No harm or foul
American bro goes on rant shocker.
One, what’s that “(alleged)” doing there? You don’t need an “alleged” in a hypothetical! There is no alleged rapist who is going to sue you for calling him a rapist, because this is a hypothetical, so the words are general, not particular.
Two, wtf is a trans rapist? Someone who identifies as a rapist without actually raping? The issue is actual convicted rapists, not men who say they’re rapists when they’re not.
Three, the issue isn’t “trans persons,” it’s men in women’s prisons. Men. Not persons, men. Your clumsy attempt to cover that up betrays the fact that you know that and are working to hide it. It’s not cute for a man to try to obfuscate the fact that it’s men who rape women, not “persons” who rape women.
Four, the policy, obviously, does one hell of a lot more than “proper recordkeeping.” It puts rapists in women’s prisons. Also it’s not “proper recordkeeping” at all to record rapist men as women.
Five, the issue isn’t “claiming to be trans,” it’s men claiming to be women. Why are you so eager to hide that fact by lying about it?
Six, “no issue here” – that’s easy for you to say, you woman-hating pig.
Plus the particular American conceit in deciding that the American legal definition of ‘rape’ is universal.
Once again, if the word “woman” is henceforth to be defined as something other than “adult human female” for purposes of criminal justice, then all the adult human females who don’t fit the new definition (e.g. who don’t think/feel in the proper “feminine” manner – whatever that’s suppose to mean?) have to be removed from “women’s prisons”* and their crimes have to be excluded from the crime statistics for “women”.
*The same goes for “women’s” sports, bathrooms etc. etc..
I looked at more of Abramson’s thread. Rowling’s tweet was several examples of Orwellian “Not-A is A”, the last one being “The Penised Individual Who Raped You is a Woman”. He notes:
It seems to me he is completely missing the point. Rowling is of course not claiming that people who rape “cease to be [trans]”. But apparently accurately referring to someone’s sex constitutes “strip[ping] people of their identity”. For whatever reason, Abramson runs with the first point rather than the second. Is it that incomprehensible to him that someone would wish to class all male-bodied adults as men, regardless of identity?
Abramson also shows in the thread that he doesn’t understand what “transition” means; he assumes it refers only to people who have had genital modification surgery.
I am pleased to see there are a ton of comments (after his extremely long and annotated thread) that take him properly to task.
And further, how would one recognize that someone “falsely claims to be trans” when the claim is the only evidence necessary? It’s sophistry. This whole fucking thing (I mean self ID, and “lived experience” and men taking over women’s spaces, all of it.) is just plain sophistry with absolutely no basis in reality or in logic.
Naif @ 1 – Indeed. My UK friends are pointing that out with considerable heat.
Abramson is a self important wind bag, well known for boringly long twitter threads that are of mediocre value. He’s also well known for being very thin skinned when it comes to criticism, so this should be a fun day or two, for certain values of ‘fun’.
There’s no such thing as “falsely” claiming to be trans, under the regime of self-ID/self-reporting, you are trans if you say you are, no debate.
This reminds me of a Strangio tweet featured on Pharyngula today.
“Meanwhile in the SD legislature – priorities include banning trans kids from sports, banning health care for trans kids, voter suppression, abortion bans.”
The dishonesties that I can pick out include:
– the usual ‘Dear Muslima’ bleat that you should not worry about minor concerns while larger ones exist. Even if we grant Strangio’s perception of which concerns are more pressing, that is not a reason to ignore the smaller concerns.
– Trans kids are not being banned from sports in genderal; trans women and girls i.e. male athletes are being banned from women’s sports. It is also possible that those laws are banning trans men and boys i.e. female athletes from men’s sports, I’m not sure. If so, I would disagree with that move.
– There is no ban on health care for trans kids. There is a ban on certain therapies for trans kids, on the basis that those therapies are of dubious benefit while having the potential to cause great distress in the event that the trans kid later decides that making permanent changes to their body was not the right course of action, and that such far reaching ramifications are generally too much to place on the judgement of a minor.
Interestingly enough, the points that make no mention of trans people are stated in reasonable terms; it is only the one topic which brings forth the lies.
Funny how that works, isn’t it. Trans ideology is rooted in lies, and the taste for lying seems to spread outward.
Wait, I thought that there was no such thing as “fake” trans people, that all self-identity was “valid” and that to question that was outright bigotry, if not “literal violence”. Haven’t we been told time after time after time that the women’s fears of men leveraging these permissive regulations to gain access to their private spaces would NEVER HAPPEN because no man would ever fake such a thing?