deepdreamlessslumber🦖

トランスジェンダリズム／性自認（セルフID）至上主義の問題について海外先進国の事例を色々紹介してきたので、主なものを本スレにまとめる（今後も随時追加するつもり）。海外で失敗事例が相当積み上がっているのに日本でも性自認の概念を導入しようとするなんて、水道民営化ですか。

This long article is an essential, must read, explanation of how the British establishment was captured by ‘sex work’ lobbyists. “The introduction and promotion of the “sex work” and “sex worker” terminology was part of a deliberate attempt by international lobbyists for the prostitution industry to change its image from seedy and exploitative to something apparently wholesome and healthy. The success of that project is only too evident as this terminology now dominates not only the media, but also many UN bodies and agencies (e.g. WHO, UNAIDS, ILO, UNFPA, and more) and almost all the key institutions in England and Wales, including the police, universities, and the Home Office (see for example their Typologies of Modern Slavery, which uses the “sex work” terminology even when referring to child victims of sex trafficking). This is a catastrophe because the term “sex work” implicitly positions prostitution as a normal job, which suggests that it is ethical and harmless. As a result, many marginalised girls and young women consider prostitution a viable option, typically with disastrous results, and men see buying sex as not fundamentally different from paying for a haircut. It is no surprise therefore that there has been a rapid increase in the size of the prostitution industry in recent years. Another problem is that the “sex work” term is used to refer to a wide variety of activities, ranging from in-person prostitution (now often referred to as “full-service sex work”), through “sugar dating”, lap dancing, stripping, and webcamming, to selling nude photos and used underwear via the internet, and everything in between. Similarly, the “sex worker” term is used not just to refer to those doing “full service” prostitution, but also to those involved in the whole range of activities now included in the “sex work” term, many of which do not involve physical contact. The “sex worker” term is even used for those who facilitate and profit from these activities – i.e. pimps, brothel keepers and other profiteers. This obfuscates both the reality and the power dynamics involved in the industry. Promoters of the sex industry insist that everyone must listen to “sex workers” but many of the loudest voices claiming to be “sex workers” are not representative of the vast majority of prostituted women, may not have experienced in-person prostitution themselves, and may even be profiting from the prostitution of others. OBSCENE PROFITS The prostitution industry is a vast ruthless capitalist enterprise in which the raw material is (mostly) young women and the customers are almost entirely men. Profits are typically huge for the large corporate pimps, the organised crime and human trafficking networks, and the one-man-band pimps, alike. In most capitalist endeavours, something is sold once, but in prostitution, pimps sell women and girls over and over and over again, meaning that the profits can be eye-watering. However, the women, the raw materials, rarely escape poverty: most of them enter prostitution poor and end up even poorer but with a host of additional problems caused by the physical, emotional and psychic trauma. A few years ago, a British man who was convicted of sex trafficking was reported as making £1.6 million a year from the exploitation of the prostitution of women in his brothels. Evidence suggests that pimps and traffickers in the UK can gain around £20,000 revenue per month for each woman they pimp. This is more than many people earn in a year. It is little wonder then that pimping and sex trafficking are rife in the UK, especially considering they are rarely prosecuted and the country’s severe economic inequality and entrenched poverty. The large corporate pimps include the prostitution advertising websites, where men can trawl catalogues of women to rent for sexual use. Two of the biggest examples in the UK are Vivastreet and Adultwork, whose annual revenues at the time of writing, according to Zoominfo, are US $36.6M and $5.3M, respectively. OnlyFans, an online platform for paywalled (mostly sexually explicit) content registered in the UK, made an annual profit of $525 million in 2022. By feeding men’s sense of entitlement and understanding of women as sexual commodities whose main role is serving men’s needs for validation and sexual satisfaction, OnlyFans and other webcamming platforms, along with the prostitution advertising and pornography sites, play a major role in increasing the demand for prostitution that leads to trafficking. While OnlyFans’ rules forbid using the site to arrange “full service” prostitution, the ease of setting up an account and the way it has been glamorised, normalised and misrepresented in the media as an easy way of making loads of money, have all worked to lower the bar to entry into prostitution. While a minority of “content creators” do make considerable sums of money, the vast majority make very little. Having invested large amounts of time, emotional and physical energy, and money in using the platform, many women find that they make practically nothing. It is hardly surprising that many of them then turn to “full service” prostitution – especially as many women report that male “fans” frequently hassle them to meet up in person for this purpose. OnlyFans and webcamming act as a gateway to prostitution for women and as a gateway to prostitution buying for men. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) calculates that (“full service”) prostitution contributed £6.1 billion to the British economy in the last year and that, with the exception of the Covid lockdown period, this has been growing steadily over the previous decade. However, by the ONS’s own estimation, the income after costs to the people involved in prostitution is about 24.2% of gross – meaning that 75.8% of gross income goes on costs. Most of these so-called costs are effectively protection money to pimps, brothel owners, and commercial sex websites…” To read more, see the link in the next tweet.

これです。日本の特例法も同じ構造です。行政による取り扱われ方は事実とは関係がない。

I wrote an op-ed for The Australian. Long story short, because Australian media is half of the problem, it didn’t get published this weekend. So here it is here: The AHRC is speaking out of both sides of its mouth on sex and gender By Sall Grover Australia’s Human Rights Commission has a serious credibility problem: it tells the public one story about sex and gender but then walks into federal court and tells judges the exact opposite. This double-speak is not clever advocacy, it is institutional incoherence that leaves women’s sex-based rights in the lurch and makes Australia look embarrassingly out of step with the adult world. This week the Commission released Equal Identities, its major 2026 review of trans and gender-diverse experiences. In clear, public-facing language and a detailed glossary, it declares that “gender is distinct from biological sex”. Sex is defined by chromosomes, hormones and reproductive anatomy. Gender identity is an internal sense of self. The separation is presented as obvious and foundational. This is very interesting, because this position is the exact opposite of what the AHRC, through the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, argued in the Tickle v Giggle case, and appeal, and is now arguing in the Lesbian Action Group’s ongoing Federal Court appeal. In fact, it is our position: the one women like me have been making all along. Why is the AHRC suddenly adopting the very distinction it has fought so hard to collapse in court? In Tickle v Giggle, the Commissioner submitted that “sex” under the Sex Discrimination Act “is not a biological concept”. It is “not… a binary concept”. It can be changed. Legal recognition, social presentation and self-identification are all relevant. In effect, a biological male who identifies as a woman is a woman for the purposes of Australian law. The Federal Court largely accepted this view. The same broad interpretation is being advanced against LAG, a lesbian group seeking an exemption to hold female-only events without men who call themselves lesbians. This contradiction is not trivial. The AHRC tells ordinary Australians that sex and gender identity are distinct categories deserving careful, separate analysis. In the courtroom, it insists gender identity can override and redefine sex itself. The practical effect is to erase the very distinction the Commission now claims to uphold in its public reports. Single-sex spaces, services, prisons, shelters, sports for women, and lesbians pay the price. As the founder of Giggle, the women-only social app at the centre of the Tickle v Giggle litigation, I have lived this contradiction up close. The case asked whether a biological male with legal female recognition could force entry into a female-only platform. The AHRC’s submissions helped cement the legal fiction that sex is fluid and subjective. While Australia ties itself in these semantic knots, the rest of the world is moving on with clarity and evidence. Also this week, the International Olympic Committee announced a decisive, biology-based policy: from the 2028 Los Angeles Games, the female category will be open only to biological females, confirmed by a simple, one-time SRY gene test. Transgender women and men with DSDs will be excluded. IOC President Kirsty Coventry called it essential for “fairness, safety and integrity”. World Athletics, swimming, rugby and other international bodies reached the same conclusion years ago. The Cass Review has transformed youth gender medicine in Britain. Sweden, Finland, Norway and multiple US states have rolled back the affirmative model for minors. Grown-ups elsewhere are choosing observable biological reality over contested identity claims. Australia has not. Australia deserves better than this. The AHRC should stop contradicting itself between its public reports and its court interventions. It must pick a side — preferably the side of observable truth and sex-based rights that the IOC has now openly embraced. 1/2

「運動能力は男女差ではない個人差だ」 →ひどすぎる妄言

これはすごい研究。トランスジェンダーの性別適合療法の効果についての過去の論文は対照群がなく、nが少なく、脱落率が高い質の悪いものばかりだったけど、この論文は後ろ向き研究だが対照群がありn=2,083で脱落のないデータだ。性別適合療法で精神衛生は悪化するという結果。薬なら処方中止レベル。

ええ、今世界中の女性達が集団で怒っています🔥隠岐さや香先生のようなトランス活動家に...それは見えてないんでしょうか？#トランスジェンダリズム

近年、代理出産の合法化や、子宮移植の合法化に向けて動いている「生殖補助医療の在り方を考える議員連盟（野田聖子会長）」ですが、明確に「卵子提供の推進」に向けた話し合いが進められているようです。instagram.com/p/DVth2apEzv4/

このなんちゃらマドレーヌにはブロックされているので引用RPするのが面倒なのだが、全然「やむなく」な例ではないので呆れて鼻から豆乳噴いた。妻が難病で介護状態だったしても、買春したらそれ夫婦間の信頼を裏切ってますから！　まあ女衒の論理など所詮この程度のものです。 x.com/bubu_de_la_ma/…

そこで「これなら妻への裏切りにはならない」というロジックが成立するのならつまりその老人は風俗嬢を「人間の女」にカウントしてないよな。人間の女と性的に接してたら妻への裏切りだし。 もう分かりましたか？それこそが性売買が人権侵害の問題として取り上げられる理由です

高齢で難病の家族の介護してる男だから、女を買ってもいいってこと？ わたしの客にも80過ぎのじいさんがいたよ。老親の介護してる息子もいたよ。仕事に疲れたサラリーマンも、童貞の大学生も。 でも、だからなに？ それの一体どこが、女性を買って射精のために使役する行為を免罪するの？

難病の妻の介護をしてたら人身売買してもいいんですか？誰かをレイプしてもいいんですか？

裁判官やアライがよく言う「トランス女性を怖がるのは勉強不足だから」というやつ、本当に意味が分からない 何を、どう勉強したら男性の肉体を持つ自称女性が女性スペースに入ってくるのを受け入れられるの？ どんな勉強会を想定してるのか是非教えて欲しいんだがｗ 男性は勉強すればするほど、トランス女性を女性として扱って恋愛できるってこと？ 尊厳や生命の危機を感じてトランス女性を拒絶する女性は差別主義者だと糾弾されて、「たかが」恋愛ごときでトランス女性をチェンジする男は許されるってほんと狂ってるよ 全部が全部、男に都合が良いだけじゃないか

『正しく怒る』って、女性スペースへの女性自認男性侵入に声をあげている人たちのことだろ。それに対して毎度スッとボケてるのが木村草太や隠岐さやかじゃん。見ない見えないのか？それとも、いつもの『自分たちだけが正義』という偏狭ぶりを発揮してるのか？

自分と異なる意見の怒りを差別だヘイトだと呼び、差別禁止法を作って取り締まれと言っている人達には、女性達が全世界でトランスジェンダリズムに怒っているのは見えないんでしょうか？ 何年も何年も激しく怒ってますが。 #トランスジェンダリズムは女性迫害思想

トランスのための全身整形も同じ。

おかしいことにおかしいと怒れる人はいます。性自認を最優先することに疑問を持ち女性スペースに男性は入らないでという人たち。その他の問題でも。こうした人たちに「差別者」のレッテルを貼り黙らせたりしてきたので怒れる人が見えないのでしょう。「教育の賜物」だけでなく、左右を問わず波風を立てる人を黙らせてきた人たちがいるのです。

腹立たしい意見 女性という性別を勝手に搾取して、女性スペースも女性枠も国際女性デーさえ横から奪っていってる連中が「言葉を奪うな」とは大笑い トランスジェンダーこそ「女性」を奪うな 「女性」を名乗るな 「女性スペース」に入ってくるな

道徳や嫌悪感に訴えかけて家父長制がどうのこうのとか言われそうだけど、それ以前にだよ、それ以前に、それでいいと、それで社会がうまくいくとマジで思ってんの？という疑問で頭がいっぱいなんだよ

買春者処罰に反対してる人って、 夫なりパートナーが買春しててもオッケーなのかな 「いいよいいよ！あなたが安心して風俗通いし続けるために私もこまめに性病検査するね」とか言うのかな 自分の子供の担任教師や塾講師が学園系コンセプトの風俗に通ってても気にしないのかな

一重のままでも美しい、という話ではなく、そもそも「美しいかどうか」で評価される社会そのものを変えていく必要があると考えました。 たとえば私の頃は、幅広い平行二重が流行しており、私自身もそれに合わせるように埋没をしました。しかし現在は、流行に応じて「理想の瞼の形」が変化しています。 つまり、仮にこれから「一重が美しい」とされる時代が来たとしても、「美の基準に自分を合わせるために体を変えたり、装飾を施したりする」という構造自体は変わらないのではないでしょうか。 女性が自身を「何かが足りない存在」と認識する。そのうえで調整を求められる前提は、変わらないように感じます。 『脱コルセット 到来した想像』によれば、小学校のクラスで行われた「自分の目について説明してみよう」という活動において、 女子は「目が小さい」「二重ではない」などと記したのに対し、男子は「0.3」など視力を答えたとのことです。誰が誰の目で、誰をどのように見ているのか。 その視線は、生まれて10年ほどの子どもにもすでに強く内面化されているとされています。 親友が整形した後にこの商品が生まれたと考えると、その気持ちを思い、複雑な思いを抱きます。 もちろん、起業に向けた努力そのものを否定するものではありません。 ただ、本当に問い、変革するべきなのは、女性にのみ強く求められる「美の基準」や、男女で非対称なルッキズムの構造そのものではないでしょうか。 それが変わらない限り、苦しみの原因は払拭できないのではないかと考えます。