These last comments have been helpful to break down assumed interpretations. I had a different interpretation than previously expressed ones to, "They(i.e. the trans community) shared none of the concerns that sane men and women felt about rapists and perverts in women’s spaces." My interpretation isn't about potential malicious trans.
These last comments have been helpful to break down assumed interpretations. I had a different interpretation than previously expressed ones to, "They(i.e. the trans community) shared none of the concerns that sane men and women felt about rapists and perverts in women’s spaces." My interpretation isn't about potential malicious trans.
My interpretation is that trans activists are making demands while denying/avoiding the obvious inherent risks of male bodies in female spaces. You, Rogue4Gay, seem to capture this by pointing out that, it isn't trans that are putting females at risk, but that it would be any male body. I hope I did not misunderstand you, but I agree.
The truth of ". . . shared none of the concerns. . . " suggests how severely limited and powerless requests by trans activists have been without acknowledging the impact to others.
More plainly, activists could gain tremendous credibility by simply stating, "Yes, transmen bring into any space risks that male bodies do, but that is okay, or that can be mitigated because <reasons>". Instead, activists completely deny it.
Trans activists cannot credibly expect empathy for their request when, almost universally, their method is to deny empathy for female bodies. People sense that empathy is being requested in only one direction, and it puts the trans activist on a moral low road, literally on the wrong side right from the start. Want empathy? Give empathy.
Activists would be wise to not make false equivalencies of male trans:females as slaves:slave owners, because that would imply that females are inherently in power and unrighteous over trans male bodies, and that idea is absurd.
Again, want empathy? Give empathy.
Acknowledging risks and making suggestions for handling fake/malicious/opportunistic trans (not real trans) would really help move the conversation forward. The activist drum beat of "transwomen are women" is interpreted by many/(most?) as a refusal by activists to embrace reality.
Reality? Male bodies are much more violent and, on average, capable of imposing harm on female bodies. Nobody has time for anybody that denies these facts, yet, "transwomen are women"?
I bet we can get closer to discussing real trans freedom while including protections from malicious trans and also male bodies. Honesty is a necessary in order to advance on this journey.
These last comments have been helpful to break down assumed interpretations. I had a different interpretation than previously expressed ones to, "They(i.e. the trans community) shared none of the concerns that sane men and women felt about rapists and perverts in women’s spaces." My interpretation isn't about potential malicious trans.
My interpretation is that trans activists are making demands while denying/avoiding the obvious inherent risks of male bodies in female spaces. You, Rogue4Gay, seem to capture this by pointing out that, it isn't trans that are putting females at risk, but that it would be any male body. I hope I did not misunderstand you, but I agree.
The truth of ". . . shared none of the concerns. . . " suggests how severely limited and powerless requests by trans activists have been without acknowledging the impact to others.
More plainly, activists could gain tremendous credibility by simply stating, "Yes, transmen bring into any space risks that male bodies do, but that is okay, or that can be mitigated because <reasons>". Instead, activists completely deny it.
Trans activists cannot credibly expect empathy for their request when, almost universally, their method is to deny empathy for female bodies. People sense that empathy is being requested in only one direction, and it puts the trans activist on a moral low road, literally on the wrong side right from the start. Want empathy? Give empathy.
Activists would be wise to not make false equivalencies of male trans:females as slaves:slave owners, because that would imply that females are inherently in power and unrighteous over trans male bodies, and that idea is absurd.
Again, want empathy? Give empathy.
Acknowledging risks and making suggestions for handling fake/malicious/opportunistic trans (not real trans) would really help move the conversation forward. The activist drum beat of "transwomen are women" is interpreted by many/(most?) as a refusal by activists to embrace reality.
Reality? Male bodies are much more violent and, on average, capable of imposing harm on female bodies. Nobody has time for anybody that denies these facts, yet, "transwomen are women"?
I bet we can get closer to discussing real trans freedom while including protections from malicious trans and also male bodies. Honesty is a necessary in order to advance on this journey.