• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
And if you force white girls to share a bus bench seat with burly black men, will discrimination against black people stop?

Since we are balancing rights here, we kind of have to know how bad each solution is.

Of course, balancing those rights requires people to acknowledge that white girls lose something if a black man is sitting tight up against them on a bus bench seat.


(You have no idea what you're talking about)
Click to expand...

*Yawn*


(For a more complete response, see all the responses made last time.)
 
Abooga said:
It´s pretty funny. Most reasonable people realise that pronouns display is just a silly form of virtue signaling, and mocking it is healthy.

And why do you think Jesus and Mo readers are reactionary bigots? It´s a cartoon that mocks (religious) reactionary bigots... I think most readers are probably just freethinkers and atheists...
Click to expand...
I had never heard of "Jesus and Moe" before, but it didn't really strike me as right wing.
 
Abooga said:
And why do you think Jesus and Mo readers are reactionary bigots? It´s a cartoon that mocks (religious) reactionary bigots... I think most readers are probably just freethinkers and atheists...
Click to expand...

A nice touch I like about the joke is the choice of plural pronouns even makes sense in the context of the trinity. But you have to both know a bit about Christian theology but also have to be willing to laugh at it in order to think that's funny. You don't have to be religious or atheist, but it's going to offend reactionaries.
 
On that subject here is the website of BIPOC/Lesbian suing Stonewall an activist charity for their part in getting them fired.



I am suing Stonewall Diversity Limited to stop them policing free speech.
I am a barrister and I helped to set up a new organisation for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, the LGB Alliance, to provide an alternative to Stonewall. In retaliation, Stonewall had me investigated by my chambers, in an attempt to cost me my livelihood.
Click to expand...


https://allisonbailey.co.uk/


This is of course a crowdfunding/update set up but the dynamic of this case is interesting.
 
Meadmaker said:
Meanwhile, over in Kern County, California, they're reconfiguring locker rooms at the high school.

https://www.bakersfield.com/news/kh...cle_f9f5481a-642e-11ec-96ba-d7230fd12360.html


It's where people seem to want to go, but we'll see how well it works out. What I see is more time required to change clothes and/or shower, but the added privacy will be welcomed, I'm sure, with or without trans people present.
Click to expand...

It's incredible what solutions are possible when law preempts discriminating against minorities as a solution.

Even students totally indifferent to the plight of trans people must be happy with the improvement in personal privacy.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's incredible what solutions are possible when law preempts discriminating against minorities as a solution.

Even students totally indifferent to the plight of trans people must be happy with the improvement in personal privacy.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

And re this: I believe that in countries such as the UK and USA, research shows that students* are actually well attuned to the acceptance of transgender identity and the need for the sensible enactment & protection of transgender rights.

It's only....shall we say.....certain demographic groups who oppose most or all of the rights and protections proposed (or already enacted) for transgender people.

For example, take a look at this survey (conducted some 18 months ago by the respected UK market research/polling operator YouGov) into attitudes towards transgender identity and various transgender rights:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

You may notice that 18-24yr olds (YouGov does not survey people under the age of 18**) have clearly the most progressive attitude: there's strong support for most transgender rights - including allowing transwomen/transgirls to use women's bathrooms and changing rooms.

You may also notice that women in general also poll pretty high on the progressive scale (something that is at odds with the frequent insistence by some people within this thread that women's rights are being sacrificed at the altar of transgender woke-ism, and that "women won't wheesht" etc. Funny, that.).

The most reactionary/bigoted groups are men, people over 65, people who voted "Leave" in the EU Referendum, and people with right-wing politics***.

I invite people within this thread to draw their own conclusions from the survey.......


* There may well be areas of the US - eg bible-belt states or reactionary rural states - where students still exhibit indifference or even bigotry towards the notion of transgender identity. But I think they are very much the exception and not the rule.

** Although there is plenty of qualitative evidence that 14-18yr olds are in fact even more in favour of transgender rights than 18-24yr olds.

*** Even though, ironically, it's the Conservative (or Conservative-led) governments of the past 10 years which have led the introduction of new legislation to grant rights and protections to transgender people.
 
New adjective just dropped
e29c41c47ff09638e57f8d46e91b34cc.jpg
 
female


of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.


a pistillate plant.
Click to expand...


Silly
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's incredible what solutions are possible when law preempts discriminating against minorities as a solution.

Even students totally indifferent to the plight of trans people must be happy with the improvement in personal privacy.
Click to expand...

Seems like a pretty solid "transwomen are not women" solution. I wonder how much longer this strategy of sidestepping the problem will be allowed.
 
LondonJohn said:
Indeed.

And re this: I believe that in countries such as the UK and USA, research shows that students* are actually well attuned to the acceptance of transgender identity and the need for the sensible enactment & protection of transgender rights.

It's only....shall we say.....certain demographic groups who oppose most or all of the rights and protections proposed (or already enacted) for transgender people.

For example, take a look at this survey (conducted some 18 months ago by the respected UK market research/polling operator YouGov) into attitudes towards transgender identity and various transgender rights:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

You may notice that 18-24yr olds (YouGov does not survey people under the age of 18**) have clearly the most progressive attitude: there's strong support for most transgender rights - including allowing transwomen/transgirls to use women's bathrooms and changing rooms.
You may also notice that women in general also poll pretty high on the progressive scale (something that is at odds with the frequent insistence by some people within this thread that women's rights are being sacrificed at the altar of transgender woke-ism, and that "women won't wheesht" etc. Funny, that.).

The most reactionary/bigoted groups are men, people over 65, people who voted "Leave" in the EU Referendum, and people with right-wing politics***.

I invite people within this thread to draw their own conclusions from the survey.......


* There may well be areas of the US - eg bible-belt states or reactionary rural states - where students still exhibit indifference or even bigotry towards the notion of transgender identity. But I think they are very much the exception and not the rule.

** Although there is plenty of qualitative evidence that 14-18yr olds are in fact even more in favour of transgender rights than 18-24yr olds.

*** Even though, ironically, it's the Conservative (or Conservative-led) governments of the past 10 years which have led the introduction of new legislation to grant rights and protections to transgender people.
Click to expand...

So....there shouldn't be any need for the privacy curtains in Kern County.

See....I think certain demographic groups includes teenaged girls, when there's a teenaged transgirl sharing their locker room, and especially, big time, really no question, if there's an adult transwoman naked at the municipal pool.

And, Kern County is fairly conservative, but Palatine, Illinois? Not so much.
 
LondonJohn said:
I invite people within this thread to draw their own conclusions from the survey.......
Click to expand...

Oh, wait just a danged minute.

That article LondonJohn posted said:
People tend to be fine with transgender people using facilities for their new gender, but not if they have not undergone gender reassignment surgery
Click to expand...

(Emphasis in original. We've seen this before.)
 
LondonJohn said:
** Although there is plenty of qualitative evidence that 14-18yr olds are in fact even more in favour of transgender rights than 18-24yr olds.
Click to expand...

It unlikely that many of these 14-18yr olds could name which rights "transgender people" don't have that everyone else does. Can you?

"Transgender rights" frequently turn out to be Women's Rights For Men.
 
JihadJane said:
It unlikely that many of these 14-18yr olds could name which rights "transgender people" don't have that everyone else does. Can you?

"Transgender rights" frequently turn out to be Women's Rights For Men.
Click to expand...


Ah good. Bigotry. Congratulations!
 
Meadmaker said:
Oh, wait just a danged minute.



(Emphasis in original. We've seen this before.)
Click to expand...


Ah, very well done in your dishonest misrepresentation.

What you've quoted there refers to the aggregate of the entire set of responses. Which includes people like you.

But in fact, I was very specifically and explicitly talking about the attitudes of younger people (perhaps you failed to remember that in your dishonesty?).

So I invite you to look more closely at the column labelled "18-24yr olds". And not to include the (irrelevant, in this context) right-hand columns representing the likes of you. For obvious reasons.

How embarrassing. And how intellectually dishonest.
 
theprestige said:
Seems like a pretty solid "transwomen are not women" solution. I wonder how much longer this strategy of sidestepping the problem will be allowed.
Click to expand...

Hey, if anti-discrimination law making trans exclusion illegal results in policy makers backing into protecting individual privacy and modesty concerns, I'd chalk that up as a win regardless of their intentions.

Seems a bit gross that the endless parade of young boys and girls expressing apprehension about the poor privacy of locker rooms was not adequate to move policy, but now that there's a trans boogieman suddenly this is an imperative. Whatcha gonna do but shrug?

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't happened sooner. Minors being compelled to use communal locker rooms in plain view of their peers (who are known to be vicious little ***** at that age) and authority figure adults seems like a litigation-risk nightmare.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Ah, very well done in your dishonest misrepresentation.

What you've quoted there refers to the aggregate of the entire set of responses. Which includes people like you.

But in fact, I was very specifically and explicitly talking about the attitudes of younger people (perhaps you failed to remember that in your dishonesty?).

So I invite you to look more closely at the column labelled "18-24yr olds". And not to include the (irrelevant, in this context) right-hand columns representing the likes of you. For obvious reasons.

How embarrassing. And how intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

I leave it to the people I respect to judge the honesty of my posts, and yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom