Gender "critical" vs. Gender-affirming? (the thread for all things about gender politics)

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,915
I hope you also read this 2017 paper imbeded in your link. It describes how woefully under reported statistics are related to identification of transgender population. It stands to reason that violence, including murder, are under reported and are likely to be listed as something other than related to transgender issues.


I am also aware of the CDC's risk assessment questionnaire given to teens - often in a school setting. The article you used indicated how difficult and poorly worded the questions that are designed to calculate the # of transgender population are.

Listen, you are unlikely to believe that transgendered population is more at risk from cis population, so further discussion seems fruitless at this point.
 

Asli

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,035
Listen, you are unlikely to believe that transgendered population is more at risk from cis population, so further discussion seems fruitless at this point.

I do believe that trans women are victims of violence because of transphobia, domestic abuse and because they are more likely to be sex workers.

OTOH as far as crime is concerned, the relevant classification doesn't seem to be cis and transgender, but as male and female. Male people are stronger, more violent and responsible for 98% of violent crime.
 

Asli

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,035
I hope you also read this 2017 paper imbeded in your link. It describes how woefully under reported statistics are related to identification of transgender population. It stands to reason that violence, including murder, are under reported and are likely to be listed as something other than related to transgender issues.

Thank you for this input. Indeed this may happen, but OTOH some of the murders listed as related to transgender status may be actually related to other issues as well. For instance, the approximately 50% who are sex workers, have they been murdered because they were transgender or because they were vulnerable as sex workers? Female street sex workers are 60 to 100 times more likely to be murdered than other women. (Source)
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,937
Trans people don’t have the same experiences as cis people, wherever they are in terms of transitioning. That doesn’t mean they aren’t also harmed by living in a patriarchal society that enforces a rigid gender binary - the harm just takes different forms. As a cis woman, I’m not worried that a cis man is going to transition for the sole purpose of stealing my special women-only promotion at work (or whatever special benefits you think women get on the regular) because I’m not that delusional about why people transition. And I’m certainly not going to throw a tantrum if some other person who is likely more marginalized than I am gets an opportunity that I don’t; I’ll reserve my anger for the people at the top who hoard the rest of the opportunities for themselves. Punching up does a lot more good than punching down.
I think the odds of a trans woman being treated better than a cis woman (or cis man) is pretty slim as are the odds of someone transitioning just to try to get some employment benefit. I also don't think it should be a binary choice about whether to help cis women or trans women in employment. It shouldn't be that we care only about trans women and trans men and don't worry about cis women. It also should not be that we care only about cis women and not about trans women or trans men. For the vast majority of situations, I don't think we have to choose or try to balance. There simply should be no discrimination in the workplace against either cis women or trans women. It's not an either/or. In that regard, it's very similar to sexual orientation. Someone should get and keep their job without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. I don't see any need to pit cis women against trans women and choose one side over the other. It's a distraction from much more important concerns.


Trans women can have a special wing in the men's prison. Vulnerable biological women can't be used to shield trans women from other biological males.
This is what happens in some prison systems. Trans women are placed in protective custody. There are some prisons where, if the prisoners' histories show that it is safe, a variety of prisoners who are at risk (trans, gay, gang dropouts, sex offenders, etc) and are safe with each other, get placed together.

You would be hard pressed to find very many trans men who wants to go to a men's prison. That is because they would feel it would be very unsafe for them.

But, even among trans women prisoners, their biggest concern usually is not whether they are housed with cis women. Their biggest concerns are their own safety and whether they are getting the mental health and related medical care they need. Unfortunately, that is not the focus of discussion or concern for a lot of people. (That's true, IMO, for trans issues in general. People are debating what the gender identity curriculum is in kindergarten rather than the mental and physical needs of trans kids, and the discussions of curriculum (like in Florida) not only overshadow very important needs, but in many ways cause more harassment and more mental health problems for trans kids - and adults. IMO, one of the reasons why the "Don't say gay or trans" law is so horrible is because of the terrible message it send to gay and trans kids of all ages.)

A very large percentage of cis women in prison have histories of sexual abuse. It is critical that they get the mental health care necessary to address this for their own well-being and rehabilitation. IMO, to do that, they cannot be cellmates and housed with trans women and they need to be in a place where they not only are safe but feel safe, including in counseling for sexual abuse. Even where trans women are no more of a risk to cis women prisoners than other cis women prisoners are, I think there still is a problem. (I wouldn't want a cis man housed with a woman prisoner even if I were sure that he was not going to harm her, either.) IMO, what is important is not simply whether the trans women are likely to assault the cis women prisoners. What matters is that the cis women who have histories of abuse feel safe and that this helps enable them to get the help they need while in prison. This does not have to be at the expense of trans women and should not be. Trans women should be getting the safety and mental health care they need as well.

You had also mentioned sports. Trans men compete in women's sports which is the correct category for their sex and as far as I can see their competitors are supportive and not a single feminist objects to it. Even when they win. ;) FThis isn't about transphobia, it's about safety and fairness.

I disagree. A lot of it definitely is about transphobia. There absolutely are people who would object to little trans girls playing on a recreational girls soccer team where virtually nothing is at stake and there is virtually no physical advantage. I think plenty of people also would object to a trans boy playing on a boys team. It's transphobia. And it's not a miniscule number of people who feel this way. Sadly, I think the percentages have actually increased. And where the trans woman does have a physical advantage, it seems like a lot of people who oppose the trans woman's participation in competition have no empathy for that woman's difficult situation and are completely unwilling to consider the possibility that there are situations where there is not a physical advantage.

I do think that there are a small percentage of people who think that trans women should be able to compete with cis women regardless of whether the trans women have a physical advantage and without any empathy for the cis women who are competing at a disadvantage. They either don't acknowledge the advantage or don't care what the impact is on cis women, and some do not acknowledge the difficulty and complexity of where to drawn the line. I don't think this is right, either. Unfortunately, I think it makes some people less empathetic towards trans people generally and distracts from other issues that so many more trans people face.

But, I do think that there are people who are trying their best to take into account the physical realities and fairness and the well-being of everyone. Unfortunately, it's complex and there are too many angry and mean (and even dangerous) people out there who feel strongly about these issues.

I would also appreciate some sources for the alleged calls to violence towards trans people from feminists and the LGB alliance because I am not aware of any.

On the other hand it is easy to find plenty of abuse and threats of trans right activists toward JK Rowling.
The fact that J.K. Rowling has received death threats is terrible. But, it has nothing to do with the fact that trans people are at increased risk of violence and has nothing to do with whether any feminists have murdered trans people. Again, it's not either/or. People should be appalled by all the violence and threats of violence and harassment and should be concerned about the rhetoric and lack of reasoned discussion that leads to it.
 

MichaelK

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
I hope you also read this 2017 paper imbeded in your link. It describes how woefully under reported statistics are related to identification of transgender population. It stands to reason that violence, including murder, are under reported and are likely to be listed as something other than related to transgender issues.

The article points out that transgender people and their issues are understudied but it does not draw any conclusions about whether violence against trans people is underreported.

In this youtube video a trans woman is making the argument that a lot of the murders of trans people are also related to the fact that many of the murder victims are sex workers and that many of the murders take place in generally unsafe countries.

 

MichaelK

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
The fact that J.K. Rowling has received death threats is terrible. But, it has nothing to do with the fact that trans people are at increased risk of violence and has nothing to do with whether any feminists have murdered trans people. Again, it's not either/or. People should be appalled by all the violence and threats of violence and harassment and should be concerned about the rhetoric and lack of reasoned discussion that leads to it.
I completely agree that violence and harassment are unacceptable. I understand that the extreme trans right activists that threaten JK Rowling are not representative of trans people and their allies. But neither is Lily Cade representative of feminists like JK Rowling or the LGB alliance.
 

MichaelK

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
That’s the thing transphobes don’t seem to be able to grasp. The rest of us don’t share your weird obsession with other people’s genitals. We don’t care which restroom you use. You’re probably not going to win a marathon against cis women who have been seriously training for it, and in a lot of places you could legally be fired from your job, but sure. If you seriously think people pretend to be trans because of how fun it is? Have at it. Since I actually have the common sense to realize that how you choose to present yourself in terms of gender identity is none of my business and doesn’t harm me in the slightest, you go ahead and do whatever you want.
I personally don't care how other people lead their lives, how they dress and with whom they have sex as long it is consensual. I also don't really care about the bathroom issues although it's obvious that some people think differently here.

Unfortunately though biological sex is important and cannot be ignored in all issues that stem from biological realities. An example is medicine where males and females are treated differently because physiology is different, metabolism is different, hormone levels are different, drugs work differently in the sexes and males and females have different ways how certain diseases manifest. Treating trans women exactly as biolological women would do them a disservice because this would mean treating them suboptimally due to their male underlying biology. Therefore in the medical sense trans women are not women and should not be treated as such in their own interest.

When a woman is a person that identifies as a woman the term "woman" ceases to have a meaningful definition because anyone can be a woman regardless of any inherent features. We might just as well get rid of the word because it does not refer to any agreed-on reality. The need to find a way to refer to biological women has resulted in awkward terms like "birthing people", "cervix owners", "menstruators" which are all not very precise and that some women find degrading. This process might lead to a new word for what used to be called woman although it is likely that it would be claimed again by parts of the trans community.
 

Jot the Dot Dot

Headstrong Buzzard
Messages
4,268
Not only that, but this new 'Gender New Think' is telling us that Men can become pregnant! (And if a 'Man' is someone who identifies as a man, how can one ague otherwise?). So what is the new acceptable term for the fairer sex, 'Birthing People Who Are Not Men'?
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,937
When a woman is a person that identifies as a woman the term "woman" ceases to have a meaningful definition because anyone can be a woman regardless of any inherent features. We might just as well get rid of the word because it does not refer to any agreed-on reality.
No, not anyone can be a woman. Lots of words in the English language have multiple meanings. And we usually can tell the meaning from the context. The word "woman" can be used in a context that is about the female biological sex someone is born with. It also can be used in a context that is about gender identity and gender expression. But there are plenty of people who do not fall under any of the definitions of woman.

 

Trillian

Well-Known Member
Messages
739
Unfortunately though biological sex is important and cannot be ignored in all issues that stem from biological realities. An example is medicine where males and females are treated differently because physiology is different, metabolism is different, hormone levels are different, drugs work differently in the sexes and males and females have different ways how certain diseases manifest. Treating trans women exactly as biolological women would do them a disservice because this would mean treating them suboptimally due to their male underlying biology. Therefore in the medical sense trans women are not women and should not be treated as such in their own interest.

This is a weird thing to rant about, when nobody has tried to argue that trans women and cis women need the exact same medical care. Of course they don’t. Everyone has different bodies and different medical needs, and sure, trans men might have more overlaps with cis women in a lot of areas. So what? People should be able to access the medical care they need regardless of gender identity.

When a woman is a person that identifies as a woman the term "woman" ceases to have a meaningful definition because anyone can be a woman regardless of any inherent features. We might just as well get rid of the word because it does not refer to any agreed-on reality.

This is not even remotely how semiotics works.

The need to find a way to refer to biological women has resulted in awkward terms like "birthing people", "cervix owners", "menstruators" which are all not very precise and that some women find degrading. This process might lead to a new word for what used to be called woman although it is likely that it would be claimed again by parts of the trans community.

Not only that, but this new 'Gender New Think' is telling us that Men can become pregnant! (And if a 'Man' is someone who identifies as a man, how can one ague otherwise?). So what is the new acceptable term for the fairer sex, 'Birthing People Who Are Not Men'?

It’s really weird that transphobes are always complaining that trans people and their allies are the ones challenging the use of the word “woman.” We’re fine with it. We use the word “woman” all the time when it’s appropriate for the context. You guys are the ones throwing out ridiculous alternative terms, not us.
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,915
In this youtube video a trans woman is making the argument that a lot of the murders of trans people are also related to the fact that many of the murder victims are sex workers
Are you implying that sex workers are not worthy of acknowledgement or do not deserve to be remembered? In my small experience with teens who identify as trans, or other members of the LGBTQ community, they turn to sex work as they were kicked out of their parents' home and are just trying to survive.

They are reluctant to go to shelters because they are attacked by older residents of the shelters. Often their only link to social services are denied because their papers are stolen (social security cards, etc). Sex work may be the only way they are able to purchase food. Sometimes they get shelter. But even if they choose sex work, they deserve acknowledgement of a worthy person. Yes sex workers are at risk for violence.

You don't need to be murdered to have suffered horrific violence. One of the most horrific episodes I know of, happened in a male locker room in a local high school. A self identified trans woman had sought to use the women's locker room as she had been threatened numerous times in the locker room of her assigned genitals. She was denied presumably because she posed a risk to the girls.

I'm not certain where the adults were during this episode, but she endured a 30-40 minute gang rape by the guys. With taunting of "you think you are a woman? We'll show you want, you will "enjoy" it. Repeated anal rape by a number of football jocks. Riped the anal sphincter, tore holes (yes more than one) in the lower intestine, damaged kidneys. Her family had already disowned her and she was in foster care at the time. One of my church friends became her guardian as she has difficulty caring for herself. She has a colostomy, has had kidney transplants. I do believe the "boys" received some legal punishment, but not much.

The answer would not be a separate bathroom - gym classes/showers/changing clothes.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
52,299
The answer would not be a separate bathroom - gym classes/showers/changing clothes.
The answer is more adult supervision and for those adults to stop excusing bullying and harassment as a normal part of childhood. Unless you were 100% homeschooled, you have experienced school bathrooms. And we all know they aren't safe. And not because in an incredibly small number of schools there are trans kids.

School bathrooms are where kids go to smoke/vape and do drugs. Sometimes drug deals happen there. It's where bullying happens. Sometimes violence. None of this is going to go away by banning trans kids from the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.

Does sexual harassment happen in school bathrooms? Of course. My daughter was sexually harassed in the school bathroom. By a cis girl. Obviously, we can't ban all girl's from the girls' room because one of them was troubled and took it out another girl.
 
D

Deleted member 221

Guest
No, not anyone can be a woman.

Yes, anyone can. At least in 22 states. Just walk into the DMV, say you feel like you're a woman, and voila, you have an ID saying you're a woman. In a few states, parents can decide their newborn child is a girl (or a boy), biology be damned. I'm not sure why people seem to believe that no one will abuse these rules, and no one's rights will be violated by these rules. I do not see this path leading anywhere except to total de-genderization of society (which could be good or bad, but let's have the debate and be honest about what we're doing). If this is really about trans issues, what's the harm in having a simple process requiring medical certification?
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,915
Oh come on @Louis...even in those 22 states you need some documentation, signed by you and a clerk of the state/county, someone other than just walking into the DMV and announcing you want to change your license designation. I looked it up, yes some sources do state that 22 states do not require MEDICAL or COURT documentation. They also include the link which does give what is required.

Name changes require a legal document. Unless your parents had the foresight to name you a generic name - like Chris (not Christina or Christopher) - you can't change your name.

For someone who is intelligent as you and claims to belogical in his thinking, you really do go through great lengths to come to your conclusions. Beyond ridiculousness.

Why do you hate or fear transgender?
 

Trillian

Well-Known Member
Messages
739
Yes, anyone can. At least in 22 states. Just walk into the DMV, say you feel like you're a woman, and voila, you have an ID saying you're a woman. In a few states, parents can decide their newborn child is a girl (or a boy), biology be damned. I'm not sure why people seem to believe that no one will abuse these rules, and no one's rights will be violated by these rules.

Even if it was as easy as you’re pretending, I’m not sure why you think there could possibly be so many advantages involved that they could possibly outweigh all the well-documented disadvantages that transgender people face in society. As it is, most cisgender men would be in for a rude awakening about the world if they changed places with a cis woman, let alone a trans woman. Are you truly so oblivious to the real-life experiences of other people that you think cis people are pretending to be trans because of how fun it is?

FFS, this is the problem with cis men being the main characters in all the books and movies - we end up with full-grown adults who completely lack curiosity or imagination about how other people might experience the world. :rolleyes:
 
D

Deleted member 221

Guest
Are you truly so oblivious to the real-life experiences of other people that you think cis people are pretending to be trans because of how fun it is?

Look at the Colorado shooter.....

No one is going to pretend to be trans for the fun of it, but people may selectively switch their gender if they think there's an advantage to it. If being trans for a day helps with college admissions, I'm sure people will do it - bring on the x! If it helps them escape a hate crime charge, same thing. You can live as a man, but get an ID that says you're a woman, and voila - you're meeting diversity targets. Crazy parents may also inflict misguided beliefs on their newborn infants, defining their gender in a way that defies common sense, unless you believe parents can determine the gender of their infants the moment they are born.

Let's find a way to help trans people without opening up the system for abuse.
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,915
:rolleyes: his lawyers claim that he is non binary. The legal name change he had at 16 was not indicative of switching genders. His neighbors reported he did not claim to be transgender and was known to use slurs when referring to LGBTQ community.

People who commit crimes make all sorts of claims in order to make themselves seem to be who they are not.

You are back to the affirmative action claims again. It's ridiculous

My niece's ex-wife did not announce or start transition until 3 years after they were married. It was horribly difficult for everyone. They moved 1/2 way across the country. Her family blames my niece for putting ideas into her ex-wife's head. Her ex-wife gave up the traditional life, to become who she is. If it was so easy, she would not be ostracized from her birth family or her friends from her previous life. My niece still loves her, but they couldn't overcome the changes/transitions. They are still friends. My niece is supportive, but it sure would have been easier for everyone if her ex could have been who she is.
 

Trillian

Well-Known Member
Messages
739
Look at the Colorado shooter.....

No one is going to pretend to be trans for the fun of it, but people may selectively switch their gender if they think there's an advantage to it.

This example still doesn’t support your wandering-into-the-DMV-on-a-whim scenario, but ultimately it’s also likely to be another example that there’s no “advantage” to pretending to be trans. I don’t mind giving the CO shooter the benefit of the doubt and using they/them pronouns. They’re still going to be charged with a hate crime because the crime they committed meets the legal definition of a hate crime.

If being trans for a day helps with college admissions, I'm sure people will do it - bring on the x! If it helps them escape a hate crime charge, same thing. You can live as a man, but get an ID that says you're a woman, and voila - you're meeting diversity targets.

Nobody is “trans for a day.” Nobody changes their ID on a whim without changing anything else. This is fantasy land, not real life.

Crazy parents may also inflict misguided beliefs on their newborn infants, defining their gender in a way that defies common sense, unless you believe parents can determine the gender of their infants the moment they are born.

Again, this is not a real problem. No parent looks at their newborn baby and decides to deliberately make the kid’s life - and their own - exponentially more difficult for no reason at all. Please start listening to actual trans people and not conservative podcast hosts’ make-believe stories about trans people. This is just ridiculous.
 
D

Deleted member 221

Guest
Laws have unintended consequences, and we should think about them before they create problems.

I support and listen to trans people, and I also support and listen to non-trans women. I think it’s very easy to come up with policies that help the former without harming the latter. But if this “choose your own (or your newborn baby’s) gender,” no proof required, lunacy continues, I believe the right thing to do is to err on the side of the 50% rather than the 1% until the lunatics are ready to compromise.
 

Trillian

Well-Known Member
Messages
739
Laws have unintended consequences, and we should think about them before they create problems.

We should. And if the “consequences” we’re thinking about are fictional scenarios invented by bigots, we should weigh them accordingly.

I support and listen to trans people, and I also support and listen to non-trans women. I think it’s very easy to come up with policies that help the former without harming the latter.

Right, because policies designed to help trans people don’t have a negative impact on cis women unless you intentionally design them that way. There’s absolutely no reason to frame trans people and cis women as being in opposition to one another. If you wake up tomorrow and decide to start treating trans people like human beings, believe it or not, that doesn’t harm me in the slightest.

But if this “choose your own (or your newborn baby’s) gender,” no proof required, lunacy continues, I believe the right thing to do is to err on the side of the 50% rather than the 1% until the lunatics are ready to compromise.

And I would support the right of people to drive electric cars except they don’t have any regulations saying that they can’t just sprout wings on the highway and fly over my car and allow their owners to get the last of the hazelnut coffee at the Kwik Trip around the corner from my office before the one lady who likes it gets there in the morning. Until these crazy “drive whatever car you want” laws are designed prevent this fantasy scenario I made up in my own head, I’m afraid I can’t support them.
 

MichaelK

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
We should. And if the “consequences” we’re thinking about are fictional scenarios invented by bigots, we should weigh them accordingly.
The point is not that trans people are in some way dangerous but that dangerous people can abuse poorly conceived laws to hurt others. This is not a fictional scenario because it has already happened.

There was a case where a convicted sex offender identified as a trans woman, was then put in a women’s prison and went on to abuse women there.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ng-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

Can we at least agree that it is unacceptable to put a convicted sex offender into a woman’s prison regardless of self identification?
 

PrincessLeppard

Holding Alex Johnson's Pineapple
Messages
27,974
:rolleyes: his lawyers claim that he is non binary. The legal name change he had at 16 was not indicative of switching genders. His neighbors reported he did not claim to be transgender and was known to use slurs when referring to LGBTQ community.
This this this this this this. The lawyers are using it to try to stop the hate crime accusation. They (I will give them the benefit of the doubt for a bit) has never before indicated that they were anything but straight. Maybe they are self-loathing? I dunno. Their family is a mess; the dad is a rampant homophobe/meth addict/porn performer.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,330

I do not see this path leading anywhere except to total de-genderization of society (which could be good or bad, but let's have the debate and be honest about what we're doing).
That's not going to happen, given the objectification of women which persists, and serves both social and economic purposes.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
52,299
The point is not that trans people are in some way dangerous but that dangerous people can abuse poorly conceived laws to hurt others. This is not a fictional scenario because it has already happened.

There was a case where a convicted sex offender identified as a trans woman, was then put in a women’s prison and went on to abuse women there.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ng-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison
This story does not say what you think it does. The trans woman is actually trans and currently undergoing gender reassignment surgery per the article:
For now, White is being held at HM Prison Leeds, a category B men’s prison, and is undergoing gender reassignment surgery.
So this is not a case of a man pretending to be a woman in order to hurt women. This is a transgender woman who hurts people including women.

There are cis women who sexually abuse others including other women. If they get caught and convicted, they will be put into a woman's prison. Where they can continue to hurt women. There should be safeguards in place for this. If there were, then it would also protect women from trans women.
 

Trillian

Well-Known Member
Messages
739
There are cis women who sexually abuse others including other women. If they get caught and convicted, they will be put into a woman's prison. Where they can continue to hurt women. There should be safeguards in place for this. If there were, then it would also protect women from trans women.

On top of this, there are also well-documented situations in which prison guards have sexually assaulted inmates, and sexual assault for male inmates is so common that some people still crack jokes about it.

Across the board, the health and safety of inmates needs to be taken more seriously than it is right now. Banning all trans women from women’s prisons doesn’t address the root cause, any more than banning all prison guards would be a reasonable solution just because a few of them have sexually assaulted inmates. If people truly care about the safety of women in these situations, they should be addressing the unsafe conditions instead of scapegoating a group of people who are not statistically responsible for the vast majority of prison sexual assaults.
 

Pink Cats

Well-Known Member
Messages
232
This story does not say what you think it does. The trans woman is actually trans and currently undergoing gender reassignment surgery per the article:

So this is not a case of a man pretending to be a woman in order to hurt women. This is a transgender woman who hurts people including women.

There are cis women who sexually abuse others including other women. If they get caught and convicted, they will be put into a woman's prison. Where they can continue to hurt women. There should be safeguards in place for this. If there were, then it would also protect women from trans women.

On top of this, there are also well-documented situations in which prison guards have sexually assaulted inmates, and sexual assault for male inmates is so common that some people still crack jokes about it.

Across the board, the health and safety of inmates needs to be taken more seriously than it is right now. Banning all trans women from women’s prisons doesn’t address the root cause, any more than banning all prison guards would be a reasonable solution just because a few of them have sexually assaulted inmates. If people truly care about the safety of women in these situations, they should be addressing the unsafe conditions instead of scapegoating a group of people who are not statistically responsible for the vast majority of prison sexual assaults.

In this situation, I think the most likely abuse of Cis or Trans Women is by Males who are sexual predators that use real or fake gender change to gain access to what are traditionally women's only spaces. I don't know what the answer to this issue is but I do think it needs to be addressed.
 

MichaelK

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
This story does not say what you think it does. The trans woman is actually trans and currently undergoing gender reassignment surgery per the article:

So this is not a case of a man pretending to be a woman in order to hurt women. This is a transgender woman who hurts people including women.
It is not so clear looking at the sources if Karen White actually underwent gender reassignment surgery and there is a suggestion that she would do the surgery only in order to be put again in a woman's prison.


There is a report from one of her victims that illustrates why some form of safeguarding is needed. A male sex offender that is not on hormones and has no sex reassignment surgery put in a woman's prison is a bad idea.

 

kwanfan1818

RIP D-10
Messages
35,976
There are cis women who sexually abuse others including other women. If they get caught and convicted, they will be put into a woman's prison. Where they can continue to hurt women. There should be safeguards in place for this. If there were, then it would also protect women from trans women.
As reported in the NYT in a book review of "Corrections in Ink"

Over the course of her incarceration, Blakinger witnessed (and experienced) abuse and inhumane conditions. “In the beginning, every horror story you hear in prison seems incredible — not just extraordinary, but impossible to believe. When a woman tells you about the officer who punched her in the face, you think there must be more to it. When old-timers warn you about the brutality of women raping each other, you wonder if they’re hazing you.”

In Joycelyn Elders' memoir, she wrote that she had studied under a surgeon who did sex assignment surgery on infants whose genitals and organs weren't consistent with either sex. She considered what he did a heavenly mission, to prevent years of bullying, anxiety, and trauma. Thinking has changed somewhat, although not uniformly, so there is surgery that is done today, on top of decades before, with parental input to determine the gender of children, some of which blows up when the child later identifies as trans, when the option could have been the opposite gender and nothing to which to transition. But no one could ask the infant.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information