FeckThul t1_iu03406 wrote
> Some campaigners, however, believe that allowing people to "self-identify" could have an impact on rights that women have fought for decades to secure. There is also concern about the impact on women-only spaces, including changing rooms, hospitals and refuges.
Are there any protections in place to assure that doesn’t happen?
Grig134 t1_iu0ggak wrote
How is that not covered by existing laws? Rape was still illegal last I checked.
E: Lol, I was blocked for this?
FeckThul t1_iu0gqnf wrote
Who’s talking about rape? The whole “trans rapist” line is almost exclusively a disingenuous and bigoted talking point and I never raised it.
jojorood t1_iu10x4b wrote
I mean, making women vulnerable to rape is the fake issue that politician was quitting over, and England/Scotland/that whole part of the world lives in deep fear of bathroom ambush predators suddenly being a thing if they stop clinging to their dated bullshit
Grig134 t1_iu0hi0y wrote
Well what are your concerns? Your post was intentionally vague.
FeckThul t1_iu0i28l wrote
These aren’t my concerns, I’m not a woman and never had to fight for things like a safe space for my gender, and I won’t pretend to speak for them. I’m familiar with the debate however, which usually centers on rape crisis centers, gender-segregated accommodations on trains, and similar situations. The concern isn’t about assault, and frankly I think the concerns are overblown, but as I’ve said… my experience in life is profoundly different from a woman traumatized by men. For me there’s no problem accepting trans women as women, but again, I have the privilege of having no baggage with AMAB people.
Grig134 t1_iu0ilo2 wrote
Lol, good to know you don't have any concerns. Odd that you decided to comment anyway.
> I’m familiar with the debate however
Yes, the debate is to vaguely allude to trans people being rapists, attempt to ban them from shelters, and then backtrack if called out. I too am familiar with the debate.
FeckThul t1_iu0iszx wrote
It’s unfortunate that you’re ignoring 99% of what I’m writing in favor of sentence fragments and whatever you believed coming into this.
Grig134 t1_iu0j8ma wrote
You quoted a section of the article saying there were concerns with the law. When asked about it you said you have no concerns and don't know what they would be. You're so obvious disingenuous it's hilarious.
FeckThul t1_iu0jnji wrote
Believe it or not, acting in bad faith because you assume I must be too is not really the basis for anything constructive.
Grig134 t1_iu0kljg wrote
Then make a point. What are your "concerns"?
FeckThul t1_iu0kxmt wrote
When did I say that I have concerns? I quoted an article in which people who are not me expressed concerns, I can’t read their minds.
Grig134 t1_iu0m8kt wrote
> I can’t read their minds.
But you can read their statements. This is a "destruction of women's rights" according to JK Rowling, one "concerned" individual mentioned. You did read the article I'm guessing because you managed to quote part of it.
FeckThul t1_iu0mg5p wrote
JK Rowling can blow it out of her many gaping sphincters, and the existence of transphobes like her doesn’t invalidate the concerns of women who aren’t scumbags.
[deleted] t1_iu0ifrh wrote
[deleted]
FeckThul t1_iu0ioeq wrote
> Human rights of women will not suddenly become null and void because a transwoman who had a sex change operation will be sent to a woman shelter instead of a man shelter after having been attacked.
Did anyone claim that?
> Or do you believe that trans people should be segregated from the rest of society?
As a cis man I don’t feel it’s my place to tell cis women that they need to suck it up and just get over whatever trauma they might have around AMAB people, “for the cause.”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments