• 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: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
That obviously doesn’t count. Because……reasons…
Click to expand...

For the very good reason that you, nor I, have any idea what happened. We may even find out in the nearish future if there's a trial, but don't let stop you from jumping to conclusions.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
For the very good reason that you, nor I, have any idea what happened.
Click to expand...
We know that Merager was nude and bepenised on the women's floor of the spa, and you seem to be saying female patrons need to accept this state of affairs on account of civil rights laws which (rightly) protect gender identity.
 
d4m10n said:
We know that Merager was nude and bepenised on the women's floor of the spa, and you seem to be saying female patrons need to accept this state of affairs on account of civil rights laws which (rightly) protect gender identity.
Click to expand...

You think Merager was arrested simply for being nude?
 
TurkeysGhost said:
You think Merager was arrested simply for being nude?
Click to expand...

You are avoiding his question. Do you think females need to accept the presence of nude biological males with male genitalia in nominally sex-segregated spaces? It's a very simple question. Why can't you answer it?
 
Ziggurat said:
You are avoiding his question. Do you think females need to accept the presence of nude biological males with male genitalia in nominally sex-segregated spaces? It's a very simple question. Why can't you answer it?
Click to expand...

I thought I had.

Generally speaking I think the California law is fine. Whether or not to allow nudity in these spaces is entirely the prerogative of the business. Requiring patrons to wear towels or shorts in a spa is not discriminatory and a more reasonable rule than trans exclusion.

People going into spaces where nudity is allowed should not be upset when they see nudity. A Korean spa isn't for everyone and sensibilities vary.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
I guess we'll have to wait for LondonJohn to clarify who he wasn't talking about.
Click to expand...

It's rather essential for believers in gender identity ideology to frame disagreement with gender identity ideology and social policies based on this ideology as 'anti-trans'. If they didn't do this, they would have to produce an argument from scratch explaining the scientific support for and benefits of gender identity ideology, which of course they cannot do.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are avoiding his question. Do you think females need to accept the presence of nude biological males with male genitalia in nominally sex-segregated spaces? It's a very simple question. Why can't you answer it?
Click to expand...

TurkeysGhost said:
I thought I had.

Generally speaking I think the California law is fine. Whether or not to allow nudity in these spaces is entirely the prerogative of the business. Requiring patrons to wear towels or shorts in a spa is not discriminatory and a more reasonable rule than trans exclusion.

People going into spaces where nudity is allowed should not be upset when they see nudity. A Korean spa isn't for everyone and sensibilities vary.
Click to expand...

I don't think TG believes spaces should be segregated on a biological sex basis at all, so I'm not sure how they can answer your question.
 
Elaedith said:
It's rather essential for believers in gender identity ideology to frame disagreement with gender identity ideology and social policies based on this ideology as 'anti-trans'. If they didn't do this, they would have to produce an argument from scratch explaining the scientific support for and benefits of gender identity ideology, which of course they cannot do.
Click to expand...

Very well put. It’s extremely irritating and unfair for people who support pro woman policies to be called bigots and transphobes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why are you OK with gender segregation but not sex segregation? On what basis does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

I'm ambivalent about gender segregation as well. If I were building a locker room I'd probably opt for privacy stalls whenever possible rather than communal, gender segregated areas.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I'm ambivalent about gender segregation as well. If I were building a locker room I'd probably opt for privacy stalls whenever possible rather than communal, gender segregated areas.
Click to expand...

I don't give a crap about your personal preferences. Other people don't want what you want, and a lot of places have locker rooms already built. They cannot install privacy stalls for everyone.

I want to know what you think it's OK for the state to allow, prohibit, or compel, because that's what affects other people. You're apparently OK with allowing gender segregation but prohibiting sex segregation. And that makes no sense.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't give a crap about your personal preferences. Other people don't want what you want, and a lot of places have locker rooms already built. They cannot install privacy stalls for everyone.

I want to know what you think it's OK for the state to allow, prohibit, or compel, because that's what affects other people. You're apparently OK with allowing gender segregation but prohibiting sex segregation. And that makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It that makes no sense to you, the fact that these policies have been adopted in multiple places must be awfully confusing to you.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
It that makes no sense to you, the fact that these policies have been adopted in multiple places must be awfully confusing to you.
Click to expand...

The logic of a policy is separate from the politics. I understand the politics perfectly well.

And you didn't answer, you merely deflected, as usual. I suspect you aren't capable of answering, that you don't actually have any coherent logical reason for why gender segregation is acceptable but sex segregation is not.
 
Ziggurat said:
The logic of a policy is separate from the politics. I understand the politics perfectly well.

And you didn't answer, you merely deflected, as usual. I suspect you aren't capable of answering, that you don't actually have any coherent logical reason for why gender segregation is acceptable but sex segregation is not.
Click to expand...

Are you asking a legalistic question or a more general ethical/philosophical question? I'm no constitutional lawyer, so I can't really answer the first beyond an amateur opinion.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Are you asking a legalistic question or a more general ethical/philosophical question? I'm no constitutional lawyer, so I can't really answer the first beyond an amateur opinion.
Click to expand...

A more general question. You can answer it on philosophical, ethical, practical, or whatever terms you want, but I want to know what you think should be, not what is. And I'm not interested in a constitutional analysis.
 
Ziggurat said:
A more general question. You can answer it on philosophical, ethical, practical, or whatever terms you want, but I want to know what you think should be, not what is. And I'm not interested in a constitutional analysis.
Click to expand...

As I said before, I'm ambivalent on the notion that gender segregation is needed nearly as much as it currently is used.

But, so long as that's the system we're going to use, trans exclusion strikes me as discriminatory against trans people in a way that is not justified by the supposed reasons for doing so, and much of those reasons, upon deeper review, seemed more rooted in animus than any other practical or legitimate concern. Animus is not a good reason to make such distinctions within our society and should not be catered to.

More succinctly put, the desire to deprive trans people of being able to exist in public as their stated gender identity is rooted mostly in animus, and that's not a legitimate reason for society to make such discriminations.

Even more briefly, because trans women are women. If you're going to make a "women's" room, that's where trans women belong. Likewise for men and trans men.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
As I said before, I'm ambivalent on the notion that gender segregation is needed nearly as much as it currently is used.
Click to expand...

That's still not my question.

But, so long as that's the system we're going to use
Click to expand...

My entire point is whether or not this SHOULD be the system we use, and why gender segregation is justifiable but sex segregation isn't.

You have once again avoided that question.

Even more briefly, because trans women are women.
Click to expand...

Are they?

What is a woman?

If you're going to make a "women's" room, that's where trans women belong. Likewise for men and trans men.
Click to expand...

And if we make "female" and "male" restrooms, what then? Or should that be prohibited?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom