• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are over complicating something pretty simple.

I was trying to do the opposite.

I haven't seen many cases of trans women being attacked by blokes in dudes lav's so not sure what the massive issue is.

Which restroom to use had always been a cultural custom. Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law. So there was a protest against the intrusion of authority into a private issue. Then everyone forgot what they were fighting for.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law.

I hear this and variations on it very often, and I just find it laughable every time. It's as if people were trying to push the narrative that once upon a time, people could use whatever bathroom or locker room they wanted, and then in 2015 or thereabouts, some people in North Carolina tried to push some sort of never before seen legislation onto the world.

Really? What do you suppose would have happened to a guy found in a woman's restroom or locker room in 1950? And when I say "guy", I mean, "anyone with a penis", because in 1950 it would never have occurred to anyone at all that somehow it meant anything else.
 
I was trying to do the opposite.



Which restroom to use had always been a cultural custom. Suddenly some prudes made separation by genitals into an enforceable law. So there was a protest against the intrusion of authority into a private issue. Then everyone forgot what they were fighting for.

By what do you mean "always been a cultural custom)"
Mind throwing in some years and links to examples?
 
It's as if people were trying to push the narrative that once upon a time, people could use whatever bathroom or locker room they wanted, and then in 2015 or thereabouts, some people in North Carolina tried to push some sort of never before seen legislation onto the world.

It's as if you pulled the words "2015" and "North Carolina" right out of my mind. :p

Or rather, you know very well what I'm referring to.
 
Actually no.

We apparently all live in Nth Carolina

The point is that ever since people built boys and girls bathrooms, it has always been unacceptable for a boy to go into the girls bathroom, much less locker room. Depending on the exact time, place, and circumstances, a boy in the girls' bathroom (or locker room), would either be beaten to a pulp, subjected to corporal punishment (i.e. in schools), arrested, or some combination of the above. Maybe, if it was too much trouble, they might just be run off the property with the threat of future arrest, i.e. "If you ever show your face around here again I'm calling the cops!"

It has never been legal, ever.

No one ever bothered to make a specific law stating it because everyone knew it was illegal. If prosecution were desired (i.e. if someone decided "beating to a pulp" was inadequate or inappropriate) they might use some sort of "peeping tom" law, or they would stretch some sort of disturbing the peace or trespassing law to fit the circumstances. One thing is for certain. Nowhere in the United States would anyone have put up with it, and I am pretty sure the same would be true in all of the English speaking world, and pretty much everywhere else, too.

In 2015, faced with transgender males (i.e. transwomen) using women's private areas, the state of North Carolina said they didn't like that, and they actually wrote it into law for government owned buildings. Why did they do that? To codify the law that had always existed, but it never occurred to anyone that there was some need to write it down.

The laughable part is the claim that somehow North Carolina was introducing some brand new thing that had never been done before. No. They were making sure things stayed as they had always been until very recently.

Whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to do what North Carolina did is a secondary issue. The point is that good idea or bad idea, it was not a new idea.
 
Last edited:
Kind of thought I made the point earlier, but just posting US law crap is a bit moot as half the people on the forum don't live there.

Hence the "International" part of the url.

But realise it may be hard to get your head round.

The US is a big influential place and can be a bit insular.

For the half that do, the concept of something unstated being illegal doesn't make sense. We don't have a court of chancery. Every case that doesn't fit the legal formulas is added to them.
 
For the half that do, the concept of something unstated being illegal doesn't make sense. We don't have a court of chancery. Every case that doesn't fit the legal formulas is added to them.

All good.

If you want to disenfranchise half the people reading your posts this is cool.

Can't help seeing a certain irony in doing it with this topic though, tbf.
 
All good.

If you want to disenfranchise half the people reading your posts this is cool.

Can't help seeing a certain irony in doing it with this topic though, tbf.

I realized something that might have been confusing to the other people from the US, and I tried to explain it. I don't see how that would be dissing anyone.
 
Sorry mate. I wasn't really dissing you. Just thought quoting US laws was a bit irrelevant.
 
Sorry mate. I wasn't really dissing you. Just thought quoting US laws was a bit irrelevant.

The passing of the bill in North Carolina happened in the context of a two-restroom system only a few decades old, not the global version. So when Meadmaker was painting the picture of an exordial tradition, rather than a hard-won modern liberty, it was indeed relevant that I reminded him that the entire incident is enclosed in US politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom