Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Point taken. Still, I have sympathies for men who have physically transitioned.
I understand that there's a deep subconscious sympathy involved. I get it. Have you given any thought to what is prompting that sympathy?

Here are a few things for consideration:

1) A male who physically reads as male (broad shoulders, tall, muscular, square jawed, 5-0'clock shadow, big hands and feet) comes into the male restroom. Do you think that male is likely to be physically attacked by other males while in the restroom? Or just looked at a bit funny?

2) A male who has surgically transitioned (orchiectomy and penectomy) strips down naked in the male showers. Do you think they are likely to be pinned down and raped? Ogled?

3) In either of those situations, how much of your sympathy is actually for them, as opposed to an empathetic response based on the realization that they make you uncomfortable, and you assume that your discomfort is a judgement on them? In other words, displacement?

4) How much of your sympathy is vicarious, based on how you think you would feel if you lost your masculinity in such a way?
Most restrooms are part of commercial establishments. That complicates things even further.
I don't think it does, not really. A private establishment could absolutely label all of their restrooms as unisex. I have no problem with that. Many private establishments have single-service restrooms usable by either sex, one at a time... and that's not a problem at all. What I want is truth in advertising - if the sign says "Women's Restroom", I expect that those using it will be female. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask for.
 
I understand that there's a deep subconscious sympathy involved. I get it. Have you given any thought to what is prompting that sympathy?

Here are a few things for consideration:

1) A male who physically reads as male (broad shoulders, tall, muscular, square jawed, 5-0'clock shadow, big hands and feet) comes into the male restroom. Do you think that male is likely to be physically attacked by other males while in the restroom? Or just looked at a bit funny?

2) A male who has surgically transitioned (orchiectomy and penectomy) strips down naked in the male showers. Do you think they are likely to be pinned down and raped? Ogled?

3) In either of those situations, how much of your sympathy is actually for them, as opposed to an empathetic response based on the realization that they make you uncomfortable, and you assume that your discomfort is a judgement on them? In other words, displacement?

4) How much of your sympathy is vicarious, based on how you think you would feel if you lost your masculinity in such a way?

I don't think it does, not really. A private establishment could absolutely label all of their restrooms as unisex. I have no problem with that. Many private establishments have single-service restrooms usable by either sex, one at a time... and that's not a problem at all. What I want is truth in advertising - if the sign says "Women's Restroom", I expect that those using it will be female. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask for.
You're overthinking things. I care about their well-being in the same general way I care about women's well-being, in the same general way ...etc.

Truth in advertising doesn't solve the problem that you laid out.
 
Jesse Singal at a talk in which he argues why he thinks journalism did such a bad job covering youth gender medicine. Part of it, he argues, is that there was a failure decouple moralizing with factual claims. He gives some examples of past issues with this failure to decouple: false memories in the Satanic panic in which a true lack of previous willingness to listen to children who have been sexually abused was replaced with an all willingness to believe incredible "recovered memories", and a later one in which a dangerous form of cancer treatment was conducted despite insurance companies not believing the expensive treatment was worth covering.

I think it's quite a good nuanced talk in which he points out that yes, indeed, many kids who are "gender non-conforming" have been treated badly but that that is separate from the question of whether youth gender medicine works. Singal argues that the first is true. As with the second, the answer is "we don't know".

 
I'm pretty sure it's a whole lot less of an issue than you're assuming.

The vast majority of males are visibly male. That doesn't change when they have an orchiectomy and penectomy. At the end of the day, we're a predominantly physically dimorphous species. There are some few people out there that are truly androgynous, and where an average person genuinely can't tell whether they're male or female... but not many. Children pre-puberty can be a challenge, because kids pretty much all look like kids from the outside. At the other end, you get very obese people, where the fat can mask indicators - but I'm not talking about overweight or "technically obese" because BMI calc says so, I'm talking about actually morbidly obese to a point where the fat on their faces masks the facial indicators associated with sex. And even then, there are frequently visual indicators that make it clear 90% of the time - females have breasts that are still identifiably breasts even if they're super fat; males still have facial hair. The number of people who are not morbidly obese adults who are truly androgynous are very few. It can happen, but it's not at all common.

To follow on from that, let's jump in the way back machine and talk about how things worked 20 years ago. One of the lines that gets trotted out is "you've had transsexual males using your spaces forever and you never knew so why should you care now". Well, the reality is that we DID know most of the time. Maybe once in a while we'd get the rare small-statured male with small feet and hands who'd had a LOT of surgery done including facial feminization and tracheal shaving, and we couldn't tell - but that was rare. Most of the time, we could tell that Lumberjack Leanne was probably actually Larry, but we pretended not to notice, and we didn't make a big deal of it.

We pretended because we had confidence that someone with clinical expertise and care had already thoroughly vetted Larry, and at the time, we believed those clinicians had female interests in mind when doing their vetting. We trusted the doctors to look out for us, so any male that ended up in our spaces trying to pass as a woman had already been deemed "safe". And we assumed that they had all had orchiectomies and penectomies. The past couple of decades has demonstrated that we were woefully wrong on both counts. Turns out that over 80% of those historical transsexuals still had completely intact genitals... and even worse, we've learned that the clinicians that we trusted didn't actually give FEMALES any consideration at all when deciding that "this male is allowed to use female spaces". They didn't consult us, and they had only enough care to help train the male how to not make us immediately uncomfortable so that they wouldn't get called out. There was never any actual evaluation for whether the male in question represented a risk or could exploit our good graces.

And over the last 20 years, the entire approach has shifted radically. Now, transgender activists have pushed to remove ANY gatekeeping at all, as well as ANY expectation of surgical transition, and even support the notion that transgender identified males shouldn't even be expected to TRY to pass. Now, the rhetoric is that anyone who say's they're "a woman" has to be treated as if they're a female, and given access without question to female-only spaces on threat of being labeled a bigot - and in some countries prosecuted for hate crimes.

What trust we used to have is irrevocably lost. Where we're at right now is a complete ban to males in female spaces, with no discussion and no exceptions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, let's take just a moment for some practical reality. Even if the rule is set in stone, and it's no exceptions whatsoever, we're not going to be doing pants-checks at every door. It's impractical and unnecessary. In the rare event that a male sufficiently passes as female (see Blair White for example) that our radar doesn't go off... they're probably not going to be challenged. If they pass enough that we don't suspect that they're male, we're probably going to let it go. But "passing" only works as long as we 1) never see a penis and 2) they don't behave in a way that makes our hackles rise.

And that is why this cake is not going to be unbaked. I regularly see handwringing posts and articles from trans identifying men who want to be considered "real trans" and to continue to have the unassailable right to go into female-only spaces, to the effect that we just have to get back to the days when the Eddie Izzards and Alex Drummonds of this world were in the gents so that the pressure is off the "good guys" who are assumed to be trying to pass and to feel real distress if they have to go where they belong.

One, there's no possible way to enforce that. Let one man in and the rest of them will just scream about discrimination, and be given what they want.

Two, there's no possible way to police it. If there is a subset of men who are allowed in women's spaces, how can women tell who is allowed and who isn't?

And three, we now know the entire boiling of them are motivated by sexual fetish, one way or another. We know there was never any consideration for women's safety, modesty or comfort even back in the day when there was some gatekeeping by psychologists. They were basically training perverts to get past our guard and our defences.

We are not going to let any of that happen again once this current mess is cleared up.
 
Last edited:
I think this is something men in particular have difficulty with. That (apart from rare cases where the desire to transition has its roots in severe psychiatric illness such as borderline personality disorder) this is all sexual fetishism. Even Blaire White is doing it as part of his sexual presentation as an extremely feminine homosexual man. Most of them are simply run of the mill autogynaephiles.

Men who don't have these fetishes find it difficult to understand. They have sympathy for the poor tortured souls who feel so bad they're driven to humiliate themselves by wearing women's clothes and even cutting their genitalia off. They join the chorus urging women to "be kind" because they find the underlying perversions incomprehensible, and don't actually want to think about that part.

Women seem to find it easier to believe that men can and will and do behave like this, and once the penny has dropped (the process now known as "peaking"), are more likely to move to a hard-line position of no men in women's spaces, none at all, and frankly precious little sympathy other than the general sympathy one might feel for anyone driven by an uncontrollable fetish to beclown themselves in public.
 
Last edited:
New case at employment tribunal in UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8p41z972vo

A Fife nurse who was suspended after complaining about sharing a changing room with a transgender colleague has begun giving evidence at an employment tribunal.

Sandie Peggie claims being made to get changed beside Dr Beth Upton - who is a trans woman - amounted to unlawful harassment under the Equality Act.

Case is being livetweeted via tribunaltweets
https://x.com/tribunaltweets?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

The cross examination of the nurse by the lawyer for the NHS has been notably aggressive.
 
Last edited:
It's completely "you could just have sucked it up, couldn't you?" All the concern for the 20-something man who only discovered his inner womanly feelz a year or two ago (and all the pictures available of him show a very obvious man), and none at all for the feelings of the woman whose privacy has been invaded.
 
I completely understand. If it helps, in my case the decision is made easier by the question of financially supporting the artist. A certain author has all of my money that she will ever get. I won't go into details because I would be risking another suspension.

Ported into this thread, as this seems to be where it would not risk being off topic. Since we all know who is being referred to here, I would like to be told just one thing that Joanne Rowling has said or done that justifies refusing to buy any more of her output. We all know what Neil Gaiman is alleged to have done, and can weigh up our own decision about whether to continue buying his books. But we still don't know why anyone would refuse to buy Rowling's.
 
Ported into this thread, as this seems to be where it would not risk being off topic. Since we all know who is being referred to here, I would like to be told just one thing that Joanne Rowling has said or done that justifies refusing to buy any more of her output. We all know what Neil Gaiman is alleged to have done, and can weigh up our own decision about whether to continue buying his books. But we still don't know why anyone would refuse to buy Rowling's.
In my case, I’m just not into fantasy (aha! That could be what she is in trouble for: she is supposed to be into fantasy!).

That said, I would still buy the books for children. My own or relatives.

I am pretty sure I would not buy any Gaimam books for children even though some of them are aimed at a young audience.
 
Ported into this thread, as this seems to be where it would not risk being off topic. Since we all know who is being referred to here, I would like to be told just one thing that Joanne Rowling has said or done that justifies refusing to buy any more of her output. We all know what Neil Gaiman is alleged to have done, and can weigh up our own decision about whether to continue buying his books. But we still don't know why anyone would refuse to buy Rowling's.
She thinks the privacy, dignity and safety of 100% of women should take priority over the feelings of <1% of men. Burn her!
 
Ported into this thread, as this seems to be where it would not risk being off topic. Since we all know who is being referred to here, I would like to be told just one thing that Joanne Rowling has said or done that justifies refusing to buy any more of her output. We all know what Neil Gaiman is alleged to have done, and can weigh up our own decision about whether to continue buying his books. But we still don't know why anyone would refuse to buy Rowling's.
I think it was something to do with genocide. (Where failing to affirm a belief system is genocide).
 
Last edited:
In my case, I’m just not into fantasy (aha! That could be what she is in trouble for: she is supposed to be into fantasy!).

That said, I would still buy the books for children. My own or relatives.

I am pretty sure I would not buy any Gaimam books for children even though some of them are aimed at a young audience.

There are disturbing elements to many of them. But on the other hand, I give you the Brothers Grimm. Indeed, Hans Christian Andersen. I think children should be challenged and disturbed (to some extent) and not just given anodyne pap to read. But it's a fine line, and it's in a different place for every child.
 
There are disturbing elements to many of them. But on the other hand, I give you the Brothers Grimm. Indeed, Hans Christian Andersen. I think children should be challenged and disturbed (to some extent) and not just given anodyne pap to read. But it's a fine line, and it's in a different place for every child.
Of course. It’s not the content (though I have not read any). It’s more a case of not giving money to him.
 
New case at employment tribunal in UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8p41z972vo



Case is being livetweeted via tribunaltweets
https://x.com/tribunaltweets?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

The cross examination of the nurse by the lawyer for the NHS has been notably aggressive.
Can't have been that aggressive. Did he start by asking the nurse how she could possibly have known her colleague was male? Given that it's so hard to tell, I mean. None of us can ever really be sure, not without an arbitrary criteria and invasive genetic probing. /s
 
There are disturbing elements to many of them. But on the other hand, I give you the Brothers Grimm. Indeed, Hans Christian Andersen. I think children should be challenged and disturbed (to some extent) and not just given anodyne pap to read. But it's a fine line, and it's in a different place for every child.
I would be inclined to draw a distinction between collecting traditional folk tales, no matter how lurid, and authoring bespoke original fantasies full of problematic characters and values.

Speaking of values, a lot of those old folk tales did start out as parables that reinforced the values of their community. "Keep bringing in the harvest, even in the noontime heat, because if you slack off Lady Midday will appear and behead you" is a somewhat brutal but practical message to teach your farming community's children.

Conversely, "imprison your muse, rape her if you have to" is a horrible message to teach to anyone in any society, let alone modern western society.

So is "if you don't want men in women's sports you're worse than Hitler", but here we are.
 
Ported into this thread, as this seems to be where it would not risk being off topic. Since we all know who is being referred to here, I would like to be told just one thing that Joanne Rowling has said or done that justifies refusing to buy any more of her output. We all know what Neil Gaiman is alleged to have done, and can weigh up our own decision about whether to continue buying his books. But we still don't know why anyone would refuse to buy Rowling's.
In this day and age, speaking the truth that biological sex is immutable, and advocating for human rights for women will get you cancelled by the gender cult
 
Can't have been that aggressive. Did he start by asking the nurse how she could possibly have known her colleague was male?
Strangely, yes; and IIRC got told height, receding hairline, large hands and feet ...

Yesterday's highlight from the NHS lawyer was Q: Are you homophobic?; A: No, my daughter is a lesbian

Today's highlight from the NHS lawyer was not understanding statistical significance in academic reports on male and female patterns of criminal offences.

This case is covering a lot of ground, and is scheduled to run to the end of next week.
 
Last edited:
I would be inclined to draw a distinction between collecting traditional folk tales, no matter how lurid, and authoring bespoke original fantasies full of problematic characters and values.

Speaking of values, a lot of those old folk tales did start out as parables that reinforced the values of their community. "Keep bringing in the harvest, even in the noontime heat, because if you slack off Lady Midday will appear and behead you" is a somewhat brutal but practical message to teach your farming community's children.

Conversely, "imprison your muse, rape her if you have to" is a horrible message to teach to anyone in any society, let alone modern western society.

So is "if you don't want men in women's sports you're worse than Hitler", but here we are.

Yes. I'm re-evaluating some of what he wrote in the light of things we now know about him. I find his writing very compelling and at times highly emotional, but just what emotions it's triggering may be a different question. Once or twice I have stopped reading because I thought it was just too strong. But I'd rather have that than pap, so what do you do?
 
Yes. I'm re-evaluating some of what he wrote in the light of things we now know about him. I find his writing very compelling and at times highly emotional, but just what emotions it's triggering may be a different question. Once or twice I have stopped reading because I thought it was just too strong. But I'd rather have that than pap, so what do you do?
Stephen King says his mom distinguished between "trash" and "bad trash". He could read all the trash he wanted, but would get in trouble if he was caught reading bad trash.

I guess we're in the phase of figuring out, each for ourself, what of Gaiman's work is in hindsight bad trash.

I'm never gonna give up his book on Norse mythology. Sorrynotsorry.

As far as the topic of the thread, I think we're gonna have to reevaluate a lot of the skeptical influencers, based on how they are responding to recent developments.
 

Back
Top Bottom