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

[Ziggurat]

Latest bit of fun from "Jessica" Yaniv:
https://twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1201665480504668162
Apparently getting "her" balls waxed wasn't good enough, now "she" wants a gynecological exam too.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm amazed at how much heavy lifting some people do to normalize some of the most heinous behaviors.

No one has attempted to normalise heinous behaviours.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This makes me very uncomfortable. Nobody has ever used these quoted words. Nobody is setting out to "discriminate against transwomen" (let's be honest, it's the males who want to occupy women's spaces we're talking about here).

Transwomen are biologically male, and cannot ever be otherwise. Sanitary and sleeping arrangements are segregated by biological sex. Males who become transwomen are asking/demanding a concession, not a right - the concession to be allowed to occupy the single-sex spaces of the opposite sex.

Framing this as if it is unquestionably "discrimination" not to accede to this request (demand) is a dishonest argument. It's part of the constant attempt to smear those who advocate for women's rights as being comparable to racists. I find it contemptible.

No it's not dishonest. It's ABSOLUTELY 110% what you are doing. You are saying that transwomen need to be excluded from the bathroom of their choice in some cases because you are saying that they themselves are perverts and in other cases because, and they may actually be worse, you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE are perverts.

Sanitary and sleeping arrangements are NOT segregated by biological sex. This is an invention of you and your TERF allies. They were segregated by male and female, women and men and NOBODY every considered if it meant gender or biological sex or anything else because it wasn't an issue at the time.

So if anyone is contemptible here it is the people who are actually discriminating against trans people. EVeryone has the right not to be discriminated against and as transgender is a protected characteristic then yes they absolutely are asking for a right in being allowed to use the toilets or changing rooms of their identification.

The GRA and Self-ID is a separate and different argument. But let's be clear on the current law. Transwomen have a right to use a women's toilet or changing room unless there is a good justification for excluding them. You are arguing to take away this right and that, yes, is discrimination.

And let's be clear, if I tried to tell you that you weren't woman enough in my opinion to be allowed to use the women's toilets for whatever reason and enough people agreed with me and it became a thing then YOU would absolutely say it was discrimination. And you would be right.

So be honest in what you are arguing for.

 

[Rolfe]

Latest bit of fun from "Jessica" Yaniv:
https://twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1201665480504668162
Apparently getting "her" balls waxed wasn't good enough, now "she" wants a gynecological exam too.

Hah. I like this reply from Blaire White. (Warning, naughty words in linked tweet.)

https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/1201902484869898240

The thing is, there are many perfectly reasonable and sensible transwomen around. If they were all like Blaire White (and Kristina Harrison et al) we wouldn't be having this argument. Which is why I get so fed up with people screaming "you think all transwomen are perverts!" and so on. Despite the fact that I've been quite clear on numerous occasions that I don't.

The problem is that the law as it is being proposed does not discriminate. JY is as much a transwoman under the new-style law as Blaire White and Kristina Harrison. Self-ID does not allow any gatekeeping to prevent JY and his like from accessing women's spaces and provisions. And it's not as if JY is a member of a tiny demographic. Entitled, narcissistic bullying fetishists are not particularly thin on the ground, or they certainly don't appear to be from the demographic of the trans activists.

In the past there was gatekeeping. Men embarking on a process that would lead to them gaining access to female spaces were subjected to extensive psychological and psychiatric examination and counselling. Those deemed to be doing it for questionable motives or to be a potential danger to women were screened out. This led to a situation where women were prepared to be somewhat tolerant of transwomen in their spaces, and to go along with the polite pretence that they were women. It wasn't doing anyone any harm, usually, and we're socialised to be kind.

But the entire gatekeeping process is what the trans lobby is set against. It's demeaning. It's intrusive. They don't like it. They want it stopped. That's what self-ID is. No more gatekeeping, no more psychological assessments, just sign here and that's it. Any AGP creep like JY is as much a transwomen as Blaire White and Kristina Harrison, but while they behave in a sensitive manner, the JYs of this world - well you've seen the performance.

Transwomen who went through the wholw process in years gone by say that yes it was tough, but it was necessary. One transwoman of my acquaintance says that it was the length and rigour of this process which enabled her to come out of the other end as a sane and functioning member of society. This is what is being done away with, and has already been done away with in Canada hence JY.

And I'm getting sick and tired of people who can't grasp that this is the issue and won't accept that it is a problem.

 

[Rolfe]

No it's not dishonest. It's ABSOLUTELY 110% what you are doing. You are saying that transwomen need to be excluded from the bathroom of their choice in some cases because you are saying that they themselves are perverts and in other cases because, and they may actually be worse, you are saying that OTHER PEOPLE are perverts.

Sanitary and sleeping arrangements are NOT segregated by biological sex. This is an invention of you and your TERF allies. They were segregated by male and female, women and men and NOBODY every considered if it meant gender or biological sex or anything else because it wasn't an issue at the time.

So if anyone is contemptible here it is the people who are actually discriminating against trans people. EVeryone has the right not to be discriminated against and as transgender is a protected characteristic then yes they absolutely are asking for a right in being allowed to use the toilets or changing rooms of their identification.

The GRA and Self-ID is a separate and different argument. But let's be clear on the current law. Transwomen have a right to use a women's toilet or changing room unless there is a good justification for excluding them. You are arguing to take away this right and that, yes, is discrimination.

And let's be clear, if I tried to tell you that you weren't woman enough in my opinion to be allowed to use the women's toilets for whatever reason and enough people agreed with me and it became a thing then YOU would absolutely say it was discrimination. And you would be right.

So be honest in what you are arguing for.

That is just word salad. Transwomen are men. Sanitary and sleeping arrangements have always been segregated by men and women, male and female, by biological sex because nobody even imagined the current goings-on.

Sex-segregated facilities "discriminate" against people of the opposite sex because that's what they're designed to do. To allow only the people who should be there to be there. Insisting that anyone should have the right to use the facilities designated for the sex they are not simply because they think they want to is not an argument.

Men should not be allowed to use facilities segregated for women, by right. We have allowed the camel's nose inside the tent on the basis of a "polite fiction" and now the entire camel is barging in. We were prepared to accept the Kristina Harrisons of this world, in the world where there was medical gatekeeping to ensure that the JYs of this world were kept out. Now the trans activists are sweeping away the gatekeeping and insisting that we have to accept JY along with Kristina.

This has moved stealthily, in secret, with policies which are frankly illegal being pushed at the behest of the trans lobby, way ahead of actual legislation. People are only just beginning to find out what's being proposed, and they're being browbeaten by MRAs with words like discrimination and bigotry and TERF.

Well tough luck because female-only spaces are intended to discriminate against men, and this craziness is going to stop.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My view is supported by the evidence. Your view has no evidence. They are not equivalent.

You keep saying it, what you haven't done is show it. All you have shown so far is that there are competing views. Do you get that point? Because I have had to repeat it several times and it doesn't seem to have changed your response at all.

I didn’t say nudity was the same as sexual arousal. But it frequently leads to sexual arousal. The entire pornography industry is based on that fact. And there are plenty of scientific studies which show that males are sexually aroused by nudity, much more so than females.[/QUOTE]

Correlation is not causation. Porn is not the same as nudity in a changing room.
Do you think gay men get aroused in a male changing room? Because it's starting to sound a lot like the 'bums to the wall' talk we heard from homophobes now.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That is just word salad. Transwomen are men. Sanitary and sleeping arrangements have always been segregated by men and women, male and female, by biological sex because nobody even imagined the current goings-on.

It's not word salad it's very clear. You don't like it, but that doesn't make it incoherent. But's lets test it. Point to the law which says toilets and changing rooms and sleeping arrangements are segregated by biological sex.

Sex-segregated facilities "discriminate" against people of the opposite sex because that's what they're designed to do. To allow only the people who should be there to be there. Insisting that anyone should have the right to use the facilities designated for the sex they are not simply because they think they want to is not an argument.

Well yes it is an argument. it's one you don't agree with. But the problem you have is that the law doesn't allow you to discriminate against people on the basis of being trans. You are supposed to treat a transwoman as a woman for all intents and purposes unless you have sufficient justification not to. You don't want to? Cool. You want to discriminate. And break the law as it stands.

Men should not be allowed to use facilities segregated for women, by right.

I know this is your position. But you have a problem. Because transwomen aren't men and the law says they do have a right to access facilities segregated for women.

We have allowed the camel's nose inside the tent on the basis of a "polite fiction" and now the entire camel is barging in. We were prepared to accept the Kristina Harrisons of this world, in the world where there was medical gatekeeping to ensure that the JYs of this world were kept out. Now the trans activists are sweeping away the gatekeeping and insisting that we have to accept JY along with Kristina.

I don't care what you personally are prepared to accept. You want to discriminate.

This has moved stealthily, in secret, with policies which are frankly illegal being pushed at the behest of the trans lobby, way ahead of actual legislation. People are only just beginning to find out what's being proposed, and they're being browbeaten by MRAs with words like discrimination and bigotry and TERF.

The only illegal policies being proposed are the ones that discriminate against trans people on the basis of being trans. The reason people are being browbeaten by the words discrimination and bigotry is because thats what they are doing. I know its a radical suggestion but if you don't want to be called a bigot don't be one.

Well tough luck because female-only spaces are intended to discriminate against men, and this craziness is going to stop.

All the middle-aged TERFS will be gone in 20 or 30 years and the younger generation will see things progress as is always the case. So no, it's not going to stop, that's the thing about progress. It keeps progressing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Obviously, you can't.

Obviously you can't either.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You calling your statements facts doesn't make them so.

I wish people would get this. Also denying facts doesn't make them not so too.

 

[Rolfe]

All the middle-aged TERFS will be gone in 20 or 30 years and the younger generation will see things progress as is always the case. So no, it's not going to stop, that's the thing about progress. It keeps progressing.

Yeah, I'm sure they thought that lobotomy would be mainstream medicine by now.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There is something I find amusing about this peeping discussion. On forums, when someone on "the other side" says something, people feel compelled to disagree, whether or not it actually supports their position.

If people say something incorrect I feel compelled to disagree with it. Whether or not it supports my position. Agreeing with things because they support your position even if they are false is not honest.

Consider, if you will, that laws which support transgender access to opposite sex locker rooms and bathroomswill mean that biological males will be allowed to enter the exact spaces that voyeurs would find most exciting.

No they won't. They still won't be allowed to. If you are talking about cismales.

So, is nudity all by itself arousing? Then it's understandable that women wouldn't want to be naked around unknown men. Or is it the case that it's really only arousing to creepy perverts when they can view women in places the perverts aren't supposed to be able see? Then women sure as hell wouldn't want anything to do with a guy in her bathroom or locker room.

Clearly nudity all by itself is not arousing. It seems to be arousing to some people at some times. But lots of things are. The campaign is not one to keep perverts out of spaces where they perv though (that's one I would support) it's to keep trans people out of women's facilities which they have the right currently to be in.

But if the guy is wearing women's underwear it's all good?

I know, I know, she's not a guy. And.... we're back to definitions.

If the 'guy' is trans it's not even the same thing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because seeing nudity in person is more exciting than seeing it on a computer screen. That's also why people pay to see strip shows, even though there's nothing there that they can't see for free on the internet. None of this even suggests nudity isn't important to peeping.

Again you are completely over-simplifying to a ridiculous point. People peep because they get a pleasure from peeping. And yes people do peep at clothed women also. The peeping gives them a thrill because they aren't supposed to be doing it and they know that. They also get a thrill from the fact that the victim is unsuspecting. Otherwise they would just go to a strip show and see women naked.

If it is primarily about nudity as you suggest then a strip show would seem like the preferred destination rather than a woman's locker room.

None of this has anything to do with trans issues of course. Perverts peeping on women need to be dealt with whenever and wherever it happens.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The problem isn't that you don't have a solution at hand. The problem is that you apparently don't want people to deal with the problem as it exists because you don't want the problem to exist. But that isn't the way the world works.

No the problem is the people who don't want to discuss solutions or deal with the problem as it exists because all they actually want to is discriminate against trans people and use the 'problem' as an excuse.

Otherwise the question would quite simply be 'how can we allow trans people access to women's facilities while also ensuring the safety of women from cismale perverts'

But not one person on your side of the discussion wants to have that discussion beyond shouting TRANSWOMEN HAVE PENISES AND NEED TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN! MEN ! MEN ! MEN! '

And as you are now finding, that isn't the way the world works either.

 

[Rolfe]

Interested to see that we are only to be protected from "cismale" perverts. So any pervert who has declared his trans status can do what he likes then?

 

[Belz...]

Like I said: your assertion, your burden.

You can keep repeating it over and over but you're the one making a claim that goes against accepted norms and knowledge. We don't need to re-prove basic physics every time a crackpot comes to the science section to claim he's solved everything.

Asked and answered.

No, you haven't.

Because it's non-sequitur to my point as well as absurdly phrased.

Oops, here you seem to admit that you didn't answer the question.

Yawn

I see. So you can make random, unfounded accusations, and when called on it you act like an eight year old. Own your words and retract what you said.

No, I do not.

Are you a mind reader?

Yes, like all humans I have the ability to interpret people's observable actions and determine their underlying motivations.

Now, how about you stop acting like a kid and discuss the points and arguments made?

 

[Belz...]

You seem to have confused excuses with explanations.

As I said this is something I see more and more here and elsewhere. People increasingly pick a stance and then weirdly seem to think that any deviation from the most extreme interpretation from that stance must mean that one is at the exact opposite extreme.

I wish people would get this. Also denying facts doesn't make them not so too.

Oh, so now you agree that nudity is not a dominant factor in male arousal?

Or did you just agree with Oracle because he disagreed with me?

 

[Belz...]

All the middle-aged TERFS will be gone in 20 or 30 years and the younger generation will see things progress as is always the case. So no, it's not going to stop, that's the thing about progress. It keeps progressing.

Ah, yes. The "history will prove me right" argument. Sorry, but an event occuring is not evidence that this event was good.

 

[Meadmaker]

No they won't. They still won't be allowed to. If you are talking about cismales.

What if we are talking about kangaroos?

I'm talking about biological males. That's why I used the phrase "biological males".

And you have the gall to constantly accuse other people of dishonesty.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm still waiting to find out why it's only "cismales" that women are to be protected from. So any male who claims trans status gets a free pass.

Archie now seems to accept that males are not permitted to enter female changing rooms etc. But then somehow when it comes to the ones who claim to be laydees, there's no rule against males in female changing rooms anyway, what on earth makes you think that?

 

[Belz...]

I'm still waiting to find out why it's only "cismales" that women are to be protected from.

What's amusing is that the use of the term 'cismale' throws out the entire concept of sex and gender as distinct concepts.