The costs of trans visibility

1. Yes, I’m new. That’s obvious.
2. I did not say the radicals were in this thread. I’ve had debates with other freaks and weirdos who have made that claim.
3. You don’t understand simple biology.

People like you say that chromosomes do not matter without saying it. When you say a man can become a woman, you’re saying his XY chromosomes don’t matter in defining his gender. You claim that feels trump science.

The strawman is on your end, uke. You are the one who pretended we were talking about people ITT, which clearly didn't happen. I even specified comments on social media regarding Imane.

You are disregarding chromosomes when you say Imane has XY and is a she, btw.

That's just silly. The basic observation that trans people exist who have a gender identity that doesn't match their chromosomes isn't the same thing as saying chromosomes don't matter at all.

But at least this is better than the hilariously inept characterization that unquoted pro-trans people allegedly think you can change your chromosomes. Like you have a bad argument now, but at least it is better than the terrible one it supplanted. I'm calling that progress.

That's great that you are acknowledging the "popular narrative" is apparently not popular enough for anyone in the thread you are actually debating in to hold that position. Who knows why you are even talking about it. But it seems that what is actually happening is not that it is remotely a popular narrative at all, but that you just totally confuse what trans people actually say. If noting that trans people exist is that same as your prior "chromosomes don't matter at all" nonsense, then sure, uh lots of people believe that. That obviously isn't remotely the same thing as saying chromomes don't matter at all.

Yes, what's actually a better representation of what is popular as a talking point: this single thread on a dying poker forum that bans people for stating basics about chromosomes, or the entirety of social media across the internet? Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that both him and I never stated "ITT"; you invented it. This is indeed you creating a strawman, not me. But we're obviously going to disagree on many things since you think XY males are women and that men can get pregnant and have periods and have bajinas or whatever.

Instead of us arguing on something irrelevant that we don't agree on, I'd love if you'd opine on the issues outlined in this post: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

Perhaps there's something we can agree on in there?

Checkraisdraw will return to us in 24 hours for violating the personal attacks rule and evading the profanity filter with a slur.

Everyone else, please lower the temperature in here. Thanks ♥

Why are you posting tweets from 10 years ago with zero interaction as some sort of representation of reality or a broader problem?

Why does your reddit resource come with a disclaimer that its been mothballed yet you still link it?

Why is your link about the cotton ceiling 75% tweets from two different people with zero interaction from 10 years ago?

Do you really think this is evidence of a current and widespread issue or does it just make you look like you are completely spazzing out and making **** up? I can guarantee you were banned from Lesbian subreddits for being a toxic inflamatory ******* spewing things that were considered against the rule.

coordi,

Let's take it down a notch please? Surely that's enough to get you a 24-hour timeout. Regarding the post you're struggling to understand, why don't we discuss what I'm highlighting as a concept? From your defense of children being mauled to death because most fighting dogs don't successfully kill children, I know you seem to think if something doesn't happen like 70% of the time, it's not worth considering an issue. So let's abandon that. Do you think the idea of what I'm highlighting in that post is problematic and something we want to avoid? Like if these things were happening on any scale, do we agree they are bad and we don't want more occurences?

No, I think if something happens .000005% of the time its not happening on any scale.

Nobody is defending that idea. Literally nobody! Not even in the examples you provided.

There are bad trans people, there are bad lesbians, gay people, straight people, all kinds of bad people. Bad things happen occasionally. Actually, bad things happen often. We've had this discussion about Pitbulls.

"A trans pornstar ran a PUA course in 2012, why haven't we banned people from being trans yet???"
"I have evidence of a few trans people being offensive on the internet 10 years ago why is nobody outraged about this???"

Thats kind of what you sound like right now

Here, I'll try and make this even simpler for you so we can avoid more of your make-believe math:

1. If lesbians no longer had places online to discuss being same-sex attracted females, would you think that's a problem worth addressing?

2. Do you consider a "trans-lesbian" (male with penis with gender identity of woman) to be a valid sexuality?

3. Is it okay or bigoted if a lesbian refuses to date the "trans-lesbian" above on the basis of them having a penis?

4. Would it be okay if a lesbian bar restricted access to natal females only, i.e., no trans-identified males or "trans-lesbians" allowed?

5. If a female has PTSD from sexual violence and is triggered by male anatomy, do you think it's reasonable that she not want trans-identified males (or any men) in areas where they're likely to be in a state of undress?

I'm curious to hear your answers. Thanks.

coordi, if you asked me, "Would it be bad to gangrape midgets on the moon?", I wouldn't need to go off on a tangent like you do. I can just say, "Yes, that's bad." It doesn't need to be a likely scenario or an actual issue. These are called theoretical scenarios and they're often used for thought experiments. I know it's new and scary, but it's good for your thought process. I want to cast a wide net to see exactly where we diverge.

1. Yes, but they do have places to discuss such things.
2. While I can see this being sketchy, I think its generally fine for someone transitioning. Just as an example, magicnanners from you original post has fully transitioned at this point. I snooped her twitter.
3. No. I've never heard of that being a thing until today though, so, I don't think it has any prevalence in the LGBTQ community

there used to be some more moderates who posted here who stopped once they learned that this stance made them "transphobic"

Thanks for answering coordi (sorry, added more in an edit).

1. Let's define this better then: do you think it's okay to ban females who are same-sex attracted from online spaces for lesbians because they don't consider trans-identified males to be lesbians?

2. Why do you think that might be sketchy? And by fully transitioned, you mean they are not actually a female?

2a. Follow up: what about if someone has not transitioned at all beyond socially announcing their trans-identity and donning more stereotypical feminine garb (they're still in-tact).

3. Sorry, but are you saying you think this rejection is okay or do you find it bigoted? Sorry for the ambiguous wording. And it's obviously a thing that people will reject people for whatever reason.

6. Do you support gay marriage?

7. Do you think it's okay for a man to hit a woman if she shoves or slaps him, but is otherwise not a serious threat? Why or why not?

4. I personally think a business should be able to choose who they want as their customers just as customers can choose who they do business with. I do think a small portion of people would try to call discrimination here though. Some would be legitimate, some would be concern trolls, some might even be malicious.
5. Yes if that person has the expectation that they will be in a space where they wont see a penis and they see a penis they have a right to be extremely upset. They can't expect people with a penis wont be out in public though. If that person were at the bar in #4, then they should also be able to expect that there would be no trans identifying people there, but that is a very specific space.

I read the belittling comment last so now I feel dumb being so candid with you. You bust in this thread like the kool-aid man denying the existence of trans people and ranting about Imane when the horse had already been beaten to pulp so no, I don't have a generous take when you post your "innocent little thought experiment"

w/e I'll finish answering, in for a penny in for a pound.

1. I personally think people should be able to say whatever they want, but ultimately that depends on the space. If you are talking about the biggest LGBTQ subreddits then yeah, you are probably going to have a bad time holding that opinion.
2. I could see people holding the opinion that a trans female is only trans to sleep with lesbians, but I don't find it a particularly logical viewpoint to hold. Transitioning is just a changing of the flesh to match the whole with the soul.
2a. Not sure what you are asking here
3. No its not bigoted to not want to date a trans person simply because they are trans. I've never seen anyone dispute this. I've seen trans people rant that these discussions hurt their feelings because its basically reading "Oh, I could never be sexually attracted to someone like you...", which I think is fair as well.
6. Yes
7. Shove no, slap possibly but generally no. I got headbutt in the face by an ex one time and I slapped her in reaction

rut roh, looks you're a hateful bigoted misogynist as well

welcome to the team

4. Yeah I think its discriminatory by definition. Its not something that would offend me though.
5. Thats tougher. If there is a legitimate PTSD from sexual assault then the situation would have to be addressed. In general there is a locker room matrix of what people want and dont want to see though. I don't want to see random dicks either.
8. In the sense that you choose what doctor you go to. If you are at a hospital with choices its trivial to request a different doctor. If you need life saving surgery and your only option is a trans woman then would you rather just die?

Well it was probably 15 years ago. I had many unsavory opinions back then

been watching 2 months 2 million recently thinking how cringe it is and also how lucky i was that no camera was following me around as well at that age

1. You're again answering with what you expect to happen and not what you think is reasonable or just. I'll try to simplify it better: do you think it's reasonable for same-sex attracted females to be banned from online spaces designed for lesbian discourse if they espouse views like the following: "A lesbian is a female who is attracted to other females, not men who identified as females." To be more specific, the reason for banning them or deleting their posts would be because it amounts to hate speech or is deemed bigoted. Obviously a forum is a private entity with a right to ban whoever. I guess I'm just curious if you find that reasonable in the way that I feel you'd find it reasonable to ban someone dropping hard R n-bombs or the f-word towards gay folks.

2. I'm not suggesting a reasoning behind anything, only curious if you find that identity valid and when it becomes such. So if a male transitions (with surgery, I take it), he's now a valid female? And subsequently, it's now valid to consider them a lesbian?

2a. You said you could see it being sketchy to consider a trans-lesbian a valid sexual identity, but think it's generally fine for someone transitioning. I'm asking for clarification on the point at which a male has "transitioned" enough to be considered enough of a female that their attraction to females is now a valid same-sex attraction, i.e., homosexual. You said it's generally fine for someone transitioning (and have since mentioned getting the flesh to match what's on the inside), so I'm curious about someone who has not yet begun their transition as referenced above? If they're truly female in their soul, I'm unsure why transitioning should or shouldn't matter to consider their homosexuality valid as a "trans-lesbian." Let me know if this needs to be explained better. I agree it can get a bit confusing.

3. Interesting. Well, to be clear, in this scenario, they wouldn't be rejecting them for being "trans", but for being male (with a penis). In this hypothetical, they wouldn't outright reject a trans-identified female who still has in-tact female anatomy. If that clarification doesn't change your previous answer, are you aware that what rickroll said is correct in that many would consider you transphobic for not objecting to this rejection?

5. Well, yes, it's legitimate PTSD in this scenario. I agree, there is a wide range of stuff to see and reactions to it. I personally have no sexual trauma or anything, but I could always go without the 90-year-old dudes walking around naked like it's nothing. Although I do admire that level of not giving a ****, I guess.

Anyway, obviously males can have sexual trauma, too; they might not want to see a penis, either, but we still expect them to be in the men's room. Hell, back when I was in HS, I was a pretty skilled hotshot wrestler. Regrettably, I taped this weaker kid's butt-cheeks together in the locker room to make my friends laugh and maybe impress my old man. Unfortunately, he was pretty higher, and when they pulled the tape off, some of the skin came with it. The humiliation that kid must've felt when explaining what happened to his father, ugh. Anyway, I could see him not wanting a male to give him a physical or something after that.

Okay, so with a female who has sexual trauma that can be triggered in these situations, how do you pose we address this? To eliminate the variety this matrix affords, let's hone in on a nude spa where being nude is expected for a part of it. What do you suggest for a scenario like this where the spa segregates members based on sex?

6. Nice. Me too. How do you define a "gay marriage" in this context? I mean, what 2 parties are required for something to be a "gay marriage?"

7. That sucks. A headbutt can do some damage. I'm curious if whether a slap is just what you'd top out at when someone assaults you or if it because it was a partner. Did their sex have anything to do with it only being a slap? As in, did you show restraint because it was a female or would a male have gotten a slap, too? I'm assuming you're male and she was female, by the way.

8. Sure, if I'm about to bleed out, I'm not going to be too picky, for sure. But I don't necessary mean life-saving trauma surgery. I mean scenarios like the following:

• Let's say a woman needs a rape kit performed and understandably wants a natal female to assist her, not a trans-woman. As a society, do we work this into the social contract of reasonable accommodations?
  
• Perhaps a male has a physical coming up and would prefer one sex over the other due to having their privates examined.
  
• A woman is checked into a battered women's shelter with the expectation that they'll be with women only. Do you think it's reasonable to have female-only staff in this scenario?

That's the kind of care/help/assistance I'm thinking of.

9. Do you think it's reasonable to have female-only staff for a women's shelter like that?

--

Sorry for the edits. I missed your edits above. I tried keeping them in order and clear on what I'm replying to. Apologies if it's hard to keep track. I thank you for engaging.

Its basically at the whim of the business. I can understand the person with PTSD having an absolute stance. I can understand a business owner not wanting to create a shitshow. I don't think the answer is forcing trans people to go to the opposite sections, and I don't think the answer is force all trans people into the male section.
8a. If there is a choice she is free to that choice. Its trivial requesting a different doctor in most scenarios. If there is no other option then what should she do?
8b. Again, there is a freedom to choose what doctor one sees.
8c. If an abused person doesn't see a trans female as female then they should be accommodated for as much as possible but many people are going to think negatively of them.
9. Yes, but I also see trans females as female

1. I told you I believe people should be able to say whatever they want. They aren't free from judgement or consequences from others. I was recently accused of being a nazi on reddit because I had 88 at the end of my name. Me! A Nazi! Because of 88. I ended up banned from whatever subreddit that was. That doesn't feel just but its what happened.
2. No just saying it will be difficult for trans lesbians to find a non trans lesbian counterpart with a penis
2a. I was saying that I understand why people would see it as being sketchy but I don't think its a logical viewpoint to have that a trans lesbian is coming from a place of malice.
3. Well yes, thats denying the trans identity exists
7. Restraint

Why keep having these fake debates? Trans men are -obviously - the ones being referred to that can get pregnant and have periods. If you don't want to call them men, ok, that's fine, you are allowed to be transphobic, but nobody is disagreeing on any underlying biologic facts.

You told us it was a popular narrative. It isn't. Not here on 2+2, but also not a "popular narrative" among left wing pro-trans social media either. I think you are just completely confusing what IS a common argument (that trans people exist and their gender identity can differ from their chromosomes" and completely transforming that into the thing you said, which was "chromosomes don't matter at all". That's silly.

I don't post on lesbian internet forums (do you???), so I'm not one to comment on how they are moderated. However, i rather suspect your characterization of them is about as bad as the above.