Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Smartcooky's schtick is that all transgender people are rapists

This is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lie!! STOP MAKING ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME.... YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME SO SHUT UP!!!

...thus he "logically" assumes all TRAs are all rape apologists.

They are. As Emily's Cat correctly points out, these are people who are directly involved in advocating for chemical and surgical intervention in children in order to interrupt puberty to keep them locked into a body that its prepubescent, making them nice vulnerable targets for paedophiles. of which there are plenty among SELF-ID TIMs... five times that of the general male population, dozens of times more than the general female population. @d4m10n can pull his ostrich act all he likes, but facts are very stubborn - they don't care about your feelings - your feeling won't thange them. You and he can handwave and run away from the facts all you like, they won't be changing.

The tide on this IS turning. Its started with the US, and it will spread.

 

[angrysoba]

This is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lie!! STOP MAKING ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME.... YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME SO SHUT UP!!!

This is for emphasis.

 

[smartcooky]

Meanwhile Australia moves to replace Unisex toilet facilities with 'All-Gender' toilet facilities:



Australia is considering making changes to build all-gender toilets. What are they?

I don't know what his problem is... if this person has a cock between his legs, they should use the mens; if they have a card-swiper they should use the women's... its that simple.

I can tell you that TRA's will oppose this move, as they have always opposed any move that takes away their perceived right for their girly feels to override a woman's right to dignity and privacy, and to wave their lady dicks in front of the faces of women who object to their presence in women's safe spaces.

 

[d4m10n]

Glenn v. Brumby is a discrimination in employment case, and that is all it is!

Trans rights activists (TRAs) have anti-discrimination in employment as one of their major talking points.

If you doubt this, look up any civil rights group which promotes trans rights and search for "employment" on their website.

And FWIW, I too believe it was decided correctly

There you go, blithely parroting TRA talking points. But I was told "if you support TRAs than you are exactly as bad as they are." Next you're going to tell me that it's okay for YOU to promote their talking points, it doesn't make you a bad person or a TRA because you only repeat the talking points which are sensible and not at all vile.

So let me get this right... you support Trans Rights activitists in ALL the vile things they do?

No, that was obvious reductio ad absurdum. You are the one suggesting that supporting any talking points makes someone a full blown TRA via guilt by association.

 

[d4m10n]

locked into a body that its prepubescent

Facts are stubborn things and so far no one has even tried to show this claim to be true, though it has been oft repeated here by the TRAs are paedo-activists wing of the so-called scientific skeptic community.

From what I've read in the Cass Report and elsewhere puberty blockers are typically used for fewer than four years before moving on to cross-sex hormone therapy, which is what happens in the vast majority of cases. There are some very rare exceptions to this pattern (https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-106012) but those don't show up in the cases reviewed by Cass or her outside experts.

 

[d4m10n]

Shame on all the proponents. You ALL know this.

What proponents are you talking to here?

Who is still here in this thread arguing for "surgeries on kids to affirm" or what-have-you?

Do I have them all on ignore or something?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, I'll try again.

If someone needs something like cross-sex hormones, then we can count them as actually trans at the point of intake.

What I'm getting from this is that if a fully intact male, with completely functional testes and penis, is taking at least some dosage of exogenous estrogen... then you're convinced that they're "real trans" for the purpose of statistics. No surgery required of any type, just easily available hormones which are pretty much prescribed on demand by places like Planned Parenthood and the various gender-focused clinics.

Does your view extend to prison placement?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, you are another person quoting me saying something I never said.

I am not interested in playing nice, and I am not asking you to play nice either.

What I am pointing out is your inaccuracy.

I will say again that the articles were each about gay men preying on gay minors. But because of your idée fixe you people are only capable of focusing on some sentences about "trans activism".

Ahem...

Because you seem to be incapable of thinking about the entirety of the issue all together... PEDOPHILES HAVE HOPPED ON TO TRANSGENDER ACTIVISM AND ARE USING IT TO FEED THEIR OWN SICK PERVERSIONS AND TO GAIN EASIER ACCESS TO KIDS THAT THEY CAN RAPE.

You seem to be horrifically unaware that several of the TRA talking points about medical treatment of minors - topics that have become hardline items on which activists are unwilling to budge - were developed by pedophiles, and support pedophile ends.

 

[Emily's Cat]

...and these are the types of scumbags EC, Rolfe and I rail against, and whom @d4m10n and @angrysoba don't seem to have any problem with.

If a teacher tried that crap on with my granddaughter at their school, he's gonna regret it.

To be fair, @d4m10n does have a problem with males using female showers etc. in schools. They're the one who first brought up the Illinois judge's opinion that teenage females in schools don't have a right to visual privacy from males, pretty much greenlighting peeping toms.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Smartcooky's schtick is that all transgender people are rapists, thus he "logically" assumes all TRAs are all rape apologists.

No nuance here, folks.

Be fair, Orphia, that's not smartcooky's position.

Their position is that transgender activism and self-id has been completely taken over by males exploiting a gigantic gaping loophole in order to perv on children and females. Note that this does not exclude transgender identifying males, as they are still males - and any of those males who demand access to female intimate spaces or services is actively violating female boundaries in a way that is unacceptable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Trans rights activists (TRAs) have anti-discrimination in employment as one of their major talking points.

Sure. And they also pretend that opposition to males in female sports is one and the same with employment discrimination. But it isn't. The pushback against the TRA's isn't about employment discrimination. They already won that battle. But they keep harping on it because it gives them an air of legitimacy even when they advance crazy self-ID crap. Even though there's no real opposition to that part. That's not what the actual debate is about. Why are you uncritically accepting their framing of the debate, when it's clear that this isn't the actual point of contention?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trans rights activists (TRAs) have anti-discrimination in employment as one of their major talking points.

Transgender people already have anti-discrimination laws on their side, there's really nothing more needed. It's already illegal to discriminate against people for not conforming to clothing, make-up, and other presentation standards specific to their natal sex. Doing so has been interpreted as sex discrimination for ages.

On the other hand... some TRAs want to have special exceptions made for trans identifying people in roles that are explicitly sex-limited for appropriate reasons. For example, some trans identifying males want to be able to treat females who request a female caregiver or medical provider for intimate services. Some want to be able to override the requests of a female rape victim, and do their post-rape exam, because they feel that their affirmation and gender identity is more important than the victim's request for a same-sex caregiver.

 

[d4m10n]

What I'm getting from this is that if a fully intact male, with completely functional testes and penis, is taking at least some dosage of exogenous estrogen... then you're convinced that they're "real trans" for the purpose of statistics. No surgery required of any type, just easily available hormones which are pretty much prescribed on demand by places like Planned Parenthood and the various gender-focused clinics.

Yes.

Does your view extend to prison placement?

No.

Transgender people already have anti-discrimination laws on their side, there's really nothing more needed.

If you think that is acceptable, it helps to demonstrate my point: Many of us here in this thread already accept at least some "TRA talking points" if we're being honest with ourselves about what the relevant activist groups claim to want.

It's already illegal to discriminate against people for not conforming to clothing, make-up, and other presentation standards specific to their natal sex. Doing so has been interpreted as sex discrimination for ages.

There is a commonsense exception here for cases when sexed costume matters (e.g. theatrical troupes can ask people to dress one way or another) but this is all basically true.

On the other hand... some TRAs want to have special exceptions made for trans identifying people in roles that are explicitly sex-limited for appropriate reasons. For example, some trans identifying males want to be able to treat females who request a female caregiver or medical provider for intimate services.

Can we agree that accepting the "TRA talking point" about how it is wrong to "discriminate against people for not conforming to clothing, make-up, and other presentation standards specific to their natal sex" does not mean we have to accept this more extreme "TRA talking point" as well? Some people here seem to sincerely believe that "if you parrot their talking points, then YOU are a TRA as well."

 

[smartcooky]

Sure. And they also pretend that opposition to males in female sports is one and the same with employment discrimination. But it isn't. The pushback against the TRA's isn't about employment discrimination. They already won that battle. But they keep harping on it because it gives them an air of legitimacy even when they advance crazy self-ID crap. Even though there's no real opposition to that part. That's not what the actual debate is about. Why are you uncritically accepting their framing of the debate, when it's clear that this isn't the actual point of contention?

 

[smartcooky]

That doesn't matter for my purposes here, which is to show that most of us here in this thread already accept at least some "TRA talking points" if we're being honest with ourselves about what the relevant activist groups claim to want.

And you accuse me of reducto ad absurdum?

I guess some TRA's think that murder is wrong, and are against racism, and that the death penalty is abhorrent. Some might even think that lasagne should not contain onions, or that French fries should be dipped in a milkshake before eating. That being the case, anyone who thinks those things must be a TRA right?

Wrong?

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that "talking points" are those things that are EXCLUSIVE TO THE GROUP IN QUESTION. "TRA talking points" are those things that ONLY TRAs agree with. Its analogous to "dogma" or "propaganda" or "articles of faith"

 

[d4m10n]

"TRA talking points" are those things that ONLY TRAs agree with. Its analogous to "dogma" or "propaganda" or "articles of faith"

This is obviously untrue.

Trans rights talking points are the points which trans rights groups like to promote as within the ambit of trans rights, whether broadly accepted (or not) in any given social context. You don't get to Humpty Dumpty us here.

 

[d4m10n]

Why are you uncritically accepting their framing of the debate, when it's clear that this isn't the actual point of contention?

You seem to be confusing my framing with theirs; plenty of that going around these days.

To clarify once again, my (centrist, non-partisan) framing is that we should take these issues one at a time instead of making it all into a team sport where admitting the truth or utility of any one "TRA" talking point means scoring an own goal.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to be confusing my framing with theirs

You are accepting their framing, quite explicitly.

To clarify once again, my (centrist, non-partisan) framing is that we should take these issues one at a time instead of making it all into a team sport where admitting the truth or utility of any one "TRA" talking point means scoring an own goal.

Why on earth do we need to take the employment issue at all? There's no disagreement about it here. EVERYONE here thinks that discrimination in employment based on trans identity shouldn't be permitted. Bringing it up when there is no disagreement, but acting as if there is, serves no legitimate purpose.

 

[d4m10n]

Why on earth do we need to take the employment issue at all? There's no disagreement about it here. EVERYONE here thinks that discrimination in employment based on trans identity shouldn't be permitted. Bringing it up when there is no disagreement, but acting as if there is, serves no legitimate purpose.

As already explained, I was bringing up a "TRA talking point" which we all agree with to serve as a counterexample to the claim that one must accept all TRA talking points or else reject all TRA talking points as a package. All-or-nothing is an activist framing, not a centrist framing.

 

[Ziggurat]

As already explained, I was bringing up a "TRA talking point" which we all agree with to serve as a counterexample to the claim that one must accept all TRA talking points or else reject all TRA talking points as a package.

No you weren't. You brought it up in response to smartcookie's statement that "if you support TRAs than you are exactly as bad as they are." Which isn't the same thing, at all. You have to accept all the TRA positions in order to support them, but you DO NOT have to reject every single thing in order to NOT support them. In particular, accepting Glenn v. Brumby doesn't constitute supporting TRA's, even if that's agreement on one particular point. Agreement on one point isn't support, particularly when that point isn't even really in dispute.