Anytime we create a caste who are above suspicion (and it’s clearly happened with priests, but others too), then we eventually discover it to be filled with unchallengeable abusers. You sound like you want to create a new above-suspicion caste of trans women. Why should it be different this time?
What's with everyone (mis)reading my mind tonight? I'm not obliged to justify something I didn't say. Meanwhile, so many of you are insisting trans people are innately more dangerous than cis folk
Just finished writing my follow-up post - you could try reading it…
Nah, I've had enough of being blamed for other people's crimes by those who assume I'm a man because I haven't fallen for the current moral panic. My comments are to reassure any gender questioning people who read them that plenty of people support their rights. Also I have work tomorrow
bsky.app/profile/kama...
(And I’m not saying all trans women are abusers, not at all - but the setting up of a caste WHO CANNOT BE CHALLENGED is an open invitation to men of ill-intent to clamber aboard. And who could possibly challenge them?)
The idea that trans people, the centre of the current moral panic, 'cannot be challenged' is ridiculous and doesn't bear scrutiny
But you're arguing here that we treat a subset of males as being less likely than other males to be sex offenders. Why?
We don't say we should "treat them as less likely", you're awful at reading
I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. What you’re arguing for creates the circumstance where this 👇🏻can (and clearly does) happen. In what universe is this not a problem?
In what universe are feminist focusing on excluding trans women from women's prisons (when the already are), when most rapes come from the prison staff? In what universe does it serve equality and protect rape victims to say women can't rape, excluding actual rapes from the law?
Also if you make up stuff, of course you have reasons not to believe me. But I can do that too, for all I know you eat kittens for breakfast too
Thanks for confirming that for you, harm to girls just doesn’t count, compared to the importance of trans women getting what they want. As to making stuff up, full chapter and verse here (his 20+yr history, inc how he now says online he’s 20F, when he’s actually 47) reduxx.info/exclusive-co...
I said that nowhere, you are making up that I am fine with hurting girls. So yes you are making things up, even just now. None of my arguments were in favour of that.
No repeated child sex offender, whether cis man, cis woman, trans man, trans woman or non binary person, should have access to kids. You never saw me advocate the contrary.
You’ve created this world, where any long-time child molester who says he’s now trans gets a free pass to carry on abusing. You clearly think this to be unimportant/just fine. But most sentient people don’t, y’know.
No I did not. I did not create a world where a child offender can access children. You apparently believe a repeat child sex offender should access children if they happen to be a cis woman. I don't.
You are setting trans women up as ‘better’, less of a risk than other males. And that leads to problems, cf priests. If you can’t see that, then you are blind to anybody else’s issues other than the ones you care about. And that disqualifies you as a useful commentator, cos you just don’t care.