Patience rapidly waning
Yeah. Same.
We live in an age when some of our most brilliant minds have to waste their time explaining to people things like “why males don’t belong in women’s prisons” and “why males don’t belong in women’s sports.” My patience for all of this is rapidly waning. pic.twitter.com/0vWos2vGiD
— Ben Appel (@benappel) May 22, 2024
She makes a really good point that applies to many Genderist arguments: there can be more than one problem to solve, and the existence of a second doesn’t mean that we ought to ignore the first, or second, or both. That women are at risk of sexual violence from male prison guards is an argument for examining the use of male prison guards in women’s prisons, not an argument for bringing more males into women’s prisons.
It’s essentially the same bogus argument that because a law or laws won’t eliminate a particular sort of criminal behavior, we should do away with any laws whatsoever regarding that behavior. No. That’s stupid. Bad monkey. It’s a bad argument, even when the conclusion is true.
Male criminal prisoners, including those who “identify as” women, are not there to choose their accommodations or have their wishes granted. Why have women’s prisons at all? Why segregate the most violent criminals from the less violent ones at all? If we’re going to protect society from people who violate the rules of society and are a danger to others, then we should protect all of society against these people. Society necessarily includes people in prison. Just as Professor Stock says, if trans “women” are vulnerable, then house them in a way that they will be protected, just as women are housed in women only prisons not only to protect society from them, but to protect them from other prisoners. Putting males in women’s prisons fails to do this. It’s not complicated. I wish I could be amused by stupidity as easily as Professor Stock seemed to be by these arguments. I find it irritating when people either don’t get it, or refuse to admit that they do in fact get it, and stubbornly refuse to accept it anyway. Is there some way we could grant their wishes? Sure, but that’s not why they are there. Prisons exist for a very specific purpose.
I will never understand it.
“What is it about the maleness that makes males a greater risk?”
Seriously? Do you even listen to yourself?
Let’s put it in simple terms: it’s the penis, “the better to rape you with, my dear.” It’s the size and strength advantage. It’s the male entitlement socialization advantage. It’s the patriarchy advantage. Is that clear enough for you?
There’s also the constant asymmetry between sexes. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I don’t expect there are many TIF prisoners demanding to be validated by being placed in men’s prisons, insisting on intimate inspections by male guards. But surely this would be the right outcome if we’re being consistent, right?
Helicam, same thing as in sports. Yet somehow I don’t see anyone fussing about the lack of TiFs in men’s sports, or proposing ways to encourage more trans men to participate (by lowering team standards, perhaps?)
It kills me that genderists don’t see these obvious asymmetries, or, seeing them, fail to stop and think about what they mean for their argument.
LM: Any and all asymmetries are the fault of TERFs and other non-believers, obviously.
More proof that transgenderism is primarily about what men want, and that TiFs are little but an afterthought, or windowdressing. I think that the erasure of the word “woman” in healthcare communications has less to do with placating TiFs (Look! “Men” get pregnant too!) and more to do with decoupling the idea of “woman” from those capacities and experiences that are truly, exclusively female. Capacities and experiences that TiMs will, gallingly, never have. They can never count them as part of their “living as a woman.” And they refuse to have their noses rubbed in it any longer. By erasing “women” from these experiences, TiMs get to punish women for being able to do, without “effort” what they never can. If things like menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and menopause are no longer part of what it means to be a woman, then that means the superficial trappings of “womanface” are all it takes. If all those things that were formerly “female only” are no longer attached to being a woman, then males’ inability to “do” them can no longer be used to bar them from being women. In this upside-down world of (Wo)man 2.0, citing these female-defining capacities in order to “exclude” men from the definition of woman is conveniently, derisively, and damningly rebranded as “biological determinism.”
I actually think they do see it, but since it affects women, think it’s not really all that important. There are others who sincerely do buy into the “transwomen are women” and think that any women standing up against that idea are bigoted. I was listening to Kathleen Hanna of Bikini Kill in an interview, one of the pioneers of the Riot Grrrls in Olympia in the 1990’s. In one minute she was talking about the violence against women that still remains, and in the next complaining about the women who don’t accept that transwomen are women and that she won’t stand for that bigotry at their concerts. The concept is becoming deeply embedded and to even question it is used to brand women who are feminists as fascists.