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

[Strawberry]

Look it should be like anywhere else.

If you behave yourself then you are fine, if you step out of line then you should get the weight of the law hammering down on you.

If you go into the toilet and **** and leave then I don't really care what's going on in your head or what kind of character you are, if you are trying to peek under the stalls, rifling through used sanitary products in the bins or acting inappropriately to 8 year old girls you can get locked up.

Sound fair?

No. By the time any of those things have happened it's already too late, someone has already been subjected to something she shouldn't have been.

Much better to keep existing safeguarding in place and have specific places like changing rooms, prisons etc which are female only.

 

[Belz...]

Are you able to understand the concept of hypotheticals?

Oh, I accept the concept just fine. I'm just not going to let you dodge points by bringing up useless and irrelevant ones.

If there can be ethnic Jews there can be ethnic Muslims. There may not be right now, but we could invent the concept.

And there could be a base on the moon, but there isn't one.

Again, stop playing word games and address the points in reality.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not to mention in practice.

I've been around atheist groups for a couple decades now and I've noticed various emphases in which particular beliefs and/or practices people are walking away from, based on how they were raised in the first place. Protestant Atheists tend to emphasize splitting with their forebears on how the Bible should be understood (as literature and myth rather than revelation) because they were weaned on Sola Scriptura. Catholic Atheists tend to emphasize their split with the Church itself, as an institution which embodies the teachings of their former faith. Jewish Atheists seem by far the most comfortable w/ holding on to the cultural aspects of Judaism apart from the faith-based aspects, at least here in the States. Muslim Atheists, well, I'm still trying to understand where they are coming from but they are distinct from anything else in my experience.

p.s. I'd like to tie this back into the main topic re: walking away from masculinity but I lack the experience and understanding to do so.

Literally the only point I am trying to make here is that definitions of things CAN change to include people who would previously have been excluded without breaking the whole idea of words meaning things or biological facts remaining biological facts.

I don't really know why this is proving so difficult but people seem tied to the idea that words mean things and somehow that is set is stone.

I really can't understand the objections being raised.

 

[GlennB]

Look it should be like anywhere else.

If you behave yourself then you are fine, if you step out of line then you should get the weight of the law hammering down on you.

If you go into the toilet and **** and leave then I don't really care what's going on in your head or what kind of character you are, if you are trying to peek under the stalls, rifling through used sanitary products in the bins or acting inappropriately to 8 year old girls you can get locked up.

Sound fair?

Is stripping naked in front of women who don't want to see a naked man, in that place at that time, "out of line"?

 

[Lithrael]

It sounds, once again, like a definitional schism here. I’ve just seen and been comfortable with people who identify as (category) primarily socially, rather than doctrinally, for so long that using the category words that way feels reasonable and natural.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. By the time any of those things have happened it's already too late, someone has already been subjected to something she shouldn't have been.

That's how life is. We punish people for what they have done, we don't pre-judge entire groups based on what we think they might do.

Much better to keep existing safeguarding in place and have specific places like changing rooms, prisons etc which are female only.

Then much better for women to stay home alone and not mix with the opposite sex at all. It's much safer. But that's not how we decide things.

 

[Rolfe]

Look it should be like anywhere else.

If you behave yourself then you are fine, if you step out of line then you should get the weight of the law hammering down on you.

If you go into the toilet and **** and leave then I don't really care what's going on in your head or what kind of character you are, if you are trying to peek under the stalls, rifling through used sanitary products in the bins or acting inappropriately to 8 year old girls you can get locked up.

Sound fair?

No. Perhaps you can work out why not.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Is stripping naked in front of women who don't want to see a naked man, in that place at that time, "out of line"?

In a communal changing room? Probably not.

At a bus stop? Yes

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. Perhaps you can work out why not.

Well i could guess. Or you could just make your point.

So far it looks like what you are saying is 'I don't care if you behave properly and appropriately I still don't want you there.'

 

[Belz...]

Well i could guess. Or you could just make your point.

So far it looks like what you are saying is 'I don't care if you behave properly and appropriately I still don't want you there.'

Would that work for me, if I stepped into the women's restrooms?

 

[Ziggurat]

Literally the only point I am trying to make here is that definitions of things CAN change

Yes, they can. And they do. But the normal process of linguistic change is gradual and unguided. The redefinition of words like "man" and "woman" to detach them from biology is neither gradual nor unguided. Activists are trying to force new definitions onto people who don't want to use those definitions.

I don't really know why this is proving so difficult but people seem tied to the idea that words mean things and somehow that is set is stone.

You don't get it. The problem isn't that people think words can't change meaning. The problem is who has the authority to dictate how they change? You have accepted a particular change without question, but seem surprised that others haven't. Regardless of your preference for that new definition, your confusion about other people's unwillingness to accept it is your own deficiency of understanding.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Oh, I accept the concept just fine. I'm just not going to let you dodge points by bringing up useless and irrelevant ones.

And there could be a base on the moon, but there isn't one.

Again, stop playing word games and address the points in reality.

Sorry what point am I trying to dodge? I doubt you know.

I have been trying to address the points in reality for several days now.

Somebody asked for a coherent definition of female that includes transwomen and I provided 2. And the objections that came back were that it is different than the current definition.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to argue now other than just disagreeing with everything I say for the sake of it.

We define words to mean what we want them to mean. As a society. If you disagree with this statement then please for the love of God tell me where you think definitions come from?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry what point am I trying to dodge? I doubt you know.

Since I'm the one who brought the point up in response to Ziggurat's post, that would be very surprising. But since you don't seem to be able to follow the conversation very well, I'm sure you "doubt" that anyone else might have that ability.

I have been trying to address the points in reality for several days now.

Your insistence on a hypothetical argues otherwise.

Somebody asked for a coherent definition of female that includes transwomen and I provided 2. And the objections that came back were that it is different than the current definition.

Yes, and?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to argue now other than just disagreeing with everything I say for the sake of it.

Yes I've already noted that you have issues with people disagreeing with you.

We define words to mean what we want them to mean.

Individually, that's a recipe for confusion.

 

[Strawberry]

That's how life is. We punish people for what they have done, we don't pre-judge entire groups based on what we think they might do.

I'm not advocating punishment for anyone, it's not a punishment to be told to use the men's room if you're a man.

Then much better for women to stay home alone and not mix with the opposite sex at all. It's much safer. But that's not how we decide things.

Just because life can never be completely risk free is not a reason to drop all sensible safeguarding measures.

 

[kellyb]

In that case you're saying that the entire area is very atypical and that's why people with less atypical views avoid it. All the more evidence for the fact that this situation is unlikely to travel well.

It's mostly the factor of the murder rate pretty reliably being the highest of any major city the developed world (the dysfunction traces back to the immediate post civil war era, and then MLK Jr getting shot here, triggering astronomical levels of "white flight" and "wealth flight", which became a city financing self-perpetuating downward spiral.)

But yes, that's all very atypical. And I wasn't meaning to imply it would be an acceptable pilot program for everywhere, although it's one of the few things about this city that I really see as truly and completely good and wholesome.

I can imagine you living in this one particular gentrified area within the city, where the really cool multiethnic non-poor people stay, that's just adorable, and the murder rate isn't very bad in there, and it has so much culture, with coffee shops, used bookstores still hanging in there, record stores, jazz venues, superbly-run cat rescue shelter houses, every sort of cafe imaginable, every sort of tiny little independent shop business imaginable. Out primary vet practives there, and it's named "Utopia Animal Hospital". They give not discounted, but bare bones least expensive for reasonably high liklihood of effectiveness vet care to poor people, and their rooms they see you in have couches and sofa chairs the pets can sit on. LOL
And with houses like this one below. It's where we trick or treat.

I'd give it one year of you living there and actually experiencing transwomen in the bathroom regularly, and the seriously utopian, "nothing about this is even remotely bad" vibe, (and Memphis transwomen would NEVER try to go into shower/nudity areas with biological female women at the gym or whatever...it just wouldn't happen. Because obvious reasons, and we're all merely inclusive, not insane, at least not like that, or tolerant of actual perviness.)

You'd come around to agreeing with me that it can be ideal. I'd bet my pinkie toe you would.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Would that work for me, if I stepped into the women's restrooms?

I don't see why it wouldn't.

I mean there are a significant number of cases where people's sex is indeterminate from their appearance. You just don't know what kind of junk they are packing.

And if they don't bother you and don't show you then you are going to be none the wiser. And it wouldn't bother anyone really would it? Or are we suggesting that we need to validate people before they use the restroom?

So take that one step further and put a little badge on the person that says M or F. What we are saying is that if the person of indeterminate sex
behaved appropriately we wouldn't have a problem but if you knew they were say a female in the mensroom and acted exactly the same way then it would become a problem?

Because I was led to believe that the problem was the risk of inappropriate behaviour but this is saying something quite different.

Let me turn it round to you. If you were allowed to use the women's restrooms do you think it would make the women's restrooms less safe?

 

[Belz...]

I don't see why it wouldn't.

I mean there are a significant number of cases where people's sex is indeterminate from their appearance. You just don't know what kind of junk they are packing.

No, I mean, beard and all. If I, a man, went into the women's restroom, would the women's concerns there be valid?

Because I was led to believe that the problem was the risk of inappropriate behaviour but this is saying something quite different.

No it isn't.

Let me turn it round to you. If you were allowed to use the women's restrooms do you think it would make the women's restrooms less safe?

What do you mean "turn it around"? It's the exact example I gave you!!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Since I'm the one who brought the point up in response to Ziggurat's post, that would be very surprising. But since you don't seem to be able to follow the conversation very well, I'm sure you "doubt" that anyone else might have that ability.

Ah then I think you have misunderstood Ziggurat's point as well as mine.

Your insistence on a hypothetical argues otherwise.

[/quotes]

It's called illustrating a concept. Since literally nothing works on you up to an including quoting the exact words I'm not really surprised you don't get it.

Yes, and?

And that is a stupid objection.

Yes I've already noted that you have issues with people disagreeing with you.

As a kneejerk response to literally everything using dishonest tactics yes. See below.

Individually, that's a recipe for confusion.

Literally said 'as a society' in the next words that you conveniently stripped out.

 

[kellyb]

You seem to be using transwomen and drag queens interchangeably, but those two things are not the same.

Is it just the case that female only spaces are open to any and every one in your city?

I'm referring to different eras...the 90's to present.

It was drag queens, crossdressers, and tranvestites in the 90's. I forget exactly when transwomen became the common word for that common type of person who then began just being however womanly they wanted to be, when they could be, 24/7.

To answer your question, mostly yes, but a transwoman wouldn't go in a women's shared shower room at a gym or wherever. We don't have boundary-testing transwomen running amok in dressing rooms flashing people. We don't have a lot of (or any that come to mind) dressing rooms that aren't private stalls with doors that I know of either, tho. I have no idea if some exhibitionist pervs try to pull some criminal funny business from time to time somewhere. I've never heard of it, but in large cities there is always some public creep somewhere.

When the men's bathroom is full and the women's isn't, it's not unheard of for a man to take a step in and politely beg permission to use a stall in the women's every once in a blue moon. That happens everywhere, tho, right?

 

[Belz...]

Ah then I think you have misunderstood Ziggurat's point as well as mine.

Ok, try me.

It's called illustrating a concept.

Except that we're not talking about a concept. We're talking about the definition of a real world, right now.

And that is a stupid objection.

Why?

As a kneejerk response to literally everything using dishonest tactics yes.

I can't even parse this.

Literally said 'as a society' in the next words that you conveniently stripped out.

I know you did, in a different sentence. But since "society" doesn't use the definition you brought up, I thought it irrelevant. The definition you're using is your own.