How EXACTLY do trans right dilute the rights of other minorities and/or women?

submitted by GCCritical from self.GenderCritical

[removed]
all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MinisterOfTerfery 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Come on op you know the answer, I remember when I was a TRA it still took me two seconds to figure the answer to this question.

The first and the most obvious one is sports. Sports isn't segregated by sex for the fun of it, it's because men are stronger, faster, have more muscle mass, higher bone density etc.

Not only do these advantages remain after transition, but in some countries you don't even have to transition to be trans. All a man has to do is say he is a woman and voila, he gets to compete in the women's category. This is happening in the US on the high school level, which means less sport scholarship opportunities for HS girls.

In order to give trans people the right to compete in their gender category you are taking away the rights of female athletes to compete fairly and win scholarship, sponsorships and medals.

Then we have things like rape examination. Unfortunately we live in a world where women get raped every day so in order to make women more comfortable they are allowed to request a female rape examiner.

If you give trans people the right to legally become the opposite sex, you are taking away the right of rape victims to be treated with dignity and respect during their examination.

When the pay gap is recorded, if you give trans people the right to legally be recorded as the opposite sex, you will not get accurate pay gap records.

Etc. you get the point.

I completely agree with you that women's rights and trans rights should be able to co-exist. But that can only happen if the difference between women and transwomen is acknowledged. If the law pretends they are exactly the same it's biological women who draw the losing stick here, in the ways I've outlined in my comment and in many other ways.

I hope that answers your question.

[–]GCCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It doesn't really, the points you've raised are best summarized as:

  1. Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers.

  2. One person was bad and they had a penis, therefore all people who have had a penis are bad.

  3. Your point on pay gaps is actually the most reasonable if not for the fact transgender people often are discriminated against more harshly if not outright murdered.

If my question had been "How are participants of this sub ignorant enough to believe trans rights dilute women's rights?" this would have answered that in spades though.

Between this and the person who thought it was relevant to actually try and argue a link between women's rights and African children, this sub gives a "We're only just barely more coherent than flat earth conspiracy theorists" vibe.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Minister pointed out

we live in a world where women get raped every day so

To which you responded

One person was bad and they had a penis, therefore all people who have had a penis are bad.

https://youtu.be/1esrEb9p0Wc

Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers.

Males who takes exogenous estrogen - as well as T blockers - lose minimal muscle mass and strength as a result - 5% after 12 months. After three years on such drugs, they still retain significant muscle advantages that help give males such a huge leg up, as it were, over females in sports.

Moreover, muscle mass and strength constitute only some of the advantages that males have over females that matter in sports. Taking estradiol & T suppressants does not cause males to get shorter, change their skeletal structure, narrow their hips or shoulders, reduce the length or density of their bones, change the angle of their femurs, reduce their significantly larger heart & lung capacity, alter the way the their respiratory system works, slow their fast twitch fibers and so on. The only advantage males lose from the THT that TIMs take is their greater hemoglobin.

It's true that THT leaves some TIMs at a "competitive disadvantage relative to their peers" - their peers who are male, that is. But not relative to their peers who are female. Moreover, as Ross Tucker of Science of Sport has observed, if during hormone treatment TIMs continue to exercise, train & eat properly - instead of stopping exercise, training & restricting their food intake to lose weight in hopes of getting a more "feminine" figure as TIM "sports expert" Joanna Harper says they customarily do - there is evidence that males on estrogen (with or without T other suppressants) actually increase muscle mass and strength on the hormones.

Very few - 25% - of males who take even high-dose estrogen plus T suppressants for purposes of "transition" are able to get their T into the female range and keep it there. Which is why both the IOC and WA have set the limits on circulating T permitted for TIMs competing in women's sports at such high levels - 10 nmol/L in the case of the IOC and 5 nmol/L in the case of WA. The normal range for adult human females is 0.3 to 2.4 nmol/L, and within that range the majority of young women of prime sporting age have T under 1.8.

Between this and the person who thought it was relevant to actually try and argue a link between women's rights and African children, this sub gives a "We're only just barely more coherent than flat earth conspiracy theorists" vibe.

That's me! And boy oh boy, mate, you really got me there! As my post history shows, "incoherent," "flat earther" and "total idiot" are exactly the words that describe me to a T. It's impressive that you got my number right off the bat. Make sure you hold on to it. https://youtu.be/UfZWp-hGCdA

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

"Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers."

This was already corrected in the comment above so I will not bother.

"One person was bad and they had a penis, therefore all people who have had a penis are bad."

That is not the reason why women are allowed to request a female examiner, but I suspect you know this. You are being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my comment on purpose because that is the only way you can argue with it. It's a common TRA tactic, but a very foolish one because when I was a TRA it was precisely this kind of nonsense that made see the contrast between the logic of GC arguments and the nonsense of TRA argument. And reading other people's peak trans stories, I see I am not alone in this.

"Your point on pay gaps is actually the most reasonable if not for the fact transgender people often are discriminated against more harshly if not outright murdered."

You are taking a statistic from a certain part of the world and applying it to the whole world. Yes in some parts of America trans people get murdered (for being prostitutes though), but here in the UK they are safer than women, statistically 0 trans people get killed a year. And the trans people I know actually admit themselves that they feel like they are not discriminated, but quite the opposite, treated better because they are trans. So that point doesn't stand either.

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

This was already corrected in the comment above so I will not bother.

It really wasn't, the original author they were quoting was quite adamant that the conclusion being pushed is not supported by current data and requires further research.

You are being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my comment on purpose because that is the only way you can argue with it.

Not really. This is the fundamental idea behind your comment. If you don't want to recognize that... therapy would be more productive than saidit and I'm not a therapist.

here in the UK they are safer than women, statistically 0 trans people get killed a year.

... You are aware that absence of proof is not proof of absence right?

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) confirmed to FactCheck that “it is not possible to identify transgender victims in current homicide statistics” and “the sex of a homicide victim is determined by the police force that records the crime”.

In other words, there is not yet an official, standardised method for recording the deaths of trans people across the UK. The ONS told FactCheck they are working across government to “develop clear harmonised standards” for collecting data on sex and gender.

Source: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

Honestly, do you ground your views in reality at all?

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

You originally said that posters here were/are:

"Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers."

To which Minister said:

This was already corrected in the comment above so I will not bother.

Then you said:

It really wasn't, the original author they were quoting was quite adamant that the conclusion being pushed is not supported by current data and requires further research.

Not true, and you know it. Ross Tucker's comment was only one portion of the information I provided. Also, to say that Tucker was last fall or today is

quite adamant that the conclusion being pushed is not supported by current data and requires further research.

Is a blatant lie.

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

What is the exact mechanism by which you think this occurs?

What is this supposed to mean?

"Women's rights" -> "What about the children in Africa?"

Children in Africa are not a direct or indirect challenge to the rights of women anywhere else.

(Although arguably they overlap in many circumstances and largely should be able to co-exist).

How do they overlap? Women want the right to sex-segregated spaces - women's shelters, prisons, hospitals, changing rooms, dorms, barracks, sports, and many, many more. Women's rights include abortion, which is a question only relevant to people able to give birth. Women's rights include questions over pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, pornography as it relates to female bodies, prostitution as it relates to female persons. Pornography and prostitution may impact male people as well, but those would not fall under the purview of "women's rights."

So HOW do "Trans Rights"(what are these?) overlap and can co-exist with women's rights? There is a direct contradiction between sex = biology and sex = gender identity. This cannot be reconciled.

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

Plus, half the children in Africa are female. So women's rights - which include rights of girls - include rights for female children in Africa. Many of whom will be subject to horrors visited only on female people such as FGM, (female) child rape, mandatory veiling, being kidnapped or sold into child or adolescent marriage, "corrective rape," infection with HIV by a male who believes raping a girl virgin will cure his own HIV, and femicide.

Children's rights are also inextricably tied to women's rights coz it's women who gestate and give birth to all children, boys & girls alike, and women provide the bulk of childcare. And coz most children in Africa will be kept alive in their first year or more of life by feeding from their mothers' breasts. Also, in much of Africa women provide the bulk of food and income for their children.

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

Completely agree. I thought OP was going for the tired trope of 'starving children in Africa', but it's so vague it could mean literally anything related to children that happen to dwell within that continent.

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

I regret asking.

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

Hey OP,

Why are trans demands any woman's problem? Fight for your own F-ing rights and leave ours alone.

The F-ing entitlement of you people is off the F-ing charts. Women don't owe you an F-ing thing.