So... is it the "Transwomen are Women, no debate" crowd that is small-minded, or is it the "Transwomen are males who wish to live their lives as women, and in most cases, especially in social interactions and in terms of employment and fair treatment under law, they should be treated as women and given respect and dignity, but there are still some cases where sex is a more salient element than gender identification, and it is detrimental to female women to force them into situations where penises are in their spaces without their consent, and we should really have more discussion about what is and is not appropriate in terms of policy, safety, and respect" crowd that is small minded?
So, first and foremost, most of us here are clever enough to see through sassy but hollow rhetoric.
But for those who can't, for whatever reason: the genitals are not what matters, which Emily seems to claim it does.
First, I will afford ZERO special rights to someone because they can, or fear gestating children. Period. Get over your baby factory. The whole fucking thing is caused because people can't see past the fucking baby factory. Well get this: I do it give a shit that you have one, and you need to get used to it.
Never in all the time I will live this earth will I think someone is or should be treated in ANY special way on account of having or operating one of those.
So no, sex will
never be a more salient element than: body structure and aggression (in prison); hormone exposure (in sports); actual individual assessment (everywhere else
except...).
And then there is the one place it matters: when considering a sexual relationship with that specific person.
It doesn't even matter when you want to have children that share your genetics for fuck sakes!
It matters that you have to suffer the side effects of having one. You get my empathy, and the reality of a tampon forever in my purse. You get the fact that I will not point out anything which stands not to be, and I will always be there to cry with and for someone over the things their body makes them go through, and I will absolutely support any medical imbursement for any such expenses as their body makes a reality for them.
But your uterus does not make you special for any of that.
It is not the least but important what ones genitals are, specifically, with regards to any of the above guarantees of policy (except the tampon in my purse) regarding safety, health, or respect.
And as for attacks, I wouldn't let a large person attack a smaller one. It does not matter who they are.
Got it. You support making it much, much, much easier for sexual predators to gain access to victims.
Plus 1 "trans people = rapists" claim. We can see right through it.
Now take a moment and think about this. Get it through your head that I am NOT saying that transgender people are predators.
"Transgender people are predators, but don't accuse me of saying trans people are predators because...
I'm not even saying that all males are predators. I am, however saying that most predators are males, and that there is no way to tell which male is a predator and which is not.
...because people with penis = probably predators." There it is.
What you advocate for is essentially to eliminate sex-separated facilities completely.
Possibly. If we separate by aggression levels and size and criminal ideation patterns, we can probably eliminate a lot more rapes than separating by literally anything else, including genitals.
What you argue for would make everything either unisex or co-ed.
Quite possibly. See above.
What you overlook is that, regardless of your outright disdain for 'baby makers', it is women who will bear the risk and the harm that occurs.
Not if you actually separate people as stated. It's like you didn't even read the post.
The likelihood of a transman being a voyeur or an exhibitionist is extremely small - about the same as for any other female. The likelihood of a transman being a sexual predator or violent criminal is about the same as for any other female. A transman would be putting himself at serious risk of injury by spying on a naked man against that man's will, or by exposing their female genitals to a man against his will. That transman is the one who most likely would be at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted, raped, and potentially being made pregnant against their wishes. The transman is most likely to be smaller, weaker, and less able to defend himself against an aggressive male.
All excellent reasons why the majority of transmen would in any sane model end up in prison with the population of prisoners that show however little sexual or other aggressive and criminal ideation as they themselves do.
Maybe that's mostly with women.
But that's going to include a good deal of men, and trans women.
Turns out that the likelihood of a transwoman being a voyeur or an exhibitionist is about the same as for any other male,
And there it is again, that "but trans-men are probably predators"
which is quite a bit higher than for a female.
No, each and every person, as an individual, is exactly as much or not of a predator as they are, or not.
The likelihood of a transwoman being a sexual predator or violent criminal is about the same as for any other male, also quite a bit higher than for a female. A transwoman would not be putting herself at serious risk of injury by spying on a naked woman against that woman's will, or by exposing their male genitals to a woman against her will.
That is a bold claim. See, that's the thing. "Body type and aggression". And if people want those with larger body types and higher aggression that they believe will not harm them to protect them from the ones that will, I'm sure you would find that, someone to keep peace.
That transwoman is unlikely to be at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted, or raped, and cannot be made pregnant against their wishes.
That's a really bold claim too. All trans women don't have to worry about that? That's your continuing usage of A, as the article for any given.
The transwoman is most likely to be larger, stronger, and more aggressive than a female, and the female would be less able to defend herself.
Bold claims, to make without looking at THE female and THE trans-woman.
Do you see the commonalities here?
Yes you pulling accusations that trans women are probably rapists directly from your ass.
In interactions where one party is likely to be a sexual predator or be violent, and the other to be a victim...
According to some pretty disgusting fucking prejudice
the predator is much more likely to be a male - either a cisgender man or a transwoman.
Ass-pulled
The victim is much more likely to be female - either a cisgender woman or a transman.
Asspulled
*If* there were to be an altercation involving a sexual predator in a locker room, changing room, hospital ward, prison, or any other space where people are vulnerable and exposed... your husband, as a transman is at a materially higher risk of harm than you would be.
Normally, he would be in the same changing room as me, and any of our other friends. And the fact is you're dead fucking wrong. I've been at risk in a changing room far more often than my husband.
This is why sex actually does matter for more than *voluntary* sexual relationships.
Nothing you have said is at all more predictive than the size of the people involved as to who is being an aggressor.
I have watched a number of attacks in progress. In the majority, people are being abused by women. I've seen one attempted attack on a woman.
And regardless of whether you believe it or not, it matters *more* for your transman husband than it does for you.
It's funny, that's not the reality, not in the past and not in the future.
The luxury of saying that sex is irrelevant is a privilege held my males.
Your post is a littany of sexism.