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

[JoeMorgue]

In fact, whenever prompted, activists become VERY silent when they have to name rights that trans people don't have.

Because activists become VERY silent when they have to define what trans people are beyond "Whatever they say they are" which again is hilarious because the one trans person in the thread called all of them liars and said THEY weren't on her side enough.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No one is against denying trans people the same rights as other people.

In fact, whenever prompted, activists become VERY silent when they have to name rights that trans people don't have.

Yes, yes yes. Just like how gay people were asking for special rights, because the prohibition to same-sex marriage also applied to everyone equally.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No one is against denying trans people the same rights as other people.

In fact, whenever prompted, activists become VERY silent when they have to name rights that trans people don't have.

Just like no one was denying gays the same rights, no one could get gay married regardless if they were gay or straight. And of course there was no rights infringed with miscegenation either, as it was illegal for a white to marry a black just like it was illegal for a black to marry a white.

Now the ability to simply go to the bathroom with out it being a big deal is of course a right no one has. As for being worried about being outed, well I have no worries about being outed as cis so why should they be worried about being outed as trans?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's very interesting to read posts from some people here and realise how little they understand the basic principles of logic.

You're just throwing random arguments that 'feel' right without even considering if they apply to the situation or if they really help your case.

Not at all I am just applying the same logic of the argument as it has been traditionally applied in other totally not bigoted cases. Wanting to keep the gays out of the locker rooms that kids use does not make one homophobic, it is just different ideas about gay equality.

 

[sarge]

Is there the right of a female transman to be nude in front of non-consenting males men? Is there a right for females transmen to compete in male-only men-only sports? Is there a right for females transmen to represent the views of males men in sex-specific gender-specific representative situations?


Do you think black men should have had the right to sit tight alongside (non-consenting) white women on bench seats in buses?

There is no reasonable comparison between racism and the desire to protect people from being forced to undress in front of members of the opposite sex. I can think of no way to say this more plainly. It is as close to the mythical self-evident truth that real life can offer.

You are describing as a ‘right’ things that trans activist irrationally propose.....things that run counter to rational, logical, and understandable safeguards that society has adopted after thousands of years of experience.

You are, while advocating for pandering to the desires of a tiny fringe of society at the expense of the vast majority of society, labeling as transphobic those that oppose your irrational views. Essentially, you are arguing as if you are a US Republican. Oh the irony.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, yes yes. Just like how gay people were asking for special rights, because the prohibition to same-sex marriage also applied to everyone equally.

And being banned from kissing someone of the same sex in public of course applies equally as well. What one does in the privacy of their own home is their business but there could be children present in public! And how dare anyone think this is a homophobic position!

 

[theprestige]

Not at all I am just applying the same logic of the argument as it has been traditionally applied in other totally not bigoted cases. Wanting to keep the gays out of the locker rooms that kids use does not make one homophobic, it is just different ideas about gay equality.

These counter-examples have already been brought up and discussed more than once in this thread. Actually discussed. You're not applying logic, you're attempting a fringe reset.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because activists become VERY silent when they have to define what trans people are beyond "Whatever they say they are" which again is hilarious because the one trans person in the thread called all of them liars and said THEY weren't on her side enough.

Yea you get the same BS with Christians, as if papists are real Christians.

 

[sarge]

No one is against denying trans people the same rights as other people.

In fact, whenever prompted, activists become VERY silent when they have to name rights that trans people don't have.

Pretty much everyone in this thread IS against denying trans people the same rights as other people.

What most everyone is against is affording ‘rights to trans people that don’t exist for anyone else.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is no reasonable comparison between racism and the desire to protect people from being forced to undress in front of members of the opposite sex.

Sure it is you are being forced to undress in front of people who make you feel uncomfortable, be they trans , black or gay. It is all cultural which ones you say are a big deal and which ones are not. Gay is clearly a bigger deal as they are going to find you sexually attractive after all. With trans you simply don't know if they are gay or straight and so have no guide if they would find you attractive or not.

Really it makes far more sense to focus on homosexuals than on trans people, they are the ones who would be ogling those in the locker room.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Pretty much everyone in this thread IS against denying trans people the same rights as other people.

What most everyone is against is affording ‘rights to trans people that don’t exist for anyone else.

Like why the right to ogle people in the locker room is not a right that the gays have and why keeping them out is acceptable. I wonder if there are still any pink triangle arm bands laying around to make it easy who to be warry of them ogling you...

 

[sarge]

Sure it is you are being forced to undress in front of people who make you feel uncomfortable, be they trans , black or gay. It is all cultural which ones you say are a big deal and which ones are not. Gay is clearly a bigger deal as they are going to find you sexually attractive after all. With trans you simply don't know if they are gay or straight and so have no guide if they would find you attractive or not.

Really it makes far more sense to focus on homosexuals than on trans people, they are the ones who would be ogling those in the locker room.

Your position is that the unwanted presence of a naked male mixed in with naked females is of insufficient concern to justify redefining as a right the desire to have a penis and be naked in front of unwilling females. Got it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Your position is that the unwanted presence of a naked male mixed in with naked females is of insufficient concern to justify redefining as a right the desire to have a penis and be naked in front of unwilling females. Got it.

Why exclude having a penis and being naked in front of unwilling boys? That is the special right of gays after all. The right to a free show.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, yes yes. Just like how gay people were asking for special rights, because the prohibition to same-sex marriage also applied to everyone equally.

That doesn't even make any sense.

And that's a good indication that you're not really thinking your position through. All you know is that one's a bigot if they don't agree, so you rush to agree so as to not get labeled as such, and point to anyone who doesn't fully agree so as to take attention away from yourself.

This is typical in religious communities.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because the mindset starts at "Transgender people are official victims, therefore (end of mental processing.)"

The fact that homosexuality and transgenderism don't really compare all that well that doesn't matter. Both groups have been declared "victims" so they are the same.

That's why everyone is doing ponderingturtles "Indict response to something that you didn't actually say" routine.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is untrue. The transwoman was in a sauna, which was a secluded area off-limits to the group that was permitted to use the swimming facilities. The narrative peddled by the bigots at the ADF, that this trans woman was deliberately strutting about to show off her genitalia to children, is a total fiction meant only to drum up hatred against trans people.

It should be known that the girls swim team was the guest of Evergreen college, meanwhile the transwoman being harassed was a student at the university. Seems pretty clear to me that a student of a college should get more accommodation than some unrelated swim club that rents time from the college.

Allowing these guests to use another locker room was a very measured solution from the college. Outright revoking the high school swim team's access, in response to a harassment campaign against a trans student of the university, would have been well within their rights.

This is how the anti-trans bigot machine works. A false story vilifying trans people is breathlessly reported and repeated until it is accepted as true.

Reporting from an outlet that actually contacted Evergreen college to get the details, rather than credulously running the narrative presented by the ADF.

https://www.transadvocate.com/colleen-francis-and-the-infamous-evergreen-state-college-incident_n_10765.htm

Wow. That sure is different from what I've heard.

Except......

It isn't. And It misses the point.

Let's do some fact checking of our own.

The transwoman was in a sauna, which was a secluded area off-limits to the group that was permitted to use the swimming facilities.

Status: Mostly true. At the time the individual was confronted by the swim team coach, that individual was in the sauna. Of course, at some point the individual had to travel to the sauna, right? Through the locker room?

The narrative peddled by the bigots at the ADF, that this trans woman was deliberately strutting about to show off her genitalia to children,

Status: Mixed

The linked article suggests that this incident only was discussed in the media after the ADF became involved. This is not true. I was aware of it before the ADF took up the case. Local media covered it. The ADF did not invent the story.

Furthermore, the ADF did not use any language such as "deliberately strutting about" or "show off", so saying that the ADF peddled that story is a bit of a stretch.

However, I think it is fair to say that the language of the ADF letter could be easily interpreted to mean something that it doesn't literally say. I think it's fair to say that the ADF deliberately created an impression in the minds of the readers that was not accurate. However, what they actually said, was literally true.

Seems pretty clear to me that a student of a college should get more accommodation than some unrelated swim club that rents time from the college.

Status:

They are paying for the space, but they some users get "more accommodation" than others? I'm really just calling this one out just because it kind of illustrates ST's mindset here. It's just a knee jerk, "My team is better than your team" sort of thing, and really reveals a level of bias here.

They were users of the facilities. They all had a right to be there. No one was more special than any other.

Outright revoking the high school swim team's access, in response to a harassment campaign against a trans student of the university, would have been well within their rights.

Status:

Again, ST is asserting some sort of judgement here about which he has no clue. It is common for colleges, high schools, public buildings of all sorts, to have various agreements, legal responsibilities, arrangements with local governments for community use. Suburban Turkey has zero knowledge about what would have been within, or "well within", the college's rights.

Based on the fact that nobody lost any lawsuits, what they actually did was apparently within their rights. What they could have done while staying within their rights is pure speculation on ST's part.

Now, moving on to a couple of the claims from the linked article:

Claim: It was a single incident.
Status: Mostly false

One day, two students on the girls' swim team became aware that a male bodied individual was in the locker room. They reported it to the coach. The police and college staff were notified. That was a single incident.

Colleen Brenna Francis continued to use the locker room, and there were no further police reports. Why would there be? However, the same things happened on multiple occasions.

Claim: Colleen Brenna Francis did not expose "herself" to the students.
Status: Mostly false

It was noted in the phone call that Colleen Francis wore a towel to and from the sauna, as is common for people in locker rooms.

Can anyone explain to me how you transition from street clothes to wrapped with a towel without getting naked in the process? I just can't physically see how that could happen without some pretty extreme contortions. Likewise, how you go from street clothes to swim suit without being naked in the middle?

With the swimsuit, it is possible to use other clothing, baggy dresses or skirts, to do it if you really think it's important not to be exposed, but it's a lot of work.

Of course Colleen Francis was naked. It's a locker room attached to a pool. That's what people do in locker rooms. Duh.

There's a weird sort of straw man argument going on here, and it's not uncommon. It requires a bit of equivocation thrown in just for fun. In the classic straw man argument, person A makes an argument. Person B distorts the argument, and then refutes the distorted argument. In this case, person A, which is the ADF here, takes a set of facts and says something literally true, but exaggerates for effect, throwing in a bit of equivocation. Someone describing the incident might use the term "exposed himself", knowing that that phrase conjures creepy exhibitionist, when it might just mean "used a locker room normally". They are deliberately creating a distorted version of reality, even though what they are saying is literally true. Person B, in this case Collleen Francis' supporters, then proceed to refute the exaggerated story. They accept the equivocation of the ADF, and destroy it. It's like the original arguer built their own straw man for the opponents to knock down.

But, all that aside, you can't go from street clothes to towel without getting naked in the middle. Colleen Francis was, at some point, naked in the locker room.

Claim: Nudity, exposure
Status: Misses the point.

What I mean here is that there's been a lot of talk about whether Colleen Francis exposed themself in the locker room. All of it misses the point. At some time, the girls became aware that Colleen Francis was a male, and that they were naked in the presence of a male. That is the point. That is what matters.

They didn't want to be naked in the presence of a male, so they objected, and when their objections were dismissed, they went to the other locker room.

Guys seem to think that their penises really matter, and so the problem must have been that those girls were seeing a penis, but the guys are only half right. Yes, penises do matter, but it's not so much about seeing them. It's more about knowing that they are there. If the females know that one is there, they will behave differently in your presence, and they probably won't want to expose themselves to you.

Colleen Francis wore a towel as "she" walked to the sauna, but she did not wear a towel over her eyes, and that is what matters.

 

[Belz...]

Not at all I am just applying the same logic

No you're not. You never are. You have a terrible track record of following someone's logic.

Just like no one was denying gays the same rights, no one could get gay married regardless if they were gay or straight.

Well I guess confused minds think alike, because that's the same ridiculous argument Turkey just gave me.

What is 'getting gay married' if not gay marriage? You're not even trying to make sense.

The problem is that you are simply ignoring anything that people who disagree with you are saying, all the while claiming to exactly characterise their position while actually talking about something else entirely.

And of course there was no rights infringed with miscegenation either, as it was illegal for a white to marry a black just like it was illegal for a black to marry a white.

Now the ability to simply go to the bathroom with out it being a big deal is of course a right no one has. As for being worried about being outed, well I have no worries about being outed as cis so why should they be worried about being outed as trans?

Called it, didn't I? You cannot name a right that they don't have.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Right because we solved racisms and homophobia by going "If you don't like the race/orientation you are, just self identify as the other one."

That's why we still have separate black and white water fountains, but it's okay because everyone gets to choose which one they use.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That doesn't even make any sense.

And that's a good indication that you're not really thinking your position through. All you know is that one's a bigot if they don't agree, so you rush to agree so as to not get labeled as such, and point to anyone who doesn't fully agree so as to take attention away from yourself.

This is typical in religious communities.

Anti-gay zealots, at the time when same sex marriage was a live issue, insisted that gay people were asking for special privileges, rather than insisting on basic equality under the law. The argument was quite clear, gay people had the same rights as straight and the law, in it's equality, forbid all homosexual marriages for all people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because the mindset starts at "Transgender people are official victims, therefore (end of mental processing.)"

The fact that homosexuality and transgenderism don't really compare all that well that doesn't matter. Both groups have been declared "victims" so they are the same.

That's why everyone is doing ponderingturtles "Indict response to something that you didn't actually say" routine.

Ah yes because people can never be expected to actually believe in the arguments they make, and applying them to other situations is always wrong because they are not really arguments in the real sense but special cases only.

At least we can finally get stonewall out of being a part of gay history as it is really a part of trans history that the gays appropriated as there is no similarities between such groups. It was really all about trans rights when Marsha threw that brick. OF course the movie had to rewrite history, had to show a good cis white boy instead of a black trans woman as the one to kick off the riot.