that are critical of transgenderims make sure to respect "prefered pronouns". They have succesfully imposed their own terminology even when it's unaccurate (e.g. sex assigned at birth). They are being succesfully at eroding women's spaces, even prissons. There are many males competing in women's sports. And I could keep going on with the list... It's not that transactivists have no political power, it's that they don't want any other solution. Males claiming to be women feel entintled to our spaces and every time you suggest building third spaces they complain this is like racial seggregation.

[–]beris😎 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Why do you think they have no social power

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Specifically, they don't have the social power to change toxic and violent masculinity specifically. They have political and social power, just not the kind that would do anything in this specific situation.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fair enough, but I think this is still a matter of willingness. They can't expect other males stop being violents when transactivists themselves allow a good deal of toxic behaviour within their own ranks. Also the danger posed to males claiming to be "women", especially in western countries, is being overstated on the Media.

https://4w.pub/breaking-down-claims-of-a-trans-genocide/

https://unherd.com/2022/01/the-truth-about-trans-murders/

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

Thanks for the links. I figured they were overstated but its nice to have numbers to point at. Cheers.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Go to the bathroom you look like you're supposed to use, don't use changing rooms or any other more intimate women's spaces, the world will continue to rotate.

I still feel like it’s not totally right, but I appreciate it. :)

[–]beris😎 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

I guess since no one's here I'll play devils advocate and say maybe men's spaces are just more dangerous than women's spaces for non-heteronormative people? I honestly can't think of any other reason besides a sense of entitlement mysteriously lacking from a lot of TM.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

I agree that men's spaces are more dangerous, but:

1- Disabled men, old men, and other groups of men are also at a higher risk in men's spaces and yet they are not seeking refuge in women's spaces. So, why "transmen" would do it if they are "real men" as they claim?

2- It's inconsistent with their own ideas. We're constantly told that sex is irrelevant and we should take "gender identity" into account instead. Females claiming to be "men" will go as far to put their health into risk, e.g. by changing their sex to "male" into medical records and expecting to be treated as "males". Yet when they want it, suddenly, "gender identity" is not as important and they don't mind sharing spaces with women.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

Old and disabled men arent nearly at the risk of visibly gay and other non-het men. Doesn't excuse it, but it is something to keep in mind that in some parts of the world that kind of presentation will actively put you im danger in intimate spaces.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Old and disabled men arent nearly at the risk of visibly gay and other non-het men.

Are you suggesting that most "danger" males face from other males is motivated exclusively by homophobia/animus toward visibly gay men and "other non-het men"?

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

Well, according to that link I posted most hate crimes are motivated by racism, so no?

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I don't get your reasoning at all. The topic here is how "dangerous" men's spaces and to whom. You immediately ascribed an extremely narrow definition to "danger." And then in the next breath you made a gigantic leap by jumping not just to hate crimes, but to hate crimes counted by the US FBI.

You seem to think the principal kind of danger males face from other males in men's spaces comes from prejudice of some sort. But you have decided that the only prejudice that results in men being in danger from other men is prejudice against "visibly gay and non-het men" and perhaps prejudice based on race/ethnicity (and religion?). But at the same time, you wave away the idea that males can face danger because of prejudice towards people of advanced age or disability, or because of the physical vulnerabilities that make men who are elderly disabled easy prey. I wonder if you'd pooh pooh the idea that young boys are in danger because their youth makes them sitting ducks

Your contention that the main reasons men face danger from other males is because they are "visibly gay and non-het men" or are subject to racism is not true. Most of the danger that males face from male strangers in men's spaces like public toilets has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice or with hate crimes. The danger is of being mugged or assaulted by another male or groups of males who want to rob them, or being assaulted by another male who is mentally ill or high on drugs (or both). In men's spaces, little boys and young, slight adolescent males face the additional danger of being sexually molested by older, bigger males too.

I know lots of guys who were mugged and assaulted in men's spaces that had nothing to do with them appearing to be gay or "non het." They got mugged and assaulted because the perps were criminals on the prowl who wanted their wallets, watches, jewelry, lunch money, iPods, phones, laptops/tablets, backpacks, name-brand sneakers, fancy shoes, leather jackets, parkas, gloves, eyeglasses, skateboards, car keys, house keys and addresses... and so on.

Age, size and physical and mental disability status definitely affect how much danger males face from other males in men's spaces. As does the clothing they are wearing, and whether they appear to be impaired due to drink or drugs. Predators prey on those they perceive to be weakest and to be the least likely to effectively fight back.

Some of the boys and men who get preyed on like this are "visibly gay" but a lot of them are not. Several of my gay friends who got repeatedly mugged in the 1980s were/are gay but not "visibly gay." They present as bog standard blokes, like most gay men do - neither "feminine" nor in leather chaps. Regular suits and ties or jeans and T-shirts, as in the case of gay guys like James Dreyfus, Glenn Greenwald, Anderson Cooper, Pete Buttieg.

Your contention that danger in men's spaces is principally faced by "visibly gay and other non-het men" is bollox. What about all the young men who historically have sold sex in loos used for "cottaging" and also rob and beat up men in those spaces? What about all the transvestites of yore known to harass, menace, assault, mug and rob boys and men in public spaces like men's rooms?

BTW, since you linked to FBI stats, it's very hard for a crime in the US to be counted as a "hate crime." In most cases, "hate crime" is an aggravator prosecutors add during sentencing. But rarely are crimes such as assault, murder and robberty prosecuted on the basis that the perps were solely motivated by hate/prejudice based on a protected characteristic - because in most such crimes perps have multiple motives, or no motive that makes any sense.

A great deal of what gets counted in the hate crime stats in the USA are crimes against property, not direct assaults on individuals. Like painting swastikas on synagogues or homophobic slurs on the wall or window of gay bar, vandalizing a religious cemetery, setting fire to a church, bombing a mosque, putting a burning cross on someone's lawn, calling in bomb threats to the NAACP.

Males of racial minorities in the US experience the most violence from other males, and are much more likely to be assaulted or murdered than white men. But this isn't because of racism, or at least it's not because of individualized racism towards them. When black and Latino get beaten up and killed by other guys, the assailants are almost always of the same race.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

Okay, this is a nice and well thought out post, but I'm going to stop you right here so you don't waste the effort again.

1) I used the hate crime data to extrapolate because it's the only data I could easily find. If you've got an issue with that you're welcome to counter it with more narrow and focused data. Anecdotes are not data.

2) I guess your whole point is that males are very violent in general? Which is my point too, so glad we can hit the same notes.

3) I am not playing devils advocate to discuss the intricacies of who gets beat up and where. My point is that being visibly non-heteronirmative is a reason trans natal males might flee intimate male spaces. If you disagree with that specifically, then I'd be happy to continue discussing it, but I'm not going off on wild and imaginative tangents for something I don't believe in, sorry.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

this is a nice and well thought out post, but I'm going to stop you right here so you don't waste the effort again.

Who the hell are you to say to me or anyone else "I'm going to stop you right here so you don't waste the effort again"? LOL. Why the impulse to shut another poster up?

I don't recall seeing the announcement that you've been elected sub arbiter of what information is a "waste of effort" to post. What's it to you how I exert myself anyways? Why is it up to you to decide and tell me how to spend my time and expend my energies?

Maybe you're not aware of this, but your posting style gives the impression you are awfully keen on trying to dictate from on high rules about what information and points are worthy of mention and discussion. That's definitely not in the spirit of a debate sub. Which brings me to the 64 million dollar question:

If you aren't interested in debating, why on earth are you on a debate sub?

My point is that being visibly non-heteronirmative is a reason trans natal males might flee intimate male spaces. If you disagree with that specifically, then I'd be happy to continue discussing it, but I'm not going off on wild and imaginative tangents

The OP's original question was why do FEMALES who identify as the opposite sex continue to use female spaces. Which led the issue of "danger" inherent in men's spaces. You yourself initially postulated that

men's spaces are just more dangerous than women's spaces for non-heteronormative people

Of both sexes. But then you immediately narrowed the focus from "people" to MALES - and then narrowed it down further to adult MALES of a very narrow type. Then without any supporting evidence or even a theory to back it up, you claimed this narrow band of adult males is at the greatest risk of all:

Old and disabled men arent nearly at the risk of visibly gay and other non-het men. Doesn't excuse it, but it is something to keep in mind that in some parts of the world that kind of presentation will actively put you im danger in intimate spaces.

Now in response to my challenging you on some of the claims you've made, you huffily say

I am not playing devils advocate to discuss the intricacies of who gets beat up and where. My point is that being visibly non-heteronirmative is a reason trans natal males might flee intimate male spaces.

Which leaves me scratching my head. OP's initial query was about FEMALES, but all you want to talk about is MALEs. Jeez, I'm getting deja vu. This exact sort of thing has happened before on this sub and in convos about this. Why does the focus always have to be about MALES? And again I gotta ask:

If you aren't interested in debating, why on earth are you on a debate sub?

If you disagree with that specifically, then I'd be happy to continue discussing it, but I'm not going off on wild and imaginative tangents

But you already went off on "wild and imaginative tangents" by changing the subject of the thread so as to focus it on the sole group you seem interested in - adult MALES whom you describe as visibly non-heteronirmative - and by making claims that are wholly unsupported and seem like they were picked out of thin air.

Anecdotes are not data.

Well, that's me told then! LOL.

Linking to a website, especially one concerning a topic (US hate crimes) that is irrelevant to the topic at hand and you don't understand, isn't exactly providing data, either. Nor is citing bullshit invented out of whole cloth.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

If you aren't interested in debating, why on earth are you on a debate sub?

I'm not interested in debating YOU. I am not qt. Giving a short and easy devils advocate answer is not the equivalent of being the soundboard for your many strawman arguments. You have several spaces for that. You're allowed to say whatever the hell you want, I don't owe you MY time to respond to tangential arguments that have next to nothing to do with my initial reply in the first place. Im being as respectful as possible in saying don't waste your time, i will not respond to it. It's not my fault you all don't have qt posters to write novella posts at, it is yours.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

I'm not interested in debating YOU. I am not qt.

I'm here to debate ideas, not individuals. I'm challenging positions you've taken, points you've made, and your posting style and manner of "argument." You're the one making it about identity labels rather than ideas. You're the one making it about persons, not positions. You're the one who has said

I'm not interested in debating YOU

So let me rephrase my earlier question:

If you aren't interested in debating ideas, and you refuse to debate with certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior, why on earth are you here on a debate sub?

Also, where is it written that the debate only has to be between the two different camps? I'm here to debate positions people take and points people make. People who are on the same side generally still can and often do disagree with one another over many things. Moreover, even when people discuss topics we are generally in agreement about, we still can have lively, interesting exchanges and can learn from the perspectives of others.

You're allowed to say whatever the hell you want

Thanks boss!

I don't owe you MY time to respond to tangential arguments

So don't respond to my posts, LOL. I don't care. But spare me the puerile, bad-faith name-calling. You seem to think that labelling someone's arguments as bad or too wordy - "strawman arguments," "tangential arguments," "novella posts" - is the same as effectively challenging and refuting them. Again, I gotta ask:

If you aren't interested in debating ideas, and you refuse to debate with certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior, why on earth are you here on a debate sub?

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But even according to the FBI, most hate crimes are not due to "gender identity".

Anyways, remember this thread was primarily about females who identify as trans. It's obvious why they wouldn't to stay, for example, in a men's prisons, but they would blame their vulnerability into "being trans" rather than in their sex.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What about crimes that aren’t labeled as hate crimes?

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

I mean, I don't know? I'm sure it'd be a statistic someone's got somewhere, but I don't know where and it's veering into the 'too off-topic for me to want to try and find it' region.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lol ok.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not contesting, just wondering how you found that out? The risk levels I mean.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Just assuming tbh. Found this after a couple seconds of googling, doesn't list age as far as I can tell but since disability is less than 5% that of sexual orientation, I think it's a safe assumption. Take it with a grain of salt though, obviously.

Edit: oops, link might help huh

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most assaults aren't federal hate crimes.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Cheers

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I singled out disabled and old men because they a more physically vulnerable than other males and have a lesser chance of fighting back. Like MT said not every instance of violence is hate crime.

Anyway, I don't blame "transmen" for fleeing male's spaces. Though, they can't expect to be taken seriously when, on one hand, claim to be "real men" and, on the other hand, seek the safety of women's spaces and call bigot anyone who suggest that may be the reason they are vulnerable in men's spaces it's because they are female.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It never ceases to amaze me that some people seem utterly convinced that "visibly gay and non-het men" are the most at-risk and "in danger" segment of the male population, far more than elderly men, physically and mentally disabled boys and men, and little boys. Such an assumption comes from same exact kind of myopic, clearly MALE-centric (and ageist and ableist) point of view which believes "trans women experience higher rates of male violence, sexual assault and homicide" than females do, and that "trans people are the most vulnerable, marginalized, discriminated against and put-upon group in society."

On the issue of why females who identify as men continue to use female spaces: safety is a big factor, but there's more to it than that. This is illustrated by the current situation in Ivy League swimming in the US. Both the male who "identifies as" a woman, Lia Thomas of Penn, and the female who "identifies as" a man, Iszac Henig of Yale, are competing in the women's category - and presumably using the women's locker and change rooms, toilets, and bunking with the women when traveling. We're told that because of "gender dysphoria," the male must be allowed to be with the women - that if a "gender dysphoric" male had to compete with/against other males, it would create intolerable mental and emotional anguish and likely lead to suicide. So how, then, is it that the female who is suffering from the same exact malady - gender dysphoria - is able to compete in the women's category and share spaces with women without suffering the kind of break down we're told the male would surely experience if the tables were turned? Sexist double standards and male supremacy abound here. One way that both the male and the female swimmers who "identify as" the opposite sex are united is in their utter disdain for women who don't identify as other than our sex, and in their total lack of caring about the impact of their selfish behaviors on "cis" girls and women at their schools, and in women's collegiate swimming.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, this thread ended up focusing more on the safety issue, but I agree that is not the only thing motivating females who identify as "men" (or anythin else than women). It was reading about Iszac Henig what made me writing this post. I swear if you made a movie about Henig and Lia Thomas, and showed it to an unaware audience and they wouldn't believe it was based in real events rather than just being an unrealistic comedy.