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] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (65 children)

I already noted several possible solutions.

Women's spaces were made to protect women. As such, how much male people, trans or not, can feel safe in women's spaces is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant how secure a male person feels women should feel around him, as this has repeatedly been shown to backfire. Women's spaces cannot exist with men inside them, regardless of whether those men claim to be safe, gay, asexual, female etc.

I’m talking about overall safety not “feelings of safety”. If safety is the purpose overall safety is the logical metric. Why should only women’s safety Matter?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Why should only women’s safety Matter?

Because we are discussing a space intended solely and specifically for women and girls.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Why does only their safety matter as opposed to overall safety?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Why would we consider overall safety if we are talking about a space that is segregated by nature and intent?

Also- overall, males don’t need to access female spaces. So overall safety is considered.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

As Duncan said: "The only safe males in women's toilets/spaces are the ones who will not enter them even if they will be allowed to".

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

I agree they shouldn’t be in there at all, but I don’t think that’s gonna happen. That’s why I’m saying I’d personally be comfortable if women and girls got to decide what circumstances would need to exist for them to be okay compromising. Ideally we don’t have to compromise at all and none of them have access to female spaces, but I just don’t think that’s going to happen. To me the compromise should be- female spaces remain sex based, and we just accept thst passing TW may use those spaces undetected, but we have the ability to ask an obvious male to leave. It’s sad that women can’t dictate who has entry to our own spaces, but all I meant with tm comment is that because we can’t stop it fully, I’d personally be okay with certain requirements being in place so at least we could stop the majority of it in theory.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

compromising

Why it is WE who need to compromise? Why always women?

To me the compromise should be- female spaces remain sex based, and we just accept thst passing TW may use those spaces undetected, but we have the ability to ask an obvious male to leave.

It is still not a solution, and again imposted on us without our consent, ignoring us in general.

From possible "choices" it is the best one. But when you chose between "the worst", "very bad" and "not too bad" - it is not a choice.

became randomly mad, as it always happens to women, through millenias

I’d personally be okay with certain requirements being in place so at least we could stop the majority of it in theory.

Yeah, anti-safeguarding like in Norway by law (if you ask clearly man to leave, they can sue you to 3 years in jail, and that even can happen with just regular man who is not TW, as they can go after that and in the internet through site change their Self-ID and sue you as TW), or like in "Brenda not a Wolf" child's book that teaches kids to trust creepy guys near the van giving them candies, or like Oxford's university which invites any men inside, so creepy men can easily use that opportunity.

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

I’m agreeing with you that we shouldn’t have to compromise lol. I’m saying despite that truth, we most likely will have no choice but to compromise. I’m not saying it’s a solution, I’m saying that’s the best we’d realistically get. I don’t really know of a way that we’d check to ensure everyone is female, but if we uphold the sex based spaces and accept that potentially a rare passing transwoman is going to slip through undetected, that’s a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t really know of a way that we’d check to ensure everyone is female

Change society in a way that men are not automatically thinking that women should just take their will unquestioned, and where men have enough respect to women to not act like that. But those are just dreams for next hundred years at least.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

If the moral argument is based on safety then overall safety should be the aim not just safety of one subset.

Overall safety pits single occupancy as idea but failing that trans women in women’s spaces because men pose an extreme Danger to them especially in concentration and isolation.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Overall safety is considered. You want the specific safety of a small group of males to overpower the safety measures in place for all people overall.

Females are not a subset of their own sex. You just said overall safety should be the aim not just safety of one subset...

Transwomen are the subset (of males, not females/women). This is a blaring contradiction.

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

Overall safety is maximized by making sure trans women aren’t near men when a comparatively low risk is applied elsewhere. If everyone counts that’s the logical solution.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That’s not what you said lmao. I’ll just leave it alone and let everyone else see how you once again contradicted yourself.

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

Hey I just want to say that I think you've put forth some good responses to these questions, and that some people are ignoring the implications of your argument to just focus on the aspects of the situation that matters more to them.

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

Thank you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Because segregating is just a means to increase the overall safety not a goal in and of itself?

Also it would seem that do to the rate at which trans women are sexually assaulted in prisons. trans women being housed in women's prisons decreases the number of sexual assaults unless we are presuming that more trans women sexually assault than are sexually assaulted which seems unlikely.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

What do y’all think “overall safety” means???

Overall, males don’t need access to female spaces. It is being argued that a small subset of males should be able to access them. This is not overall safety. This is an exception to the safety measures in place to ensure overall safety.

Transwomen can have their own wings in male prisons. I don’t care. Women shouldn’t be forced to be housed with them. Females have rights and I see no justification in stripping females of those rights to accommodate males. That’s misogyny, plain and simple. That’s TW exercising their male privilege. TW are the biggest flex of male privilege I can think of. Transwomen are not women and they are not females. Therefore, the solutions to their problems should not involve females at all.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

What do y’all think “overall safety” means???

The safety of everyone?

Overall, males don’t need access to female spaces. It is being argued that a small subset of them should be able to access them. This is not overall safety. This is an exception to the safety measures in place to ensure overall safety.

If a non-rapist would be raped in prison A but not raped in Prison B then irrespective or any other factors, less rapes would happen overall if they were housed in Prison B. Do you disagree?

Transwomen can have their own wings in male prisons. I don’t care.

Perhaps we should just put every prisoner into solitary confinement, after all that's by far the "safest" option.

Females have rights and I see no justification in stripping females of those rights to accommodate males

Which right is being violated?

Transwomen are not women and they are not females. Therefore, the solutions to their problems should not involve females at all.

That's your opinion on a definition. Other people have other definitons

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Females are not safe when spaces are opened up to include males. We have seen instances of women in prison being raped by TW. If there are no transwomen in female prisons- they can’t rape women. Males get raped in prison. It’s shitty. But it’s not specifically a transwoman issue. A lot of different types of males have been raped in male prisons. That’s a male issue. It has nothing to do with females. You can make allowances for any type of male, that’s not going to stop rape in male prisons from happening. You’re asking for TW to be given special privileges that a smaller man who isn’t trans wouldn’t get. It solves no problems for anyone but transwomen, and causes problems for women. So no, less rape won’t be the result- the result is just that a different man will get raped.

Or perhaps we should put men who are deemed at particular risk in their own wings or solitary confinement instead of causing discomfort and increased risk to people who aren’t responsible for the shit that could happen to some males?

The right to be housed without men.

Lmao like I said- definitions are intended to explain things, offer a clear fact based definition of woman that includes males. You can use a different definition all you want. Doesn’t mean it’s accurate or makes sense or that anyone who isn’t a part of your gender cult will accept it. The definitions gc uses are accepted by almost 100% of the world. The narcissism you must possess, to think that because you disagree with what a word means, the meaning we attribute to it must be wrong lol. I didn’t make up the definition, I didn’t discover it. It’s just what these words mean.

I get why people say tras are mras. I can’t imagine being misogynistic enough to think that female rights should be nullified for men.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I'm fine with letting anyone change prisons if it actually increases overall safety, including people whom don't identify as women like gay men. Again though if trans women are more likely to be raped than any one else in Men's Prisons, then moving them to a women's prison would still reduce the number of rapes as people would be marginally less likely to rape the remaining prisoners. Which makes sense as the majority of people in men's prisons are straight men and they respond more to "female" sex characteristics than "male" ones.

Why not put everyone into solitary confinement then, after all then everyone is "safer"?

Well first off they don't have the right to determine legally whom that term entails (something I'm sure many intersex women are thankful for), and second their isn't a general right to be free of the presence of "men".

The percentage of people who subscribe to your definition does not change the fact that definitions are subjective. And if you'd like a term for women that encompasses people whom you'd deem "male", then a woman is someone who instinctually identifies with the group of people who posses a certain range of physical traits (which would include people whom you'd deem male, intersex m/f, or female).

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Lmao this is a waste of time. You and masks are so alike. You twist and cling to semantics and tell yourself what you need to. If I hadn’t just spent all of that time going back and forth with masks, I’d waste the energy on you. As it stands, anything I’d say to you I’ve already said.

I will never understand why transwomen can’t just respect women enough to leave us and our spaces the fuck alone.

PS- trans people aren’t intersex and intersex people have been asking y’all to stop using them in your arguments. Seems y’all can’t respect anyone.

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

I’m talking about overall safety not “feelings of safety”.

What does this even mean? What do you think "feelings of safety" entail?

If safety is the purpose overall safety is the logical metric.

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss? We have an entire history to show that this is the case, and that men cannot be trusted on the basis of saying "I'm safe and I wouldn't hurt a fly!". Sadly it's normal for people to play dumb over the abuses that women have had to endure year after year and to keep insisting we just need a few more "experiments" to prove that, no surprise, more men lowers a woman's quality of life, and more men in spaces meant for vulnerable women is straight up dangerous.

Why should only women’s safety Matter?

Um...because they're women's spaces made for the safety of women? You know, because that's the purpose to their existence? That's like asking "Why should only the safety of a human in their own house matter, why doesn't this endangered tiger deserve to be safe there as well?" I care very much for preservation of species, and the tiger can gets its own cage and survival taken care of, but it can't get into the person's house no matter how "safe" and "tamed" it is claimed to be.

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

Masks- “overall safety should be the aim not just the safety of a subset”

Also Masks- this subset of males should be granted special access to a female specific space.

There’s no reasoning with Masks. They refuse to acknowledge the holes in their arguments.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

What does this even mean? What do you think "feelings of safety" entail?

I’m talking about actual safety, not feeling safe. What’s not clear?

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss?

Trans women are at minimum less able to inflict injury than men because we are weaker. Lower testosterone implies less aggression as well. And non motive to violence from prejudice. Whereas trans women in men’s rooms are subject to the stronger, aggressive, and hate motivated men. How is the first not generally safer than the second?

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

I’m talking about actual safety, not feeling safe. What’s not clear?

No. In what way is this supposed difference relevant to the discussion?

Trans women are at minimum less able to inflict injury than men because we are weaker.

Tons of men are weaker. And tons of men have lower testosterone. And tons of men are non-aggressive. Hell, tons of men aren't even interested in women, and have suffered bullying themselves. Tons of men are old. Do we let all of them in?

Male trans people still keep their advantages such as higher bone density and larger size, same reason why they've shown to be such a terrible idea in female sports. So this idea that they turn into scrawny little children is not consistent with what actually happens. Moreover, with self ID, men don't even need to lower their testosterone, as that's seen as fascist gender policing.

Lower testosterone implies less aggression as well

Um, yeah, that has certainly not been consistent with the kind of behaviour male trans people show towards people who invalidate them.

And non motive to violence from prejudice.

Are you implying that male trans communities are not misogynistic? Hey, why not? You know what, male people aren't misogynistic at all. They simply aren't. Let them all into female spaces. They're just normal people, right?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (24 children)

No. In what way is this supposed difference relevant to the discussion?

It’s not feelings, it’s literally likelihood and severity of harm .

Male trans people still keep their advantages such as higher bone density and larger size, same reason why they've shown to be such a terrible idea in female sports.

Bone density and hieght drop with hrt. Upper body muscle mass also substantially drops. Also still weaker than men which is the point.

I’ve made no secret I consider men hopeless monsters. Trans women are better than men morally and less capable of violence. They represent less of a risk of harm than men.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

HRT does not undo androgenisation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

What you call androgenisation can occur more in some cis women then some trans women. Why are they allowed to complete.

[–]SnowAssMan 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

WTF are you talking about? Androgenisation is something the male body undergoes during puberty. It gives them a physical advantage that cannot be undone by HRT. And no, what I am talking about does not occur in the female players. Plus, everyone already knows that women with elevated testosterone are typically not allowed to compete in women's sports competitions. So if they can reject literal women who have been considered to have a biological advantage, of course they can reject trans-womxyn.

Why the f*ck would someone like Caitlyn Jenner who could win gold in men's sports not just play men's sports? Why on Earth should they be playing in women's sports instead? You haven't answered that question yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns :

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

Crucially those advantages are not reduced when a trans women takes testosterone-suppressing medication, as was previous thought - “with only small reductions in strength and no loss in bone mass or muscle volume or size after testosterone suppression”.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why the f*ck would someone like Caitlyn Jenner who could win gold in men's sports not just play men's sports? Why on Earth should they be playing in women's sports instead? You haven't answered that question yet.

I will add this: http://boysvswomen.com/#/

If trained boys and male teens are able to beat all time women olympic records, then what about well trained male after years ot trainings?

There nothing strange about that transwoman in USA, who only after 6 months of training, first time ever in their life - have beaten all USA women records in powerlifting in their weight category.

And we should not forget that advantage of males not only in muscle mass and from puberty, even not undergone puberty males are still have advantages - because of bones structure (females need to spend more energy to run because of skeletal structure, same structure why we have "hisp sway": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEZrNLagwls), because of bigger lungs, because of 40% faster oxygenisation (so easier to sprint and faster breath recovery), faster metabolism, bigger heart and faster blood pumping through organism (so even more faster oxigenation) - if speaking about male and female of same height and weight. And if consider that males on average 10-20% taller and bigger, than those advantages are even bigger. And it is just speaking about BASIC structure of body, not talking about muscular mass, bone density, and other changes coming during puberty or from high testosterone levels.

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

The simple fact of the matter is that there are people whom you would consider female who have more athletic prowess/potential than other people whom you would consider male and that it would be unfair for the latter group to compete against the latter. That’s unsurprising though as all sports are inherently unfair.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah yes, olympic level trained females can be stronger than some untrained males, but in sports there in question - trained males, not untrained males.

Even on Veritasium show, when he is untrained man, was learning how to properly run from woman olympic finalist, he almost beat her time in 100m and 200m. And he only trained 2 weeks.

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

It shows a reduction in muscle Espescially upper body muscle, reduces bone density, and leads to a notable drop in cardiovascular endurance.

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

it’s literally likelihood and severity of harm .

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss? We have an entire history to show that this is the case, and that men cannot be trusted on the basis of saying "I'm safe and I wouldn't hurt a fly!". Sadly it's normal for people to play dumb over the abuses that women have had to endure year after year and to keep insisting we just need a few more "experiments" to prove that, no surprise, more men lowers a woman's quality of life, and more men in spaces meant for vulnerable women is straight up dangerous.

Bone density and hieght drop with hrt.

And they also menstruate, right?

Also still weaker than men which is the point.

Actually no, the point is 1. Not being stronger than women 2. Not being raised with messed up male socialisation. Also, for male trans people, I'll add another point that I simply do not want to be around men who fetishise and see womanhood as a costume.

Trans women are better than men morally and less capable of violence. They represent less of a risk of harm than men.

Because you say so. Doesn't matter how aggressive and misogynistic their spaces are, they're harmless angels because, well, you say so. Uuuh, testosterone, right! What a convenient scapegoat! I guess all those misogynistic male trans people are just showing their femininity in a special way that just so happens to coincide with male-pattern behaviour.

You'll excuse me if I feel 0 pity for men who want us to accept that we should put up with the patriarchy as long as men have testosterone just because they want to validate their fetish or wishful thinking. God, did my patience for this kind of behaviour in men erode over the years.

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

You are literally denying proven facts of estrogen on our physiology and apparently ignoring what I actually type while pretending I said other stuff so I’m gonna go ahead and block you. This is an absolute farce.

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

Except 1. modern trans movements don't even expect you to get HRT in order to count as the opposite sex 2. Male bodies are proven to have advantages due to being male regardless of hormones, hence why trans people in sports is such a terrible idea. A hormonally imbalanced male body is not equivalent to a female body. 3. Male shittiness goes beyond just physical danger, it also includes the kind of misogyny that is rampant in any male spaces, including trans spaces

I addressed and quoted what you said. If the only thing you can provide is non-sequiturs, then I'm glad you realise you've lost the argument.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Okay. By letting male people into female spaces, the overall safety drops. What else is there to discuss?

You're begging the question. You haven't shown that to be true. If 1% of trans women are rapists but 50% of all trans women would be raped in men's prisons, then you end up with 5000% more rapes with trans women housed with men than with women.

[–]YoutiaoLover 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The solution is so obvious: just let transwomen rape and assault women in women's prison, amirite?

Trans people can make their own space instead of barging into women's space. It's not impossible to make a separate wing for TW in men's prison. That way TW would be safe from other men without sacrificing the safety of women.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Women do not need to prove that male people are a threat to female people, and in fact the very suggestion is offensive after the amount of violence women have consistently endured. We have literally the entire history of this happening, which is why female spaces exist in the first place. Why do we need to prove the most obvious thing in existence, that men are a threat to women?

If 1% of trans women are rapists but 50% of all trans women would be raped in men's prisons, then you end up with 5000% more rapes with trans women housed with men than with women.

  1. Countless men are at an above-average risk of male violence, including the kind of violence you just mentioned. Should we put all of them in with women?
  2. I can pull out and inflate stats like that as well. If 1% of women are rapists but 50% of male trans people in prisons are rapists, then you end up with 5000% increase in rape. It always comes down to trans safety trumping women's safety.
  3. Men abusing each other is unfortunate and needs to be addressed without sacrificing female safety and blaming male abuse on women. It is not up to women to fix or accommodate men by sacrificing their own spaces, just as it wasn't up to women to open female spaces to gay men or to black men. I don't want tigers to go extinct and I support special enclosures to ensure their survival, but I refuse to house one in my house, no matter how tame and traumatised it is claimed to be.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Countless men are at an above-average risk of male violence, including the kind of violence you just mentioned. Should we put all of them in with women?

If it increases overall safety? Yes.

I can pull out and inflate stats like that as well. If 1% of women are rapists but 50% of male trans people in prisons are rapists, then you end up with 5000% increase in rape. It always comes down to trans safety trumping women's safety.

True, but my stats are far closer to reality than yours

Men abusing each other is unfortunate and needs to be addressed without sacrificing female safety and blaming male abuse on women. It is not up to women to fix or accommodate men by sacrificing their own spaces, just as it wasn't up to women to open female spaces to gay men or to black men. I don't want tigers to go extinct and I support special enclosures to ensure their survival, but I refuse to house one in my house, no matter how tame and traumatised it is claimed to be.

It isn't sacrificing ciswomen's safety at all to allow trans women anymore than it harms straight women to be housed with lesbians, bigoted fears aside.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If it increases overall safety? Yes.

I don't even know what to say to that. How do you argue with someone who argues that women's safety simply matters less than men?

my stats are far closer to reality than yours

The fact that male people abuse and discriminate against female people doesn't need to be studied further. It has both been demonstrated throughout history, usually to horrific extremes, and already confirmed in studies.

It isn't sacrificing ciswomen's safety at all to allow trans women anymore than it harms straight women to be housed with lesbians, bigoted fears aside.

Except those are women, which have consistently, through both studies and the entire human history, shown not to present the kind of threat to women that men do. Demanding more women to be harmed to demonstrate that men are discriminatory and dangerous to them is the same playing-dumb tactic that conservatives use to shut down women's rights. Meanwhile, the only thing that makes a certain brand of men "safe" to be with women is that they claim not to be men due to a mental illness, which is as valid as a person calling themselves a Messiah or a wolf. Moreover, I acknowledge gay men existing, but I still wouldn't let them in with women.