• 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.
Paul2 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any court decision that says it is in conflict. Again--You are conflating "gain access to women's spaces" with "indecent exposure"
Those are not equivalent things. You could opine that it is a problem if genitalia are visible to people who don't want to see it--that's a fair criticism. Make it to the law makers!
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
I haven't seen any court decision that says it is in conflict. Again--You are confusing "gain access to women's spaces" with "indecent exposure"
Those are not equivalent things. You could opine that it is a problem if genitalia are visible to people who don't [want] to see it--that's a fair criticism. Make it to the law makers!
Click to expand...


You seriously think people haven't tried?
 
stanfr said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's happened yet. I don't want it to happen. I'm not in favor of fiat self-ID laws, which make it easier for it to happen.

I am predicting progressively worse outcomes, if we continue to pursue and strengthen FSID in public policy. I predict that incidents like the WiSpa incident will happen more often, and that business owners will find it increasingly difficult to legally bar transwomen from their sex-segregated spaces.

I think we're already seeing this trend beginning. You've already been provided with several examples of bad things that are being enabled by this push. I can't give you examples of things that I predict will happen if this push continues and gains momentum.

All I can do is tell you why I predict them.

You don't think the problems that have already arisen are bad enough to rethink the push towards FSID. At what point do you think the problems would get bad enough for you to rethink it?

Which of the things, if any, that I have predicted, would be over the line for you if it came to pass?

stanfr said:
Prestige (or whomever):

What is your overall impression of the Wikipedia summary of transgender rights (in the US, simply since that is what I am most familiar with):
Fair analysis? Or biased?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

I have no opinion about it.
 
stanfr said:
Fair analysis? Or biased?
Click to expand...
I'd say it's mostly fine, but then I didn't check all 50 jurisdictions.

What do you think ought to happen in the Merager case? She exposed her penis to nonconsenting patrons, but arguably had a legal right to be there under CA non-discrimination law.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
stanfr said:
I haven't seen any court decision that says it is in conflict. Again--You are conflating "gain access to women's spaces" with "indecent exposure"
Those are not equivalent things. You could opine that it is a problem if genitalia are visible to people who don't want to see it--that's a fair criticism. Make it to the law makers!
Click to expand...

The criticism we're making to you right now is that granting trans access to sex segregated spaces allows them to commit the moral crime of indecent exposure without being legally liable, and without giving the owners of that space legal grounds to evict them. In fact, if they tried to evict them the owners would be the ones in legal trouble, for violating trans nondiscrimination laws.

You say that's something that can be sorted out by the courts. I say why does it need to go that far? Why not solve it earlier, in the laws themselves?

Recognizing sex segregated spaces as such, and providing that trans identity does not extend to such spaces, would go a long way towards heading off the kinds of problems you're inviting.

This is topical, since we already know there is a demographic of predatory men who are willing to adopt a trans identity, and exploit trans inclusive policies to more easily prey on women.

We've already seen this happen, and we have no reason to believe it will abate as the legal protections for these predators become stronger and more widespread.

I think this is already good enough reason to hold back on expanding trans rights. At least until trans activists acknowledge the problem and propose a reasonable solution.

Meanwhile my proposed solution is what I said above: transgender access does not extend to sex segregated spaces, institutions, or recognition.

If you think you have a better solution, let's hear it. If you won't even acknowledge the problem, what's left to talk about?
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
You seriously think people haven't tried?
Click to expand...

It has been reported that Lia Thomas takes pride in walking around the women’s change room naked, and female swimmers when they reported this behaviour were threatened with being thrown off the swim team.

I will try to find a link.

Here it is:

https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/teamm...ker-room-with-trans-upenn-swimmer-lia-thomas/

Thomas, 22, who spent the previous three years swimming with the men’s team before she began transitioning to a woman, has created an uneasy environment in the locker room, as she still retains her biologically male genitalia — which are sometimes exposed — and is attracted to women, one teammate told the Daily Mail in an interview.
Click to expand...

Pretty straightforward indecent exposure stanfr, don’t you think? Yet no charges and female team members threatened. In addition, of course, Lia in the women’s team mean a female (likely more as Lia swims in a number of events) is left out. Fair?
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Evidence here:
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-...re-lifestyle-14cd954b06360d21349b77233318369e

Relevant quote:
The law Newsom signed Saturday says officers must ask inmates privately during the intake process if they identify as transgender, nonbinary or intersex. Those inmates can then request to be placed in a facility that houses either men or women.
 
d4m10n said:
I'd say it's mostly fine, but then I didn't check all 50 jurisdictions.

What do you think ought to happen in the Merager case? She exposed her penis to nonconsenting patrons, but arguably had a legal right to be there under CA non-discrimination law.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I say fry the **** ;)

Seriously, I think it depends on the circumstances. The exact facts are in dispute. The witnesses who were there and the authorities who interviewed them know way more than we do. But based on her apparent history I would not be surprised if the behavior was less than innocent.
 
Horhang said:
Evidence here:
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-...re-lifestyle-14cd954b06360d21349b77233318369e

Relevant quote:
The law Newsom signed Saturday says officers must ask inmates privately during the intake process if they identify as transgender, nonbinary or intersex. Those inmates can then request to be placed in a facility that houses either men or women.
Click to expand...

No, that is the cherry-picked quote. You clearly either didn't even read your own story or are conveniently ignoring all the multiple caveats cited in the story, which as a whole in no way says a person can define their gender just by declaring their preferred identity. And you clearly have never been in a prison, or you would know something about the risks involved for trans individuals.
 
theprestige said:
I don't think it's happened yet. I don't want it to happen. I'm not in favor of fiat self-ID laws, which make it easier for it to happen.

I am predicting progressively worse outcomes, if we continue to pursue and strengthen FSID in public policy. I predict that incidents like the WiSpa incident will happen more often, and that business owners will find it increasingly difficult to legally bar transwomen from their sex-segregated spaces.

I think we're already seeing this trend beginning. You've already been provided with several examples of bad things that are being enabled by this push. I can't give you examples of things that I predict will happen if this push continues and gains momentum.

All I can do is tell you why I predict them.

You don't think the problems that have already arisen are bad enough to rethink the push towards FSID. At what point do you think the problems would get bad enough for you to rethink it?

Which of the things, if any, that I have predicted, would be over the line for you if it came to pass?



I have no opinion about it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your toned-down response.

You may be entirely correct, I am not making this an issue I am willing to die for. But I think it's somewhat sad that here we are talking about one incident in 2021 as if it is indicative of an increasing problem.

I asked you about the wiki article because, from my perspective, it seems like a fair and balanced discussion of the issue.
And If you read it, it brings up the problems of inmate housing, sports, and public restrooms--but those problems are not the highlight of the article.
The highlight is the comprehensive look at how trans individuals have been on the oppressed side of the bulk of public policy.

Instead of dwelling on a few efforts to protect their rights, it illustrates the massive effort to marginalize their interests. A couple hundred (not two, a couple hundred) laws seeking to lessen their legal protections.
Instead of focusing on one jurisdiction trying to accommodate them, it points out the numerous states seeking to squash them.

The four states requiring people to use the restroom assigned to their biological sex: AX, FL, KY, TX.
I live in AZ, and I can assure you the people running this state are ******* crazy.
As cited in the wiki article, the groups on the other side of the protesting trans-activists are largely extremist right wing: Proud boys, Qanon wackos, Trumpists in general.
The company you keep might give you some clues at whether you are on the right side of an issue or not.
Not always, but it ought to make one be cautious with their opinions.
That's where I am...being cautious, and listening.
 
lionking said:
It has been reported that Lia Thomas takes pride in walking around the women’s change room naked, and female swimmers when they reported this behaviour were threatened with being thrown off the swim team.

I will try to find a link.

Here it is:

https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/teamm...ker-room-with-trans-upenn-swimmer-lia-thomas/



Pretty straightforward indecent exposure stanfr, don’t you think? Yet no charges and female team members threatened. In addition, of course, Lia in the women’s team mean a female (likely more as Lia swims in a number of events) is left out. Fair?
Click to expand...

I'm not a huge Lia fan, from what I have read it makes me want to side with her detractors. I tend to agree that in many cases the advantage of going through puberty as a male is a bar to participation in some women's sports. But I'm not an expert on the subject and from what I've read it is by no means a settled issue, the science is in flux.
BUt that's a separate issue from indecent exposure. And I don't think what you described qualifies as "pretty straightforward"

ETA: citing the NY post for facts in a skeptics forum is almost as bad as citing Newsmax or OAN.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The criticism we're making to you right now is that granting trans access to sex segregated spaces allows them to commit the moral crime of indecent exposure without being legally liable, and without giving the owners of that space legal grounds to evict them. In fact, if they tried to evict them the owners would be the ones in legal trouble, for violating trans nondiscrimination laws.

You say that's something that can be sorted out by the courts. I say why does it need to go that far? Why not solve it earlier, in the laws themselves?

Recognizing sex segregated spaces as such, and providing that trans identity does not extend to such spaces, would go a long way towards heading off the kinds of problems you're inviting.

This is topical, since we already know there is a demographic of predatory men who are willing to adopt a trans identity, and exploit trans inclusive policies to more easily prey on women.

We've already seen this happen, and we have no reason to believe it will abate as the legal protections for these predators become stronger and more widespread.

I think this is already good enough reason to hold back on expanding trans rights. At least until trans activists acknowledge the problem and propose a reasonable solution. Meanwhile my proposed solution is what I said above: transgender access does not extend to sex segregated spaces, institutions, or recognition.

If you think you have a better solution, let's hear it. If you won't even acknowledge the problem, what's left to talk about?
Click to expand...

I don' t vehemently disagree with this--I just lean toward the second sentence and you clearly are dug in on the first. I see the effort to discriminate against LGBTQ groups more dangerous than the reverse. So now that we are fully in agreement, let someone else bring up Hitler and then we're done! :p
 
stanfr said:
How are they at risk in a men's prison?
Click to expand...

As they are male bodied, not much. How about answering my question? Do you think self-identified transwomen are at risk in a women’s prisons? How about female prisoners incarcerated with male bodied transwomen?
 
stanfr said:
I'm not a huge Lia fan, from what I have read it makes me want to side with her detractors. I tend to agree that in many cases the advantage of going through puberty as a male is a bar to participation in some women's sports. But I'm not an expert on the subject and from what I've read it is by no means a settled issue, the science is in flux.
BUt that's a separate issue from indecent exposure. And I don't think what you described qualifies as "pretty straightforward".
Click to expand...

The female swimmers quoted said they disturbed. What is your definition of indecent exposure? I would have thought showing a penis to women who were disturbed by it fits the bill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom