angrysoba
Philosophile
That seems like a good thing.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
angrysoba
Philosophile
In this case, the woman to man trans-sexual did not seem to fit in at all in any social context as far as I could tell. That said I only met them on one occasion.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
No takers, I assume we can all agree this proposal is silly.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I think it's brilliant.
TRAs keep trying to back door this nonsense. Putting it front and center changes the conversation.
Does he get access to the women's restroom because he says he wants to?
Does he get access because it's medically prescribed?
It's amazing to me that the legislature have been handed such a clear and compelling watershed question. I hope the biological essentialists make the most of this opportunity.
Louden Wilde
Muse
Not sure. I thought the congresswomen I saw on the news leading the charge (to make the TW rep use the men's room) articulated the issue well. That being said, Dems are calling it bullying, and if the ruling gets made quickly/without much discussion, I'm concerned too much of the electorate will agree. Best case may be if there is some discussion and if there are a few Dems who (openly) agree.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Set the example from the top. He is a man cosplaying as a woman, so he should have no right to use women's safe spaces, no matter who he is, and no matter where they are.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
What do the women who use them say? Permission for this particular individual to enter their safe spaces should come from them.
I agree. The individual concerned does attempt to pass it seems to me, has no history of abuse and has probably been using women’s toilets for some time.
Check "power couple" Erin Friday and Zooey Zephyr.
So called trans women, who are spreading the virus with vehemence.
Erin Friday explains:
"Speaker Johnson has returned to a press gaggle to double down on targeting Sarah McBride, stating:
“Let me be unequivocally clear: a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and a man cannot become a woman,” he said. “But I also believe that we treat everybody with dignity.. We can believe all those things at the same time.”
Johnson appears to be going forward with Mace's attempt to ban Congresswoman McBride from bathrooms.
The party cannot hold back their cruelty, and McBride's presence promises to drive them mad."
It will be important to watch closely whatever happens here - if Republicans have the votes to do as controversial a thing as banning a fellow congresswoman from the bathroom, there's little in the way of anti-trans laws that they will not likely pass.
My fiancée, Rep. Zooey Zephyr will be on CNN's The Source with Kaitlin Collins tonight at 9:50pm Eastern.
Discuss in the chat tonight."
So called trans women, who are spreading the virus with vehemence.
Erin Friday explains:
"Speaker Johnson has returned to a press gaggle to double down on targeting Sarah McBride, stating:
“Let me be unequivocally clear: a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and a man cannot become a woman,” he said. “But I also believe that we treat everybody with dignity.. We can believe all those things at the same time.”
Johnson appears to be going forward with Mace's attempt to ban Congresswoman McBride from bathrooms.
The party cannot hold back their cruelty, and McBride's presence promises to drive them mad."
It will be important to watch closely whatever happens here - if Republicans have the votes to do as controversial a thing as banning a fellow congresswoman from the bathroom, there's little in the way of anti-trans laws that they will not likely pass.
My fiancée, Rep. Zooey Zephyr will be on CNN's The Source with Kaitlin Collins tonight at 9:50pm Eastern.
Discuss in the chat tonight."
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Good that a change has been made that people don't like, which makes them uncomfortable, and may cause some people to avoid the facilities altogether?
angrysoba
Philosophile
Well, it’s good if it inhibits would-be rapists from slipping into female toilets, no?
Rolfe
Adult human female
It's very far from silly. Why does he want this concession? Everybody knows he's a man, so it's not a question of "outing" him. (As if he could pass anyway, given his height and build.) Does he really think he's going to be assaulted in the men's room on Capitol Hill? It beautifully illustrates his real motivation. He wants to pee beside the women and force the women to accept him in their space.
It's the perfect opportunity for the men to "be kind" and demonstrate inclusivity.
it's also the perpetual issue of precedent. If there is a special class of men who are allowed to use the women's room, even if it's just one person, it becomes impossible to keep any of them out. That's discrimination. How dare you discriminate against me because I have a beard, or because of the clothes I wear, or because I'm not making the effort that other guy has made to look feminine in a head and shoulders shot! I know "the thin end of the wedge" is a cliché, but that's what it is.
No men in women's private spaces.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Good that women have to share with the would-be rapists all the time, so no stealth required?
Rolfe
Adult human female
See above about slippery slopes. And he is known to be a man in womanface so no woman is going to be deceived, and he doesn't remotely "pass" anyway.
Rolfe
Adult human female
These women are unlikely to be a homogenous group. Who gets to decide? Is one handmaiden socialised to "be kind" enough to overrule the wishes of other women who want female only spaces? If even one woman objects, is that enough? What about new people coming in?
This needs a clear ruling, and since it's perfectly obvious that letting one special man in eventually leads to any man who wants to being included in the "special" group, it has to be no men at all.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Here's an example. How do you allow one man in womanface into the women's room, against what will undoubtedly be the wishes of at least some of the women there, and then exclude another?
He's entitled, he's narcissistic, and he has male aggression coming out of his ears, imperfectly cloaked in "poor me" crybullying. It's all about him, only he matters. These are two identical single use cubicles, one for men and one women, but he only "feels safe" in the one designated for women. He has obviously made the woman who objected, and her children, feel pretty unsafe.
It would be just the same if there were regular men's and women's rooms, it's just that the arrangement here highlights how dishonest this "I only feel safe here" shtick is. He's mentally ill. But he's a man, and men need to step up and deal with these men, not pity-shame women into taking on the job.
The main point, however, is that once you've made a ruling that the man who has made a supreme effort to look feminine in a head and shoulders shot is allowed in, despite women's objections, you can't keep this guy out of anywhere. The principle has been conceded.
ETA. Here's another one, even more extreme. Where do you think this one wants to pee? How is it possible to exclude him from women's spaces if a man has the official, legal right to use the women's facilities on Capitol Hill?
This is a crucially important test case and I hope sanity prevails. And all you people who are telling women that there's no reason why a man who appears to pass (in a head and shoulders shot) shouldn't have the right to use their private spaces, remember that by advocating for him, you're de facto advocating for these charmers, and thousands like them, to have the same privilege. Because they'll claim it, have no doubts.
He's entitled, he's narcissistic, and he has male aggression coming out of his ears, imperfectly cloaked in "poor me" crybullying. It's all about him, only he matters. These are two identical single use cubicles, one for men and one women, but he only "feels safe" in the one designated for women. He has obviously made the woman who objected, and her children, feel pretty unsafe.
It would be just the same if there were regular men's and women's rooms, it's just that the arrangement here highlights how dishonest this "I only feel safe here" shtick is. He's mentally ill. But he's a man, and men need to step up and deal with these men, not pity-shame women into taking on the job.
The main point, however, is that once you've made a ruling that the man who has made a supreme effort to look feminine in a head and shoulders shot is allowed in, despite women's objections, you can't keep this guy out of anywhere. The principle has been conceded.
ETA. Here's another one, even more extreme. Where do you think this one wants to pee? How is it possible to exclude him from women's spaces if a man has the official, legal right to use the women's facilities on Capitol Hill?
This is a crucially important test case and I hope sanity prevails. And all you people who are telling women that there's no reason why a man who appears to pass (in a head and shoulders shot) shouldn't have the right to use their private spaces, remember that by advocating for him, you're de facto advocating for these charmers, and thousands like them, to have the same privilege. Because they'll claim it, have no doubts.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Seriously, people, what are you proposing here? Some sort of "passing" test, so that only men who manage to satisfy [who?] that they can make themselves look sufficiently feminine have right of entry? Who decides? Do they have to go in front of a panel, while wearing their best make-up? Do they get a photo-ID card they can show to prove they have the right to stay, even if a woman objects? How long is it valid for?
Is there an appeals process, where a man in (imperfect) womanface gets to bring his friends to swear that they'd never have guessed he's a man? Complaints of discrimination in 3... 2... 1...
Most men can be made up to look feminine, with the right resources. Think about Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, or Robin Williams in Mrs Doubtfire, or indeed Antonio Banderas in that cameo in Paddington in Peru. The same amount of effort has gone into the appearance of the congressperson in question. But when the makeup comes off and the hairpiece is discarded and the beard allowed to grow in a bit and the smart ladies business suit is hung up in the wardrobe, the person reverts to what they really are, a man.
And actually, I didn't have to look too hard to find a picture of him looking pretty masculine, even though he's wearing the hair and the clothes and some makeup.
Do we add to the rules that he's only allowed in the women's bathroom when he's had his hair and makeup done, and is dressed accordingly, or does he still get to go in the day he shows up in jeans and a sweatshirt with three days of stubble?
No, because he shouldn't be there at all. It's an important test case for the very reason that he is presenting such a curated appearance. Because first, that appearance is temporary, just as Dustin Hoffman's and Robin Williams's and Antonio Banderas's appearance as female characters on-screen was temporary. It could be discarded in minutes. But mainly, because he is a man and this is a gross transgression of women's private spaces being forced on women whether they like it or not. And it would create a precedent that would be exploited by every cross-dressing lumberjack on the planet.
Remember, it started out as I just described. Psychiatrists treating cross-dressing men decided it was beneficial for their patients to pretend to be women, and taught them how to do it. They were taught not just to look as feminine as possible, but to behave themselves so as not to make women overtly uncomfortable (allegedly). They were given letters they could show to any authorities who might be called, to prove they had been given permission by their psychiatrists to be there. And we ended up where we are, where any man at all just has to say "I identify as a woman, this person is transphobic and I am the victim of a hate crime" to be allowed to do whatever he wants. Reference the Wii Spa affair.
We have the opportunity to start to reverse this. We definitely should not be conceding the beach-head the moment the first shot has been fired because Dustin Hoffman showed up in full makeup.
Is there an appeals process, where a man in (imperfect) womanface gets to bring his friends to swear that they'd never have guessed he's a man? Complaints of discrimination in 3... 2... 1...
Most men can be made up to look feminine, with the right resources. Think about Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, or Robin Williams in Mrs Doubtfire, or indeed Antonio Banderas in that cameo in Paddington in Peru. The same amount of effort has gone into the appearance of the congressperson in question. But when the makeup comes off and the hairpiece is discarded and the beard allowed to grow in a bit and the smart ladies business suit is hung up in the wardrobe, the person reverts to what they really are, a man.
And actually, I didn't have to look too hard to find a picture of him looking pretty masculine, even though he's wearing the hair and the clothes and some makeup.
Do we add to the rules that he's only allowed in the women's bathroom when he's had his hair and makeup done, and is dressed accordingly, or does he still get to go in the day he shows up in jeans and a sweatshirt with three days of stubble?
No, because he shouldn't be there at all. It's an important test case for the very reason that he is presenting such a curated appearance. Because first, that appearance is temporary, just as Dustin Hoffman's and Robin Williams's and Antonio Banderas's appearance as female characters on-screen was temporary. It could be discarded in minutes. But mainly, because he is a man and this is a gross transgression of women's private spaces being forced on women whether they like it or not. And it would create a precedent that would be exploited by every cross-dressing lumberjack on the planet.
Remember, it started out as I just described. Psychiatrists treating cross-dressing men decided it was beneficial for their patients to pretend to be women, and taught them how to do it. They were taught not just to look as feminine as possible, but to behave themselves so as not to make women overtly uncomfortable (allegedly). They were given letters they could show to any authorities who might be called, to prove they had been given permission by their psychiatrists to be there. And we ended up where we are, where any man at all just has to say "I identify as a woman, this person is transphobic and I am the victim of a hate crime" to be allowed to do whatever he wants. Reference the Wii Spa affair.
We have the opportunity to start to reverse this. We definitely should not be conceding the beach-head the moment the first shot has been fired because Dustin Hoffman showed up in full makeup.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Saw a dude walking down the street last night, on my way to the neighborhood bar. It was dark, and from a distance the silhouette was almost stereotypically feminine: skirt and top, making the outline of the traditional ladies' room icon. But, you know, the gait. And the closely-trimmed beard that was clearly visible as we passed each other. I might have had some lingering doubts if he'd been clean shaven. But the lighting was poor and I wasn't inclined to stare.
I'm willing to make an exception for men who can pass successfully in a well-lit ladies' room. If they get their jollies listening to women tinkle in the adjoining stall while they do the same, fine. I'm sure there are lots of women who do the same. I'm sure there's lots of men thinking dirty thoughts about their fellow men at the urinals.
The point is, nobody gets a free pass. So to speak. And women should have the legal entitlement to eject any man who simply puts on womanface to try to gain access.
It's that legal entitlement that is the crux of the issue. Nobody is saying men (and women) will stop behaving badly in ladies' rooms from time to time. What we're saying is it absolutely should not be made a crime to eject men from the ladies' room.
I'm willing to make an exception for men who can pass successfully in a well-lit ladies' room. If they get their jollies listening to women tinkle in the adjoining stall while they do the same, fine. I'm sure there are lots of women who do the same. I'm sure there's lots of men thinking dirty thoughts about their fellow men at the urinals.
The point is, nobody gets a free pass. So to speak. And women should have the legal entitlement to eject any man who simply puts on womanface to try to gain access.
It's that legal entitlement that is the crux of the issue. Nobody is saying men (and women) will stop behaving badly in ladies' rooms from time to time. What we're saying is it absolutely should not be made a crime to eject men from the ladies' room.
Rolfe
Adult human female
No. It will always be possible for such men to deceive women, if they're prepared to go against all the rules and go where they're not entitled to be and not wanted. And maybe they'll get away with it, at least sometimes.
But they should have no legal right to be there. We can't have men mounting the defence that they "can pass successfully in a well-lit ladies' room" as proof that they're doing nothing wrong and should be allowed to continue doing it. You can't surely want to make the ability and desire to mount a successful deception into some sort of free pass.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If we can just get all the Congressmen to abstain from the vote, then we'll have a situation where Congresswomen grant or withhold their permission.
In reality, though, it will probably pass along party lines with little substantive discussion.
Last edited: