"Where's the proof that TIMs are as dangerous as regular men?"
"Where's the proof that TIMs are as dangerous as regular men?"
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. It assumes that, even if some TIMs might be đ¸totally legit turbo-pink-brained đ đ , 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.
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:
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. It assumes that, even if some TIMs might be đ¸totally legit turbo-pink-brained đ
đ , 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.
