Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Rolfe]

I'm becoming increasingly intrigued by this debating tactic. Post reasonable summary of your opponent's position, prefaced by "You obviously believe..." and frame it in an incredulous "no decent person would ever believe that" rhetoric. Then sit back and claim victory.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm becoming increasingly intrigued by this debating tactic. Post reasonable summary of your opponent's position, prefaced by "You obviously believe..." and frame it in an incredulous "no decent person would ever believe that" rhetoric. Then sit back and claim victory.

It's kind of weird, isn't it? I've pretty much been shouting that position from the rooftops for years.

 

[The Atheist]

Really?

Yes, really.

You might be happy to implement rules that are known to increase the chances of sexual assault by a factor of five times, but women, and a lot of men aren't.

At this stage of the thread, when the evidence has been provided ad nauseum that men - whether in panties or not - are a direct threat to women, defence of the idea that trans "women" should be entitled to all benefits of being female is a good illustration of how deep the misogyny runs.

The really amusing part is that I bet the Defenders of the Trans Faith really think they're the good guys.

 

[p0lka]

I'm not so sure that's a reasonable response here. Prestige gave three examples. The second one was a high school boys' locker room.

The actual context, the specific example which you said seemed like bullying, was a high school girls' locker room. I think the context doesn't really help you here.

The example was a 15 year old (cis) girl in her underwear, asking a 15 year old (trans) girl to leave, and you said it sounds like bullying. I think, in context, calling that bullying is pretty silly.

That is not what happened at all, You are making up context and attributing it to me, stop it.

The below was the exchange,

..snip..This is the real world and there are two kids in their underwear, and one of them isn't happy about it and wants the other to leave. Whose side are you on?..snip..

My reply..

Re:hilited Without context I would be on the side of the person that is getting vibes that they should leave, rather than from the person that wants them to leave.

Wanting others to leave rather than leave oneself seems like bullying to me.

Note the 'Without context' bit I said.

 

[Meadmaker]

That is not what happened at all, You are making up context and attributing it to me, stop it.

The below was the exchange,


My reply..

Note the 'Without context' bit I said.

As is so often the case, I guess I'll just have to leave it to others to judge for themselves.

Fortunately, for people interested, you did provide the links, so they can see the context if they are inclined to do so.

 

[theprestige]

I said without context.
You are adding context with your made up examples. Should I make up lots of examples too?
No, it would be fruitless to do so and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

The context of the discussion in this thread has been well established. There's no justification at all for stripping away the context and giving a context-free answer.

It's going to be very difficult to get at the truth, insisting on obfuscating the truth like that.

 

[theprestige]

Does nobody understand what 'without context' means anymore?

We all understand what "without context" means. That's why we're rejecting your gratuitously context-free answer.

The real question is, given that you know what "without context" means, why did you decide to give a context-free answer instead of giving an answer in the context of the discussion you're trying to participate in?

In which you are trying to participate?

 

[Meadmaker]

We all understand what "without context" means. That's why we're rejecting your gratuitously context-free answer.

The real question is, given that you know what "without context" means, why did you decide to give a context-free answer instead of giving an answer in the context of the discussion you're trying to participate in?

In which you are trying to participate?

Ok. Now I get it.


Well, sort of. I understand the words. I'm still not clear on the point.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'll let someone else ask the follow up questions.


For what it's worth, the typical trans rights activist would say that it is not indecent exposure to expose females to male genitals in a woman's locker room, and this thread has covered several examples of cases where male genitals were exposed to females in a woman's locker room, and not only were no charges made against the person who exposed the male genitals, but the females who complained were asked to leave.

I think you're behind the times on the state of trans rights in America.

ETA: Indeed, I think your position concerning display of male genitals in women's locker room would be considered transphobic today by trans rights activists.

Suburban Turkey, would you like to weigh in on the subject?

Seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "indecent exposure" to me. I'm honestly baffled that you think a woman viewer a necessary component to this crime. If a man runs through a restaurant naked with that is only filled with other men, that's still indecent exposure.

Indecent exposure has an intent element. Obviously someone using a locker room for their intended purpose consistent with local policy/law is not committing indecent exposure. Alternatively, just because a person (cis or trans) is permitted to be in a locker room does not grant them carte blanche to behave however they like there. Anyone gratifying themselves sexually in a locker room is likely committing some kind of crime like indecent exposure, though I imagine it would be hard to prove intent in many but the most obvious hypothetical cases.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

More collateral damage from Texas' war against trans families:

Distraught over orders to investigate trans kids’ families, Texas child welfare workers are resigning

A spokesperson for DFPS declined to comment on the resignations or answer specific questions, citing pending litigation.

The employees, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs, said they feel conflicted — unwilling to undertake what they see as discriminatory investigations and critical of the agency’s internal response to requests for guidance, but haunted by what a mass exodus of experienced child abuse investigators would mean for the state’s most vulnerable children.

“Things are already slipping through the cracks. … We will see investigations that get closed where intervention could have occurred,” one supervisor said. “And children will die in Texas.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/04/11/texas-trans-child-abuse-investigations/

Legitimate cases of child abuse falling through the cracks as social workers are either resigning or wasting resources on meritless investigations of trans families.

 

[Ziggurat]

Legitimate cases of child abuse falling through the cracks as social workers are either resigning or wasting resources on meritless investigations of trans families.

From your link:

"While many young people focus on social transition — dressing differently or using different pronouns — some are prescribed puberty blockers, which are reversible, or hormone therapy."

Except the effects of using puberty blockers are NOT reversible. Remember that earlier paper you linked to making that claim, which fell apart under scrutiny? Well, this is why it matters. The author of your latest link believes it. A lot of DFPS workers believe it. A lot of the parents putting their kids on puberty blockers believe it.

But it's a lie.

And it's a lie that will do irreparable harm to many children. It *is* a form of abuse. The tragic aspect to this is that the parents probably don't intend any harm. They're depending upon the advice of people who are supposedly experts. And so many of the experts keep saying that puberty blockers are reversible, even though those experts should know better and in many cases probably do know better.

Unfortunately, DFPS is not equipped to deal with this. Investigating the families won't help, they aren't really the source of the problem. The people who should be investigated, the professionals who repeat these lies, won't be.

 

[Meadmaker]

Seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "indecent exposure" to me. I'm honestly baffled that you think a woman viewer a necessary component to this crime. If a man runs through a restaurant naked with that is only filled with other men, that's still indecent exposure.

Indecent exposure has an intent element. Obviously someone using a locker room for their intended purpose consistent with local policy/law is not committing indecent exposure. Alternatively, just because a person (cis or trans) is permitted to be in a locker room does not grant them carte blanche to behave however they like there. Anyone gratifying themselves sexually in a locker room is likely committing some kind of crime like indecent exposure, though I imagine it would be hard to prove intent in many but the most obvious hypothetical cases.

Thanks for the answer. So, we have another voice in response to acbytesla. SuburbanTurkey confirms that exposure of male genitalia in a women's locker room is not indecent exposure in today's law.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Thanks for the answer. So, we have another voice in response to acbytesla. SuburbanTurkey confirms that exposure of male genitalia in a women's locker room is not indecent exposure in today's law.

I imagine this would depend on state/nationality and local laws. Not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously localities that don't discriminate against trans people are not going to criminalize trans people using facilities as intended.

 

[shuttlt]

The other side of this, I think.... is that if they can get enough trans kids out there in all states of transition, detransition, gender confusion.... whatever. Then their condition will no longer be abnormal and everybody will be happy. Your gender and sex will be whatever it is, and nobody's will be better or worse than anybody else's in this glorious rainbow. All the problems come from society having created this class that is "normal" and forced everybody to conform to that.

 

[Rolfe]

If only that didn't involve seriously harmful medication and surgery. But it does.

If only that eliminated all male violence against women, so that ho safe spaces were necessary. But it doesn't.

 

[Meadmaker]

I imagine this would depend on state/nationality and local laws. Not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously localities that don't discriminate against trans people are not going to criminalize trans people using facilities as intended.

The point I am trying to make is very simple.

Acbytesla said it was indecent exposure to expose male genitalia in a women's locker room. For most of my life, that would have been true. However, it is not true today. Like so many people, I suspect that he is not aware how much laws, or interpretation of those laws, have changed in recent years, and what is considered acceptable today.

 

[shuttlt]

If only that didn't involve seriously harmful medication and surgery. But it does.

But what is harm? It is society that tells you you need to have breasts, and no beard to be a woman.... or to be tall if you are a man. It's society that tells you you need to have children "naturally". How many womb bearing bodies have been harmed by having children because of social pressure. We are all harmed by these norms. All these downsides can be fixed by removing societies normative pressures. So you still want children... you can adopt, or have one grown in somebody else's womb who is choosing to do that freely for money rather than because of patriarchal assumptions, or become a teacher and become frighteningly attached to somebody else's child.... so your bones are brittle... that's what free healthcare and science is for.

If only that eliminated all male violence against women, so that ho safe spaces were necessary. But it doesn't.

I think you'll find that that is women's violence against women. It probably arises from intolerance.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The point I am trying to make is very simple.

Acbytesla said it was indecent exposure to expose male genitalia in a women's locker room. For most of my life, that would have been true. However, it is not true today. Like so many people, I suspect that he is not aware how much laws, or interpretation of those laws, have changed in recent years, and what is considered acceptable today.

Well, I guess I have to agree with you. Changing the laws in some places sure did have the effect of changing the laws. Much to consider...

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you'll find that that is women's violence against women. It probably arises from intolerance internalized misogyny.

FTFY.

 

[shuttlt]

FTFY.

True.