fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3563 ]

[ SECRET POST #3563 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3563 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Notorious]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #509.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"or that you have any empathy whatsoever with trans people"

No no no, it's not trans people, it's MALEs. I have difficulty feeling empathy for MALES. You haven't seen me say a word about transmen, have you? There's a reason for that. Namely, I used to be one. Then detransitioned, and I stopped kidding myself and realized how fucked trans activism had become.

The trans movement is it currently is is run by narcissistic abusive transwomen and their supporters who make excuses for abusers and predators. All sorts of fuckery runs rampant and no one is allowed to speak out against it because they're be called a TERF and blacklisted.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that you're interested in a remotely balanced discussion on the topic, or that you have any empathy whatsoever with trans people, or that you are willing to grant a single shred of respect to them or acknowledge their identity for a single second. so, you know, fuck off.

"so, you know, fuck off."

Right back at ya, dear.

I don't mind if you fuck off or if you tell me to fuck off

The problem I have is when you keep crying about how f!s refuses to grant your arguments a fair hearing, at the same time as you're still talking like transwomen literally don't exist, and you still refuse to engage with genuine arguments against your position

Alright. Give me a genuine argument. One that DOESN'T rely on the bullshit idea that gender is innate but biological sex somehow isn't real. One that DOESN"T deny the fact that oppression of females is based in biological sex, not gender. One that DOESN'T utilize the No True Scotsman fallacy to claim trans predators aren't really trans.

I'm more than willing to listen.

The things that you have tried to admit as presuppitions are, themselves, the things that need to be argued

Only if you're a moronic tumblrina with zero understanding of history, biology, or real feminist theory.

Well, I don't agree that everyone who thinks that trans people exist is a moronic tumblrina with zero understanding of history, biology, or real feminist theory. I think that, if you think that's the case, this is probably not the board for you. I think, if you violently reject the basic concept that trans people exist, it's a little much to accuse others of being intellectual cowards who are too afraid to argue with you. And I think that trans people do exist.

Do I think trans people exist? Yes, obviously. I have met them in real life. As I said, I myself used to be one. I cannot deny the existence of people who identify of trans, and I never have. That's you putting words in my mouth.

What I have denied is that gender is innate. It is not. It's a social construct, and a harmful one at that.

Now I must ask if you believe all the following statements to be true, because you HAVE claimed my rejection of them is something that needs to be argued:
1) Gender is biological.
2) Biological sex does not exist.
3) Female women are not and never have been oppressed because of their biological sex.
4) Any transwoman who committed a crime wasn't REALLY trans; she was a cis man playing dressup.

Do you really, truly believe that all of the above statements are true?

I apologize if I implied that your rejection of each of those positions needed to be argued. I didn't mean to imply it if I did. What I wanted to imply was that your position as a whole needed to be argued. The parts of your position that I think really needed to be argued are (1) and (2).

I think that (3) is complicated, on the grounds that oppression is complex rather than simple. I think that (4) is untrue. It would be quite something if no transwoman ever committed a crime. It would be quite incredible for transwomen to be the only perfected subdivision of human beings ever to exist.

What I do think is that gender and sex are two broad, complicated categories, with an imperfect and partial relation to biology. What I think is that each individual person's relationship to those categories is distinct and complex.

If you really think that there is no such thing as clear, definable biological sex, then I see no point discussing this with you any further, because any argument you make is going to be grounded in incorrect ideas about how human biology works.

I've said this already downthread, but: Humans are a sexually dymorphic species. The existence of intersex conditions does not disprove that, any more than the existence of people born with no legs would disprove that humans are a bipedal species.

I think it's fair to say that sex is broadly dymorphic and that there's such a thing as biological sex. I think it remains accurate to say that sex is a complex category, and that gender, and especially the relationship between and among relationship and gender, are complex things

Also this is the point where my drunk-assedness is going to progressively start to make my arguments make less sense so please forgive me for that in advance

DA

I reject the notion that the trans activist movement represents all trans people or that all trans people are part of, or in support of, everything about the movement, just like I reject the notion that every woman supports the feminist movement.

I reject the notion that a few horrible trans people represent the majority of trans people, in the exact same way that I reject that a few horrible feminists or a few horrible black people represent the majority of feminists or black people.

I reject the notion that forcing one group into a dangerous situation instead of another is a satisfactory solution to a problem, and I reject the notion that it's fine to base laws that target an entire group on the actions of a criminal few. I reject the illusion that safety can be ensured by simply making something illegal, because it sure as hell does not stop people who are criminals anyway.

There you go.

Okay, this might actually be the first solid argument I've seen here on this topic. Good for you.

"I reject the notion that forcing one group into a dangerous situation instead of another is a satisfactory solution to a problem, and I reject the notion that it's fine to base laws that target an entire group on the actions of a criminal few."

See, this is the part I'd contest, because there is literally no reason why instead of forcing female-bodied people to use the same bathrooms and locker rooms as male-bodied people (thus making some women very uncomfortable or triggered, and potentially putting others in physical danger), facilities can't have THREE rooms instead of two - one for males, one for females, and one gender neutral. This would solve so many problems, but every time I've seen someone propose this solution it gets shut down for somehow being transphobic.

NAYRT

most buildings in America have two bathrooms and don't have three

And that's something that can and should change.

with who's money?

Ideally, the rich.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-06 05:25 (UTC) - Expand

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-06 05:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-06 06:12 (UTC) - Expand

So, this is something that you've identified as the SIMPLEST solution. And you think that the simplest solution to this issue is remodeling every public building in America so they have a third bathroom?

I never said it would be easy. But yes, that is something that should be done.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-06 05:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-06 05:15 (UTC) - Expand

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-06 05:32 (UTC) - Expand

The major issue that I have heard brought up would be that anyone going into the gender neutral bathroom would immediately be pegged by transphobes as possibly trans and a target for harassment.

If all bathrooms were gender neutral, this would not be possible. But if someone had to explicitly search for a gender neutral bathroom because they could not legally go into a male or female bathroom, this would be very obvious. In the same way that if all bathrooms were for "straights" or "other" and you had to find an "other" bathroom for yourself, everyone would know you're gay because you can't use the straight room. This would practically invite harassment from many more conservative areas.

"The major issue that I have heard brought up would be that anyone going into the gender neutral bathroom would immediately be pegged by transphobes as possibly trans and a target for harassment."

Such people can and should be prosecuted. If, as you claim, a transwoman who assaults someone in a bathroom will be prosecuted, then so will someone who assaults a trans person in a bathroom.

Look, trans people are going to be harassed no matter what bathroom they use. It's sad but true. Because our society is fucked and hates GNC people in general. If it's going to happen, shouldn't they at least have their own safe spaces? This is what I and other radical feminists advocate for; not depriving transwomen of safe spaces, but giving them their own exclusive safe spaces AND also providing exclusive safe spaces for female-bodied people. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

"In the same way that if all bathrooms were for "straights" or "other" and you had to find an "other" bathroom for yourself, everyone would know you're gay because you can't use the straight room."

This is not comparable, because there is no biological difference between a cis lesbian and cis heterosexual women. While they can potentially harm each other, they do not pose as much potential for harm as a male-bodied person would. This is why I get pissed off when people pretend biological sex isn't real, doesn't matter. It IS real and it DOES matter. Humans are a sexually dymorphic species (and before you bring up intersex people as a trump card; no the existence of intersex conditions does not make the species as a whole any less sexually dymorphic).

I don't mean harassment in the bathroom. I mean harassment outside of the bathroom. If a trans person is stealth and everyone sees him or her go into the GN bathroom 100% of the time, it's a dead giveaway that "outs" them and a signal for bigots to harass them, in the same way that a straights or other bathroom would "out" gay people.

Please read the comment with that expanded context, as it makes your argument here not apply.

Unless you have given up on the idea of reducing harassment against trans people, which I would hope not, as you appear to care for the reduction of harassment of other groups.

Unfortunately, you're rugjt. I can't think of any solution to that. But the solution can't be to compromise the safety of female-bodied people in exchange for keeping transwomen safe. It isn't right. There has to be a way to keep everyone safe, and I sincerely hope someone more creative than me comes up with it.

Re: ^ This is literally cultish behaviour.

(Anonymous) - 2016-10-06 05:21 (UTC) - Expand

SA

For example there is very little use in having a "gay/lesbian safe space" on a conservative campus that hates gays/lesbians. Anyone that uses it is painting a target on their back. Some people don't want to do that, but a GN bathroom would force them to by law.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only