Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"
Options
Comments
-
That's a made up slippery slope. It is ridiculous to claim that the logical extension of gay marriage is people marrying their dog unless you can provide reasoning as to why that is the extension.
In the case of banning gay men from male changing rooms the reasoning is clear:
IF one is concerned that men are more likely (because of their pattern of criminality according to ODB) to commit sexual assaults in changing rooms and IF one's often stated position is that the chance of assault in changing rooms is enough to ban a class of people then it is absolutely not a slippery slope to say that the logical conclusion is that gay men should be banned from changing with straight men.
Now we all know that banning gay men from changing rooms is absurd because the insane prejudice against gay men is a lot less than it used to be.
But there is no slippery slope. So I'm afraid your philosophical qaundary has not stumped me.
It is a slippery slope. Arguments have been put forward that show the problem with the position that 'trans-women are women'. These things have happened.
Noone is arguing that gay men should be not be allowed in changing rooms with other men. ODBs point is that there is a strength differential between males and females on average, a differential that doesn't exist between men. Someone as scientific illiterate such as yourself, who has an understanding of biology akin to hardcore creationists, is probably unaware of such differences, given that you laughably think transwomen are female. Total piffle.
No amount of your philosophical tomfoolery will ever make that the case.0 -
So we can prevent some people (trans people) from doing things to minimise assaults (even though it's extremely unlikely that they will assault anyone) but we can't interfere in other people's lives?
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Long term scientific follow up study finds transwomen offend as per male patterns.
Ergo just as in public places society has enacted safeguards for females these should be maintained. Self ID reduces safeguards and increases risk.
"Transgender prisoners are five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates at women’s jails than other prisoners are, official figures show." - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
Also transwomen prisoners should not be in male wings but rather in a third space for their own safety in my opinion.
1 in 10 male travelers identifies as a transwoman in UK prisons which is illustrative of the ease of abusing self ID if taken to its logical conclusion.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/amp/
If you could actually address these points rather than engage in snide ad hominem attacks that would be useful. Thanks.0 -
No it wouldn't. Because trans-women are biologically male. I've given you the definition of both women and female repeatedly, you ignore them as it clearly shows your position to be about as logical as the position that the Earth is flat.Generally doesn't actually provide an exclusive definiton.
Would you be happy if the definition that You use for woman or female had the word "generally" inserted into it? Would it still exclusively define what a woman is in your opinion? Because that definiton would actually allow.for trans women to be included.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I know you’re obviously serious, but using my post as an example when there were many clear examples to choose from? The post attacked no man, but their ideas, the idea of the existence of people who are transgender being such an inconvenience to some people. It most certainly appears so, or what would there be at all that requires such fierce ‘debate’?
This thread reminds me of that old joke - I was expecting a mud slinging contest, and a debate broke out :pac:
I’ve given you my definition of a woman already, countless times now, and yet you still insist that I haven’t? Characteristics and traits commonly associated with either the female or the male sex of the species. There’s your definition you’re looking for while demonstrating that there is a distinction between the sexes.
You claim ‘the usual posters’ but I have never once used those terms to refer to anyone, so I cannot be included in that group you have identified as having done so. I also would not include anyone here in any group under the heading of ‘legitimate concerns’, because there have been no legitimate concerns presented by anyone thus far. Any ‘concerns’ regarding the gender recognition act have been based upon requiring recognition of beliefs founded upon nothing more than suspicion, paranoia, prejudice and ignorance. In essence - legitimising discrimination, the very thing the gender recognition act exists to prevent.
Nobody has anything to lose, but people have everything to gain from the passage of the gender recognition act. It may mean nothing to you, but it means that people who are transgender are recognised in Irish law and protected from discrimination on the basis of their transgender status. It’s not a debate as the law already exists and wasn’t as some posters have suggested “snuck in through the back door”, but rather it has been an obligation which Ireland promised to fulfill when we signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in 2003.
On 11th July anyone who isn’t aware of the history of the act being brought into Irish law can watch the YouTube broadcast celebrating five years of it’s existence in Ireland featuring the person who was behind forcing the Irish Government to fulfill their Human Rights obligations -
Broadcast to mark five years of Ireland's gender recognition legislation to feature Athy's Dr Lydia Foy
Perhaps then one who doesn’t understand already, might understand it’s significance to Irish society, and not just it’s significance to the tiny minority of people who have been able to avail of it to be recognised in Irish law as their preferred gender and thereby be protected from discrimination and “legitimate concerns” masquerading as “debate”. I’ve said it before but it applies equally under these circumstances - people aren’t nearly so stupid as you need them to be in order to believe your paranoia fuelled prejudice. They’re much more used to living and working with people who are transgender every day in Irish society, because people who are transgender don’t have to hide in the shadows of some dingy bar on Baggot St. any more as they did in the 1970’s -
Life was a drag in 1970s Dublin: Before Panti, there was Mr. Pussy.
‘Twas the Irish version of the Black Cat Bar or the more infamous Stonewall, before the celebrity hangout that was Cafe De Luxe on Suffolk Street -
'Naomi Campbell handed me her knickers'
(Place was always full of people who were all fur coat and no knickers, quite literally in some cases :pac: )
I replied to you, but I am not accusing you of 'playing the man'. And I'm aware yiu not afraid to define what a women is.0 -
Quantum Erasure wrote: »would a cis male fit under this umbrella term of 'woman'?
why / why not?
I'd say the logic is beginning to crumble, but ofcourse for something to crumble, it has to exist in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
This statement is interesting because it denies both biology and social conditioning/social construction.
Trans women are women because of some magical essence which can't be measured ( if it could be measured there would be a measuring device and we wouldn't need self identification).
It also, rather ironically, denies the existence of trans-women. If transwomen are female then they aren't born in the wrong body, as they are female (which they want to be) , as opposed to male (which they don't want to be) , and as such aren't trans. Therefore they don't exist. And ultimately any surgery or hormonal treatment is more akin to any-old cosmetic surgery as opposed to the life affirming surgery it is supposed to be. If LLMMLL's way of thinking is deemed correct, a trans-person's issue is no different to anyone who doesn't like certain aspects of their body.
What a way to play down what it must be like to be trans, and the real issues they face!0 -
Was just reading an article from a year ago on the Irish times about Linehan, even then there was a targetted campaign to have him removed from RTE."We request that RTE reconsider their decision to air a segment featuring Father Ted creator, Graham Linehan on their upcoming Prime Time programme on trans issues in Ireland
Graham Linehan is not a medical expert and he is not transgender. He has frequently expressed transphobic views in public and has used his social media platform to denigrate transgender people"
Thankfully RTE didn't give in.
For anyone saying he fell foul of twitter's rules just remember how fond they are of giving into the mob.
Oh, Linehan's reason for 'denigrating transgender people'?“I’m afraid ultimately there will be a backlash, and it will be against LGB as well as T people.”
What a selfish prick.0 -
Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21377
One eyed Jack wrote: »I was referring to the fact that when I had previously disagreed with you, you mentioned that you hoped I had nothing to do with children.I did not say that to you. Ever.One eyed Jack wrote: »You did y’know, I wouldn’t say it if you didn’t. If the search function wasn’t shìte on Boards I could provide evidence of it too.
Mod: Not okay as a throwaway statement. If you're going to make an accusation toward another poster, you're going to need to do better than that, OEJ. Either source the post and report it, or retract and move on. Either way, this thread isn't the place for it.0 -
Must admit I usually scroll swiftly past your sermons but on this point I thought to help you out. The whole basis of safeguarding in public is about protecting people in situations where there is unequal distribution of power, be that physical strength, authority, career influence etc. So now teachers or activity leaders have to be vetted before interacting with children and they should not be alone with them in closed spaces. And we have separate sex facilities for safeguarding so that women and girls can be safer than if they had to change or shower among males etc.
Heres a thing that might seem strange to you if you cannot perceive how biological differences put people at risk. Vaginas rape penises much less often than penises rape vaginas. Shocker, I know. Now vaginas DO rape penises but in terms of safeguarding it is far far less frequent. And so we as societies evolved ways of safeguarding in public places. Some countries have not yet done this but campaigns are afoot to increase safeguarding in public in these places.
It has been found in real life experience that transgender women rape women in prison. And thar most sexual assaults in the UK occur in unisex facilities. Oh I know every passerby is raping the poor women prisoners according to you but I see no reason to further dilute safeguarding and increase risk. And yes, my opinion is on the basis of the biological difference increases risk whereby the penis on a prisoner in a female jail seems to be a proven extra threat to the prisoners with vaginas.
For the record. This is the post Jack is looking for where he claims I asked him did he have contact with children or according to him I suggested he might be a danger to them. Absolutely false allegation. I have never said such to him or anyone . Here I mention vetting and safeguarding as valid reasons why sex based spaces are protected. I was police vetted last year before teaching classes in a college. This is normal. To imply I mean by what I posted that the people who disagree with me are a danger to children is rotten.0 -
Quantum Erasure wrote: »define a cis male?
I’m actually very offended that the definition of a woman is being conflated here with that of an inanimate object.
Not hugely surprising I suppose from men who want to impose their ability to embrace “womanhood” as they perceive it on women.
This is a never the Twain shall meet debate and I’m actually surprised more here haven’t just given up when faced with such dogged beliefs in sheer fallacy.
It’s akin to trying to argue a point with those who believe the earth is flat. Utterly pointless.0 -
Advertisement
-
And for everyone here who believes that a transwoman is female and as we’re being so blasé with the define table whataboutery........riddle me me this fictional situation.....
A transwoman in Dublin goes missing and for years and years there is no trace of her. Fast forward say 30 years and a body is found in the Dublin mountains. The State Pathologist is called to identify the remains......
What do you think the news headline would be that evening?0 -
Gentlemanne wrote: »I've seen you say this a lot. It's not true, trans women on hormones will reduce their strength a lot. There is a lot of evidence for this.
"male" strength is another leading word here. Honestly it's like talking to a child, they dont understand or refuse to accept that trans women are women.
Have you seen any studies that show a reduction in strength by 30-50% following hormones. I haven’t myself so would be interested in finding a study that does.
Now let me break it down for you some more as to why people want a debate. There is Self-ID and as part of this you don’t need to transition at all. So if a person looking like a biological male goes into a woman’s space no one can ask if they are male or female as we would be discriminating against them if they happen to be transgender. The result is that any male can enter any female space. I haven’t heard of it happening in Ireland but it does happen elsewhere. This is the logic people have when they talk about shared space. They aren’t saying the problem is with transgender women they are saying it’s more of a male issue. Many women have been on the receiving end of male violence we know from bitter experience that a man doesn’t have to be bigger or taller then you for you to feel completely overpowered.0 -
What annoys me most about this is how Twitter pretend they aren't biased or ideological.0
-
CtevenSrowder wrote: »It also, rather ironically, denies the existence of trans-women. If transwomen are female then they aren't born in the wrong body, as they are female (which they want to be) , as opposed to male (which they don't want to be) , and as such aren't trans. Therefore they don't exist. And ultimately any surgery or hormonal treatment is more akin to any-old cosmetic surgery as opposed to the life affirming surgery it is supposed to be. If LLMMLL's way of thinking is deemed correct, a trans-person's issue is no different to anyone who doesn't like certain aspects of their body.
What a way to play down what it must be like to be trans, and the real issues they face!
Yeah...but can you tell me what a table is?0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »Eh, I do care. I think you've missed my point. My username is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on my political positions.
I'd never heard of Steven Crowder before, just googled him. Wow. Explains so much.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »It is a slippery slope. Arguments have been put forward that show the problem with the position that 'trans-women are women'. These things have happened.
Noone is arguing that gay men should be not be allowed in changing rooms with other men. ODBs point is that there is a strength differential between males and females on average, a differential that doesn't exist between men. Someone as scientific illiterate such as yourself, who has an understanding of biology akin to hardcore creationists, is probably unaware of such differences, given that you laughably think transwomen are female. Total piffle.
No amount of your philosophical tomfoolery will ever make that the case.
again you have failed to.show how it is a slippery slope argument. You come up with a ridiculous slippery slope argument about gay marriage and compare it to.my argument about changing rooms and fail to show how they are similar.
You say arguments have been put forward to show the "problem with the position that trans women are women". So what? These arguments are bad arguments and either way have no bearing on whether what I said was a slippery slope argument.
The anti-trans position Is a combination of 2 very dodgy arguments. But any time you address one they fall back on another To muddy the waters:
1. Strength differences should lead to separation. Then why not separate men and women in other areas?
2. Men are more likely to commit sexual offences. Then why not separate gay men and straight men?
Of course people are not arguing that gay men should not be allowed in changing rooms with straight men. Because homophobia has lessened over the years.0 -
Was just reading an article from a year ago on the Irish times about Linehan, even then there was a targetted campaign to have him removed from RTE.
Thankfully RTE didn't give in.
.
The campaign you mention wasn't really about getting him removed from RTE.
It was about getting him removed as an interviewee on a Prime Time special on transgender children, given that he has no professional expertise and no direct personal experience on the topic.
Do Prime Time normally choose Twitter cranks for interviews?0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »No it wouldn't. Because trans-women are biologically male. I've given you the definition of both women and female repeatedly, you ignore them as it clearly shows your position to be about as logical as the position that the Earth is flat.
That's a niche definiton used in certain areas of science. It does not correspond to how most people use the word. The vast vast vast majority of people have never even heard that definition.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »The campaign you mention wasn't really about getting him removed from RTE.
It was about getting him removed as an interviewee on a Prime Time special on transgender children, given that he has no professional expertise and no direct personal experience on the topic.
Do Prime Time normally choose Twitter cranks for interviews?
I thought Prime Time were knowingly taking the piss out of him there. They sensitively interviewed families directly effected by the issue while showing Lenihan, as you say a Twitter crank, furiously typing over his laptop with a deranged expression.0 -
For the record. This is the post Jack is looking for where he claims I asked him did he have contact with children or according to him I suggested he might be a danger to them. Absolutely false allegation. I have never said such to him or anyone . Here I mention vetting and safeguarding as valid reasons why sex based spaces are protected. I was police vetted last year before teaching classes in a college. This is normal. To imply I mean by what I posted that the people who disagree with me are a danger to children is rotten.
For the record, that’s not the post I was referring to at all. It was in a previous thread under your previous username. However as I can’t find it now, I’ll retract the accusation and move on.0 -
Advertisement
-
Have you seen any studies that show a reduction in strength by 30-50% following hormones. I haven’t myself so would be interested in finding a study that does.
Now let me break it down for you some more as to why people want a debate. There is Self-ID and as part of this you don’t need to transition at all. So if a person looking like a biological male goes into a woman’s space no one can ask if they are male or female as we would be discriminating against them if they happen to be transgender. The result is that any male can enter any female space. I haven’t heard of it happening in Ireland but it does happen elsewhere. This is the logic people have when they talk about shared space. They aren’t saying the problem is with transgender women they are saying it’s more of a male issue. Many women have been on the receiving end of male violence we know from bitter experience that a man doesn’t have to be bigger or taller then you for you to feel completely overpowered.
A poster much earlier in the thread posted a graphic with all the cases of men entering women's spaces. It was in the US or Canada I believe. None of these cases had anything to do with self id or trans.0 -
again you have failed to.show how it is a slippery slope argument. You come up with a ridiculous slippery slope argument about gay marriage and compare it to.my argument about changing rooms and fail to show how they are similar.
You say arguments have been put forward to show the "problem with the position that trans women are women". So what? These arguments are bad arguments and either way have no bearing on whether what I said was a slippery slope argument.
The anti-trans position Is a combination of 2 very dodgy arguments. But any time you address one they fall back on another To muddy the waters:
1. Strength differences should lead to separation. Then why not separate men and women in other areas?
2. Men are more likely to commit sexual offences. Then why not separate gay men and straight men?
Of course people are not arguing that gay men should not be allowed in changing rooms with straight men. Because homophobia has lessened over the years.
The gay argument and your argument are the exact same.
If men can marry other men, why can't a brother and sister marry. Both yours and that argument are non-arguments as nobody is making them.
You are strawmaning, but then again, when your position is so illogical, what else can you do.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »It also, rather ironically, denies the existence of trans-women. If transwomen are female then they aren't born in the wrong body, as they are female (which they want to be) , as opposed to male (which they don't want to be) , and as such aren't trans. Therefore they don't exist. And ultimately any surgery or hormonal treatment is more akin to any-old cosmetic surgery as opposed to the life affirming surgery it is supposed to be. If LLMMLL's way of thinking is deemed correct, a trans-person's issue is no different to anyone who doesn't like certain aspects of their body.
What a way to play down what it must be like to be trans, and the real issues they face!
Except I never said that "female" means the definiton you have given. I said female is generally used as the adjectival form of woman.
So I made no comment on women's bodies at all.
Nice try though.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »The gay argument and your argument are the exact same.
If men can marry other men, why can't a brother and sister marry. Both yours and that argument are non-arguments as nobody is making them.
You are strawmaning, but then again, when your position is so illogical, what else can you do.
Because we have laws against inceSt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is getting bizarre now. How would gay marriage be a slippery slope to brother and sister marriages anyway? They would be straight marriages. This is hilarious.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 25439
A poster much earlier in the thread posted a graphic with all the cases of men entering women's spaces. It was in the US or Canada I believe. None of these cases had anything to do with self id or trans.
Exactly!
The point is that it self-id means that men who are no more trans than you or I can now enter those spaces and claim to be trans as a way of legitimately being there. And because of the current mindset where it's transphobic to question whether someone is genuinely trans, or whether they are exploiting Self ID for their own ends.
I am fully on board with transwomen sharing my changing room, wards, toilet areas. I am fully on board with transwomen who need shelter/protection from males who wish them harm. (I appreciate that not all women share my feelings) But the problem with self ID is that it also means that the door to those spaces gets left open for non-trans men to claim they are trans on the day and follow both me and a trans-woman into those safe spaces to do us harm. And some men are doing exactly that.
So I'm genuinely asking here. How do we differentiate between the genuine trans women who need protection and to share our safe spaces and the men who falsely claim to be trans in order to follow them into those spaces to hurt them, without discriminating or being called transphobic?0 -
"Gruffalox;113922191” wrote:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Long term scientific follow up study finds transwomen offend as per male patterns.
Ergo just as in public places society has enacted safeguards for females these should be maintained. Self ID reduces safeguards and increases risk.
"Transgender prisoners are five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates at women’s jails than other prisoners are, official figures show." - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
And who is committing the other 93.5% of abuse of women in women’s prisons?
Prison policies do consider safeguarding, that’s why there are different prisons for the different types of offenders, and different sections in each prison where inmates are housed, and there are male and female officers working in women’s prisons who commit abuse -
Sexual Violence in Women’s Prisons Reaches “Constitutional Proportions.” Will Lawmakers Step In?
Female ex-inmates talk about prison abuse
One would imagine if you were genuinely convicted about women becoming victims of abuse in prison, your efforts would be focused on 100% of the victims and 100% of perpetrators, not just the 5% of perpetrators.Also transwomen prisoners should not be in male wings but rather in a third space for their own safety in my opinion.
Where they’re actually housed, and who they’re housed with, is determined by an assessment already. There are mixed prisons and there are high security and low security prisons and there are prisons where inmates are permitted to see their families and prisons where family visits are restricted and prisons are overcrowded and lacking in resources due to lack of funding of the prison system. There simply aren’t enough inmates who are transgender to warrant the construction of “a third space”, so that’s why they’re assigned an extra officer if it’s deemed necessary for their own safety in prisons which are already built.1 in 10 male travelers identifies as a transwoman in UK prisons which is illustrative of the ease of abusing self ID if taken to its logical conclusion.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/amp/
If you could actually address these points rather than engage in snide ad hominem attacks that would be useful. Thanks.
What point is there to address? So what if they do? It doesn’t mean they will be immediately moved to women’s prisons? It’s not illustrative of anything other than a lack of logical reasoning given that the statistic leaves it open to interpretation what it means, and you appear to have come to the conclusion that it has anything to do with self-ID legislation as opposed to amounting to nothing more than a claim. Did you think about why anyone might be in prison in the first place? For flouting the law. Would revoking those laws prevent anyone who is of a mind to do so from trying to exploit existing laws? No, of course not.
That’s notwithstanding the fact that you’re ignoring the purpose of self-ID legislation is not so that people can abuse it, it’s so that people have the right to identify as their preferred gender and to be protected from unlawful discrimination under equality legislation. The whole prisons and sports arguments are red herrings in any case as organisations policies are for organisations to determine in compliance with existing legislation. The reforms you’re looking for would have nothing to do with self-ID legislation. That would stand regardless as it is a recognition of the human rights of people who are transgender, has been since 2003 in countries that have signed up to the European Human Rights Convention.0 -
That's a niche definiton used in certain areas of science. It does not correspond to how most people use the word. The vast vast vast majority of people have never even heard that definition.
It's not a 'niche' definition. It's the definition. And until someone can at least begin to give a new one that will remain the case. Yiu still, after repeated attempts, have not given yours. And yiu haven't because you can't. You either talk of biology, which you can't because males aren't females, or else you refer to silly stereotypes which brings its own set of problems.
This is why you flatly refuse to give a definition even though you have been asked to repeatedly.0 -
Because we have laws against inceSt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is getting bizarre now. How would gay marriage be a slippery slope to brother and sister marriages anyway? They would be straight marriages. This is hilarious.
Yes it's getting bizarre and ridiculous. That's the point. Noone is making the arguments you have put forward as being made0 -
Exactly!
The point is that it self-id means that men who are no more trans than you or I can now enter those spaces and claim to be trans as a way of legitimately being there. And because of the current mindset where it's transphobic to question whether someone is genuinely trans, or whether they are exploiting Self ID for their own ends.
I am fully on board with transwomen sharing my changing room, wards, toilet areas. I am fully on board with transwomen who need shelter/protection from males who wish them harm. (I appreciate that not all women share my feelings) But the problem with self ID is that it also means that the door to those spaces gets left open for non-trans men to claim they are trans on the day and follow both me and a trans-woman into those safe spaces to do us harm. And some men are doing exactly that.
So I'm genuinely asking here. How do we differentiate between the genuine trans women who need protection and to share our safe spaces and the men who falsely claim to be trans in order to follow them into those spaces to hurt them, without discriminating or being called transphobic?
The answer is that we can’t, we never tried to in the first place. Self-ID isn’t necessary for what you’re suggesting anyway - people who are transgender could always use what bathrooms they preferred and I would wonder how often anyone rocked up to another person in a shared space and questioned them because they believed that person didn’t have a right to be there.
You’re suggesting that you be permitted to humiliate other people to satisfy your own fears, but you want to be protected from any repercussions of your actions? How do you expect that should work? Honestly? I can see immediate problems with that scenario when there are people who will question women who are not transgender and ask them if they’re really a man. What you’re suggesting would give anyone the right to do that, and you don’t imagine people should be offended or that they would have no right to suggest you are transphobic? That would be the least of your problems in that scenario. They could make a complaint of harassment against you in any case without ever even pointing out that you don’t have the authority to question anyone like that.
I’m not denying that some men are doing exactly that, but they could always do that. Self-ID never had anything to do with it, and just like any other circumstances where we punish people who are guilty of wrongdoing, people are punished on the basis of having done wrong. Pre-crimes are not a thing, and they never were, and they won’t be.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 25439
One eyed Jack wrote: »The answer is that we can’t, we never tried to in the first place. Self-ID isn’t necessary for what you’re suggesting anyway - people who are transgender could always use what bathrooms they preferred and I would wonder how often anyone rocked up to another person in a shared space and questioned them because they believed that person didn’t have a right to be there.
You’re suggesting that you be permitted to humiliate other people to satisfy your own fears, but you want to be protected from any repercussions of your actions? How do you expect that should work? Honestly? I can see immediate problems with that scenario when there are people who will question women who are not transgender and ask them if they’re really a man. What you’re suggesting would give anyone the right to do that, and you don’t imagine people should be offended or that they would have no right to suggest you are transphobic? That would be the least of your problems in that scenario. They could make a complaint of harassment against you in any case without ever even pointing out that you don’t have the authority to question anyone like that.
I’m not denying that some men are doing exactly that, but they could always do that. Self-ID never had anything to do with it, and just like any other circumstances where we punish people who are guilty of wrongdoing, people are punished on the basis of having done wrong. Pre-crimes are not a thing, and they never were, and they won’t be.
Point out EXACTLY where I said that please?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement