Trans Activism and Your Red Line

a reply to: Boadicea

old_god said:

The second issue here is to look at society and try to understand why there is an increased rate of young people supposedly having issue with their gender identification...Is it more likely that what they see and hear has influenced them and created the doubt (very likely) and/or are their other mitigating circumstances and societal and psychological factors at place (quite likely).

and you commented:

It seems that too many folks like their condition and do not want to find the cause much less the cure -- and don't want anyone else to either. I expect that there are several factors causing this surge in identifying as trans, which can and do compound each other. Physical/biological, mental, emotional and even spiritual. I'm very concerned at "conversion therapy" bans, which would make it impossible to research, identify and treat any possible causes.

I'd like to add my 2 cents. This will probably pull some thus-far silent members out of the woodwork, but--

I think it's a fad.

That's right. A freakin' fad.

Remember how in the early 00's suddenly every other teen girl/young woman you met claimed to be bisexual? Then how most of them got a little older and discovered they were straight; a much smaller percentage discovered they were actually gay; and practically none of them continued to be bi? I think this is the same kind of thing.

I think that certain...elements? factions? not sure of the word I'm looking for...have so far succeeded in eliminating the idea of "normal"--social norm, societal norm, normal behavior, etc.--that transgenderism has become one of the last options for real, visceral, in-your-face rebellion.

Think about it. We live in such a permissive society that virtually everything is considered ok. (Maybe not with your parents, but with society as a whole.) So when kids hit that rebellious stage, there aren't a lot of options left for really thumbing their nose at society. The bulk of the things kids used to do are now passe. Even the most shocking are fairly well normalized. But wow, when you suddenly claim you're the opposite gender, THAT is rebellion. You're saying in the most blatant way, "You don't know me at all, you never knew me, I'm not who you think I am. I'm not yours. I reject your reality."

That's about the most blazing rebellion there is.

That would also explain quite easily why, as you've presented over and over, most kids, if left alone, change their minds and decide their bodies do fit their gender after all.

Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: Boadicea

Again with the MISGENDERING!!! That's literal violence!!! You're trying to kill me!!! I am OBVIOUSLY a MA'AM.

A couple days ago I watched a debate where a "gender-fluid" woman--oops! PERSON--those giant boobs confused me--told the interviewer he would be assaulting her and offering violence--VIOLENCE--if he called her "she" instead of "they."

I gotta be honest, I wasn't sure whether to really, honestly believe that kind of thing happened until I saw it with my own eyes on unedited film.

a reply to: Boadicea

Just wait. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and claims that this discriminates against trans "women" by isolating them from the rest of the prison population.

originally posted by: riiver
I think it's a fad.

I don't think it is a fad. It's been going on since time began - men being women and vice versa. Just today there is the ability to make it happen with surgery and drugs.

I am not against people wanting to redefine what gender a person is, and I recognise that this is a hugely complex issue that rolls in so many issues - including mental health.

The problem with trans is that it impacts such a comparatively small number of people, but they seem to be redefining gender without proper debate. Often debate is impossible, because to hold a contrary view is considered "transphobic".

As mentioned earlier, my current difficulty with trans is the ex-men playing (and usually winning) women's sports and the societal impact of eroding women's rights because gender becomes side-lined.

A couple of observations, to highlight my position...

1. While there are many examples of ex-men winning in women's sports, much to the distaste of women athletes, are there any examples of ex-women playing and winning in men's sports? It seems generally a one-way problem. If you are a biological woman and have worked all your life to be a top athlete, and then some guy comes along and says "make way for the ‘real’ woman", it's bound to be divisive and annoying. Where's the right in that?

2. In a company board room. Full of macho men in suits, paid piles of cash. Women secretaries taking notes and doing the chores. If the chief executive "self identifies" as a woman does that mean the company has made a positive step towards women breaking the glass ceiling? In the trans world that's a "yes". In the real world where women are often unable to break into senior corporate jobs, the answer is "oh, FFS".

a reply to: Byrd

I'll address other comments tomorrow if I have the time; as I've said there's a lot going on for me right now which means I don't regularly read ATS.

Please don't feel you need to do so for my sake. Say what you will, but I have no use for your efforts to minimize and belittle the truth. You made a blanket statement -- AGAIN -- which I proved wrong, and now you minimize the facts.

For example, the rapes in Sweden -- which you so tried to explain away as a 1% increase and because these numbers tend to go up and down blah blah blah... have increased more than 8% and no doubt more. It wasn't just 1%... it was 1% the very year the law was passed, and last year it was 7% over the year before, and we have no idea of the years in between. So, no, this isn't just "oh well."

As far as the bathrooms in the Netherlands, everything is now catered to men... you got that, right? I think the article said there were only three bathrooms for women. But you said there were no problems there, right?

Want to tell me about all those crimes on the Trans Crime UK website are nothing too???

I get it. You don't care what trouble anyone has to go through, what rights are trampled, who gets hurt, as long as your trans friends get what they want.

And you really think that's going to change my mind about self-ID? Nope. It just confirms and reinforces everything I loathe most about it.

a reply to: riiver

I think it's a fad.

That's right. A freakin' fad.

Yeah, I think that's a huge part of it. Especially for the kids -- and by kids, I mean up into their early 20s. It's trendy and cool and attention-getting and a real good "in-your-face" to the parents. Adolescence is hell under the best of circumstances, but we've really screwed that up for kids too. I'm not surprised they are looking "outside the box" for answers. Especially when opinions are too often mistaken for truth. "I feel like a rabbit? I must be a rabbit!"

I'm afraid for older men it's something of a fad too, but more along the lines of deep web porno stuff. I've come across sick stuff like "sissy" porn and "hypno" porn, which seems to have quite the following and gets men sucked into it all. I don't have the stomach to look into it any further. I know about it -- that's enough for me! But for these guys watching who can't get enough, it may be more of an addiction.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: paraphi

My red lines are in sport e.g. ex-men winning against women.

I'm ok with this as long as they are the same weight as everyone else.

Lean mass will differ greatly at the same weight because women have a higher essential body fat (~13% vs ~3%). Also, there are hormonal/neurological differences that will allow men to apply their muscle mass more violently

a reply to: riiver

A couple days ago I watched a debate where a "gender-fluid" woman--oops! PERSON--those giant boobs confused me--told the interviewer he would be assaulting her and offering violence--VIOLENCE--if he called her "she" instead of "they."

I gotta be honest, I wasn't sure whether to really, honestly believe that kind of thing happened until I saw it with my own eyes on unedited film.

It is shocking. It is a major powerplay and effort to control -- and not just control speech. Simply by putting someone on such notice, you have put this person off guard and on the defensive -- immediately. Especially accompanied by the threat of violence, and in some places, arrest and charges.

It also removes all "respect" from any interactions, because no one is "respecting" pronouns... more like everyone is "fearing" pronouns.

And it is narcissistic as hell, and is a demonstration of the (potential) narcissistic rage that many autogynephiles exhibit. But it's becoming a common tactic in all such discussions.

a reply to: paraphi

I am not against people wanting to redefine what gender a person is...

There was a time I would have agreed with you... not today. As we've learned, it's impossible to change "your" gender without changing "my" gender also. Once "gender" was separated from sex, then it had no definition, because it is whatever anyone wants it to be. And then that concept of "gender" is imposed on everyone else. Gender is male or female, penis or vulva, nothing more and nothing less.

I have no problem with people expressing their "gender" as they wish. I have no problem with folks smashing every gender stereotype or embracing every gender stereotype. I have no problem with people living as they will. Until they affect -- and especially harm -- others. That's where I draw the line.

...and I recognise that this is a hugely complex issue that rolls in so many issues - including mental health.

Yes, it does.

a reply to: riiver

Just wait. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and claims that this discriminates against trans "women" by isolating them from the rest of the prison population.

There may well be... no... there no doubt will be!

But I don't think it will get too far. For one, the Trans Activists have really overplayed their hand in too many ways, and people aren't falling for it as they once did. Second, their safety concerns are addressed, so they cannot use their ace card now. And third, while they may have a right to say "we don't want to be housed with them," they definitely do not have a right to demand being housed with anyone else. Women have the right to say "we don't want to be housed with THEM."

And, of course, in this case we are talking about convicted prisoners. Their needs are the only consideration. Not their wants.

a reply to: paraphi

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this part:

In a company board room. Full of macho men in suits, paid piles of cash. Women secretaries taking notes and doing the chores. If the chief executive "self identifies" as a woman does that mean the company has made a positive step towards women breaking the glass ceiling? In the trans world that's a "yes". In the real world where women are often unable to break into senior corporate jobs, the answer is "oh, FFS".

This is becoming quite the problem, and I know in England at least there is an effort to keep trans "women" off women's short lists... those positions, scholarships, etc., that are devoted to women. Too many trans "women" are taking these spots, much like Bruce declares himself Caitlynn and won "Woman of the Year" here. It is happening quite a bit... quite too often!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Byrd

I'll address other comments tomorrow if I have the time; as I've said there's a lot going on for me right now which means I don't regularly read ATS.

Please don't feel you need to do so for my sake. Say what you will, but I have no use for your efforts to minimize and belittle the truth. You made a blanket statement -- AGAIN -- which I proved wrong, and now you minimize the facts.

.....
I get it. You don't care what trouble anyone has to go through, what rights are trampled, who gets hurt, as long as your trans friends get what they want.

And you really think that's going to change my mind about self-ID? Nope. It just confirms and reinforces everything I loathe most about it.

Okay.

If there's no room for discussion or examining the source data then there's no room for it. I had thought that the original post opened up a dialogue. However, I'm not interested in exchanging rants, so I'll leave the conversation.

a reply to: Byrd

Please. The original OP asked for your "red line"... it did not ask for anyone to mock, belittle and minimize those red lines.

There is no discussion to be had if you are going to rationalize and blow off every "red line" -- including the safety of people -- while offering no red line nor any compromise solution. It's not a "discussion" when you are saying it's okay if self-ID removes safeguards, because golly gee it's not like women aren't getting raped anyway. What's a few more? It's not a "discussion" when you decide women don't need to take care of women's hygiene issues in the women's room because it's more important for the chicks with dicks to pee next to them.

That's not a discussion. If you really want to discuss the issues, then acknowledge the danger self-ID poses to women in vulnerable spaces, and tell me how you would remediate that. What's the middle ground? Armed guards? Cameras? Panic buttons?

Otherwise, say what you will, and your words will stand on their own merit.

a reply to: paraphi

I totally agree with what you've said here. And in case that seems to contradict what I said in my own post, let me clarify what I was saying.

I didn't mean that it's a fad for ALL transgender people, or even transgender teens. I know transgender people have existed forever and it's not a new thing, and I do think that modern society and medicine have made it both a lot easier and a lot more acceptable for true transgenders. I was ONLY addressing the upswing in kids--teens, specifically--saying they're trans. Or "gender-fluid." NOT adults; that's a whole different situation.

However, I do think that this mega-upswing in kids deciding they're trans is very similar to the "I'm bi" trend in the 00s, and that only a tiny fraction of them will find that they really are in the end. And I'm not even saying it's a conscious thing--a lot of the "bi" kids really, deeply, honestly believed they were bi too.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: riiver

A couple days ago I watched a debate where a "gender-fluid" woman--oops! PERSON--those giant boobs confused me--told the interviewer he would be assaulting her and offering violence--VIOLENCE--if he called her "she" instead of "they."

I gotta be honest, I wasn't sure whether to really, honestly believe that kind of thing happened until I saw it with my own eyes on unedited film.

It is shocking. It is a major powerplay and effort to control -- and not just control speech. Simply by putting someone on such notice, you have put this person off guard and on the defensive -- immediately. Especially accompanied by the threat of violence, and in some places, arrest and charges.

It also removes all "respect" from any interactions, because no one is "respecting" pronouns... more like everyone is "fearing" pronouns.

And it is narcissistic as hell, and is a demonstration of the (potential) narcissistic rage that many autogynephiles exhibit. But it's becoming a common tactic in all such discussions.

Yes. This person actually said that, too. "You [wouldn't be] respecting my pronouns. That's an act of violence."

What??? No. An act of violence is pushing you, or smacking you, or hitting you with the microphone or something. Not saying "she" instead of "they." (Jeez, not to mention how it mangles language. The whole "they" thing really annoys me as someone who works with words. I want to scream, "'they'" is plural, not singular!")

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: paraphi

I am not against people wanting to redefine what gender a person is...

There was a time I would have agreed with you... not today. As we've learned, it's impossible to change "your" gender without changing "my" gender also. Once "gender" was separated from sex, then it had no definition, because it is whatever anyone wants it to be. And then that concept of "gender" is imposed on everyone else. Gender is male or female, penis or vulva, nothing more and nothing less.

I have no problem with people expressing their "gender" as they wish. I have no problem with folks smashing every gender stereotype or embracing every gender stereotype. I have no problem with people living as they will. Until they affect -- and especially harm -- others. That's where I draw the line.

...and I recognise that this is a hugely complex issue that rolls in so many issues - including mental health.

Yes, it does.

What I find ironic is that, if we need to smash the lines between genders, what's the point in "changing" gender? If gender has nothing to do with sex, then why the need to "change sex"? And if gender stereotypes are bad, why embrace and work to embody the very gender stereotypes that are supposed to be so terrible?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: riiver

Just wait. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and claims that this discriminates against trans "women" by isolating them from the rest of the prison population.

There may well be... no... there no doubt will be!

But I don't think it will get too far. For one, the Trans Activists have really overplayed their hand in too many ways, and people aren't falling for it as they once did. Second, their safety concerns are addressed, so they cannot use their ace card now. And third, while they may have a right to say "we don't want to be housed with them," they definitely do not have a right to demand being housed with anyone else. Women have the right to say "we don't want to be housed with THEM."

And, of course, in this case we are talking about convicted prisoners. Their needs are the only consideration. Not their wants.

Than again, it was the wailing and gnashing of teeth that got biological men into women's prisons in the first place. I wouldn't count on the idea not getting shut down by the vocal fringe. I mean it IS the UK where "hate speech" is an actual crime, after all...

a reply to: Boadicea

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think panic buttons are a great idea. The problem is that as things stand now, in most cases if something did happen and a woman used it, in the end we'd have a "she said...er...'she' said" situation, the trans "woman" would get preferential treatment, the biological woman would be accused of bigotry, and absolutely nothing would happen.

For example, say you're in the bathroom (alone) and a man dressed as a woman exposes himself to you and makes lewd comments. You hit the panic button (or call out, complain to management, call the cops, whatever). Here's what's likely to happen:

You say, "OMG this person just exposed himself to me and threatened to $#@&*$%!!!" The cross-dresser (because yeah let's not confuse this with a real trans person just trying to live his/her life; they're not the problem) says, "Oh no, no, no. I was just trying to pee and this BIGOT freaked out and started verbally attacking me because she hates trans people."

What's going to happen?

YOU are going to be in the hotseat. You may get kicked out of wherever this public bathroom is. Your local news headline is going to read, "Trans woman attacked in public bathroom! Bigotry is alive and well in our city!" Etc. etc. And the cross-dresser is free to do the same thing whenever and wherever again.