Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,971
Didn't realize there were so many farm animals raping women.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,750
For those not in the know, John Money was a monster. He was probably confessing here.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Well... also for those that didn't realize... my point wasn't that men are horrible (after all, I am one). My point is simply that these risks don't validate prosecuting or socially repressing the innocent along with the guilty.
Who you trust is just going to have to depend upon their actual actions, not some other trait (race, sexual orientation, trans status). And very much on an individual basis, not based on your generalization of a group. Anything else is clearly prejudicial.
I do realize that all people aren't going to act this way just because I say so. But for the law to be completely fair, it must.
...unless you'd like to somehow prove that ALL trans people are necessarily deviant in such a way that every single one of them will do these sorts of things. I'd like to see that evidence if you've got it (although in this case, it would apply to the entire LBGTQ+ community, not just trans).
The human sex drive complicates things all on its own. We are still capable of controlling ourselves... all of us. It isn't dependent upon who or what we're attracted to. When we fail to do so and it harms someone... that's when the law can apply penalties. Not before... based on what... guilt by association?
...but I still have no comments on the sports stuff, mind. I can get this far, though. I propose that we at least stop the guilt-by-association nonsense implied by bringing up random cases where the law was actually broken. That has no relevance. Those were specific individuals, not an entire class of people. If we're going to condemn an entire class of people, I suggest we start with MEN (again, even though I am one). That'll make sure we get nearly all of them.
Who you trust is just going to have to depend upon their actual actions, not some other trait (race, sexual orientation, trans status). And very much on an individual basis, not based on your generalization of a group. Anything else is clearly prejudicial.
I do realize that all people aren't going to act this way just because I say so. But for the law to be completely fair, it must.
...unless you'd like to somehow prove that ALL trans people are necessarily deviant in such a way that every single one of them will do these sorts of things. I'd like to see that evidence if you've got it (although in this case, it would apply to the entire LBGTQ+ community, not just trans).
The human sex drive complicates things all on its own. We are still capable of controlling ourselves... all of us. It isn't dependent upon who or what we're attracted to. When we fail to do so and it harms someone... that's when the law can apply penalties. Not before... based on what... guilt by association?
...but I still have no comments on the sports stuff, mind. I can get this far, though. I propose that we at least stop the guilt-by-association nonsense implied by bringing up random cases where the law was actually broken. That has no relevance. Those were specific individuals, not an entire class of people. If we're going to condemn an entire class of people, I suggest we start with MEN (again, even though I am one). That'll make sure we get nearly all of them.
Last edited:
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
...and I might add that if you organize a society in such a way as to prevent arousal (prudishness)... really all you're going to get is a situation that makes it harder to learn restraint. But that's a different issue. Related, but not quite on task.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You're being very kind here Zig.
John Money was a despicable individual. His psychological experimentation on two young boys (twin brothers) led directly to both boys' suicides in their late 30s... the first from a drug overdose.... the second drove into a supermarket car park and blew his brains out with a shotgun.
He is one of those people who makes me ashamed to share nationality with. I regard him as psychology's counterpart to Josef Mengele
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Yeah, went ahead and looked him up. It ain't exactly pretty. I've heard other stories of reassignment by botched circumcision. It's not the only one out there.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
We have a group of male people who want to access all single-sex female spaces. This group includes some highly abusive people, indeed at a higher rate than men who do not belong to this group. But somehow we must let every male in this group have the access they want unless we can prove that every single one of them is an abuser?
Tell you what. Every single one of them is male. How about we just keep all male people out of female-only spaces and solve it that way.
Tell you what. Every single one of them is male. How about we just keep all male people out of female-only spaces and solve it that way.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Well, there are completely different alternatives. We can also make currently segregated spaces into entirely private spaces, for instance. But I'm not actually all that worked up about either sex seeing the other naked, either, regardless of trans status... but such things should not be forced.
Perhaps we could just add a co-ed shower or whatever for those who are okay with it. No boners allowed, of course. A guy popping a bone in the all-male shower wouldn't tend to be any more welcome.
The solutions are not always one thing or the other. Often, there are other changes available.
Trans would obviously be in the co-ed section.
And if you think all guys want to see ALL girls naked... or that NO girls want to see ANY guys naked, you're sadly mistaken. Both are pretty highly biased to what they find attractive. Even more so when they're young.
I dunno... it might seem like an invitation to sexuality for some people. But less so than you might expect. When it's every day, you tend to get less curious. And if an authority figure specifically mentions the inappropriateness of erections or any overt sexuality, I think you'll find fewer horny guys who can't handle it wanting to try it.
I mean... it's not like guys don't have external signals about whether they're horny or not. Even if you can avoid a full erection, you still tend to get partial enlargement and prejism if you're fixated on the wrong things.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
TRAs reject all those other solutions. They insist that transwomen will settle for nothing less than access to female only spaces. It's how they get their validation; they demand to be treated as if they really are women in all circumstances. The transwoman member of Congress was a case in point - despite having their own personal facilities attached to their office, and the presence of unisex cubicles throughout the Capitol, TRAs were up in arms about them not being allowed to use the women's facilities.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
And I would tend to say that this requires a full transition before it's applicable. Until then, they can just keep wanting it. That's the only way to fully screen out the pretenders.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Fortunately, we don't arrange the world exclusively according to what you personally think is acceptable.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Nor you? Times change, man. It never stops. We'll both be dead before we find out just how much the younger generations change it. And it's not like this doesn't differ by culture somewhat already.
Ultimately, I think we're both too old to be the ones who decide.
I'm not really even pushing my vision of things, really... have no skin in the game anymore. I'm way beyond the age of participation in the industrial education system (and not a teacher). I very seldomly even use a public restroom. I'm just saying there are more than two options. The most obvious option is the one that the prudes are most squeamish about, yes. But if the older generations got to decide such things, we'd still think that an exposed ankle was sexy.
They'll figure it out... the same generation that brought it up. Trust them. They're the ones that have to live with it. Not you. Definitely not me. As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't require any new laws. It's a culture thing, not a law thing.
I mean, when exactly did outlawing the f-word do anybody any good? That's the sort of hypocrisy that mandating culture gets you. It doesn't work.
I say let 'em try it both ways... and in ways we've never thought of. Let one institution do it differently than another. I'm fine with that... as long as the people actually affected have a say. I'm not affected.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
You have no skin in the game. Unfortunately, every woman who doesn't want to share toilets and changing rooms and single-sex spa facilities with perverted men has skin in the game. Literally.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
And fewer of them have a problem with that than you imply. Otherwise, pure peer pressure would solve it.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I can't see how you can possibly know. One problem is that as many as half the population aren't up to speed either on the vocabulary or on what is at stake. The term "transwomen" is often interpreted as meaning women who identify as men. When the questions are made crystal clear (which is often not the case), opinion polls show a high percentage of women being opposed to men being allowed into women's single-sex spaces. (You try asking the question you have just answered, whether women want to share toilets and changing rooms and single-sex spa facilities with perverted men and see what answer you get.)
Also, nobody can give consent on behalf of someone else. So what if one or two women don't have a problem with "Sonia" in a bad wig, pancake makeup and heels getting off on listening to them pee, they don't have the right to invite him in against the wishes of women who don't consent.
Also, nobody can give consent on behalf of someone else. So what if one or two women don't have a problem with "Sonia" in a bad wig, pancake makeup and heels getting off on listening to them pee, they don't have the right to invite him in against the wishes of women who don't consent.
Last edited:
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
...and I suspect that reflects how few men are doing it? I mean, it's probably not 1:1, but social pressure takes care of these things to a degree. Maybe a few of these men even learned not to do that from the experience if they were clearly unwelcome.
It's not like dudes our own age weren't trying to see women naked all the time when we were younger. Remember "Porky's" ? Art imitates life.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Not clearly prejudicial, no.
When the owners of a traditional Korean spa separate (nude) customers into spaces based on sex, they are acting based on "generalization of a group" but the generalization happens to be true, and it is this: People are significantly less uncomfortable with public nudity when they only have to encounter other people of the same sex. This is culturally conditioned (at least to some extent, though modesty tends to be cross-cultural) but it's okay for people to preserve their own cultural norms around sex and it's not justifiable to accuse them of prejudice without better evidence than the fact that they have taken culturally relevant factors into account.
For a less directly-on-point example, we don't judge people on "an individual basis" when asking whether they are old enough to qualify for a driver's license, a liquor license, a license to distribute medical marijuana, or basically any license issued by the state. While there are no doubt some minors who could do such things with grace and aplomb, we still set a hard age limit.
Is there an age below which you would not recognize someone's ability to consent to sex acts? Sex change? If so, is that unduly prejudicial?
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, you can suspect all you like. Women have been socialised (brainwashed) to believe they have to "be kind" to the most marginalised and oppressed group on the planet, that is white heterosexual middle-aged middle-class men who get off on LARPing their stereotypical image of a 1950s housewife. They're so troubled and they only want to pee, surely you can choke down your discomfort and let them get on with it. I was like that myself once. So when faced with the simple question, should transwomen be allowed into women's single-sex spaces, a lot of women will say yes on that basis. A bunch more will say yes because they think a transwoman is a butch lesbian. Opinion polls like that don't reveal very much.
But now we have everything from Alex Drummond to Eddie Izzard demanding free entry so that they can "expand the boundaries of what it is to be a woman" (Drummond), women are increasingly getting fed up with it. The internet is flooded with territory-claiming selfies taken by men of themselves posing or masturbating in the women's toilets. There is a photo of Eddie Izzard (not a selfie) actually masturbating in the queue for the ladies' toilets. The essentially fetishistic drivers of this behaviour are becoming better understood. But social pressures imposed by the trans lobby are pushing against any protest against this.
Voyeurism and exhibitionism used to be crimes. They still are. But suddenly, if a man declares himself to be trans, it's the woman who objects to this who is branded a bigot and a transphobe. Women don't like being called these names, and even less being reported to the police for a hate crime, so the social pressure on them is to shut up and suck it up. Yes, we know that men, and not only young men at that, will try to see women naked if they can. That's why the proposition that any man who wants to should be able to come into our changing rooms is not universally welcomed, shall we say.
You want to let them all in because you think they're not all perverts, and it would be unfair to exclude the hypothetical ones who aren't. I want them all kept out, because as sure as God made little green apples, some of them are.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
I was talking specifically about the argument that some pedo taking advantage means that the whole class of people should be tarnished, there. It shouldn't be taken more generally than that. Yes, trans is different because of the way we segregate things. I'm not even certain that the guy in the article was even trans. He was just the guy that created the Pride group.
Rolfe
Adult human female
You really need to keep up with the debate, and examine the issues in more than superficial detail.
You seem to be saying that all men who assert a trans status should be allowed free entry to women's single-sex spaces because to do otherwise would "tarnish a whole class of people". Why? They're men. Men have not, historically, been allowed free entry into women's single-sex spaces, and as far as I know nobody claimed that that was tarnishing a whole class of people. Just maintain the rule where men do not get to go into women's spaces. What exactly is your problem with that?
You seem to be saying that all men who assert a trans status should be allowed free entry to women's single-sex spaces because to do otherwise would "tarnish a whole class of people". Why? They're men. Men have not, historically, been allowed free entry into women's single-sex spaces, and as far as I know nobody claimed that that was tarnishing a whole class of people. Just maintain the rule where men do not get to go into women's spaces. What exactly is your problem with that?