Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Emily's Cat]

There's more to it than that. The claim is that Merager was engaged in some sort of lewd self-gratification, which Merager denies.

Do you support the decriminalization of flashing? Do you support making it legal of males to expose themselves to nonconsenting females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The allegation is that Merager was sporting an erection. I can't find a copy of the arrest warrant, but reports seem to indicate "signs of sexual arousal" as being an important factor in the arrest decision.

Merager also has a history of of exposing themself.

The policies you seek don't alter Merager's behavior - it just makes it LEGAL for males to expose themselves - as long as they say the magic words first.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's not made up. She left out a pretty important reason: there's plenty of scientific evidence that males get sexually aroused more than females by visual stimulus. And if you know anything about humans, you shouldn't need a scientific study to tell you that either. So it's not an equivalent situation at all.

Plus, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, patterns of female sexual predation don't match patterns of male sexual predation. And even if they did (but they don't), as Emily's Cat pointed out, the threat isn't the same. And she underplayed that too: female-on-female sexual assault can't produce pregnancy and is much less likely to transmit STD's.

People have also expressed concerns about gays and lesbians in their respective locker rooms. It seems not to be an issue now that being gay or lesbian is far more normalized, but you can read through old news articles that specifically question whether it's acceptable.

Paranoia about same sex lust was absolutely common in the recent past and probably still is to some extent even today, it's just not entertained as an acceptable reason to exclude people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah well, I can help you out on this one. See: pretty much the only public figures coming out with an anti-transgender stance are reactionary, extreme-right-wing figures - including hard-right politicians, extremist religious figures, bigoted right-wing journalists, and individuals representing extreme hard-right causes (such as Nazis and Proud Boys).

I mean, I think that's highly noteworthy and instructive. Your mileage may, of course, vary....

At what point did your Labour party become an "extreme right wing" party?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seems like someone has completely failed to notice left wing radical feminists, despite their tradition of writing polemics for decades in the UK.

Nah, they just get retroactively right-winged.

It seems to be how this works. A person is only considered left-leaning if they don't object to any part of the trans agenda at all. If they do object, no matter how minor or reasonable their objection is, then they are redefined as "right wing", usually as a "right wing extremist".

It's not reality, it's not objective. It's linguistic terrorism.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nah, they just get retroactively right-winged.

It seems to be how this works. A person is only considered left-leaning if they don't object to any part of the trans agenda at all. If they do object, no matter how minor or reasonable their objection is, then they are redefined as "right wing", usually as a "right wing extremist".

It's not reality, it's not objective. It's linguistic terrorism.

The term TERFs exist exactly to explain who these people are and the constellation of beliefs they hold.

How many right wing beliefs a person must hold before they are considered right wing is an interesting question I suppose. People are complicated and don't always fall neatly into either camp. Some TERFs seem all too eager to ally with right wingers in their crusade against trans people, others seem to care enough about other things that they remain in a lonely ideological no man's land.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. No pleasing these bigoted freaks:

An Oxford resident says he was attacked and beaten while camping because he is transgender.

Noah Ruiz, 20, was assigned female at birth but identifies as male.

He says he was using the women’s restroom in a Preble County campground—which he was advised to do—when a group of men came after him.

“I have bruises on the back of my head from being punched in the back of the head,” Ruiz said Friday.

It happened July 3 at Cross’s Campground in Camden, Ruiz says. He recalls going to the women’s restroom when a woman in the stall became upset.

“I was using the bathroom, and she just started shouting. She was like, ‘Who the [expletive] is in here?’ And I replied, ‘I am.’ My girlfriend replied, ‘I am as well.’ She was like, ‘No man should be in this bathroom. Like, if you’re a man you need to use a man’s bathroom.’ And I was like, ‘I’m transgender. Like, I have woman body parts, and I was told to use this bathroom,’” Ruiz recalled.

He says as he was walking out, three large men approached him. In the end, he was left with several cuts and gashes across his body in addition to the bruising.

https://www.fox19.com/2022/07/08/transgender-butler-county-man-says-group-beat-him-up-using-wrong-restroom/

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seems like someone has completely failed to notice the glaring lack of public figures from the political/ideological left coming in to back or amplify anti-trans rhetoric/beliefs.

Why do you think that might be, d4m10n?

What, like numberous members of the Greens and Labour who have been hounded out of their parties, or who have left because of the rampant misogyny being promoted by the left wing parties?

Or are you perhaps referring to the numerous cases of left wing lesbians who have been threatened and harassed non-stop for daring to hold a view that places the rights and safety of females above the feelings of males?

Kathleen Stock, Kara Dansky, Joanna Cherry, Sal Grover, Vaishnavi Sundar, Baronness Nicholson, Eva Kurilova, Abigail Shrier, Helen Joyce, Jane Clare Jones, Milli Hill, Emma Hilton, Jean Hatchet, Julie Bindel, Victoria Smith, and many others.

None of those are right wing.

Just because you IGNORE them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Elaedith]

What, like numberous members of the Greens and Labour who have been hounded out of their parties, or who have left because of the rampant misogyny being promoted by the left wing parties?

Or are you perhaps referring to the numerous cases of left wing lesbians who have been threatened and harassed non-stop for daring to hold a view that places the rights and safety of females above the feelings of males?

Kathleen Stock, Kara Dansky, Joanna Cherry, Sal Grover, Vaishnavi Sundar, Baronness Nicholson, Eva Kurilova, Abigail Shrier, Helen Joyce, Jane Clare Jones, Milli Hill, Emma Hilton, Jean Hatchet, Julie Bindel, Victoria Smith, and many others.

None of those are right wing.

Just because you IGNORE them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Note that LJ applauds the hounding out of those who disagree with the party line, then attaches great significance to people not disagreeing with the party line as though it's a free choice.

 

[Ziggurat]

People have also expressed concerns about gays and lesbians in their respective locker rooms.

I'm sure they have. But again: the sexes are not equivalent. Male on female sexual predation is a different problem than any other combination of sexual predation. So why would you expect the problems it creates to be the same? Why would you expect steps taken to minimize its risk to be the same? It's not the same problem, and there's no reason to address it the same way. Extrapolating from male-on-male, female-on-female, or female-on male doesn't work if they're all different from male-on-female. And they are.

Paranoia about same sex lust was absolutely common in the recent past and probably still is to some extent even today, it's just not entertained as an acceptable reason to exclude people.

Never once have you addressed the problem on its own merits. I don't think you even know how to.

 

[Emily's Cat]

California still has this law and other places have similar policies. Presumably trans women are using the women's facilities there. Is there any evidence this is a problem?

How do you define "problem"?

When the males engaging in voyeurism and exhibitionism toward nonconsenting females are considered to be doing so legally... and the females who object are considered hateful criminals... I'm not sure where you would view that as a "problem" even if a large number of females do.

There were a LOT of females who were unhappy and outraged at Merager's presence in the female section of WiSpa. I gather that you don't think their views count, because Merager had a legal right to expose their genitals to females who didn't want to see them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. No pleasing these bigoted freaks:

As I said before: bad things happen when authorities abdicate their responsibility to enforce order. Authorities have abandoned any effort to maintain sex segregation, and this is one of those bad side effects.

You're knocking over Chesterton's fence and acting surprised when you don't get what you wanted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I see no reason why not. Data on these hyperbolic claims about stranger danger in public toilets and the rest has always been suspiciously absent.

Sure sure.

MRA #1: Hey people - females don't consent to having males look at them while they're nude, or having males expose themselves to them against their will.

MRA #2: No problem, we can just make it legal for males to do that, then the objecting females are the criminals! Problem solved!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

So your answer is: Yes, females should be forced to allow males to look at them while they're nude, and should be forced to allow males to expose themselves in front of them. The males should have the right to violate female boundaries if they feel like doing so.

If you disagree, this would be an excellent time to clarify your position.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

It's not confusing, it's appalling.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is what I mean by linguistic terrorism.

You are RETROACTIVELY changing the meaning of the term "women" in this context. Historically it was meant literally - it meant females of the human species. You are taking it upon yourself to change that meaning to a figurative one, where "women" means "people who feel an alignment with social stereotypes of females regardless of their sex".

Then you take that new meaning of the word (which doesn't even have full acceptance by the way) and you're PRETENDING that's what it's always meant. Then you use that falsehood to harass and insult anyone who disagrees with your coercive redefinition.

Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[Lithrael]

You're knocking over Chesterton's fence and acting surprised when you don't get what you wanted.

"Look what you made me do!"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Source: I made it up

Do you use this same response when you're talking about race-related situations? Do you dismiss the lifelong experiences of black people as "made up" if they can't produce statistics that meet your arbitrary threshold for credibility?

When black people talk about the disparate treatment they receive from cops and the justice system, do you dismiss it with the same degree of condescension that you show toward females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not made up. She left out a pretty important reason: there's plenty of scientific evidence that males get sexually aroused more than females by visual stimulus. And if you know anything about humans, you shouldn't need a scientific study to tell you that either. So it's not an equivalent situation at all.

Plus, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, patterns of female sexual predation don't match patterns of male sexual predation. And even if they did (but they don't), as Emily's Cat pointed out, the threat isn't the same. And she underplayed that too: female-on-female sexual assault can't produce pregnancy and is much less likely to transmit STD's.

Also, female-on-female sexual assault is a bit more equal in terms of ability to fight back.

We all know there are extreme outliers, we'll just take that as given and talk about averages.

On average, if a male and a male get into a physical altercation, each male has an about even chance of winning over the other male. The male being attacked has a reasonable chance to fight off their male attacker.

On average, if a female and a female get into a physical altercation, each female has an about even chance of winning over the other female. The female being attacked has a reasonable chance to fight off their female attacker.

On average, if a female and a male get into a physical alteration, the male has a substantially higher chance of winning over the female. If a female is attacking a male, in the vast majority of cases, the male can fight off the female attacker. If a male is attacking a female, in the vast majority of cases, the male can dominate the female victim and the female victim has very little chance of fighting off the male attacker.

The situations are NOT comparable.

Transgender identified males in a male sex-specific space may be at risk of harm from other males. But in general, that male has a reasonable chance of fighting off their attacker.

Transgender identified females in male sex-specific spaces may be at risk of harm from males... and even with the application of testosterone, they remain highly unlikely to be able to fight off a male attacker.

Transgender identified females in female sex-specific spaces are at very low risk of harm from other females. Partly this is because females engage in substantially fewer aggressive conflicts than males; partly it's because the transgender identified female has (presumably) the benefit of testosterone which would give them a moderate advantage over other females. If a transgender identified female is attacked in a female sex-specific space by another female, they have a higher than even likelihood of being able to successfully fight them off.

Transgender identified males in female-sex specific spaces have virtually no risk of harm from females. And since it has been shown a few times now that transgender identified males retain a male pattern of criminality, including male pattern sex-related offenses toward females, it's much more likely that the transgender identified male would be the aggressor.

To put it in less clinical language... The hen who walks into a fox den is probably going to be dinner, even if the hen identifies as a fox. The fox who walks into the henhouse is probably going to get a really good meal, even if the fox identifies as a hen. If you put a hen and a fox into the octagon, smart money will ALWAYS be on the fox, even if they've been tarred and feathered beforehand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The term TERFs exist exactly to explain who these people are and the constellation of beliefs they hold.

How many right wing beliefs a person must hold before they are considered right wing is an interesting question I suppose. People are complicated and don't always fall neatly into either camp. Some TERFs seem all too eager to ally with right wingers in their crusade against trans people, others seem to care enough about other things that they remain in a lonely ideological no man's land.

Your post is long on emotional buzzwords and subtle invective. It's also very short on content.