Abusive husband? Transgender child

Certain feminists are big on calling for equal rights until its equal rights to step into a boxing ring and smash someones brains out or go to war and shoot or get shot at. I didn't hear many of them protesting for women's right to join the sas. No then women are delicate little flowers that must be protected. It's one of the worst kinds of hypocrisy.

One or two stories I know about trans women beating biological women have been spread with some...lies and some truths but out of context. 

For example, a photograph of an injured female MMA fighter was being spread by anti-trans activists, and they were claiming that was the image of someone who had lost to a trans woman called Fallon Fox. The problem is, that photograph wasn't even taken after that fight and was a picture of her opponent after a completely different fight! 

Another one I can't remember what sport exactly, I'm fairly certain it was a fighting sport though, anti-trans activists were going mad about it, all sorts of lies were being spread. But guess what it turns out? She'd never competed professionally since transitioning! 

My point is, there is a pro-trans movement out there that maybe goes too far... But there is also an anti-trans movement that spreads lies about trans people too. 

Even if it's correct that pro-trans movements have some...shady areas within it, that doesn't justify an anti-trans movement spreading lies and hate. 

Athletes didn't take us to the stars. Scientists did. Sporting prowess is effectively useless to society at this point. Wars are no longer won by physical strength or endurance, food no longer gathered by hunters.

Plastic said:

I'm talking about biological females getting the snot smashed out of them in competitive sports with physically male competitors.     Happened a few times already - female MMA with smashed skull in the US.

So what. Male competitors in full contact sports regularly get injured why not women?

Plastic said:

Soon, no team wanting to win will be able to field a genetically female competitor - they will just lose.

Soon no team wanting to win will field a genetically unmodified competitor. The difference between gold or bronze at the top level is either the genetic lottery or doping. Performance enhancing gene therapy can't be far behind.

Peter said:

How many young women in hospital?

Can we just stop with the rather sexist assumption that all men, and by extension trans women, are inherently a threat to women already?

I'm talking about biological females getting the snot smashed out of them in competitive sports with physically male competitors.     Happened a few times already - female MMA with smashed skull in the US.

My facts are neither sexist or biased - just facts.   

Soon, no team wanting to win will be able to field a genetically female competitor - they will just lose.

Be interesting to see how long Wimbledon lasts.

Peter said:

How many sports scholarships will young girls win in future?

In my perfect world 0 ... because I'd probably abolish all such scholarships.

Wow, way to reach for the stars.......!

Do you really think that's gonna be a common thing? A man with a beard going into women's toilets? 

I know one person you have been listening to, but probably others too; they've distorted your view. 

Do you think men who want to commit sexual crimes would want to make themselves stand out like that? 


From what I know about the sports stuff, there would be requirements a trans woman would have to meet before she would be able to participate in such sports. It's still open for debate on how to include trans people in sport, and many trans people accept that research may come out one day suggesting we can never have an inclusion of trans women in Combative sport.  

Listen to what you're saying. What you're saying is from people who want to dehumanise trans women. And it does this by pointing fingers and essentially equating them with sexual offenders! 

Plastic said:

Because most lesser things that would have got them locked up are now legal or such a muddy grey or hot-potato area that conviction is unlikely.

The solution there is to exclude grey areas and sex based bias from our legal system. But anyway what are the grey areas and hot potatoes to which you refer?

Plastic said:

If a 6' well-built bloke with a beard with jeans and jumper can legally barge into the lady's because today he's calling himself  'Mary', where have women's right gone?

I wasn't aware that being able to urinate beyond the hearing of a member of the opposite sex, or indeed any person, was now a human right? cubicles offer adequate privacy from the prying eyes of all genders when properly installed and maintained.

Plastic said:

If he can then join the Olympic female Judo team, how many Golds will he win?

I don't know. And honestly I don't care. elite competitive sport is more about genes than talent now anyway.

Plastic said:

How many young women in hospital?

Can we just stop with the rather sexist assumption that all men, and by extension trans women, are inherently a threat to women already?

Plastic said:

How many sports scholarships will young girls win in future?

In my perfect world 0 ... because I'd probably abolish all such scholarships.

Peter said:

Sounds very strange to me. Get out of jail free? Female sex offenders exist, we still put them in jail? How'd you work that one out?

Because most lesser things that would have got them locked up are now legal or such a muddy grey or hot-potato area that conviction is unlikely.   

If a 6' well-built bloke with a beard with jeans and jumper can legally barge into the lady's because today he's calling himself  'Mary', where have women's right gone?        If he can then join the Olympic female Judo team, how many Golds will he win?     How many young women in hospital?       How many sports scholarships will young girls win in future?          I could go on pointing out the new laws but most people don't want to think about the implications - and I'm a 'wing nut'.

/wing nut.

Sounds very strange to me. Get out of jail free? Female sex offenders exist, we still put them in jail? How'd you work that one out?

I do tend to agree that endless arguing about sensitive language only detracts from the genuine needs of trans people. The fact that the average wait to be seen by a specialist is 18 months. A big fuss about ordinary citizens refusing to use changed names but companies are largely able to be very difficult about new names on documentation and hide behind security concerns if called out on it.

I don't think it's 'destruction of women' or a get out of jail card for free. But then I did notice one another post you mentioned a woman who is against trans women and probably spouts that kind of rhetoric but there isn't a sudden influx of men who are sexual offenders claiming to be trans. Yes there have been some who then get in the media, but they're not the majority. 

What you're listening to there is people who want to dehumanise trans people. Which is not at all what I had in mind when I mention that there are sectors of trans activists that are doing more harm than good and was not what I meant at all. 

I think the biggest issue is how it's become a political game and we've changed the meaning or expanded the meaning of some words in efforts to be more 'inclusive.' 
And I think that forcing of trying to be more 'inclusive' may well bite trans people on the backside more and more in the future. 

It's the destruction of women.     The implications are enormous  - staggering. even - all under the false banner of helping poor confused children.    It's a huge game that was sold to well-meaning people to accept without them thinking the next thought - "and then what......?"

It's also a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free for all male sex-offenders.

There is an element of people seeming to be 'play acting' there has been some questionable ideas and 'theories' come out of some sectors of trans activism. That much is true. 

I do see red flags when transitioning does get compared to other more minor body modifications like piercings or tattoos or hairstyles. It's an odd comparison to me. 

I just don't feel that suggesting trans people are butchering their bodies is a good way of putting it either. I think there is a genuine case for some trans people to have surgeries and go on hormones and saying their butchering bodies just seems...insensitive. 

I think the biggest issue is how it's become a political game and we've changed the meaning or expanded the meaning of some words in efforts to be more 'inclusive.' 
And I think that forcing of trying to be more 'inclusive' may well bite trans people on the backside more and more in the future. 

Young people have been brainwashed into treating butchering their entire body as having a new hairstyle.     They are told things are simply reversible and 'no problem'.       Almost like they are playing at it - with very high stakes.       

They are in for a nasty shock when their friend-group changes and it all becomes very real for them as an individual.     

They have to tread a very fine line between getting what they think they want and what they are going to get - they have to play politics with the clinics and NHS to keep the brakes hard-on or the machine will eat them alive.

Unfortunately, a lot of these people have 'other things' going on for them in parallel so the thought process is not normally clear and reliable.

Plastic said:

I can only assume you've never had an invasive operation.   Everything costs - and not in money terms.

That's true but I can only assume the impact of multiple 'tweaking' surgeries, is small compared to complete reconstruction of the genitals.

Plastic said:

I know lots and lots of trans people and you are making the huge assumption about 'passing' - it only a tiny minority that will ever want to have surgery or drugs.

It's not an assumption so much as an extrapolation based on admittedly small sample size. A sample that is almost exclusively composed of MtFs in their 20s. And for the most part they don't seem overly keen to jump into genital surgery. But growing their b****ts, attaining a more feminine body shape, ensuring their face and voice is perceived as feminine, these appear to be very important to them.

I know lots and lots of trans people and you are making the huge assumption about 'passing' - it only a tiny minority that will ever want to have surgery or drugs.      I can't go into things on here but the trans-world is a very untidy place of different power groups - and underlying political intentions.

The clinics involved with transitioning young people do not always have the patient's outcomes to be at the heart of their treatment.    It's very messed up.   The more you dig, the more disillusioned you would get from all sides.

Peter said:

Other surgeries and treatments do exist. Crainofacial surgery can reshape the bones of the face to change the apparent sex of the face. Electrolysis can remove hair and stubble. Br***t-implants and mastectomies can reshape the chest. There are even surgeons offering surgeries to reshape the collar bones or waist. All of this can be reversed on a cosmetic level if needed. Almost none of it is available on the NHS.

I can only assume you've never had an invasive operation.   Everything costs - and not in money terms.

I mean informed consent is meant to be the cornerstone of good medicine so you'd like to think they are. And of course if they are not it's the implementation of the NHS's gender dysphoria services that is the issue not the notion that they should exist at all.

Really the majority of trans people I know the thing that seems to matter to them most is passing, being read as having the body of their desired sex. And sadly in terms of hormones their effectiveness in achieving this post puberty has been really over stated. And of course genital surgery only has relevance in situations where the genitals can been seen.

Other surgeries and treatments do exist. Crainofacial surgery can reshape the bones of the face to change the apparent sex of the face. Electrolysis can remove hair and stubble. Br***t-implants and mastectomies can reshape the chest. There are even surgeons offering surgeries to reshape the collar bones or waist. All of this can be reversed on a cosmetic level if needed. Almost none of it is available on the NHS.

The NHS approach to gender dysphoria is genital centric, I suspect mostly because one of the driving forces for the introduction of sex change procedures was patients who self amputated things. It would make a lot more sense to begin gender transition by offering reversible cosmetic procedures that would actually give trans people a better chance of passing as their desired sex.

Or that she transitioned for something that felt much more innate, than any societal pressures?

I don't know. I'd be interested to learn if there were any tangible neurological differences in people who feel their gender identity is at odds with their biological sex.

I'd argue this is the problem with umbrella terms. 'trans' became an umbrella term for anyone who doesn't adhere to 'societal normals of gender' yet this seems to be louder than trans people who feel a great need to actually transition with hormones and surgery. And then people can argue how society just needs to change then trans people wouldn't exist or need to transition or something. Completely talking over those that felt that needed that surgery. But I know that's a controversial point to make these days. 

In other words, trans people are much rarer than we now think due to the umbrella term, and they're all being lumped into the same statistics. I think this is what causes a lot of the arguments and debates, especially from a political point of view.