Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[TurkeysGhost]

I have not yet made an exhaustive survey, but my preliminary findings are that there's not a lot of dripping even in porn.

The market has spoken, frothing > dripping

 

[Rolfe]

I have not yet made an exhaustive survey, but my preliminary findings are that there's not a lot of dripping even in porn.

There can be, in changing rooms, because there are showers there and one of the reasons for being naked is you just washed yourself all over.

 

[p0lka]

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.

I replied to a statement by flipping the gender and exaggerating, to address an issue.

Your questioning is strange though, females do drip... it's not the topic though so let's move on.

 

[Rolfe]

Let's not. Are you talking about incontinence? Stress incontinence? Do you find that comparable to sexual posturing by males in women's single-sex spaces?

Or are you simply talking about water from the shower? Men drip too, in that context.

I can assure you, these are the only types of dripping you will see happining anywhere near female genitalia in a changing room. One is an unforrunate affliction and the other is a normal effect of getting clean, which males also exhibit.

This is a very weird conversation, but you don't get out of talking nonsense by saying "let's move on."

 

[p0lka]

Let's not. Are you talking about incontinence? Stress incontinence? Do you find that comparable to sexual posturing by males in women's single-sex spaces?

Or are you simply talking about water from the shower? Men drip too, in that context.

I can assure you, these are the only types of dripping you will see happining anywhere near female genitalia in a changing room. One is an unforrunate affliction and the other is a normal effect of getting clean, which males also exhibit.

This is a very weird conversation, but you don't get out of talking nonsense by saying "let's move on."

ok, I replied to this

Male genitals are easy to see. The testes are out there in the open, producing sperm in front of god and everybody. ..... snip

sorry theprestige for quoting out of context, but needs must.
With this

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?

whilst swapping terms to make a point, I got stuck with the 'producing sperm' bit, so I went the lubrication route, like I said exaggeration to make a point.

You know how exaggeration works anyway, with your 'flaunting' descriptions and what not.

 

[theprestige]

ok, I replied to this
sorry theprestige for quoting out of context, but needs must.
With this

whilst swapping terms to make a point, I got stuck with the 'producing sperm' bit, so I went the lubrication route, like I said exaggeration to make a point.

Getting stuck probably should have functioned as an early warning that your reversal was going to fall flat.

I was referring to the literal genitive function of the testes. They really are visible on the outside of the human male body, and they really are performing a basic genitive function.

You attempted a reversal based on an exaggerated and out-of-context idea of sexual arousal. So yeah, maybe just talk about what you think and why, in your own words, and don't worry so much about matching the idiom of other members.

 

[p0lka]

Getting stuck probably should have functioned as an early warning that your reversal was going to fall flat.

I was referring to the literal genitive function of the testes. They really are visible on the outside of the human male body, and they really are performing a basic genitive function.

You attempted a reversal based on an exaggerated and out-of-context idea of sexual arousal. So yeah, maybe just talk about what you think and why, in your own words, and don't worry so much about matching the idiom of other members.

Hmm not really, I wasn't reversing anything, rather I was sticking to the structure of your statement but changing the variables to make it absurd.
I feel I made my point satisfactorily.

By the way, 'genitive function of the testes' and 'basic genitive function' does not compute? what do you mean?

 

[Meadmaker]

Hmm not really, I wasn't reversing anything, rather I was sticking to the structure of your statement but changing the variables to make it absurd.
I feel I made my point satisfactorily.

Well, I understood what you were trying to say.


I disagreed with it, though, but not because of basic facts about anatomy, or any of the things that dominated the posts since you started down the path.


My point is that a man in the woman's locker room really isn't the same as a woman in the man's locker room, and you can substitute any variation on man/woman/male/female, and it remains the same. Whether the person whose sex is unusual for that particular locker room is clothed or unclothed is significant, but only a little. (For people following the thread for a long time, "Can you put the towel around her eyes?") So, you were trying to make the situations analogous between Thomas and Thomasina, but they aren't, and the breakdown of the analogy does not come from the percentage of genital visibility.

It seemed to me that you were going with an argument that we have seen many variations on in this thread, which is any variant of "Why is it that you only talk about trans women?" It's true, we do talk about transwomen a lot more than transmen, and it's because transwomen in the "opposite" locker room are a bigger problem than transmen, for lots of reasons that I won't reiterate unless it seems necessary.

Which is not to say that no one objects to women and/or transmen in the men's locker room. It just isn't the primary concern.

 

[theprestige]

Long story short, a transman in the men's locker room is at risk from all the men there. A transwoman in the women's locker room is a risk to all the women there. This is also the answer to p0lka's bad faith sports question.

 

[Rolfe]

whilst swapping terms to make a point, I got stuck with the 'producing sperm' bit, so I went the lubrication route, like I said exaggeration to make a point.

You know how exaggeration works anyway, with your 'flaunting' descriptions and what not.

Indeed, as theprestige said, getting stuck should have been a good indication that your point was spurious. You decided to describe a woman in a (fairly extreme) state of sexual arousal. Women getting changed before or after swimming, in a communal changing room, are never in a state of sexual arousal. This is not, fundamentally, about sexual arousal.

Nobody has accused Thomas of having a visible erection in the changing room. Nevertheless, the visible presence of Thomas's penis, even in an unaroused state, is a problem. The fact that the testes are (of course, just like a woman's concealed ovaries) producing germ cells even when the man is not aroused is also worthy of note. And yes, it is possible for men to "flaunt" their genitals even in an unaroused state, in a way that is impossible for women. And they do it and we know they do it and these girls know Thomas is doing it. It's an assertion of dominance, a way of taking ownership of the space and relegating the females to a submissive role. It makes the girls uncomfortable precisely because it's meant to.

Women's ovaries and vagina, the analogues of the testes and penis, are internal organs that cannot be seen, never mind flaunted. While a part of the outside of the external labia of the vulva can be seen in a naked woman, this is not something it's really possible to flaunt, even if women were predisposed to doing such a thing. No woman spreads her legs to display her external genitalia in a changing room, and certainly not as an assertion of dominance.

It comes back to the point I have made several times already. Just quit with this puerile* attempt to turn every complaint about typical male dominance/bullying behavour into "but what about the women who do the same thing." This is not a symmetrical problem.

Women do bully other women and try to assert dominance over them, but it's done in very different ways. The fact that all these "transwomen" retain male behavour patterns when they decide to bully women (or indeed other men) is very telling, as has been pointed out previously.

The analagous situation to Thomas making the girls uncomfortable in the changing room would be a transman insisting on changing with the men and walking around naked in the men's changing room. (If she's doing any flaunting it's probably of her breasts, which is possible and is something women do.) I will defer to the men on the thread to explore how that might be received. It's likely the men will also be uncomfortable, but for very different reasons, because the dynamic is entirely different.

* And I mean that literally. It's the debating tactic of a little boy who doesn't have a clue how adult men and women interact.

 

[Rolfe]

Long story short, a transman in the men's locker room is at risk from all the men there. A transwoman in the women's locker room is a risk to all the women there. This is also the answer to p0lka's bad faith sports question.

It's not only about risk. Even if we could be 100% sure that none of the males in question would ever in anyone's wildest dreams contemplate rape, the issue of invasion of a private space is a very real one. Probably on both sides.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Psychology has been arguing nature vs nurture since its inception. This is not news.

If that's the argument you can't use "Psychology says so" as a sacrosanct, undefinable fact in the moment.

Psychology declared transgenderism a mental disorder of some kind within the lifetime of pretty much everyone involved in this discussion. So you can so go "See! See! Psychology says this!" and act like that's the end of it.

Or let me put it this way. If the needle of psychology swings back the other way, are you gonna change your mind or just start disagreeing with psychology?

 

[theprestige]

If that's the argument you can't use "Psychology says so" as a sacrosanct, undefinable fact in the moment.

Psychology declared transgenderism a mental disorder of some kind within the lifetime of pretty much everyone involved in this discussion. So you can so go "See! See! Psychology says this!" and act like that's the end of it.

Or let me put it this way. If the needle of psychology swings back the other way, are you gonna change your mind or just start disagreeing with psychology?

Reminds me of Boudicca's position that she didn't have to debate or justify public policy proposals, because the policy in her jurisdiction already aligned with her personal opinions.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's not only about risk. Even if we could be 100% sure that none of the males in question would ever in anyone's wildest dreams contemplate rape, the issue of invasion of a private space is a very real one. Probably on both sides.

That's the thing I was trying to emphasize. Some people in this thread have said there's no issue, because sexual assaults did not increase in a statistically significant manner as "bathroom policies" were liberalized. I object to that analysis.

Several years ago, when I was introduced to the topic, I gave it some thought and decided that as long as teenage girls objected to taking off their clothes in the presence of transgirls, I would side with them. I still feel that way. I have been convinced that the risk of assault is not as extreme as I thought it would be. I have been convinced that there are fewer peepting Toms than I expected who would pretend to be transwomen for voyeuristic purposes.

However, I have also been convinced that those things do happen, if rarely, but moreover, even if they didn't happen in numbers that could be measured, it wouldn't matter to me. I have been convinced that "modesty" is a real thing, and it should be respected.

As for the contrast between that feeling of modesty around the opposite sex as it applies to men versus women, and so to the question of transmen in the men's locker room, I would stick to the same position. If the teenage boys object to transgirls in their private spaces, I'll support them. I just don't think the objections would be as loud.

 

[Rolfe]

Adult men, however, are becoming more vocal about being forced to share their intimate spaces with women - not because these women want to invade male spaces, but because spaces are being made mixed-sex to appease the trans lobby.

Something that surprises me about repeated reports from theatres and other entertainment venues that have simply re-labelled their existing facilities "gender neutral with stalls and urinals" and "gender neutral with stalls only" is that the women then notice their (former) facilities being over-run by men. This is a problem because the queue for the ladies' is always longer than the queue for the gents' in the first place. Why men decide they need to make that worse I have no idea. But apparently they do. This leaves the women little choice but to seek relief in the (former) gents', which results in the men who are there becoming very uncomfortable because they now have a procession of women walking past them as they stand at the urinals.

Why people (men) can't simply continue to use the facility that was designed for their needs irrespective of the sign on the door, and leave the one designed for women for the people it was designed for, I have no idea. But apparently this isn't what's happening.

 

[theprestige]

Adult men, however, are becoming more vocal about being forced to share their intimate spaces with women - not because these women want to invade male spaces, but because spaces are being made mixed-sex to appease the trans lobby.

Something that surprises me about repeated reports from theatres and other entertainment venues that have simply re-labelled their existing facilities "gender neutral with stalls and urinals" and "gender neutral with stalls only" is that the women then notice their (former) facilities being over-run by men. This is a problem because the queue for the ladies' is always longer than the queue for the gents' in the first place. Why men decide they need to make that worse I have no idea. But apparently they do. This leaves the women little choice but to seek relief in the (former) gents', which results in the men who are there becoming very uncomfortable because they now have a procession of women walking past them as they stand at the urinals.

Why people (men) can't simply continue to use the facility that was designed for their needs irrespective of the sign on the door, and leave the one designed for women for the people it was designed for, I have no idea. But apparently this isn't what's happening.

Hack the system. Disrupt the program. Undermine the new normal. Subvert the orthodoxy. The sooner we get a critical mass of people saying, "this isn't working" and "what were you thinking", the better.

 

[p0lka]

Well, I understood what you were trying to say.


I disagreed with it, though, but not because of basic facts about anatomy, or any of the things that dominated the posts since you started down the path.


My point is that a man in the woman's locker room really isn't the same as a woman in the man's locker room, and you can substitute any variation on man/woman/male/female, and it remains the same. Whether the person whose sex is unusual for that particular locker room is clothed or unclothed is significant, but only a little. (For people following the thread for a long time, "Can you put the towel around her eyes?") So, you were trying to make the situations analogous between Thomas and Thomasina, but they aren't, and the breakdown of the analogy does not come from the percentage of genital visibility.

It seemed to me that you were going with an argument that we have seen many variations on in this thread, which is any variant of "Why is it that you only talk about trans women?" It's true, we do talk about transwomen a lot more than transmen, and it's because transwomen in the "opposite" locker room are a bigger problem than transmen, for lots of reasons that I won't reiterate unless it seems necessary.

Which is not to say that no one objects to women and/or transmen in the men's locker room. It just isn't the primary concern.

I didn't know thomas was a real person, my mistake sorry.
I get what you're saying,

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?

you're saying there is an implicit bias? fck, reality is ****.

 

[p0lka]

Indeed, as theprestige said, getting stuck should have been a good indication that your point was spurious. You decided to describe a woman in a (fairly extreme) state of sexual arousal. Women getting changed before or after swimming, in a communal changing room, are never in a state of sexual arousal. This is not, fundamentally, about sexual arousal.

I replied to theprestiges statement

Male genitals are easy to see. The testes are out there in the open, producing sperm in front of god and everybody.

and flipped some terms.
Male female? easy flip,
testes lips, yeah they're both outside, easy flip,
"producing sperm" oh that's biological stuff, I'll pick lubrication/drip.

At no point was it sexual, I was thinking about body ooze. That might be on you.

 

[Distracted1]

Long story short, a transman in the men's locker room is at risk from all the men there. A transwoman in the women's locker room is a risk to all the women there. This is also the answer to p0lka's bad faith sports question.

Does that not also apply then to elevators, conference rooms, stairwells, taxicabs, libraries, and alleyways ?

 

[Distracted1]

It's not only about risk. Even if we could be 100% sure that none of the males in question would ever in anyone's wildest dreams contemplate rape, the issue of invasion of a private space is a very real one. Probably on both sides.

I find that line of argument more logically compelling than the "danger=men" one.