How EXACTLY do trans right dilute the rights of other minorities and/or women?

submitted by GCCritical from (self.GenderCritical)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MinisterOfTerfery 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers."

This was already corrected in the comment above so I will not bother.

"One person was bad and they had a penis, therefore all people who have had a penis are bad."

That is not the reason why women are allowed to request a female examiner, but I suspect you know this. You are being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my comment on purpose because that is the only way you can argue with it. It's a common TRA tactic, but a very foolish one because when I was a TRA it was precisely this kind of nonsense that made see the contrast between the logic of GC arguments and the nonsense of TRA argument. And reading other people's peak trans stories, I see I am not alone in this.

"Your point on pay gaps is actually the most reasonable if not for the fact transgender people often are discriminated against more harshly if not outright murdered."

You are taking a statistic from a certain part of the world and applying it to the whole world. Yes in some parts of America trans people get murdered (for being prostitutes though), but here in the UK they are safer than women, statistically 0 trans people get killed a year. And the trans people I know actually admit themselves that they feel like they are not discriminated, but quite the opposite, treated better because they are trans. So that point doesn't stand either.

[–]GCCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This was already corrected in the comment above so I will not bother.

It really wasn't, the original author they were quoting was quite adamant that the conclusion being pushed is not supported by current data and requires further research.

You are being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my comment on purpose because that is the only way you can argue with it.

Not really. This is the fundamental idea behind your comment. If you don't want to recognize that... therapy would be more productive than saidit and I'm not a therapist.

here in the UK they are safer than women, statistically 0 trans people get killed a year.

... You are aware that absence of proof is not proof of absence right?

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) confirmed to FactCheck that “it is not possible to identify transgender victims in current homicide statistics” and “the sex of a homicide victim is determined by the police force that records the crime”.

In other words, there is not yet an official, standardised method for recording the deaths of trans people across the UK. The ONS told FactCheck they are working across government to “develop clear harmonised standards” for collecting data on sex and gender.

Source: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

Honestly, do you ground your views in reality at all?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You originally said that posters here were/are:

"Not understanding how estrogen causes muscle atrophy and often trans people's testosterone levels are kept low enough that they often are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers."

To which Minister said:

This was already corrected in the comment above so I will not bother.

Then you said:

It really wasn't, the original author they were quoting was quite adamant that the conclusion being pushed is not supported by current data and requires further research.

Not true, and you know it. Ross Tucker's comment was only one portion of the information I provided. Also, to say that Tucker was last fall or today is

quite adamant that the conclusion being pushed is not supported by current data and requires further research.

Is a blatant lie.