Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

I don't think it's ok to have males there, but I also don't think it's right to discriminate by LOOKS. As Samson was saying, give them a cheek swab or whatever. But just looks, nope, not gonna support that.
 
Oh for crying out loud.

The post was openly advertised as restricted to women only. Do you really think that every woman who applied should have been made to take a sex test?

What does it say about a man, a legal man, a fully intact man, that he will dress up as a woman and pretend to be a woman and apply for this post? You think the reasonable course is to say, don't reject him because he looks like a man, do a sex test to confirm it?

I think we're through the looking-glass and right out the other side.
 
FWIW, I don't think Hans was talking about Rape Crisis Scotland specifically, nor do I think they intended it to be a blanket requirement. I think it was intended in good faith, to caution against potential over-correction resulting in actual females who might appear less feminine than the average being excluded solely on the basis of looks.
 
Meanwhile I thought to check in on the progress dems are making on the thread title.
Gavin Newsom is the Ladbrokes favorite for the 2028 nomination, closely followed by Josh Shapiro, who says in 2020

https://twitter.com/x/status/1293277563737997312

"Trans women are women, pass it on."

The democrats have to carry this albatross forever it seems.
 
Emily's Cat said:
FWIW, I don't think Hans was talking about Rape Crisis Scotland specifically, nor do I think they intended it to be a blanket requirement. I think it was intended in good faith, to caution against potential over-correction resulting in actual females who might appear less feminine than the average being excluded solely on the basis of looks.
Click to expand...

I'm still struggling to unpack this. We can only be talking about positions that are legally allowed to be restricted to female applicants. The only conclusion I can come to is that Hans is suggesting all applicants for these positions should be made to undergo a sex test, in case a man is perverted enough to dress up as a woman and apply.

Coming slightly further down to earth, it is my personal opinion that the appointments committee realised perfectly well what was going on, but being utterly captured by the woke, embraced this opportunity to be "inclusive" rather than saying simply that only women would be considered for the position. I don't believe for half a minute that he fooled them into thinking he was a woman. (And if he had, I'd have expected shock horror when the truth came out, rather than "oh isn't that great, how stunning and brave to pretend to be a woman to get this job that was supposed to go to a woman!") Another reason I think they knew is that there were a couple of better-qualified applicants who were passed over. He really didn't have the CV for the job in the first place.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm still struggling to unpack this. We can only be talking about positions that are legally allowed to be restricted to female applicants. The only conclusion I can come to is that Hans is suggesting all applicants for these positions should be made to undergo a sex test, in case a man is perverted enough to dress up as a woman and apply.

Coming slightly further down to earth, it is my personal opinion that the appointments committee realised perfectly well what was going on, but being utterly captured by the woke, embraced this opportunity to be "inclusive" rather than saying simply that only women would be considered for the position. I don't believe for half a minute that he fooled them into thinking he was a woman. (And if he had, I'd have expected shock horror when the truth came out, rather than "oh isn't that great, how stunning and brave to pretend to be a woman to get this job that was supposed to go to a woman!") Another reason I think they knew is that there were a couple of better-qualified applicants who were passed over. He really didn't have the CV for the job in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think Hans was talking about this situations specifically, I believe they were speaking more generally. But perhaps my interpretation is incorrect.

Basically, I took it as Hans cautioning against over-correction. It's one thing when you've got an entirely male-looking male; it's a different thing when you've got a not-very-feminine looking female.

Honestly, I don't think it's a huge risk. We're actually very good at discerning the sex of other post-pubertal humans. Perhaps a little bit less so when the markers are intentionally masked or faked... but still quite good. It's when people put on their ideological blinders and override their innate senses that we end up with otherwise intelligent people making idiotic arguments that suggest the only way we can ever tell the sex of someone else is if we literally take a look in their pants.
 
Samson said:
Meanwhile I thought to check in on the progress dems are making on the thread title.
Gavin Newsom is the Ladbrokes favorite for the 2028 nomination, closely followed by Josh Shapiro, who says in 2020

"Trans women are women, pass it on."
The democrats have to carry this albatross forever it seems.
Click to expand...

FWIW, a personal response as a Kiwi.

This obsession that some of my compatriots on the left have with acknowledging transwomen as women is a bugbear of mine. It is one of things holding them back, turning people with similar worldviews to mine away from them.

That said, I consider the trans gender issue to be far less important than other issues. Make no mistake, I am a lifetime left wing voter. I have voted Labour at every election but one (where I voted Green with my party vote, but still voted for the Labour candidate).

I have never voted National/conservative, and I never will. They represent everything I despise - their elitism, their selfishness, their corporate greed, their bashing of the downtrodden with cruel welfare policies, their dehumanising of the poor, their derision for working families, their racist policies towards Māori, and their utter contempt for the environment.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Honestly, I don't think it's a huge risk.
We're actually very good at discerning the sex of other post-pubertal humans. Perhaps a little bit less so when the markers are intentionally masked or faked... but still quite good. It's when people put on their ideological blinders and override their innate senses that we end up with otherwise intelligent people making idiotic arguments that suggest the only way we can ever tell the sex of someone else is if we literally take a look in their pants.
Click to expand...
I have been fooled a few times by photographs of transgenders, but I have never been fooled by one I have personally seen... not even the street-walkers in Bugis Street, Singapore, who are supposed to be legendary at fooling people.
 
I read that when the Trump camp tested a PPB focussing on the trans issue ("Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you") it moved the dial something like 2.8% in their favour. Trump won by about 2.5%. (Don't hold me to these exact figures.)
 
Emily's Cat said:
I don't think Hans was talking about this situations specifically, I believe they were speaking more generally. But perhaps my interpretation is incorrect.

Basically, I took it as Hans cautioning against over-correction. It's one thing when you've got an entirely male-looking male; it's a different thing when you've got a not-very-feminine looking female.

Honestly, I don't think it's a huge risk. We're actually very good at discerning the sex of other post-pubertal humans. Perhaps a little bit less so when the markers are intentionally masked or faked... but still quite good. It's when people put on their ideological blinders and override their innate senses that we end up with otherwise intelligent people making idiotic arguments that suggest the only way we can ever tell the sex of someone else is if we literally take a look in their pants.
Click to expand...

No, seriously, what do you do if you are interviewing for a job open to women only, and a man in a dress shows up? (Or in this case a man in a sari.) Insist on a sex test? Seriously? (That's probably actually discriminatory unless you insist on it for all applicants.)

The sheer gall and entitlement of the man in actually applying for the position in the first place is seldom criticised as much as it should be. But we know now that men LARPing as women have no boundaries and no sense of shame. They never think, I shouldn't be here, and me being here may put others in a difficult position. It's all about what they can get away with - usually by exploiting the fact that women often don't want to make a fuss or are terrified of being called transphobic, rather than because they're actually fooling anyone.

News flash. "We've been trangressing your boundaries for years and getting away with it so you have to let us go on doing it" is not the killer argument you think it is.

Which is straying rather far from the disgusting Wadhawa, but it's part of the same thing. The entitlement, the complete lack of boundaries or self-censorship, and it all being about what they can brazen out rather than any consideration for other people.
 
Rolfe said:
I read that when the Trump camp tested a PPB focussing on the trans issue ("Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you") it moved the dial something like 2.8% in their favour. Trump won by about 2.5%. (Don't hold me to these exact figures.)
Click to expand...

The right's weaponisation of this issue has been depressing to watch, but they could hardly be expected to refuse such a gift.

Most people are going to be hard to convince that reality can be changed by the thoughts in someone's head, even if they unreservedly accept that everyone should be free to dress how they like/present themselves however suits them/fancy whoever if comes naturally to them to fancy without fear of prejudice and discrimination. When progressives adopt a position that defies common sense (and I do understand the laudable sympathy for a persecuted minority that prompts them to do so) they are just going to make them wonder how many other progressive positions are based on a denial of observable facts.
 
Rolfe said:
I read that when the Trump camp tested a PPB focussing on the trans issue ("Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you") it moved the dial something like 2.8% in their favour. Trump won by about 2.5%. (Don't hold me to these exact figures.)
Click to expand...
As a committed leftist (Labor) voter, I may have not voted for Harris over this issue. Lessons need to be learned.
 
smartcooky said:
FWIW, a personal response as a Kiwi.

This obsession that some of my compatriots on the left have with acknowledging transwomen as women is a bugbear of mine. It is one of things holding them back, turning people with similar worldviews to mine away from them.

That said, I consider the trans gender issue to be far less important than other issues. Make no mistake, I am a lifetime left wing voter. I have voted Labour at every election but one (where I voted Green with my party vote, but still voted for the Labour candidate).

I have never voted National/conservative, and I never will. They represent everything I despise - their elitism, their selfishness, their corporate greed, their bashing of the downtrodden with cruel welfare policies, their dehumanising of the poor, their derision for working families, their racist policies towards Māori, and their utter contempt for the environment.
Click to expand...
Reminds of my wife a bit, she once said going to Cal Berkeley made her less progressive and my favorite quote of hers, "Sometimes they make it hard to be on their side." The need to not just say transwomen are women but also the insistence that you and I say it too is befuddling to me. I realize its a minority of the left but they are a loud minority. It also reminds me of the Libertarians, they're obsessed with Ideological purity and defining out as many fellow travels as they can. Of course they also have a bunch of that crowd who've become Trumpists. So, more or less proving the left right about who Libertarians actually are.

I also think its not correct to say that the Dems ran on Trans issues or abolish the police this time but all of that was still dragging them down from 4 years ago. I assume the ACLU is for Trans rights, how up their own asses are they to have ask the Dem candidates a question about whether the US should pay for transition surgery for prisoners? A large majority of Americans think that's crazy and that should be obvious. Its as though some conservative group sent out a questionaire asking GOP candidates asking "Do you think we should cut taxes on corporations and the Rich?" "Do you think we should reduce gun regulations?"
 
Pixel42 said:
The right's weaponisation of this issue has been depressing to watch, but they could hardly be expected to refuse such a gift.

Most people are going to be hard to convince that reality can be changed by the thoughts in someone's head, even if they unreservedly accept that everyone should be free to dress how they like/present themselves however suits them/fancy whoever if comes naturally to them to fancy without fear of prejudice and discrimination. When progressives adopt a position that defies common sense (and I do understand the laudable sympathy for a persecuted minority that prompts them to do so) they are just going to make them wonder how many other progressive positions are based on a denial of observable facts.
Click to expand...
This! Meanwhile, over in the "what did democrats do wrong thread", they have their heads in the sand (and some insisting that men can become pregnant
 
It would be quite nice if we could reclaim the word "woman" completely. They're not any sort of woman, they're trans-identifying men.

The use of the word transwomen, and even worse "trans girls", significantly obscures what's actually being discussed, which is men and boys in women's sports, dormitories, changing rooms, showers and prisons. He who controls the language controls the debate, which I think we have discussed in this thread before. Conceding the word "woman", even as part of a portmanteau word, is not good.

Several surveys have shown that a significant proportion of the general public think that a "transwoman" is a woman who identifies as a man. This is a serious barrier to communicating the nature of the concerns. The forced language leads to some hearers believing that women are trying to expel women who identify as trans from the spaces that are rightfully theirs. "You want to prevent trans girls from playing sports? What a bigot!" On the other hand "We want to prevent boys from playing in girls' teams and competing against girls" gets the message across.
 
See, there's the thing, folks on both sides of this issue make it hard to be on there side.
Side 1. You must accept that transwomen are women.
Side 2. You can't even say they are transwomen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom