Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[stanfr]

It's a prediction based on available data. Data such as the deterrent effect of social norms that empower women to drive men out of their restrooms, leading to the prediction that predatory men will be less deterred if those norms are eroded. Leading also to the prediction that predatory men will be further encouraged by the criminalization of attempting to drive them out of women's restrooms.

Data such as the small increase in predatory behavior we're already seeing, with the small advances already being made with fiat self-ID.

Of course we expect these problems to get worse, as sex-based discrimination in sex-segregated spaces becomes more and more taboo, more and more criminalized.

Just as we expect there to be more male on female rape, as more men are housed in women's prisons on nothing more than their say-so. And just as we expect more women athletes to be marginalized and their careers prematurely ended, as giving men the option to compete in women's leagues becomes more normalized.

Can you think of any plausible reason to believe these problems would decrease, as the processes and policies that enable them are increased?
It is our fervent hope that we can halt this trend sooner rather than later, before they produce the increased "proof" - i.e., suffering and disenfranchisement - that you're so eager to see.

You say "anecdotes". I say "case studies" and "data points". And the trend is clear. How much more sexual harassment and abuse do you need, before you decide it's time to reverse it? How much more disenfranchisement of women would it take to satisfy you that fiat self-ID is a bad idea?

Yes, I think as more people learn to value empathy, and learn to recognize the differences between individuals as not inherently bad but just different, the incidence of bad actors will gradually decrease. Pretty Utopian, perhaps, but I can visualize it.

 

[theprestige]

Not quite, I said "if it were flat" It is not flat from what Ive seen you present.
Not one piece of 'evidence' you've given shows that a male can be considered a female simply by saying "I am female" That's 'flat id' as far as I'm concerned. If I am wrong, please correct me.

First correction: It's "fiat", not "flat". F I A T. Not F L A T.

Second correction: I gave you detailed explanations, with supporting citations from the actual laws themselves, that fiat self-ID has been implemented in California. Rather than address the claims and evidence I provided, you begged off on account of the sunset. On your return, you even stipulated that fiat self-ID had been implemented, right before shifting the goalpost to your "tsunami" strawman.

If you don't think what I've presented is proof of fiat self-ID as public policy in California, please quote my presentation and make your case for why it's not sufficient.

 

[Paul2]

Thanks for your polite response. Perhaps there should be more measures to prevent the bad actors. I'm certainly open to that idea!

I appreciate your openness as well. I'd be open to hearing about measures short of banning self-ID that would help prevent bad actors, although it's hard for me to imagine what those measures might be.

 

[stanfr]

Not seriously. Facetiously. I'm yanking your chain because the introduction of notional third parties who argue on your behalf through you peeves me.

The existence of your wife, her bona fides, her opinions, is entirely unverifiable and irrelevant. You might as well claim the words are your own. If someone claiming to be your wife joins this forum and speaks for herself, I'll take that at face value. From you, I take it as a mere rhetorical device.

I brought up my wife because, obviously, she is much more affected by these changes than I am. So her personal experience matter to me as much if not more than any social media anecdotes.

Cool. So how do you propose to solve the problem, assuming it exists?


Click back.

California law prohibits indecent exposure (CA code 314)
Can you provide me one citation showing that law has been overturned?
Can you give me one example of a person convicted for challenging an exhibitionist?
If not, you are just making stuff up.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I think as more people learn to value empathy, and learn to recognize the differences between individuals as not inherently bad but just different, the incidence of bad actors will gradually decrease. Pretty Utopian, perhaps, but I can visualize it.

I asked for plausible, you gave me Utopian.

You say you're here to learn, but so far you're falling into the classic pattern of ignorantly defending the trans-activist orthodoxy. All good faith attempts to educate you so far have been dismissed or minimized. Is this really the best you can do?

 

[stanfr]

I appreciate your openness as well. I'd be open to hearing about measures short of banning self-ID that would help prevent bad actors, although it's hard for me to imagine what those measures might be.

Well the measures are in place, maybe they should be augmented or changed. But as I just pointed out to Prestige, the law does not prevent people from being arrested or charged with indecent exposure, harassment, or any other crime.

 

[stanfr]

I asked for plausible, you gave me Utopian.

You say you're here to learn, but so far you're falling into the classic pattern of ignorantly defending the trans-activist orthodoxy. All good faith attempts to educate you so far have been dismissed or minimized. Is this really the best you can do?

I will refrain from responding to your patronizing, arrogant responses. I don't see any 'good faith' in it.

 

[Steersman]

Sigh. We come across this so often, and we've discussed it before. The propensity of many women to put women's interests aside and centre the desires and demands of men as the most important thing to be catered for. Yes, we know, it's socialised into us from infancy, but it's still depressing to see so many unable to shake it off.

Middle-aged white men are "outcasts"? The group having public policy changed across the board to eliminate single-sex spaces, the group having people sacked for tweeting things like "women are adult human females" or "no mammal can change sex", the group that has completely captured the police to the point that they have rebranded their vehicles and livery in their colours, is oppressed?

Indeed - some women of that "propensity" - like Nicola Sturgeon, for example - probably deserve to be in the docket as Quislings.

Somewhat apropos of which, I was sort of spelunking in the depths of Ovarit - more of which later - and ran across a couple of recent comments about a couple of stories on the efforts of For Women Scotland:

We are absolutely delighted to report that after more than 18 months of legal action we have won the appeal of our judicial review. The Court of Session has ruled that the Scottish Government exceeded its powers by including transwomen in the definition of woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

https://forwomen.scot/25/02/2022/we-won-scottish-government-redefinition-of-woman-is-unlawful/

However, a more recent story suggests that Sturgeon and company haven't learned their lesson yet:

It is our position that the amended guidance is not compliant with the Court order due to the addition of the reference to the Gender Recognition Act. Footnote 3 for paragraph 2.13 in the original guidance has been reinserted into the main text of the revised guidance.

The Court’s judgment was clear that the Equality Act set out sex and gender reassignment as two separate protected characteristics ...

https://forwomen.scot/18/07/2022/judicial-review-2/

Seem to recollect seeing that Liz Truss was trying to spike Sturgeon's guns on that issue but not sure of the details.

But speaking more directly to the OP - though it should be "transwomen (compound word like 'crayfish' which ain't) are not women" - the proximate cause of my spelunking at Ovarit was the "spirited discussion" that several of my comments on Substack had "engendered" there:

https://ovarit.com/o/TransLogic/105119/you-re-sexless-if-you-can-t-produce-gametes
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum/comment/5844487?s=r
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum/comment/6213355?s=r

Kind of "amused" that my comments show up on their "TransLogic" thread, though somewhat disconcerted that few, if any, really got my point - probably a case of the monkey trap phenomenon. But from the OP that quoted my comments:

What a moron. If you're sexless if you can't reproduce, then men who remove their penis and testicles don't become women, because woman is a sex. They become a sexless entity.

Yes, that's kind of my point, "Mandy". Transwomen who cut their nuts off most certainly do not become women - i.e., adult human females. They become sexless eunuchs. Seems like a high price to pay to dish with the girls over the latest hair styles and nail polishes - but, de gustibus ...

 

[stanfr]

First correction: It's "fiat", not "flat". F I A T. Not F L A T.

Second correction: I gave you detailed explanations, with supporting citations from the actual laws themselves, that fiat self-ID has been implemented in California. Rather than address the claims and evidence I provided, you begged off on account of the sunset. On your return, you even stipulated that fiat self-ID had been implemented, right before shifting the goalpost to your "tsunami" strawman.

If you don't think what I've presented is proof of fiat self-ID as public policy in California, please quote my presentation and make your case for why it's not sufficient.

I misread, thanks for the clarification. But whether it is 'fiat' or not (a term hardly ever used as far as I can tell from a quick search) that doesn't change the fact that it is not simply a biological man saying "I am a woman" and bingo they get instant certification as a woman. There are still procedures in place, the laws you cite still talk about filling out paper work and waiting periods. So in other words, I personally can't just walk into a woman's restroom right now, expose myself, and expect to be able to defend myself in court once im arrested by saying "But I m a woman!" Even in California!

 

[Paul2]

Well the measures are in place, maybe they should be augmented or changed. But as I just pointed out to Prestige, the law does not prevent people from being arrested or charged with indecent exposure, harassment, or any other crime.

What measures? And, are we talking about measures that help to prevent problems that might follow from self-ID?

Also, under self-ID, a man would not be charged with indecent exposure in a women's locker room if that man self-ID'ed as a woman, right?

 

[d4m10n]

I personally can't just walk into a woman's restroom right now, expose myself, and expect to be able to defend myself in court once im arrested by saying "But I m a woman!" Even in California!

I think this will in fact be Merager's defense (in California) and I expect it to work.

 

[Rolfe]

So in other words, I personally can't just walk into a woman's restroom right now, expose myself, and expect to be able to defend myself in court once im arrested by saying "But I m a woman!" Even in California!

It's quite clear that men who say they are women are indeed walking into women's changing rooms and exposing themselves, with the justification that they identify as women. This is happening in multiple countries. I know of not one example where anyone has tried to investigate whether the man in question had taken any legal steps to change his "gender status" before defending his actions on the grounds that "we are an inclusive organisation". In many countries, including our own proposed legislation, it is specifically forbidden to ask a man for any proof that he has done this.

The Wii Spa thing seemed to blow up because it turned out the man in question had form for sex abuse. Nevertheless even there his claimed trans identity seems to have trumped that. If the paperwork to "change gender" is only a matter of filling in a short form and maybe waiting a few weeks, and then in any case nobody is even allowed to ask you to show that you have such paperwork, there is no barrier to any man claiming trans status as and when he wants to.

Do you understand what a "chilling effect" is, in legal parlance?

 

[theprestige]

I will refrain from responding to your patronizing, arrogant responses. I don't see any 'good faith' in it.

I also gave you the basis of my prediction, in good faith, but you ignored all of that. You hope the trend already in evidence will reverse, but you have given no reason to think that will actually happen.

 

[theprestige]

I misread, thanks for the clarification. But whether it is 'fiat' or not (a term hardly ever used as far as I can tell from a quick search) that doesn't change the fact that it is not simply a biological man saying "I am a woman" and bingo they get instant certification as a woman. There are still procedures in place, the laws you cite still talk about filling out paper work and waiting periods. So in other words, I personally can't just walk into a woman's restroom right now, expose myself, and expect to be able to defend myself in court once im arrested by saying "But I m a woman!" Even in California!

"Fiat self-ID" is my term for it.

What waiting period? This isn't like buying a gun, where you have to wait for a background check.

The laws I'm citiing in California are the fiat self-ID laws. All you have to do is sign a piece of paper, and your gender ID is legally changed. There's no medical opinion required. Just your say-so.

But it seems like you don't count that as fiat self-ID. Why? Is it because in principle a gatekeeper at the women's restrooms could demand to see your papers before allowing you entrance? And if you present your fiat self-ID paperwork, what then?

What, in your estimation, prevents a predatory autogynephiliac from filling out the paperwork, and becoming legally and socially immunized from cisnormative resistance, on nothing more than their say-so? They tell the government they're a woman. The government accepts their claim at face value, without question. The government then compels everyone else to accept it as well, or face legal consequences.

That's the problem I'm talking about. The problem the fiat self-ID laws in California cause.

First you denied that fiat self-ID was happening. Then you decided the fiat self-ID we were talking about didn't count. Then you decided that even if it is happening, it's not a problem. Then you decided it's not enough of a problem to worry about.

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? At what point will you actually say, "enough, this was a bad idea"? The first rape? The tenth? The first prison rape resulting in pregnancy? The first female athlete to get bumped off a national team by a male who outperforms her? The tenth? The hundredth? The first male to be celebrated as the first female to achieve a position of high honor or authority? The tenth?

---

At the very least, California's FSID laws bring us to "papers please", which is already problematic. What happens when California decides that asking for papers should be illegal?

 

[stanfr]

What measures? And, are we talking about measures that help to prevent problems that might follow from self-ID?

Also, under self-ID, a man would not be charged with indecent exposure in a women's locker room if that man self-ID'ed as a woman, right?

Of course he would! It has nothing to do with gender ID! That's the whole point:

California Penal Code 314 PC defines the sex crime of “indecent exposure.” This statute prohibits willfully exposing your private parts in a public place in the presence of another person who might be annoyed or offended.

 

[stanfr]

I think this will in fact be Merager's defense (in California) and I expect it to work.

We shall see!

 

[stanfr]

It's quite clear that men who say they are women are indeed walking into women's changing rooms and exposing themselves, with the justification that they identify as women. This is happening in multiple countries. I know of not one example where anyone has tried to investigate whether the man in question had taken any legal steps to change his "gender status" before defending his actions on the grounds that "we are an inclusive organisation". In many countries, including our own proposed legislation, it is specifically forbidden to ask a man for any proof that he has done this.

The Wii Spa thing seemed to blow up because it turned out the man in question had form for sex abuse. Nevertheless even there his claimed trans identity seems to have trumped that. If the paperwork to "change gender" is only a matter of filling in a short form and maybe waiting a few weeks, and then in any case nobody is even allowed to ask you to show that you have such paperwork, there is no barrier to any man claiming trans status as and when he wants to.

Do you understand what a "chilling effect" is, in legal parlance?

As Ive said a zillion times, I get it, I'm open to the debate, and these are pretty novel situations. A 'chilling effect' can apply to either side of an issue (see my voting analogy)

 

[stanfr]

"Fiat self-ID" is my term for it.

What waiting period? This isn't like buying a gun, where you have to wait for a background check.

The laws I'm citiing in California are the fiat self-ID laws. All you have to do is sign a piece of paper, and your gender ID is legally changed. There's no medical opinion required. Just your say-so.

But it seems like you don't count that as fiat self-ID. Why? Is it because in principle a gatekeeper at the women's restrooms could demand to see your papers before allowing you entrance? And if you present your fiat self-ID paperwork, what then?

What, in your estimation, prevents a predatory autogynephiliac from filling out the paperwork, and becoming legally and socially immunized from cisnormative resistance, on nothing more than their say-so? They tell the government they're a woman. The government accepts their claim at face value, without question. The government then compels everyone else to accept it as well, or face legal consequences.

That's the problem I'm talking about. The problem the fiat self-ID laws in California cause.

First you denied that fiat self-ID was happening. Then you decided the fiat self-ID we were talking about didn't count. Then you decided that even if it is happening, it's not a problem. Then you decided it's not enough of a problem to worry about.

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? At what point will you actually say, "enough, this was a bad idea"? The first rape? The tenth? The first prison rape resulting in pregnancy? The first female athlete to get bumped off a national team by a male who outperforms her? The tenth? The hundredth? The first male to be celebrated as the first female to achieve a position of high honor or authority? The tenth?

---

At the very least, California's FSID laws bring us to "papers please", which is already problematic. What happens when California decides that asking for papers should be illegal?

I stipulated from the outset that, personally, I was not in favor of 'fiat ID' for the very reasons that you and others have expressed countless times. I simply remained unconvinced that all of your conclusions are justified. You can't show me *one* example of a person charged criminally "for confronting an exhibitionist" under current laws. Those you were YOUR words, not mine. When I asked for examples, you conveniently ignored my request. So if you wanna accuse me of playing games, clean up your own act first.

 

[Matthew Best]

Judge to consider trans charity’s appeal to strip LGB Alliance of legal status [Guardian]

A judge will consider an appeal by the trans rights charity Mermaids on Friday against the Charity Commission’s decision to award charitable status to the new gay rights organisation LGB Alliance. It is understood to be the first time one charity has attempted to strip legal status from another.

...

Mermaids, which supports transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse children and their families, launched an appeal last year against the Charity Commission’s grant of charitable status to the LGB Alliance. It argued that the group was set up primarily to lobby the government to restrict the legal rights afforded to transgender people.

 

[Paul2]

Of course he would! It has nothing to do with gender ID! That's the whole point:

California Penal Code 314 PC defines the sex crime of “indecent exposure.” This statute prohibits willfully exposing your private parts in a public place in the presence of another person who might be annoyed or offended.

You missed an important qualifier I had included: "under self-ID." 314 PC would be in conflict with a law - passed in the future or existing now - that allows a man to self-ID as a woman and thereby gain access to women's changing rooms, bathrooms, etc. Right?