Go woke, go broke lol

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 25, 2019, 08:17:22 AM

Pez, it's serious because laws are being changed. It's serious because women are losing female only spaces. It's not serious to you because you will never have to deal with it.

ALSO, Gayer! I sent you a message on the terven site.

Apparently it never affects the vast majority of women either, unlike a whole host of other issues, so clearly there's a weird sense of priorities here. I can see how the sports thing can get pretty nasty. The changing room controversy also probably needs a better solution. The "terven" answer seems to be "trans people bad". I can't accept that they actually have no issue with trans people when they go ahead and endlessly demonise them. Is it that confusing that people dismiss every issue they bring up when it's invariably to shit on trans people?

If you think the terves are only saying "trans people bad" then you haven't paid attention to anything I've posted. It's all right there for you to go back and read. I don't know why you think I want you to accept that we have no issues with trans people when I've listed a bunch of the issues.

We have sympathy for those suffering with dysphoria. We are concerned about the lifetime medicalization of kids. We are concerned for the safety of women and girls. Imagine that, feminism that cares about females! It must come as a surprise to those who have grown up with the commercial version of feminism.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 25, 2019, 07:50:58 AM

Are you suggesting that sports shouldn't be sex segregated then? Do you know why they are sex segregated? To make them reasonably safe and fair. To segregate by various abilities is just unworkable, wheres segregated by sex is simple and effective. It's not segregated by gender identity so there is zero basis for transwomen to partake in female sports, but it would be transphobic not to let them take part in male sports. Women will get seriously injured, even die, from letting males play contact sports like rugby with them. Is that acceptable to you?

People have been injured and died playing many sports. Deciding to single out one group of 'perpetrators' is what I object to, that's outright prejudiced against your targets and insulting to everyone else who's been affected. Yep, I've no doubt you can find me many lists of violent sports like rugby in which trans women have injured others, just like it's going to be easy to find lists of women playing against cis women, men playing against cis men, who were also seriously or fatally hurt. Safety in sport is a legitimate concern, scapegoating a minority does not achieve any of that. By that logic let's make it race-segregated because black people tend to have stronger bone density, thus giving them an advantage because they might not be injured in a situation where a white person was.
'All men are stronger than all women' is rubbish. On the whole, maybe the max potential of some chromosomes are better than the max potential of others, but 99.99% at the time no one is going to be anywhere near the maximum potential of what they're capable of, and even then the percentage difference is not as superhero vs mere mortal as you are making it out to be, especially on top of the fact sports are about more than brute strength. The only sports where there is legitimate risk of serious injury if a trans woman play are sports where there was already a risk of serious injury. Players aren't stupid.

On de-desegregating, eh, I don't have any real opinion, it's not my job to analyse the best way to set up the system, but I'm also not going to pretend targetting a community as opposed to a trait is anything except bs.
If your objection is to inherent advantages, then go right again and object to inherent advantages. I expect to see protests against Michael Phelps for starters, tests for height so that there's a max height to place, say, basketball... Until then you can stop pretending your issue is with advantage rather than plain old prejudice.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 25, 2019, 08:11:08 AM

I hope you will look into all of these issues and have some compassion for women and girls. I don't really expect you to do it, though. Most of us terves have sympathy for people suffering dysphoria, we're not opposed to trans people's existence. We are opposed to the fetishists abusing the situation. We're opposed to women being censored for wanting to discuss changes to the laws.

Yeah, you can stop pretending. I have compassion for women and girls, it just extends to more than cis women. The problem is you are opposed to the existence of trans people, or at least them existing in public. That's how this stuff works, saying that you're not doesn't magically alter the contents of what you've argued for. I've heard it all before, from basically the exact same people, I had no sympathy when it was lesbians and I'm not going to pretend it deserves any respect now. When your message is 'this community should categorically be banned from professions and public locations like bathrooms,' then no, you don't deserve a platform.
Are there fetishists? Eh, probably, just like there are cis women who're criminals, you don't demonise or blame a whole community, and frankly I care about as much about that as I do someone who's opted to go bondaged up under their clothes. So long as they're subtle about it, don't take pleasure in making everyone uncomfortable, who the hell cares? Weirds me out, but if I don't go out of my way to peer at their junk and they don't feel like waving it my face, it isn't going to affect anyone. Everything you're objecting to is already criminal. Making it double-illegal to assault someone is moronic.

Prejudice is and should be censored. End of. Singling out a community is the definition of prejudice.

It's not targeting a community, it's targeting a trait, that trait being sex. If non trans males were allowed to play female sports and trans males were excluded then that would be targeting a community, and vice versa. You clearly don't understand why sports are sex segregated, nor understand the physiological differences between males and females so I suggest you do some research before you try to debate this.

It's not targeting a community, it's targeting a trait, that trait being sex. If non trans males were allowed to play female sports and trans males were excluded then that would be targeting a community, and vice versa. You clearly don't understand why sports are sex segregated, nor understand the physiological differences between males and females so I suggest you do some research before you try to debate this.

Which is... a community.
Again, if your issues are the physiological differences, then that would be the trait. Anyone, cis or trans, with a certain level of strength that might be dangerous, banned. Anyone with an advantage like Phelps, banned. If what someone is capable of with their body is what makes you need to ban them, then instead of painting an entire group of people with that brush, target the capabilities specifically.

Quote from: Pezevenk on August 25, 2019, 08:48:51 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 25, 2019, 08:17:22 AM

Pez, it's serious because laws are being changed. It's serious because women are losing female only spaces. It's not serious to you because you will never have to deal with it.

ALSO, Gayer! I sent you a message on the terven site.

Apparently it never affects the vast majority of women either, unlike a whole host of other issues, so clearly there's a weird sense of priorities here. I can see how the sports thing can get pretty nasty. The changing room controversy also probably needs a better solution. The "terven" answer seems to be "trans people bad". I can't accept that they actually have no issue with trans people when they go ahead and endlessly demonise them. Is it that confusing that people dismiss every issue they bring up when it's invariably to shit on trans people?

If you think the terves are only saying "trans people bad" then you haven't paid attention to anything I've posted. It's all right there for you to go back and read. I don't know why you think I want you to accept that we have no issues with trans people when I've listed a bunch of the issues.

We have sympathy for those suffering with dysphoria. We are concerned about the lifetime medicalization of kids. We are concerned for the safety of women and girls. Imagine that, feminism that cares about females! It must come as a surprise to those who have grown up with the commercial version of feminism.

It's very hard to accept that you do have that sympathy for people with dysphoria give all you've said. It's also very hard to accept this is all because of a concern about safety and not because trans people are gross or whatever. Especially when the excuses are typically just the same excuses made against gay people in the past (and present) adjusted a little bit.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 25, 2019, 10:04:29 AM

It's not targeting a community, it's targeting a trait, that trait being sex. If non trans males were allowed to play female sports and trans males were excluded then that would be targeting a community, and vice versa. You clearly don't understand why sports are sex segregated, nor understand the physiological differences between males and females so I suggest you do some research before you try to debate this.

Which is... a community.
Again, if your issues are the physiological differences, then that would be the trait. Anyone, cis or trans, with a certain level of strength that might be dangerous, banned. Anyone with an advantage like Phelps, banned. If what someone is capable of with their body is what makes you need to ban them, then instead of painting an entire group of people with that brush, target the capabilities specifically.

The issues are the physiological differences between the sexes, the reason why sports are sex segregated. You're an intelligent person, why are you not grasping this? It would be unworkable to set up different sports leagues for every different capability, and it would still end up with all males in the top leagues which would be the ones that would actually get funding so women lose out.

Female athletes already receive significantly less funding which is... Kind of a bigger problem for them than trans people.

Though I will agree that the sports thing should probably be dropped, it causes more harm than good.

Quote from: Slime on August 25, 2019, 10:26:26 AM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 25, 2019, 10:04:29 AM

It's not targeting a community, it's targeting a trait, that trait being sex. If non trans males were allowed to play female sports and trans males were excluded then that would be targeting a community, and vice versa. You clearly don't understand why sports are sex segregated, nor understand the physiological differences between males and females so I suggest you do some research before you try to debate this.

Which is... a community.
Again, if your issues are the physiological differences, then that would be the trait. Anyone, cis or trans, with a certain level of strength that might be dangerous, banned. Anyone with an advantage like Phelps, banned. If what someone is capable of with their body is what makes you need to ban them, then instead of painting an entire group of people with that brush, target the capabilities specifically.

The issues are the physiological differences between the sexes, the reason why sports are sex segregated. You're an intelligent person, why are you not grasping this? It would be unworkable to set up different sports leagues for every different capability, and it would still end up with all males in the top leagues which would be the ones that would actually get funding so women lose out.

Like that doesn't happen already.
Yep, you keep repeating physiological differences, but given no one seems to give a damn about any physiological differences beyond this one, it's really hard to believe that's your priority. I'll listen when you start segregating some sports by height, kicking people like Phelps out from wherever they're competing...
Your problem is not physiological differences giving someone an advantage when the only physiological difference you're complaining about is being trans.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 25, 2019, 10:39:25 AM

Quote from: Slime on August 25, 2019, 10:26:26 AM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 25, 2019, 10:04:29 AM

It's not targeting a community, it's targeting a trait, that trait being sex. If non trans males were allowed to play female sports and trans males were excluded then that would be targeting a community, and vice versa. You clearly don't understand why sports are sex segregated, nor understand the physiological differences between males and females so I suggest you do some research before you try to debate this.

Which is... a community.
Again, if your issues are the physiological differences, then that would be the trait. Anyone, cis or trans, with a certain level of strength that might be dangerous, banned. Anyone with an advantage like Phelps, banned. If what someone is capable of with their body is what makes you need to ban them, then instead of painting an entire group of people with that brush, target the capabilities specifically.

The issues are the physiological differences between the sexes, the reason why sports are sex segregated. You're an intelligent person, why are you not grasping this? It would be unworkable to set up different sports leagues for every different capability, and it would still end up with all males in the top leagues which would be the ones that would actually get funding so women lose out.

Like that doesn't happen already.
Yep, you keep repeating physiological differences, but given no one seems to give a damn about any physiological differences beyond this one, it's really hard to believe that's your priority. I'll listen when you start segregating some sports by height, kicking people like Phelps out from wherever they're competing...
Your problem is not physiological differences giving someone an advantage when the only physiological difference you're complaining about is being trans.

Jane, I agree with you on this subject generally but I still think that separate leagues are needed. Sport becoming an almost exclusively male activity (which also corresponds to only men having the ability to gain funding for college that way etc) is not a good thing, and neither is women having to compete with trans women who passed puberty as men in contact sports. But I don't think it goes against the framework of sex/gender separation, it makes sense to just say that in this case it makes sense to separate leagues based on sex.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 25, 2019, 10:39:25 AM

Quote from: Slime on August 25, 2019, 10:26:26 AM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 25, 2019, 10:04:29 AM

It's not targeting a community, it's targeting a trait, that trait being sex. If non trans males were allowed to play female sports and trans males were excluded then that would be targeting a community, and vice versa. You clearly don't understand why sports are sex segregated, nor understand the physiological differences between males and females so I suggest you do some research before you try to debate this.

Which is... a community.
Again, if your issues are the physiological differences, then that would be the trait. Anyone, cis or trans, with a certain level of strength that might be dangerous, banned. Anyone with an advantage like Phelps, banned. If what someone is capable of with their body is what makes you need to ban them, then instead of painting an entire group of people with that brush, target the capabilities specifically.

The issues are the physiological differences between the sexes, the reason why sports are sex segregated. You're an intelligent person, why are you not grasping this? It would be unworkable to set up different sports leagues for every different capability, and it would still end up with all males in the top leagues which would be the ones that would actually get funding so women lose out.

Like that doesn't happen already.
Yep, you keep repeating physiological differences, but given no one seems to give a damn about any physiological differences beyond this one, it's really hard to believe that's your priority. I'll listen when you start segregating some sports by height, kicking people like Phelps out from wherever they're competing...
Your problem is not physiological differences giving someone an advantage when the only physiological difference you're complaining about is being trans.

I explained that segregating according to numerous different physiological differences would be unworkable. Sex segregation works, it's worked fine for many years and finally womens sports are gaining traction and getting more attention (the recent football world cup for instance) which will hopefully translate into better funding that is still woefully unequal. I'm not complaining about people being trans, I'm complaining about people who are male being allowed to compete against people who are female, I would be equally angry if they were males who do not identify as women - their identity has nothing to do with it, it's their sex that is the problem.

Jane, I agree with you on this subject generally but I still think that separate leagues are needed. Sport becoming an almost exclusively male activity (which also corresponds to only men having the ability to gain funding for college that way etc) is not a good thing, and neither is women having to compete with trans women who passed puberty as men in contact sports. But I don't think it goes against the framework of sex/gender separation, it makes sense to just say that in this case it makes sense to separate leagues based on sex.

I've said I'm not commenting on sex-segregation in sports. I'm not saying one way or another because that much is a hugely complicated topic with a whole host of issues of itself. Personally I think a tier system could work, but it'd need a huge ground-up change of not just the leagues but social attitudes towards sport in general, so... eh, can't really make a perfect model with an imperfect basis.

My objection is just the hypocrisy of singling out trans people and claiming it's to prevent advantage, when happily letting plenty of competitors who already have advantage in easily measurable fashions compete with zero scrutiny. That's when it turns into "Don't exist in public," territory because there's no recourse for trans atheletes that they're offering. There is no way to reconcile worries about potential advantage of trans women while not also worrying about the myriad of personal quirks that help people like, again, Phelps from getting medal after medal and record after record. No amount of training is going to get any cis man to have his body produce different amounts of lactic acid, longer arms, or double-jointedness. Strangely though, no one cares about well-known inherent advantages when it isn't backed by transphobia.
Like, if anything Phelps is the perfect test case. At the lower levels you don't really have much that's going to guarantee a cis woman isn't massively better than a trans woman because at that point the degree of training is much more open; it's only when you get to world record calibre peaks that there might be any worry of physiological advantage winning out because everyone's training level is about even, and... no one cared. I'm not going to pretend nor let anyone pretend that disadvantage is even remotely what motivates that argument.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 25, 2019, 09:05:06 AM

Quote from: Pezevenk on August 25, 2019, 08:48:51 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 25, 2019, 08:17:22 AM

Pez, it's serious because laws are being changed. It's serious because women are losing female only spaces. It's not serious to you because you will never have to deal with it.

ALSO, Gayer! I sent you a message on the terven site.

Apparently it never affects the vast majority of women either, unlike a whole host of other issues, so clearly there's a weird sense of priorities here. I can see how the sports thing can get pretty nasty. The changing room controversy also probably needs a better solution. The "terven" answer seems to be "trans people bad". I can't accept that they actually have no issue with trans people when they go ahead and endlessly demonise them. Is it that confusing that people dismiss every issue they bring up when it's invariably to shit on trans people?

If you think the terves are only saying "trans people bad" then you haven't paid attention to anything I've posted. It's all right there for you to go back and read. I don't know why you think I want you to accept that we have no issues with trans people when I've listed a bunch of the issues.

We have sympathy for those suffering with dysphoria. We are concerned about the lifetime medicalization of kids. We are concerned for the safety of women and girls. Imagine that, feminism that cares about females! It must come as a surprise to those who have grown up with the commercial version of feminism.

It's very hard to accept that you do have that sympathy for people with dysphoria give all you've said. It's also very hard to accept this is all because of a concern about safety and not because trans people are gross or whatever. Especially when the excuses are typically just the same excuses made against gay people in the past (and present) adjusted a little bit.

What have I said that indicates I don't have sympathy for people with dysphoria? (I don't have sympathy for the fetishists) Or that I think all trans people are gross? Or where I've used the same excuses that were used against gay people in the past?  You can't surfboard me, my posts are here. If you're going to make such accusations, you should quote me.

So far you've agreed with at least two of the issues I've brought up. Sports, change rooms, I hope you would be against medically transitioning kids with experimental drugs, I also hope you'd be against putting male sex offenders, or other violent males into female prisons just because they identify as trans. 

Maybe you're a TERF!

I also hope you'd be against putting male sex offenders, or other violent males into female prisons just because they identify as trans. 

Try again, see if you get it right this time.

My objection is just the hypocrisy of singling out trans people and claiming it's to prevent advantage, when happily letting plenty of competitors who already have advantage in easily measurable fashions compete with zero scrutiny. That's when it turns into "Don't exist in public," territory because there's no recourse for trans atheletes that they're offering. There is no way to reconcile worries about potential advantage of trans women while not also worrying about the myriad of personal quirks that help people like, again, Phelps from getting medal after medal and record after record. No amount of training is going to get any cis man to have his body produce different amounts of lactic acid, longer arms, or double-jointedness. Strangely though, no one cares about well-known inherent advantages when it isn't backed by transphobia.
Like, if anything Phelps is the perfect test case. At the lower levels you don't really have much that's going to guarantee a cis woman isn't massively better than a trans woman because at that point the degree of training is much more open; it's only when you get to world record calibre peaks that there might be any worry of physiological advantage winning out because everyone's training level is about even, and... no one cared. I'm not going to pretend nor let anyone pretend that disadvantage is even remotely what motivates that argument.

Where do you draw the line? Maybe people with dwarfism can object to not being accepted in Basketball against their 7 foot counterparts? Genes will always give people an advantage. It doesn't matter how well you train. Someone will always be better gifted in the genetics department that can out perform you.

It's not illegal to train in the Himalays where the oxygen is thin to adapt your body to producing more red blood cells but it is illegal to inject extra blood into you (even if its your own blood withdrawn earlier). Do we then stop people training at high altitudes because the net effect is the same?

I think it's very weird that of all the things getting worse for women, you picked this extremely marginal thing to be the super serious one. I know lots of women getting stalked, abused by partners, lesbians facing homophobia, having gotten date raped, being forced to take day after pills because some asshole lied about wearing a condom while they were drunk, facing issues with childcare, being talked down, having angry incels lash out against them, and more, but one thing I've never heard of is being stalked by someone pretending to be trans. I know it's, like, the most serious problem in the world according to the Daily Mail but it really isn't even close to being one of the most significant issues. It's even more baffling how feminists complaining about that decide to side with the people actually responsible for the serious issues on that particular issue. I get there are issues which can be solved but inciting trans panic and embracing bigotry is definitely not the way to solve them.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should NOT talk about a certain issue because it's not 'number 1'? This is the kind of argument people make when they want to interject but have nothing to add to the discussion. ie trolling

If you are genuinely concerned about stalking, abuse, date raping and homophobia etc, start a thread to talk about those. No one is stopping you from these things being discussed.

I mean I hate to do this after I'm... 50% sure you agreed with me? (Odds are: 50% agreement, 30% disagreement without realising you were agreeing, 15% drunk, 5% spontaneously turned into a wallaby and we're in a 10,000 monkeys situation). It's just too much fun to point out.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should NOT talk about a certain issue because it's not 'number 1'? This is the kind of argument people make when they want to interject but have nothing to add to the discussion. ie trolling

I don't 'warrior' because the battle is largely won already. No where near me is there a problem with the way fats are treated or women are treated 2nd class for being women. The places all these progressive values need to be fought in aren't 'in the western developed countries' but the developing countries or the Middle East etc where women are 2nd class and homosexuality is outlawed to the point where people cheer as they are whipped or bound and thrown off rooftops to their death.  Is The West free of problems. Not 100% but no country will ever be free of criminals or people who are simply dicks to other people.

I mean I hate to do this after I'm... 50% sure you agreed with me? (Odds are: 50% agreement, 30% disagreement without realising you were agreeing, 15% drunk, 5% spontaneously turned into a wallaby and we're in a 10,000 monkeys situation). It's just too much fun to point out.

Quote from: Shifter on August 25, 2019, 02:20:53 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that people should NOT talk about a certain issue because it's not 'number 1'? This is the kind of argument people make when they want to interject but have nothing to add to the discussion. ie trolling

Quote from: Shifter on August 24, 2019, 02:17:32 PM

I don't 'warrior' because the battle is largely won already. No where near me is there a problem with the way fats are treated or women are treated 2nd class for being women. The places all these progressive values need to be fought in aren't 'in the western developed countries' but the developing countries or the Middle East etc where women are 2nd class and homosexuality is outlawed to the point where people cheer as they are whipped or bound and thrown off rooftops to their death.  Is The West free of problems. Not 100% but no country will ever be free of criminals or people who are simply dicks to other people.

Sometimes the most outlandish of odds can be the right one.   

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 25, 2019, 01:05:53 PM

I also hope you'd be against putting male sex offenders, or other violent males into female prisons just because they identify as trans. 

Try again, see if you get it right this time.

I know you don't care about women, what is it you want me to get right?

Quote from: Slime on August 25, 2019, 01:17:46 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 25, 2019, 01:05:53 PM

I also hope you'd be against putting male sex offenders, or other violent males into female prisons just because they identify as trans. 

Try again, see if you get it right this time.

I know you don't care about women, what is it you want me to get right?

*Have empathy
Let's see, so: "I also hope you'd be against putting male sex offenders, or other violent males into female prisons just because they identify as trans."
Well to begin with, not 'males who identify as trans' in this case as your intent is pretty obvious. So step one:
"Female sex offenders and other violent women in female prisons who happen to be trans."
But step two, why are you specifiying the offense? That's not relevant to what you're saying, unless you're now saying being female and being violent/a sex offender are incompatible, which... no, that's nonsense. It's just there do you can play off the 'trans women are actually secretly violent men out to hurt the innocent cis women!' stereotype in a pretty up-front manipulation tactic. So a question that actually makes sense as a question would be:

"Are you saying female criminals who happen to be trans should be in a female prison?"

And yes. Easily. Because on one hand, even if we take your 'they're just violent sex offenders!' spiel, there are plenty of cis women who're guilty of that and of assault, and guess where they end up? Oh, right, prison. Will they hurt other prisoners? Eh, same odds as other criminals in there, and they're going to be one person somewhere that's filled with guards with equipment and ready-made groups, and if they're actually a violent offender they're going to be in a high security prison, and in turn be surrounded by violent people. There's nothing they can do that any other violent inmate (which, remember, would make up most of their fellow prisoners if that's what they're guilty of) could not also do; even if you want to make it about sexual assault, it doesn't stop being a violation if a cis women perpetrates it. Even in this uber-extreme scenario maybe the one thing that's even conceivably possible is pregnancy, which is going to require you go through the whole 'trans woman,' 'is actually violent rather than, you know, a normal fucking person,' 'is able to deal with all the prison safeguards specifically designed to stop inmates hurting each other,' 'is able to overpower an inmate who, reminder, is also going to be a violent criminal,' and you're still met with basically non-existent odds because, y'know, hormones kinda get in the way of that even assuming that's a body part they'd want to use because, again, trans.
To take a non-cartoonish depiction of, y'know, real people that actually exist, it's more likely to be someone that made a dumb mistake from poverty, possibly drug-related thanks to the US's ever-successful war on drugs... So. Not someone that's actually going to be a danger, and is way more likely to be a target than a perpetrator because transphobia hardly vanishes in prison. Personally I'd be way more concerned with male guards in a position of power and poor prison oversight and care that allow such problems, rather than plain old transphobic fearmongering that ultimately amounts to nothing. But of course, your intent isn't actually helping anyone.
And of course, what's the alternative? Oh, right, chuck a trans woman in a male prison, and you can fuck right off with that if you're even going to pretend you give a damn about anything even approaching empathy.

And of course, what's the alternative? Oh, right, chuck a trans woman in a male prison, and you can fuck right off with that if you're even going to pretend you give a damn about anything even approaching empathy.

Certainly if they have a dick, then yeah, throw them in with the other dicks.

Quote from: Slime on August 25, 2019, 03:47:20 PM

And of course, what's the alternative? Oh, right, chuck a trans woman in a male prison, and you can fuck right off with that if you're even going to pretend you give a damn about anything even approaching empathy.

Certainly if they have a dick, then yeah, throw them in with the other dicks.

Think about that for more than a couple of seconds, think about how it would look, and if you can do that without suddenly feeling viscerally sick you need help.

Jane, your argument makes no sense. Trans women are not female, if they were female they wouldn't be trans. Females who happen to be trans are trans men. For their safety they are housed in female prisons. Funny you don't see lots of trans men trying to get moved to male prisons, isn't it?

I know your dangerhair is standing on end right now, but there are lots of men, who weren't trans when they committed their crimes, who are now claiming to be trans so they can get moved to the female estate. I do not have any sympathy for them, and I'm not trying to pretend I do. I don't have sympathy for rapists and child molesters.

Quote from: Slime on August 25, 2019, 03:47:20 PM

And of course, what's the alternative? Oh, right, chuck a trans woman in a male prison, and you can fuck right off with that if you're even going to pretend you give a damn about anything even approaching empathy.

Certainly if they have a dick, then yeah, throw them in with the other dicks.

Look how easy it is ..... As they say in kindergarten cop "guys have penises girls have vaginas"

As SCG keeps saying and has said many times, Jane's does not care about women. She is putting other over them.


Yes you say have empathy....there is empathy. No one here is saying they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want, they should....but....as long as it doesn't harm or put anyone else in danger. That is where the line is drawn.

In 2019 when we can be any race/gender or really anything we want. Let's say I identify as an Asian female doctor. Does that mean I get to operate on others so my feelings don't get hurt?

It's simple as this, when it comes to sports, bathrooms and other areas it's simple. Natural Innies and outies...keep them separate like a middle school dance.

Because believe me, if I was a predator at this point in history, slap lipstick on me and call me Sally.

So speaking of empathy, why don't you try it for women Jane... Just the two issues of sports, not only is it hugely unfair and makes a mockery of them. Many times it can be dangerous and risk injury or worse. Same with the bathroom crap... It puts women in a possible situation of danger. Why do that?

Also, no one said we are calling all trans people sex offenders etc. But it puts women in a bad situation, so why take that risk? It's like the law in America felons can't own guns. If you are a felon, does that mean you will guaranteed shoot someone if you had a gun? No, but why take the risk when considering the data?

Quote from: Shifter on August 25, 2019, 03:51:26 PM

Quote from: Slime on August 25, 2019, 03:47:20 PM

And of course, what's the alternative? Oh, right, chuck a trans woman in a male prison, and you can fuck right off with that if you're even going to pretend you give a damn about anything even approaching empathy.

Certainly if they have a dick, then yeah, throw them in with the other dicks.

Think about that for more than a couple of seconds, think about how it would look, and if you can do that without suddenly feeling viscerally sick you need help.

Here's a novel thought. Don't do the crime that gets you doing time?

Or if you want to join the women in their prison, get the chop!

Imagine some incel alpha male piece of shit having a legal framework that allowed him to sook about 'human rights abuses' because he suddenly woke up as a woman in a male jail because you know - gender is fluid lol. Imagine if the legal framework existed for him to be transferred to a womans jail.

and if you can do that without suddenly feeling viscerally sick you need help

Should we build trans only jails now? I know some states in America official recognise dozens of different genders. Maybe a prison for each one?

For the safety of actual trans women, there should be a wing, or dorm or whatever you'd call it, for trans women. A prison in the UK somewhere has one (of course the TRAs protested it). There are lots more jails and prisons in the US, they could work something out in each state. Prisoners deserve safety.

I know your dangerhair is standing on end right now, but there are lots of men, who weren't trans when they committed their crimes, who are now claiming to be trans so they can get moved to the female estate.

Jesus you are paranoid. Yes, there are going to be utter monsters in any community, and maybe a handful of opportunists though more likely a handful gaming the system to get hormones for free, deciding to punish a whole community for that is the definition of prejudice. Are you going to propose sending cis female rapists and child molesters to male prisons? You 'don't care' about them after all. They're going to be dangerous to women in the same prison as them, after all.
You don't care about protecting women. Nothing you are saying is about protecting women. You're just utterly fucking over women you personally don't like.

Funny you don't see lots of trans men trying to get moved to male prisons, isn't it?

Hmm. You put some men who're probably attracted to women in a place where they're surrounded by predominantly-straight women that're out of contact with the rest of the world for a while. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmmm.

Trans women are female. That's what trans means. Get over yourself. As a general rule I trust what someone says their own identity is as they're going to have more of an idea than a stranger.

Also, no one said we are calling all trans people sex offenders etc. But it puts women in a bad situation, so why take that risk?

Women are in danger walking down the street or going to a party if cis men happen to be there. Why take the risk? Let's pass a law banning all cis men from ever interacting with women.
It doesn't put them in a 'bad situation.' The situation is not any worse. You can get assaulted by literally anyone. You're literally just deciding "Oh, no, this community's evil on principle," and punishing all of them for the actions of a few, meanwhile other communities with members that do the exact same thing go unpunished because, y'know, it isn't about protecting women. So, yes, you are calling the whole community sex offenders because normally we just target the perpetrators rather than passing a law to punish every member of a group. This is literally just the lesbophobia of years back all over again, the exact people are saying it and basically the exact people are eating it up, only now transphobes of other stripes are using it as an excuse.
Hell, bathroom bills just make it worse. Go look up the photos of trans men needing to go to women's bathrooms, tell me you don't think that's going to make it easier for predators to sneak in.

Imagine some incel alpha male piece of shit having a legal framework that allowed him to sook about 'human rights abuses' because he suddenly woke up as a woman in a male jail because you know - gender is fluid lol. Imagine if the legal framework existed for him to be transferred to a womans jail.

You're acting like I wouldn't pay to see an incel self-declared alpha male to end up surrounded by a crowd of violent women, convicted murderers and assaulters both, and vastly outnumbered.

You're kinda overestimating how strong men actually are. I think you'll find people that try to abuse it would come to regret their decision pretty damn fast.

Hell, bathroom bills just make it worse. Go look up the photos of trans men needing to go to women's bathrooms, tell me you don't think that's going to make it easier for predators to sneak in.

We have women only gyms and spaces because some women fill uncomfortable with men gawking at them. Even if a trans is not violent, why should a woman share a shower and toilet and eat with a guy (trans or pretending) when he still has his chopper

I actually don't have an issue with a cis male being put in a womens prison if they have lived a life as a woman, have all the hormones done as well as chopping off their dick. If they decide one day tey want to live life as a woman and look everything like a guy right down to a hairy nutsack, it's simply not good enough.

Holy shit.

Female prisoners, no matter their crime, belong in female prisons. Transwomen are not female. Male and female aren't identities, they are sexes. You are born one or the other (even people with DSDs are either male or female). If a transwoman commits a crime, they do not belong in female prisons.

I have no idea what all your hmmmm hmmmmm hmmmmmmmms are about, but it's pretty hilarious.

I actually don't have an issue with a cis male being put in a womens prison if they have lived a life as a woman, have all the hormones done as well as chopping off their dick. If they decide one day tey want to live life as a woman and look everything like a guy right down to a hairy nutsack, it's simply not good enough.

If they've done all that, they're not "cis".

Quote from: Shifter on August 25, 2019, 04:38:17 PM

I actually don't have an issue with a cis male being put in a womens prison if they have lived a life as a woman, have all the hormones done as well as chopping off their dick. If they decide one day tey want to live life as a woman and look everything like a guy right down to a hairy nutsack, it's simply not good enough.

If they've done all that, they're not "cis".

Ah, of course. What I meant was someone biologically born as a male to start with. If they choose to chop off their dick and grow some breasts, I accept the trans-ness. If they still want to piss standing up, then they should not identify as a woman to be put in places (such as prisons or other female safe spaces).

A make up and wig simply doesn't cut it.