Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
It's already been ruled (in the USA I believe) that girls have no right to visual privacy ...
Click to expand...


That probably refers to a quote from the lawsuit by girls from Palatine, Illinois. They had sued to prevent a transgirl from using their locker room. They were represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, but shortly after the judge issued that statement about "no right to visual privacy", the girls' lawsuit was dropped, ostensibly because all of the plaintiffs had graduated, as well as the transgirl at the heart of the case.

ETA: Here's the first link that popped up when I typed the phrase into google. It's from a Christian source, but it reflects accurately everything else I've read about the case. Shortly after the ruling, the lawsuit was dropped.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/201...o-visual-bodily-privacy-for-high-school-girls


Because it was a district judge and not even part of a final ruling in a case, it's not exacty settled law, but it does give a hint at what might be expected in the future.
 
Last edited:
The vibes in Scotland are that the tide may be turning. It's early days yet and the transcult has its hooks well into some very senior politicians and organisations, so it won't be easy and I'm not optimistic about getting a proper re-evaluation of this from the ground up.

Nevertheless the existence of a highly politicised population including a lot of women who are outraged about what was being proposed has led to some very fast organisation, some women doing a lot of unpaid work that should have been done by civil servants (impact assessments, safeguarding guidelines and so on), and the government has taken a step back. A new consultation is promised and this time they intend to look at the impact on women and girls, not just pander to the transcult's every demand.

Interestingly, a little bird has cheeped that a choice selection of the sickening abuse trans activists have been subjecting women to online found its way on to the desks of some senior government mnisters, who boggled rather a lot and then did some very fast rethinking. So thanks for all the abuse, guys.
 
The Atheist said:
Nice way to miss the entire point, which was that the world has much bigger issues than bathrooms.

Women like Rolfe don't want the trans women in the women's toilets, the trans women don't want to use the men's toilets...

I now believe the best answer to that conundrum is to completely ignore it and concentrate on the more important aspects. As it is, lawmakers are siding with the trans women, so women will just need to learn to get over it.

So to speak.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the tradition of how these things work. Blacks wanted to go to the same schools as whites, whites didn't want that and the blacks won out.

What are the more important aspects,being able to throw someone out of their apartment or job for being trans?
 
Shadowdweller said:
Or who would need to engage in unhealthy practices such as steroid use or blood doping to compete.
Click to expand...

Like men who want to compete with Michael Phelps, people with excess biological talent need to be normalized in some fashion.

Yet no one seems to apply that logic to men's sports, why do women need this protection from those of excess natural ability but not men?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yet no one seems to apply that logic to men's sports, why do women need this protection from those of excess natural ability but not men?
Click to expand...

Testosterone is a performance enhancing drug. If you don't believe people without testicles deserve a league of their own, just say so.
 
d4m10n said:
Testosterone is a performance enhancing drug. If you don't believe people without testicles deserve a league of their own, just say so.
Click to expand...

The arguement is about those of excess natural ability, and Michael Phelps counts as he has lots of highly unusual biology that give him a competitive advantage. Why does this argument only apply to women? You are ignoring the celebration that his freakish advantages are given.

Michael Phelps needs to take medication to increase his lactic acid production up to normal levels, or are you claiming that decreased lactic acid production does not give him a competitive advantage and as a performance enhancing drug he should be in a league of his own.

Here is an article showing his massive competitive biological advantage. It is clearly unfair for him to compete against others.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good1/
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why does this argument only apply to women?
Click to expand...
Because humans are sexually dimorphic, literally half of them cannot be expected to compete at the same level as the other half in terms of size, musculature, hemoglobin concentration, etc.

ETA: If you want to do away with women's sport, just say so.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Because humans are sexually dimorphic, literally half of them cannot be expected to compete at the same level as the other half in terms of size, musculature, hemoglobin concentration, etc.
Click to expand...

How does that mean they need to be shielded from the extremes of their own sexes biology but not men? I get it they are soft and gentle creatures who really are not suited to sports and competition physically or emotionally in the first place but if that is really your argument you should be making it.
 
ponderingturtle said:
How does that mean they need to be shielded from the extremes of their own sexes biology but not men? I get it they are soft and gentle creatures who really are not suited to sports and competition physically or emotionally in the first place but if that is really your argument you should be making it.
Click to expand...
What's your solution, ponderingturtle?
 
Francesca R said:
Can't we assume that her T-concentration is (naturally) some way above 5 nmol/l?
Click to expand...
I think we can say it's above 10 nmol/L. When she did take hormone blockers, the limit was higher than it is now. More importantly, it's kind of meaningless information, assuming she does have an androgen insensitivity.

Rolling it back is apt to look like targeted exclusion but it may also be the second wrong that (partly) rights the first. But this may be where ultimately she wins; too bad if the original rules were "wrong", you can not now dial them back because that is too discriminatory.
Click to expand...
The obvious solution, given that we'd then have the IAAF trying to correct an IAAF ****-up, would be to grandfather in any currently competing athletes. It would also have the benefit of not looking like an anti-Semenya rule.

Francesca R (writing to Rolfe) said:
FWIW that bit isn't a response to anything I wrote (and kinda looks like it is)
Click to expand...
For the record, it's also not a response to anything I wrote.
 
JihadJane said:
Can you describe what you mean by "gender identity"?
Click to expand...
Subjective experience of ones own gender.

I'm not aware of any "plausible evolutionary account for neuroanatomical basis" for this mysterious inner essence, either.
Click to expand...
Sexual division of labor is an obvious choice. "Mysterious inner essence" is a straw man, in a thread with whole lineages of straw men along the same lines.

In any case, we know that gender identity is phenomenal, in part due to the treatment of people with intersex conditions.
 
"Subjective experiences of one's own gender."

You could say "Subjective experience of one's own height" or "Subjective experience of one's own eye color" and it would be just as valid.
 
mumblethrax said:
Subjective experience of ones own gender.


Sexual division of labor is an obvious choice. "Mysterious inner essence" is a straw man, in a thread with whole lineages of straw men along the same lines.

In any case, we know that gender identity is phenomenal, in part due to the treatment of people with intersex conditions.
Click to expand...

If gender identity is phenomenal then by which sense can I perceive it? What experiment would I perform to determine someone's gender identity?
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Subjective experiences of one's own gender."

You could say "Subjective experience of one's own height" or "Subjective experience of one's own eye color" and it would be just as valid.
Click to expand...

No, because height and eye color are empirically observable whereas gender isn't. A better example would be "Subjective experience of one's own mysterious inner essence."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom