> The trans debate would be much less heated if it did not involve other people's children.
Oh really? What about bathrooms? I hear that trans people love to go to bathrooms and molest children.
If so, these are rare, and aren't the main reason why most people want to keep certain spaces as sex-segregated.
If you're reading this, you've probably been in a bathroom with a trans person, or someone you know has, and they've been absolutely fine. Trans people by and large want to get in, pee, and get out, same as everyone else -- but perhaps moreso, given the risk of transphobic rhetoric and abuse if they were to be "clocked" (identified) as a trans person.
The primary abusers of women and children are men, followed by (cis) women. Trans women make up an exceedingly small portion of that particular criminal element, but they're vilified and used as boogeymen so much more, to attempt to deny trans women's existence under "think of the children" handwaving.
This is one reason why many feminists, and others, argue against transwomen sharing female-only spaces. From their point of view, a transwoman is a type of man, due to being male, and being trans isn't a sufficient mitigation.
From a criminality perspective, there are data to support this, which indicate that transwomen as a group have similar patterns of offending to other males. And, worryingly, a higher proportion of sexual offences.
On that latter point, this article by transwoman Debbie Hayton offers some insight as to why this may be: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/prison-service-...
Plenty feminists are intersectional, TERFs are in the minority (and before someone claims it's a slur, a cis woman feminist came up with the term, to refer to the trans-exclusionary minority).
Trans is a descriptor, so "trans woman" is the appropriate usage, nor "transwoman" -- and those feminists aren't taking umbrage with non-binary trans people, or trans men -- only trans women... Hmm.
That aside, the link you provided is disingenuous -- the author may be trans, but they conflate sex and gender, and have often been transphobic, as have the CCJS themselves.
You don't seem to be engaging in good faith -- ignoring the "whataboutism" and ignorant terminology, you're also conflating sex with gender, and deciding that a minority justify excluding the vast majority.
Are you next going to say that only women who can bleed and bear children are women? -- because plenty of cis women can't, and that's the kind of exclusionary rhetoric that's used next.
Seems odd to write this off as "transphobic" given that Hayton is a transwoman. I think you just have a differing opinion, that's all.
Would you be so fascinated to read the insight of trans people who are capable of not conflating sex and gender? Hayton's whole schtick is appealing to the TERF crowd, and therefore escaping that particular line of transphobic abuse. You won't see her going into the men's room, though.
Living as a woman while claiming she's a man is her choice, but it's the hateful TERFy rhetoric that's espoused by the anti-trans organisations she surrounds herself with. Whether it's internalised transphobia or not I cannot say, but she certainly has campaigned hard against improving trans rights. The fact that she's proud of associations with right-wing, transphobic outlets like GBN and RT only serve to show how disingenuous she can be... but hey, it gets her clicks and applauds within the anti-trans crowd, which she seems to relish in.
It's not "odd" to describe something by the correct term, and claiming trans women are men is inherently transphobic, and unintelligently conflates sex with gender, when they are absolutely not the same thing. Maybe next time don't assume the thoughts or opinions of others.
I think Hayton's article provides a view that carefully and thoughtfully balances the needs of both women and transwomen. It's a refreshing change from the type of activism that demands all sex-segregated spaces be torn down and that sex-based rights no longer matter.
Where are those "feminists" when it comes to trans men? Oh wait, just claim they're confused lesbians, and focus on labelling every trans woman as a predator -- because that's what feminism is about, reducing women to genitals. /s
The fact that you say "both women and transwomen" shows your own disingenuousness and transphobia, both failing to recognise trans women as women, and failing to grasp the simple concept that "trans" is a descriptor, and "transwomen" isn't a thing.
Who's "demanding all sex-segregated spaced be torn down" exactly? Nobody here, and certainly not I. Neither is anyone here claiming that "sex-based rights no longer matter," but good job with the straw man and whataboutism yet again.
What's your interest in HN? You don't seem to be here with any interest in the regular topics, are you only here to espouse anti-trans views? Don't you have Mumsnet and Woman's Place for that?
Your own account, which has public activity going back for less than a month, is almost entirely dedicated to soapboxing on trans issues.
Rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?
The fact that you consider defending peoples' right to exist as "soapboxing" shows how disingenuous and false you are, but that's hardly surprising.
Keep reading the Sun and picking and choosing your rare, minority examples to spout your exclusionary views -- but I'm sure you've got better places to do that than HN.
I'm only commenting on it recently because bigots have been trying to police the existence of other human beings with boogeymen and BS rhetoric. I'm not sorry for that, and I don't care about you taking umbrage with it. Be better.
Do you believe that this approach to expressing disagreement has been effective?
You're criticising intelligent and evidence-backed responses because they're not baseless one-liners? Ok sweetie... Still waiting to hear about your history on HN... oh wait, there isn't one.
Do you believe coming to HN to spout hate and rhetoric is going to win you any fans, or bolster your clique?
Given the upvotes, agreement, and having ignorant people admit when they're wrong, it's a lot more effective than the vitriol you've spouted.
Flamewar like this is completely against the rules and spirit of this site. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again—regardless of how right you are or feel you are.
Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit from now on. If you can't do that or don't want to, please don't post until you can and do.
Flamewar like this is completely against the rules and spirit of this site. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again—regardless of how right you are or feel you are.
Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit from now on. If you can't do that or don't want to, please don't post until you can and do.
The only way that makes sense is when viewed with a cynical eye: people are spooked by "not normal", and spooked people are more easily manipulated.
It's disgusting on so many levels.