you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

Okay, this is a nice and well thought out post, but I'm going to stop you right here so you don't waste the effort again.

1) I used the hate crime data to extrapolate because it's the only data I could easily find. If you've got an issue with that you're welcome to counter it with more narrow and focused data. Anecdotes are not data.

2) I guess your whole point is that males are very violent in general? Which is my point too, so glad we can hit the same notes.

3) I am not playing devils advocate to discuss the intricacies of who gets beat up and where. My point is that being visibly non-heteronirmative is a reason trans natal males might flee intimate male spaces. If you disagree with that specifically, then I'd be happy to continue discussing it, but I'm not going off on wild and imaginative tangents for something I don't believe in, sorry.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

this is a nice and well thought out post, but I'm going to stop you right here so you don't waste the effort again.

Who the hell are you to say to me or anyone else "I'm going to stop you right here so you don't waste the effort again"? LOL. Why the impulse to shut another poster up?

I don't recall seeing the announcement that you've been elected sub arbiter of what information is a "waste of effort" to post. What's it to you how I exert myself anyways? Why is it up to you to decide and tell me how to spend my time and expend my energies?

Maybe you're not aware of this, but your posting style gives the impression you are awfully keen on trying to dictate from on high rules about what information and points are worthy of mention and discussion. That's definitely not in the spirit of a debate sub. Which brings me to the 64 million dollar question:

If you aren't interested in debating, why on earth are you on a debate sub?

My point is that being visibly non-heteronirmative is a reason trans natal males might flee intimate male spaces. If you disagree with that specifically, then I'd be happy to continue discussing it, but I'm not going off on wild and imaginative tangents

The OP's original question was why do FEMALES who identify as the opposite sex continue to use female spaces. Which led the issue of "danger" inherent in men's spaces. You yourself initially postulated that

men's spaces are just more dangerous than women's spaces for non-heteronormative people

Of both sexes. But then you immediately narrowed the focus from "people" to MALES - and then narrowed it down further to adult MALES of a very narrow type. Then without any supporting evidence or even a theory to back it up, you claimed this narrow band of adult males is at the greatest risk of all:

Old and disabled men arent nearly at the risk of visibly gay and other non-het men. Doesn't excuse it, but it is something to keep in mind that in some parts of the world that kind of presentation will actively put you im danger in intimate spaces.

Now in response to my challenging you on some of the claims you've made, you huffily say

I am not playing devils advocate to discuss the intricacies of who gets beat up and where. My point is that being visibly non-heteronirmative is a reason trans natal males might flee intimate male spaces.

Which leaves me scratching my head. OP's initial query was about FEMALES, but all you want to talk about is MALEs. Jeez, I'm getting deja vu. This exact sort of thing has happened before on this sub and in convos about this. Why does the focus always have to be about MALES? And again I gotta ask:

If you aren't interested in debating, why on earth are you on a debate sub?

If you disagree with that specifically, then I'd be happy to continue discussing it, but I'm not going off on wild and imaginative tangents

But you already went off on "wild and imaginative tangents" by changing the subject of the thread so as to focus it on the sole group you seem interested in - adult MALES whom you describe as visibly non-heteronirmative - and by making claims that are wholly unsupported and seem like they were picked out of thin air.

Anecdotes are not data.

Well, that's me told then! LOL.

Linking to a website, especially one concerning a topic (US hate crimes) that is irrelevant to the topic at hand and you don't understand, isn't exactly providing data, either. Nor is citing bullshit invented out of whole cloth.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

If you aren't interested in debating, why on earth are you on a debate sub?

I'm not interested in debating YOU. I am not qt. Giving a short and easy devils advocate answer is not the equivalent of being the soundboard for your many strawman arguments. You have several spaces for that. You're allowed to say whatever the hell you want, I don't owe you MY time to respond to tangential arguments that have next to nothing to do with my initial reply in the first place. Im being as respectful as possible in saying don't waste your time, i will not respond to it. It's not my fault you all don't have qt posters to write novella posts at, it is yours.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

I'm not interested in debating YOU. I am not qt.

I'm here to debate ideas, not individuals. I'm challenging positions you've taken, points you've made, and your posting style and manner of "argument." You're the one making it about identity labels rather than ideas. You're the one making it about persons, not positions. You're the one who has said

I'm not interested in debating YOU

So let me rephrase my earlier question:

If you aren't interested in debating ideas, and you refuse to debate with certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior, why on earth are you here on a debate sub?

Also, where is it written that the debate only has to be between the two different camps? I'm here to debate positions people take and points people make. People who are on the same side generally still can and often do disagree with one another over many things. Moreover, even when people discuss topics we are generally in agreement about, we still can have lively, interesting exchanges and can learn from the perspectives of others.

You're allowed to say whatever the hell you want

Thanks boss!

I don't owe you MY time to respond to tangential arguments

So don't respond to my posts, LOL. I don't care. But spare me the puerile, bad-faith name-calling. You seem to think that labelling someone's arguments as bad or too wordy - "strawman arguments," "tangential arguments," "novella posts" - is the same as effectively challenging and refuting them. Again, I gotta ask:

If you aren't interested in debating ideas, and you refuse to debate with certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior, why on earth are you here on a debate sub?

[–]beris😎 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior

Stop projecting. I don't want to debate you because I believe the exact same thing as you. I'm not challenging or refuting your points, i am actively telling you I am not interacting with them, because I am not in any disagreement with you. Again: I posted a devils advocate post to give a hypothetical reason why a trans male would not want to be in a male space. That is it. Stop trying to act like I'm specifically targetting you because I won't act like I know the intricacies of the minds of every trans person in the world and don't want to debate for them.

Edit: to you and anyone else, this is what I mean when I say you drive trans/qt posters off. Why are you so goddamn confrontational? You're all grown adults, act like it a little.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You made a claim of something, gave a source of “my assumptions based on a highly specific piece of data that ignores much of what my point is about” When challenged on that, you seemed to take offence at being given better information, and said you aren’t here to debate or that better stats are not relevant.

It’s not about whether you are genuinely qt or not. It’s the response to being told your initial claim was faulty. The devils advocate isn’t just where you make a claim of fact and then ignore correction or decry it as some form of attack.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Did I? Because:

1) I was clear it was an assumption based on related data.

2) the only person who actually gave me anything statistically relevant was Biology, and I don't remember taking offense in my response.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Twain pointed out that the data you based your assumption on only covered a fraction of the violence you brought up. You decided the data was no longer relevant to your claim.

Your claim was proven faulty and you decided it doesn’t matter because you don’t really mean the claim.

You said to me that you didn’t want to find better data and said it’s not relevant. Why would anybody then find you data if you’ve indicated you will dismiss it as not relevant?

You may not have taken offence, but the way you bring it back to old topics like the supposed running off of qt, or the way you leaped to “you’re projecting and I don’t want to debate with you personally” makes it appear that you did take offence.

It generally appears like one has taken personal offence when they react poorly to being given appropriate corrections to their claims, even if the claim is from a devils advocate. The devils advocate should still understand that a bad or untrue claim is going to be contested in a place explicitly for contesting opinions.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You may not have taken offence, but the way you bring it back to old topics like the supposed running off of qt, or the way you leaped to “you’re projecting and I don’t want to debate with you personally” makes it appear that you did take offence.

Supposed

We're still playing this?

Anyways, my claim wasn't proven faulty by anyone but biology. MT came in to try and explain why I'm clearly wrong (and ableist and ageist, lol) with absolutely zero proof to back their claims. And then took offense that I'm not playing that game. Which I stand by. I'm not here to be the stand in qt punching bag.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You don’t see what’s faulty about claiming the most at risk are visibly gnc men and using only hate-crime statistics to do so?

Back to what? I’m not opening the discussion back up. I’m explaining as politely as I can why it appeared to some of us that you had taken offence.

You aren’t being treated as a punching bag. You are being expected to make a claim that is intellectually honest.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But even according to the FBI, most hate crimes are not due to "gender identity".

Anyways, remember this thread was primarily about females who identify as trans. It's obvious why they wouldn't to stay, for example, in a men's prisons, but they would blame their vulnerability into "being trans" rather than in their sex.