• 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.
Collin237 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the laughable part.

Segregated toilets are as old as plumbing, which is what Cullen's article was saying. At first, it was men only. Then there were some specifically for women.


What do you suppose would happen to a British man in 1870 who decided to wander into the ladies' toilet. I'm not seeing it end well for that guy.
It's not some "new prudery".

ETA: I'm not sure about Rome, prior to Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the ONS definitions that LJ gave are disputed by clinical researchers. So much for LJ's claims of the ONS representing the opinion of the medical experts.
Changes to Census data collection on biological sex could hamper clinical research.

Clinical research into how illnesses and treatments affect women and men differently could be hit by changes to the way the Census collects data on sex, it has been claimed.
Britons will be asked 'what is your sex?' in the survey this year, with the ability to answer either 'female' or 'male'. The format of this question has remained unchanged since it was first posed in the initial full census of 1801.
However, the guidance for the 2021 Census has been updated to state that people may answer with the sex described in documents such as their passport or driving licence, which for transgender people may be different from their sex at birth.
Concerns have arisen from some quarters that this decision by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) will set a new standard for asking about biological sex from which scientists and researchers will find it difficult to deviate.
This in turn could harm the quality of data in research and trials about how medical treatments and therapies affect the biological sexes differently, it has been claimed.
Click to expand...
 
Meadmaker said:
This is the laughable part.

Segregated toilets are as old as plumbing, which is what Cullen's article was saying. At first, it was men only. Then there were some specifically for women.


What do you suppose would happen to a British man in 1870 who decided to wander into the ladies' toilet. I'm not seeing it end well for that guy.
It's not some "new prudery".

ETA: I'm not sure about Rome, prior to Christianity.
Click to expand...

Two toilets are only a few decades old in the US. Before that, the US had three toilets, the third marked "colored". The bill in North Carolina cannot be separated from that context.
 
Damn it - I just realized that I never asked my cat it's gender when I picked it up from the shelter. I certainly hope I've not been forcing it to use a mis-gendered litterbox all these years. But at least I think I've correctly identified the preferred pronouns of "weooww" and "brrRRRrr".
 
theprestige said:
I'm very sorry. I don't always do well with innuendo. Could you please spell it out for me? What do you think my ideology is? What gaping hole do you see in it? How did I reveal the hole?
Click to expand...

You and Meadmaker have been acting like you were perfectly fine with knowing what a person is until the big bad trans people took your simplicity away. Now you finally admit you believe that black people are from another planet.
 
Collin237 said:
Two toilets are only a few decades old in the US. Before that, the US had three toilets, the third marked "colored". The bill in North Carolina cannot be separated from that context.
Click to expand...

I question this. I don't think it was the rule, but rather an occasional thing especially in the deep South. Toilets were fairly expensive to start with, plus the available real estate to make an extra washroom is a real cost. Googling a little showed the same one or two images over and over, not the many thousands expected. There were more dual fountains than separate unisex washrooms.
 
Collin237 said:
You and Meadmaker have been acting like you were perfectly fine with knowing what a person is until the big bad trans people took your simplicity away. Now you finally admit you believe that black people are from another planet.
Click to expand...


Oh my...where is that giant stretching arms emoji?

Neither Mead nor Prestige use a Women's restroom. Why do you think they care who gets to use it?
Their position might mean that the people you think they discriminate against go into their OWN restrooms. Now why would they advocate for such a silly thing being the bigoted racists they are?

And the real truth is that restrooms are just an exercise in principal. Not many people care where you pee if you don't make problems.
 
Last edited:
Collin237 said:
You and Meadmaker have been acting like you were perfectly fine with knowing what a person is until the big bad trans people took your simplicity away. Now you finally admit you believe that black people are from another planet.
Click to expand...

Haha oh wow. No.

People who think of other people as animals might not bother to give them segregated bathrooms. In my case, it's perfectly fine, since cats really are animals.

Obviously it's not fine when it's black people. But there are racists out there who do think it's fine, because they don't think black people are people.

My ideology is both humane and hole-free. And it turns out I'm not the one who struggles with innuendo.
 
Dealing with Collin's free association is a rabbit hole I don't really want to go down, but just in case anyone forgot, I want to reiterate The Point.


In recent years, some states have passed or some legislators have introduced so called "bathroom bills". The merits of those bills have been debated, and undoubtedly will continue to be debated. Sometimes, though, specious arguments are used against those bills. Among those are claims that suddenly a wave of prudery is sweeping America (or elsewhere, if similar legislation exists), and that these bills require "genital checkers".

Whether they are a good idea or a bad idea, what is actually going on is that these legislators are trying to restore the situation that existed for most of history. It was only in the second half of my lifetime that it would have even occurred to anyone that such a bill would mean anything. It would be fair to say that those bills want to turn back the clock to a previous time. Even that, though, is back to a time that is within living memory of everyone on this thread, because it was mean shifting the clock all the way back to.....2005, maybe? Certainly no more distant than 2000.
 
Meadmaker said:
Dealing with Collin's free association is a rabbit hole I don't really want to go down, but just in case anyone forgot, I want to reiterate The Point.


In recent years, some states have passed or some legislators have introduced so called "bathroom bills". The merits of those bills have been debated, and undoubtedly will continue to be debated. Sometimes, though, specious arguments are used against those bills. Among those are claims that suddenly a wave of prudery is sweeping America (or elsewhere, if similar legislation exists), and that these bills require "genital checkers".

Whether they are a good idea or a bad idea, what is actually going on is that these legislators are trying to restore the situation that existed for most of history. It was only in the second half of my lifetime that it would have even occurred to anyone that such a bill would mean anything. It would be fair to say that those bills want to turn back the clock to a previous time. Even that, though, is back to a time that is within living memory of everyone on this thread, because it was mean shifting the clock all the way back to.....2005, maybe? Certainly no more distant than 2000.
Click to expand...

I hear you. As kids it would be unthinkable that any of us would want or even attempt to enter the other 'sex' restroom. It just was not done. And if it is not done, what is the point of legislating?

We do not legislate things that are not issues.
 
Sherkeu said:
Oh my...where is that giant stretching arms emoji?

Neither Mead nor Prestige use a Women's restroom. Why do you think they care who gets to use it?
Their position might mean that the people you think they discriminate against go into their OWN restrooms. Now why would they advocate for such a silly thing being the bigoted racists they are?

And the real truth is that restrooms are just an exercise in principal. Not many people care where you pee if you don't make problems.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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