Split Trans Issues, Split from Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

Were the men who suggested that colonization would best be carried out by sending make crews with frozen eggs or embryos, the only impediment t being the lack of a good artificial wombs women hating misogynists?

What are "make crews"?
I think barring development of a warp drive colonization would best be carried out without human crews, since the travel to even nearby stars would take over a century even at a significant fraction of the speed of light. E.g. travelling to a star system 20 light years away at 20% of the speed of light would take exactly 100 years. Impractical for either "make" or "femake" crews, unless you make it a huge generational ship.

So yes, that would require artificial wombs, and also AI guardians who would raise the first generation of colonists without adult human input. But it's not "misogynist".

Men started the discussion.

In this thread, it is you and Jarhyn pushing the "men bad", or at least "cis-men bad" discussion. Women can also be transphobic and violent.

Excuse my typos.

Artificial wombs would take up valuable space and weigh a lot more. Which, btw, is another argument for female crews as on average, females are smaller and weigh less. Plus they come with wombs.

Unmanned space exploration is an obvious next step. But stocking them with artificial wombs even implanted with human embryos sidesteps the absolute necessity of having someone to care for babies and raise them to be healthy productive adults. That requires healthy, well adjusted adult humans knowledgeable and interested in raising and educating children.

Of course my suggestions were/are a bit tongue cheek but also a matter of practicality-not desirability. It simply is easier to store sperm long term than eggs and with young healthy women, no artificial wombs are necessary. Artificial insemination allows for practical timing considerations to be optimized.

My suggestions were only in response to what I saw/see as impractical ideas such as artificial wombs.

Being practical and being right are not the same thing as misogyny that’s just your fragile male ego talking. Not that all make egos are fragile.

It seems that men are much more likely to wish to dispense with women than the other way around.

Yes, women can be anti-trans just as men can be. But men are much more likely to be violent than are women. And male violence is what drives female fear of male appearing persons in female only spaces. Sure some anti trans crap exists in any demographic. But it’s fear of violence that I’ve been addressing.

 

[Toni]

What "conversation" can be had with someone whose only solution to the prevalence of sexual assault is to scapegoat trans women for a crime almost exclusively committed by cis men in reality? There's no compromise being offered, only jail sentences to innocent women. That's not a dialogue, that's just more assault of women under a different guise and rationale, targeted at the minority subset of women with the least ability to defend themselves.

Nobody afaik is scapegoating transwomen. Maybe Emily is but I’ve says repeatedly that my concern is for all women and I’ve explicitly said that includes trans women.

Fur me, the ONLY issue is that without private spaces and doors, a lot of ( probably cis) women will be surprised/alarmed by a masculine body next to them in the shower in a women’s only space. It could be quite traumatic fur survivors of sexual assault (1 in three) Abd of course the trans woman if others recoil or scream at her.

I’m pretty sure you gave me on ignore but I’ve also said the root issue is male violence.

 

[Toni]

In this thread, it is you and Jarhyn pushing the "men bad", or at least "cis-men bad" discussion. Women can also be transphobic and violent.

Nevertheless, when it comes to matters of sex and assault males are the biggest problem by far.
Toni and I disagree a lot, but putting her in a category with Jarhyn is just ridiculous and insulting.
Tom

Frankly I think I’ve disagreed with every poster on any of the fora at least once.

But I genuinely enjoy Jahryn’s posts, your posts, Derec’s posts. I have had a couple of people on ignore, that’s true. But I believe everyone is e tithed to their opinion—even if it differs from mine.

But thanks, Tom.

 

[Emily Lake]

I agree that it would be rare for a transgender woman to attack anyone in a women only space.

It's not actually as rare as you think it ought to be.

 

[Emily Lake]

There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

Nope what?

Nope to there is no way to distinguish between the 2 choices

Sorry LD, the double negative is killing me. Do you mean to say that there IS a way to tell? Or that you agree there is no way to tell?

Yes, there are ways to tell.

What are those ways? As a female of the human species who actually is faced with this dilemma, I'd really love to have a solid set of guidelines that will help me sort which males in dresses are safe and which are not.

 

[laughing dog]

There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

Nope what?

Nope to there is no way to distinguish between the 2 choices

Sorry LD, the double negative is killing me. Do you mean to say that there IS a way to tell? Or that you agree there is no way to tell?

Yes, there are ways to tell.

What are those ways? As a female of the human species who actually is faced with this dilemma, I'd really love to have a solid set of guidelines that will help me sort which males in dresses are safe and which are not.

Talk to them and observe.

 

[Toni]

There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Visually, I agree. Otherwise, nope.

Nope what?

Nope to there is no way to distinguish between the 2 choices

Sorry LD, the double negative is killing me. Do you mean to say that there IS a way to tell? Or that you agree there is no way to tell?

Yes, there are ways to tell.

What are those ways? As a female of the human species who actually is faced with this dilemma, I'd really love to have a solid set of guidelines that will help me sort which males in dresses are safe and which are not.

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

 

[Emily Lake]

This whole thing comes down to being cis men are the problem. Cis men faking a trans identity to gain access to women's spaces and cis men who beat up trans in the "wrong" bathroom.

Unfortunately, Zipr, it's not just "cis" men. It's males in general. Some of those males profess to have a transgender identity, and to think of themselves as being "women" in some ephemeral way. And some of those males commit offenses against women. A shockingly high portion of those males commit sexual offenses. Whether you decide that they must be faking it because they committed offenses, or whether you accept that some people predisposed to commmitting offenses actually do think of themselves as trans doesn't really make a difference.

I don't care how people think of themselves. I do, however, care that women - the female kind - are far, far, far disproportionately the victims of sexual violence and the victims of domestic violence. And the perpetrators of those crimes are far, far, far, far disproportionately males.

I would love it if men would stop beating up males who don't conform to their notion of proper masculinity. I think that would be great for societty.

I would love it if men would stop raping and sexually assaulting and sexually harassing and killing women too. I think that would also be great for society.

What I don't think is great for society is using women as human shields to protect a subset of males from other males, and thereby increasing the already abhorrent level of risk that women face.

 

[Emily Lake]

Actually I was asking LD to elucidate what ‘ways to tell’ exist. I may be missing something.

Frankly I don’t hold in my head absolutely everything that everybody or anybody wrote. I lose track of arguments in threads that go on page after page after page. Occasionally I mix up authors/posters. Im pretty sure at least some times some posters mix up me and Emily, something that neither of us likely finds flattering ( no dig on Emily -I like to think of myself as being memorably unique —but mostly we disagree about a LOT)

It’s easy to get caught up in the emotions of some threads when they strike a deep cord or hit close to home. Frankly issues of safety, rape, sexual abuse hit close to home for me. Which is why I’ve hung in despite a lot of mischaracterization, misrepresentation and personal insults.

People only mix us up because in this instance we're both women of the female variety who don't bow down to men telling us that we must allow other males to enter our intimate spaces solely on their say so.

You're much nicer about it, but you're still telling them no... and that can't be tolerated.

We disagree on some hot topics, Toni, but I don't think there's actually a wide separation at the end of the day. I'm just not as polite as you, and I'm a whole lot more fed up with some of the bullshit.

 

[Emily Lake]

That is what I think you have been inconsistent in saying, particularly in responses to Emily, who thinks it is, because this is buried as a belief in every one of her posts, because they are made foundered on the belief that believing someone to possess a penis is sufficient to justify attacks.

It absolutely doesn't justify an attack of any sort.

In my view, however, it absolutely does justify excluding those prostate-owners from female single sex spaces. Because they are not female.

At no point whatsoever have I EVER implied that trans people should be harmed in any way. NEVER. Disallowing males from entering and using female intimate spaces, sports, and prisons is reasonable.

I would assume this is because the effect of Emily's rhetoric would be, quite suspiciously, to enable and validate purity/attire/grooming policing on femininity, the worst kind of sex essentialism, and I strongly suspect this is a goal of hers, even if she doesn't understand why she wants it or that this is what she is asking for and privately wants.

Given she can't figure out my niece, I strongly think she is not up to the task of figuring herself out.

You really say the most awful, vile, and reprehensible things with absolutely no basis for doing so. Your "strong suspicions" are nothing but your own fevered imagination.

For fuck's holy sake, I don't even wear make up, I haven't work a skirt or dress or heels in a decade, I don't do "hairstyles", and I don't give a single shit about fashion. I don't do "femininity". So your entire fantasy here is completely disconnected from reality.

Don't just make shit up about people and then base your entire interaction around the thing you made up.

 

[Emily Lake]

Can you please elucidate?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

Are you actually suggesting that women should get into a deep discussion with the male in a female single-sex intimate space before they can take action?

I mean, hey, maybe women should also pause in the dark carpark and engage in a soul-searching conversation with the random male before we can decide whether they might be a risk. Of course, if they actually do mug or abduct or rape or kill us, then we'll have our answer! Women should totally wait until after the harm has occurred, otherwise it's bigoted.

 

[laughing dog]

Can you please elucidate?

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

Are you actually suggesting that women should get into a deep discussion with the male in a female single-sex intimate space before they can take action?

No.

I mean, hey, maybe women should also pause in the dark carpark and engage in a soul-searching conversation with the random male before we can decide whether they might be a risk. Of course, if they actually do mug or abduct or rape or kill us, then we'll have our answer! Women should totally wait until after the harm has occurred, otherwise it's bigoted.

Your bigotry needs no waiting.

 

[Toni]

In the context of a women only space, an individual with a beard is going to arouse suspicion of not really belonging in that space. It may not be fair to your niece anymore than it is fair to assume that a tall person is good at basketball. A lot of people will assume that a tall mane can sink more baskets from the few throw line than a short woman—and they might be very wrong. But for women in a women’s only space, they absolutely will make a snap judgement t about that stranger with a beard if there is nothing else to indicate that she is a she who belongs in the space.

I'm very confused by this statement. So a person with a full beard is expected to use the MEN'S room even if they have a vagina, but a TG woman from all outward appearances, but happens to have a penis, is expected to use the MEN'S room too? Do you not see the infringement of rights here? Specifically against TG women?

No. I asked how other women are to discern whether a person belongs in a women's only space or does not belong in a women's only space. Frankly, for the most part, women's bathrooms are not much of an issue unless someone decides to be deliberately offensive. More concerning are gyms: locker rooms/showers. There it is more immediately obvious if someone has a penis or not. And if that someone has a penis, the first conclusion most women will make is that this is a person who should not be in here. They may be dangerous.

This of course may be entirely untrue. I agree with that.

BUT: Trans people do not come with the word TRANS tattooed across their foreheads. Nor should they. They should just be able to exist.

What I have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis is actually a woman who does indeed belong there. I'm really certain transwomen do not want to frighten anyone or be screamed at or excluded or to have to present an entire discourse on Why I Belong. Who would? I'm sure that they just want to be comfortable and safe and accepted, as does everyone else. They are, after all, just people. Just like the rest of us.

But women cannot read minds. Not cis women. Not trans women. Not anybody, frankly. "Creepdar" is not infallible. So, because there is not a perfect or nearly perfect way to determine if that person is a trans woman or a dangerous person: doors on individual stalls, including shower stalls and dressing rooms. Universal.

That's been my position from the beginning.

I'm open to better ideas but so far, all I've gotten was attacks or Loren claiming women were just crazy for caring and that HE doesn't care who showers next to him so why should anyone else. Not a cogent argument.

Which is why I have NEVER suggested barring trans individuals from the facilities they prefer to use and have ALWAYS said: doors on stalls, including individual shower stalls/dressing areas. To give everyone the privacy they prefer or require and to protect ALL women. You know that I mean trans and cis, right? Because I've written that enough times that everyone should KNOW that's what I mean.

 

[laughing dog]

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

What if someone does not immediately move towards a stall with a door? In that interval of time, a woman will not be safe either.

 

[Toni]

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

What if someone does not immediately move towards a stall with a door? In that interval of time, a woman will not be safe either.

????

I don't think you intend to make an argument for excluding trans women but that kind of is an argument for excluding trans women.

Men seem awfully comfortable with women being fearful.

 

[Tigers!]

It is. One doesn't choose to be harassed, marginalized, disrespected and murdered. The chances of a woman being attacked by a transgendered woman is so infintesimal there is NO reason to bar them from a public restroom of their choice

How many women must be attacked by a transgendered woman before it considered not to be infinitesimal?

Can you provide me with a number legitimate cases where a woman was attacked by a transgendered woman? Not a cis-man, but a tg woman.

Here you go.

MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).

A parliamentary enquiry from the UK.

 

[Tigers!]

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

What if someone does not immediately move towards a stall with a door? In that interval of time, a woman will not be safe either.

????

I don't think you intend to make an argument for excluding trans women but that kind of is an argument for excluding trans women.

Men seem awfully comfortable with women being fearful.

Too many men do feel comfortable/powerful when making women fearful.

 

[Tigers!]

Emily Lake has outright said she believes MOST trans-women are doing so for the sake of wanting to be vouyers.

Zipr in post 442 seems to feel the same too.

 

[laughing dog]

Talk to them and observe.

That puts you within arms reach. Not safe in a women's only dressing room/shower.

What if someone does not immediately move towards a stall with a door? In that interval of time, a woman will not be safe either.

????

I don't think you intend to make an argument for excluding trans women but that kind of is an argument for excluding trans women.

I am pointing out that stalls have the same issue.

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast majority of transwomen are straight males.

Wow. I didn’t know that. I’m surprised you do.
If you don’t mind me asking, how did you discover this astounding fact?

Wonky Wednesday: Trans People and Sexual Orientation

It is a statistical fact that indeed most transgender people also identify on the queer sexual orientation spectrum.

www.thetaskforce.org

This leaves less than ¼, or 23%, of transgender survey respondents identifying as straight. Trans people who are straight—trans women who are only romantically and sexually interested in men and trans men who are only romantically and sexually interested in women—are often also incredible allies to lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer folks.

Less than a quarter of transwomen are attracted to male human beings.

Transgender sexuality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Transgender women​

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that trans women were most likely to identify as lesbian, gay, or same-gender-loving (27%), followed by bisexual (20%), straight (19%), pansexual (16%), queer (6%), and asexual (6%). The 2023 study published in BMC Public Health found that trans women were most likely to identify as bisexual (29%), followed by straight (23%), lesbian or same-gender-loving (16%), pansexual (10%), queer (6%), asexual (4%), and "other" (7%).

19% to 23% of transwomen are attracted to male human beings.

The large majority of transwomen are sexually attracted to female human beings. I suppose if you want to take umbrage with me saying they're mostly straight, I'll give you that. Many are bisexual, so that's fair.

But at the end of the day, a large majority of transwomen are males who are sexually attracted to females, even if they're also attracted to males.