• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
stanfr said:
I'm not really suggesting anything, particularly since I am pretty much on the side of the p'd-off woman in that video. But the standard response is, if they want an area just for themselves there is no one stopping them from forming it.
Click to expand...
California law is literally stopping them from forming it.
 
stanfr said:
was what I see as over-reaching by some of the posters. One of them (not gonna dig it up) referred to transgender people as "freaks"--another consistently refers to them as "predators". Seems you're not in the camp--gpod!
Click to expand...
I call shenanigans. You sailed in here alleging "unnecessary bias" and offering to provide lists of examples. Now it's just some vague handwaving about stuff you can't be arsed to actually demonstrate. Please, put up or shut up about this "unnecessary bias" crap.

When it comes to actual biases actually being discussed, the only one on deck right now is bias against fiat self-ID, which you agree is "necessary".

I see the dominant intent behind this legislation as geared toward protecting housing rights, civil unions, pensions, etc. I get the worries about restrooms and spas, and it will be interesting to see if those laws get either dropped, modified, or remain unchanged once the uproar reaches the courts. Seems to be very much in flux as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
You're equivocating. The intent of the first legislation explicitly includes fiat self-ID as the law of the land.

The intent of the second legislation is to prohibit discrimination based on someone's trans identity (which can be fiat self-ID, per the first law). The second legislation includes the usual 'no discrimination in employment or housing' stuff that nobody here has a problem with. It also includes prohibitions against barring access to sex-segregated spaces.

And you're trying to minimize the harm already being done by these laws. Putting someone in the position of having to go to court simply because they are now required to accept fiat self-ID in sex-segregated spaces, is a harm. All their other guests or customers or clients who are affected by the law as it currently stands, pending the resolution of the court case(s), is a harm.

You say you're against fiat self-ID, but you also kinda seem to be for it, provisionally, at least until the courts say it's not allowed. Which they won't, since the law says it is allowed.
 
stanfr said:
I don't disagree. Perhaps I see a bit more of complexity in the overall subject of gender ID, as to biological and environmental influences (and there are a couple other lonnnng threads addressing those issues), but I won't quibble with some of the dangers in enacting policy like this. I don't think one can point to CA as a sign of the tsunami of trans-activism sweeping America--I am more concerned with the destruction of womens' rights as exemplified by the overturn of Roe and the ensuing trigger laws and new legislation, along with a powerful minority of this country who seek to establish a theocracy here. That seems a lot more threatening to me than this sort of legislation.
Click to expand...
I call shenanigans. You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence. Now you're trying to dismiss it as inconsequential and change the subject.

stanfr said:
To add a bit more perspective, my wife, who self-identifies as a feminist and who follows a gazillion feminist groups on social media, was looking over my shoulder as I typed that last response, and so I gave her the cliff-notes version of this thread. Her response (greatly paraphrased) was that she never sees the concerns brought up here discussed among her progressive friends, its just not the issue made out to be here.
Click to expand...
Mainstream progressivism has been ideologically captured by trans-activism.

Also, your "wife", should she actually exist, is welcome to come here and participate in this conversation with her own voice, on her own terms. Meanwhile, own your own opinions and don't hide behind her skirts.

As a specific example she said that the whole women's restroom thing is basically a red herring. In her thousands of trips to public restrooms, she says a handful of times she encountered men in dresses she simply smiled at them and went about her business. She sees zero opportunity for the sort of indecent exposure or harassment that seems to be the concern here, anymore than any bad actor can be a problem. So if the behavior is the behavior of a bad actor, treat it as such, regardless of whether they are trans or cis-gender.
Click to expand...
And yet there are documented cases of this harassment.

As I predicted, you have moved from "fiat self-ID isn't happening" to "it isn't really a problem if it's not a big problem".

It seems to me that the time to prevent or solve the problem is before it becomes big, before it becomes widespread.

At the very least, there's no harm in having a solution in mind early on, in case it's needed. But you seem intent on insisting that there is no problem to solve.

This seems pretty close to what Vixen has said earlier, and I tended to agree with it then, and still tend to agree with it. How does flat-id make this specific 'threat' any worse?
Click to expand...
It criminalizes anyone who challenges an exhibitionist. It criminalizes anyone who bars a man from entering a woman's shelter. It criminalizes any sports organization that bans males from competing in female divisions.
 
Last edited:
I think it's time for another run-through of why specifically women need to be able to keep men out of the communal hand-washing and hair-combing part of ladies' lavatories.

I'll mainly pass over the trivial things, such as the fact that quite a lot of fairly intimate stuff does happen in the communal areas which we don't want to do in front of a man, and the fact that sometimes a woman has to pee with the door open because she has a baby in a pram that won't go in the stall. Or even the fact that women miscarry in there, use the space to escape from importunate men, and so on. We also don't want men to be in there with their spy cameras and then find ourselves starring in the relevant section of PornHub.

The serious issue is the danger of assault. If men are not allowed in the communal space then we can police this and head off this danger. In the communal space we are clothed and not so vulnerable and in a position to see the guy off, call the attendant, whatever. We keep that space clear of men for a reason. The reason is that men have been known to bide their time until a woman is entering a stall alone, force their way in, and assault her.

This is the huge drawback to all the well-meaning suggestions about single-use unisex stalls, even those opening directly from a corridor. Unless the corridor is well lit and busy it's a predator's dream. Hang around, wait until a woman is going in and there's nobody else about, then push in behind her and lock that nice lockable door to the completely enclosed floor-to-ceiling space. If the space outside that lockable door is a man-free zone this danger is significantly reduced.

Now, cue the squeals about "so you're saying all transwomen are sexual predators who are entering women's lavatories to rape women?" No. I'm saying that there are men who will do that, and that these new laws which not only allow any man to identify as a woman but specifically bar anyone from checking whether any particular male has indeed gone through any form of "gender-change" in practice allow any man to enter and prevent us from policing the space.

This is irrespective of trans identity. Many studies have shown that male offending patterns are just the same in the trans-identified group as in non-trans-identifying males. Most are not predators but some are.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
I don't think one can point to CA as a sign of the tsunami of trans-activism sweeping America
Click to expand...

Sorry to draw again from the same well, but this right here is the essence of your equivocating shenanigans.

Nobody claimed "tsunami". Nobody is restricting this discussion to developments in America. We're saying it's happening. You doubted it was happening, so we gave you proof. It's happening. It's happening in California. It's happening in Canada. Similar activist pushes are happening elsewhere.

Hopefully it doesn't become a tsunami. Hopefully you and others like you, who are against it but didn't realize it was happening, will step up and thwart the process before it becomes even more widespread. Before it becomes a tsunami.

You have (accidentally?) stumbled into a typical trans-activist dodge: Say you're against it, but that's okay because it's not happening. Then when you find out it is happening, say you're against it, but that's okay because it's only happening a little bit so what's the problem?

If you're against it, why are you okay with it happening at all? What good thing are you championing, that makes this trade-off worthwhile? I bet you don't even know. I bet neither you nor your wife have any clear idea of what benefit fiat self-ID brings, that we should accept even a little bit of abuse and harassment and criminalization in order to get it.
 
Rolfe said:
Inaccurate. The actual position is, "it isn't really a problem if it doesn't happen to me."
Click to expand...
Touche!

Rolfe said:
I think it's time for another run-through of why specifically women need to be able to keep men out of the communal hand-washing and hair-combing part of ladies' lavatories.
Click to expand...

In theory this shouldn't be necessary. Stanfr has already said he's opposed to fiat self-ID for access to sex-segregated spaces. This clearly implies that he's already accepted that keeping men out of women's restrooms is a good idea that should be upheld.

But we all know where this is headed. If you think you're against fiat self-ID, but then you find out mainstream trans-activism is completely for it, you really only have two choices:

Either you re-examine everything you thought you knew about transgender identity, what it really means, who's pushing for it, and what it implies for a lot of other things we take for granted including women's health and safety and careers...

Or you re-examine the entire premise of sex segregation and conclude that the problem can be solved by abolishing it.
 
The funny thing about sex segregation is, there's already been several waves of feminists going after it. From suffragettes to third-wave radfems, if women's sports and women's restrooms really were offensive to women who care about women's rights, they'd have been abolished a long time ago.

Even the clown Megan Rapinoe doesn't want to abolish women's sports, or women's restrooms. Betcha even shuttlt's wife doesn't want to abolish women's restrooms, or women's prisons, or recognition for women's milestones.
 
theprestige said:
The funny thing about sex segregation is, there's already been several waves of feminists going after it. From suffragettes to third-wave radfems, if women's sports and women's restrooms really were offensive to women who care about women's rights, they'd have been abolished a long time ago.

Even the clown Megan Rapinoe doesn't want to abolish women's sports, or women's restrooms. Betcha even shuttlt's wife doesn't want to abolish women's restrooms, or women's prisons, or recognition for women's milestones.
Click to expand...
"Even shuttlt's wife"??? Particularly shuttlt's wife!!! Of course she doesn't want to abolish women's restrooms. Or at least she does if she knows what's good for her. :-)

 
Last edited:
You know, I'd like just one person to offer a suggestion about how it might be possible to legally permit only the nice, considerate transwomen (you know, the ones everyone professes to know one of, and because "she" is so nice then all trans-identifying males should be allowed to go where they like) to go into women's intimate spaces and keep out the jerks.

At the same time maybe they could tell us how it might be possible to legally permit only men who have had their dicks amputated to go into women's intimate spaces, and offer an opinion on whether the ones that are jerks should still be allowed in.
 
Rolfe said:
You know, I'd like just one person to offer a suggestion about how it might be possible to legally permit only the nice, considerate transwomen (you know, the ones everyone professes to know one of, and because "she" is so nice then all trans-identifying males should be allowed to go where they like) to go into women's intimate spaces and keep out the jerks.

At the same time maybe they could tell us how it might be possible to legally permit only men who have had their dicks amputated to go into women's intimate spaces, and offer an opinion on whether the ones that are jerks should still be allowed in.
Click to expand...
Good news Rolfe, I have a solution for you. It's kind of old fashioned, but I think it might work. The Peter Abelard option. As the fair sex powder their noses, their brothers/husbands/fathers wander about outside in a threatening manner and resolve any misunderstandings in a swift and robust manner.
 
shuttlt said:
Good news Rolfe, I have a solution for you. It's kind of old fashioned, but I think it might work. The Peter Abelard option. As the fair sex powder their noses, their brothers/husbands/fathers wander about outside in a threatening manner and resolve any misunderstandings in a swift and robust manner.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, it was a serious question. Not every woman either has or wants a male protector on hand all the time. And adding the threat of getting duffed up might well deter predators, but it still doesn't address the basic problem of how we legally allow the nice ones in but are still able legally to exclude the jerks.
 
Rolfe said:
Yeah, well, it was a serious question. Not every woman either has or wants a male protector on hand all the time. And adding the threat of getting duffed up might well deter predators, but it still doesn't address the basic problem of how we legally allow the nice ones in but are still able legally to exclude the jerks.
Click to expand...
I think the basic issue is, do you want a paternalistic society that gives women special protection such that feeling uncomfortable about a male, or being concerned about what a male may do, is sufficient justification to treat that male as if they were up to no good.... or, do we want a society that is about maximising the freedom of the individual and not restricting people's freedom based on things like generalisations about groups. I'm not sure in the long run one can have it both ways. If that is answered, whether and to what extent there should be special spaces for women answers itself.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
I think the basic issue is, do you want a paternalistic society that gives women special protection such that feeling uncomfortable about a male, or being concerned about what a male may do, is sufficient justification to treat that male as if they were up to no good.... or, do we want a society that is about maximising the freedom of the individual and not restricting people's freedom based on things like generalisations about groups. I'm not sure in the long run one can have it both ways. If that is answered, whether and to what extent there should be special spaces for women answers itself.
Click to expand...

You are correct that these two approaches are in tension, but in truth neither of these options is in the cards. Maintaining traditional sex segregation in bathrooms, locker rooms, and prisons doesn't really treat males as being up to no good. But much more importantly (because you might disagree with me on that first point), trans activists explicitly do not want to maximize freedom for individuals. They are VERY MUCH interested in compulsory behavior. They just want the compulsion to be in their favor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom