No rapists by 2123!

[DavidGYoung]

I predict that, by 2123, at least one English-speaking country will, technically speaking, have no rapists.

Here's how I think it will happen:

The desire to rape will be described as a dysphoria. The agreed treatment will be to let anyone and everyone give in to whatever makes the sufferer happy. Resisting will be classified as bigotry and result in prosecution.

Referring to non-consensual sex as 'rape' will be hate speech.

I am making this prediction by extrapolating from existing laws and existing political campaigns.

I won't be alive to see whether I am right. Any thoughts on my predictions though?

[Athanasius]

As the resident dysphoric I'm going to go with, no.

[RabbiKnife]

No
Nein
Non
Nyet
Nada
Negative GhostRider, the pattern is full.

[DavidGYoung]

How long can the Overton Window stay where it is though?

If the next symposium for the DSM decides on the dysphoria, isn't the rest of it inevitable?

This is already becoming the new normal:
"I don't blame the person who assaulted me on the London Underground, because he obviously had mental-health issues. It's the people who didn't come to my aid I blame."

[Oscar_Kipling]

I predict that, by 2123, at least one English-speaking country will, technically speaking, have no rapists.

Here's how I think it will happen:

The desire to rape will be described as a dysphoria. The agreed treatment will be to let anyone and everyone give in to whatever makes the sufferer happy. Resisting will be classified as bigotry and result in prosecution.

Referring to non-consensual sex as 'rape' will be hate speech.

I am making this prediction by extrapolating from existing laws and existing political campaigns.

I won't be alive to see whether I am right. Any thoughts on my predictions though?

So, which currently classified dysphorias would you say are adjacent to rape to the degree that it would lead you to believe that their acceptance sets us on the logical track to accepting sexual assault as permissible due to mental illness?

What is it about how our treatment of rape has developed over lets say the last 50 years that leads you to believe that we are on the path of becoming more accepting of it as opposed to classifying more things as sexual assault?

[DavidGYoung]

Gender dysphoria is the trend that will put ever more men in women's spaces.
When another inevitable rape occurs, some will argue that 'trans acceptance' trumps women's safety.
Anything other than saying "Well, in life we can't always be what we want to be."

By the middle of the twenty-first century, hitting a person who says "But you're not a woman. You're a man" will be justified by many among the alphabet-soup brigade as 'self-defence'. After all, "She was threatening my right to exist. That's genocide!".

Rape will not keep its status as the only malicious act that nobody ever excuses.

As the excuses for everything else become the norm, even a social worker from Brent will start to say "Oh, but you've GOT to understand..." when someone exhibits 'insufficient-sexual-participation dysphoria'.

[Athanasius]

No one's going to argue that.

GD as a diagnosis will be 86'd if activists have their way.

There's going to be a huge swing against our current psychosis, and "transgender" generally, once detrans stats - especially among girls and women - start rising just as astronomically as did their "identifying". Give it 5 - 10 years and a name, like "generation queer" to be decried as we do lobotomies today.

We'll eventually settle back to realising the difference between transsexualism and whatever the heck the nonsense is going on today.

[DavidGYoung]

I predict it will split. One group of countries will take the nonsense to its logical end. The other will recognise it as nonsense and give up on it.

[Athanasius]

There's no country that's going to be victim pyramiding itself into accepting rape.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Gender dysphoria is the trend that will put ever more men in women's spaces.
When another inevitable rape occurs, some will argue that 'trans acceptance' trumps women's safety.
Anything other than saying "Well, in life we can't always be what we want to be."

By the middle of the twenty-first century, hitting a person who says "But you're not a woman. You're a man" will be justified by many among the alphabet-soup brigade as 'self-defence'. After all, "She was threatening my right to exist. That's genocide!".

Rape will not keep its status as the only malicious act that nobody ever excuses.

As the excuses for everything else become the norm, even a social worker from Brent will start to say "Oh, but you've GOT to understand..." when someone exhibits 'insufficient-sexual-participation dysphoria'.

So, if i'm not misunderstanding you, We are not talking about sexual predators who pretend to suffer from gender dysphoria so that they may more easily gain access to "women's spaces". Instead we are talking about people with gender dysphoria who have chosen to live as the gender that conforms with their identity in order to more or less treat their dysphoria, yes?.

If so, is it fair to say that you predict that trans-women will increasingly become the perpetrators of so many sexual assaults in women's bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms and so on, that people will begin to argue that gender dysphoria also predisposes trans-women to forcibly engage in sex acts with cis women or is comorbid with what you call "insufficient-sexual-participation dysphoria". Then the reasoning will follow that since trans-women (or maybe all people with gender dysphoria) are are rapists by nature therefore it will be argued that we must accept rape as a fact of life lest we infringe upon an essential facet of trans people's very being. Of course once we accept this in the trans community there is no rational justification for punishing "insufficient-sexual-participation dysphoria" in the broader population, therefore rape will become accepted practice. If i've mischaracterized your position, then do feel free to correct me, but is that the long and short of it?

As a point of clarification, why do you believe that rape is the only malicious act that nobody ever excuses? How long do you believe it has maintained this unique status?

I have plenty to say, but I just want to verify that you are saying what I think you are saying so that I can freely respond with the true fullness of thoughts and ideas that you've inspired within me without having to concern myself with the chance of an unjustified critique or errant remark. 

[DavidGYoung]

When I refer to gender dysphoria as a trend, I am not distinguishing between those who may genuinely have it and those pretending. It is an unfalsifiable condition so everyone has to take the individual at their word. The inevitable consequence of more people claiming to have it is that more men will be permitted in women's spaces. The inevitable consequence of this is that some of these men will rape women.

After a while, the fear of saying anything critical of 'trans acceptance', especially as the response will be so violent, will lead to one inevitable consequence. If you can't stop the rapes, create excuses for them. The excuse that keeps on giving is 'It's a mental-health issue', which requires no real evidence and only the fashion of a bunch of shrinks.

Although 'Well what did you expect if you go out dressed like that?' has faded as a form of victim blaming, I can't see any time in the last half century where the actions of a rapist have been justified in the same 'You've got to look at it from his perspective and not judge' way that other crimes are.

[Athanasius]

When I refer to gender dysphoria as a trend, I am not distinguishing between those who may genuinely have it and those pretending. It is an unfalsifiable condition so everyone has to take the individual at their word.

It's falsifiable when comparing utterances and acts between groups.

[DavidGYoung]

Person A has gender dysphoria.
Person B is pretending to have gender dysphoria.

I am interested to know how you would tell which one is A and which is B.

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I am genuinely interested to know.

[Oscar_Kipling]

When I refer to gender dysphoria as a trend, I am not distinguishing between those who may genuinely have it and those pretending. It is an unfalsifiable condition so everyone has to take the individual at their word. The inevitable consequence of more people claiming to have it is that more men will be permitted in women's spaces. The inevitable consequence of this is that some of these men will rape women.

After a while, the fear of saying anything critical of 'trans acceptance', especially as the response will be so violent, will lead to one inevitable consequence. If you can't stop the rapes, create excuses for them. The excuse that keeps on giving is 'It's a mental-health issue', which requires no real evidence and only the fashion of a bunch of shrinks.

Although 'Well what did you expect if you go out dressed like that?' has faded as a form of victim blaming, I can't see any time in the last half century where the actions of a rapist have been justified in the same 'You've got to look at it from his perspective and not judge' way that other crimes are.

I see, I suppose in the sense that many claimed internal mental states and conditions cannot be verified, this is true enough. Without getting too into the weeds with this, I do think that we can at least say that sometimes a preponderance of evidence and past behaviors can give a good indication of whether a person was living in a manner consistent with a person with dysphoria that chose to live as their gender identity or if the evidence and their behavior is more indicative of a person that saw a mechanism that could facilitate sexual assault and took advantage of it. All I mean to say is that we are not completely in the dark when it comes to assessing human behavior and evidence in order to ascertain mental state; we are not forced to throw our hands up in exasperation when an accused murderer for instance attempts to use an insanity defense simply because we cannot absolutely prove that the accused didn't hallucinate that the victim was a rampaging gorilla. Along those same lines we do not simply free persons with mental illnesses that predispose them to committing crimes or other acts that are likely to endanger themselves or others simply because we can reasonably attribute their undesirable behaviors to a mental disorder. We already have to confront the category of problem that you are hypothesizing here, but instead of extrapolating from how we currently handle people with mental illnesses that influence their antisocial behaviors, you seem to be set on speculating that we will decide to let people with dangerous mental illnesses indulge in their compulsions regardless of the obvious threat to others...for reasons.

I think that the main issue with the scenario that you are imagining is how you are combining gender dysphoria with the predisposition to sexually assault. Just as a matter of pragmatism it makes absolutely no sense that trans people or allies would accept the notion that an uncontrollable desire to rape is a fundamental aspect of being trans, much less use it as a key argument to garner further social acceptance of trans people. Even if it were true, and let me be clear that there is every indication that it is not remotely true, it would make much more sense to engage in a concerted disinformation campaign to discredit the idea than it would be to attempt to integrate it into the case for trans acceptance. The idea that trans people and more generally LGBT folk would accept the characterization that they are dangerous sexual deviants and child predators as has been historically used in order to demonize, marginalize and otherwise otherize them is not only deliriously implausible as an assimilation strategy that an undamaged human brain would produce, but the suggestion itself smuggles in the idea that they actually do want more rape in the world. In order to use this outlandishly poor tactic to garner acceptance, trans folks and their allies would need to desire a world where their acceptance comes with the added bonus of opening up not just their victims, but themselves to unfettered, unhindered sexual assault. In your scenario, not only do trans folk and their allies love raping above all else, they also really dig being sexually assaulted themselves.


That is just what these degenerate LGBTs and allies would have to be thinking, You seem to suggest that everyone else is so cowed by them that they would rather live in rape-world than be seen as being anti-trans. In your very fertile imagination the population of non-degenerates would rather face the ever looming threat of rape for themselves and everyone they know and love than, I guess, be cancelled? You can honestly look at the world (or as I like to call it the good old US of A) and see a path where trans folk have accumulated so much power and influence that they have intimidated one of the most gun toting populations in all of human history into sending their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, grandmothers and so on out into a world where their basic bodily security is explicitly, legally subject to violation at any moment instead of mowing down as many rape loving sex monsters as they can from every book depository window and clock tower they can find? Okay fine, you didn't say that America would be the country to fall victim to this fever dream, but I stand by the idea that the sort of dynamic that you are suggesting doesn't make sense anywhere, ever, because at every level the reasoning is so rickety and dysfunctional that I have to seriously wonder if it was proposed as some sort of jest or jape for my amusement.


Well, I'm glad that you could summon at least one example of victim blaming/rape apology. This means that you have some notion of the fact that rape actually isn't "the only malicious act that nobody ever excuses". Admittedly I am somewhat skeptical of the depth and breadth of your research into rape over the last half century, because as i see it since 1973 there has been no lack of folks apologizing for rape, trivializing rape, victim blaming, flat out ignoring or dismissing rape and so on. During my lifetime I have watched as attitudes on things like consent and even what is categorized as sexual assault or rape has changed, and I'd argue that we are not moving toward fewer acts being recognized as sexual assault, but that doesn't mean that I can't find a reddit thread in 2 minutes that is full of folks that assert that they should be able to take sex by hook or crook because it is their right as men...cis men. Anyway you seem to be specifically talking about the "You've got to look at it from his perspective and not judge" defense that you assert is a defense that works for other crimes. First I must wonder, what are some examples of acts that were decriminalized through the judicious application of the "You've got to look at it from his perspective and not judge" argument. It is one thing to argue that specific sentencing or even convictions have been influenced by mitigating circumstances or mental conditions, but it is something else entirely to assert that there is some cluster of acts that arguably should be criminal, but are no longer considered criminal because we're looking at it from the perpetrator's perspective these days. Your idea that rape will be decriminalized because it will be smuggled in via trans acceptance seems to rely pretty heavily on this idea that there are some analogous or at least precursor crimes that have followed a similar path to social and judicial acceptance through post modern social justice pantomime and pop-psychology mushmouthery...I think this aspect of your argument is just as fancifully unhinged from reality as the rest of it, but i'd be happy to discuss any examples you can provide, what are the canaries in the coal mine as it were?

[Athanasius]

Person A has gender dysphoria.
Person B is pretending to have gender dysphoria.

I am interested to know how you would tell which one is A and which is B.

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I am genuinely interested to know.

Put person 'B' through the same stringent diagnostic criteria that person 'A' goes through, and 'B' will either drop out or be ejected before the therapy is finished. The reason for that is that no pretender has anything approaching a clue about what gender dysphoria is actually like. They'll talk seriously in stereotypes that no actual dysphoric person would use beyond an attempt to convey the experience (as a crude simplification).

Should we imagine person 'B' to be exceptionally imaginative, HRT will induce actual gender dysphoria, and they will stop at that point once breasts start developing, or voice drops or sexual function is interfered with, libido is nuked, hair loss starts, etc. Not to mention when surgery is offered or when one realises the impact transition has on one's life in its totality -- it is exhaustive. There is no place untouched by transition.

I'm not saying it's an easy distinction, but it can be distinguished if we pay attention. It'll also be obvious if someone claims GD for sexual/fetishistic purposes. They are the people who informed-consent their way into HRT, then start an OF, an 18+ Twitter account, and do nothing but post sexual content.

The issue today is that everywhere is taking an affirmative, self-ID approach. There is no distinguishing because gender dysphoria doesn't really matter; what's important is that you want to, or say you are, or claim to have "joy" and "euphoria" instead. You can't distinguish what can't be distinguished because the only thing that matters is to say, "I am". But again, it's in how someone talks about themselves, and then how they act.

And besides, these days not many people are claiming gender dysphoria. That's just transmed gatekeeping, and that's a bad thing.