Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

I know what that is, but I don't think all men who really believe they are women fall into that category. Some of them have full surgery and marry men. This is old school trans-sexuals I am talking about like whatsername on Coronation Street, for example.

No, not all do. Some are extremely effeminate gay men. Some have serious psychiatric disorders such as dissociative personality disorder. But most of them are AGP. Some create better cover stories than others though.

What's her name on Coronation Street was a fictional character written with the specific purpose of softening the British public up to the trans agenda. It was never a realistic storyline. The part was played by a woman so of course she coded female to the audience. That was very deliberate. The actress was about five feet three and petite. She had none of the physical features of a man such as height, broad shoulders, large hands and feet, Adam's apple, male pattern baldness or a baritone voice. She was obviously a woman, and a small, unthreatening one at that. She played the part as a shrinking violet.

It's fiction. It's fiction intentionally designed to manipulate the audience, and it seems to have done a very good job at it. There are no trans-identifying men in real life who are like that.

 

[jt512]

I know what that is, but I don't think all men who really believe they are women fall into that category. Some of them have full surgery and marry men. This is old school trans-sexuals I am talking about like whatsername on Coronation Street, for example.

Jan Morris is the example I always think of, they're rare but they definitely exist. I'd love to know what her opinion about the currect controversy would have been.

Brianna Wu is a well-known living example.

As I have posted multiple times, there are people—almost always boys—who are severely gender dysphoric from a very early age, often 4 or 5 years old, who don't outgrow it. This cannot be due to environment, it must be inborn. I have met one such trans-woman who was around 30 years old at the time, and I asked her what she thought about the current epidemic of teenage girls "coming out" as trans. She thought, as any reasonable person does, that it is a fad, or social contagion, as it is now called. Actually, it is worse than that, because it is not a passive social phenomenon. In fact, girls are being indoctrinated (brainwashed might be more accurate) by activist teachers, school counselors, and psychologists into believing that they are trans.

 

[angrysoba]

No, not all do. Some are extremely effeminate gay men. Some have serious psychiatric disorders such as dissociative personality disorder. But most of them are AGP. Some create better cover stories than others though.

What's her name on Coronation Street was a fictional character written with the specific purpose of softening the British public up to the trans agenda. It was never a realistic storyline. The part was played by a woman so of course she coded female to the audience. That was very deliberate. The actress was about five feet three and petite. She had none of the physical features of a man such as height, broad shoulders, large hands and feet, Adam's apple, male pattern baldness or a baritone voice. She was obviously a woman, and a small, unthreatening one at that. She played the part as a shrinking violet.

It's fiction. It's fiction intentionally designed to manipulate the audience, and it seems to have done a very good job at it. There are no trans-identifying men in real life who are like that.

Nah, that was back in the 90s. It wasn’t part of the modern trans movement at all.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't. Telling someone that
facts they know to be true are based on some confusion of reality with a porn fantasy is both rude and inappropriate.... and AFAIC, completely unacceptable!

The one thing lacking on both sides of this issue is a reasonable representation and interpretation of facts.

 

[Rolfe]

Nah, that was back in the 90s. It wasn’t part of the modern trans movement at all.

It goes a lot further back than you realise.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It goes a lot further back than you realise.

Tell us more. Were Jews involved somehow? It's always the Jews.

 

[theprestige]

Good question. For the most part, those are protections. I think it is obvious that the protections are there specifically to protect women from biological men. Therefore it makes no sense to unlock a back door to the prisons, bathrooms and women's sports.

But does that mean that some men, apparently some of them even in early childhood, not really believe themselves to be born in the wrong body?

No, I think that many of them are genuine about that. So it is not a case of "getting to do women stuff", it is just a case of them really, genuinely believing they are.

I have no understanding of why they think this, but I think that policy around jails and sports and toilets can be separate from that...

I think it's all one and the same policy. If you don't need womanhood in the form of jails and sports, then you don't need womanhood in the form of toilets and pronouns. The whole thing is an entirely made-up privilege set that has absolutely nothing to do with science, medicine, or humanitarian concern.

Ivor's problem is that he has no idea what he's actually arguing for, or why. He just takes it on faith that being for it is sufficient rebuttal to those who are against it. Even though he brings nothing to the table in support, while those who are against are bringing receipts.

 

[d4m10n]

the logical inference is that there should just be unisex single bathrooms, each with sink and toilet and locks.

Just yesterday I was at a swim meet where hundreds of competitors needed to get through the locker rooms relatively quickly. We have unisex single change rooms on site (I've posted a photo of one somewhere way upthread) but not nearly enough to facilitate that volume of users, hence the need for expansive single-sex change rooms.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think it's all one and the same policy. If you don't need womanhood in the form of jails and sports, then you don't need womanhood in the form of toilets and pronouns. The whole thing is an entirely made-up privilege set that has absolutely nothing to do with science, medicine, or humanitarian concern.

Ivor's problem is that he has no idea what he's actually arguing for, or why. He just takes it on faith that
being for it is sufficient rebuttal to those who are against it. Even though he brings nothing to the table in support, while those who are against are bringing receipts.

I am for not demonising a whole (sub-)group of people for their mental illness / sexual preference just because a small minority of them are violent.

I am for not calling males/females by female/male pronouns or accepting any of the other nonsense made up terms to avoid offending mentally ill and/or stupid people.

I guess I don't wave either side's flag. Perhaps both sides can come together and hate me instead?

 

[Elaedith]

I am for not demonising a whole (sub-)group of people for their mental illness / sexual preference just because a small minority of them are violent.

I am for not calling males/females by female/male pronouns or accepting any of the other nonsense made up terms to avoid offending mentally ill and/or stupid people.

I guess I don't wave either side's flag. Perhaps both sides can come together and hate me instead?

Not wanting any sub-group of males in female spaces is not demonising any sub-group of males. I have never found a person who thinks it's ok for males to use female spaces at will, except for those males who identify as trans. Have you? Aside from which there is no way to let only one sub-group of males use female spaces, which we have already gone over many times.

 

[theprestige]

I am for not demonising a whole (sub-)group of people for their mental illness / sexual preference just because a small minority of them are violent.

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different if it were actually about social transition as a prescribed medical treatment for a diagnosed mental illness.

I am for not calling males/females by female/male pronouns or accepting any of the other nonsense made up terms to avoid offending mentally ill and/or stupid people.

Nobody is asking you to wave either side's flag (though I would posit that you can't really go amiss waving the women's flag in the face of the men's side, at least a little bit, for a number of reasons that have been discussed at length in this thread).

We're just asking you to acknowledge the problems of fiat self-ID as public policy, and attempt to come up with a solution that doesn't involve disenfranchising women and demonizing everyone who objects to fiat self-ID.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My opinion is that incarcerated women should be allowed to vote on this issue.

Which 'women'? The ones born with cervixes, or the ones born with prostates?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not wanting any sub-group of males in female spaces is not demonising any sub-group of males. I have never found a person who thinks it's ok for males to use female spaces at will, except for those males who identify as trans. Have you? Aside from which there is no way to let only one sub-group of males use female spaces, which we have already gone over many times.

Fine, you don't want men in spaces that have been traditionally reserved for women because you don't feel comfortable with it. There's no need to pretend that this is anything more than a cultural norm.

Islam and gender segregation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Emily's Cat]

What percent?

What percent of violent sexual predators being given the entitlement and special privilege of ignoring female boundaries and consent do you think is appropriate?

What number of females being assaulted or raped do you think is acceptable collateral damage in order to not hurt the delicate feelings of some males?

 

[Emily's Cat]

In other words, the US locks up far more people (men, women and miscellaneous) than the UK

Well yes, the UK does just keep setting their pedophiles loose with a slap on the wrist for some unfathomable reason.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well yes, the UK does just keep setting their pedophiles loose with a slap on the wrist for some unfathomable reason.

No, we give them jobs at the BBC.

 

[Manger Douse]

Fine, you don't want men in spaces that have been traditionally reserved for women because you don't feel comfortable with it. There's no need to pretend that this is anything more than a cultural norm.

Islam and gender segregation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They're traditionally reserved for women because men rape women overwhelmingly more than women rape other women

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, demands for evidence in this case, or any other case, is a completely justifiable skeptical requirement for accepting any claim.

I challenge your assumption.

For example: Setting up banks that run on the honor system and leave all the drawers unlocked will result in theft increasing and a lot of people losing their savings.
Skeptic: Provide proof that this actually happens.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because the latter is orders of magnitude more significant a risk than the former. Violent males are a small proportion of all males. Transsexual males are a very small percentage of all males.

If TERFs were serious about wanting to protect women from violent males they would spend far more of their time campaigning for interventions that lead to fewer violent males in society rather than strict public toilet enforcement.

Perhaps the TERFs would feel safe if an officer from the Met police was placed outside public toilets to make sure the weirdos don't get in?

OH FFS! Females ALREADY do a huge amount of campaigning and efforts to address MVAWG! Seriously, have you even bothered to look into the very most basic stuff going on out there when it comes to females?

The issues it that self-declaration with special entitlements INCREASES the already egregiously high risk, so females (regardless of whether you denigrate them with slurs or not) very sensibly object to taking on increased risk.

Your post comes across as a deflection. It's as if you're saying "Well, even though allowing a group of males to have significantly easier access to female victims on the basis of magic words increases risk for females... females shouldn't be allowed to address that until after females have somehow magically managed to stop all males from preying on females in any other situation"

JFC. A diet high in sugar is bad for your health and contributes to obesity. Increasing the amount of sugars used in food by using concentrated corn syrup is even worse than refined cane sugar. By your logic here... Nobody should be allowed to argue against replacing cane sugar with corn syrup until after we've solved the problem of obesity across the board.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What percent of violent sexual predators being given the entitlement and special privilege of ignoring female boundaries and consent do you think is appropriate?

What number of females being assaulted or raped do you think is acceptable collateral damage in order to not hurt the delicate feelings of some males?

That assumes additional females will be raped by violent sexual predators being allowed in female public toilets than are raped now by violent sexual predators in all locations. Why would this be the case? What is it about public toilets that offer significant protection against violent sexual predators? Isn't it just as likely a women using a unisex toilet might have the chance a man will help her out dealing with a violent sexual predator?