GC: What is wrong with trans people working in sexual violence prevention?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

See this thread:

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/64625/trans-identified-woman-hired-as-sexual-violence-prevention-coordinator-at-uvm

all 60 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jet199 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

As shown on that thread, they can't use clear language for basic stuff so they are going to end up either excluding or repressing victims rather than supporting them. Obviously you can't work on prevention if you can't even name the people most likely to offend.

Certainly if someone signs up to queer theory, trans or not, that is all about breaking down people's boundaries which is exactly the opposite of what victims of sexual crimes need.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, but I don't think it's fair to assume Ruggles has a bad motivation here. Lots of trans natal females have experienced sexual abuse. Someone can be totally wrong on the trans issue and still have genuine concern and empathy for victims of assault.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

Certainly if someone signs up to queer theory, trans or not, that is all about breaking down people's boundaries which is exactly the opposite of what victims of sexual crimes need.

I disagree with that. Everyday Feminism is a site that subscribes to queer theory. In 2015 they did an article titled The Problem With How We’ve Defined Consent. They wrote "While every no means no, not every yes means yes." And there was even an Ovarit thread talking about this very issue but I can't find it. If queer theorists were all about breaking boundaries, they would not have written this article. Everyday Feminism has multiple articles about consent, as well as other sites and outlets that subscribe to queer theorey.

Also, most trans people and their allies believe its OK to not want to date or have sex with anyone for any reason. Yes there are exceptions but for the most part most trans people will respect your boundaries if you don't want to date or sleep with them.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

You keep telling us how women (the kind that produces large gametes, you know) do NOT have a right to single-sex spaces, and yet here you are saying consent is important for queer theory. I mean, really?

Do you think Lia Thomas, who is sexually atracted to women, cares about consent went he exposes his intact male genitalia in the changing rooms despite the female swimmers have made clear their disconfort? Do you think the university staff care about consent when they tell the women to get over their disconfort?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

You keep telling us how women (the kind that produces large gametes, you know) do NOT have a right to single-sex spaces, and yet here you are saying consent is important for queer theory. I mean, really?

Those are cis women. You can say the category.

Do you think Lia Thomas, who is sexually atracted to women, cares about consent went he exposes his intact male genitalia in the changing rooms despite the female swimmers have made clear their disconfort? Do you think the university staff care about consent when they tell the women to get over their disconfort?

Lia Thomas is a she. Anyway, if the cis female swimmers are uncomfortable changing around her, they should change in private. For this very reason locker rooms should have stalls instead of having everyone change out in the open. That way no one's genitalia is exposed. I just don't understand how changing in front of people you don't know became normalized. Just because someone is the same sex as you doesn't make it OK.

QTs are not against boundaries, we just have a different idea of boundaries than GCs. For instance, we think its harassment for a cis woman to tell a random trans woman in a restroom she doesn't belong. Since restrooms are separated by stalls, you already have all the privacy. I know the argument that a trans woman may implant a camera, which cis women are also capable of doing, but you can't ban someone from a public place because they might commit a crime. It doesn't work that way.

QTs feel trans women are women and trans men are men. Most QTs believe however no one is owed sex and rapists should be prosecuted. That's what I meant when I said queer theorists are not about breaking boundaries.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Those are cis women. You can say the category.

"Cis" imply that someone believe in sex-based stereotypes and they conform to the stereotypes and roles expected from their sex (the biological category, you know?). I don't know what Thomas' female teammates really think about these issues, but I think is a safe bet they are likely very aware about the phisiological differences beetween Thomas and them, and how they are treated very different by society.

Lia Thomas is a she.

Please, tell us how do you know Thomas is a "woman". Is the way his swimsuit highlight his very obviously male body? Is the sport dominance that nowadays he shows by winning and breaking records in the pool despite that he was a mediocre athlete when he competed with fellow men? Is the penis he exposes to his teammates in the changing rooms? Is the fact he is guity of exhibiotionism and vouyerism, two crimes that are mostly commited by males? Is the way he can get away with it like most men do? Is the way the Media, the university, and sport authorities keep choosing to defend him over the women affected by his actions inside and outside the pool? Is the way his female teammates feel they can't publicly speak out under their own name? Is the way society expects women to coddle him even when is against their own interest? Is the way his critics have to preface their arguments saying they respect his "identity" and that he is not to blame about what is happening? Is the way even critical Media uses feminine pronouns to describe this man?

I'm being serius here, genderbender, why do you think this man is any sort of "woman"? Is all because he SAYS he is a "woman"? Is that enough to qualify as a one? Do you not only believe that some men are really "women", but men are unable to lie about their "gender identity?

QTs are not against boundaries, we just have a different idea of boundaries than GCs. For instance, we think its harassment for a cis woman to tell a random trans woman in a restroom she doesn't belong. Since restrooms are separated by stalls, you already have all the privacy. I know the argument that a trans woman may implant a camera, which cis women are also capable of doing, but you can't ban someone from a public place because they might commit a crime. It doesn't work that way.

QTs feel trans women are women and trans men are men. Most QTs believe however no one is owed sex and rapists should be prosecuted. That's what I meant when I said queer theorists are not about breaking boundaries.

Do you want I give you again those links showing how trans identified males (aka "transwomen") retain male patterns of criminality and how unisex restrooms are more dangerous for women?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

"Cis" imply that someone believe in sex-based stereotypes and they conform to the stereotypes and roles expected from their sex (the biological category, you know?).

Cis means someone primarily identifies with their birth sex. For instance, if you were born female and identify as a woman, you would be considered a cis woman. You don't have to conform to any stereotypes and roles. You can have short hair, wear ties, work long hours in construction and prefer video games instead of shopping at the mall, and still be considered cis.

I don't know what Thomas' female teammates really think about these issues, but I think is a safe bet they are likely very aware about the phisiological differences beetween Thomas and them, and how they are treated very different by society.

This is why we use terms like cis and trans when relevant.

Please, tell us how do you know Thomas is a "woman". Is the way his swimsuit highlight his very obviously male body?

Thomas prefers she/her pronouns and we should respect that.

Is the penis he exposes to his teammates in the changing rooms? Is the fact he is guity of exhibiotionism and vouyerism, two crimes that are mostly commited by males?

If other women are not allowed to expose their genitalia, then neither should she. If that’s the case, she should absolutely be charged with exhibitionism and voyeurism. If the other women are allowed to expose their genitalia, why can’t she? Genitalia is genitalia, regardless if it's a penis, vagina or something ambiguous.

Is the way even critical Media uses feminine pronouns to describe this man?

Many people including myself would not read/watch media and outlets that use the wrong pronouns for people.

I'm being serius here, genderbender, why do you think this man is any sort of "woman"? Is all because he SAYS he is a "woman"? Is that enough to qualify as a one?

Yes.

Do you want I give you again those links showing how trans identified males (aka "transwomen") retain male patterns of criminality and how unisex restrooms are more dangerous for women?

Again, you can't ban someone from a place because they might commit a crime or because of what demographic they belong to.

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

Cis means someone primarily identifies with their birth sex. For instance, if you were born female and identify as a woman, you would be considered a cis woman. You don't have to conform to any stereotypes and roles. You can have short hair, wear ties, work long hours in construction and prefer video games instead of shopping at the mall, and still be considered cis.

We're already have this conversation before. I do NOT "identify" as a woman. I am one. This is a matter of biology, not ideology. And you have admitted before that being "cis" implies to accept sex-based stereotypes as innate.

This is why we use terms like cis and trans when relevant.

Not, this is why SEX is relevant. Thomas' "gender identity" have nothing to do with his atlethic advantage or his behaviour in changing rooms or the fact society pander and defend him.

If other women are not allowed to expose their genitalia, then neither should she. If that’s the case, she should absolutely be charged with exhibitionism and voyeurism. If the other women are allowed to expose their genitalia, why can’t she? Genitalia is genitalia, regardless if it's a penis, vagina or something ambiguous.

...

What is the difference between Thomas and a naked man who don't "identifies" as the opposite sex and gets into the female changing rooms?

Many people including myself would not read/watch media and outlets that use the wrong pronouns for people.

So, you like being lied to?

Yes.

Yeah, I though so. Now, tell me why do you think men would not lie about their "gender identity" for their own benefit?

Again, you can't ban someone from a place because they might commit a crime or because of what demographic they belong to.

... I can't with you! Why are you so against prevention?!

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

We're already have this conversation before. I do NOT "identify" as a woman. I am one. This is a matter of biology, not ideology. And you have admitted before that being "cis" implies to accept sex-based stereotypes as innate.

You may not "identify" as a woman but you consider yourself a woman, if that's the language you want to use. Lia Thomas is also a woman. So is Oprah, Laverne Cox, Rihanna, MJ Rodriguez and me. I never said being cis means to accept sex based stereotypes. By "cis" we mean what someone considers themself, not stereotypes.

Not, this is why SEX is relevant. Thomas' "gender identity" have nothing to do with his atlethic advantage or his behaviour in changing rooms or the fact society pander and defend him.

Society would also "pander" to a trans man who was changing in the men's room. I'm glad Gavin Grimm went after his former high school.

What is the difference between Thomas and a naked man who don't "identifies" as the opposite sex and gets into the female changing rooms?

What is the difference between seeing a vagina and seeing a penis? Genitalia is genitalia. As I said, if cis women are not allowed to display their genitalia, than neither should Lia Thomas.

So, you like being lied to?

No, I like when people are respected, and that means using preferred pronouns.

Yeah, I though so. Now, tell me why do you think men would not lie about their "gender identity" for their own benefit?

I'm sure there are men who would do that but my point is you can't exclude people from public places because they belong to a certain demographic. My high school had airport style metal detectors you had to go through before entering the school. Statistically most school shooters are white males yet every student had the same scanning procedure and were scrutinized equally regardless of what demographic they belonged to. It's not like white males were required to go through separate lines and receive more intense searches.

Likewise, you you can't ban people from public spaces just because they might commit a crime. If a man implanted a camera in the bathroom stall, we would put him in jail. We would do the same thing if a woman implanted a camera. If someone is implanting a camera, it's their behavior that is the problem, not their mere presence. Likewise, if someone robs you on the street, it's their behavior that is the problem, not their presence. By your logic people in demographics who are more likely to rob someone should not have a curfew or walk different streets than the rest of us. We all have the potential to commit a crime. This is not being against safeguarding or prevention.

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

Again, you can't ban someone from a place because they might commit a crime or because of what demographic they belong to.

you can't exclude people from public places because they belong to a certain demographic.

Sure you can. There are lots of public places where people are barred or their access is restricted because they belong to a certain demographic. For example, people can't get into bars, nightclubs and other "adults only" social and entertainment venues if they are under a certain age. Movie theaters in the US routinely bar young kids from showings of "R" rated films. Most municipalities have senior centers that are off limits to people who are under 62 or 65.

On the other hand, lots of venues for young children don't allow older kids or adults unrestricted access. Lone adults can't get into toddlers' play spaces like soft plays, or into the little kids' birthday party rooms and areas in restaurants and recreation centers. Nor can groups of tweens and teens. To get into places meant for little kids, adults and older children have to be accompanied by a small child within a specific demographic - and even then, there's a limit in the number of adults who can get in.

People can be banned from public facilities due to body characteristics too. Lots of people are prohibited from going on certain public amusement park rides, and from using certain public recreational facilities, if they are under a certain height or over a certain weight and/or girth.

Similarly, if you're unable to hear or see well, you're not strong enough to operate the exit door, or you have mobility problems, you are automatically banned from sitting in exit row on a commercial public airplane.

As for your repeated claim that

you can't ban someone from a place because they might commit a crime

Nonsense. Lots of jurisdictions in the US and in other countries ban people who've been convicted of certain sex crimes from living in close proximity to schools and children's playgrounds. Many jurisdictions prohibit convicted sex criminals from coming within 1000 feet of schools and playgrounds even as passersby. Which means sex convicts under such restrictions can't even walk, jog, drive or take a bus that goes by those places.

My high school had airport style metal detectors you had to go through before entering the school. Statistically most school shooters are white males yet every student had the same scanning procedure and were scrutinized equally regardless of what demographic they belonged to. It's not like white males were required to go through separate lines and receive more intense searches.

Yes, every student enrolled in your school underwent the same scanning procedures. But you don't seem to be aware here that high school students constitute a demographic - and that other demographic groups which together constitute the majority of the population would all automatically be barred from the premises of your school and all other public schools.

The only people automatically allowed into schools are enrolled students and adult employees who work there. At special times and under specific circumstances, adults who are parents, guardians or invitees of students are allowed on the premises too. But even if they've got kids enrolled in a school, adults can't just rock up and walk into public or private schools in the US whenever they want. When adults are allowed into schools, they're still not allowed to use the same toilets that the students use. And whilst a visiting parent might be allowed into a classroom or the library to do volunteer work, or to go to the cafeteria for a parents' meetup coffee hour once in a while, all these activities have to be done with permission granted ahead of time. And under no circumstances would any parents, or any members of the school staff either, be allowed to enter either the girls' or the boys' locker rooms during the school day or other times when students might be using them.

On running forums, young males of 19 and up are constantly expressing shock and outrage to find that they don't have carte blanche to use the track and athletic facilities at their local high school. They mistakenly took it for granted that because a school is public, then its campus and facilities must be open to all the public all the time. So when they've shown up and started using the track, they were totally taken aback when security approached them and told them to leave. College-age young people are often similarly surprised when they decide to drop in at their old HS to say hello to their former teachers and they find they're stopped at the entrance.

Regarding access to tracks on public school campuses, there's been a bit of a stink in the running world of late because members of a certain professional running club have recently been banned from using HS and other public tracks in a city in Arizona. Because members of that club were witnessed shitting near and under the viewing stands.

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

Addition to my earlier response to GenderBender: What you said about metal detectors at your school was nagging in back of my mind all day, coz it didn't jibe with what I thought I knew. But I wasn't sure that I what I thought I knew was accurate, so I didn't say anything then. But now I've checked, so I've come back to address those points. You said:

My high school had airport style metal detectors you had to go through before entering the school. Statistically most school shooters are white males yet every student had the same scanning procedure and were scrutinized equally regardless of what demographic they belonged to. It's not like white males were required to go through separate lines and receive more intense searches.

First, you are incorrect that in the US "most school shooters are white males." Yes, in the 20 years from the Columbine school shooting in Colorado in spring 1999 through mid-2019, 70% those who've committed or attempted to commit mass school shootings in the US have been white males. But the problem of gun violence in schools is not just one of mass shootings.

From 2013 to 2019, Everytown identified 549 incidents of gunfire on school grounds. Of these, 347 occurred on the grounds of an elementary, middle, or high school,2 resulting in 129 deaths and 270 people wounded. At least 208 of the victims were students. https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/

Whilst mass shootings resulting in fatalities account for 24% of all deaths and 12% of injuries caused by shootings at US schools, mass shootings make up less than 1% (one percent) of all incidents where guns are fired in schools. When you look at who brings guns to school and who is involved in all school shootings, not just the mass ones, you'll also find that black and Latino males are disproportionately involved relative to their numbers in the population (though not necessarily relative to the population of the area where the schools involved are located).

While perpetrators of mass shootings in schools have tended to be white, and the popular narrative around school shootings has focused on predominantly white schools, the larger context of gunfire on school grounds presents a very different picture. Among the 335 shooting incidents at K-12 schools where the racial demographic information of the student body was known, 64 percent occurred in majority-minority schools. The burden of gun violence has a particularly outsized impact on Black students. Although Black students represent approximately 15 percent of the total K-12 school population in America,31 they constitute 25 percent of K-12 student victims of gunfire (those who were killed or injured on school grounds where the race of the victim was known).

https://everytownresearch.org/report/preventing-gun-violence-in-american-schools/

I couldn't find stats on the race/ethnicity of the shooters in minority-majority schools, but if you go through the shootings that have occurred in US schools decade by decade, case by case (lists are on Wikipedia) and look up the news coverage of incidents that occurred in K-12 schools in cities and urban areas where information of the perpetrators was given, you'll find that a lot of the shooters are black and Hispanic males - and a lot of the shootings involve criminal youth gangs or mental illness (or both).

If white males were the predominant group committing shootings in minority-majority schools - and/or they were shooting predominantly black, brown and Asian students - then surely we'd be hearing about this from understandably outraged parents, educators, law enforcement authorities, politicians and activists in media reports and press conferences, protests and government bulletins. After all, look at the amount of coverage and outrage the supposedly racist attack on Jussie Smollett generated before it was revealed to be a hoax. If teenage white boys were gunning down kids of color in US schools, they'd be as infamous as the Covington Catholic school boy who smiled down the older Native American man in the infamous face-off in Washington DC a few years back.

Also, guns are not the only prohibited or dangerous items that school metal detectors and guards are on the lookout for. Knives and weapons like brass knuckles and "nunchuks" aka "karate sticks."

Finally, since you seem to think the reason there are metal detectors in US schools is because of mass school shootings by white males like killers who committed the massacres at Columbine HS, Sandy Hook elementary and Stoneman Douglas, you might be interested to know that the use of metal detectors in schools in the US preceded the first mass school shootings by many years. In NYC, where I used to live, they were in use starting the early 80s (I recall them in the school I used to vote in when Reagan was POTUS). In Detroit, the came into use in the late 80s. In Washington DC, in 1991.

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

If the other women are allowed to expose their genitalia, why can’t she?

Sheesh, with thinking like this, it's no wonder that so many media stories extolling the remarkableness of the latest "pregnant man" and the miraculous nature of the most recent "man who gave birth" say these individuals were shocked to discover they'd gotten pregnant in the first place.

For the record because some here seem intent on denying the obvious: people with penises can use their penises to impregnate people with vaginas. People with vaginas cannot use their vaginas or vulvas or any other organs to impregnate people with penises.

Indeed, people with penises can not become impregnated by any means whatsoever, not under any circumstances or at any time in their lives. For all of human history, people with penises have been having sex with other people with penises, and in these acts lots of sperm has been exchanged - yet never, ever has any person with a penis gotten pregnant. Not even once. Funny dat.

The fact that only people with penises can impregnate, and they can do so their whole lives starting age 12-15, but they can never ever become pregnant themselves whilst people with vaginas can never impregnate but they can become pregnant for a good portion of their lives generally starting circa age 9-13, puts these two groups of people in entirely different risk categories.

People with penises pose a risk of impregnation to people with vaginas. But at no time in their lives, will people withe penises ever be at risk of being made pregnant by another person of either sex. A person with a penis will never spend a moment of life consumed with worry over a missed period; full fear and horror over the prospect of unwanted pregnancy; scared to death of being beaten, disowned or killed for becoming pregnant outside marriage; panicked about access or lack of access to abortion; or full of dread as pregnancy progresses and the time of having to go through the rigors and pain of human labor and the dangers of human childbirth approaches. Yet all these and other unpleasant experiences are commonplace for the half of the world's population born with vaginas.

In the less developed parts of the world today, the leading cause of death and disabling injury amongst teenage female people is complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Not one teenager with a penis has ever died or become disabled this way.

Hundreds of millions of people with vaginas over the course of history have lost their lives due to being pregnant or giving birth. Not one single person with a penis over the course of history has ever died pregnancy or childbirth.

The imbalance between people with penises and people with vaginas regarding pregnancy is called risk asymmetry. It means your claim that "genitalia is genitalia" is irresponsible hogwash.

Also, how exactly would a woman or girl expose her vagina to others in a change room, restroom, shower or similar place? She'd have to bring a speculum with her, then insert it into herself whilst changing or showering, right? But even if in the highly unlikely event that a girl or woman were to do this, the only people who'd be able to see her vagina would be those who'd actually make an effort to stick their faces right up close to where the speculum is and look inside. Seeing a vagina is not something that occurs by happenstance, nor does it tend to happen in locker rooms and gym showers. Usually, to see another person's vagina in the flesh requires going to medical school.

Genitalia is genitalia, regardless if it's a penis, vagina or something ambiguous.

Genderbender, for your own safety and that of your friends, please be aware that just as this is not the case biologically, it's also not the case legally in many jurisdictions.

The youngest person documented ever to bear a child was 5 years old at the time. Can you guess what kind of genitals this person had? What about the person responsible for this child's pregnancy? If you were one of the authorities tasked with determining how this 5 year-old or any other child got pregnant, would your search focus on people with vaginas - or people with penises? According to you, members of both groups should be held equally under suspicion because

Genitalia is genitalia, regardless if it's a penis, vagina or something ambiguous.

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

I have nothing in common with that cheating pervert!!!

You now what, just forget what I said. Arguing with you is frustating in the best of circunstances and I'd already enough online arguing for the rest of the month before beginning this conversation.

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

Long time no see.

You may not "identify" as a woman but you consider yourself a woman, if that's the language you want to use.

This is disingenuous and also false in your language.

A couple of Germans in Iceland ask their native German translator who is fluent in Icelandic to ask an Icelandic man in the market what he is selling. The Icelandic man answers “kind”, which is the Icelandic word for sheep, and the translator repeats “kind” to the Germans, which is the German word for child, and tells them to alert the police of child trafficking. The translator knows the Icelandic man isn’t identifying as selling a child (referring to selling sheep, not a child) but as the Icelander considers himself selling “kind” the translator thinks if that is the language the Icelander wants to use then he as German will treat the Icelander accordingly.

Is the translator above fair? To a German, in your eyes, should the Icelander be viewed as selling “kind”, the verbatim letters used by the Icelander which happens to be the German word for child, or as selling “schaf”, the German word for sheep which was what the Icelander actually meant?

Even within the same language meanings and letters are separate things. In English “gay” can mean being happily excited, “gay” can also mean being homosexual. If you know Peter is a straight man who has an old fashioned speaking pattern who says he is gay when he is excited and Sarah confesses to you she’s thinking of asking him out, would it be fair to tell Sarah she shouldn’t as Peter has admitted being gay to you? No, as Peter was communicating he was excited while you would be trying to communicate to Sarah that he is homosexual which is false.

What does GC refer to with “woman”? Translated to your terminology it’s an adult AFAB. What do you refer to with “woman”? An adult who shares your gender identity. Its false to portray someone as considering themselves sharing your gender identity when the person merely considers themselves AFAB in your terminology. Being aware of being AFAB is not the same thing as sharing your gender identity which the subreddit ftm on reddit is an example of as it’s full of people who are aware they are AFAB despite not sharing your gender identity. You claim to be against misgendering yet you keep insisting people share your gender identity even after they tell you they don’t for having used letters that has a gendered meaning to you but not to them. That would be similar to me insisting a straight Lesbos resident calling herself a lesbian is lowkey admitting being into woman because lesbian means something else to me than to her.

You are the only QT person here invested in the debate and I always appreciated the fact you take the time. Your tendency for the logical error explained above always annoyed me though. I hope this explanation makes sense to you but feel free ask if something is unclear, similarly feel free to tell me if you disagree with the distinction between letters and meanings and we can have a conversation about it.

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

If other women are not allowed to expose their genitalia, then neither should she [Lia Thomas].

This disingenuously pretends that male and female anatomy are analogous when they are not.

Only the male gonads - the testicles - are on the outer part of the body where they can easily be seen by others and by males themselves. Any time a male is naked in the presence of others, his gonads will be visible to others unless he's lying on his stomach, covering them with his hands or taking other measures to hide them such as tucking.

Any time a male is naked in the presence of others in a full-frontal way, his penis will be clearly visible to others too.

Even if a female person wanted to, none of us could ever expose our gonads to others. Because the female gonads, the ovaries, are inside our abdomens. The only way they can been seen is through sonogram, or through a scope inserted into the abdomen surgically. Guys can see their balls just by looking, and they can easily touch them with their hands. By contrast, most girls and women will live our whole lives without ever seeing or touching our ovaries.

When female people are standing upright, walking around or sitting naked in change rooms and showers, our genitals are not visible to others the way men's genitals are in those same positions/activities. Because females do not have any outer organ equivalent to the penis and testicles and scrotum. The vagina is an internal organ; it's not an external organ that hangs off the front of our bodies the way penises and balls do. Our external genitals, the vulva - which consists of the labia, clitoris, urethral and vaginal openings - is/are in between our legs; for others to see these part of our bodies requires that we situate ourselves in a specific way and spread our legs, which are not things women customarily do in change rooms and communal showers.

When women's pubic hair is intact - which is still the custom for many of the world's women - it naturally shields our vulvas from others' view when we are standing, walking around and sitting. It shields our genitals from our own view too.

Speaking of which, whilst it's easy for males to see their own dicks and balls, and they do all the time over the course of their lives, for girls and women to see our own genitals requires use of a mirror or camera.

In my younger years, I was a nude model for artists. The men I know who did this kind of modeling felt much more exposed than their female counterparts because being naked meant the male models' genitals were on full display in frontal poses. This was not the case for the female models, especially in an era when women still customarily kept their pubic hair intact. All the times I modeled nude, my genitals were never "exposed." Same goes for all the zillions of times I've been naked in locker rooms and gym showers, and the occasions I've gone "skinny dipping."

The only times my genitals have ever been "exposed" visually to someone who isn't a sexual partner during moments when we were being sexually intimate was when I've been undergoing gynecological exams, giving birth, having my labia repaired after childbirth, having CVS, and when I had my uterus and one of my ovaries surgically removed vaginally. The people who saw my genitals exposed in those cases were all HCPs, except in the case of childbirth my partner was there and saw my genitals too.

Even when I was sexually molested as a girl and raped when I was older, my genitals weren't visually exposed/on display to the men who committed those crimes the way Lia Thomas's genitals have been exposed and put on display to all the female swimmers forced to share locker rooms with Thomas.

TL: DR version: Because of the stark anatomical differences between males and females, it's completely preposterous and disingenuous to liken the male body parts that are exposed to others when someone like Lia Thomas is naked in a women's locker room and showers to the female body parts that are on display to others when girls and women are naked in those spaces.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Genitalia is genitalia, regardless if it's a penis, vagina or something ambiguous.

This is super surprising to me. Is this really how you feel? Having a penis in a space where I am undressed or changing clothes would make me very uncomfortable. Has it happened to you? Also, how would the trans person be comfortable doing that? I have some experience with this because I had a penis for part of my life. Never in a million years would I have felt comfortable exposing it to someone, anyone, even sexual partners if I could avoid it. This is because I had dysphoria and it made me tremendously uncomfortable being there to the point I could become physically sick if I had to expose myself, even at a doctor’s for instance. Why is this person seemingly fine exposing themselves this way, as a trans person? I guess I do feel like if you aren’t dysphoric then, whatever is happening with you is something I guess, but you aren’t trans and shouldn’t be hiding behind that. It just seems like creeping to me.

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

Genitalia is genitalia, regardless if it's a penis, vagina or something ambiguous.

Some genitalia are also a deadly weapon, especially in the US when we're on our way back to back alley coat hanger abortions, as many parts of the country are. You might spend a few minutes pondering the difference between a gun safely holstered and a gun being brandished in your direction.

[–]Chocolatepudding 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If there is one thing that unites natal women regardless of anything else, it's an understanding of the fear of male violence, the unease about being undressed in close proximity to a man. Non-natal 'women' show themselves up a mile away because they don't understand this. Listen to yourself, silencing women who don't feel comfortable. Very patriarchal

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I am a natal woman and I don't understand this either. Also, how can I be silencing natal women when I'm a natal woman myself?

According to a PPRI study, only 40% of women support requiring trans people to use bathrooms corresponding to their assigned sex at birth. That means 60% of women, more than half, are OK with trans women in their restrooms. 51% of men support requiring transgender individuals people to use bathrooms corresponding to their assigned sex at birth. So cis men are more likely to think trans women don't belong in women's restrooms then cis women. Also, in every poll I find about this trans issues, they all have one thing in common. Regardless of percentage results or fluctuation, cis women are more likely to support trans rights than cis men. According to a poll, 59% of men support banning trans women in women's sports compared to 46% of women. 29% of men oppose banning trans women in women's sports compared to 34% of women. Men are more likely to agree with gender critical views then women.

r/GenderCynical, a sub meant to document and refute illogical GC arguments, was founded by a cis woman. I used to post there regularly on one of my Reddit accounts. Everyday Feminism was founded by Sandra Kim, an East Asian cis woman. She is the president of the site. She even wrote an article titled What Cis Folk Have In Common With Trans Folk. BabyCenter is a pregnancy and birth forum. The users there totally support transgender people, and will quickly call you the T-slur and shut you down if you express gender critical views. Visit the Debate Team and Bargain Hunters boards for proof.

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

If you don't understand it perhaps it's internalised misogyny? I don't know. You are a woman telling other women to just get over it and accept having their own personal boundaries crossed. And that it's all ok because opinion polls.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Also, how can I be silencing natal women when I'm a natal woman myself?

You're admiting in this very comment how you want the women you disagree with to be silenced. Also do NOT use the T-slur here.

40% is still a large amount of women to dismiss. You are telling all those women they should ignore their own boundaries only because you think so.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You're admiting in this very comment how you want the women you disagree with to be silenced.

I do not want women and men I disagree with to be silenced. Moreover, it is literally impossible to silence people. Yes, most major social media sites do not allow gender critical views, but you can still find then on Ovarit, Saidit, Spinster, Women Are Human, Feminist Current, Mumsnet, Odysee, personal blogs etc. if you google it's not hard to find gender critical views. That said people can choose what media they consume. I personally don't trust news sources that misgender people or post anti-trans views. If Wikipedia began misgendering people in their articles, I would stop donating to them. Likewise, you are free not to use Wikipedia if you don't agree with this. On r/socialjustice101 a user posted a thread titled Uber sued by DOJ overcharging disabled people and in the OP linked to an article from BBC. A user replied "Is there another place I can read about this that isn't a [T-slur] Island mouthpiece?" and OP replied to the user an NPR article with the same information.

Also do NOT use the T-slur here.

I did not use the T-slur. I merely said that's what users on BabyCenter would call you if you express gender critical views.

40% is still a large amount of women to dismiss. You are telling all those women they should ignore their own boundaries only because you think so.

60% of women is an even larger amount of women to dismiss.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

LOL, since when the BBC is a T*** mouthpiece? Just further proof than QT finds anything "transphobic".

I already told you I'm tired, I'm not going to keep arguing.

And yes, redact out the T-slur or I'm going to delete both comments.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

On October 26, 2021 the BBC wrote an article titled "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women". It caused a lot of controversy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22

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

😮

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

I will only credit polls asking people's opinions about trans issues if they ask the questions, then inform those taking the poll that more than 85% of transwomen keep their penises and still use them sexually, then ask all the same questions over again.

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

Also, most trans people and their allies believe its OK to not want to date or have sex with anyone for any reason. Yes there are exceptions but for the most part most trans people will respect your boundaries if you don't want to date or sleep with them.

Wrong. Did you try the experiment I suggested for you?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'll try it.

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

For your safety, you should not use any identifiable information if you decide to try it. I want you to see what it's like out there, but I don't want you to actually get hurt.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I used a false name and random pics.

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

I have to admit I'm kind of impressed that you're going for it. What wording are you using to say that you're looking for female people exclusively? I'm going to have a lot of questions about your experience! I hope you'll make a post.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I said I am looking for "cis women only". I checked back yesterday and so far no threats or anything like that.

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

GC: What is wrong with trans people working in sexual violence prevention?

In my view, nothing. I don't think that persons should be automatically excluded from working in sexual violence prevention or recovery programs solely because they have a (certain) gender identity - or solely because they don't have a gender identity, either. Or because they eschew gender identity ideology altogether. Whether a person is qualified and the best fit for a job in sexual violence prevention or recovery/therapy depends on a plethora of factors that all must be considered both separately and in totality.

However, one of the factors I think is crucially important in sexual violence prevention and therapy is a candidate's sex. Some positions are best suited for female candidates, some for males.

But even in situations where sex is of paramount importance, I believe that reserving a position for a person of one sex or the other, or favoring a candidate due to his/her sex, needs to be done carefully and judiciously in a legitimate, proportional way. Not every female person is naturally suited to this work, and not every male is inherently unsuited.

Also, I believe that people with gender identities at odds with their sex - be they trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, ace, whatever - need services that take into account their own situations, and that when seeking help and education they should be able to find providers with whom they feel most comfortable and at ease.

What I am leery of, and I object to, is the idea that people do and can only feel comfortable with, and only can be helped by, others who are carbon copies of themselves and who ascribe to all the exact same ideologies and views.

However, one thing that gives me concern in regards to the particular question you've raised, OP, is the fact that so many people who have gender identities and are wedded to gender ideology are squeamish about sex, in denial of sex and its consequences, uninformed about sex, clueless the about physical differences between the two sexes, and likely to try to gloss over the differences between males' and females' experience of sexual violence and its consequences for the two sexes. IMO, people who can't discuss and deal with sex, and get distressed by mention of the very word sex, are not suited to be working in the field of sexual violence in any capacity.

My own impression is that only some people with special personality traits, training and skills are suited to taking positions as policy makers, program designers, program operators, counselors, therapists, educators, etc in areas like sexual violence prevention, recovery and investigation. Most of the population - no matter what our sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender presentation, religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, culture, political beliefs, class background, current socioeconomic status, reproductive/parenthood status, etc - are simply not cut out for this kind of work.

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

🙄 sex, gender (femininity, masculinity, etc), race, etc are necessary qualifications for certain jobs. I bet you would've been fine with Rachel Dolezal's career choices had she not pretended to be black and had just been a white woman who wanted to work with black folks. NO MA'AM! White people shouldn't teach African-American studies nor work for the NAACP even if they're qualified.

Men ("natal males") should not teach women ("natal females") anything pertaining to sex, sexuality, sexual violence, etc. Education should definitely be separated by sex.

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

sex, gender (femininity, masculinity, etc), race, etc are necessary qualifications for certain jobs. I bet you would've been fine with Rachel Dolezal's career choices had she not pretended to be black and had just been a white woman who wanted to work with black folks. NO MA'AM! White people shouldn't teach African-American studies nor work for the NAACP even if they're qualified

Why are you bringing race into this? Why the attempt to change the subject completely rather than continuing to discuss and debate the specific issues that this thread is about?

I don't get why you'd think it's appropriate to respond to a comment in which I tried to be fair minded and even-handed to all parties concerned by attempting to impugn my character by accusing me of being some kind of racist nutter who believes white people should teach African American studies and work for the NAACP.

Disagree with my points all you want. Hell, dismantle them all. But slagging me off by suggesting I'm a bad, unreasonable person specifically prejudiced and racist towards black people in the USA because that's how you apparently imagine me in the puerile, totally made-up fantasies you have in your head about how you think I would feel/respond regarding a totally different situation that has nothing to do with the issues at hand here - well, that's just silly. Why not just make some arguments advancing your point of view about the issues under discussion in this thread - and on this sub?

You really think coming back with "I bet you're a racist" will persuade others of the merits of your POV about the topics this thread is about?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Also, did you realise that the ovarit thread you’re referencing is full of comments that explain precisely why some people don’t like ruggles in particular being given the position?

Like the first comment about ruggles discussing their hopes to shift the orgs position to a sex positive one. Because that’s what the focus should be, not the victims but on sex positivity from rape victims. 🙄

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

When the social justice community uses the term "sex positivity" they mean not to sex-shame women. I say women because people sex-shame women more than men. For instance a man who sleeps around with a lot of girls is praised as lucky for being able to get so many girls to like him. A woman who does the same thing is told she is a whore, slut, doesn't value herself or didn't have a daddy growing up to tell her she's beautiful, as if daddy is supposed to dictate her sexuality. Sex positivity says a woman can be porn star, stripper, promiscuous or otherwise enjoy sex and still value herself. Sex positivity also says none of these things are an excuse for rape. Sex workers can also be victims of rape, and being a sex worker doesn't mean you deserve it. No one deserves to be raped or asked to be raped. Sex positivity does not mean that rape victims must be positive about sex all the time.

The term "sex positivity" is used in social justice circles. Social justice communities accept and welcome people of any identity or sexuality, including asexual people. Social justice communities are also vocal about consent. Just browse r/socialjustice101 and other social justice communities to find out. Though most social justice communities currently focus on racism.

Also, some users did say that Ruggles shouldn't be in this role because he's trans. Here are some examples of comments in that thread.

Ruggles is trans, queer and polyamorous,

That's 3 red flags right there!!!🚩🚩🚩

“Trans, queer and polyamorous” aka a delusional wannabe promiscuous heterosexual who has no clue about anything and shouldn’t be anywhere near rape victims.

Once again a story that confirms the inmates at Arkham Asylum are the hospital.

Nothing better than being assisted by a male fetishist right after being raped by a male fetishist!

There's not one single woman in the world who accepts being an actual woman, who could do this position?

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

And ruggles focus on sex positivity rather than survivors is an issue to some.

I’m not responsible for the ovarit comments. Idk why you seem to think we here are answerable for what is said by people on ovarit. I’m not gonna condemn them for it. Maybe if you explain why you think they are wrong beyond their not obeying the gender-pronoun rules you prefer everyone follow.

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

They're too hypersensitive, mentally fragile, and self-centered.

As a "natal female" with a masculine voice & appearance (I'm a gnc lesbian), I wouldn't even apply for a job where I might frighten timid (cisgender) women in need of assistance. I whole-heartedly believe that a facility like that is for only feminine (cisgender) women to work... they're easier to talk to by default based on their sex (female) and gender (femininity), especially if they're middle-aged women. Society automatically trusts a gender conforming, older (cisgender) woman. Older transgender women are walking red flags lol they're spooky.

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

I whole-heartedly believe that a facility like that is for only feminine (cisgender) women to work... they're easier to talk to by default based on their sex (female) and gender (femininity), especially if they're middle-aged women. Society automatically trusts a gender conforming, older (cisgender) woman.

I disagree with this completely. You are making a whole bunch of inaccurate and frankly insultingly sexist and ageist assumptions here about the ways that both the providers and clients of sexual violence prevention and recovery services look, behave and think - and worse, how all such persons should look, behave and think.

I fear that many - probably most - women who have worked in sexual violence prevention and recovery programs, as well as many female clients and beneficiaries, would fail to meet your standards of "cisgender femininity" - whatever the hell those standards are, and whatever the hell "cisgender femininity" supposedly means.

they're easier to talk to by default based on their sex (female) and gender (femininity), especially if they're middle-aged women.

Could've fooled me. Many of the easiest persons persons I've ever talked to about my own personal experiences with sexual violence have been women who by today's standards were definitely not "cisgender" or "feminine." Many have been lesbians who by today's standards would be considered quite butch; others are women whom I recall as neither here nor there where it comes to gender presentation and who would be hard to pigeonhole as either particularly "feminine" or "masculine." One woman, a pioneer in the area of sexual violence prevention and recovery in the 1970s, was a terrible dresser and clueless about proper "gender presentation" norms by anyone's standards; several participants in a therapy/support group she ran that I attended wondered aloud if she had no mirrors in her home and got dressed in the dark - which she found very amusing and took as a compliment. Some of the persons I've found easiest to speak to about sexual violence that I and other women have experienced in childhood, adolescence and/or adulthood weren't even female themselves!

As a "natal female" with a masculine voice & appearance (I'm a gnc lesbian), I wouldn't even apply for a job where I might frighten timid (cisgender) women in need of assistance

You seem to have a very low opinion of women you perceive as "cisgender." You seem to think that based on your perceptions of other women's outward appearance, and what you project onto other women based on your perhaps skewed and faulty perceptions of their outer appearance, that most/all women who in your view are different to you in terms of looks and affect must all be intolerant, heterosexual, "cisgender," "timid" ninnies who would be put off and, worse, frightened near to death by a "gnc lesbian." Because, you seem to believe, they all just have to be died-in-the wool homophobes and rubes who've never encountered any "gnc" women, lesbian or not, in their lives before. To my mind, your POV is the epitome of prejudice.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You think GNC women should not be involved in helping survivors? That seems very restrictive. What about GNC women who feel more comfortable talking to other women like them? If I were assaulted, I would not be comfortable talking to a feminine woman about it.

[–]censorshipment 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think there should be special facilities for gnc women. 🤷

I have this issue when it comes to female therapists, tbh. I don't want to talk to a white woman, a straight woman, a feminine woman, nor a religious woman. I'd prefer a middle-aged gnc/masculine black lesbian atheist... lol but that's TOO specific, apparently, even tho I live near Atlanta where black lesbians (black women in general) thrive.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I get what you're saying about wanting to talk to a certain type of woman for your own comfort, but at the same time, I don't think GNC women should be othered. We're just as much female as feminine women are. We just don't conform to femininity. We don't need different bathrooms or locker rooms or therapy groups. We're women, too.

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm struggling to see anything wrong with it. Sexual violence happens to many different populations. Ruggles is quite obviously a natal female, so there should be no concern about sinister motivations of any type. I don't see how Ruggles being transgender impacts on the ability to do the job. I would assume Ruggles may also be a survivor, since trans natal females are at high risk themselves. Even if not, I'm sure Ruggles has empathy for victims. It would be one thing if Ruggles was championing BDSM or something while promoting this job, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ruggles is quite obviously a natal female, so there should be no concern about sinister motivations of any type.

I don't think him being a natal female means we should scrutinize him less. For instance, if someone has a history of abusing children they should not work in public schools, regardless if they are male or female. If he had sinister motivations, that wouldn't change if he was in a different demographic. We need to assess people's behaviors, not demographics.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, of course no one should be excluded from scrutiny or safeguarding. But natal females are almost certainly not going to get involved in sexual assault prevention for fetishistic reasons. The potential for concern would be different with a biological male.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

natal females are almost certainly not going to get involved in sexual assault prevention for fetishistic reasons.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, particularly in the current era. At any rate, to make such an assumption across the board is definitely against safeguarding.

A lot of what was/is believed to be "known" about female sexuality is based on very limited research into specific, narrow generations and populations - and thus it might not apply to newer generations and all populations.

For example, American women of older generations like mine (Boomer) did not grow up watching porn videos, thinking penis-in-anus sex was normal/common heterosexual practice, or believing that it's customary or desirable for women to remove their pubic hair. But many younger people today seem to take take it for granted that "everyone" watches internet video porn, that all/most men want to put their dicks in women's asses - indeed, that many men prefer this over PIV - and that women "naturally" would want to remove all their pubes and that het men would find "bushes" or natural pubic hair on women to be unusual, off-putting, unattractive and even "gross."

Also, fetishism is not the only inappropriate, unseemly reason some women and men might be interested in this line of work. Some women might be groomers, procurers, partners of sex abusers or sex abusers themselves. Some might have sadistic or voyeuristic streaks, weird religious beliefs, a savior complex. Some might be drama junkies, ghouls who find other people's suffering exciting and so on. Lots of traumatized, damaged people go into the "helping professions" in hopes of working out their own issues, finding connection with others who share their problems, and/or because they want to "make lemonade out of lemons" and believe that having suffered abuse endows them with special abilities and a moral duty to prevent others from doing the same.

Yes, it's a documented truth that most sexual violence is committed by men. We know a fair bit about paraphilias in men because harmful sexual proclivities in males are often so pronounced that they are bleeding obvious, and because so many males just can't keep their sex fantasies to themselves - they have to express them in novels, art, cartoons, movies, TV, pornography, private online forums and now all over public social media platforms as well as in public and at work (hence the "take your whole self to work" movement). Moreover, male sex criminals and males with sex problems have been prime sources of research for sexologists, most of whom are male too.

Partly because the field of sexology, as well as all the arts and fields like porn and culture in general are dominated by men, I think a lot of commonly-held ideas about women's sexuality that are widely believed to be "true" are actually assumptions heavily informed and shaped by sexist stereotypes, aka gender.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I definitely don't disagree that women can be perverted to a terrible extent as well. And you should never assume that a woman is "safe" merely because she's a woman. But at the same time, there's a reason that many moms tell their kids that they should look for a woman to help them if they ever get lost. I think the chances of Ruggles or any other natal female getting into this line of work to specifically prey on others is very low. Not non-existent, but low.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How do you know that? People assigned female at birth (cis or trans) are certainly capable of having fetishes.

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Paraphilias are much more common in males, for whatever reason. Women can have fetishes and of course they can be sex offenders, but it's less likely.

I just pointed that out because people would be more likely to suspect a male person of having sinister reasons for getting involved in the problem of sexual assault. Of course not all of them, but the chances of a natal female getting involved in that line of work for evil intentions is much less likely overall.

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

Nothing as long as a clients wish to be seen by worker of the same sex as themselves is respected and not punished for expecting or requesting something so reasonable.

As long as we aren’t having forty years of male experience guiding decisions for a woman’s group home it’s fine.

Surely they’ve gone through the same background checks other workers must for their old and new name. If nothing shows up I’m not gonna assume they’re guilty anyway.

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

What is wrong with trans people working in sexual violence prevention?

Nothing. What is wrong is if trans people want to work in sexual violence prevention in a way that hinders the goal of sexual violence prevention. Similar to firefighter who causes more fires than they extinguish that would be a liability, not an asset. So I’m not against trans people working in sexual violence prevention with victims who are comfortable with them. I am however against trans people working in sexual violence prevention with victims who are uncomfortable with them (due to biological sex or whatever) thus alienating traumatized victims from getting help. Being forced to interact with people of the same biological sex the victim was victimized by is a common enough trigger that it should be something traumatized victims should be allowed to opt out off. We don’t want situations where traumatized victims back out from getting help because they are scared of the one supposed to give them the treatment and not allowed to receive treatment from anyone else.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Being forced to interact with people of the same biological sex the victim was victimized by is a common enough trigger that it should be something traumatized victims should be allowed to opt out off.

What about cis women who were raped by other cis women? Or men raped by other cis men? Should they be forced to interact with other members of their birth sex?

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

What about cis women who were raped by other cis women?

What are you talking about, biological females, people with a specific gender identity, or the intersection of biological females with a specific gender identity? As gender identities are invisible people with a specific gender identity who were raped by other people with that specific gender identity would most the time not know that their rapist had that specific gender identity and the gender identity wouldn't be a trigger except for the rare cases that the rapist would have informed the victim about their gender identity.

If you are merely talking biological females who were raped by other biological females, they should be not forced to interact with biological females while getting the treatment either as the healing of the victim should be prioritized. Had I worked at such a place I wouldn’t want to force my treatment upon someone who would be re-traumatized by interacting with me, that would against the goal of what I would be working for.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Fair enough.

By "cis women" I meant people who were born female and still consider themselves women/girls and don't take T to appear masculine. By "cis men" I meant people who were born male and still consider themselves men/boys, call themselves men, say they are men, etc. and don't take E to appear more feminine. Since the term "women" refers refers to both cis and trans women and the term "men" refers refers to both cis and trans men I decided to be more specific.

[–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

By "cis women" I meant people who were born female and still consider themselves women/girls and don't take T to appear masculine.

Here you are making the error of conflating letters with meaning again. It’s impossible for you to know if someone considers themselves “woman” in your language without first comparing your meaning of the letters “woman” with their meaning of the letters “woman” and seeing these two meanings align. Many of those you wrongly assign with your gender identity are just people who are aware of being AFAB in your language which people on r/ftm are also aware of. As you claim to be against misgendering I would assume you are aware of the incongruity/pain you cause these biological females by assigning them a gender identity they don't have. According to trans activists not even evil people deserve being misgendered, if you agree with that sentiment disagreeing with the meaning attached to letters shouldn’t be enough cause to go ahead and misgender someone with a false gender identity.

don't take T to appear masculine

Elliot Page called themselves a woman before transitioning, was Elliot Page a “cis woman” to you before going on T? If they were a “cis woman” just like how you identify as, why would a “cis woman” choose to transition? And if they were not a “cis woman”, evidently neither the lack of taking testosterone (as Elliot Page wasn’t always taking T) nor calling yourself the letters “woman” is enough to make anyone a “cis woman” in your language.

Since the term "women" refers refers to both cis and trans women

In your language the letters “woman” would only refer to people who share your gender identity. You misgendering people as sharing your gender identity when they don’t doesn’t change that many of the biological females you call “women” actually aren’t “women” in your language, they are just being misgendered as such by you.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Many of those you wrongly assign with your gender identity are just people who are aware of being AFAB in your language which people on r/ftm are also aware of. As you claim to be against misgendering I would assume you are aware of the incongruity/pain you cause these biological females by assigning them a gender identity they don't have. 

If someone doesn't have a gender identity than they are agender which is part of non-binary.

Elliot Page called themselves a woman before transitioning, was Elliot Page a “cis woman” to you before going on T? If they were a “cis woman” just like how you identify as, why would a “cis woman” choose to transition?

He was a man, he just wasn't out yet.

In your language the letters “woman” would only refer to people who share your gender identity. You misgendering people as sharing your gender identity when they don’t doesn’t change that many of the biological females you call “women” actually aren’t “women” in your language, they are just being misgendered as such by you.

I don't call every AFAB person "woman." I only call them women if they consider themselves women. If they consider themselves something other than woman I dont use that term for them. I sometimes use the term "women" for people who present as female, for instance when I say women experience sexual harassment. A passing trans man will not experience sexual harassment, but a trans man who has not physically transitioned may experience the same sexism women do.

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

If someone doesn't have a gender identity than they are agender which is part of non-binary.

To you, yes, a great many would probably meet your definition of agender/nonbinary.

I only call them women if they consider themselves women.

Which is still misgendering if you conflate letters with meanings, which is what you have done in the past.

If they consider themselves something other than woman I dont use that term for them.

Translated to your language that would someone who doesn’t consider themselves having your gender identity. To you, a woman is specific gender identity, so only those who think of themselves as having that gender identity can be fairly portrayed as having this gender identity, letters used doesn’t matter. It’s the same way a person speaking Polish can say they brush their teeth with “pasta” and it would still erroneous to portray them as brushing their teeth with pasta instead of toothpaste as “pasta” is the Polish word for toothpaste. I don’t want you give you a hard time here, but so we know if we are on the same page, do you agree that letters and meanings are two different things?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

To you, yes, a great many would probably meet your definition of agender/nonbinary.

Most people are cis and binary, but yes many people are non-binary.

Which is still misgendering if you conflate letters with meanings, which is what you have done in the past.

Letters form words and words have mean meanings.

Translated to your language that would someone who doesn’t consider themselves having your gender identity. To you, a woman is specific gender identity, so only those who think of themselves as having that gender identity can be fairly portrayed as having this gender identity, letters used doesn’t matter.

That is that the term "woman" refers to. Also just because someone doesn't consider themselves woman doesn't mean they are agender. They could be a man or bigender.

I don’t want you give you a hard time here, but so we know if we are on the same page, do you agree that letters and meanings are two different things?

I said above letters form words and words have mean meanings but sometimes one string of letters can have multiple meanings.

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

Letters form words and words have mean meanings.

Letters other people speak refer to the meaning the speaker refers to, not the meaning you want the letters to have as you are not the speaker, thus not the one referring to something.

That is that the term "woman" refers to.

That’s the term you refer to when you speak the letters but you are not all people. A homonym is term that is spelled and/or pronounced as another term but differs in meaning. Therefor those letters don’t form one single term, it would form as many homonym terms as the different meanings people refer to when speaking those letters, which would be at least one term for you and a completely other term for me. When it’s you speaking the letters you can refer to gender identity but it’s morally wrong to pretend all other people speaking the letters would be referring to the same term as you when you know for a fact they don’t, that’s putting words into the mouths of others, aka lying.

So if I say someone is a “woman”, how should that be interpreted by you without using the letters “woman”?