Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[theprestige]

I'm not tolerant of rape or murder. Those individuals should be punished. But you're suggesting making legislation not against those crimes, but against a class of people.

The legality against the class of people already exists:

It is legal to bar males from women's restrooms and locker rooms.

It is legal to bar males from women's shelters.

It is legal to bar males from women's prisons.

It is legal to bar males from women's sports.

Males are already discriminated against, as a class of people, in these and many other situations, with the full support of the law.

The question is whether transwomen are part of the male class, and therefore subject to the same legal discriminations against that class.

What is your take on that question?

 

[Ziggurat]

It's the new hotness.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/why-republicans-are-smearing-everyone-as-pedophiles-now.html

It's ironic that you're complaining about conflating different things, because that's exactly what you're doing. Not all gay people are opposed to this bill, and it isn't just or even primarily about "teh gayz". Most parents don't want heterosexual teachers to be teaching their kindergarteners about heterosexual sex either. It's not what most parents consider age appropriate. And most teacher/student sexual abuse is heterosexual. It's not DeSantis who is focused on demonizing homosexuals. In effect, you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

The right wing is not being cautious with the smear.

The left has never been cautious with the TERF smear.

 

[theprestige]

Well I think there might be a little bit of understandable (perhaps acceptable) hyperbole going on.

One premise is that trans-inclusionism has been co-opted by AGPs as a way to normalize their access to places they should not have access to.

A similar premise is that the current push to introduce younger and younger cohorts to sexuality and transsexuality - often explicitly excluding parents from this socialization effort - is being similarly co-opted by AGPs, pedophiles, and other people who should not be introducing children to topics of sexuality and transsexuality.

So while the vast majority of queer people and their supporters sincerely believe that these things are good and moral and safe and healthy and even necessary, they have been unwittingly turned into stalking horses for the skinwalkers that have infiltrated and perverted their movement.

Normalize men talking to six year olds about sexual attraction, excluding parents from those conversations, and even telling those children it is okay, even desirable to not tell their parents the substance of those conversations opens the door to a lot of harm. At the same time it closes the door to effective oversight, and closes the door to effective screening-out of bad actors.

If queer people and their supporters feel personally and collectively attacked by these obvious and valid concerns, it's because they haven't looked beyond the assumed righteousness of their cause, or actually bothered to think any of this through.

Normalizing for children the idea of keeping secrets with another adult, from their parents, is a basic part of grooming children for exploitation. The proposition should always be a red flag. The fact that queer people and their supporters are endorsing exactly this as public policy makes them groomer allies. If they don't like being seen that way, they need to come up with some answers fast.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well I think there might be a little bit of understandable (perhaps acceptable) hyperbole going on.

One premise is that trans-inclusionism has been co-opted by AGPs as a way to normalize their access to places they should not have access to.

A similar premise is that the current push to introduce younger and younger cohorts to sexuality and transsexuality - often explicitly excluding parents from this socialization effort - is being similarly co-opted by AGPs, pedophiles, and other people who should not be introducing children to topics of sexuality and transsexuality.

So while the vast majority of queer people and their supporters sincerely believe that these things are good and moral and safe and healthy and even necessary, they have been unwittingly turned into stalking horses for the skinwalkers that have infiltrated and perverted their movement.

Normalize men talking to six year olds about sexual attraction, excluding parents from those conversations, and even telling those children it is okay, even desirable to not tell their parents the substance of those conversations opens the door to a lot of harm. At the same time it closes the door to effective oversight, and closes the door to effective screening-out of bad actors.

If queer people and their supporters feel personally and collectively attacked by these obvious and valid concerns, it's because they haven't looked beyond the assumed righteousness of their cause, or actually bothered to think any of this through.

Normalizing for children the idea of keeping secrets with another adult, from their parents, is a basic part of grooming children for exploitation. The proposition should always be a red flag. The fact that queer people and their supporters are endorsing exactly this as public policy makes them groomer allies. If they don't like being seen that way, they need to come up with some answers fast.

Maybe this would be valid if Florida's laws were actually narrowly tailored to that behavior.

It's plainly obvious that the bill is written vaguely intentionally. It's supporters harp on and on about grooming which isn't happening, but the real impact of the law is to shove teachers and students back into the closet for fear of a lawsuit.

It's not like we have to pretend there's any good faith here. We've already been through this with the whole CRT panic, where hyperbolic complaints about Marxist education was simply cover for nutcases to purge libraries of anything that upsets the right wing's delicate sensibilities.

The right wing is doing their classic two step, railing about some extreme behavior that isn't happening and using that as a justification for absurdly broad censorship.

 

[acbytesla]

You have got to be joking! Human beings are very good indeed at sexing other human beings.

No they're not. I've seen women that have beards and Adam's apples. I dated a woman once who looked very much like a man. Almost non-existent breasts, narrow hips and quite muscular. But she was very much a heterosexual female. I tended bar for a while at a well known Seattle nightclub which was a popular gay hotspot. Still, a lot of heterosexuals that were gay friendly heterosexuals frequented the establishment.

I'm straight and this was an eye opening experience. Very very few of the trans people i met i could ID their actual sex confidently. And I met hundreds.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe this would be valid if Florida's laws were actually narrowly tailored to that behavior.

It's plainly obvious that the bill is written vaguely intentionally. It's supporters harp on and on about grooming which isn't happening, but the real impact of the law is to shove teachers and students back into the closet for fear of a lawsuit.

Florida has been quite clear about what it really means. See how they suspend a student giving out rainbow stickers. That is exactly the kind of grooming that this is ment to prevent.

https://www.kron4.com/news/national/florida-school-suspends-student-who-passed-out-pride-flags-at-dont-say-gay-walkout-report/

 

[ponderingturtle]

No they're not. I've seen women that have beards and Adam's apples. I dated a woman once who looked very much like a man. Almost non-existent breasts, narrow hips and quite muscular. But she was very much a heterosexual female. I tended bar for a while at a well known Seattle nightclub which was a popular gay hotspot. Still, a lot of heterosexuals that were gay friendly heterosexuals frequented the establishment.

I'm straight and this was an eye opening experience. Very very few of the trans people i met i could ID their actual sex confidently. And I met hundreds.

And of course this goes double for trans men, as masculine features read as male and are caused by being on testosterone. BUt remember that guy with the beard is female and is required to use the womens rest room or is violating the law.

 

[crazycat]

Yea they would only want the baby taken away from the pervert by force. It is the suicide of trans teens that they support clearly with their behavior.

I'm not sure whether you are being sincere with this and the quote I replied to.

In case you actually think that people "here" (your word) were happy the baby died, or that the pregnant transman got what they deserved, that we want the baby taken by force if it had lived, or support the suicide of teens - you are wrong and disgusting again.

I'm sure that somewhere some people do have those views, but not on this forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

Florida has been quite clear about what it really means. See how they suspend a student giving out rainbow stickers. That is exactly the kind of grooming that this is ment to prevent.

https://www.kron4.com/news/national/florida-school-suspends-student-who-passed-out-pride-flags-at-dont-say-gay-walkout-report/

First off, note that this was a high school student. The law does not apply at the high school level, so it makes no difference to either the student or the staff. Nothing about what transpired falls under the proposed law. Second, the student is making claims about why he was suspended, but why are you just taking his word for it? That seems rather unwise.

 

[Meadmaker]

You say it's a dodge,

Yes, I do.

 

[acbytesla]

And of course this goes double for trans men, as masculine features read as male and are caused by being on testosterone. BUt remember that guy with the beard is female and is required to use the womens rest room or is violating the law.

I tended bar two years running at this beauty pageant in Seattle. You would be stunned at how these guys looked like very pretty women. I went into it expecting that i would easily be able to spot their true sex. I couldn't and I seriously doubt anybody else would be able to.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, I do.

Ok. So they lost the case. What should they do now?

Don't say change the laws, that's a dodge.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ok. So they lost the case. What should they do now?

Don't say change the laws, that's a dodge.

I'm not sure I understand the question. The girl, and those like her, seem to have lots of options, although none of them is what they want.

They can go to a private school. They can wait in the hall. They can probably get an excuse to skip gym class entirely. What they do is up to them, within the limits of their available options. Given the law as it stands right now, one of the options they do NOT have is to go to gym class while maintaining the modesty that they desire, so that choice is right out. If you mean "should" as in whether one option has some sort of moral weight behind it, I don't see that any of them do. I don't think there is a "right" answer for what they ought to do.


While they cannot change the law, they can advocate to have the law changed. I'm not sure why you think that's a dodge. It would be a dodge if I said it was a solution to their problem. If you ignore the question of how to resolve the issue right here and right now by pointing to some future hypothetical where it won't be an issue, that's dodging, but I have no intention of doing that.

So, the best answer I can give is that each girl so affected by this or similar situations must make up their mind how to balance their wishes from the available options. That depends on their choices. There is no answer that is ethically or morally superior to the others. (The specific girl has probably graduated by now. I think the lawsuit was three years ago, but there are plenty of girls who are in similar situations elsewhere.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not sure I understand the question. The girl, and those like her, seem to have lots of options, although none of them is what they want.

They can go to a private school. They can wait in the hall. They can probably get an excuse to skip gym class entirely. What they do is up to them, within the limits of their available options. Given the law as it stands right now, one of the options they do NOT have is to go to gym class while maintaining the modesty that they desire, so that choice is right out. If you mean "should" as in whether one option has some sort of moral weight behind it, I don't see that any of them do. I don't think there is a "right" answer for what they ought to do.


While they cannot change the law, they can advocate to have the law changed. I'm not sure why you think that's a dodge. It would be a dodge if I said it was a solution to their problem. If you ignore the question of how to resolve the issue right here and right now by pointing to some future hypothetical where it won't be an issue, that's dodging, but I have no intention of doing that.

So, the best answer I can give is that each girl so affected by this or similar situations must make up their mind how to balance their wishes from the available options. That depends on their choices. There is no answer that is ethically or morally superior to the others. (The specific girl has probably graduated by now. I think the lawsuit was three years ago, but there are plenty of girls who are in similar situations elsewhere.)

It strikes me that advocating for the building privacy dividers is a readily achievable solution.

 

[theprestige]

No they're not. I've seen women that have beards and Adam's apples. I dated a woman once who looked very much like a man. Almost non-existent breasts, narrow hips and quite muscular. But she was very much a heterosexual female. I tended bar for a while at a well known Seattle nightclub which was a popular gay hotspot. Still, a lot of heterosexuals that were gay friendly heterosexuals frequented the establishment.

I'm straight and this was an eye opening experience. Very very few of the trans people i met i could ID their actual sex confidently. And I met hundreds.

It's no secret that many people are able to successfully pass as the opposite sex, having made some effort to do so, in a time and place of their choosing, under favorable conditions, to a cursory inspection.

The fact that people are actually pretty good at sexing other people is why the effort is necessary, and why favorable conditions are important.

ETA: And also why it only ever works for a cursory inspection. Put a transwoman through a prison intake process, or put them in the bedroom, and I bet your difficulty in accurately sexing them would instantly vanish.

 

[theprestige]

Ok. So they lost the case. What should they do now?

Don't say change the laws, that's a dodge.

No. "Wait until some future state magically emerges and renders the question moot" is a dodge.

"Take action now to address present issues and concerns" is not a dodge.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No. "Wait until some future state magically emerges and renders the question moot" is a dodge.

Lawsuits aren't fast. I really doubt this lawsuit was going to provide anyone a speedy resolution.

It's hard to comment because Meadmaker never bothered to provide any link so it's all second hand.

"Take action now to address present issues and concerns" is not a dodge.

I agree, they should have gotten to work building privacy dividers right away and resolved this whole problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

double

 

[theprestige]

Lawsuits aren't fast. I really doubt this lawsuit was going to provide anyone a speedy resolution.

It's hard to comment because Meadmaker never bothered to provide any link so it's all second hand.



I agree, they should have gotten to work building privacy dividers right away and resolved this whole problem.

And that's the dodge.

Also, why is legally mandated architectural changes across the entire country the right solution for a problem that only affects a tiny number of people, for whom the problem is entirely voluntary to begin with?

This isn't like the ADA, where handicapped parking spots and wheelchair ramps and other accessibility features are actually necessary to support and include people who are otherwise physically marginalized.