Discuss with just facts?

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (63 children)

  1. Requiring third spaces, split quotas, meaningful protections. There are may approaches.

  2. For everyone. Trans women surrounded by men are at a greater danger on numbers than the imagined ideas of fake infiltrators into women’s rooms. If you count eveyone. That’s the safer option. But single occupancy is better.

  3. There aren’t numbers for trans leagues so I think no sports is it. But that being said why shouldn’t trans women have access to equal opportunity but natal women should outside of sports. What’s the non emotional argument for excluding us from those programs?

  4. There’s no rational reason not to allow us to be lesbians of trans men to be gay men.

  5. Gender = gender identity

  6. Not accurate statistics. We are oft reported in death as gay men for instance. And most will go unreported absent death.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

  1. cough Karen White cough. That's no argument. Why not allow gay men into women's spaces too, since they don't pose a threat "either"?

  2. If Caitlyn Jenner could win gold in the men's decathlon, trans-womxyn will be fine in men's sports.

  3. So every straight woman in a relationship with a trans-woman has to identify as bisexual? So every lesbian in a relationship with a trans-man has to identify as bisexual? There is no rational reason to describe trans-womxyn attracted to men as homosexual.

  4. And gender identity is not self identification, it's a product of socialisation. Trans people's gendered upbringing matched their sex, hence why their gendered behaviour matches their sex: crime, suicide, media representation etc. the sex ratios are consistent regardless of identification.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

  1. At minimum gay men are physically superior to trans women and aren’t equivalent dangers.

  2. She didn’t do it on hormones or post surgery.

  3. They don’t have to identify as anything. It’s each persons place to label their own sexuality.

  4. That’s not correct. Even the oft quoted Swedish study found a reduction in criminality in the layer cohort.

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  1. No, I'm saying, even if you could prove that some sub-set of men don't pose a danger to women, that wouldn't be an argument to make single-sex spaces unisex. They ought not exist if they are unisex. The idea that gay men pose a threat to women is totally made up on your part btw. Them being physically more powerful is no excuse, seeing as trans-womxyn are physically stronger than women too. Trans-womxyn still pose a rape threat, like Karen White, unlike gay men.

  2. How is that the least bit relevant? If Jenner can win gold in men's sports then why on Earth should she not play in men's sports? It makes no sense.

  3. lol no trans-womxyn who insists on being called a lesbian would ever allow their gf to identify as straight.

  4. compare like with like, if men commit the vast majority of crimes compared to women, then trans-men should be the ones who commit the vast majority of crimes compared to trans-womxyn, but that isn't the case.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. Violence comes in forms other than rape and yes gay men are stronger than trans women therefore more dangerous. In addition mens propensity to violence and general hatred of trans women means we are at an extreme danger in isolated men’s spaces. You are just discounting our safety entirely so you aren’t talking about overall safety.

  2. Because we are talking about hormone controlled or even post op trans women. They can’t hope to compete with men and it would be intractably dangerous for them to try given their weakness and almost certain targeting for injury based on transphobia among “manly men”.

  3. I literally have spoken with couples that use those labels. You are just being wildly closed minded here.

  4. I can’t speak to anything about trans men. I’m not one and don’t claim to know anything about them. I respect their identities but I cannot understand on any level someone wanting to be manly or a man. More power to them but I do not get it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

cough Karen White cough. That's no argument. Why not allow gay men into women's spaces too, since they don't pose a threat "either"?

If they truly didn't pose a threat than gay men should be allowed in. Overall safety should be the goal.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There many causes when gay men were still attacking women, just not rape them. So they are "safer" to women than other males in general, but safer does not mean "completely safe".

And allowing everyone in women's toilets is not a solution. Public women's toilets already have 2 times less spaces than men's toilets (because of urinals), women's toilets are used for menstrual needs as well, so women will use toilet longer on average, more often, and require more safety, and at same time women whave two times less places already. So putting more people to go into women's toilets will make situation even worse for women, as there can appear deficit of places.

Men need to sort out violence between themselves, to protect gay and gnc men much better, and de-stigmatize them in society. "Just combine them with women" is not the solution, and will fix nothing, only hurt women in long run. Women has nothing to do in men versus men problems, so it is just wrong to use women as shield in that fight.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (56 children)

  1. I agree that there are ways to make things fair and equal- though I don’t think TW want fair and equal. They seem to want special consideration masked as equality. Idk what you mean by split quotas.

  2. I disagree. I think it’s safer for TW, and does nothing for women. It can make some women feel unsafe and uncomfortable. And unless the rules are changed, as it stands it does seem like any male can claim an identity that allows them access to female spaces. We (well, not “we” but some) are also teaching females not to even take note of males in these spaces, which I think is a bad thing.

  3. Saying that TW aren’t female is not related to emotion. Allowing a male to participate in a female specific thing is literally taking an opportunity from a female when the opportunity was designated for a female. They are excluded because they aren’t the sex the program was meant to offer an opportunity for. Saying that they shouldn’t be excluded is coming from emotion. It’s just a fact that TW aren’t female.

  4. It’s not about allowing lol. TW aren’t female. Lesbians are female. Transmen aren’t male. Gay men are male. This is just a fact.

  5. I have no gender identity but I know what gender I am and I know my gender solely because I know my sex.

  6. Can you cite this?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We (well, not “we” but some) are also teaching females not to even take note of males in these spaces, which I think is a bad thing.

Oxford's university put sign on women's and only women's toilets that is encouraging anti-safeguarding, sign that welcome's any criminal and creep in there.

It says that "if you see someone that you think do not belong to that place or someone you do afraid - do not call the police and do not ask them what they are doing here, just continue doing your stuff and be nice to them". Yeah, no way I will be cleaning my menstrual cup when there is some bearded man standing.

This even created problems in some USA schools/colleges, where teen boys were coming to women's toilets and filming girls washing faces and trying to catch them pee'ing. And boys when caught just declared that they found that they are feeling like a women and they are trans in reality to get free of charge and get no punishment for their actions.

It is just bad and wrong practice.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (54 children)

  1. I mean having diversity incentives for trans women parallel with natal women rather than shared categorization.

  2. It is much safer for trans women and not much more dangerous for natal women. Hence overall safety improves. Their could be some standards of access or some such but again single occupancy is the best option from my perspective anyway.

  3. Why is female the relevant category in areas other than sport? As opposed to womanhood. Why ought trans men be included in women’s programs that would harm them by exposure at least while trans women should be excluded?

  4. I and may others wouldn’t use your definitions. I’m not a lesbian but a women trans or not who is only attracted to women trans or not is a lesbian to me. Your definition has men being lesbians and women attracted to men being lesbians which makes no sense to me. Why should your definition control and not mine?

  5. I don’t believe your logic holds. My gender is in fact the exact opposite of my sex as in most trans people. So it’s not a matter of gender simply following sex. Otherwise trans people wouldn’t exist.

  6. I’m on mobile so I don’t recall what this is asking about. Im assuming I don’t have a ready citation.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (53 children)

  1. Aaah. I agree with that of you mean trans people should have opportunities and representation designated specifically for them.

  2. Disagree. Overall women are safer if any and all males are excluded from female spaces. I agree single occupancy is best. I also personally agree that there could be a standard of access (for me it’s bottom surgery) however I don’t know that I have the right to say that and dismiss how other females may feel. If a female says she feels uncomfortable or unsafe with any male, regardless of GRS or identity, being in her space, I feel like I have to respect her and her sense of safety. I don’t think I have a right to say what terms allow a male access to a female space. I think all females (or at least like 90% or more) would need to agree and all safety concerns would need to be addressed and dealt with. Also- we have no way of monitoring things to ensure that only males who meet that standard of access are entering those spaces. So to me it’s best to keep things sex based, and accept that a passing TW will slip through.

  3. Womanhood is female. Only females experience womanhood. A passing TW experiences life as a male who is perceived as a woman- if people don’t know they’re trans. It’s not the same at all. A non passing TW doesn’t even experience that. Transmen don’t have to participate in female specific opportunities. They should have the option because they are female. This is what I’m saying- these are opportunities for the female sex. That’s it. If you aren’t a female, you have no right to the programs. TW should be excluded because they are the opposite sex. That’s the full reason imo

  4. This is exactly why I said fact based answers only. It is not a fact that TW are women and TM are men. My definition (it’s not even mine, it’s the actual definition) doesn’t have men being lesbians, it’s literally saying this is impossible. It doesn’t have women attracted to men being lesbians. It’s literally saying that’s also impossible.

  5. I’m not seeing a fact based answer here. So I think it’s your logic that doesn’t hold. You haven’t presented an explanation that factually shows how a trans persons gender identity is their actual gender or how gender identity equals gender. Another user has very clearly explained why this isn’t the case, imo

  6. I’m asking you to cite the claims you made about violence against trans people.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

however I don’t know that I have the right to say that and dismiss how other females may feel. If a female says she feels uncomfortable or unsafe with any male, regardless of GRS or identity,

I would not feel comfortable with any male in such spaces. When I was on a walk with my transsexual friend, who I am very sure is safe (homosexual one, 20+ years after surgery, etc) - I was still feeling uncomfortable, and either waiting until they finished and only then going to the toilet, or asking them to wait until I finished, gladly they were respecting my request (I still would prefer to enter second). Especially when I am on my period, or have some other issues with my body due to my health conditions - I will just feel very-very uncomfortable when someone who can't understand my struggle and can poses any potential threat or make fun of me or find disgusting what I am doing (like imagine changing your cup - go to cubicle, then go out of it and wash it out from blood, then go back to cubicle - and do this all while there male is present and watching it. Or imagine having miscarriage or cramps... I just can't, really, urgh). Especially in modern society, which removes tampon advertisements for showing periods from TV, because it is considered either "too gross" or "sexual". Menstruation stigma and taboo is way too powerful in any society in the world for now. I don't know how many more years or decades we need so society and men especially realise it is same as just breathing, or pee'ing, or anything, it is normal and natural, it is happening for dozen of years starting from when we are 10 years old and repeats monthly. There nothing sexual, gross or dirty in it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Disagree. Overall women are safer if any and all males are excluded from female spaces.

But are people overall safer was the issue, not just a subset of those people.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I already addressed this. If you’re not concerned about “just a subset of people” then there’s no way to argue that TW need to use female spaces. TW are the subset. Women are not. TW aren’t even a subset of women or females.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Considering trans people make up about 1% of the human population, it’s safe to say that overall, people are safe with sex based spaces remaining sex based. At least roughly 99% of people are safe.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'm sorry but you're redefining the meaning of "people overall" if you mean people to only mean cis women. Cis women are irrefutably a subset of the people in this situation because the situation involves both them and trans women as those are the groups we're discussing.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Lmao women are a subset of humans. Men are as well. So TW are a subset of a subset and you still don’t make sense.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Funny the opposite is true from my perspective as you were the one claiming women aren't a subset of everyone:

TW are the subset. Women are not.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (15 children)

😂😂😂

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (29 children)

It is not a fact that TW are women and TM are men.

I disagree

My definition (it’s not even mine, it’s the actual definition) doesn’t have men being lesbians, it’s literally saying this is impossible. It doesn’t have women attracted to men being lesbians.

Trans men are men and trans women are women by my definition. Your definition isn’t any more factual. This is a semantic disagreement not a factual one.

  1. Again it’s not a factual question, but a semantic one. You can shout your definition as correct but that doesn’t make it more factual than one.

  2. What claims? It’s common knowledge that trans people are marginalized. We don’t interact with police unless absolutely necessary and many of us are forced into sexual work. Thats common knowledge. It doesn’t need studies because we all know it.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

You can disagree if you want but the whole premise of the post is to make only fact based arguments and you haven’t done that so your disagreement won’t be taken seriously until/unless you back it with fact lol. There are people who vehemently disagree that the earth is round, even they can explain why they think it, even if we can disprove their reasoning. It’s odd to me that you try to act like the definitions most people use aren’t valid and accurate. When you yourself have said in the past that you don’t even have a clear alternative definition. I don’t think this is a good post for you, you argue from a place of everything but fact. “My” definitions are literally factual, there’s no way around that truth.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

You aren’t making fact based arguments either. We are as always just arguing over definitions. Your definition isn’t more factual than mine. They’re both just definitions.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Lmao my definitions are literally fact based. Words have meanings. You want to change the meaning or reinterpret them, that doesn’t mean your meanings are accurate. I’m not gonna waste time arguing with someone who can’t follow the premise of the post. I’d rather discuss with people who understand what the word “fact” means and intend to respond to the post with facts. So, I guess that means we’re done here.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

No they aren’t. You are arguing that your definition of women is more factual than mine because it fits your definition better. That’s not how definitions work. No one is disputing chromosome or physical realities. We are disagreeing about categorization.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I don’t have a definition. I’m using the actual definition that humans have been using since humans invented language and definitions. Lmao this is pointless. It sucks that you’re the only qt that replied to this post because we all know you don’t deal with fact. You can keep saying my definition isn’t fact but the truth is almost 100% of the human population uses the same definitions as I do. You are placing so much weight on a definition that you can’t even offer. You can’t define woman or man or male or female. We’ve asked you to several times ans you never have done it. You honestly do me so many favors. Every time you comment you make me realize things that I hadn’t even gotten to myself yet. You’re one of the best tools in my arsenal lol. You always help me see more truth in what I’m saying, based on your responses. Right now, you’ve proven to me that qt cannot make a single fact based argument, and that a lot of transwomen think they should be an exception to every rule, because- well I guess just because they say so lol. Thank you! We make a great team.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You preferring your definitions over thiers isn't a fact based argument either.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It’s not my definition. It’s the actual definition that’s been used since definitions exist. It’s silly to act like humans haven’t had a clear definition for women and men since they discovered the differences between women and men. Woman definitively means adult female human. Provide an alternative definition that makes sense or stop trying to act like this definition isn’t factual.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No defintions are natural, all involve artificially cutting off a piece of the universe from it's greater whole for the purpose of human convenience. So no, there aren't "actual definitions", just definitions. And it is self-centered to act as though this isn't the case

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is such bullshit lol. We may as well say language has no meaning. This is desperate as fuck lol

Eta- I’m the one who’s self centered for accepting the meaning of a word that has existed for centuries or longer? Not the people who want to change the meaning just because they are upset it doesn’t apply to them?