The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General

[mixed_biscuits]

@padraig (u.s.) I'm afraid that the Bishop of Beiser @ghost of beiser and @Mr. Tea have been cheating on you. Because on the other thread they've been vehemently arguing the diametric opposite against Malelesbian.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But as P has already said:


If laws like this have already been brought in in other countries, and this has not led to a tidal wave of rapacious cis men going into women's toilets to go on a rape spree and saying "I'm a woman, fuck off" when challenged, then why would this suddenly be the case in the UK? Why would it happen in one specific country when it hasn't happened in all the others where it's been tried?

Tea is trivialising the feelings and concerns of half the population. It would be great to see him advance this on Mumsnet.

 

[Murphy]

Evidence?

lurking on Mumsnet?

sad cunt moves

 

[mixed_biscuits]

You're not seriously suggesting violence is committed only men and suffered only by women, are you? Rates of domestic violence are particularly high in lesbian couples, so "safeguarding women from men, some of whom might be pretending to be women themselves" is not really a great argument here.

That could well be testosterone talking...which doesn't really help your aims

 

[Clinamenic]

 

[mixed_biscuits]

lurking on Mumsnet?

sad cunt moves

Well I'm not going to get much of a feminine perspective here, 'male lesbians' notwithstanding.

 

[maxi]

when he posted the link to mumsnet you're not allowed to click on it because if you did then you would also become a mumsnet lurker. I myself haven't even heard of mumsnet ever in my life so I can be proud.

 

[maxi]

because everything associated with middle aged women is lame as fuck. their websites, their rights, whatever. fuck em

 

[Mr. Tea]

 

[Mr. Tea]

of course not 'only', I don't think I said anything to suggest that. but the vast majority of violence is committed by men yes, and women will always be more vulnerable to it for obvious reasons.

If you're talking about domestic violence, the stats suggest women hit men about as often as men hit women. It's just vastly under-reported, for obvious reasons.

If you think there are no safeguarding measures needed and every space should be unisex then OK. I disagree and I don't think that's the way most people see it

I'm not saying they should all be single-sex spaces, I'm saying that cis women are by no means the only people who can be victims. In fact trans women are, proportionally speaking, at much greater risk.

if I argued like the trans rights activists I'd leap on you now for being homophobic by casting lesbians as particularly violent. but I don't

The statistics speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with "homophobia." And I am in no way a "trans rights activist", but I can spot a poorly-made or disingenuous argument when I see one.

 

[Mr. Tea]

because everything associated with middle aged women is lame as fuck. their websites, their rights, whatever. fuck em

Mumsnet is a notoriously anti-trans online space.

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

Well I'm not going to get much of a feminine perspective here, 'male lesbians' notwithstanding.

netmums > mumsnet, but you middle class goa smelly crusty wouldn't get that.

Also thanks for outing yourself, the male lesbian double in your head refuses to do so. maybe you need to go for an exorcism.

 

[maxi]

If you're talking about domestic violence, the stats suggest women hit men about as often as men hit women. It's just vastly under-reported, for obvious reasons.

what stats suggest that? the vast majority of violence generally is committed by men, and while it is largely against other men, the vast majority of violence against women is also still committed by men.

here's a UK statistic for example: "The majority of domestic homicide victims (killed by ex/partner or a family member) for the year ending March 2017 to the year ending March 2019 were female (77% or 274 victims) and most of the suspects were male (263 out of 274; 96%)." (ONS, 2020A)
https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/#:~:text=Some key statistics:&text=Over the three-year period,male partner or ex-partner.

The underreported factor doesn't really come into play when it comes to homicides

besides this, the extent, consequences and type of violence from men against women is much more severe than the other way round even leaving numbers aside.

but I don't understand the reason you're making this point, other than to say that women are already at risk in women-only spaces from violence by other women, and therefore women-only spaces can be discarded. if you're not arguing that, then what point are you making?

I'm not saying they should all be single-sex spaces, I'm saying that cis women are by no means the only people who can be victims. In fact trans women are, proportionally speaking, at much greater risk.

I'm not denying that they are at risk, but the way of dealing with that risk shouldn't be to remove the safeguarding measures against another group. third spaces are an alternative measure that would help, but you don't see that argued for often. that would seem like a good solution, no?

except that a lot of this is about transwomen demanding that society views them as women. Which is fine in most situations. but not all, as sex is still relevant in some areas. they don't want trans spaces they want women's spaces.

..by 'they' I don't mean all trans people, just the loudest voices represented by activists, which doesn't account for the majority of trans people. im sure most just want to get on with their lives in safety and security.

The statistics speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with "homophobia." And I am in no way a "trans rights activist", but I can spot a poorly-made or disingenuous argument when I see one.

I know you're not a trans rights activist, I wasn't saying you were. You do sound like a men's rights activist though Anyway you're misinterpreting me again, I'm not saying willfully, but you are. Maybe I'm not being clear enough in the way I've written. How is anything that I've said disingenuous? You seem to think I can't possibly take these positions without some kind of irrational hatred of a tiny group of people. Why? Makes no sense

 

[maxi]

Mumsnet is a notoriously anti-trans online space.

How did that notoriety come about, and in what circles? Of course it's discredited that way, it doesn't mean it's true

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

but I don't understand the reason you're making this point, other than to say that women are already at risk in women-only spaces from violence by other women, and therefore women-only spaces can be discarded. if you're not arguing that, then what point are you making?

I'm not denying that they are at risk, but the way of dealing with that risk shouldn't be to remove the safeguarding measures against another group. third spaces are an alternative measure that would help, but you don't see that argued for often. that would seem like a good solution, no?

except that a lot of this is about transwomen demanding that society views them as women. Which is fine in most situations. but not all, as sex is still relevant in some areas. they don't want trans spaces they want women's spaces.

Except this isn't about womens spaces, cis or otherwise. If it were, those against 'transactivism' wouldn't be so adamant that parental responsibility is necessary to protect the kids from the medical profession and big pharma. It's all about playing to a minority of womens feelings (fine) but this just illustrates the bankrupsy of feminism and democracy more than it does any provisions to expand safety for women at risk of DV. and by that logic feminism, supposedly being against womens domination by men, makes a pact with the male dominated nation state (yessir, we'll only talk about an anonymous free floating patriarchal signifier, nothing about family abolition and right to divorce for minorities, no sir! protect my kids so that can replicate the abusive patterns I am against, yes sir!)

It is kind of akin to the politician who is against anti-imigration rhetoric, but never wants to take power, because there is more symbolic capital of being in opposition.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Mumsnet is a notoriously anti-trans online space.

This a 'no true concerned-by-trans-policies fallacy'.

Please explain how an innocuous website discussing thousands of different issues 'unlucked out' by being especially unrepresentative in this regard.

 

[maxi]

Except this isn't about womens spaces, cis or otherwise. If it were, those against 'transactivism' wouldn't be so adamant that parental responsibility is necessary to protect the kids from the medical profession and big pharma

yeah course it's not just about that. it affects loads of things. so what?

Except this isn't about womens spaces, cis or otherwise. If it were, those against 'transactivism' wouldn't be so adamant that parental responsibility is necessary to protect the kids from the medical profession and big pharma. It's all about playing to a minority of womens feelings (fine) but this just illustrates the bankrupsy of feminism and democracy more than it does any provisions to expand safety for women at risk of DV. and by that logic feminism, supposedly being against womens domination by men, makes a pact with the male dominated nation state (yessir, we'll only talk about an anonymous free floating patriarchal signifier, nothing about family abolition and right to divorce for minorities, no sir! protect my kids so that can replicate the abusive patterns I am against, yes sir!)

It is kind of akin to the politician who is against anti-imigration rhetoric, but never wants to take power, because there is more symbolic capital of being in opposition.

can't make sense of this. what's the pact thing? are you saying there's something hypocritical about women using the state to attain rights because it's patriarchal? what's the alternative, refuse to accept rights on principle? that's like saying the civil rights activists of the 60s were just hypocrites because they were attaining rights from a white supremacist government.

 

[ghost]

@padraig (u.s.) I'm afraid that the Bishop of Beiser @ghost of beiser and @Mr. Tea have been cheating on you. Because on the other thread they've been vehemently arguing the diametric opposite against Malelesbian.

i still think you're a nonce, a ratfucker, an opponent of good taste worldwide, the shadiest character to ever show up on this site, a grotesque demon of whataboutism. your ideas are so much more evil than anything malelesbian has said—and the only reason I haven't said so more times is that I think you get off on the attention, I think you're stroking yourself like a pervert to the decent retorts of people like paddy here. your claims are so lazy and poorly formulated that they're simply not worth dignifying or replying to, and I don't understand how you can even lie to yourself in thinking that they're substantive. have you read a book? do you remember what thinking feels like?

don't ever imply that I'm agreeing with you. go fuck right off.

 

[Mr. Tea]

what stats suggest that? the vast majority of violence generally is committed by men, and while it is largely against other men, the vast majority of violence against women is also still committed by men.

here's a UK statistic for example: "The majority of domestic homicide victims (killed by ex/partner or a family member) for the year ending March 2017 to the year ending March 2019 were female (77% or 274 victims) and most of the suspects were male (263 out of 274; 96%)." (ONS, 2020A)

Right, because murder is the only form of violence. FFS. If your partner hasn't literally ended your life, you're can't be considered a victim of domestic abuse.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

i still think you're a nonce, a ratfucker, an opponent of good taste worldwide, the shadiest character to ever show up on this site, a grotesque demon of whataboutism. your ideas are so much more evil than anything malelesbian has said—and the only reason I haven't said so more times is that I think you get off on the attention, I think you're stroking yourself like a pervert to the decent retorts of people like paddy here. your claims are so lazy and poorly formulated that they're simply not worth dignifying or replying to, and I don't understand how you can even lie to yourself in thinking that they're substantive. have you read a book? do you remember what thinking feels like?

don't ever imply that I'm agreeing with you. go fuck right off.

This self-indulgent self-righteousness is why you're the Bishop of Beiser

Fact is you've been arguing with yourself over two threads without even being aware of it!

Or maybe this site-wide implosion of yours is the cognitive dissonance resolving hah

PS. Of course you were agreeing with me - you could see I liked your posts. If you don't want to agree go back and change them, tell me which ones you've changed and I'll unlike them if I no longer like them.