seamus wrote: » The poster I was responding to, wasn't. Linehan is a self-identified "trans-exclusionary" feminist.
Being for "women's rights" does not make one anti-trans. Being for "women's rights (except trans women)" does make you anti-trans.
What I funniest about this stuff is that TERFs like Linehan focus exclusively on the "female" part. Nobody freaks out about "women in the men's changing room" or "women in men's sports". Anti-trans viewpoints are focussed almost exclusively on trans females, and the apparent damage they can do. How they are trying to make "real" women unsafe.
At the root of this belief is an inherent anti-male bias. The belief that all men are violent sexual predators who cannot help ourselves, and a man even if he identifies as a woman, presents a danger to women and their rights.
TERFs, like Linehan, are the raving, man-hating, misandrist feminists that the denizens of AH claim are lurking around every corner.
EdgeCase wrote: » Quite a few times actually. I've been shoved up against a wall by a woman and had a rather horrible smoker's tongue shoved into my mouth. I'd zero interest in her. I've had my rear pinched, grabbed, I've been fondled on dance floors, I've been shouted at for being less than responsive to flirting. I've had absolutely obnoxious women sit on my lap. I largely ignored it and wasn't really that freaked about it but it does happen. I would say tho I did find the being corned and forced to kiss someone pretty gross though. I had to wash my mouth out with beer. I don't mind flirting but some of that stuff is absolutely taking the piss. I'm bi, so I've experienced similar very unwanted attention from lads too. Including someone who tried to push me into a car when I was about 19 and seemed to think that because I was bi I would somehow be automatically interested ... Absolutely not the case! This isn't whataboutary btw. I think it's way way out of line when anyone behaves like a sex pest. It's usually a mix of alcohol, a brass neck and hormones in many cases it'll just be stupid flirty nonsense but some people go WAY beyond that and that's where you're very much into the realms of sexual assault. I'd say guys can be more threatening because they're usually physically bigger (not always tho). There's a lot to be said for getting the concept of consent into everyone's heads.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Sadly there have been quite a few reports from lesbians across the UK that such assaults have happened in women only clubs. Too many from too wide a geographical area to be dismissed. I do not for a second believe the perpetrators of these assaults are genuinely trans, I think they are predatory men acting out some 'I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body' scenario. The descriptions of these men is that they are simply dressed in women's clothes with bad wigs. I know too many people (MTF AND FTM) who are genuinely transitioning and have seen the time and care they take to 'learn' to express their real gender to think for a second any of them would think putting on a frock/suit is all there is to it.
ironwalk wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » But you're happy to "wait for one" from a female sexual predator? Nope, didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. But, I've only ever had one woman push the line, and I was able to push back. No fear that she would strangle me, or punch my teeth in. Have had lots of experience of men not listening when I said 'no'. Always with the worry that they'd take it badly and lash out.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » But you're happy to "wait for one" from a female sexual predator?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Bannasidhe wrote: » Sadly there have been quite a few reports from lesbians across the UK that such assaults have happened in women only clubs. Too many from too wide a geographical area to be dismissed. I do not for a second believe the perpetrators of these assaults are genuinely trans, I think they are predatory men acting out some 'I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body' scenario. The descriptions of these men is that they are simply dressed in women's clothes with bad wigs. I know too many people (MTF AND FTM) who are genuinely transitioning and have seen the time and care they take to 'learn' to express their real gender to think for a second any of them would think putting on a frock/suit is all there is to it. That’s why self definition is a problem. The only problem really. A fully transitioned trans woman clearly believes her new gender and should use women’s rooms etc. The new laws are a problem. For sport too. .
keano_afc wrote: » That group used to be funny until it started being a liberal mouthpiece. I was banned for posting a pro-life meme.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Nobody is dismissing anything. What was said is very simple. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man is low. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man who is pretending to identify as a woman is so low as to be non-existent.
seamus wrote: » The poster I was responding to, wasn't. Linehan is a self-identified "trans-exclusionary" feminist. Which is by definition an anti-trans position. Being for "women's rights" does not make one anti-trans. Being for "women's rights (except trans women)" does make you anti-trans. What I funniest about this stuff is that TERFs like Linehan focus exclusively on the "female" part. Nobody freaks out about "women in the men's changing room" or "women in men's sports". Anti-trans viewpoints are focussed almost exclusively on trans females, and the apparent damage they can do. How they are trying to make "real" women unsafe. At the root of this belief is an inherent anti-male bias. The belief that all men are violent sexual predators who cannot help ourselves, and a man even if he identifies as a woman, presents a danger to women and their rights. TERFs, like Linehan, are the raving, man-hating, misandrist feminists that the denizens of AH claim are lurking around every corner. Yet I can guarantee you'll all be on his side because, "Well, sure of course they're not women, this is lefty craziness".
blanch152 wrote: » ohnonotgmail wrote: » Nobody is dismissing anything. What was said is very simple. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man is low. The chances of a woman being assaulted by a man who is pretending to identify as a woman is so low as to be non-existent. The case of Karen White illustrates that.
ironwalk wrote: » Was it in jest? Many a true word etc etc. If you read back on my posts, you'll see that my concern is solely with the subset of men, who will (and have) used trans rights to enter women's spaces in order to abuse and hurt. I suspect that the risk of being hurt by a transgender wo/man is exactly the same as being hurt by any other male bodied person.
As for the dismissal of women's risk of being hurt by men....are you seriously dismissing that, on an Irish forum, given our history?
I may have a slim chance of being raped, but no woman goes out without it being in the back of their heads.
I will continue to treat unknown men as if they are potential abusers because until I know you're safe, then I'm going to treat you as unsafe. (and here's the thing, in my personal experience, abusive men have been teachers, classmates, randomers on the Luas, boyfriends etc).
And if you have any of the following: a mother/wife/sister/female partner/daughter , then I urge you to consider my earlier examples. Then tell me, whether women's protections should be dismantled for trans rights.
jam_mac_jam wrote: » Because you want to be safe does not mean that you hate men or trans women. We are talking about a tiny proportion of people here but we have a right to be safe without being told we are man haters. Frankly it undermines your argument to go back to the old stereotypes. Feminists do not hate men.
ironwalk wrote: » One eyed Jack wrote: » Don’t be silly, there’s no such thing as a female sexual predator! Cat, meet pigeons Ah, here lads. Men have the advantage in physical strength. I have a fair chance against any female who wants to have a go; against even a mediocre man, nope, I'm going to come off badly injured. Even a man who is shorter than me. And, I'm on the tall, physically fit, well built end of the female spectrum.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Don’t be silly, there’s no such thing as a female sexual predator! Cat, meet pigeons
Billy86 wrote: » I know a few women stronger than the average man, one or two to a pretty absurd extent. What would you do if one of them sexually assaulted you? And what would a smaller, weaker woman do if you (or a woman built similar to you) sexually assaulted them? Because you're coming across as being under the impression that women are simply not all that capable of posing any real threat of sexual assault on the basis that women are all around equal strength, which simply isn't true.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Reading back on your posts, I do see that your concern is solely with a subset of men who will (and have) used trans rights to enter women’s spaces in order to abuse and hurt. My point, is that the men who want to abuse and hurt women, will abuse and hurt women by any means, and whether or not trans rights are legally recognised, those men would still find ways to hurt and abuse women. Women wouldn’t need shelter in the first place if men didn’t abuse and hurt them. That has absolutely nothing to do with legal rights which acknowledge people who are transgender in Irish society. With regard to the risk of being hurt by someone who trans, it’s actually far more likely that a person who is trans will be subjected to abuse by both men and women, including trans women who are trying to escape domestic violence who go into women’s shelters, who are then subjected to abuse and violence from women in those shelters. The risk of you being subjected to violence from someone who is transgender doesn’t even come close to the risk of you being subjected to abuse and violence from either men or women who claim to be transgender, and even then - it’s an awful lot of trouble to go to when they actually don’t have to claim to be transgender at all in order to abuse and commit violence against you, nor does their claim to be transgender place them above the law - they would still be subject to the same laws as anyone else, regardless of their gender identity. If you were to have violence committed against you by either a man or a woman claiming to be transgender in order to have access to you to commit violence against you, that’s considered an aggravating factor in a case against them. Consider if you will this case from the UK where a woman claiming to be transgender was given a jail sentence for being found guilty of rape by deception of another woman -Gayle Newland: Lawyers for woman who duped female lover into thinking she was a man consider appeal I didn’t dismiss a woman’s risk of being hurt by men at all. In fact I gave you a far more realistic evaluation of the risk based upon evidence gathered over decades of research, as opposed to anecdotal evidence (and the risk is falling, as opposed to increasing, so lobbyists are attempting to redefine the terms because they rely on anecdotal evidence to support their aims). I’m just not overstating the risk as you’re attempting to do is all. You’re not living in a country where your safety is constantly at risk. Excuse me? I don’t know too many women who go out with the thought that they may be raped in the back of their heads? It’s a good thing for them too because they aren’t living their lives in fear of something that is unlikely ever to happen to them. Contrary to your belief, most women absolutely do not live their lives in a constant state of fear and hyper-vigilance. That sort of paranoia would be exhausting and depressing and they would suffer greatly with their mental health. That is absolutely your right, and I would never want to take that away from you. You hold on to that thought. However, if those thoughts cause you to treat other people with unfair prejudice, such as refusing people who are transgender their human rights, then you may run into issues with the authorities. I probably won’t give two fouks tbh as you’ve already made me aware that I’m a threat to your safety, so I shan’t be leaping to your defence any time soon. I’ll never understand the appeal to relatives as though it’s supposed to supersede all other legal rights that people are entitled to. For what it’s worth though, I’m a separated father of a teenage son whom you regard as a danger to your safety. Thankfully neither my wife, my mother, my sister and any of my female friends do not consider either me or my son to be a threat to their safety. I don’t know what any of that has to do with dismantling women’s protections for trans rights though. The fact is that women’s protections will still exist, and since 2015 at least, protection for people who are transgender has existed in Irish legislation. What you’re attempting to do, and what Graham Linehan the unfortunate fcuk is attempting to do, is close the gate after the horse has bolted. It’s similar to the way in which during the marriage equality campaign I met many people who were of the opinion that they would support marriage equality, but they wouldn’t support same-sex couples adopting children. They were surprised to be told that marriage equality had nothing to do with adoption, same-sex couples could already adopt children and were already raising children, and one of the effects of marriage equality would mean that the children of same-sex couples would have the same legal protections in law as the children of opposite-sex couples. Point being - people who are transgender already exist in Irish society, as do their children, as do children who are transgender. What they lack, is the same legal recognition and protections as everyone else in Irish society. Social acceptance is something that has to happen over time, but legal recognition and protection and acknowledgment of their human rights, is something we can do something about right now.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Is Linehan anti-trans? That’s a genuine question, I don’t know an awful lot about his Twitter outbursts on the topic. It’s just, if he is expressing reservations about things like pre-teens being given medication to block puberty or questioning whether young teenagers should undergo sex-change surgery, that doesn’t necessarily indicate that he is anti-trans, does it? Has he gone farther than this, made openly anti-trans statements?
HandsomeBob wrote: » On second thought let him appear - that type of crazy comment needs to be heard and duly deconstructed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » it’s actually far more likely that a person who is trans will be subjected to abuse by both men and women, including trans women who are trying to escape domestic violence who go into women’s shelters, who are then subjected to abuse and violence from women in those shelters. .
seamus wrote: » Right, they don't. But TERFs do. That's my point. TERFs exist entirely because of the boogeyman of the predatory transwoman. Exactly the same kind of hysterical irrational fear that drove anti-gay sentiment for years; the fear that gay men were lurking around corners waiting to pounce on innocent people and defile them. What makes it ironic is that the same people who would claim that men are under attack, are the exact same people who would side with TERFs, even though TERFs ideology is based on the premise that men are bad and dangerous, and therefore transwoman should not be tolerated.
ceadaoin. wrote: » The fact is though that very few women have felt threatened by another woman, sexually or otherwise. The majority of women have had an experience of a man making them uncomfortable. It's pretty much gaslighting to constantly tell women that other women pose a threat when for the most part their lived experience tells them otherwise. You should listen
LoonyLovegood wrote: » I don't see why someone who doesn't live here is being interviewed for a piece on transgender laws in Ireland? I mean, he doesn't live here, hasn't for years, and has been cautioned by police for the way he's treated some trans people. If you want to have someone who'd have similar views to him, find someone who's actually here. Don't be dragging the chaos that is anything to do with the UK over here. I mean, after his Christmas 'Graham is off twitter for Christmas, this is his assistant' idiocy, who'd trust him?
seamus wrote: » Except that's not what will happen. They won't get a qualified professional on to listen and deconstruct his argument. There will be Linehan on one side, with some questionable professional like Patricia Casey, opposite a trans woman (or man) beside an expert on human rights or the head of some charitable organisation. And rather than uninformed nonsense being properly deconstructed and destroyed, it'll be a sh1tshow of ignorant and hateful comments thrown against continuous pleading for respect and humanity. We've seen enough of this bolloxology over the last 3 years. RTE are afraid to get qualified people and put them opposite unqualified ones lest they get sued like John Waters and Iona did over their homophobic ranting. So instead they find the lowest common denominator and make sure the panelists are as unqualified as eachother.
Dick phelan wrote: » I ask this as a genuine question not to make a cheap point. If a white person or whatever said they now identify as black would anyone accept them for what they say they are. If not then why? Why is it we would say no to somebody saying they are a different race but accept people who say they are a different gender. Personally i think your born as you are, what you want to be is irrelevant when it comes to genetics and science. The facts are the facts and it's crazy a certain section of society think we should ignore it and pretend we can all change our gender if we like. Na i ain't getting on board with that.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Can you link to any cases of trans women facing violence in women's shelters? Women saying no, that they don't feel comfortable with a male being there is not violence.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
