Both: In light of recent events. In what context is Voyeurism and Indecent Exposure acceptable? Is there a rational justification for making an exception for males who claim to be women?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I said nothing of that sort. You're putting words in my mouth. Besides, yourself has admited that most trans people don't pass. So, why do you expect people accept TWAW as a truth when you know people are usually aware of trans people's actual sex and just pretend otherwise for politeness sake? Why don't fight for tolerance and third spaces instead of antagonizing half the population?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (8 children)

Tolerance isn’t living. Bring a freak people pretend doesn’t exist isn’t something to shoot for. So we push for acceptance.

Third spaces aren’t viable. People hate trans people they wouldn’t want to do something just for us. No one will spend money on resources that won’t see use most days. It necessarily outs the ones lucky enough to pass.

Single neutral spaces don’t have those problems.

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

Tolerance isn’t living.

But it's all any of us are legally owed under the aegis of "rights."

Rights and protections mandate tolerance, which is a neutral value of access, support, and regard.

Acceptance (as you use it here) is a positive value of social relating.

The rights you want to see granted are important, but it doesn't follow that acceptance will accompany tolerance. Individuals and groups must work for acceptance; it requires its own effort.

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

And you are working against it. That’s my point.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Incorrect. We are working to prevent further erosion of women's and children's rights and protections, which still are not on par with men's -- worldwide.

If you demand exceptionalism, the burden of that argument is yours to demonstrate and support. It needs the support of reliable and current data, not anecdotal personal biographical evidence.

You've said openly and recently on this forum that your participation here is an act of self-harm and co-occurs with a low point in your mental health. Given that declaration and how your comments have repeatedly unfolded,

a) You seem to have conscripted the rest of us, unwillingly, to participate in ritual psychological self-harm

b) You seem to be acting out emotionally rather than debating (circular logic, insupportable assignments of intent, evasiveness)

c) As such, you're likely hindering rather than advancing the cause of trans rights, and

d) Most assuredly doing yourself further harm

My sincere advice: go engage professional help. This is not an attack -- it's a plea. I will not engage you again until you assert and demonstrate that you're out of crisis.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

That is a woefully inaccurate description of my interactions here, but if don’t want to interact with me, just don’t. You don’t have to make up insults and Try to use my mental health as an excuse to ignore what I’ve said.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

See above.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

don’t want to interact with me, just don’t

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

See above. Done.