Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

What document on that page are we supposed to look at?

You are insinuating document in evidence in the UK parliament is false because you don't like what it says. All stats are linked to source data on page 3.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Wow, defensive aren't we? The only thing that I was insinuating is that you linked to a page with something like 6 documents and I was not eager to read all of them. You write above:

"Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?"

Yet, the document that you claim supports this allegation says:

"The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault..."

The phrase "sex crimes" does not appear in the document and the phrase "sexual assault" only appears the single time that I quote it above.

Regarding the Ministry of Justice statistics that are listed on Page 4, those have acknowledged limitations because they don't count prisoners who have gender recognition certificates. Therefore, as the reports says, the statistics "underestimate the total number of [transgender women] in women’s prisons."

Finally, this is not a document produced by the "UK Parliament" as you have implied, but rather testimony drafted by three trans-exclusionary activists and simply submitted into the record by a member of Parliament. It is far from an unbiased source.

Point where I said this document was produced by the UK Parliament. It is a document in evidence. Do you think they allow falsehoods?

OK, so I misused sex crime instead of sexual assault. Why are you dismissing the statistics on sexual assault?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply trolling and not actually as incompetent as you appear. In the quoted posts above, you linked to the Parliament document and are then asked if you have a source that "isn’t a radical feminist". You reply, "That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me." Any normal understanding of your response is that the source was the UK Parliament, not a group of trans-exclusionary activists.

I am not dismissing the statistics but pointing out their limitation that is documented in the report.

The UK is not exactly the premier source of information about trans issues these days. The entire country appears to have lost its senses as far as the issue is concerned. The head of the Labor Party is spouting off about children identifying as cats and there is currently a nationwide effort to find cat children. One so-called journalist actually offered to pay parents to give anonymous accounts of their children identifying as animals.

My point is that it is unlikely that the UK parliament accepts documentation which is factually incorrect. Whether that documentation is produced by feminists or trans-activists. The reality is that this documentation shows exactly what I said it did about the rates of sexual offences in men vs women vs transgendered individuals. Which you concede by acknowledging that you are not dismissing the statistics. It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge any factual or statistical data from the UK because many people there hold gender critical views. Is that right?

You seem to have a pattern of introducing weird unrelated topics to derail as well. People identifying at cat people? Whatever shenanigans the southern baptists are up to these days? Why is it so hard to stay on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

This isn’t true. Roughly 60% of trans women are bisexual. 20% are only attracted to women. Like 1% want to top you with their dicks and 0% of them have functioning penises without medics intervention. As it turns out, having very low testosterone and very high estrogen isn’t conducive to functioning male genitalia. The vast majority of trans women do not like using their genitals for sex. Those porn videos you watch aren’t accurate. Shocking, right? Trans porn is made for cisgender men, not for transgender women to watch.

This statement is false. A very large percentage of transwomen retain functioning penises and are attracted to women.

Citation?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/penis/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/

The second link says nothing about functioning penises. The first link is to a gender critical site and even it doesn't say anything about penis function which is part of your claim. Most trans women do still have a penis because it is very expensive to get SRS. Of those that still have them, 99% of them do not function and are incapable of penetration.

Again, you are lying. Where is your cite for 99% are non-functioning?

There are plenty of transwomen who talk about their erections.

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/07/transgender-woman-who-impregnated-2-inmates-removed-from-njs-female-prison.html

If a trans woman in a prison is able to have an erection then she is not being given the proper medication. Transgender women cannot achieve or maintain erections.

The statement that transwomen can't have erections is a complete falsehood. Transwomen talk about their erections all of the time.

Who are you to say what is the 'proper' medication for a transwomen? Any person who makes a statement they feel like a woman is a transwomen, how dare you insinuate that this rapist prisoner requires medication to be a transwoman.

Where are you hearing this?

I would actually love to know this too. As the trans person posting here, most of what I've heard IRL is only among other trans women specifically and in very niche discussions with people we are close to. Aside from that, there's discussions of preserving fertility by freezing sperm but that has to be done pre hormones or in the first couple months of treatment. Many trans women decide not to freeze sperm either because having a genetic child isn't important to them or they don't have the money. In some cases, I've heard of and read about trans women's parents paying to have her bank sperm ahead of time because they want grand kids and this is the only way they may have the opportunity to make it happen. These types of discussions and others like them tend to be common in trans-only spaces.

There are many online conversations where transwomen talk about their euphoria b0ner$ or AGP fetishes or how they decided to transition due to p0rn.

As I said previously, once you're on hormones, you can't get an erection. So if someone is talking about getting an erection, they aren't on hormones.

I don't believe that people transition due to porn. I had early childhood gender dysphoria and that is pretty much the same for my entire friend group. If a cisgender man transitioned because of porn (this doesn't make sense to me) then he would be giving himself gender dysphoria. It would be like a cis woman taking testosterone. She would grow a beard and get a deep voice and start getting body hair and smelling like a man (the smell is the first thing that changes incidentally). If someone claims that they are transitioning "because of porn" but they love the body changes, I'd say they're lying to themselves. Cis men want to continue being men. It's why they have surgery to remove gynecomastia for example - even if this is removing healthy body parts.

Question for this poster if you don't mind answering..are you attracted to men or women? What about your other trans friends who had early childhood gender dysphoria? Researchers found those who had early childhood gender dysphoria and were gender non-conforming from a young age tend to be same sex attracted. Homosexual males tend to have a brain shifted more towards the female side. The etiology appears to be different in those who are not exclusively same sex attracted. Anne Lawrence, a doctor and transwoman herself, wrote an excellent book entitled Men Trapped in Men's Bodies which goes into detail describing the experiences of these individuals. For these individuals they have a desire to become what they love.

In regards to porn, there is a subset called sissy hypno porn. For some men this has led them to develop gender dysphoria and in some cases result in them having the desire to transition.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

I’m saying that this person is clearly very biased. You don’t you agree with that?

When you call everything sexist - even when it’s clearly not (^) - then it starts to lose its power.

Sorry, but if someone automatically dismisses a fact-based source because it was compiled by feminists, then yes, they are sexist. Truth hurts.

My issue with the author isn’t her vagina. She could have a penis and it still wouldn’t matter. She is an anti-trans activist and is biased.

-feminist

DP
They’re statistics. That can be verified. How is that biased?

You haven’t worked with data/statistics much it seems.

Ok. Tell us what is factually incorrect. I’m sure there is a reason why your comments attack the authors for being feminists instead of presenting evidence.

I’ll look at if on my computer later. It’s hard on my phone.

I stopped when I saw that the studies were being interpreted by a gender critical radical feminist.

You realize that this makes you look wildly ignorant and irrational, not the published author, right?

That having been said, an inability to comprehend hard data and statistics does seem to be a core feature of trans activists, so your struggles with data are to be expected, I suppose. Religious movements tend to struggle with hard science.

As you know, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Let's look at the "hard data" provided in the report to which you linked. According to that report, the DOJ had custody of a total of 13,435 individuals convicted of sex offenses. Of that number, 13,234 or 98.50% were cisgender men. 125 or 0.93% were cisgender women. Only 76 or 0.57% were transwomen.

A recent census of the UK found that there are 262,000 people who identify as transgender in the UK:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-06/transgender-population-uk-census-shows-gender-identity-in-england-and-wales#xj4y7vzkg

Math is not my strongest skill, but I believe that means that the 76 sex offenders represents just .03% of the transgender population.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

What document on that page are we supposed to look at?

You are insinuating document in evidence in the UK parliament is false because you don't like what it says. All stats are linked to source data on page 3.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Wow, defensive aren't we? The only thing that I was insinuating is that you linked to a page with something like 6 documents and I was not eager to read all of them. You write above:

"Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?"

Yet, the document that you claim supports this allegation says:

"The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault..."

The phrase "sex crimes" does not appear in the document and the phrase "sexual assault" only appears the single time that I quote it above.

Regarding the Ministry of Justice statistics that are listed on Page 4, those have acknowledged limitations because they don't count prisoners who have gender recognition certificates. Therefore, as the reports says, the statistics "underestimate the total number of [transgender women] in women’s prisons."

Finally, this is not a document produced by the "UK Parliament" as you have implied, but rather testimony drafted by three trans-exclusionary activists and simply submitted into the record by a member of Parliament. It is far from an unbiased source.

Point where I said this document was produced by the UK Parliament. It is a document in evidence. Do you think they allow falsehoods?

OK, so I misused sex crime instead of sexual assault. Why are you dismissing the statistics on sexual assault?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply trolling and not actually as incompetent as you appear. In the quoted posts above, you linked to the Parliament document and are then asked if you have a source that "isn’t a radical feminist". You reply, "That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me." Any normal understanding of your response is that the source was the UK Parliament, not a group of trans-exclusionary activists.

I am not dismissing the statistics but pointing out their limitation that is documented in the report.

The UK is not exactly the premier source of information about trans issues these days. The entire country appears to have lost its senses as far as the issue is concerned. The head of the Labor Party is spouting off about children identifying as cats and there is currently a nationwide effort to find cat children. One so-called journalist actually offered to pay parents to give anonymous accounts of their children identifying as animals.

My point is that it is unlikely that the UK parliament accepts documentation which is factually incorrect. Whether that documentation is produced by feminists or trans-activists. The reality is that this documentation shows exactly what I said it did about the rates of sexual offences in men vs women vs transgendered individuals. Which you concede by acknowledging that you are not dismissing the statistics. It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge any factual or statistical data from the UK because many people there hold gender critical views. Is that right?

You seem to have a pattern of introducing weird unrelated topics to derail as well. People identifying at cat people? Whatever shenanigans the southern baptists are up to these days? Why is it so hard to stay on topic.

If I presented a document drafted by trans rights activists that made extreme allegations about cis women, you would surely question the source, would you not? It is a perfectly normal reaction to question sources. Maybe you are willing to accept data that supports your prejudices without question, but that doesn't mean that I also should accept them without question.

There is very limited information about that document, but based on what is available, it appears that the MP simply submitted the document as a curtesy to the authors. There is no indication that the document was vetted in any way. There is nothing to indicate that the Parliament or even the MP that submitted it stand by its findings. But, yes, I think that a Parliament whose opposition leader is currently fixated on children identifying as cats, probably does not have the most stringent requirements for the accuracy of the data that it consumes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

What document on that page are we supposed to look at?

You are insinuating document in evidence in the UK parliament is false because you don't like what it says. All stats are linked to source data on page 3.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Wow, defensive aren't we? The only thing that I was insinuating is that you linked to a page with something like 6 documents and I was not eager to read all of them. You write above:

"Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?"

Yet, the document that you claim supports this allegation says:

"The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault..."

The phrase "sex crimes" does not appear in the document and the phrase "sexual assault" only appears the single time that I quote it above.

Regarding the Ministry of Justice statistics that are listed on Page 4, those have acknowledged limitations because they don't count prisoners who have gender recognition certificates. Therefore, as the reports says, the statistics "underestimate the total number of [transgender women] in women’s prisons."

Finally, this is not a document produced by the "UK Parliament" as you have implied, but rather testimony drafted by three trans-exclusionary activists and simply submitted into the record by a member of Parliament. It is far from an unbiased source.

Point where I said this document was produced by the UK Parliament. It is a document in evidence. Do you think they allow falsehoods?

OK, so I misused sex crime instead of sexual assault. Why are you dismissing the statistics on sexual assault?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply trolling and not actually as incompetent as you appear. In the quoted posts above, you linked to the Parliament document and are then asked if you have a source that "isn’t a radical feminist". You reply, "That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me." Any normal understanding of your response is that the source was the UK Parliament, not a group of trans-exclusionary activists.

I am not dismissing the statistics but pointing out their limitation that is documented in the report.

The UK is not exactly the premier source of information about trans issues these days. The entire country appears to have lost its senses as far as the issue is concerned. The head of the Labor Party is spouting off about children identifying as cats and there is currently a nationwide effort to find cat children. One so-called journalist actually offered to pay parents to give anonymous accounts of their children identifying as animals.

My point is that it is unlikely that the UK parliament accepts documentation which is factually incorrect. Whether that documentation is produced by feminists or trans-activists. The reality is that this documentation shows exactly what I said it did about the rates of sexual offences in men vs women vs transgendered individuals. Which you concede by acknowledging that you are not dismissing the statistics. It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge any factual or statistical data from the UK because many people there hold gender critical views. Is that right?

You seem to have a pattern of introducing weird unrelated topics to derail as well. People identifying at cat people? Whatever shenanigans the southern baptists are up to these days? Why is it so hard to stay on topic.

If I presented a document drafted by trans rights activists that made extreme allegations about cis women, you would surely question the source, would you not? It is a perfectly normal reaction to question sources. Maybe you are willing to accept data that supports your prejudices without question, but that doesn't mean that I also should accept them without question.

There is very limited information about that document, but based on what is available, it appears that the MP simply submitted the document as a curtesy to the authors. There is no indication that the document was vetted in any way. There is nothing to indicate that the Parliament or even the MP that submitted it stand by its findings. But, yes, I think that a Parliament whose opposition leader is currently fixated on children identifying as cats, probably does not have the most stringent requirements for the accuracy of the data that it consumes.

If a trans activist shared a document with statistics about ciswomen then I would verify the sources and then respond based on if the document was factually correct or incorrect. I most certainly would not immediately attempt to discredit the document by stating that the statistics were compiled by trans-activists. Which is what you and others have done throughout this entire thread when a link to a feminist source is provided.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

What document on that page are we supposed to look at?

You are insinuating document in evidence in the UK parliament is false because you don't like what it says. All stats are linked to source data on page 3.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Wow, defensive aren't we? The only thing that I was insinuating is that you linked to a page with something like 6 documents and I was not eager to read all of them. You write above:

"Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?"

Yet, the document that you claim supports this allegation says:

"The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault..."

The phrase "sex crimes" does not appear in the document and the phrase "sexual assault" only appears the single time that I quote it above.

Regarding the Ministry of Justice statistics that are listed on Page 4, those have acknowledged limitations because they don't count prisoners who have gender recognition certificates. Therefore, as the reports says, the statistics "underestimate the total number of [transgender women] in women’s prisons."

Finally, this is not a document produced by the "UK Parliament" as you have implied, but rather testimony drafted by three trans-exclusionary activists and simply submitted into the record by a member of Parliament. It is far from an unbiased source.

Point where I said this document was produced by the UK Parliament. It is a document in evidence. Do you think they allow falsehoods?

OK, so I misused sex crime instead of sexual assault. Why are you dismissing the statistics on sexual assault?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply trolling and not actually as incompetent as you appear. In the quoted posts above, you linked to the Parliament document and are then asked if you have a source that "isn’t a radical feminist". You reply, "That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me." Any normal understanding of your response is that the source was the UK Parliament, not a group of trans-exclusionary activists.

I am not dismissing the statistics but pointing out their limitation that is documented in the report.

The UK is not exactly the premier source of information about trans issues these days. The entire country appears to have lost its senses as far as the issue is concerned. The head of the Labor Party is spouting off about children identifying as cats and there is currently a nationwide effort to find cat children. One so-called journalist actually offered to pay parents to give anonymous accounts of their children identifying as animals.

My point is that it is unlikely that the UK parliament accepts documentation which is factually incorrect. Whether that documentation is produced by feminists or trans-activists. The reality is that this documentation shows exactly what I said it did about the rates of sexual offences in men vs women vs transgendered individuals. Which you concede by acknowledging that you are not dismissing the statistics. It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge any factual or statistical data from the UK because many people there hold gender critical views. Is that right?

You seem to have a pattern of introducing weird unrelated topics to derail as well. People identifying at cat people? Whatever shenanigans the southern baptists are up to these days? Why is it so hard to stay on topic.

If I presented a document drafted by trans rights activists that made extreme allegations about cis women, you would surely question the source, would you not? It is a perfectly normal reaction to question sources. Maybe you are willing to accept data that supports your prejudices without question, but that doesn't mean that I also should accept them without question.

There is very limited information about that document, but based on what is available, it appears that the MP simply submitted the document as a curtesy to the authors. There is no indication that the document was vetted in any way. There is nothing to indicate that the Parliament or even the MP that submitted it stand by its findings. But, yes, I think that a Parliament whose opposition leader is currently fixated on children identifying as cats, probably does not have the most stringent requirements for the accuracy of the data that it consumes.

If a trans activist shared a document with statistics about ciswomen then I would verify the sources and then respond based on if the document was factually correct or incorrect. I most certainly would not immediately attempt to discredit the document by stating that the statistics were compiled by trans-activists. Which is what you and others have done throughout this entire thread when a link to a feminist source is provided.

Not true and simply more evidence of your refusal to discuss this topic in good faith. I evaluated your claims regarding the document. I found limitations in the data that were acknowledged in the report. Only after that, I noted that the source was biased and that was in response to your attempt to imply that the source of your allegations was the UK Parliament. Do you deny that the source is in fact biased?

In fact, I acted exactly as you claim that you would.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

What document on that page are we supposed to look at?

You are insinuating document in evidence in the UK parliament is false because you don't like what it says. All stats are linked to source data on page 3.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Wow, defensive aren't we? The only thing that I was insinuating is that you linked to a page with something like 6 documents and I was not eager to read all of them. You write above:

"Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?"

Yet, the document that you claim supports this allegation says:

"The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault..."

The phrase "sex crimes" does not appear in the document and the phrase "sexual assault" only appears the single time that I quote it above.

Regarding the Ministry of Justice statistics that are listed on Page 4, those have acknowledged limitations because they don't count prisoners who have gender recognition certificates. Therefore, as the reports says, the statistics "underestimate the total number of [transgender women] in women’s prisons."

Finally, this is not a document produced by the "UK Parliament" as you have implied, but rather testimony drafted by three trans-exclusionary activists and simply submitted into the record by a member of Parliament. It is far from an unbiased source.

Point where I said this document was produced by the UK Parliament. It is a document in evidence. Do you think they allow falsehoods?

OK, so I misused sex crime instead of sexual assault. Why are you dismissing the statistics on sexual assault?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply trolling and not actually as incompetent as you appear. In the quoted posts above, you linked to the Parliament document and are then asked if you have a source that "isn’t a radical feminist". You reply, "That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me." Any normal understanding of your response is that the source was the UK Parliament, not a group of trans-exclusionary activists.

I am not dismissing the statistics but pointing out their limitation that is documented in the report.

The UK is not exactly the premier source of information about trans issues these days. The entire country appears to have lost its senses as far as the issue is concerned. The head of the Labor Party is spouting off about children identifying as cats and there is currently a nationwide effort to find cat children. One so-called journalist actually offered to pay parents to give anonymous accounts of their children identifying as animals.

My point is that it is unlikely that the UK parliament accepts documentation which is factually incorrect. Whether that documentation is produced by feminists or trans-activists. The reality is that this documentation shows exactly what I said it did about the rates of sexual offences in men vs women vs transgendered individuals. Which you concede by acknowledging that you are not dismissing the statistics. It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge any factual or statistical data from the UK because many people there hold gender critical views. Is that right?

You seem to have a pattern of introducing weird unrelated topics to derail as well. People identifying at cat people? Whatever shenanigans the southern baptists are up to these days? Why is it so hard to stay on topic.

If I presented a document drafted by trans rights activists that made extreme allegations about cis women, you would surely question the source, would you not? It is a perfectly normal reaction to question sources. Maybe you are willing to accept data that supports your prejudices without question, but that doesn't mean that I also should accept them without question.

There is very limited information about that document, but based on what is available, it appears that the MP simply submitted the document as a curtesy to the authors. There is no indication that the document was vetted in any way. There is nothing to indicate that the Parliament or even the MP that submitted it stand by its findings. But, yes, I think that a Parliament whose opposition leader is currently fixated on children identifying as cats, probably does not have the most stringent requirements for the accuracy of the data that it consumes.

If a trans activist shared a document with statistics about ciswomen then I would verify the sources and then respond based on if the document was factually correct or incorrect. I most certainly would not immediately attempt to discredit the document by stating that the statistics were compiled by trans-activists. Which is what you and others have done throughout this entire thread when a link to a feminist source is provided.

Not true and simply more evidence of your refusal to discuss this topic in good faith. I evaluated your claims regarding the document. I found limitations in the data that were acknowledged in the report. Only after that, I noted that the source was biased and that was in response to your attempt to imply that the source of your allegations was the UK Parliament. Do you deny that the source is in fact biased?

In fact, I acted exactly as you claim that you would.

Nope. Your so-called "limitation" was a nitpick that I accidentally used the term sex crime instead of sexual offenses. Do you have anything else of substance to add?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

I’m saying that this person is clearly very biased. You don’t you agree with that?

When you call everything sexist - even when it’s clearly not (^) - then it starts to lose its power.

Sorry, but if someone automatically dismisses a fact-based source because it was compiled by feminists, then yes, they are sexist. Truth hurts.

My issue with the author isn’t her vagina. She could have a penis and it still wouldn’t matter. She is an anti-trans activist and is biased.

-feminist

DP
They’re statistics. That can be verified. How is that biased?

You haven’t worked with data/statistics much it seems.

Ok. Tell us what is factually incorrect. I’m sure there is a reason why your comments attack the authors for being feminists instead of presenting evidence.

I’ll look at if on my computer later. It’s hard on my phone.

I stopped when I saw that the studies were being interpreted by a gender critical radical feminist.

You realize that this makes you look wildly ignorant and irrational, not the published author, right?

That having been said, an inability to comprehend hard data and statistics does seem to be a core feature of trans activists, so your struggles with data are to be expected, I suppose. Religious movements tend to struggle with hard science.

I’m comfortable with data, thanks. Just not on my phone when I don’t have my reading glasses.

Anyone familiar with statistics should be aware of its many limitations.

Bias in interpretations is an obvious one.

She’s biased.

Excellent. I have a background in statistical analysis. Please tell me exactly what is wrong with the data, so we can discuss. I look forward to a precise and evidence-based discussion.

There are additional reports from the US which come to the same conclusion if the PP cares to enlighten us on their thoughts on those as well. I think we both know they won't reply or only reply to slam the source as being feminist when in reality it is data from the prison bureau.

https://twitter.com/NoXY_USA/status/1478882010412290048?s=20&t=oLwZWUxbyD8l256JhVsO7g

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

What document on that page are we supposed to look at?

You are insinuating document in evidence in the UK parliament is false because you don't like what it says. All stats are linked to source data on page 3.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Wow, defensive aren't we? The only thing that I was insinuating is that you linked to a page with something like 6 documents and I was not eager to read all of them. You write above:

"Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?"

Yet, the document that you claim supports this allegation says:

"The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault..."

The phrase "sex crimes" does not appear in the document and the phrase "sexual assault" only appears the single time that I quote it above.

Regarding the Ministry of Justice statistics that are listed on Page 4, those have acknowledged limitations because they don't count prisoners who have gender recognition certificates. Therefore, as the reports says, the statistics "underestimate the total number of [transgender women] in women’s prisons."

Finally, this is not a document produced by the "UK Parliament" as you have implied, but rather testimony drafted by three trans-exclusionary activists and simply submitted into the record by a member of Parliament. It is far from an unbiased source.

Point where I said this document was produced by the UK Parliament. It is a document in evidence. Do you think they allow falsehoods?

OK, so I misused sex crime instead of sexual assault. Why are you dismissing the statistics on sexual assault?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply trolling and not actually as incompetent as you appear. In the quoted posts above, you linked to the Parliament document and are then asked if you have a source that "isn’t a radical feminist". You reply, "That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me." Any normal understanding of your response is that the source was the UK Parliament, not a group of trans-exclusionary activists.

I am not dismissing the statistics but pointing out their limitation that is documented in the report.

The UK is not exactly the premier source of information about trans issues these days. The entire country appears to have lost its senses as far as the issue is concerned. The head of the Labor Party is spouting off about children identifying as cats and there is currently a nationwide effort to find cat children. One so-called journalist actually offered to pay parents to give anonymous accounts of their children identifying as animals.

My point is that it is unlikely that the UK parliament accepts documentation which is factually incorrect. Whether that documentation is produced by feminists or trans-activists. The reality is that this documentation shows exactly what I said it did about the rates of sexual offences in men vs women vs transgendered individuals. Which you concede by acknowledging that you are not dismissing the statistics. It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge any factual or statistical data from the UK because many people there hold gender critical views. Is that right?

You seem to have a pattern of introducing weird unrelated topics to derail as well. People identifying at cat people? Whatever shenanigans the southern baptists are up to these days? Why is it so hard to stay on topic.

If I presented a document drafted by trans rights activists that made extreme allegations about cis women, you would surely question the source, would you not? It is a perfectly normal reaction to question sources. Maybe you are willing to accept data that supports your prejudices without question, but that doesn't mean that I also should accept them without question.

There is very limited information about that document, but based on what is available, it appears that the MP simply submitted the document as a curtesy to the authors. There is no indication that the document was vetted in any way. There is nothing to indicate that the Parliament or even the MP that submitted it stand by its findings. But, yes, I think that a Parliament whose opposition leader is currently fixated on children identifying as cats, probably does not have the most stringent requirements for the accuracy of the data that it consumes.

If a trans activist shared a document with statistics about ciswomen then I would verify the sources and then respond based on if the document was factually correct or incorrect. I most certainly would not immediately attempt to discredit the document by stating that the statistics were compiled by trans-activists. Which is what you and others have done throughout this entire thread when a link to a feminist source is provided.

Not true and simply more evidence of your refusal to discuss this topic in good faith. I evaluated your claims regarding the document. I found limitations in the data that were acknowledged in the report. Only after that, I noted that the source was biased and that was in response to your attempt to imply that the source of your allegations was the UK Parliament. Do you deny that the source is in fact biased?

In fact, I acted exactly as you claim that you would.

Nope. Your so-called "limitation" was a nitpick that I accidentally used the term sex crime instead of sexual offenses. Do you have anything else of substance to add?

I have been addressing you seriously despite your posts being increasingly trollish. Are you incapable of an adult conversation? Why do you continually misrepresent my responses?

Let's review again what transpired. You made a claim about "sex crimes". I could not find that phrase in the document, but I did find a single mention of the phrase "sexual assault". But, that single mention was only to say that no data about that crime had been collected. Don't you agree that not collecting data is a limitation?

Second, I noted a limitation that was documented in the report itself, which was that the MOJ data did not include individuals who have obtained a gender recognition certificates. The report itself says that this results in an undercount of the number of transgender women. Don't you agree that is also a limitation, or are you going to disagree with the report in this instance?

I did not nitpick you. I took the time to read and evaluate your source -- a source I will remind you that you attempted to misrepresent.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted above that one of the things that bothers me the most about this entire discussion is the unending gaslighting from trans rights advocates, something that is seen on DCUM in the small and writ large across the movement in general. It’s a relentless narrative: “Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do? You must be absorbing propaganda because God knows you ladies couldn’t possibly reach rational conclusions based on living your entire lives as sexed females in a grossly misogynist world filled with sex-based violence!”

I read this article that I thought was excellent, and captures a lot of my feelings on the matter, so sharing:

https://thecritic.co.uk/we-know-what-a-man-is/

I am not afraid of trans people. I am afraid of losing the principle – within feminism, of all places – that female lives matter as much as male ones. That our desires are not trivial, selfish, frivolous, whereas those of male people are a matter of life and death. That our perceptions of reality are as valid as male ones. That we do not deserve to be bullied and gaslighted into pandering to male egos in the name of “being kind“. That we are not privileged airheads who should say yes to everything because hey, what does it cost us? What do we know about pain? What even are we?

I must have missed the bolded when it was written. Could you please link to that post?

I am not the person who wrote this but I can assure you that although these specific words may have not been written, this is the message we are getting.

I am unapologetic about fighting to keep biological males out of female spaces. I am not homophobic. But make no mistake, people like me are being told out feelings don’t matter.

So, your point is that the thing that bothers that poster the most is something that was not actually said?

Jeff I’ve really grown to respect you and your opinions during this discussion, but I think you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

You are not a female. I think it is difficult for you to understand that females have unique struggles that people who identify as women cannot possibly understand. And that males clearly cannot understand.

I understand your desire to be inclusive and to support trans rights. But let’s be honest - there is absolutely nothing that is on the line for you personally.

I say this respectfully Jeff, I really do. I enjoy your website and this important discourse you’ve allowed us to have on this topic. And I thank you for that.

I am not sure whether you have realized it, but you have both moved the goalposts and reversed the logic of the issue that bothers the earlier poster the most. She was bothered by being told not to worry about "manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do". Your objection is to the invasion of women's spaces by people that you don't consider to be women. That is a different issue. Moreover, you are now telling me not to worry my pretty little head (very liberal paraphrasing here) about "women's" topics.

This thread started out with the original poster stating a desire to have good faith discussions of this issue. One of the reasons we can't have good faith discussions is that so many posters simply don't act in good faith. I am certain that nobody told the earlier poster not to worry her pretty little head about "manly" topics. With the exception of me, the posters in this thread are likely female and I absolutely said no such thing. Yet, that entirely made up quote is the thing that bothers her the most.

What that poster probably means is that she does not believe her arguments are taken seriously. I would argue they are taken seriously, but not always found to be persuasive. She blames this on misogyny rather than shortcomings with her arguments. Similarly, you also refuse to consider that your arguments simply might not be as strong as you seem to believe, but simply claim that only females are capable of understanding. Of course, you ignore the females who hold view identical to mine. What is your explanation for why they don't understand?

So PP’s “very liberal paraphrasing” wasn’t ok (you wanted a direct quote) while yours is? Talk about not discussing in good faith.

Apparently you are not familiar with the rules of English grammar. The earlier poster used quotation marks around the passage that I bolded. I am sure that you can Google the meaning of quotation marks, but to put it simply, they do not indicate that something is being paraphrased. To the contrary, they specify that they surround something that was literally stated. I, on the other hand, did not use quotations marks. To ensure that there would be no confusion, I offered additional clarification that I was not only paraphrasing, but doing so very liberally and, hence, far from literally. Hopefully this clarifies things for you sufficiently.

That PP also explicitly used the word narrative.

Do you know what that word means?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know what that word means. Can you show me where there is a narrative in which the earlier poster was told, "Why are you worrying your pretty little heads with important manly topics that are for people who matter more than you do?"

First, I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever suggest that transgenderism is a "manly" topic, let alone one with which women should not concern themselves. Second, who has told the poster that this is a topic for people who matter more than she does?

This is the thing that bothers that poster the most so certainly there is at least one example of it here.

I think that you’re failing to account for the manner in which women are constantly told to be quiet, spoken over, and dismissed. I promise we can see what’s happening.

That may well be true as a society-wide issue but is not something that has been happening in this discussion in which nearly all participants are women and all views are being given equal voice. It's hard to speak over a written message. Moreover, this is a different complaint than that made by the earlier poster who did not simply complain that her views were dismissed, but that she was told not to talk about "manly" issues that should be left to those that matter more than her. That simply didn't happen.

I am not the “manly” poster but even if we take “manly” out of the equation a large number of women definitely feel as though we are being told the feelings of trans people matter more than our feelings. We are told that our outrage over transwomen competing in women’s sports isn’t valid because there is such a small number of trans athletes so why would we be upset about this? That’s saying that Lia Thomas’ teammates have to just suck it up.

I disagree with your overall views about trans issues. Why do your feelings matter more on the subject than mine? I’m a woman. Does it make you a misogynist to not care about how some women feel just because they disagree with you? Because I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for not wanting to ban trans women from bathrooms and locker rooms.

I said this before and I’ll say it again. Neither one of us is right or wrong. It’s an opinion on the status of trans people. It’s what the majority thinks/wants that will win in the end. And I am certain my side will win.

You think that the majority of the country wants transgender women in the men's bathrooms and transgender men in the women's bathrooms?

Do you think the majority of the country should be able to decide if adults are allowed to transition and what adults should be able to do with their own bodies and how they live their lives?

I think the majority of the country doesn’t want penises in female spaces. And doesn’t want transwomen competing against females in sports. I also think the majority of the country doesn’t think that womanhood is a feeling.

I think adults can do whatever they want. I’m not sure how the majority of the country feels about that particularly.

So you're saying you want pre-op trans women in the men's bathroom and post-op trans women in the women's bathroom?

Quite honestly the bathroom thing doesn’t bother me as much as the locker room thing. I definitely don’t want to be changing or showering with a biological male.

So you're opinion is, bathroom whatever because it's closed stalls. Locker room, pre-op and post-op trans women should change in the men's locker room with your men and boys?

I’m not sure why you want me to keep repeating it, but I don’t want a penis in the locker room with me. Post op clearly wouldn’t have a penis, but that would be difficult to police. So it would have to be segregated by male/female. That’s the only way to keep the penises out.

Is there a word for fear of penises?

I don't get the obsession with other people's genitalia. Are you OK with women with big flappy labia? Extra full bush? Micro clit? Are you really looking at people's junk that closely?

Almost everyone would prefer individual changing stalls. They would make everyone more comfortable.

There is no fear, as much as you would like that to be the reason.
Listen, if you’re comfortable changing in the locker room next to a male, have at it. If I don’t want to see someone’s penis, or if I don’t want my kids to see that, that is a valid concern. It doesn’t mean I’m afraid of anything.
I’m not comfortable with it. Why do you think locker rooms were segregated in the first place? For shits and giggles?

If there is no fear, then what is the issue. Just let people change where they feel comfortable and leave them alone.

Even Gaines "never felt uncomfortable around Lia", that is, until she decided to work the RWNJ press circuit.

Locker rooms are segregated because of antiquated social norms.

I gotta say that I'd be fine with a trans woman next to me, but I don't want to change with regular old dudes. No thanks.

Do you realize that most transwomen are sexually attracted exclusively to women? Transbian, right? Does that make any difference? It really did to me.

So are you creeped about by cisgender lesbians in the locker room?

I'm the PP who said I don't want to change with regular old men. Of the following groups, who are most likely to harm women: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, trans women or men? We all know the answer is door number 4! Men. So I'll keep my women's locker room with all the cis women and trans women in it.

I don't get the thinking that allowing trans women into a women's locker room is going to put women at more risk. If there is some psycho man out there who wants to assault women in the bathroom or locker room, he's going to find a way to do it no matter what the rules are, because he is just a psycho. People like that have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people. Any person of any gender, sex, or orientation can be a psycho, but not everyone in a particular group is a psycho.

Males, regardless of gender identity, commit 99.9% of sexual assaults against females. So it's doors 3 and 4.

No, Transgender individuals are more likely to have been victimized that to be the victimizers.

Research has also shown that transwomen or males who say they are transwomen are more likely to commit sexual offenses than both non-trans men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://torontosun.com/news/national/study-finds-nearly-45-of-trans-women-inmates-convicted-of-sex-crimes

Do you have a source that isn’t a radical feminist?

That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me.

Who wrote the paper?

Do you not actually read any of this crap? Or check the sources?

No wonder there is so much ignorance floating around.

Did you? The sources are the UK MOJ.

“ Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman,”

You are dismissing these sources because you are a sexist, but that doesn't change reality. Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2019

What document on that page are we supposed to look at?

You are insinuating document in evidence in the UK parliament is false because you don't like what it says. All stats are linked to source data on page 3.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Wow, defensive aren't we? The only thing that I was insinuating is that you linked to a page with something like 6 documents and I was not eager to read all of them. You write above:

"Reality which is that trans people commit more sex crimes than both men and women. Why are you denying science?"

Yet, the document that you claim supports this allegation says:

"The findings do not include specific results for any form of sexual assault..."

The phrase "sex crimes" does not appear in the document and the phrase "sexual assault" only appears the single time that I quote it above.

Regarding the Ministry of Justice statistics that are listed on Page 4, those have acknowledged limitations because they don't count prisoners who have gender recognition certificates. Therefore, as the reports says, the statistics "underestimate the total number of [transgender women] in women’s prisons."

Finally, this is not a document produced by the "UK Parliament" as you have implied, but rather testimony drafted by three trans-exclusionary activists and simply submitted into the record by a member of Parliament. It is far from an unbiased source.

Point where I said this document was produced by the UK Parliament. It is a document in evidence. Do you think they allow falsehoods?

OK, so I misused sex crime instead of sexual assault. Why are you dismissing the statistics on sexual assault?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply trolling and not actually as incompetent as you appear. In the quoted posts above, you linked to the Parliament document and are then asked if you have a source that "isn’t a radical feminist". You reply, "That the UK parliament is a radical feminist organization is news to me." Any normal understanding of your response is that the source was the UK Parliament, not a group of trans-exclusionary activists.

I am not dismissing the statistics but pointing out their limitation that is documented in the report.

The UK is not exactly the premier source of information about trans issues these days. The entire country appears to have lost its senses as far as the issue is concerned. The head of the Labor Party is spouting off about children identifying as cats and there is currently a nationwide effort to find cat children. One so-called journalist actually offered to pay parents to give anonymous accounts of their children identifying as animals.

My point is that it is unlikely that the UK parliament accepts documentation which is factually incorrect. Whether that documentation is produced by feminists or trans-activists. The reality is that this documentation shows exactly what I said it did about the rates of sexual offences in men vs women vs transgendered individuals. Which you concede by acknowledging that you are not dismissing the statistics. It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge any factual or statistical data from the UK because many people there hold gender critical views. Is that right?

You seem to have a pattern of introducing weird unrelated topics to derail as well. People identifying at cat people? Whatever shenanigans the southern baptists are up to these days? Why is it so hard to stay on topic.

If I presented a document drafted by trans rights activists that made extreme allegations about cis women, you would surely question the source, would you not? It is a perfectly normal reaction to question sources. Maybe you are willing to accept data that supports your prejudices without question, but that doesn't mean that I also should accept them without question.

There is very limited information about that document, but based on what is available, it appears that the MP simply submitted the document as a curtesy to the authors. There is no indication that the document was vetted in any way. There is nothing to indicate that the Parliament or even the MP that submitted it stand by its findings. But, yes, I think that a Parliament whose opposition leader is currently fixated on children identifying as cats, probably does not have the most stringent requirements for the accuracy of the data that it consumes.

If a trans activist shared a document with statistics about ciswomen then I would verify the sources and then respond based on if the document was factually correct or incorrect. I most certainly would not immediately attempt to discredit the document by stating that the statistics were compiled by trans-activists. Which is what you and others have done throughout this entire thread when a link to a feminist source is provided.

Not true and simply more evidence of your refusal to discuss this topic in good faith. I evaluated your claims regarding the document. I found limitations in the data that were acknowledged in the report. Only after that, I noted that the source was biased and that was in response to your attempt to imply that the source of your allegations was the UK Parliament. Do you deny that the source is in fact biased?

In fact, I acted exactly as you claim that you would.

Nope. Your so-called "limitation" was a nitpick that I accidentally used the term sex crime instead of sexual offenses. Do you have anything else of substance to add?

I have been addressing you seriously despite your posts being increasingly trollish. Are you incapable of an adult conversation? Why do you continually misrepresent my responses?

Let's review again what transpired. You made a claim about "sex crimes". I could not find that phrase in the document, but I did find a single mention of the phrase "sexual assault". But, that single mention was only to say that no data about that crime had been collected. Don't you agree that not collecting data is a limitation?

Second, I noted a limitation that was documented in the report itself, which was that the MOJ data did not include individuals who have obtained a gender recognition certificates. The report itself says that this results in an undercount of the number of transgender women. Don't you agree that is also a limitation, or are you going to disagree with the report in this instance?

I did not nitpick you. I took the time to read and evaluate your source -- a source I will remind you that you attempted to misrepresent.

I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just confused. I referred to data on a specific page which referenced “sexual offenses”. I accidentally referred to “sex crimes”. I didn’t misrepresent anything except for the word choice of crimes vs offenses and you know it.

Agree with you that not including people with a gender certificate is a limitation of the data. But, it’s all we have unless you can show me the data set that includes those individuals. I’d love to see data from trans activists from a prisons-based source that tries to tell a different story. Care to share any citations?

[jsteele]

It turns out that the report claiming high number of transwomen sex offenders was severely flawed. Here is a comprehensive analysis of the data:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/41-per-cent-trans-transgender-trans-women-prisoners-sex-offenders-false-study-statistic-this-is-why-a8072431.html

The report to which the earlier poster had linked — the one she claimed was from the UK Parliament — was based on other, earlier, reports. One of those was produced by a group called Fair Play for Women. But, their original report stated, "There is no official information published on the type of offences committed by (transgender women) inmates". So, since Fair Play for Women could not obtain that data from the MOJ, they collected it "based on the units they are placed in." In other words, if a transgender woman was held in a unit that normally holds sex offenders, the group determined that that individual was a sex offender. The problem is that several of the units have mixed offenders, so there is no certainty that everyone there is a sex offender. To the contrary, it is certain that not all are.

The article ends with this note: "The Ministry of Justice responded that they do not collate the relevant data".

So, the data that is being passed off as coming from the MOJ is certainly not coming from it. The data has obvious flaws. Hence, the conclusions are flawed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just confused. I referred to data on a specific page which referenced “sexual offenses”. I accidentally referred to “sex crimes”. I didn’t misrepresent anything except for the word choice of crimes vs offenses and you know it.

Agree with you that not including people with a gender certificate is a limitation of the data. But, it’s all we have unless you can show me the data set that includes those individuals. I’d love to see data from trans activists from a prisons-based source that tries to tell a different story. Care to share any citations?

You misrepresented that the source of your allegations was the UK Parliament when, in fact, it was a group of anti-trans activists. Moreover, per my post just above, you also misrepresented the source of the data. You wrote, "The sources are the UK MOJ." As I just documented, the source was another anti-trans groups which complied the data using flawed methods. Though, I'll concede your misrepresentation in this case was probably inadvertent since your source was misleading.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just confused. I referred to data on a specific page which referenced “sexual offenses”. I accidentally referred to “sex crimes”. I didn’t misrepresent anything except for the word choice of crimes vs offenses and you know it.

Agree with you that not including people with a gender certificate is a limitation of the data. But, it’s all we have unless you can show me the data set that includes those individuals. I’d love to see data from trans activists from a prisons-based source that tries to tell a different story. Care to share any citations?

You misrepresented that the source of your allegations was the UK Parliament when, in fact, it was a group of anti-trans activists. Moreover, per my post just above, you also misrepresented the source of the data. You wrote, "The sources are the UK MOJ." As I just documented, the source was another anti-trans groups which complied the data using flawed methods. Though, I'll concede your misrepresentation in this case was probably inadvertent since your source was misleading.

The bottom line is that the source data on these prisoners and their sexual offenses was collected from the UK MOJ. It was compiled into a report that was presented to the UK parliament in the context of a discussion about prison policy towards trans offenders. While you can debate how the report was presented, the root source of this data is indeed the UK MOJ. This is factual statement. There is additional context with quotations from a justice minister if you are really so deluded to dispute the source of this data. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-sex-offenders-exploiting-trans-rights-policies-behind-bars/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just confused. I referred to data on a specific page which referenced “sexual offenses”. I accidentally referred to “sex crimes”. I didn’t misrepresent anything except for the word choice of crimes vs offenses and you know it.

Agree with you that not including people with a gender certificate is a limitation of the data. But, it’s all we have unless you can show me the data set that includes those individuals. I’d love to see data from trans activists from a prisons-based source that tries to tell a different story. Care to share any citations?

You misrepresented that the source of your allegations was the UK Parliament when, in fact, it was a group of anti-trans activists. Moreover, per my post just above, you also misrepresented the source of the data. You wrote, "The sources are the UK MOJ." As I just documented, the source was another anti-trans groups which complied the data using flawed methods. Though, I'll concede your misrepresentation in this case was probably inadvertent since your source was misleading.

The bottom line is that the source data on these prisoners and their sexual offenses was collected from the UK MOJ. It was compiled into a report that was presented to the UK parliament in the context of a discussion about prison policy towards trans offenders. While you can debate how the report was presented, the root source of this data is indeed the UK MOJ. This is factual statement. There is additional context with quotations from a justice minister if you are really so deluded to dispute the source of this data. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-sex-offenders-exploiting-trans-rights-policies-behind-bars/

From that article, by the author of the "additional context":

So do these figures indicate that trans people are more inclined than others to commit sexual offences? I do not believe these figures offer such evidence. I also think that more people on the gender critical side should accept that, since that would make it easier to focus this debate more narrowly, on predatory men who might exploit trans-inclusive policies.

[Anonymous]

I would love to see some prison or crime statistical data from trans activists. Anyone care to share?