Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-fundamentally-disagrees-with-jk-rowling-gra-tweet-3600482
Click to expand...

"There was a plea [in Parliament] to have a debate that was civilised, that was respectful of different opinions, but that didn’t give inadvertently sucker to those – and I’m not describing anybody like JK Rowling or anyone else in this way for the avoidance of doubt – to exploit this issue for purposes of prejudice and transphobia.”

Good grief - did they really write "sucker" instead of "succour"?
 
Rolfe said:
There is no such thing as an outside vagina. The vagina does not have any outside part, it is an interior organ. The most you will see of a woman's genital organs when she's getting changed or even walking around naked is the front part of the outside of the exterior labia of the vulva. Which isn't much.
Click to expand...
Ah aright, I said vagina which was incorrect, sorry. The flaunty outside bits have a different name, cool.

Rolfe said:
Women don't go around flaunting their genitals in public and one of the reasons is that they pretty much can't, without getting into contortionist territory. The idea that a man walking around in a women's changing room with his penis and testicles in full view is no different from a woman walking around without covering up is presposterous. First, it's a female changing room, we expect other women to be naked there and we do not expect men to be naked there. And second, women don't do exhibitionism and incedent exposure in changing rooms. Men who get into women's changing rooms are genenally there for precisely that purpose.
Click to expand...
I disagree, female genitals are just as flaunty as male genitals are.

You are acting like female genitals are invisible from the outside.

They're not.
 
p0lka said:
Ah aright, I said vagina which was incorrect, sorry. The flaunty outside bits have a different name, cool.


I disagree, female genitals are just as flaunty as male genitals are.

You are acting like female genitals are invisible from the outside.

They're not.
Click to expand...

Really? What do you think you can see?
 
As I said, we see about the anterior third of the outside part of the labia majora. You seriously think that's it?
 
p0lka said:
Genitals.

edit: is this a joke or something?

people with female genitals, go stand in front of a mirror and look. you seriously saying you see nothing?
Click to expand...

Male genitals are easy to see. The testes are out there in the open, producing sperm in front of god and everybody. Likewise the genitive organ itself. Floppy or rampant, shower or grower, the penis is right up front pointing the way to the next booty call.

Lemme know when you find a woman parading around the locker room showing off her ovaries and uterus. The best you'll be able to manage is a man showing off her [ETA:] shesticles and shenis xesticles and xenis. Sorry 'bout that. Don't want to get those pronouns wrong.
 
Last edited:
This must be a joke?

If males are naked and walking there's flaunting and parading, you know all those words that have an implicit bias ...but if females are naked and walking none of it applies cos of reasons?
 
theprestige said:
Male genitals are easy to see. The testes are out there in the open, producing sperm in front of god and everybody. Likewise the genitive organ itself. Floppy or rampant, shower or grower, the penis is right up front pointing the way to the next booty call.

Lemme know when you find a woman parading around the locker room showing off her ovaries and uterus. The best you'll be able to manage is a man showing off her [ETA:] shesticles and shenis xesticles and xenis. Sorry 'bout that. Don't want to get those pronouns wrong.
Click to expand...

Female genitals are easy to see. The lips are out there in the open, dripping in front of god and everybody.

Where's the impartiality?
 
theprestige said:
The two things are not analogous. Thus nobody is swayed by your appeal to analogy.
Click to expand...

The two things are analogous in the way that is very important.

A little thought experiment here. Let us say that since female genitals are almost entirely concealed. What's the consequence? Well, it seems that being naked in front of a guy shouldn't bother her, because, after all, her genitals aren't exposed, or at most a tiny bit of them is exposed.

But that's absurd.



These were the two quotes that started things.

Rolfe said:
Thomas is wandering around the changing rooms with his penis exposed. This is upsetting the girls.
Click to expand...


p0lka said:
Thomina is wandering around around the changing room with her vagina exposed. This is upsetting the boys.
Click to expand...

(Aside: note that "Thomas" in the first quote was a surname, a reference to Lia Thomas, a real person, as are "the girls" in the quote. The second is a hypothetical possible similarity.)

The meaning of the two quotes would be unchanged if the first quote had said "naked", instead of "with his penis exposed". And then the second would say "naked" instead of "with her vagina exposed". The meaning would be unchanged, even if exactly the terms used or the percentage of visible sexual organs exposed may be different between the two cases.


However, what is not analogous is the reaction to the two different situations. The girls would (typically) feel differently about a lone naked male in their midst than the boys would feel about a lone naked female in their midst.

Some have put the different reactions it in terms of danger, and I think that it's important to be careful when using that as the argument. Some people insist that if that is the problem, if we can show that there is not a statistically significant rise in crimes, assaults, or whatever else might be measured, then it's ok to have males walking about naked in the female changing rooms. I disagree. I think the anxiety created by the presence of the naked male is a valid lived experience, i.e. a natural reaction, not created by societal expectations, and is harmful in and of itself, even if the incidence of sexual assault does not increase.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit hazy about how the men's swim team would react to an androgenised female walking around naked in their changing room. I suspect they'd mostly be pretty uncomfortable but I don't think they would really feel threatened.

I do think that men deserve their privacy and their private single-sex spaces too. I just don't hear many stories of that privacy actually being invaded by trans-identifying females. And I'm sick to the molars of posters who understand women so little that all they can do is make up weird fantasy scenarios where women act out exhibitionism, voyeurism and perversion in the way (some) men do.
 
Meadmaker said:
A little thought experiment here. Let us say that since female genitals are almost entirely concealed. What's the consequence? Well, it seems that being naked in front of a guy shouldn't bother her, because, after all, her genitals aren't exposed, or at most a tiny bit of them is exposed.
Click to expand...


It's not something I really thought about, but I think exposing ones breasts inadvertently is in a way more embarrassing than exposing ones nether regions, simply because there's more to see there.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm a bit hazy about how the men's swim team would react to an androgenised female walking around naked in their changing room. I suspect they'd mostly be pretty uncomfortable but I don't think they would really feel threatened.

I do think that men deserve their privacy and their private single-sex spaces too. I just don't hear many stories of that privacy actually being invaded by trans-identifying females. And I'm sick to the molars of posters who understand women so little that all they can do is make up weird fantasy scenarios where women act out exhibitionism, voyeurism and perversion in the way (some) men do.
Click to expand...

I've heard complaints about transgender identified females invading gay male spaces, specifically sex clubs.

The reactions have seemed to be anger from the gay males at the audacity of a female feeling like they have any right to be there... and whining from the female because the gay males don't want to have sex with their "front hole".

Not really the same reactions as when there's a male in a female space that is NOT intended for sex.
 
Meadmaker said:
The two things are analogous in the way that is very important.

A little thought experiment here. Let us say that since female genitals are almost entirely concealed. What's the consequence? Well, it seems that being naked in front of a guy shouldn't bother her, because, after all, her genitals aren't exposed, or at most a tiny bit of them is exposed.

But that's absurd.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I was mostly riffing on p0lka's doubling-down on the "genitalia" terminology. Of course exposing one's groin has similar sexual connotations for both sexes, even though the equipment so exposed isn't really analogous.

So I apologize to p0lka for being slightly unfair in my response. Sorry 'bout that.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Dripping?

I'm seriously questioning whether you've seen a naked female in real life, or whether you're taking your cues from porn here.
Click to expand...


I thought perhaps he was picking up on the situation of someone looking for the soap... Maybe just got out of the shower?

I agree. He doesn't post like someone who has any awareness of women's bodies in a non-sexual context, or indeed of women's behaviour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom