"Where's the proof that TIMs are as dangerous as regular men?"
"Where's the proof that TIMs are as dangerous as regular men?"
- As mentioned, you could go on with this forever: where are the studies proving that blonde men pose the same danger to women as other men? Or male post officers? Or men with funny hats? Or male sugar glider owners? You don't need separate studies to prove that every imaginable type of man is a threat when we know the biggest predictor of this is the fact that they are MALE. We know which part of this makes all these men dangerous, and the onus is on you to disprove that this is a factor (and no, "They claim they're safe, honest" doesn't count).
- Related to previous point, it assumes TIMs don't pose a threat based on...literally nothing. Why would merely saying you are psychologically something else mean you're immune to all the physical and psychological effects of the patriarchy? What reasoning is there to support this? Is it their pink soul? Or is it all those tiddy-skittle hormones? Is it the emasculating self-identity? The castration? But we have plenty of evidence that this does not make men harmless, and not only is this evidence ignored, there isn't any attempt to argue even a semblance of a reason for what exactly is supposed to make TIMs into harmless widdle babies, probably because they know it'd either sound misogynistic af or that there's plenty of men in the exact same circumstances that have still hurt women.
- It haggles with women's rights and tries to sell special privileges to a subset of men proclaimed "less dangerous" or as "failed men" by focusing on how these men compare to other men, instead of purely measuring the negative impact of male presence on women (which is not something men can special-status their way out of). I don't give a shit that poor widdle TIMs are bullied by men, that they get dysphoria from not looking like anime girls or that they're out of shape compared to average men because they spend all their days on the internet (This was an actual study that gets used to prove how harmless they are), that has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights. Even the weakest, flimsiest men don't get to invade women's spaces. Skinny short men don't get to do it, old men in wheelchairs don't get to do it, gay men don't get to do it. It's not just about sheer physical strength, it's also about the patriarchal, controlling, creepy, dehumanising and sexualised misogyny that men bring to the table.
- It assumes that, even if some TIMs might be 🌸totally legit turbo-pink-brained 💅👠, that it's smart to let ALL men into female spaces based on nothing but their own personal claim to this, because validating the poor innocent #TrueTrans TIMs' gendersoul is more important than women not suffering male violence (and I don't mean just selfID, this includes self-castration as well. There's heaps of communities dedicated to castration fantasies for horny men after all, because ofc there are). This is like letting gay men into female spaces on the basis of their self-proclaimed lack of any sexual interest in women, or letting in any man who identifies as a feminist or a harmless angel. Really now? Even if you think individual men like this are harmless, surely you can see how this would be abused by the majority of other men.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
YesYourNigel
Jan 19 2025, 7:45 PM #1This is like asking "What proof is there that men with blue eyes are as dangerous to women as regular men?". It fails on multiple levels:
- As mentioned, you could go on with this forever: where are the studies proving that blonde men pose the same danger to women as other men? Or male post officers? Or men with funny hats? Or male sugar glider owners? You don't need separate studies to prove that every imaginable type of man is a threat when we know the biggest predictor of this is the fact that they are MALE. We know which part of this makes all these men dangerous, and the onus is on you to disprove that this is a factor (and no, "They claim they're safe, honest" doesn't count).
- Related to previous point, it assumes TIMs don't pose a threat based on...literally nothing. Why would merely saying you are psychologically something else mean you're immune to all the physical and psychological effects of the patriarchy? What reasoning is there to support this? Is it their pink soul? Or is it all those tiddy-skittle hormones? Is it the emasculating self-identity? The castration? But we have plenty of evidence that this does not make men harmless, and not only is this evidence ignored, there isn't any attempt to argue even a semblance of a reason for what exactly is supposed to make TIMs into harmless widdle babies, probably because they know it'd either sound misogynistic af or that there's plenty of men in the exact same circumstances that have still hurt women.
- It haggles with women's rights and tries to sell special privileges to a subset of men proclaimed "less dangerous" or as "failed men" by focusing on how these men compare to other men, instead of purely measuring the negative impact of male presence on women (which is not something men can special-status their way out of). I don't give a shit that poor widdle TIMs are bullied by men, that they get dysphoria from not looking like anime girls or that they're out of shape compared to average men because they spend all their days on the internet (This was an actual study that gets used to prove how harmless they are), that has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights. Even the weakest, flimsiest men don't get to invade women's spaces. Skinny short men don't get to do it, old men in wheelchairs don't get to do it, gay men don't get to do it. It's not just about sheer physical strength, it's also about the patriarchal, controlling, creepy, dehumanising and sexualised misogyny that men bring to the table.
- It assumes that, even if some TIMs might be 🌸totally legit turbo-pink-brained 💅👠, that it's smart to let ALL men into female spaces based on nothing but their own personal claim to this, because validating the poor innocent #TrueTrans TIMs' gendersoul is more important than women not suffering male violence (and I don't mean just selfID, this includes self-castration as well. There's heaps of communities dedicated to castration fantasies for horny men after all, because ofc there are). This is like letting gay men into female spaces on the basis of their self-proclaimed lack of any sexual interest in women, or letting in any man who identifies as a feminist or a harmless angel. Really now? Even if you think individual men like this are harmless, surely you can see how this would be abused by the majority of other men.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
I think of this line of argument as another form of Not All Men, which many good libfems would normally understand is a bad argument. The problem is that many of them don't think of TIMs as men, at least not fully. They imagine them to inhabit, perhaps, a third category, or to be so wounded and victimized by dysphoria or whatever that they should be given special treatment. It always comes back to convincing them that regardless of their gender feelings, these people are still male, with everything that entails.
Easy retort: where's the proof that they're not? As you say, it's quite reasonable to assume all males pose the same kind of threat.
I think of this line of argument as another form of Not All Men, which many good libfems would normally understand is a bad argument. The problem is that many of them don't think of TIMs as men, at least not fully. They imagine them to inhabit, perhaps, a third category, or to be so wounded and victimized by dysphoria or whatever that they should be given special treatment. It always comes back to convincing them that regardless of their gender feelings, these people are still male, with everything that entails.
Outside of that are the poor UwU men: the gay men, male feminists, TIMs, lonely bullied nerdy men, non-white men, poor homeless men, even their Nigels....They assume that, because a man has had negative experiences due to the patriarchy, that he's on their side, and that they want to take down supremacist men with them for the betterment of society. This is also fed into by immature ideas on perfect victims where bullied or alienated men are automatically good people just because they got harmed by someone or don't relate to societal norms.
In reality, these men are bitter not at the system but because they couldn't profit off of it as much as they think they deserve. Their rejection of social norms just comes down to being a self-absorbed brat throwing a tantrum because they have to consider other people's needs for a change. Or it's just some stupid persecution complex over an inconsequential hobby or porn preferences.
No matter how UwU sad and tragic a man's backstory is, they always, ALWAYS comfort themselves that they can subjugate and control at least one woman. Even if they don't actively advocate it, they will still cover for men and make excuses and shift the blame on women for not fixing their psychological damage or giving them pity-fucks. That's how male biases work. Merely getting the short end of a stick won't make them see reason, because the unfairness to them isn't in the patriarchy itself, it's in not getting the goodies they've been promised. Their lives are defined by chasing this carrot and merely not having it isn't enough to make them reconsider this.
Women fundamentally do not understand this because the patriarchy by definition doesn't include them. They assume that any man who gets screwed over is in the same situation and knows what a scam this all is, but men will ram themselves into a wall until they drop dead because they want this carrot. Women don't understand just how much of male existence is defined by this, even for men who will wax philosophical about being all wise and logical, all of them will still parrot the same garbage because they don't know or care about anything else, and because of how these hierarchies work they don't care to learn any better.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
YesYourNigel
Jan 21 2025, 1:01 AM #3Most libfems have this cognitive dissonance where there is The Man as this stereotypical enemy, aka generic masculine emotionally distant socially-adapted dude up to no good, high-fiveing other frat bros while reblogging redpill posts.
Outside of that are the poor UwU men: the gay men, male feminists, TIMs, lonely bullied nerdy men, non-white men, poor homeless men, even their Nigels....They assume that, because a man has had negative experiences due to the patriarchy, that he's on their side, and that they want to take down supremacist men with them for the betterment of society. This is also fed into by immature ideas on perfect victims where bullied or alienated men are automatically good people just because they got harmed by someone or don't relate to societal norms.
In reality, these men are bitter not at the system but because they couldn't profit off of it as much as they think they deserve. Their rejection of social norms just comes down to being a self-absorbed brat throwing a tantrum because they have to consider other people's needs for a change. Or it's just some stupid persecution complex over an inconsequential hobby or porn preferences.
No matter how UwU sad and tragic a man's backstory is, they always, ALWAYS comfort themselves that they can subjugate and control at least one woman. Even if they don't actively advocate it, they will still cover for men and make excuses and shift the blame on women for not fixing their psychological damage or giving them pity-fucks. That's how male biases work. Merely getting the short end of a stick won't make them see reason, because the unfairness to them isn't in the patriarchy itself, it's in not getting the goodies they've been promised. Their lives are defined by chasing this carrot and merely not having it isn't enough to make them reconsider this.
Women fundamentally do not understand this because the patriarchy by definition doesn't include them. They assume that any man who gets screwed over is in the same situation and knows what a scam this all is, but men will ram themselves into a wall until they drop dead because they want this carrot. Women don't understand just how much of male existence is defined by this, even for men who will wax philosophical about being all wise and logical, all of them will still parrot the same garbage because they don't know or care about anything else, and because of how these hierarchies work they don't care to learn any better.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
Wasn't there actually data collected (I've definitely seen it discussed on Ovarit and possibly on radblr), maybe it was sourced from Reduxx or WDI, maybe they did a FOIA request or something, but it was about the statistics of incarcerated TIP prisoners. And the data showed that TIMs were in prison for sexual assault crimes at a higher rate than the general male prison population? "lol."
Re: title question of "Where's the proof that TIMs are as dangerous as regular men?"
Wasn't there actually data collected (I've definitely seen it discussed on Ovarit and possibly on radblr), maybe it was sourced from Reduxx or WDI, maybe they did a FOIA request or something, but it was about the statistics of incarcerated TIP prisoners. And the data showed that TIMs were in prison for sexual assault crimes at a higher rate than the general male prison population? "lol."
I will try to hunt down a source, but the internet no longer makes it easy to find things like that.
I think Clover’s right. Pretty sure that, back in the days when such research was allowed, it was fairly common knowledge in psychology that cross-dressing was more closely associated with sexual violence than any other paraphilia was, and that it was more common in sexually sadistic murderers than in the male population in general.
I will try to hunt down a source, but the internet no longer makes it easy to find things like that.
(Jan 21 2025, 6:47 AM)wormwood I think Clover’s right. Pretty sure that, back in the days when such research was allowed, it was fairly common knowledge in psychology that cross-dressing was more closely associated with sexual violence than any other paraphilia was, and that it was more common in sexually sadistic murderers than in the male population in general.
I will try to hunt down a source, but the internet no longer makes it easy to find things like that.
Actually it's right here, at least for the UK.
(Jan 21 2025, 6:47 AM)wormwood I think Clover’s right. Pretty sure that, back in the days when such research was allowed, it was fairly common knowledge in psychology that cross-dressing was more closely associated with sexual violence than any other paraphilia was, and that it was more common in sexually sadistic murderers than in the male population in general.
I will try to hunt down a source, but the internet no longer makes it easy to find things like that.
Actually it's right here, at least for the UK.
(Jan 21 2025, 2:18 AM)Clover it was about the statistics of incarcerated TIP prisoners. And the data showed that TIMs were in prison for sexual assault crimes at a higher rate than the general male prison population? "lol."
I wonder if that's indicative of an actual trend, or is it just that TIMs are less likely to get away with it compared to "normal respectable men" committing sexual assault in normal respectable ways? Admittedly your average autogynephile is probably a lot more unhinged than your average man who at least recognises that he should keep his controversial sexual interests out of the general public's eye.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
YesYourNigel
Jan 25 2025, 9:22 AM #7(Jan 21 2025, 2:18 AM)Clover it was about the statistics of incarcerated TIP prisoners. And the data showed that TIMs were in prison for sexual assault crimes at a higher rate than the general male prison population? "lol."
I wonder if that's indicative of an actual trend, or is it just that TIMs are less likely to get away with it compared to "normal respectable men" committing sexual assault in normal respectable ways? Admittedly your average autogynephile is probably a lot more unhinged than your average man who at least recognises that he should keep his controversial sexual interests out of the general public's eye.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)