Question about the homophobia thread

[jsteele]

There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

I was talking about more than bathrooms. But with respect to bathrooms, the issue is more complicated that you describe. It isn’t transwomen attacking ciswomen. It is male-sexed predators in general using self-ID laws to get access to places they couldn’t access before. Some of those predators will be trans, some will be cis, but what they share at heart are historically male violence patterns towards women.

Also, whenever people (usually trans activists) claim that estrogenized penises can’t cause sexual assault, I know without a doubt that they are not female. Sexual assault is a crime of power and violence. The penis is a tool; if it can’t be used, something else will be used. Women over the millennia have been raped and assaulted by men using many, many other means. Transwomen taking estrogen retain male violence patterns in any event; estrogen doesn’t seem to stop anything.

It is not at all true that all transwomen are sexual predators, and I want to make that clear. Neither are all men. But SOME men are, and SOME transwomen are, and they will use (and already have used) increased access for predation. But since many places are elevating the self-ID of transwomen over the safety of women, women who even talk about the risks of expanded access face extreme violence themselves.

Which specific self ID laws are you talking about in the DMV that resulted in cis men attacking women in bathrooms? Is this something you’re scared of or something that’s happened in let’s say, MD?

Research shows that assaults of females by males are less prevalent in single sex spaces than coed spaces. Right now, bathrooms remain mostly sex segregated. When males have full access to women’s spaces, we can expect the rates of violence against women to rise to those of coed spaces.

[Anonymous]

Lots to respond to (and thoughtful) but I have only a few minutes so just raising one point now, will come back later. Assaults against women are notoriously hard to track because they are unreported, since reporting often brings its own safety risks. It is not going to be easy to suss out the impact of the laws, and frankly I do not trust academics these days to report accurately on women’s safety. Since crime stats now go by identified gender in many areas, statistical accuracy becomes much more challenging as well.

Anecdotally I am hearing women talk a lot more about experiencing clearly-identified men in women’s bathrooms, staring and just hanging out there. They are likely cis men who are creeps, not trans anything, but they can’t be kicked out any more. You can’t go to the management of a gym and report a man making you uncomfortable in the gym the same way, because you risk being labeled transphobic and being kicked out yourself (in California there have actually been a few cases of this that reached the press).

I don’t think there will be reliable and hard data on this for a long time, which is in fact exactly in keeping with the history of sexual assault and rape of women in our society.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.

You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

What is being proposed in many posts is to ban transgender women from women's bathrooms in order to prevent cisgender men from pretending to be transgender women and entering bathrooms. It's pretty far feteched and to be honest with you, really is just saying that they don't want non-passing trans women in the bathroom because they think they can always tell who is trans. They can't. They think the pictures posted earlier of the trans men are some 1 in 1000 exceptions to the rule. After four or five years of hormones, a great many people eventually pass. Maybe not as many on close inspection looking for specific features to read but people don't do that in the bathroom. They would be the weird ones if they're staring at other women in the bathroom trying to figure out if they're trans (and at least 99.4% of the time they would just be cis anyway).

Here's the other thing that most people don't know or acknowledge (and while this isn't universally true since nothing in this world is), it's pretty common for trans women to continue to present as a man until hormones change them enough that it becomes difficult to live that way. Most trans women are extremely worried about making cis women uncomfortable in bathrooms and other spaces. They have a term for when a trans woman continues to present as a man but eventually cannot pass as one any longer - "Male fail". Some younger people that are 18 or 20 can have this happen in 3-6 months. Older transitioners might not happen until several years in or never (more time for testosterone to masculine the face). But many trans women eventually cannot pass as men. Many trans men cannot pass as women. It's not some rare occurrence. If people think it's rare to pass, it's because they are basing their opinion of what trans people look like on stereotypes or early transitioners (or cis crossdressers and drag queens).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.

You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

The scientist in me is just so in love with you right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots to respond to (and thoughtful) but I have only a few minutes so just raising one point now, will come back later. Assaults against women are notoriously hard to track because they are unreported, since reporting often brings its own safety risks. It is not going to be easy to suss out the impact of the laws, and frankly I do not trust academics these days to report accurately on women’s safety. Since crime stats now go by identified gender in many areas, statistical accuracy becomes much more challenging as well.

Anecdotally I am hearing women talk a lot more about experiencing clearly-identified men in women’s bathrooms, staring and just hanging out there. They are likely cis men who are creeps, not trans anything, but they can’t be kicked out any more. You can’t go to the management of a gym and report a man making you uncomfortable in the gym the same way, because you risk being labeled transphobic and being kicked out yourself (in California there have actually been a few cases of this that reached the press).

I don’t think there will be reliable and hard data on this for a long time, which is in fact exactly in keeping with the history of sexual assault and rape of women in our society.

Let’s take on faith that this is true. Have you considered that the result of “go to the bathroom/locker room associated with the gender on your birth certificate” has had the result of forcing trans men into women’s bathrooms/locker rooms? Because “anecdotally” this is what I’m hearing.

For years, trans people used the bathrooms associated with their gender identities without issue. Panic and political grandstanding by anti-trans forces has now made this into an issue, with the result that men are actually being forced into women’s rooms (not to mention the harassment non-gender-conforming women get when they go into a women’s room).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots to respond to (and thoughtful) but I have only a few minutes so just raising one point now, will come back later. Assaults against women are notoriously hard to track because they are unreported, since reporting often brings its own safety risks. It is not going to be easy to suss out the impact of the laws, and frankly I do not trust academics these days to report accurately on women’s safety. Since crime stats now go by identified gender in many areas, statistical accuracy becomes much more challenging as well.

Anecdotally I am hearing women talk a lot more about experiencing clearly-identified men in women’s bathrooms, staring and just hanging out there. They are likely cis men who are creeps, not trans anything, but they can’t be kicked out any more. You can’t go to the management of a gym and report a man making you uncomfortable in the gym the same way, because you risk being labeled transphobic and being kicked out yourself (in California there have actually been a few cases of this that reached the press).

I don’t think there will be reliable and hard data on this for a long time, which is in fact exactly in keeping with the history of sexual assault and rape of women in our society.

These are difficult issues for which there are no easy solutions. Personally, I hate any communal shower or changing area and will go to great lengths to avoid being in one. I'm uncomfortable and, therefore, don't appreciate any locker room behavior that involves lingering completely nude. That includes cisgender people walking around locker rooms, applying makeup, and blowdrying their hair completely nude. Why?

I've posted before about how I was sexually assaulted by a Black man whose behavior felt threatening to me (he followed me down a hall and appeared intoxicated/high). I didn't do enough to protect myself before it was too late because I didn't want to appear racist. I was so upset with myself that I never reported the assault to the police. As time has gone by, I've been more troubled by my actions and feeling that night than by the actual assault itself. I didn't trust my gut, and as a result, I was violated. There has to be a line between bigotry and the ability to express safety concerns when confronted with behavior that suggests a threat (staring, lingering for long periods, invading another's physical space, touching, even unnecessary nudity without being called a racist, transphobe, etc. I don't think that the solution to male predators is to ban trans people from gendered spaces, but in the rare instance where anyone in those spaces is being inappropriate, it should be acceptable to raise a concern. Basic rules of privacy and personal space apply to everyone in vulnerable species. Maybe one solution is to establish specific codes of conduct for everyone in spaces like locker rooms to allow nudity only as necessary (no lingering or parading in the nude).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.

You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

Yes, but this is neither here nor there. You are stuck on sex while we are discussing gender. I think we agree that gender roles grew out of biological sex. I think we all agree that gender concepts are mutable. What was true in the past is not true now and probably not what will be true in the future when it comes to gender. The change in gender concepts is not solely due to biology, but drastically impacted by social development. Thanks to social change, we men are not out hunting sabertooth tigers and mammoths and the females here are not stuck in caves raising children that are unlikely to reach their first birthdays.

We are back to the fundamental disagreement over whether sex and gender are inextricably connected or whether they are separate. If you insist that the connection cannot be severed, there is really nothing to discuss. You are, in effect, denying the existence of an entire group of people whose existence I uphold. That is within your right, but that leaves nothing for us to talk about.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.

You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.

Yes, but this is neither here nor there. You are stuck on sex while we are discussing gender. I think we agree that gender roles grew out of biological sex. I think we all agree that gender concepts are mutable. What was true in the past is not true now and probably not what will be true in the future when it comes to gender. The change in gender concepts is not solely due to biology, but drastically impacted by social development. Thanks to social change, we men are not out hunting sabertooth tigers and mammoths and the females here are not stuck in caves raising children that are unlikely to reach their first birthdays.

We are back to the fundamental disagreement over whether sex and gender are inextricably connected or whether they are separate. If you insist that the connection cannot be severed, there is really nothing to discuss. You are, in effect, denying the existence of an entire group of people whose existence I uphold. That is within your right, but that leaves nothing for us to talk about.

I’m not denying their existence. But definitely don’t think transwomen should be competing against biological women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots to respond to (and thoughtful) but I have only a few minutes so just raising one point now, will come back later. Assaults against women are notoriously hard to track because they are unreported, since reporting often brings its own safety risks. It is not going to be easy to suss out the impact of the laws, and frankly I do not trust academics these days to report accurately on women’s safety. Since crime stats now go by identified gender in many areas, statistical accuracy becomes much more challenging as well.

Anecdotally I am hearing women talk a lot more about experiencing clearly-identified men in women’s bathrooms, staring and just hanging out there. They are likely cis men who are creeps, not trans anything, but they can’t be kicked out any more. You can’t go to the management of a gym and report a man making you uncomfortable in the gym the same way, because you risk being labeled transphobic and being kicked out yourself (in California there have actually been a few cases of this that reached the press).

I don’t think there will be reliable and hard data on this for a long time, which is in fact exactly in keeping with the history of sexual assault and rape of women in our society.

These are difficult issues for which there are no easy solutions. Personally, I hate any communal shower or changing area and will go to great lengths to avoid being in one. I'm uncomfortable and, therefore, don't appreciate any locker room behavior that involves lingering completely nude. That includes cisgender people walking around locker rooms, applying makeup, and blowdrying their hair completely nude. Why?

I've posted before about how I was sexually assaulted by a Black man whose behavior felt threatening to me (he followed me down a hall and appeared intoxicated/high). I didn't do enough to protect myself before it was too late because I didn't want to appear racist. I was so upset with myself that I never reported the assault to the police. As time has gone by, I've been more troubled by my actions and feeling that night than by the actual assault itself. I didn't trust my gut, and as a result, I was violated. There has to be a line between bigotry and the ability to express safety concerns when confronted with behavior that suggests a threat (staring, lingering for long periods, invading another's physical space, touching, even unnecessary nudity without being called a racist, transphobe, etc. I don't think that the solution to male predators is to ban trans people from gendered spaces, but in the rare instance where anyone in those spaces is being inappropriate, it should be acceptable to raise a concern. Basic rules of privacy and personal space apply to everyone in vulnerable species. Maybe one solution is to establish specific codes of conduct for everyone in spaces like locker rooms to allow nudity only as necessary (no lingering or parading in the nude).

That is too vague for a space where it's expected that people will be nude. What does it mean to linger or parade?

[Anonymous]

When someone wants to be the other sex, what are they looking for? When a woman wants to be a man, is it because they feel uncomfortable at puberty and don’t like having breasts due to unwanted male attention? They hate getting a period? Is it because they will have more power as a man?
On the flip side, why do men want to become women? Is it because society values strength, athleticism and confidence in men and if you are lacking in these traits, then you feel yiu aren’t a man? Is it because you enjoy fashion, makeup etc?
I am convinced that the pressure and expectations from society cause our youth to feel they don’t fit. I remember when I went thru early puberty I hated my chest. I got a lot of attention and it made me embarrassed. I was also a tomboy and wonder if I was born today, if I would have chosen to present as a male to take advantages of the benefits of being a male.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I frankly don't get the bathroom issue. It's not a matter of choice but biology.

You have male biology, either by birth or by surgery --> you use male's bathroom.

You have female biology, either by birth or by surgery --> you use female's bathroom.

You are neither, either by birth or by surgery --> you are among the 1 per thousandth in the population with more pressing issues to solve.

Here is what happens when you think solutions are easier than they really are:

Do you personally know the person posting?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I frankly don't get the bathroom issue. It's not a matter of choice but biology.

You have male biology, either by birth or by surgery --> you use male's bathroom.

You have female biology, either by birth or by surgery --> you use female's bathroom.

You are neither, either by birth or by surgery --> you are among the 1 per thousandth in the population with more pressing issues to solve.

Here is what happens when you think solutions are easier than they really are:

Do you personally know the person posting?

No.

One of the posters above, however, said that they have heard anecdotal reports of exactly this happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the anti-trans position being voiced in this thread is that because biologically females give birth, their primary gender role should be bearing and raising children? And, furthermore, that females' relative physical weakness and smaller stature justifies subservient gender roles? Also, this is constitutes an articulation of feminism? Do I have this right?

No. And I think you know that at heart.

I consider myself someone whose primary issue is the safety and progress of women (that also means I am very pro gun control, for instance). For millennia, women have faced extreme violence, almost always at the hands of men, specifically because women bear children and on average they are physically weaker. The stats on violence are overwhelmingly male; violence in our society as a whole is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who have or start life with penises.

You can’t just erase that history of violence and oppression based on sex-based characteristics because a small percentage of the population identifies as trans. That seems to be the position of trans advocates (and perhaps yours), but it is wishful thinking at best. And this is shown in the limited stats on criminality of transwomen that we have: transwomen retain male criminality profiles, not female, even after transition.

I think trans people deserve to be safe. But it is critical to make them safe in a way that does not increase the risks to women, and that’s not happening now. Women who raise issues of safety in fact often face violence for doing so: they are doxxed, they get violent rape and death threats, they are physically attacked, often now on video. This is, of course, exactly in line with the history of feminism. Women fighting for the safety of women and children have always faced extreme violence from angry men. It is literally a characteristic of the history of feminism.

Are you saying that trans women are attacking cis women in bathrooms or that you’re afraid of trans women in bathrooms? Like what, sexually assaulted? With an estrogenized penis?

Two teens in Loudoun County schools say yes.