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 - 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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It seems to me that you are the one placing one groups safety above all else. You would let 100,000 trans women get sexually abused to save 1 cis woman

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Because men assaulting women is such a rarity, amirite? Like where would women get the idea that men who claim to be "safe" and "not sexist" might be lying?

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

Unless it’s 100% it’s still prejudice

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So, the only way women can seek any protection from specifically men is if 100% of men actively abuse them, and if even one man is not, that means it's all just misandrist prejudice.

I don't know why I keep assuming that the trans movement made up of misogynistic men would acknowledge the abuse that women have suffered at their hands and the need to protect women from it.