Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[stanfr]

Do you believe this person was welcomed into the girls changing room?

I have no idea. If I had to guess, it was probably a mixed reaction. If people are not welcoming, that could also be for a variety of reasons, from their outright hatred or bigotry toward anyone not socially acceptable to them, to irrational fears, to very real fears or discomfort. Which all undercores the fact that it is not necessarily a black and white issue. If you read the responses in this thread, it seems like you either have to think all trans individuals are horrible predators or you think they are all just model citizens completely well adjusted to society and deserving of anything that they want on a whim. The facts in any controversial issue usually fall somewhere in between the extremist views.

 

[Francesca R]

If you read the responses in this thread, it seems like you either have to think all trans individuals are horrible predators or you think they are all just model citizens completely well adjusted to society and deserving of anything that they want on a whim

Try actually reading the thread. Nobody thinks either of those things, including those who vehemently disagree with each other.

(Stick to the facts)

 

[Rolfe]

I don't see anyone declaring that all trans people are horrible predators. What I do see, and what I argue myself, is firstly that it is not possible to tell an inoffensive trans person from a horrible predator at first sight. Opening women's intimate spaces to any man who is prepared to declare he is trans is inevitably going to result in a lot of horrible predators jumping at the opportunity.

Second, the point is made that while some trans-identifying men are inoffensive, the very presence of a man in a single-sex female intimate space is disconcerting and even triggering for many women. The space is violated by the presence of a male body, no matter how inoffensive its occupant.

 

[Paul2]

Can someone clarify if Marjolein is an intact male (genitally)? I didn't see mention of that when I scanned the article.

 

[stanfr]

Try actually reading the thread. Nobody thinks either of those things, including those who vehemently disagree with each other.

(Stick to the facts)

It's called hyperbole, and that's my entitled opinion based on how I read these posts. You can't say 'nobody' because you are not a mind reader. But I just pointed out 2 examples of unnecessary bias, and this thread is full of it. If you'd like, Ill send you a PM with a dozen other examples, they're easy to find here.

 

[theprestige]

It's called hyperbole, and that's my entitled opinion based on how I read these posts. You can't say 'nobody' because you are not a mind reader. But I just pointed out 2 examples of unnecessary bias, and this thread is full of it. If you'd like, Ill send you a PM with a dozen other examples, they're easy to find here.

Why waste time with all that rigamarole?

If the bias is unnecessary, the cite it and argue for why it's unnecessary. That's pretty much all we've been asking for all along. We've discussed at length and in detail why it is beneficial to preserve sex segregation in women's sports and women's prisons. If you think that segregation is unnecessary, make your case. Conversely, if you think there is a sound medical or social reason why we should allow men to be housed in women's prisons, or compete in women's sports, simply because they say they'd prefer it, make your case.

No need to go to the trouble of collecting posts and having a private moment with Francesca. You could just make your case right here and now, and address any examples of unnecessary bias as they come up in the responses to your argument.

That's what we've been asking for, since the beginning of the thread: The case for transcending sex segregation by fiat self-ID. Suburban Turkey couldn't do it, and fell back on ad homs until he flamed out. LondonJohn has gone so far as to point out (correctly) that the psychiatric community currently believes it's possible to have a transgender identity without experiencing any serious mental distress as a result. But this doesn't really make a case for fiat self-ID. Neither does your handwaving about "unnecessary bias". If you have a case, make it. Please.

 

[stanfr]

I don't see anyone declaring that all trans people are horrible predators. What I do see, and what I argue myself, is firstly that it is not possible to tell an inoffensive trans person from a horrible predator at first sight. Opening women's intimate spaces to any man who is prepared to declare he is trans is inevitably going to result in a lot of horrible predators jumping at the opportunity.

Second, the point is made that while some trans-identifying men are inoffensive, the very presence of a man in a single-sex female intimate space is disconcerting and even triggering for many women. The space is violated by the presence of a male body, no matter how inoffensive its occupant.

I get your point completely and I don't disagree with it. My point is that it is a nuanced issue and from what I see (my opinion) you show your *bias* (not fully supported by facts) by continuously referring to absolute terminology. I'm not convinced. The other side of the argument, already discussed, is that 'predators' are independent of gender identification, and I think that's a worthy argument to bring up.

When you say things like "some trans-dentifying men are inoffensive" Do you understand why it makes fence-sitters, people without a real dog in this particular fight, uncomfortable? It is like hearing Trump say "some Mexicans are nice"
The implication is that "Most" are predators.

 

[stanfr]

Why waste time with all that PM rigamarole?

If the bias is unnecessary, the cite it and argue for why it's unnecessary. That's pretty much all we've been asking for all along. We've discussed at length and in detail why it is beneficial to preserve sex segregation in women's sports and women's prisons. If you think that segregation is unnecessary, make your case. Conversely, if you think there is a sound medical or social reason why we should allow men to be housed in women's prisons, or compete in women's sports, simply because they say they'd prefer it, make your case.

No need to go to the trouble of collecting posts and having a private moment with Francesca. You could just make your case right here and now, and address any examples of unnecessary bias as they come up in the responses to your argument.

I just did with Rolfe. Ill go back and compile a list just for you. You may disagree with it, and you are entitled to--my point is (as I clearly stated above) is that what I see as biased arguments are ineffective. If you enjoy preaching to the choir, carry on. I'm not here for an echo chamber, Im here to learn and debate.

 

[stanfr]

Why waste time with all that rigamarole?

If the bias is unnecessary, the cite it and argue for why it's unnecessary. That's pretty much all we've been asking for all along. We've discussed at length and in detail why it is beneficial to preserve sex segregation in women's sports and women's prisons. If you think that segregation is unnecessary, make your case. Conversely, if you think there is a sound medical or social reason why we should allow men to be housed in women's prisons, or compete in women's sports, simply because they say they'd prefer it, make your case.

No need to go to the trouble of collecting posts and having a private moment with Francesca. You could just make your case right here and now, and address any examples of unnecessary bias as they come up in the responses to your argument.

That's what we've been asking for, since the beginning of the thread: The case for transcending sex segregation by fiat self-ID. Suburban Turkey couldn't do it, and fell back on ad homs until he flamed out. LondonJohn has gone so far as to point out (correctly) that the psychiatric community currently believes it's possible to have a transgender identity without experiencing any serious mental distress as a result. But this doesn't really make a case for fiat self-ID. Neither does your handwaving about "unnecessary bias". If you have a case, make it. Please.

That's what it comes down to...according to you and a few others here. And maybe there are a few here who argue that is all that is necessary, but that's not how I see the argument. It conjures up a lot of pouting Trans individuals saying "I will get whatever I want" This is a complex issue, and summing it up the way you and others do is degrading to it, IMHO.

 

[Rolfe]

What is it about the case I have made that is not supported by the facts?

1. Trans activists are demanding that all trans identification should be by "self-ID", that is a simple form-filling process (if that) with no requirement for any medical intervention.

2. Many legislatures, including the one I happen to live in, are accepting that and are changing or have changed the law so that anyone who says he is a woman must be treated in every way as women are entitled to be treated.

3. This is a door held wide open for predatory men, who previously would have been asked to leave women's intimate single-sex spaces if they went in, to access these spaces as of legal right. As a corollary, any woman who is disturbed by this is liable to be accused of a hate crime.

These are facts. Do you have different ones?

 

[stanfr]

Why waste time with all that rigamarole?

If the bias is unnecessary, the cite it and argue for why it's unnecessary. That's pretty much all we've been asking for all along. We've discussed at length and in detail why it is beneficial to preserve sex segregation in women's sports and women's prisons. If you think that segregation is unnecessary, make your case. Conversely, if you think there is a sound medical or social reason why we should allow men to be housed in women's prisons, or compete in women's sports, simply because they say they'd prefer it, make your case.

No need to go to the trouble of collecting posts and having a private moment with Francesca. You could just make your case right here and now, and address any examples of unnecessary bias as they come up in the responses to your argument.

That's what we've been asking for, since the beginning of the thread: The case for transcending sex segregation by fiat self-ID. Suburban Turkey couldn't do it, and fell back on ad homs until he flamed out. LondonJohn has gone so far as to point out (correctly) that the psychiatric community currently believes it's possible to have a transgender identity without experiencing any serious mental distress as a result. But this doesn't really make a case for fiat self-ID. Neither does your handwaving about "unnecessary bias". If you have a case, make it. Please.

I'll clarify because you added the last paragraph after I responded. Do you seriously think that anyone making the case for self-ID is doing so on the basis of "simply because they prefer it" I mean, is that what gender ID and gender dysphoria comes down to--mere whims? I don't think anyone here made that argument, and if that's how you see their responses I'd suggest it is your biases at play.

 

[stanfr]

What is it about the case I have made that is not supported by the facts?

1. Trans activists are demanding that all trans identification should be by "self-ID", that is a simple form-filling process (if that) with no requirement for any medical intervention.

2. Many legislatures, including the one I happen to live in, are accepting that and are changing or have changed the law so that anyone who says he is a woman must be treated in every way as women are entitled to be treated.
3. This is a door held wide open for predatory men, who previously would have been asked to leave women's intimate single-sex spaces if they went in, to access these spaces as of legal right. As a corollary, any woman who is disturbed by this is liable to be accused of a hate crime.

These are facts. Do you have different ones?

These have not been proven to my satisfaction. They are subjective in some cases. I fully admit I haven't read every post (I have a life) But I have not seen convincing facts. Again, there are plenty of choir members here to preach to.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, but if you're so far behind then I'm not going to be the one to play Google for you.

When you talk about choir members, I'd point out that this thread was overwhelmingly in favour of giving the poor marginalised helpless trans ladies absolutely everything they wanted, at the beginning. Those few of us arguing that there was another side to this issue were subjected to ridicule and vilification by the majority of posters.

However, as the discussion has progressed, many pro-trans posters have either changed their minds or left the thread. Maybe if you'd been here for the journey you'd be of a different mind.

 

[stanfr]

What is it about the case I have made that is not supported by the facts?

1. Trans activists are demanding that all trans identification should be by "self-ID", that is a simple form-filling process (if that) with no requirement for any medical intervention.

2. Many legislatures, including the one I happen to live in, are accepting that and are changing or have changed the law so that anyone who says he is a woman must be treated in every way as women are entitled to be treated.

3. This is a door held wide open for predatory men, who previously would have been asked to leave women's intimate single-sex spaces if they went in, to access these spaces as of legal right. As a corollary, any woman who is disturbed by this is liable to be accused of a hate crime.

These are facts. Do you have different ones?

Can you send me a link to the actual law in your jurisdiction. Im sure you already have, I just haven't seen it. I want to read it. Please and thank you.

 

[Rolfe]

https://www.parliament.scot/-/media...otland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced.pdf

Enjoy.

 

[stanfr]

Sorry, but if you're so far behind then I'm not going to be the one to play Google for you.

When you talk about choir members, I'd point out that this thread was overwhelmingly in favour of giving the poor marginalised helpless trans ladies absolutely everything they wanted, at the beginning. Those few of us arguing that there was another side to this issue were subjected to ridicule and vilification by the majority of posters.

However, as the discussion has progressed, many pro-trans posters have either changed their minds or left the thread. Maybe if you'd been here for the journey you'd be of a different mind.

So I guess if you have a full time job and don't have time to read 5,000 pages on every topic in every thread here on this forum, you don't deserve to participate. Yeah, i get it, that's why I keep saying there should be a cliff notes version for every thread.

 

[stanfr]

https://www.parliament.scot/-/media...otland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced.pdf

Enjoy.

I dunno bout 'enjoy' but thank ya!

 

[Rolfe]

So I guess if you have a full time job and don't have time to read 5,000 pages on every topic in every thread here on this forum, you don't deserve to participate. Yeah, i get it, that's why I keep saying there should be a cliff notes version for ev ery thread.

Not my problem. I still don't have to spoon-feed you.

 

[Paul2]

. . . . Do you seriously think that anyone making the case for self-ID is doing so on the basis of "simply because they prefer it" I mean, is that what gender ID and gender dysphoria comes down to--mere whims?. . . .

It's not what gender ID and gender dysphoria come down to, it's what the policy of self-ID comes down to.

 

[stanfr]

Not my problem. I still don't have to spoon-feed you.

Well you are spoon feeding me crap, Rolfe.

I just glanced at your link. It is a proposed bill

Which means that your statement that

"including the one I happen to live in, are accepting that and are changing or have changed the law so that anyone who says he is a woman must be treated in every way as women are entitled to be treated."

Is already a proven lie! Did you lie intentionally or was it an honest mistake, Rolfe?