Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

HansMustermann said:
No, gay is not the same thing as trans. There are plenty of gay trans and straight trans. I myself was a bit of a lesbian femboy. I liked getting more attention as a girl, but I still got turned on by girls.
Click to expand...
I know. I'm relaying what a trans woman told me about her own misunderstanding of what she was as a teen
 
Thermal said:
Honestly, female posters here seem to spend an awful lot of time in gang public showers with each other. I have never as an adult taken a group shower with guys for any reason. I dont know which one of us has the unusual lifestyle, here, from the "commonly showering with strangers" approach.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that if you didn't do it, nobody else does? That it? I mean, I never went to a war, although I'm technically an AA reserve sergeant major... does that mean nobody did? :p
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I know. I'm relaying what a trans woman told me about her own misunderstanding of what she was as a teen
Click to expand...

Yet you're rejecting what an (ex)trans tells you, after decades of being a guy in a skirt. Doesn't that sound like selective confirmation? Sure does to me. I mean, at the very least, it should tell you that not all trans are created equal.
 
HansMustermann said:
They say that "evidence" is not the plural of "anecdote". ONE anecdote is even less evidence. I mean, I equally know ONE taxi driver who went trans, but I don't think it means all taxi drivers are trans. Or I knew ONE (very twitchy) taxi driver who admitted to me to using cocaine, but that's not evidence that taxi drivers use cocaine.
Click to expand...
Of course. But when I am told with sweeping arms that "everybody knows this" and not a shred of evidence, I often respond by pointing out that everyone does not share the sa.e e penitence as the speaker.

It's not me saying "I'm right". It's me pointing out that the speaker assumes wrongly about everyone else's experience.
 
No. You're told that a claim:

A. has no evidence, not biological, not in meta studies (see the Cass report), no nothing, other than someone said so themselves, aka, the ipse dixit fallacy, and
B. creates extra risks for literally more than 100 times more people.

I.e., just as much evidence as if I said I can still drive after a bottle of vodka. I mean, I can still close an eye to see straight, right? You have my word for it :p
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Of course. But when I am told with sweeping arms that "everybody knows this" and not a shred of evidence
Click to expand...

As in, the evidence that you didn't even bother reading the last page about before posting the reset that lasted for 6 pages? Your not caring to even read literally even the previous page (or for that matter even the same page that referred to it) is NOT the same thing as actual lack of evidence :p
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I saw it, and as I already replied to you, it had not a single thing to so with the question I asked.
Click to expand...

As in, not having anything to do with the extra risk to other people? Because that statistic addressed exactly that. Or did you just want to do the literal double-barrel nirvana fallacy that if it doesn't mean that A) every X is an Y, and B) doesn't make literally every single Z a victim, then it doesn't count?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Ahem...
Click to expand...
I looked back and found this, which I posted on Dec 21st, page 48.

Pixel42 said:
In most places self ID is not yet sufficient for any male to enter any female safe space, so we are mostly speculating about the likely impact of it on women's privacy, dignity and safety should it become the norm. To quantify that impact we would need to collect data before and after self ID becomes law not only on incidents of violence in toilets, gyms, prisons etc, but also on other consequences (e.g. female attendance in such places, as women simply choose not to go to anywhere they would need to undress or shower where they know there is no longer a safe space for them to do so).

But before we did that, we would also have to establish what the baseline is for an acceptable level of impact. How many additional women would need to be attacked in what were formerly female safe spaces for self ID to be considered a mistake? How much business would need to be lost by gyms and similar establishments?

My own threshold for the number of attacks on women that are acceptable in return for sparing the feelings of a tiny percentage of males who would prefer to use the sex segregated spaces of females would be none. And the anecdotal data we already have is sufficient to determine that that threshold has already been exceeded.
Click to expand...
 
smartcooky said:
Ahem...
Click to expand...
Yes. That's the driest of dry questions, asking about a statistic that everyone else seems familiar with but I not seeing anywhere. Utterly docile and conversational. And you think that's being "demanding and pissy"?

Here's wishing you improved cognitive abilities in the New Year!
 
Emily's Cat said:
If we assume that variance from the behavioral norm for each sex is evidence of being transgender....

... then variance from the behavioral norm for each sex is evidence of being transgender ;)

To oversimplify...
Click to expand...
My steel-man didn't say that. It merely said that there might be a biological basis for being trans, and that would be expressed through an interplay with gender stereotypes such that it over-states things to say that being trans is aping a stereotype.

Emily's Cat said:
Also, the "I'm not like other girls/boy so I'm non-binary or trans" thing is widespread and common among teens.
Click to expand...
That could be said because of mere social contagion or because there is something inherent in the person's biology.

Emily's Cat said:
Like it's actually the most common reported reasoning when it comes to recent identifying as trans among youth right now - they didn't like the toys or clothing associated with their sex, they didn't like the same hobbies or pasttimes associated with their sex. In many cases they'll claim dysphoria as well - but the dysphoria follows the behavioral association.
Click to expand...
 
Pixel42 said:
I looked back and found this, which I posted on Dec 21st, page 48.
Click to expand...
The post I had asked about that prompted all this was to your assertion that allowing the less than 1% of transwomen in would jeopardize 100% of females in their safe spaces. What I wondered about is if 100% of women or anything remotely close to that would be faced with a new threat.

As I'm seeing it, an attacker would not be deterred from a violent attack by a "Ladies Room" sign on a door, with or without permission. So I am wondering if there are any stats on trans women now who do so? I mean, gender neutral bathrooms have been around for a while. Hell, at Christmas I found out my wife's Catholic church tore down the men's and women's signs on their rest rooms and made them all neutral.

Then there's this idea of women taking gang showers with strangers in public. Is that really a thing? I can't think of any. I'm asking seriously: is that something that 100% of women do? 50%? 5%? 0.5%?

Also, in your 21Dec post, you say the acceptable risk to women should be zero incidents and no more. That sounds wildly unreasonable.

Serious question: Do you have that same zero tolerance risk for any other aspect of being alive anywhere, or is it solely reserved for issues of trans people? Cuz I can't see how you'd function.

So what I'm asking is how many women would actually be uniquely impacted? I feel like it's a whole lot less than 100%. And that doesn't mean I think we should just throw all the doors open to all-sex areas without restriction; since posters on this thread have been arguing for a long time, I assume some hard data has already been crunched.
 
Thermal said:
. . . .
Then there's this idea of women taking gang showers with strangers in public. Is that really a thing?
Click to expand...
The exercise gym I go to has a single room with about 8 or so shower heads with no dividers of any kind between them, just 8 shower heads in a room with a drain, and no door to the room, either (open on half of one side). It's like that for the women, too, and I'm pretty sure it's not the only gym like that.

Thermal said:
I can't think of any. I'm asking seriously: is that something that 100% of women do? 50%? 5%? 0.5%?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how many women might find themselves taking a public shower like at an exercise gym, because the only women who would possibly be affected one way or another by who turns up in a public shower are the women in a public shower. Perhaps there was some context to your comment up thread that I missed?

Thermal said:
. . . .
So what I'm asking is how many women would actually be uniquely impacted? I feel like it's a whole lot less than 100%.
Click to expand...
Assuredly less than 100% of all women, but the issue only concerns the women who wind up in a public shower, so it's 100% of them (who would be potentially impacted).
 
Paul2 said:
The exercise gym I go to has a single room with about 8 or so shower heads with no dividers of any kind between them, just 8 shower heads in a room with a drain, and no door to the room, either (open on half of one side). It's like that for the women, too, and I'm pretty sure it's not the only gym like that.


It doesn't matter how many women might find themselves taking a public shower like at an exercise gym, because the only women who would possibly be affected one way or another by who turns up in a public shower are the women in a public shower. Perhaps there was some context to your comment up thread that I missed?


Assuredly less than 100% of all women, but the issue only concerns the women who wind up in a public shower, so it's 100% of them (who would be potentially impacted).
Click to expand...
Huh. Honestly haven't seen one of them since my high schools prison style showers, built around 1960. Even my kids' college dorms had individual stalls, and all the gyms I've seen have individuals. Surprising.

And yes, 100% of the women affected would be... you know, 100% of them. I just wasn't sure how many showers and users of them we were talking about. Like, if there were a few gyms that still had prison showers, requiring them to upgrade to normal single stalls (possibly just installing privacy dividers in the existing setup) doesn't seem.like that big a deal.

Eta: although to reiterate: I don't think.its a good idea. I'm just trying to determine the realistic risk assessment. Saying 100% of women would suddenly find themselves in jeopardy seems a little off.
 
Last edited:
Thermal appears to be in the same camp as acbytesla and Ivor the Engineer

They are ignoring the fact it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain that having SelfID laws for transgender men to identify as women as of right, will allow predators (and not necessarily transgender men) exploit this law because they will be able to enter safe spaces unchallenged and with impunity. They want to see the data... data that can only come AFTER victims have been attacked, assaulted, raped and even murdered. Only then, they believe, can we make an informed decision about whether it is acceptable.

Well, I've got an idea... How about we make paedophilia, sexual assault and murder legal. I demand data to show that there would be no rise in the rates of paedophilia, sexual assault and murder! Nothing could possibly go wrong! Amirite?

Of course, we can do something a lot better... just apply commonsense!!
 
If there were no longer any such thing as female safe spaces (and that is the inevitable result of self ID), that would affect 100% of women. Well, apart from the housebound, I suppose. So not quite 100%, but near as dammit.

For a female only space to actually feel safe the women using it must be confident that, should a male enter that space, they have the right to raise the alarm and have him ejected. No ifs, ands or buts. No "but he claims to be trans so you have to put up with him exposing himself to you and seeing your naked body, even if you're convinced he's actually just a pervert who gets off on that". Self ID takes away that confidence and replaces it with anxiety. Even though the chances of anything bad happening may be low, it's always going to be a possibility. Many women, especially those who have been the victims of male sexual violence or harassment, may even stop going to places where they now feel their privacy, dignity and safety are at risk. So yes, it will affect the vast majority of women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom