QT: What rights don’t trans people have?

submitted by wokuspokus from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 6 insightful - 8 fun6 insightful - 7 fun7 insightful - 8 fun -  (111 children)

In America it is legal to discriminate against trans people in housing. It is also legal to refuse to give a trans person even non-trans related medical care.

Most places do not have third facilities meaning that it is essentially impossible to safely spend an extended period most places without using gender appropriate facilities for trans women as we are absolutely unsafe in men’s facilities. The only time I’ve been physically attacked since transition personally was in a men’s room.

Due to this facility issue in fact we are prevented to doing things like sports. Both because there are no safe facilities and because trans woman can’t Physically compete with men. But that is less a rights issue and more a practical concern even though it has health implications.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

The thing is that you can replace "discriminate against trans" with "discriminate against almost anyone" and it will hold true. You can discriminate same way against women. Only people of color and disabled are protected. Recently homosexual people became protected too, thought it was achieved not on case of the law, but on case of the court descision.

because trans woman can’t Physically compete with men

That is a lie. Hubbard is showing results for top 15% of male competitors of the same age and weight category. Cece Telfer two years after transitioning improved best time and would be in top 150 of male competition (previously was top 390). And they aren't even good athletes, as Cece's running technique is very bad and still can be improved by a lot, Hubbard had trauma and retired from sports because of it for 5 years. At the same time - women (female humans) of same age/weight/training level are not even remotely close to them: Cece was faster than second place by 9% (while 11-12% is often the difference between best men and women in same category in running), Hubbard pulled same weight as 2nd and 3rd place combined in same age and weight category, etc.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 5 insightful - 8 fun5 insightful - 7 fun6 insightful - 8 fun -  (19 children)

You can discriminate same way against (natal) women.

Sex is protected in both housing and medical administration federally. As is age, disability, race, legitimacy, and many other categories. Gender identity is not. Only in employment do we have federal protection due to the Harris funeral home case.

That is a lie.

It absolutely is not. There was a study done that indicated an approximate loss of 10 percent performance in endurance events, putting hormone controlled trans women on par with cis women. As well as documented muscle loss through transition and a known correlation of presence of testosterone and maintenance of muscle mass. It’s absolutely baseless to claim we can compete with men. You could quibble about whether we can compete with natal women but it’s absolutely baseless to claim we are even comparable to men athletically.

[–]MarkTwainiac 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There was a study done that indicated an approximate loss of 10 percent performance in endurance events, putting hormone controlled trans women on par with cis women.

That "study" was a 2015 paper about 8 trans-identified male long distance runners who self-reported that their times in distance events had gotten slower after "transition." One of the athletes included in the "study" was the author. The intervals between the "before transition" & "after transition" times these runners self reported varied greatly - in one case it was 29 years.

That "study" has been widely debunked, & recently the author of it said its findings were "flimsy" & have not been borne out by research since.

Males on T suppression for 12 months lose 5% of their muscle mass & strength advantage. Since the male advantage in sports ranges from 12% to close to 50%, there's no way this puts T-suppressed post pubertal males on a level playing field with female athletes.

The author of that "study" has also acknowledged publicly that even after 36 months of T suppression, males who identify as trans retain most of the male advantages they have over females in sports.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Feel free to cite any of those numbers. And, yet again, I’m not arguing we should compete with natal women I am saying we can’t compete with men.

[–]divingrightintowork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

And What? That’s it.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Sex is protected in both housing and medical administration federally. As is age, disability, race, legitimacy, and many other categories. Gender identity is not

Genuine question- how do you protect people over something that we can’t even define or understand?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (8 children)

It’s quite simple. Literally just saying you can’t discriminate based on gender identity covers anything from self id to medical diagnosis. You could also phrase it at transgender status simply gender. It would all work.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don’t agree with self ID but how do you medically diagnose gender identity?

I agree there should be protections in place for being trans (literally just for being trans- don’t call it gender or identity, just literally trans) the way there is for sex and race etc

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

Gender dysphoria is diagnosable. And for nondiscrimination I would certainly rather overprotect than underprotect.

Defining being trans has the same definition issues as gender identity. The term is immaterial ultimately.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I know gender dysphoria is diagnosable. Gender identity is not and you said something about protections on the basis of gender identity and mentioned diagnosing it.

The term isn’t immaterial. A dysphoric individual isn’t necessarily trans, neither is someone who thinks they have a “gender identity”. Making the protection specifically about trans people, not gender identity, actually protects trans people. Making the protection about gender identity allows the Wii Spa incident and similar. Making the protections about dysphoria does nothing for anyone, we can’t see someone’s dysphoric (or their gender identity for that matter), we can see that they are trans most of the time, and that’s when (and why) trans people are discriminated against, if that makes sense.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

I see where you are going but ultimately I’m not bothered for the language. I just want to be legally protected.

A dysphoric individual isn’t necessarily trans,

I actually wouldn’t agree.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

  1. It’s not just about protecting Masks, tho. It’s about protecting trans people as a whole, right? While still protecting females? You’re not protected if the protection is “anyone who says ‘gender identity’ is protected”. That’s how you increase risk of harm for yourself and for women. The language matters. Laws in place for females make (well…made…) it clear they referred to female people, laws in place for black people (even the Racist ones) made it clear what community they were referring to.

it can’t be vague if it’s meant to protect- gender identity is vague by (lack of) definition. It has to be specific and clear. And since it’s your safety in question, not mine, it’s really interesting that you don’t seem to care about the difference the wording makes.

*2. You not agreeing doesn’t make it less true that there are dysphoric individuals even on this sub who aren’t trans

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sex is protected in both housing and medical administration federally.

Isn't you can fire woman for being pregnant in conservative states? Or it is just happening with other excuses there and then ignored by court? Also, in California state since 2016 "sex" is including "gender identity", so it should be protected there.

putting hormone controlled trans women on par with cis women

10% muscle loss is not enough to be "on par with cis women". Males and females have completely different anatomy, and males have up to 30-50% more muscles with same height and weight. So 10% loss would not be really enough. Even 50% would not be enough, because all other differences would still stay.

And again, cases I mentioned - those transwomen after years on cross-sex hormones would still be able to compete against males in same category and still would be competetive and better than 60-85% of "cis" men there. Cece even improved best time, so clearly not "have disadvantage". It is obvious that transwomen are losing competitiveness, but not to a very big degree, so maybe not taking first places, but possible to be near the top. So far only Jenner from top performing athletes transitioned, in other cases it is already low to medium performing male athletes who are transitioning. Opposite is not happening, as transmen even after years on testosterone are not able to even qualify (as often qualification into male competition is above all time female records).

Plus not in professional sport (or in countries like Canada even in competitive sport) - you do not even need to be on cross-sex hormones, you may be just "Non-binary woman male" and compete against "cis" women. So there it can be just manly looking man, buffed with 25 nmol/l testosterone levels and still compete against "cis" women.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Isn't you can fire woman for being pregnant in conservative states?

No. That’s illegal. It happens under pretense but it isn’t legal.

Also, in California state since 2016 "sex" is including "gender identity", so it should be protected there.

I’m speaking federally. The majority of states do not have gender identity protections.

10% muscle loss is not enough to be "on par with cis women". Males and females have completely different anatomy, and males have up to 30-50% more muscles with same height and weight. So 10% loss would not be really enough. Even 50% would not be enough, because all other differences would still stay.

I never claimed we were equal in sport to natal women. In fact I said specifically it was arguable. I personally am against trans women competing against cis women. My point is we can’t compare against men.

Opposite is not happening, as transmen even after years on testosterone are not able to even qualify (as often qualification into male competition is above all time female records).

This isn’t accurate. There have been exactly 1 trans man and 1 trans woman to qualify for Olympic trials. Again I’m not for trans women competing against natal women but factually this is the case.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see, thanks for clarifying.

There have been exactly 1 trans man

It was "athletic walk", where male and female differences are one of smallest (still between 5% to 10%, but not 10-12% to 17% like in running or cycling). Plus Mosier was not able to finish qualification beacuse of female-specific trauma that athletic walkers are getting in female category but rarely in male category (similar reason why female soldiers are rarely doing standing guarding, as it increases risks of leg injury). It is unknown if Mosier will be able to recover, and because of trauma Mosier was not able to qualify (so we don't know if Mosier was able to qualify). I had same trauma, but from running, and I was not able to recover to compete again.

In Mosier main disciplines (duathlone and triathlone) - was not able to qualify.

[–]divingrightintowork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a trans person is rejected because they're trans they fall under sex protection under pricewaterhousecoopers ann hopkins & and the more recent one I forget the name of. Please feel free to explain to me how they don't.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

For employment they do but that hasn’t been expanded to the other civil rights act provisions.

[–]wokuspokus[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

That’s awful and raises an interesting point. WHY is Biden (who appears to be interested in trans rights) not doing anything about housing and medical care (genuine human rights issues) but doing everything he can to erase women’s rights in your name?

I’m really sorry about what happened to you. My honest opinion is a third space should be present where practical. It is the only solution. The issue with going with gender identity is with toilets self ID is basically used. This means women can’t complain about a man (not transwoman, a literal creepy man) in their facilities, as he can claim to be a transwoman. There is evidence to show neutral toilets are more dangerous for women so they cannot come at the expense of a woman’s only space.

As for sport, women cannot compete with transwomen. A third facility for changing should be provided, but transwomen (retaining advantages due to male puberty, and having much higher T levels than women) and transmen (who, in terms of sports, are equivalent to women doping T) need to compete with men. Women’s sport is not a fall back for transwomen (who, in terms of sports, are effectively men taking drugs to make themselves a little bit weaker). I know a lot of transpeople due to being a student in LGBT+ society. The MtFs are much stronger than any woman I know, and most of these transwomen are not sporty (I do lots of strength work, and they could obliterate me) and the transmen get really strong, really quick. There are mixed sports, which right now are great for transgender people and I really think they should be encouraged to play these. Recreational clubs often mix. Racquet sports (mixed doubles, and tend to mix recreationally) and running (smallest gap between men and women, and often very casual) clubs are great examples.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (22 children)

I think Biden wants to help trans people genuinely but doesn’t actually understand the issues we face personally.

My preference is single occupancy neutral spaces since dedicated trans facilities would necessarily out those using them and stealth is a trans woman’s best protection from persecution.

Trans women can’t compete With men and given that athletes are specifically the hyper masculine and insecure men most likely to hurt us, shouldn’t even if they could. I’m not convinced we have no edge over natal women so I don’t advocate for that either. No trans women in sports is the best solution I’ve found even though I quite value sport personally. I power lift for example but don’t compete, even though my numbers wouldn’t be particularly impressive among natal women.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Why can’t transwomen compete with men?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (18 children)

We are hopelessly outclassed with proper testosterone suppression. It’s rendered a noncontest. In addition the likelihood of targeted injury isn’t acceptable.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

So you could but you think they wouldn’t stand a chance.

But there’s nothing in place that actually prevents transwomen from competing against other males? No laws or restrictions, just… not wanting to lose (and wanting the validation of the women’s sports)?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (15 children)

No we can’t compete. We could attempt but it wouldn’t be competition. High school teams don’t compete with pro tams. It’s the same. There is no contest.

But there’s nothing in place that actually prevents transwomen from competing against other males?

The integrity of sport and hostility of the masculine men. Safety. Many things. But there is usually no rule. Sometimes there is for instance the USAPL banned trans women from all competition not just against natal women.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So yes, technically speaking, you could in fact compete, you just don’t think you stand a chance at winning and are worried about a few hypotheticals. (With the exception of the USAPL)

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (11 children)

Part of competition involves contest. It’s not sport for a trans woman to get destroyed by a cis dude. It’s Bullying with a ball. It isn’t sport.

[–]kwallio 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And what about women competing with transwomen? Its no fun for them either. Bullying with a ball basically sums up women competing with transwomen.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It’s not sport for a trans woman to get destroyed by a cis dude. It’s Bullying with a ball. It isn’t sport.

But according to you it's perfectly fine for males who identify as trans to beat the pants off female athletes. Gotcha. This is just the same old, same old male supremacy in a new guise.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So yes, TW can compete against other males they just don’t want to becuse they think they’ll lose. We can keep going back and forth but this is the answer to my question lol

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

Depends on "transness" of that transgender person and how deep self-ID has gotten. As was noted previously - Hubbard would still be top 15%, which is above 85% of the male competitors...

In Canada, for example, non-binary male transgender can compete in both male and female team at same time, without any hormones, surgeries or anything. Just your regular manly male bloke: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4plrHvWYAAWcEl?format=jpg&name=medium

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I’m talking about hormone controlled trans women. They can’t compete. I’m not saying we should compete against natal women, I’m saying we can’t compete against men.

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

This is BS.

[–]wokuspokus[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think we’re pretty much in agreement tbh. I hope the housing/healthcare situation gets sorted out for you.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

In America it is legal to discriminate against trans people in housing.

This is true.

It is also legal to refuse to give a trans person even non-trans related medical care.

This is not true.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (33 children)

It is legal to deny non emergency care to trans people.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

In the US, it's legal for a hematologist to turn away someone seeking treatment for a skin condition; it's legal for a neurologist to refuse to treat people for allergies; it's legal for an eye surgeon to refuse to perform an abortion or hysterectomy; it's legal for a family practitioner to refuse to provide treatment for leukemia coz that's outside the FP's area of expertise ... and so on.

If a pregnant woman rocks up to an orthopedist's office & demands treatment for pre eclampsia, it's not illegal discrimination!

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (31 children)

It’s also legal for a doctor to refuse to give a trans person a tetanus shot or to see them for a non life threatening but painful condition just because they are trans. That’s wrong.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

Please provide examples with receipts of specific cases where trans people in the US have been refused standard & customary medical care by an ER, urgent care center, GP, NP, telemedicine provider, EMS, ambulance service or any practitioner or specialist in any medical field "because they are trans."

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (25 children)

Tyra Hunter. Evan Minton. This survey says about 1 in 5 of us have been beside care .

https://www.thetaskforce.org/new-report-reveals-rampant-discrimination-against-transgender-people-by-health-providers-high-hiv-rates-and-widespread-lack-of-access-to-necessary-care-2/

[–]usehername 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Self-reported survey.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (23 children)

How exactly would you do anything else for that information?

[–]usehername 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

The study also references transition-related "healthcare" repeatedly, and doesn't make a distinction between transition-related procedures and other healthcare procedures, so your point is moot.

Please provide examples with receipts of specific cases where trans people in the US have been refused standard & customary medical care by an ER, urgent care center, GP, NP, telemedicine provider, EMS, ambulance service or any practitioner or specialist in any medical field "because they are trans."

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is in USA tetanus/diphteria vaccines are not mandatory and not forced on everyone? Or is it because of anti-vaxxers being strong in the USA - it is not the case? Or is it because of private healthcare in the USA, controlled by private organizations and need of health insurance?

I was charged $100, when avoided tetanus/diphteria vaccination for two years (I was just lazy to go there, and by not being vaccinated - I am endangering people around myself). If you got biten by a dog - you are forced to take tenatus shot as well. All for free. If it was wild or stray animal who bitten you, then course of anti-rabies injections is prescribed as well.

So it sounds really wild and barbaric to me, when people are being denied such basic and free vaccines or injections.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

They are not free and are not mandatory though most public schools require certain vaccines before attending.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

America, I guess...

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

I believe this is area-by-area. As you say, DipTet vacs are required for children entering public schools. Certain professions require adult boosters or titers proving immunity (I'm in one of those). In my county, I can get a free/reduced fee booster for most of the vacs I require for work, because the county and state mandate those boosters -- so their public health clinics provide them. I'm sure it varies widely depending on where one is.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Circling, welcome back! I hope you're doing well.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (23 children)

Thanks but I’m very much not. Being here is a real emotional backslide.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Is that why you disappeared the first time? I wish there was something we could do to help. I like seeing you, but I don't want you here if this is a form of self harm or emotionally distressing for you.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (21 children)

Participating here is essentially an act of emotional self harm. It’s distressing an I know it will be, but I keep doing it. When my mental health improved i deleted my account. But as I’ve had a backslide I came back. I’m not trying to be dramatic, just being honest.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Well, I hope you know that I care about your well being. Do you find this sub as emotionally harmful as the old debate sub? I feel like things are milder and friendlier here. We lost a lot of our more aggressive GC posters. Or is it just engaging with GC ideas at all that you find harmful? I don't think anyone here wishes anything bad for you.

[–]littlebear 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

There were no aggressive GC posters on the old sub.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Littlebear’s back!

  • happy dancing commences *

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There definitely were a few. Don't you remember all those comment chains that got nasty? Not everyone was like that, but a couple were.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (9 children)

Well, I hope you know that I care about your well being.

Thank you.

It’s about the same I think. The one that sticks out as being most hateful of me personally (as opposed to all trans people) is Sloane who is obviously still here but I think there’s a bit less vehement sentiments in general. On the flip side I think there is almost no qt people speaking up at all. Most of the trans people seem quite Gc leaning with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Feel free to block me, if that’s what you need

As I’ve said before, I don’t hate you, I disagree with you (admittedly vehemently so at times) and we clearly get frustrated with each other, but when I “hate” someone I don’t engage with them. I also tend not to hate internet strangers, things may get heated and I may care about the topic we all come here to discuss but at the end of the day it’s just a social media forum and if I was invested deeply enough to develop hate for someone I’d probably leave

Unless you’re just saying I’m “hateful” generally- which… disagreeing and calling something you think is wrong out is not equal to hateful

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

I mean I believe you specifically hate me. Like not generally. You called me a rapist.

I’m not blocking you or anything.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Called you a rape apologist. Because you behaved like one. Doesn’t mean I hate you, means I think you’re a rape apologist and I said so.

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Most of the trans people seem quite Gc leaning with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions.

Eh? I don't know what you're talking about. Fleurist and peaking are the only trans users here who are GC leaning.

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Is there any way to create a poll on this sub?

I'd be curious to know how many trans lurkers we actually have.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think polls aren't supported by saidit, I'm afraid.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

They’re also 2 of 4 total trans users.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can also block certain people, if you feel that you need to.

On the flip side I think there is almost no qt people speaking up at all.

Yeah, there aren't many QT people who meaningfully engage. I'd love to have more of them. u/Genderbender is an active QT contributor, but she's one of the few.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

I fully agree with you. This sub is friendlier, and Saidit has strict rules about moderation.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I thought Saidit had less moderation overall?

I think this sub is friendlier because it's still very small. I'm not a mod, but I don't think the mods have had to get heavy handed with anyone because it seems like rules are being obeyed, for the most part.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

For the most part, yes. Though, we've deleted comments and banned users in the short time I've been a mod. Although, certain user keep making alt accounts to avoid the warnings and bans...

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ha, all those repetitive threads denying biological sex. I agree with the frustration. We need more quality QT posters for sure.

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

you should probably delete your account again, then?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

If only. That would be an indicator of improved mental health.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It is also legal to refuse to give a trans person even non-trans related medical care.

EMTALA says all emergency patients must be stabilized, so I'm guessing this is at the non-emergency level?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

Debatably both since Trumps “conscience in care” guidance was never formally countered, but legally I think that’s correct. Even then is still wrong to refuse me a tetanus shot or an ankle splint because I am trans.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I seriously doubt that guidance can legally supersede EMTALA. Has this really happened to you? If so, it's appalling and illegal. (Asking because I was actually referred to an ER as a nonemergency patient for a tetanus booster once, as the clinic had none in stock.)

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

Me personally, no but I also won’t go to the doctor for anything nonemergency except to my pcp who is expressly trans friendly.

The point is it isn’t illegal (edit referring to nonemergency care). We aren’t entitled to nondiscrimination in health care and that’s an important right.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Very cool that your PCP is trans-friendly. IME nonantagonistic providers make all the difference, and (sorry, House fans) also tend to be better diagnosticians. Not to say you want them enmeshed with the patient, but if they're unfairly dismissive, they're paying more attention to their internal prejudices than the patient in front of them.

Yeah, I'm unaware of sweeping legislation about nonemergency care, it seems to be more about why and when a provider can refuse or dismiss a patient (usually it's about abusive or noncompliant patients). It's a gray area, we need some serious legal clarity on that.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah it needs clarity. Being denied medical care is one of the most damaging discrimination actions.