ohnonotgmail wrote: » why dont you contact twitter and ask them why they dont? i dont see the need myself. I find following the "dont be a dick" rule to be sufficient to avoid trouble.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » I'm not dealing with your ultra deconstructionist 'tables of exemplars' rubbish again. We are discussing humans, unless you think trans-people aren't human?
Gruffalox wrote: » I find you extremely contradictory. How about you have any male who identifies as a woman in your female space and I fight as a woman for the protection of my sex based spaces. Let us do our own thing. I know females rape by the way. And I am not a feminist. I like men. I seek EQUALITY only. Feminism is a movement that seriously lost its way.
Bannasidhe wrote: » No. That is not why women created women only spaces. We were not given them. It is not a case of we 'got' them. We made them for ourselves so we could get a break from men telling us what women are, what women can and cannot do, etc etc. And in a great many women created women only spaces the criteria is 'identifies as female'. If you think it was about 'safeguarding', and toilets, it just shows your profound lack of understanding of feminist history.
Gruffalox wrote: » It is why campaigns for toilets for females only take place all over the planet. It is why women got their own spaces in the first place. Safeguarding.
LLMMLL wrote: » the word female is used outside that definition all the time.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » No, it is not opinion. It is a biological fact. It is a definition with a scientific underpinning, 'female':https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female
Bannasidhe wrote: » In your opinion.
a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.
Sir Oxman wrote: » Can you maybe address my answer to your question?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » A woman is an adult human female. A male as such cannot be a women. It's very simple.
Sir Oxman wrote: » "Hard to take the research of someone running a secret Twitter account which makes nasty jokes about trans people seriously. " Transgertrend is not a secret Twitter account. (the post to which you replied linked to their not secret Twitter account which linked to the study) I then linked to their not secret website. Why is it nasty?
Gruffalox wrote: » https://www.womenarehuman.com/category/crime/ An extensive record. Which you likely won't look at but maybe others will. Studies find transwomen offend at the same rate as males and in similar areas. Transmen offend slightly differently to women and testosterone is one possible likely contributor. It is a big area, eg the number of sex offenders among transwomen in UK prisons is very high. 0.9% of natal females in prison are sex offenders. For transwomen it is at the absolute minimum 4% and more likely closer to 40% according to stats publicly available. I dont have time to repeat what I have posted before many times.
According to one source, female-perpetrated sexual abuse of inmates is a particularly large problem in juvenile detention centers, where 90% of victims of staff abuse say a female correctional officer was the perpetrator. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, around 80,000 women and men a year get sexually abused in American correctional facilities.
Gatling wrote: » All i read was one article over a Twitter spat Seems to be a case of not being allowed to challenge beliefs
ohnonotgmail wrote: » i knew what your response was going to be. You had no interest in whether the allegations against linehan were true or not.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » he has a long history of breaking twitter rules. he knew what he was doing was breaking the rules but kept going anyway. the only issue i have with the suspension is that it took too long. If he wasnt somewhat famous with a blue tick he would have been banned long ago. if you have been paying attention all along his permanent suspension is perfectly valid and no surprise. If you havent then why do you suddenly care now?
LLMMLL wrote: » What are you talking about? The anonymous twitter account it's not that website. That website has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Sir Oxman wrote: » The full reasons why accounts are closed - Twitter being a massive data collecting company, this shouldn't prove too onerous on them. Offending consistent (that's what they say they base banning on) tweets and the specific terms they broke. Laid out simply and coherently and transparently. I think that would benefit everyone that uses Twitter. Bonus! It would stop the many, many people repeating 'what they heard/interpreted' 'or what someone saw' as fact after the event which then veers into even more gossip column psychoanalysis twaddle.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what transparency do you require?
Bannasidhe wrote: » I agree. To an extent - the claim that women are 'more at risk' from people who are trans than from people who are cis males is not one I find credible. .
Sir Oxman wrote: » And this is what is wrong with ideologies. You repeat something because you were told to. You point a finger because that's what ideology demands you do. The 'anonymous' :rolleyes: twitter account, oh look a website with contact details and everything.:eek:https://www.transgendertrend.com/ The study quoted - not a study of the 'anonymous, nasty' twitter account.https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10508-020-01764-1?sharing_token=VlaX9Hk16yDJtxcUYQT7PPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY7tJ6hsj2NP-qM6PdyC_kmHemmHOhWNMHmgZslXhX21lufWkKq5KnUPVP2pwA62t2iUB5_NzSUXhd6GFl_1aeDrXk7qjb2TuiVBJaUuaaiykDUecPmHAjOv9l18MbKQJhM%3D
Sir Oxman wrote: » Close their account. However, there is no transparency particularly with a monopoly. Is there something wrong with transparency?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » i'll ask the question again. what do think twitter should do with users who consistently breaks their terms of service?
Gruffalox wrote: » Oh dear. The WHOLE point is the small number in the Dutch study. Such a tiny number to base affirmation medicalisation on. And the WHOLE other point was that the natal females were worse off no matter what they did, pubertal blockers, cross sex hormones etc they still had all the issues they had before- just increased in severity. And the 96% is to show that the line given that pubertal blockers are a holding phase while the child figures out what they want is a mistruth since most go on...and suffer irregardless. How do you feel about your frontal lobes LLMMLL? Are you glad they had a chance to properly develop in puberty and that your IQ did not take a hit? I sure am glad mine had the chance to mature.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman and now you are complaining that you were met with abuse? Mate, I'm a biological female and if you tweeted me with that crap you'd have been told where to shove it.
Gatling wrote: » To me that's the equivalent of the online gaming term swatting , get beaten in a game call the cops and tell them someone at a particular address has a gun and planning to shoot people ,
Gatling wrote: » The police in the UK or here should not be getting involved in social media spats , Unless there is an actual genuine threat they can act on not this they didn't use my pronoune go arrest them or I'll scream transpobic police
Bannasidhe wrote: » Where is the proof that women are being targeted by trans women in women only spaces???
ohnonotgmail wrote: » here is one example that resulted in him receiving a police warning. i'm sure you can find many more.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/07/graham-linehan-police-warning-complaint-by-stephanie-hayden-transgender-activist-twitter
Sir Oxman wrote: » This is the UK you are talking about. The land of non-crime crimes. Linehan and Hayden's anatgonism goes back to 2018 as far as I know. I mentioned the hyperbolic use of 'hate' and 'violent' flung about with abandon today. I fully understand Twitter et al are private platforms. My belief is that the monopoly is a hugely unhealthy state of affairs.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what do you think twitter should do with a user that harassed an individual on twitter sufficient for them to be issued a police warning? is that hyperbole to you?
