Spell out exactly what rights
Another consignment of “Why can’t you just support trans rights, why are you so cruelly opposed to trans rights, all the good people are for trans rights, you are such a demonic enemy of trans rights” without any pesky detail about what actual rights they’re talking about. Like…
Wonderful you, you’re so empathy, you’re so kind with your so sorry and your sad emoji, but what exactly are the trans rights you’re defending? Also: nobody says trans people “shouldn’t exist.” That’s a stupid but all the more effective lie. The issue is not existence, the issue is fake idenniny and encroachment on the rights and protections of other people – to be exact, of women.
What does “apparently” mean there? In your head, yes? Because of course women who object to men in women’s spaces of course are interested in the crisis of male violence against women, including intimate partner violence or stranger violence. Very interested. That’s exactly why we don’t want men in our spaces, even if they say they are trans women. It’s not at all “apparent” that we don’t care, it’s “apparent” only to you and only in the sense that it’s the nearest insult you could find in a hurry.
Especially since you don’t have to read very far on blogs like this one to see that the women defending women’s spaces are often speaking loudly and ferociously about violence against women (even when no trans is involved). Also, sex trafficking (which most of the trans-philia defend at least in some contexts), pedophilia, and many other issues that affect women (and in the case of pedophilia, can affect males, as well).
If challenged about this, they will just say “I don’t read transphobes”. Then how do you know they are transphobes? Somebody told me they are transphobes, How can you be sure they (1) are honest; (2) know; or (3) are objective?
When people do not spell out the “hate” they receive, it leads me to suspect they know it isn’t actually hate it is just disagreement. They can’t say what the hate is, because it isn’t hate, it’s reasoned debate. But they can’t admit that even to themselves…cognitive dissonance, anyone?
That person is an idiot.
“Apparently not interested in male violence against women” means Victoria did not personally witness any comments about male violence against women. But that’s because the tide of replies she received were in response to her spree of tweets in support of trans women, and so were concerned with that specific topic. I doubt she looked any deeper.
She also appears to think trans women’s violence against women does not count as male violence against women.
And finally, so what? If some people are active on a particular topic but not others, that doesn’t mean a damn thing. A person can campaign against local environmental concerns as opposed to global as an example, without it being assumed their only care is for the local issues.
And of course, the issue of a threat to women by trans people in women’s space is not “mythical”. There are various social media groups documenting news reports of women being assaulted in just those places, by men claiming to be women.
No one is opposed to “trans people’s” existence. We are opposed to the lie that mammals can change sex, to the lie that a woman can have a penis, and that a woman who doesn’t want to see that penis is a transphobe and needs to get out of sport.
I had to respond to DocVic, just because pointing out that JKR actually DID something to help victims of MVAW by opening a shelter, was too easy a barrel-fish to pass up.
Good.
In a recent Facebook “discussion” spurred by that CPAC reference to eradicating “transgenderism”, I attempted to make my position clear that “transgender” had no clear definition that covered all the cases, and that therefore there were no “transgender people”, only people who claimed to be “trans” (some but not all of whom might be diagnosed with gender dysphoria). I also offered the opinion that “transgenderism”, as I might use it, means the ideology that it is possible to be “trans”, that gender identity exists, that gender identity is more important than sex, and so forth. An ideology, not a human condition.
As often happens in Facebook discussions, nobody paid any attention to the details, only to indicate strong disagreement what whatever they thought I was saying. One person coined the term “cisgenderism”, which to me was a good indication that he thought “transgenderism” was the condition that made trans people the way they are, and cisgenderism would then be the complementary condition. So, not an ideology that “trans” is a real thing, but a condition with the implicit assumption that “trans” is a real thing.
It is clear that viewing “transgenderism” as a condition versus as an ideology implies drastically different things regarding the existence of “trans” people and the elimination or reduction of “transgenderism”.
A man can identify as a “non-binary trans girl,” feminists aren’t allowed to identify as “not transphobic,” even though there’s much more evidence to support the latter than the former. Got it.
They never take advantage of the right to remain silent, do they?