The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

can't make sense of this. what's the pact thing? are you saying there's something hypocritical about women using the state to attain rights because it's patriarchal? what's the alternative, refuse to accept rights on principle? that's like saying the civil rights activists of the 60s were just hypocrites because they were attaining rights from a white supremacist government.

Maybe you should take some time out to make sense of it?

But to answer your question, no. But there is a hypocrisy of saying I'm against the patriarchy, yet support the family, given that the institution of the family is the bulwark of patriarchy. and the reason for this being that steps taken to abolish the nuclear family unit requires constant material struggle, whereas being opposed to the patriarchy can often end up just being an empty slogan, with no content, with nothing to propound, and thereby fits with your craven servile middle class respect for existing authority, and is unable to grant any autonomy to women outside of a few policy wonks in high positions.

 

[maxi]

Right, because murder is the only form of violence

who said it's the only form of violence? you keep doing this thing where because I raise a point, you characterise what I'm saying as ignoring everything else.

I'll play along though. Here are the other stats right below that one on that website:

• One study of 96 cases of domestic abuse recorded by the police found that men are significantly more likely to be repeat perpetrators and significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats, and harassment. In a six year tracking period the majority of recorded male perpetrators (83%) had at least two incidents of recorded abuse, with many having a lot more than two and one man having 52 repeat incidents. Whereas in cases where women were recorded as the perpetrator the majority (62%) had only one incident of abuse recorded and the highest number of repeat incidents for any female perpetrator was eight. The study also found that men’s violence tended to create a context of fear and control; which was not the case when women were perpetrators. (Hester, 2013)
• Over 80% (83%) of high frequency victims (more than 10 crimes) are women. (From a study of data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, a nationally representative household survey.) (Walby & Towers, 2018)
• The large majority of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions in the year ending March 2020 were recorded as male (92%) and the majority of the victims recorded as female (77%, compared with compared with 16% who were male). The sex of the victim was not recorded in 7% of prosecutions. If these missing data were excluded from analysis, then it would be 82% female victims and 18% male victims (ONS, 2020C).

If your partner has literally ended your life, you're can't be considered a victim of domestic abuse.

look I'm sorry, I honestly have nothing against you personally mr tea. I don't. but I have to say this might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on dissensus lol. read it back to yourself, you're better than that

 

[maxi]

Maybe you should take some time out to make sense of it?

But to answer your question, no. But there is a hypocrisy of saying I'm against the patriarchy, yet support the family, given that the institution of the family is the bulwark of patriarchy. and the reason for this being that steps taken to abolish the nuclear family unit requires constant material struggle, whereas being opposed to the patriarchy can often end up just being an empty slogan, with no content, with nothing to propound, and thereby fits with your craven servile middle class respect for existing authority, and is unable to grant any autonomy to women outside of a few policy wonks in high positions.

in what sense are they "supporting the family"? who are you even talking about. whose "craven servile middle class respect"? mine? what are you on about mate

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

you know the answers to all these questions. don't take people for fools, this ain't reddit eli5.

 

[maxi]

honestly don't but ok nevermind

 

[subvert47]

it's not the things I've said he was criticising though is it, it was the things I haven't said. which apparently reveal my hidden motivations.

seems more like a way of avoiding addressing the things I've actually said. which is disingenuous.

What you've actually said isn't worth addressing. It's all scary what-iffery without substance. I mean "safeguarding" ffs. You can make a case to ban absolutely anything on "safeguarding" grounds. So why shouldn't I just regard you as another ignorant rightbro?

 

[subvert47]

Whose privacy and dignity is being compromised here, though? Nobody's advocating getting rid of bathroom stalls. Are women really so fragile that the mere thought of using the toilet a few metres away from a trans woman is existentially distressing, even though neither person can see the other?

As to that, I'm minded of the words of radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon:

"Many transwomen just go around being women, who knew, and suddenly, we are supposed to care that they are using the women’s bathroom. There they are in the next stall with the door shut, and we’re supposed to feel threatened. I don’t. I don’t care. By now, I aggressively don’t care."

 

[Mr. Tea]

who said it's the only form of violence? you keep doing this thing where because I raise a point, you characterise what I'm saying as ignoring everything else.

I'll play along though. Here are the other stats right below that one on that website:

• One study of 96 cases of domestic abuse recorded by the police found that men are significantly more likely to be repeat perpetrators and significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats, and harassment. In a six year tracking period the majority of recorded male perpetrators (83%) had at least two incidents of recorded abuse, with many having a lot more than two and one man having 52 repeat incidents. Whereas in cases where women were recorded as the perpetrator the majority (62%) had only one incident of abuse recorded and the highest number of repeat incidents for any female perpetrator was eight. The study also found that men’s violence tended to create a context of fear and control; which was not the case when women were perpetrators. (Hester, 2013)
• Over 80% (83%) of high frequency victims (more than 10 crimes) are women. (From a study of data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, a nationally representative household survey.) (Walby & Towers, 2018)
• The large majority of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions in the year ending March 2020 were recorded as male (92%) and the majority of the victims recorded as female (77%, compared with compared with 16% who were male). The sex of the victim was not recorded in 7% of prosecutions. If these missing data were excluded from analysis, then it would be 82% female victims and 18% male victims (ONS, 2020C).

look I'm sorry, I honestly have nothing against you personally mr tea. I don't. but I have to say this might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on dissensus lol. read it back to yourself, you're better than that

If you're going by recorded figures and prosecutions then you're just demonstrating your own naivety, since men are far less likely to report being victims of domestic violence than women, because they believe - usually correctly - that they won't be taken seriously.

The 2010–2011 report found that whilst 27% of women who experienced intimate partner violence reported it to the police, only 10% of men did so, and whilst 44% of women reported to some professional organization, only 19% of men did so.[5] The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6] In a 2005 report carried out by the National Crime Council in the Republic of Ireland, it was estimated that 5% of men who had experienced violence had reported it to the authorities, compared to 29% of women.

Surveys that ask people anonymously about domestic abuse show overall prevalence figures for straight men that aren't that different from those for straight women:

In 2013, the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that from a sample of 16,000 U.S. adults, 26% of homosexual men, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men had been a victim of intimate partner violence, compared to 43.8% of lesbians, 61.1% of bisexual women and 35% of heterosexual women.

Yes, most of the most severe kind of violence is no doubt committed by men - men are after all generally a lot bigger and stronger than women - and of course men kill women much more often than the reverse. But that's the thick end of a very long wedge. There are also ways to control someone or otherwise make their life miserable other than physical violence. All I'm asking you to consider is that F-on-M abuse might not be as vanishingly rare as you'd assumed, or that anyone not sharing this assumption must be an "MRA."

 

[maxi]

What you've actually said isn't worth addressing. It's all scary what-iffery without substance. I mean "safeguarding" ffs. You can make a case to ban absolutely anything on "safeguarding" grounds. So why shouldn't I just regard you as another ignorant rightbro?

well for one, I'm not one of those. I'd consider myself on the left to far-left, campaigned for Corbyn when he was around, and all my other views reflect that, and may well be similar to yours. I would include this as part of that-- women's rights.

and for that matter trans rights, because I don't think the trans activists in this particular area are doing much to help trans rights at all, being honest about it. I get that coming from someone saying the things I've said so far, this might appear inflammatory or disingenuous but I promise you it's not intended to be.

if you disagree with what I'm saying then fair enough but it's another thing to question my motivations. I take what everyone says here at face value because I don't know any of you.

I don't see why safeguarding is something to turn your nose up at. It's bland and doesn't have radical chic attached but it's still important. I don't think you could make a case to ban anything on safeguarding grounds. like what? I mean maybe you could make a case, but it would be a very weak case. This isn't a weak case though. In my opinion. It's just an opinion. I've tried to make what I'm saying clear and substantive, but if you think I haven't then OK

 

[maxi]

If you're going by recorded figures and prosecutions then you're just demonstrating your own naivety, since men are far less likely to report being victims of domestic violence than women, because they believe - usually correctly - that they won't be taken seriously.

Fair enough I guess we just don't agree. I mean these are empirical claims but I don't wanna have some kind of stats war and I'm sure you don't either

I don't think I'm demonstrating my naivety though because the quotes I posted take the underreporting element into account themselves. The second sentence in this point, for example:

• The large majority of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions in the year ending March 2020 were recorded as male (92%) and the majority of the victims recorded as female (77%, compared with compared with 16% who were male). The sex of the victim was not recorded in 7% of prosecutions. If these missing data were excluded from analysis, then it would be 82% female victims and 18% male victims (ONS, 2020C).

So it affects the stats, but not by much. I think it's a huge stretch to argue that the underreporting element would affect the data in a significant way. I mean I don't want to resort to "common sense" but come on - do you really think women are violent towards men at the same level and severity as men are towards women?

Also we're getting far from the initial point now. What do you think this all means with regard to women's-only spaces? You said you don't think they should be abolished already, so what are we really arguing about here?

men are after all generally a lot bigger and stronger than women

crucial point

There are also ways to control someone or otherwise make their life miserable other than physical violence.

True but how does that pertain to the issue at hand?

All I'm asking you to consider is that F-on-M abuse might not be as vanishingly rare as you'd assumed,

OK then. I don't think it's vanishingly rare, but I do still think its outnumbered hugely by M on F violence. Not abuse, but violence which is what we were talking about. Probably also abuse I would imagine mind, but that wasn't the discussion

or that anyone not sharing this assumption must be an "MRA."

I don't, that was just teasing. I said you sounded like one, not that you were one. Haha

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

look I'm sorry, I honestly have nothing against you personally mr tea. I don't. but I have to say this might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on dissensus lol. read it back to yourself, you're better than that

Teabag is having a shocker today!
And he's a moderator in a forum that is arguably more transphobic than Mumsnet

 

[Mr. Tea]

Teabag is having a shocker today!
And he's a moderator in a forum that is arguably more transphobic than Mumsnet

What the fuck are you talking about, you objectively pro-paedo, pro-incest loon?

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

"What the fuck are you talking about, you objectively pro-paedo, pro-incest loon?"

 

[Mr. Tea]

"What the fuck are you talking about, you objectively pro-paedo, pro-incest loon?"

Keep simping for a man who openly wants to fuck his own daughter, and in all likelihood already has, king.

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

Keep simping for a man who openly wants to fuck his own daughter, and in all likelihood already has, king.

"Accuse your opponent of what you have done"

Careful, Tea. Someone with your progressive aspirations may be obliged to ally with MAPs when that becomes the Current Thing.

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

 

[Mr. Tea]

"Accuse your opponent of what you have done"

Careful, Tea. Someone with your progressive aspirations may be obliged to ally with MAPs when that becomes the Current Thing.

Your hero:

"I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her."

“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body.”

"‘Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?"

But please, by all means, keep posting baseless slurs you learnt from some 14-year-olds on 4chan, along with every other aspect of your "personality."

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

bad faith guilt by association tactics. typical american view cos of your warped polarised politics

Absolutely not in bad faith. The ties between TERFs and the right-wing - including many deeply misogynistic, often explicitly anti-feminist institutions and individuals - are extensive and well documented. The LGB Alliance's (absolute clown organization, but still) ties to the Heritage Foundation and Witherspoon Institute, as well as Gary Powell's specific links to the Center for Bioethics and Culture, an American religious organization that focuses on restricting abortion rights (and which itself is linked to the infamous Alliance Defending Freedom, which among other things drafted the Mississippi legislation used in Dobbs vs. Jackson to overturn Roe). Kellie-Jay's innumerable dealings with the far right, praise of people like Tommy Robinson, Tucker Carlson, etc and so on. The Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine's close to ties to the anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion NGO Lovewise UK, which I already got into and is still there for anyone to read (fuck it I'll just link it again since I know yall are too lazy to do that) - that's Stella O'Malley as a reminder, an anti-trans Irish therapist at the very heart of the GC NGO web. Again, I could go on. And anyone paying attention to this discourse - something I don't recommend unless you really have a reason to - will know there's not a week that goes by without TERFs having to denounce (or just, like, be cool with) some misogynistic nonsense from some right-wing dude they're allied with in true "but I didn't think the leopards would eat my face" fashion.

The current tidal wave of anti-trans, drag queen, etc legislation is directly based in American right-wing religious ideology - again, a totally conscious strategy that they have, in their own words, been pursuing for the better part of a decade now - by the exact same people who want to outlaw all abortion and re-ban gay marriage (or failing that, legalize discrimination against gay people, which they recently succeeded in doing). This is who UK GCs have been happy to ally with. Or please, point me to anywhere where they delineate between themselves and their allies. Anywhere.

In this very thread who are you allied to? Dissensus's biggest/saddest MAGA fanboi and its resident anti-choice/anti-vax lunatic, and you have every chance to say "hmg's 10th-rate 4chan trolling and/or biscuits staunch belief that woman (nominally the people you're defending) shouldn't have bodily autonomy don't represent my views". But no, just silence. Every time trans issues come up someone - usually Benny - dredges up that Fallon Fox quote from 11 years ago, and I duly denounce it. When the Nashville shooting happened I said of course, completely indefensible, etc. Where you on a woman murdered for flying a Pride flag? Where are you on Chaya Raichik's stochastic terrorism? nowhere.


so no, it's not guilt by assocation. it's guilt by an overwhelming amount of evidence and the either inability or refusal to denounce all of the odious people espousing your cause.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also I forget that part where the UK was a totally harmonious polity that didn't have a generationally divisive vote that has thrown the country into disarray for the last 7 years. absolutely no polarization among British people.

I swear there is almost nothing sillier than smug Europeans pretending they are somehow above American nonsense. yall are just less honest about it.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

they're not silent on those things though

point me to anywhere that TERFs - or GC ppl if you prefer - or other anti-trans folks have been publicly, vocally critical of nonconsensual surgery performed on intersex minors

these are people who post obsessively about trans people 24/7/365. Surely you should be able to find some material about intersex surgery if they're equally concerned with it.