On the subject of mentally ill men who think they're women

Post Reply New Topic

+1

Pretty sure male violence against women IS a reality, such as this male-to-tran person who murdered women (who he calls 'pond scum') specifically because he was jealous of their ability to become pregnant and now is claiming it wasn't him at all, but the male "identity" he thinks he has shed, or this one, a prominent Twitter engineer and trans advocate, who's charged with raping his wife, or
this one who has viciously attacked girls in the childcare facilities where he was mistakenly-housed, as well as a female staff member who sustained a broken nose and was purportedly-blinded.

As for "hate", if you can find a radical feminist fantasizing about "slitting the motherf*cking throats" of trans people, or, say, "savagely beating them with a tire iron"..."lynching"..."shove a piece of beef jerky up their twat and STFU", I'll give you a whole dollar.

I guess that settles it, then: "she"'s going in with the men.

I am in complete agreement, as the concept of Schroedinger's rapist clearly applies to pre-op transsexual women as well. The transsexual woman must take the step of SRS and becoming post-op for Schroedinger's rapist to no longer apply (and even then she should be watched closely).

Hey, I never said it doesn't happen. What I said was, allowing transgender women to use the same facilities that cisgender women use doesn't lead to increased violence against women.

Catherine Brennan is not a credible source. She's devoted her time online to attacking, harassing, and doxing transgender women. She promotes violence against transgender women even if she does not personally herself commit any physical violence.



That's highly specific. How about a radical feminist revealing a teenage trans girl's name, opening her up to online and offline harassment by people across the country? How about a radical feminist working with an anti-gay group to promote a falsified story about said trans girl allegedly (but not actually) harassing other students in the girl's restroom? How such harassment pushed the girl to the point of suicide watch. How about a radical feminist trying to directly interfere with transgender women's medical care and employment?

http://www.transadvocate.com/full-sfgn- ... _12360.htm
http://www.transadvocate.com/jd4pji-the ... _12795.htm

How about a radical feminist writing to the United Nations with intent to exclude transgender women from access to human rights?

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2 ... to-the-un/

How about a radical feminist posting publicly names, addresses and photos of transgender women, putting them at risk (again) for harassment and potential violence?

http://www.transadvocate.com/will-the-r ... n_9501.htm
http://www.bustle.com/articles/7419-my- ... hy-brennan

I somehow think that these actions taken in the real world are not comparable to some people on tumblr saying violent things (or assuming that such violence is characteristic of all trans women, or that the "TERFs" don't themselves say some fairly violent things themselves about said women).



Beneficii, there's a lot of hatred directed toward transgender women in the world. The specific hatred ValentineWiggin is spewing is not a realistic reflection of what transgender women are like. She gets much of her information from someone who takes action to cause direct harm to both transgender women and to cisgender women who openly support transgender women (Catherine Brennan). If they find evidence of a transgender woman harming a cisgender woman, this is then presented as the way all transgender women are, when it is not actually much higher than acts of violence by cisgender women.

But then, cisgender women do commit acts of violence against other cisgender women:

https://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesb ... heet.shtml
http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/ ... bian-Rape/

Does this make cisgender women into "schrodinger's rapist?"

This doesn't make it okay, but it also doesn't mean it's appropriate to define transgender women as rapists and murderers because someone who has a virulent hatred for transgender women have been able to identify transgender women who have committed such acts. That in itself is rooted in a kind of hatred written and spoken about against transgender women since the early 70s, which has included exclusion, violence, and even in one case the deliberate and successful attempt to prevent the US government from covering surgery for transgender people in the early 80s.

http://theterfs.com/terfs-trans-healthcare/

Before believing what a TERF says about transgender women, find out what TERFs themselves are like. ValentineWiggin ispromoting ideological justifications for violence against transgender women (there is no other way to characterize the use of Catherine Brennan's libelous online writings to prove her point that transgender women are inherently violent, or her miscategorization of transgender women to characterize this as "male violence against women" or her use of masculine pronouns when referring to transgender women).

As Laverne Cox said, "when a transgender woman is called a man, that is an act of violence." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cytc0p4Jwg

Don't take the word of people who want to prevent you and others like you from existing. As Janice Raymond wrote,



You're dealing with someone who has likely taken this exterminationist rhetoric to heart.

Also, check out the stats here:

http://www.rrsonline.org/?page_id=944

It seems that transgender women are more likely to be raped than to perpetrate it.

Also, despite all the talk about male violence, you won't find Catherine Brennan seriously addressing actual cisgender (and transgender) men who are themselves violent toward cisgender or especially transgender women. "Male violence" is a dog whistle code for "transgender women."

Do you see what just happened?

I just posted actual instances of male-to-trans individuals committing *actual violence against* and threatening women, including murder, and your response is that *I'M* spewing hatred?


The instances I listed aren't anomalies- the male-to-trans Twitter employee I mentioned was a well-known trans advocate and anti-feminist, referring to feminists as "whackos", and trending the #F*ckC!sPeople hashtag. The Advocate's recent "trans 100" includes several male-to-trans individuals who harass women and lesbians. Janet Mock, mentioned in one of the articles you posted, originally named her book "Fish Food", fish referring to what male-to-trans people call the supposed stench of actual female genitals. You mentioned Cathy Brennan a lot... a representative of Kentucky's LGBT "Fairness" campaign likes to fantasize publicly about murdering her. The former director of the Transgender Law center can't muster stronger words for trans-fantasies about violence against women than "violence is unhelpful".

You can also fairly-regularly-catch the Trans Twitter crowd berating lesbians for refusing to have sex with them, even calling them 'vagina fetishists'.

I don't know why you'd think I "get all my information" from Cathy Brennan. I've been personally doxxed and threatened in online spaces for not being a POMO.

Maybe this is a problem of political ideology that is going unaddressed: no one ever asserted every single *individual* in a class of people is violent. The legal protections in place are against the statistical violence *as a class* which men (including men who identify as trans) commit against women (and it's for these legal protections that CB and EH wrote to the UN).

Are non-trans women and other non-trans women committing violence against one another as part of a sadistic 6,000 year old arrangement of power? You're actually-asserting women are torturing, raping, and murdering other women in the same numbers that males are doing this to them?

Come, now. Do you actually believe wanting to eliminate an ideology and the hierarchy it serves is "exterminationist"?

I challenged you to find a single case where a radical feminist had threatened to commit violence against trans individuals, some of whom are harassing, mocking, and killing women. The "hatred" you speak of is disagreeing about what gender is, as opposed to, say, bombing a bank. The more disturbing part is that in implying anything I do or say causes violence against trans people, you refuse to name who *actually murders* trans individuals: MEN (the same peeps who murder gays and lesbians, for *their* violation of the biggest gender mandate of all, heterosexuality). Because gender serves the male class, and men who violate masculine norms are especially-vulnerable to intermale violence.

I heartily-approve of outing men who harass women and lesbians online, which seems to be what's actually happening in nearly all the screenshots provided in the links you cited. One of Amy McCarthy's points of evidence of "harassment" of trans-individuals on Twitter was that "bugbrennan" said the Twitter user bullies lesbians. Really. Yet another example was of a presumably-trans individual likely-violating an order of protection CB had taken against him or her (in addition to a second one a third party had filed against that person, to boot.) It's getting into disturbing territory where talking about abuse is considered worse than the abuse or even equal to it. MOST interesting is that the link you provided, the one about radical feminists obstructing transgendered individuals' access to health care, Raymond is literally quoted as saying the exact opposite (and not about health care, but about sexual reassignment-surgery):

"While there are many who feel that morality must be built into law, I believe that the elimination of transsexualism is not best achieved by legislation prohibiting transsexual treatment and surgery but rather by legislation that limits it and by other legislation that lessens the support given to sex-role stereotyping, which generated the problem to begin with. Any legislation should be aimed at the social conditions that initiate and promote the surgery as well as the growth of the medical-institutional complex that translates these stereotypes into flesh and blood"

This is really a classically-Social Constructionist viewpoint of gender.


That's almost as disgusting as it is insane. Maybe you meant it hyperbolically. God, I hope so.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 12 Apr 2014, 2:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

This is an MRA-style objection to feminism- different feminists concentrate on different things. This just happens to be one you don't like. CB (from what I can gather) focuses on "gender" being codified into law and the implications this has for the female sex-caste. That and the abuse women receive from male-to-trans individuals (I've never seen it happen from female-to-trans), which, as you can see, gets one called "hateful" for daring to mention.

About the "fish" thing, in my experience that has been a slur used by gay men to refer to the vagina. In the TG/TS community, at least in the contexts I've been in, "fish" has had a different meaning, like from this one trans woman who maintained a site from a long time ago as she transitioned:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080110040 ... hgirl.html

When I've seen it in this context, I assumed it meant the characteristic features of a face that is unmistakably female and that some of the features that make up such a face are said to resemble those of a fish.

But who knows? I haven't read Janet Mock's book, so I don't know which context she was planning to use it in.

On the issue of criminality in trans people, I believe there was a Swedish long-term followup study published in 2011. They said that the cohort from 1973-1988 did have higher levels of criminality, but not the cohort from 1989-2003; they said they weren't sure if that was because rates of criminality tended to rise a decade after sex reassignment surgery or if better treatment and social acceptance for the 1989-2003 cohort didn't help prevent elevated criminality. You can read the full study here on PMC:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

(This study, BTW, has oft been quoted out of context. I know GallusMag has misused it to argue that trans people today necessarily have higher rates of criminality, even though that had not been found in the latter cohort in the study.)

EDIT: This is the relevant quote from the study:



(And, oh, remember that this study compares post-op trans people to matched controls from the general population.)

Also, sex reassignment surgery is part of the health care needs of many trans people. Apparently, Janice Raymond colluded with the conservative Reagan Administration to remove all federal funding of it, which made it difficult for trans people, who are often socioeconomically disadvantaged, to access medically necessary surgery and other health care.

We are only just now beginning to finally undo what Raymond and Reagan did, finally beginning to put American trans people on equal footing with trans people of other countries in terms of access to our health care needs:

http://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/dabdec ... cd1403.pdf

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/12/ ... ne-gender/

In that case yes, but they should still get their own room, I just didn't know it was common to entirely separate males and females, I don't think I would want to go to a strictly female ward not that I'd want to go to one in the first place but with my mental health its bound to happen again. But I suppose I can see how in some cases it might be better to have seperate wards for males and females like if someones been raped by the opposite gender and are struggling a lot with the trauma they might not want to be exposed to the other gender while there.

No, see, this is why you are arrogant: When a person argues a point, the only legitimate way to conduct the discussion is to assume that the other person actually believes that what they say is true, unless you have good reason to suspect otherwise. You may think that I'm ignorant, but accusing me of thinking that I'm ignorant, and that my own ignorance gives me authority...doesn't even make any sense. Also, you still don't seem to understand that you merely claiming something, without explaining it, is unconvincing, uninformative, and a complete waste of my time. Telling someone that they are ignorant over and over again without explaining why is arrogant. Tossing off links, expecting someone to go through a 300-plus page book, without even providing a coherent explanation as to why I should read them? Arrogant. Whether or not you are right...whatever your point even was...your conduct is still arrogant. I wasn't calling you arrogant because I think that you are wrong.


No, this is your assumption. Did it ever occur to you that I've heard your arguments before, considered them, and rejected them? A difference of opinion is not necessarily based in ignorance. Again, your arrogance at work.



Stop trying to read my mind. You don't know what I feel or what I know. Again, your arrogance.


I don't care. I didn't say it to be nice, I said it because it's true. I don't even understand why you think this is relevant. Words mean what they mean, regardless of whether or not the meaning offends you. Also, I didn't restrict the meaning of anything. Do you think I made up the meaning of the word sex? I didn't! You can find it in a dictionary, and I'm not the one who put it there.



I called you out on your arrogance, in a single sentence. Is that all it takes to be accused of "rageposting"? You don't know that I felt rage. Arrogance.

Why would you assume that I don't want you to respond? Did you not notice the questions I asked you? Why would I ask you to explain yourself if I didn't want you to respond? And where are your answers? You know, if explaining yourself is exhausting, perhaps, instead of wasting your energy composing posts in which you do nothing other than to talk down to people, you could use that energy to type up a coherent point and defend it. Or figure out which part of the entire book you linked is relevant for me to read, and posting that.

Upon further reflection, I think I've figured it out. You do not observe a difference between the semantic meaning of the word and the pragmatic meaning or social implications of the use of the word. You observe that the pragmatic use of the word has negative social implications, and, not separating the two, you think that the problem is with the semantic meaning, and so you think the word ought to be re-defined. Am I right?

The rape thing is a bit off, because you're saying that a woman struggling with rape trauma might not want to be exposed to "the other gender" while there, which is - I presume - men. Transgender women are not men, and are thus not "the other gender."

Also, this kind of exclusion has been linked to increased trauma and mental illness, even suicidality for transgender women, so you're risking one woman's mental health and recovery for the sake of assumptions about another's mental health and recovery, or at least placing the latter woman's recovery as a higher priority.

Exactly this, even if the man is considered under the influence of the delusion of being female, one should be placed in a female ward, this is to aid any treatment.

There's a fine line between transgenderism considered an illness or something normal, the line between transgendered and delusion is possibly if a patient have had these feelings of being the wrong gender since young, the same way an Autistic is diagnosed from other disorders. In my opinion.

Its a judgment call if a patient is under a delusion with other characteristics of illness. To me, it's no good transitioning someone who is delusional, only to recover and feel the way they where before the delusion took hold.

I don't actually think there is any documented "people who think they should transition" as a delusion. It's a popular stereotype to use against transgender people, but has it ever happened? I don't think that's the case.

Also, many transgender people do not know until their teens or adulthood and transition for them frequently seems to be the right, healthy choice for them to make.

There are people who transition who should not have, although their reasons for doing so often have more to do with body dysmorphic disorder or other issues, not psychosis.

About the whole "transgender as delusion:"

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/12/0 ... -delusion/

Exactly right, but the delusions could mean say... You woke up with the unshakeable belief that you're in the wrong sex, while before there was nothing to suggest Transgenderism. Any respectable psychologist in that position would think twice before referring someone to transition.

I'm all for Trans being a completely normal thing, I've been in the position of discussing that with a number of mental health doctors myself.

Trans is far from the only thing that's considered delusional while the fact of the matter it is a normal human experience. Hearing voices is another example.