Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[stanfr]

Tell you what. You go convince those dirt poor people who are struggling to make sure they have enough to eat that they need to stop worrying about their immediate survival and instead focus on the impact that will be felt by their great-great-grandchildren.

Look, I care about the environment. But the insistence that it should be everyone's single highest priority is a privileged perspective. It's a viewpoint coming from someone who has sufficient food, a fairly safe place to live, has a steady enough income to meet their basic needs. Furthermore, you're essentially insisting that females should just accept being subjected to increase sexual assault and boundary violations, that females should just give up on basic dignity and surrender to letting males into female-only spaces against our will... because our current right this minute suffering isn't important enough to you, and we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves now for something that will occur several hundred years in the future at the soonest.

You must have missed the heat waves in India that killed 100s this year. Let's see your stats on assaults by men in female spaces, and how they have exponentially risen thanks to this issue.

 

[Rolfe]

Winding a long way back to the innate ability of human beings to recognise the sex of other human beings, I had a very slow penny-drop moment the other evening, which I'm still only 90% sure I'm interpreting correctly. I am, I should say, a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.

I should mention that I have such a lousy facial recognition ability that I frequently fail to recognise actors I've seen before when they appear in new roles. My friend often nudges me and asks if I recognise someone from a previous film. A couple of times she commented that I had expressed marked appreciation of the good looks of a particular actor three times, in three different films, without realising it was the same guy each time.

I went to see "Paddington in Peru". There is a character in the film called Hunter Cabot (played by Antonio Banderas) who is the latest in a line of gold hunters, fixated on finding the fabled city of El Dorado. He is haunted by the ghosts of several ancestors, all egging him on to keep at it and find the treasure city. One of these ancestors is a woman, the stereotypical pioneer aviator woman. When I saw her on screen my instant thought was, "that's a man." Then I wasn't quite sure why they would have cast a man in a female role, and sort of forgot about it as the film progressed.

Much later, looking at Hunter Cabot right next to the most distant ancestor, a conquistador type, it finally dawned on me that it was the same actor. Even later, towards the end, I twigged that all the Cabot ancestors were played by a single actor. Good makeup job, I thought, they all looked quite different.

Half way home, on the motorway, the other shoe dropped as I realised that applied to the female ancestor as well. Good makeup job indeed. I hadn't recognised that part as being played by the same person, no sirree. But I sure as hell realised it was a man the second I clapped eyes on "her".

I have checked the cast list on a couple of movie-buff sites and this conclusion is not confirmed. Antonio Banderas is only listed as playing "Hunter Cabot". But I can't see any listing for anyone playing any of his ancestors, and one of these sites at least listed everyone who had even the tiniest identifiable part in the film.

I relate this only to note the instant "That's a man! Why would they cast a man in that part? That's weird" reaction that I had the minute the character appeared on screen. Despite the fact that Hollywood had obviously done its level best to make the actor look convincing as a woman.

 

[Orphia Nay]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

 

[Samson]

I posted this in a thread over in USA politics, but I don't think anyone actually watched it.


He talks about the reasons why, as he sees it, the Democrats lost. Near the top of the list is the trans issue. That's not the only thing he talks about. It's a few minutes near the beginning. I found it interesting.

I sure watched it when it came out.
A good video for the democrats.
Many gender critics are Trojan horsed through this issue, to find other wholesome goodness in Trump, but Sam Harris remains a zealot.
And Musk is deemed a fellow "freak".
Seriously lacking nuance here, but a great podcaster generally.

 

[Samson]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

Caitlin Jenner and Andrea Shu Long both claim to be autogynephiles.
Hateful is completely the wrong word, but the world might be better if they had managed their fetishes differently, rather than being cast as role models.

 

[Rolfe]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

It doesn't matter. Nobody can change sex, not by putting on different clothes, not by taking drugs, and not by undergoing cosmetic surgery. That isn't "hateful", it's reality.

Nobody can tell, by looking at a man, whether or not he has had cosmetic surgery to his genitals. Indeed, nobody can tell if he's taking synthetic cross-sex hormones either. The castrated man with the inverted penis and the man taking feminising drugs and the man who is simply playing dress-up all look the same. Assuming all are playing dress-up.

I certainly don't want visual confirmation of surgery. It wouldn't make any difference if this was provided, anyway. A man's a man for aa that. Nobody can change sex, and no man has any business inserting himself into women's intimate spaces. The very desire to do so makes such a man the very last person who should be permitted to do this.

 

[Orphia Nay]

A "man" with all those changes deserves safe space too.

 

[stanfr]

Caitlin Jenner and Andrea Shu Long both claim to be autogynephiles.
Hateful is completely the wrong word, but the world might be better if they had managed their fetishes differently, rather than being cast as role models.

I mean Jenner *is* a role model for Trumpism, the normalization of hypocrisy, self-destruction, and insanity.

 

[stanfr]

It doesn't matter. Nobody can change sex, not by putting on different clothes, not by taking drugs, and not by undergoing cosmetic surgery. That isn't "hateful", it's reality.

Nobody can tell, by looking at a man, whether or not he has had cosmetic surgery to his genitals. Indeed, nobody can tell if he's taking synthetic cross-sex hormones either. The castrated man with the inverted penis and the man taking feminising drugs and the man who is simply playing dress-up all look the same. Assuming all are playing dress-up.

I certainly don't want visual confirmation of surgery. It wouldn't make any difference if this was provided, anyway. A man's a man for aa that. Nobody can change sex, and no man has any business inserting himself into women's intimate spaces. The very desire to do so makes such a man the very last person who should be permitted to do this.

shhh..don't let this go public, but apparently some mad scientistes (make sure you pronounce that correctly) have recently discovered a means of changing one's biological sex (shortly after they allowed AI to became sentient)--it is part of a vast conspiracy by an elite cabal of satan-worshipping pedophiles (led by Trump of course) to create a master race of all females. But there is hope, some of us cis-men are quietly building a resistance!

 

[Samson]

I mean Jenner *is* a role model for Trumpism, the normalization of hypocrisy, self-destruction, and insanity.

There are no winners but the surgeons and pharma.
I only recently realised my first cousin in Oxford UK's husband is a specialist trans surgeon.
He seems the most decent person, I would love to chat to him some time for a view from the trenches.

 

[Pixel42]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

A transwoman is any male who says they identify as a woman. What they're wearing is irrelevant (though they do seem to wear dresses a lot more often than most females do), it's the thoughts in their head that matter. Figures quoted earlier in this thread suggest that only about 20% of them make physical changes to their bodies, whether by taking hormones or having surgery.

Trans rights activists insist that all of them actually are women, and demand they be treated accordingly.

 

[Pixel42]

A "man" with all those changes deserves safe space too.

Indeed. Unfortunately it's not just them that TRAs insist be granted access to female safe spaces, it's any male who is willing, if challenged, to utter a few magic words. That would include flashers, stalkers and sexual predators, and would mean there would no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.

In the long term the obvious solution is individual unisex cubicles. Interestingly there's some resistance to that solution amongst TRAs. It's almost as if getting access to female safe spaces is more important to them than their safety (and far more important than the safety of females).

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed. Unfortunately it's not just them that TRAs insist be granted access to female safe spaces, it's any male who is willing, if challenged, to utter a few magic words. That would include flashers, stalkers and sexual predators, and would mean there would no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.

In the long term the obvious solution is individual unisex cubicles.
Interestingly there's some resistance to that solution amongst TRAs.It's almost as if getting access to female safe spaces is more important to them than their safety (and far more important than the safety of females).

They resist this for a similar reason they resist the idea of three categories in sport... Men's, Women's and Open.

They know full well that no actual biological females will ever compete in the Open category. They will only ever be competing against transwomen and a smattering of males. This will not satisfy their desire to do what they really want - to win, with their icing on the cake - the beating and humiliating of actual women.

 

[Rolfe]

A "man" with all those changes deserves safe space too.

Absolutely. Men should not be making men's spaces unsafe for nonconforming men. And to be fair I don't see much evidence that they are.

But women's spaces need to be entirely off limits.

 

[stanfr]

Indeed. Unfortunately it's not just them that
TRAs insist be granted access to female safe spaces, it's any male who is willing, if challenged, to utter a few magic words. That
would include flashers, stalkers and sexual predators, and would mean there would no longer be any such thing as female safe spac
In the long term the obvious solution is individual unisex cubicles. Interestingly there's some resistance to that solution amongst TRAs. It's almost as if getting access to female safe spaces is more important to them than their safety (and far more important than the safety of females).

I've heard this argument over and over from the right (not saying you are right) and sure, on the surface it seems reasonable.
But on what scientific or statistical basis do you arrive at the conclusion? There are laws on the books that forbid the behavior you describe, and they aint going anywhere. There are never gonna be security guards standing at the entrance to every 'female space' asking people what sex they are. So how exactly are self-id laws (or whatever you are implying the TRAs want by a 'few magic words') gonna change things? How are they gonna make the behavior you describe significantly more likely to occur? I've seen the presentation of supposed examples of this happening in practice, and on a case-by-case basis the vast majority don't hold up.

 

[Pixel42]

The difference is that, currently, if a male enters a female safe space and behaves inappropriately, the women know that all they need to do is raise the alarm and something will be done about it. If TRAs get their way, women will know that if a male enters their safe space and behaves inappropriately, there's a real chance that they will find themselves being accused of a hate crime if they object. That in itself is going to make many women (especially victims of sexual violence and harrassment) much more reluctant to even enter what were previously female safe spaces.

 

[d4m10n]

There are laws on the books that forbid the behavior you describe, and they aint going anywhere.

Whether Agee Merager violated those laws depends on whether the California criminal courts rule that they had a legal right (under state nondiscrimination law) to be nude in a space formerly reserved for females. Right now the cultural clash is between activists who believe civil rights laws need to protect male-bodied people in such situations and the more traditional sort of folks who prefer the old "laws on the books" which date much further back in common law countries.

 

[smartcooky]

The difference is that, currently, if a male enters a female safe space and behaves inappropriately, the women know that all they need to do is raise the alarm and something will be done about it. If TRAs get their way, women will know that if a male enters their safe space and behaves inappropriately, there's a real chance that they will find themselves being accused of a hate crime if they object. That in itself is going to make many women (especially victims of sexual violence and harrassment) much more reluctant to even enter what were previously female safe spaces.

After their encounters with cosplayers, neither of my daughters will use public toilets now unless they absolutely have to. They will hold on, or ask to use the facilities in a commercial premises rather rather than use the public facilities.

 

[stanfr]

Whether Agee Merager violated those laws depends on whether the California criminal courts rule that they had a legal right (under state nondiscrimination law) to be nude in a space formerly reserved for females. Right now the cultural clash is between activists who believe civil rights laws need to protect male-bodied people in such situations and the more traditional sort of folks who prefer the old "laws on the books" which date much further back in common law countries.

Well, how has that law played out? Has Merager been cleared of all charges? I get the 'cultural clash'--I just find it suspicious how these isolated cases like the Wi spa case turn into rallying cries. Hence my request for stats.

 

[stanfr]

The difference is that, currently, if a male enters a female safe space and behaves inappropriately, the women know that all they need to do is raise the alarm and something will be done about it. If TRAs get their way, women will know that if a male enters their safe space and behaves inappropriately, there's a real chance that
they will find themselves being accused of a hate crime if they objectThat in itself is going to make many women (especially victims of sexual violence and harrassment) much more reluctant to even enter what were previously female safe spaces.

I didn't ask for speculation, I asked for *evidence*!