"Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" and being in the wrong body

[Arctish]

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

It's almost as if this stupid fucking culture war issue would be less of an issue primarily if we actually identified those likely to rape others and prevented them from having access to victims no matter their sex or gender or genitals.

Instead of pursuing this policy, which would be highly effective at preventing prison rapes, you're being pennywise and pound foolish with this culture war shit.

I thought that it would be worse for a female in prison to be raped by a person with a penis than by a woman without one.

Why do you think that?

Being raped by your aunt would be just as psychologically devastating as being raped by your uncle, if not worse since you never thought a woman would do something like that.

At least I think that's what they'd say if you asked them. And he apparently did it multiple times. But you don't agree and I can't convince you of that. A lot of people are outraged about people with penises being allowed in women's prisons and them raping women and also being in women's change rooms. So the story was saying that a man that has had a history of rape is able to say he is a woman (and not require anything else) and be able to go to a women's prison.

IOW, a sexual predator was not properly sequestered from potential victims after being found guilty of rape.

That is a problem. Had she been assigned a cell designed for single occupancy, and more closely supervised in showers and workspaces, would the rapes have happened? We might never know, but if officials at that prison aren't considering it, then it's only a matter of time until the next violent offender attacks the next target of opportunity.

If I was in his shoes I'd also prefer the women's prison and be able to shower with them, etc. Well that's all of my counter-arguments.

I'd prefer to be in a women's prison regardless of whose shoes I'm in. They tend to be better places overall, even with the prevalence of sexual assault.

 

[excreationist]

I wonder if people here would have any problems with the story.

Who here at this board do you think is okay with rape?

Duh.

The whole fallacy is telling you the answer - Anyone who doesn't agree with every single word "Billboard Chris" utters.

Either you agree wholeheartedly with his incredibly stupid policy platform, OR you are okay with rape.

It's a simple dichotomy; You have to pick one side or the other.

Simpletons love themselves a dichotomy.

Sorry I meant are people ok with the legislation that allowed the rapes to occur. Though Jarhyn is saying that if the guy wasn't allowed in they could have been raped by women anyway.

 

[excreationist]

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

It's almost as if this stupid fucking culture war issue would be less of an issue primarily if we actually identified those likely to rape others and prevented them from having access to victims no matter their sex or gender or genitals.

Instead of pursuing this policy, which would be highly effective at preventing prison rapes, you're being pennywise and pound foolish with this culture war shit.

I thought that it would be worse for a female in prison to be raped by a person with a penis than by a woman without one.

Why do you think that?

Being raped by your aunt would be just as psychologically devastating as being raped by your uncle, if not worse since you never thought a woman would do something like that.

What if you were anally raped by your uncle? And in the prison the women might not have access to objects to rape you with so they might have to just use their fingers... ?

I think people would be more outraged by an uncle raping someone than an aunt. I'm not sure it would count as much as "sex" if the aunt did it.

BTW I also brought up the related topic of people with penises being allowed in women's showers, etc. I guess no one here has a problem with that either.

At least I think that's what they'd say if you asked them. And he apparently did it multiple times. But you don't agree and I can't convince you of that. A lot of people are outraged about people with penises being allowed in women's prisons and them raping women and also being in women's change rooms. So the story was saying that a man that has had a history of rape is able to say he is a woman (and not require anything else) and be able to go to a women's prison.

IOW, a sexual predator was not properly sequestered from potential victims after being found guilty of rape.

That is a problem. Had she been assigned a cell designed for single occupancy, and more closely supervised in showers and workspaces, would the rapes have happened? We might never know, but if officials at that prison aren't considering it, then it's only a matter of time until the next violent offender attacks the next target of opportunity.

If I was in his shoes I'd also prefer the women's prison and be able to shower with them, etc. Well that's all of my counter-arguments.

I'd prefer to be in a women's prison regardless of whose shoes I'm in.

And it seems based on the legislation they'd approve it for me.

 

[excreationist]

Anything you disagree with so far? I can't answer your question as I don't know what you mean when you say "wrong body." Bodies are neither right nor wrong, they just are what they are.

Apparently being in the wrong body is the justification for transitioning children, sometimes against their parents will. i.e. it involves making their body match their “gender identity”.

Please show me ONE SINGLE verifiable instance of a doctor performing gender affirming surgery on a minor. Just ONE. Show me ONE SINGLE verifiable instance of a doctor prescribing puberty blockers or gender affirming hormones to a minor without a parent/guardians knowledge. I'll wait.

Frequently Asked Questions

Looking for some answers? Frequently Asked Questions

segm.org

Are “gender-affirming” surgeries performed on children?
The answer to this question depends on the country. In the United States, transgender surgeries on children are not uncommon. For example, this NIH-funded research describes mastectomies in children as young as 13. Other published research suggests that even 12 year olds get mastectomies.
...
The draft 2022 WPATH guidelines lowered the age of mastectomy to 15 and orchiectomy (removal of testicles) and a number of other genital surgeries to 17. However, the final guidelines removed all lower age limits

Gender-Affirming Mastectomy Trends and Surgical Outcomes in ... : Annals of Plastic Surgery

hin our integrated health care system. Methods Gender-affirming mastectomies performed from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2020, in adolescents 12 to 17 years of age at the time of referral were identified. The incidence of gender-affirming mastectomy was calculated by dividing the number of...

journals.lww.com

 

[Arctish]

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

It's almost as if this stupid fucking culture war issue would be less of an issue primarily if we actually identified those likely to rape others and prevented them from having access to victims no matter their sex or gender or genitals.

Instead of pursuing this policy, which would be highly effective at preventing prison rapes, you're being pennywise and pound foolish with this culture war shit.

I thought that it would be worse for a female in prison to be raped by a person with a penis than by a woman without one.

Why do you think that?

Being raped by your aunt would be just as psychologically devastating as being raped by your uncle, if not worse since you never thought a woman would do something like that.

What if you were anally raped by your uncle? And in the prison they might not have access to objects to rape you with so they might have to just use their fingers... ?
BTW I also brought up the related topic of people with penises being allowed in women's showers, etc. I guess no one here has a problem with that either.

People have a problem with rape and other violence. They don't assume that every person with a penis is a rapist who wants to attack them.

Some people don't want to share space with others when they're undressed. Some people are okay with sharing if the others are members of their own sex. Some people don't care about their sex or gender, they only care about them being polite.

At least I think that's what they'd say if you asked them. And he apparently did it multiple times. But you don't agree and I can't convince you of that. A lot of people are outraged about people with penises being allowed in women's prisons and them raping women and also being in women's change rooms. So the story was saying that a man that has had a history of rape is able to say he is a woman (and not require anything else) and be able to go to a women's prison.

IOW, a sexual predator was not properly sequestered from potential victims after being found guilty of rape.

That is a problem. Had she been assigned a cell designed for single occupancy, and more closely supervised in showers and workspaces, would the rapes have happened? We might never know, but if officials at that prison aren't considering it, then it's only a matter of time until the next violent offender attacks the next target of opportunity.

If I was in his shoes I'd also prefer the women's prison and be able to shower with them, etc. Well that's all of my counter-arguments.

I'd prefer to be in a women's prison regardless of whose shoes I'm in.

And it seems based on the legislation they'd approve it for me.

So?

Is there some reason I should worry about you being locked in the same room with someone? I'm not a misandrist. I'm not going to assume bad things about you just because of your chromosomes.

 

[excreationist]

@Arctish

Women allegedly raped in prison by trans-identifying inmate will have to refer to attacker as 'she/her'

A recent ruling in California means that women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation.

reason.com

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender
...
The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

Do you think having the part of that law regarding womens prisons is better than not having that part of the law (taking into consideration that the rapes it made possible)? Or is it not any better or worse?

 

[laughing dog]

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

It's almost as if this stupid fucking culture war issue would be less of an issue primarily if we actually identified those likely to rape others and prevented them from having access to victims no matter their sex or gender or genitals.

Instead of pursuing this policy, which would be highly effective at preventing prison rapes, you're being pennywise and pound foolish with this culture war shit.

I thought that it would be worse for a female in prison to be raped by a person with a penis than by a woman without one. At least I think that's what they'd say if you asked them.

And why do you think that?

 

[Arctish]

@Arctish

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender
...
The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

Do you think having that law is better than not having that law (taking into consideration that the rapes it made possible)? Or is it not any better or worse?

The problem is that a sexual predator was not properly sequestered from potential victims after being found guilty of rape. If Carroll was a female-bodied sexual predator who allegedly raped her fellow inmates, would that make a difference to you? If so, why?

It's very sexist to assume that anyone with a penis is a predator and anyone with a vagina is harmless. It's stupid to base policy on that sexist assumption especially policies for prisons where you know they will be dealing with people who committed crimes of violence.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I have still been watching Chris's videos like this:

It talks about this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...t-female-inmate-in-women-s-prison/ar-AA1tY4rd
and Chris said they made him leave because they were feeling "unsafe".

But this related story is perhaps even worse:

Women allegedly raped in prison by trans-identifying inmate will have to refer to attacker as 'she/her'

A recent ruling in California means that women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation.

reason.com

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender. The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

Maybe people here would have a problem with the news source which talks about "free minds".

I wonder if people here would have any problems with the story.

Who here at this board do you think is okay with rape?

Personally, I'm pretty suspicious of people who post diatribes about rape when it is committed by a trans person, but ignore, gaslight, or actively make fun of any other victims who report having been raped within the prison system. "Prison rape jokes" are such a common and acceptable genre in US popular culture, it's actually very difficult to have an entire conversation about rape in the prison system, especially concerning rapes with male victims, without someone making such "jokes". Even in supposedly professional settings. We have strict rules about this in the prison education program I work for, and our community liasons - police, guards, lawyers, etc - are the most frequent violators. Kinda hard to make the case that you're a staunch anti-rapist if you make it clear that you think rape is funny whenever it is happening to someone you dislike. Rape is one of those social phenomena, like racism, human trafficking, or genocide, that very few people openly support due to many generations of negative publicity, but most people quietly enable in the case of unsympathetic victims or widely respected perpetrators.

What's also crazy is when people make excuses for teachers raping a male student, as long as the teacher is a woman and "pretty" (and you know, the POS MAGAtard Joe Rogan has done this).

 

[Jarhyn]

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

It's almost as if this stupid fucking culture war issue would be less of an issue primarily if we actually identified those likely to rape others and prevented them from having access to victims no matter their sex or gender or genitals.

Instead of pursuing this policy, which would be highly effective at preventing prison rapes, you're being pennywise and pound foolish with this culture war shit.

I thought that it would be worse for a female in prison to be raped by a person with a penis than by a woman without one. At least I think that's what they'd say if you asked them. And he apparently did it multiple times. But you don't agree and I can't convince you of that. A lot of people are outraged about people with penises being allowed in women's prisons and them raping women and also being in women's change rooms. So the story was saying that a man that has had a history of rape is able to say he is a woman (and not require anything else) and be able to go to a women's prison. If I was in his shoes I'd also prefer the women's prison and be able to shower with them, etc. Well that's all of my counter-arguments.

Why would it ever be better or worse to be raped by one person instead of of another?

The most brutal rape I have ever been told about was a woman raping a man by shoving a pen down his urethra and mounting him.

The fact that you're even spouting yet another PRATT now using hand-picked victims yet again.

Having a penis or not doesn't make raping someone any better or worse for either party.

Getting raped is getting raped.

 

[excreationist]

If that law about people who merely self-identify as a trans woman being able to go to a womens prison wasn't a law then multiple alledged rapes wouldn't have happened.

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

That doesn't change the fact that not having that law would have prevented rapes of women. I guess you believe the law about womens prisons is a great idea.
Note male athletes tend to be stronger than female athletes. I also think it would be easier for a man to rape a woman in a prison than a woman due to their strength, etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

If that law about people who merely self-identify as a trans woman being able to go to a womens prison wasn't a law then multiple alledged rapes wouldn't have happened.

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

That doesn't change the fact that not having that law would have prevented rapes of women. I guess you believe the law about womens prisons is a great idea.

No, it wouldn't have, because rapes would have happened anyway. Rapes were already happening in the prison. Rapes are still happening in the prison.

The only law that will actually prevent rapes from happening is actually caring being serious about sequestering rapists from normal prison populations.

You keep asking leading questions and making straw man arguments. I keep pointing out that you got these same arguments from the door we have already identified as "always/usually lies".

 

[Patooka]

Who here at this board do you think is okay with rape?

If I were to guess - Trump supporters.

 

[excreationist]

If that law about people who merely self-identify as a trans woman being able to go to a womens prison wasn't a law then multiple alledged rapes wouldn't have happened.

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

That doesn't change the fact that not having that law would have prevented rapes of women. I guess you believe the law about womens prisons is a great idea.

No, it wouldn't have, because rapes would have happened anyway. Rapes were already happening in the prison. Rapes are still happening in the prison.

The only law that will actually prevent rapes from happening is actually caring being serious about sequestering rapists from normal prison populations.

You keep asking leading questions and making straw man arguments. I keep pointing out that you got these same arguments from the door we have already identified as "always/usually lies".

I'm talking about there being less rapes. Banning kids from being allowed to buy knifes at stores could reduce murder and injuries but it could still happen anyway...

So do you think the law about women's prisons is a great idea? (where men can go there if they merely self-identify as trans)

Men apparently generally have quite a lot more upper body strength than women so it is easier for them to rape women. That happens a lot in marriages, date-rape, etc where they are able to overpower the woman. Sure some women in the prison could overpower the man but there would also be a lot of women who are weaker depending on the man.

 

[excreationist]

Well another video from Chris - that is different to what I've seen so far:

A person who claims to have been on puberty blockers and testosterone and had breast removal says they're a "huge fan", "you're doing a good thing" and "I can't believe people disagree with you on this".
The description says:

I’m at UCLA and I just met Clementine, who recently detransitioned.

When she was 12, Johanna Olson-Kennedy at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles put her on puberty blockers.

At 13, she was put on testosterone.

At only 14 years of age, she was given a double mastectomy!

Clementine had suffered sexual abuse, and that was the source of great trauma, and is why she didn’t want to be a girl.

Johanna Olson-Kennedy didn’t care about that. Within 30 minutes of her first appointment she was told she needed to go on puberty blockers, or she might kill herself.

Her parents were told they could have a dead daughter or a live son. This is standard practice at gender clinics. The only way they can justify this child abuse is to say that kids will die if they don’t do it.

Testosterone caused psychosis so Clementine went off it at 17.

She has now just turned 20, and can probably never have kids. She’s trying to get reconstructive surgery but insurance companies only want to pay for destruction of children’s bodies, not reconstruction.

I hope Clementine sues, and helps to bring down this industry, but mostly I’m incredibly thankful for her bravery in speaking up.

If you don’t believe this is happening, please listen to her story.

 

[laughing dog]

As anybody else noticed that excreationist’s responses are variants of “someone on the internet says” ?

 

[laughing dog]

Well another video from Chris - that is different to what I've seen so far:

A person who claims to have been on puberty blockers and testosterone and had breast removal says they're a "huge fan", "you're doing a good thing" and "I can't believe people disagree with you on this".
The description says:

I’m at UCLA and I just met Clementine, who recently detransitioned.

When she was 12, Johanna Olson-Kennedy at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles put her on puberty blockers.

At 13, she was put on testosterone.

At only 14 years of age, she was given a double mastectomy!

Clementine had suffered sexual abuse, and that was the source of great trauma, and is why she didn’t want to be a girl.

Johanna Olson-Kennedy didn’t care about that. Within 30 minutes of her first appointment she was told she needed to go on puberty blockers, or she might kill herself.

Her parents were told they could have a dead daughter or a live son. This is standard practice at gender clinics. The only way they can justify this child abuse is to say that kids will die if they don’t do it.

Testosterone caused psychosis so Clementine went off it at 17.

She has now just turned 20, and can probably never have kids. She’s trying to get reconstructive surgery but insurance companies only want to pay for destruction of children’s bodies, not reconstruction.

I hope Clementine sues, and helps to bring down this industry, but mostly I’m incredibly thankful for her bravery in speaking up.

If you don’t believe this is happening, please listen to her story.

Someone is unhappy with a choice they made, so no one in the same situation should have that choice?

 

[Arctish]

If that law about people who merely self-identify as a trans woman being able to go to a womens prison wasn't a law then multiple alledged rapes wouldn't have happened.

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

That doesn't change the fact that not having that law would have prevented rapes of women. I guess you believe the law about womens prisons is a great idea.

No, it wouldn't have, because rapes would have happened anyway. Rapes were already happening in the prison. Rapes are still happening in the prison.

The only law that will actually prevent rapes from happening is actually caring being serious about sequestering rapists from normal prison populations.

You keep asking leading questions and making straw man arguments. I keep pointing out that you got these same arguments from the door we have already identified as "always/usually lies".

I'm talking about there being less rapes. Banning kids from being allowed to buy knifes at stores could reduce murder and injuries but it could still happen anyway...

So do you think the law about women's prisons is a great idea? (where men can go there if they merely self-identify as trans)

Men apparently generally have quite a lot more upper body strength than women so it is easier for them to rape women. That happens a lot in marriages, date-rape, etc where they are able to overpower the woman. Sure some women in the prison could overpower the man but there would also be a lot of women who are weaker depending on the man.

You are assuming that Carroll, a known rapist, wouldn't have raped one or more of their fellow inmates if she'd been incarcerated among men. Your argument rests on the notion that people don't get raped in prison by their fellow inmates when they all have the same sex traits, even though it has long been known that rape is about power and control, not sexual attraction.

The law that allows female gendered persons to be incarcerated among female bodied persons isn't the problem here. The problem is the failure to sequester a rapist from vulnerable people who can't easily escape him/her.

 

[excreationist]

As anybody else noticed that excreationist’s responses are variants of “someone on the internet says” ?

It's mainly about what Chris is saying or someone else in his videos. It is something I was recommended on YouTube and have since become pretty addicted to it (which doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all of it). Maybe it's like being addicted to Sky News Australia (though I'm mostly over that)
Anyway in the latest video it involved a person with first-hand experiences rather than Chris making all of the arguments himself.

 

[excreationist]

Someone is unhappy with a choice they made, so no one in the same situation should have that choice?

Chris and Clementine believe that a child is incapable of consenting to it. I don't think they're definitely correct.