Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Asking for a straight answer without you retreating or changing the subject is insulting?

You are asking me to answer for a position that I do not hold. You think I want to punish trans people. That is insulting, and false.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am pointedly not. Learn to read.

You’re right. You are just taking up the mantle of Bob the coward in his absence.

 

[smartcooky]

Reading.

ETA: Try it! Take the blinders off for what you think you said, and just read the words as you composed them.

This is just a cop out. You explain your own reasons... I'm not doing your homework for you!

 

[Rolfe]

I guess I am literally on ignore, then. The irony, it burns.

 

[Pixel42]

For about five minutes in human history, we actually reached a situation where if women said "NO" to men, they were listened to. Then men found a whole new way to say, but we are the masters and we say "YES".

There is something both surreal and appallingly predictable about a bunch of men discussing which other men they will decide women have to tolerate in their single-sex spaces. It seems it was ever thus.

You know what? No genital inspections. None. I do not want to know what a man has in his pants, and if I ever find out, the situation has gone a long way in a direction I do not want it to go in at all. We can tell the difference between men and women perfectly well, with clothes on. The really, really easy way is, no men in women's spaces. None at all. Then we don't have to do any of that genital inspection thing, or even "papers please" (which would be forged anyway).

An assumption that men discussing this issue always make is that men will try to get in anyway, even if they're not legally allowed in. Funny thing though. Until about last Tuesday they generally didn't. Yes there were the so-called "true trans" LARPers trying it on, but there weren't many of these, and the point is that if they put so much as one size-13 foot wrong, they were in the wrong and the concerned women could challenge them and call for the attendant. Or even the cops. Lets try going back to that. It worked quite well. As opposed to the current situation where a man can do pretty much what he likes, and it's the woman who challenges him who gets called a transphobe and charged with a hate crime.

You are all making a bit too much of the danger of rape or sexual assault. Yes it happens and there are lists of "transwomen" who have attacked their victims in the women's toilets if you want them. Voyeurism is another issue of course. But the widespread, universal concerns are propriety, modesty and decency. These are particularly acute for women who have been the victims of severe sexual assault and women of certain religious groups, but they are issues for the majority of women. We don't want men in our intimate spaces because they're men, not primarily because we think they'll rape us.

As someone said on Twitter yesterday, "My husband and my two grown-up sons are absolutely lovely men who would never hurt any woman. I vouch for them. They should be allowed in women's single-sex spaces." Well we all know it doesn't work like that. Consent isn't transferable, and one women's belief that a certain man is "safe" doesn't need to be accepted by another woman on trust. And any man, no matter how nice, is a violation of what should be a women-only space.

Men with identity issues should not be women's problem to solve. Women's spaces are not therapy rooms for mentally ill men. Find another solution. We have got to the stage where if a certain class of men see any space at all that has "Women only" at the entrance, all he can think about is getting in there. Toilets, changing rooms, social media apps, rape crisis centres, a small boutique gym, the girls' swimming team. Doesn't matter how much provision there is that is open to men, including trans-identifying men, they want in the women's space. And if threats of violence don't work, he'll go to law. Maybe ask why. (The gym thing was just ridiculous. A woman set up a small gym in London just for women, and was immediately piled on by TRAs from all over the world insisting that this was transphobic and she MUST include men as well, and issuing all sorts of threats. There are plenty mixed gyms around, but their point is that there must not be any facility where they aren't allowed. Apparently it's fine to have trans-only facilities though.)

The very LAST men who should be allowed in women's single-sex facilities are the ones who want to be there. That should be fairly obvious.

It's probably true that some men will try to gain entry anyway. But they hardly ever pass, not in the flesh, a few feet away, and that goes double if they open their mouths. If the very occasional convincing ladyboy gets away with it because nobody notices, well, it's not ideal but that's life. Perfection is seldom attainable. What we need is to go back to the situation where these spaces were genuinely single-sex, and any man who thought he would go in anyway is putting himself in the position that someone may object to his presence, and she will be in the right.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Sherkeu]

Because if the concern is the assumption of rape by males, that laudable concern would stretch across the culture, not be restricted to transwomen.

Eta: a sign on a door doesn't stop a violent criminal, and the idea that he is buying himself a couple seconds of being "allowed" in the space before ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ raping is absurd.

The answer?
DO NOT tell males they can pretend to be women, and be afforded every accommodation.

A man isn't allowed, still, in my daughters lockers.
BUT : A transwoman is, who is male, and is protected, WITHOUT any requirement other than self ID.

How sad is that?

I am so mad I even had to warn my little girl of all this. For years now due to CA law.
And I had to worry about these perverts taking advantage of the law here.
Now she is old enough to understand it and the guidance is:
Never get in the pool against a male in official female sports competition. Ever. For any reason.
EVER.

Also: "Never feel you have to treat a male 'as if' they were a female. Trust your gut. Don't be forced to be uncomfortable.
You are not obliged to be their young pretty fetish-feeding prostitute."


RAPE is not required to have some rules. That "not a rape crime" level of protection on our girls is ridiculous. Have some decency.

Hope you are not a victim of growing up in rape culture. (I'm not, but I see a lot of it in Europe nowadays)

 

[smartcooky]

For about five minutes in human history, we actually reached a situation where if women said "NO" to men, they were listened to. Then men found a whole new way to say, but we are the masters and we say "YES".

There is something both surreal and appallingly predictable about a bunch of men discussing which other men they will decide women have to tolerate in their single-sex spaces. It seems it was ever thus.

You know what? No genital inspections. None. I do not want to know what a man has in his pants, and if I ever find out, the situation has gone a long way in a direction I do not want it to go in at all. We can tell the difference between men and women perfectly well, with clothes on. The really, really easy way is, no men in women's spaces. None at all. Then we don't have to do any of that genital inspection thing, or even "papers please" (which would be forged anyway).

An assumption that men discussing this issue always make is that men will try to get in anyway, even if they're not legally allowed in. Funny thing though. Until about last Tuesday they generally didn't. Yes there were the so-called "true trans" LARPers trying it on, but there weren't many of these, and the point is that if they put so much as one size-13 foot wrong, they were in the wrong and the concerned women could challenge them and call for the attendant. Or even the cops. Lets try going back to that. It worked quite well. As opposed to the current situation where a man can do pretty much what he likes, and it's the woman who challenges him who gets called a transphobe and charged with a hate crime.

You are all making a bit too much of the danger of rape or sexual assault. Yes it happens and there are lists of "transwomen" who have attacked their victims in the women's toilets if you want them. Voyeurism is another issue of course. But the widespread, universal concerns are propriety, modesty and decency. These are particularly acute for women who have been the victims of severe sexual assault and women of certain religious groups, but they are issues for the majority of women. We don't want men in our intimate spaces because they're men, not primarily because we think they'll rape us.

As someone said on Twitter yesterday, "My husband and my two grown-up sons are absolutely lovely men who would never hurt any woman. I vouch for them. They should be allowed in women's single-sex spaces." Well we all know it doesn't work like that. Consent isn't transferable, and one women's belief that a certain man is "safe" doesn't need to be accepted by another woman on trust. And any man, no matter how nice, is a violation of what should be a women-only space.

Men with identity issues should not be women's problem to solve. Women's spaces are not therapy rooms for mentally ill men. Find another solution. We have got to the stage where if a certain class of men see any space at all that has "Women only" at the entrance, all he can think about is getting in there. Toilets, changing rooms, social media apps, rape crisis centres, a small boutique gym, the girls' swimming team. Doesn't matter how much provision there is that is open to men, including trans-identifying men, they want in the women's space. And if threats of violence don't work, he'll go to law. Maybe ask why. (The gym thing was just ridiculous. A woman set up a small gym in London just for women, and was immediately piled on by TRAs from all over the world insisting that this was transphobic and she MUST include men as well, and issuing all sorts of threats. There are plenty mixed gyms around, but their point is that there must not be any facility where they aren't allowed. Apparently it's fine to have trans-only facilities though.)

The very LAST men who should be allowed in women's single-sex facilities are the ones who want to be there. That should be fairly obvious.

It's probably true that some men will try to gain entry anyway. But they hardly ever pass, not in the flesh, a few feet away, and that goes double if they open their mouths. If the very occasional convincing ladyboy gets away with it because nobody notices, well, it's not ideal but that's life. Perfection is seldom attainable. What we need is to go back to the situation where these spaces were genuinely single-sex, and any man who thought he would go in anyway is putting himself in the position that someone may object to his presence, and she will be in the right.

What an outstanding post Rolfe - containing much truth that speaks to many of us men who are strong supporters of women's rights.

By arguing here, I do not consider myself to be one of those males who is "discussing which other men they will decide women have to tolerate in their single-sex spaces". Rather, I am one of those men who think that women should be the only ones allowed to decide who they allow into their single-sex and safe spaces. Men have no business being involved in making these decisions, except in support.

I am a father to two women, a grandfather to three teenage girls and an ex-partner to a lovely woman who I still care very much about. I also have very dear friends and colleagues who are women. I know that they would agree 100% with your post, even the youngest granddaughter who is 15.

As you will remember, my daughters have both had frightening encounters with a couple of these unsavoury self-ID TIMs. It shook them up quite a bit, and I found it disturbing how little support they got from the local Police. I care very much about their futures, and have been doing my best to set them up so that they are well equipped to protect themselves and each other when I am no longer around.

 

[Rolfe]

Just continuing to discuss what rights men should be granted to invade women's spaces as if I hadn't posted at all was quite the take.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908410106418540943

Here's another.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908202954592604440

And this happened too.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1894412705404010497

I'm growing tired of these posters, who come across as pure men's rights activists, who repeatedly dismiss all examples of trans infamy with "but you can't exclude these people because in doing that you might also exclude some men I think are OK." It's all about pandering to the wants of the men, and what women might want isn't even worth considering.

 

[Rolfe]

AHAHAHAHAHA! i forgot about this guy. Its Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw! This is the brilliant mind that picked up a reciprocating saw from Home Depot (Sawz-All for the construction guys out there), fitted it with a dildo, and had a guy go to town on his partner with it in front of students! The school asked him "wtf is wrong with you, man?" and cancelled his course.

The topic of AGP was recently brought up, which some are relying rather heavily on. A cursory fact check showed the thread's infatuation with this idea is wholesale bull ◊◊◊◊. It's entire reliance seems to hinge on Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw's ever so measured acumen, which kind of no one else shares.

Would somebody mind explaining this astonishing example of argumentum ad hominem to me, because I've got nothing.

 

[Thermal]

Would somebody mind explaining this astonishing example of argumentum ad hominem to me, because I've got nothing.

Oh, I gotchu fam, even though it was literally spelled out in words a child could understand:

I questioned you and others directly and repeatedly about where you were getting your somewhat whacky beliefs about AGP, since they didn't align with the available literature. I was met with an awkward silence by all of its advocates here. Finally, you presented a link without saying what it contained. It contained a letter/article that had been posted on a website.

The letter contains no original research, and only refers to other research tangentally. Their bald assertions about AGP are unsupported, and frequently factually wrong. So... it's basically an opinion piece, unless the author is a well-accredited expert in the field? So I looked up at the authors' names. Lo and behold, the lead is a well-known crank. I found it hilarious. I was literally crying.

Oh, and regarding your assertion that those were ad homs? Wrong again. I do not say the letter is not credible because it's author is a known crank. I say it lacks any factual support, and its author is a laughingstock. It was just funny as hell that of all people, that's who you would pick.

 

[Thermal]

I guess I am literally on ignore, then. The irony, it burns.

You felt that smartcooky and Ziggaraut were ignoring you? They were the posters preceding your dead-air post. Should I assume that you haven't mastered the quote feature, or are uniquely challenged by addressing comments, and assume it was directed to me? If so:

You asked me no open questions that thet needed a response from me that I am aware of. I have asked you, however, a half dozen questions and criticisms about your postings that you lacked the integrity to reply to. So if the above post was directed at me, you've got a lot of goddamned gall to claim you are being ignored.

If I am mistaken, and your dead-air post was intended for someone else, please make the massive intellectual effort of addressing your posts when there are multiple posters commenting.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, I gotchu fam, even though it was literally spelled out in words a child could understand:

I questioned you and others directly and repeatedly about where you were getting your somewhat whacky beliefs about AGP, since they didn't align with the available literature. I was met with an awkward silence by all of its advocates here. Finally, you presented a link without saying what it contained. It contained a letter/article that had been posted on a website.

The letter contains no original research, and only refers to other research tangentally. Their bald assertions about AGP are unsupported, and frequently factually wrong. So... it's basically an opinion piece, unless the author is a well-accredited expert in the field? So I looked up at the authors' names. Lo and behold, the lead is a well-known crank. I found it hilarious. I was literally crying.

Oh, and regarding your assertion that those were ad homs? Wrong again. I do not say the letter is not credible because it's author is a known crank. I say it lacks any factual support, and its author is a laughingstock. It was just funny as hell that of all people, that's who you would pick.

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Thermal]

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't believe you.

Actually, that's unfair. What part are you bogging down on? The part where it is noted that the letter lacks anything of value to the discussion, or the part where this is the most comical author you could cite?

 

[Rolfe]

Are we talking about the same thing?

 

[Thermal]

Are we talking about the same thing?

That appears to be up to you. I am using 'words' and constructing 'sentences and paragraphs' to explain myself with clarity and in considerable detail. You are using Riddle of the Sphinx style vague and vacuous rhetoric. Ball's in your court.

 

[Hercules56]

Sure they do. Someone has the same right to say they are a woman and use the women's spaces as you do to say you are a man and use the men's.

There's no dick inspection at the men's rooms I've been to. It just goes by your looks, and ya junk doesn't matter.

What happens if a man goes into the women's locker room? He gets reported and kicked out. This should happen to anyone in the women's locker room who has a penis and testicles.

 

[Rolfe]

Or even if they haven't, but they're male. No genital inspections.

 

[Rolfe]

That appears to be up to you. I am using 'words' and constructing 'sentences and paragraphs' to explain myself with clarity and in considerable detail. You are using Riddle of the Sphinx style vague and vacuous rhetoric. Ball's in your court.

I am asking you what this post means. There is some semblance of a sentence or two, but clarity and detail are conspicuous by their absence. Who are you talking about, and what bizarre incident are you referencing?

AHAHAHAHAHA! i forgot about this guy. Its Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw! This is the brilliant mind that picked up a reciprocating saw from Home Depot (Sawz-All for the construction guys out there), fitted it with a dildo, and had a guy go to town on his partner with it in front of students! The school asked him "wtf is wrong with you, man?" and cancelled his course.

 

[Sherkeu]

Oh, I gotchu fam, even though it was literally spelled out in words a child could understand:

I questioned you and others directly and repeatedly about where you were getting your somewhat whacky beliefs about AGP, since they didn't align with the available literature. I was met with an awkward silence by all of its advocates here. Finally, you presented a link without saying what it contained. It contained a letter/article that had been posted on a website.

The letter contains no original research, and only refers to other research tangentally. Their bald assertions about AGP are unsupported, and frequently factually wrong. So... it's basically an opinion piece, unless the author is a well-accredited expert in the field? So I looked up at the authors' names. Lo and behold, the lead is a well-known crank. I found it hilarious. I was literally crying.

Oh, and regarding your assertion that those were ad homs? Wrong again. I do not say the letter is not credible because it's author is a known crank. I say it lacks any factual support, and its author is a laughingstock. It was just funny as hell that of all people, that's who you would pick.

AGP is a very real thing.

I don't need some university professor or psychological researcher to tell me I am wrong, even it is in some often vaulted peer reviewed publication. I know, personally, that it is true. That is why I tell my kiddo she need not participate in the farce if it feels wrong to her. I dont prostitute my children to perverts, even when I may still consider those same men my friends.

Globally: Laws are being retracted, treatments are altered, surgeries denied. Womens right are being restored.

I'm glad the delusional policies are ending.

 

[Thermal]

Looking at Rolfe's post #3,848 above, consisting of argumentum ad tweetium, the bottom tweety is fairly horrific. It states that a serial rapist was convicted, declared himself trans, then was sent to a women's prison where, of course, he continued to rape.

The source of this horrific tale is Reduxx. Going to their original article, they even feature a newspaper clipping about it. Seems credible, no? But the boldly featured newspaper clipping is about the original arrest, with the rapist using his male name. There is no word about him being trans or in a women's prison or raping there or anything. Kind of odd that they would feature this clipping, but not a news report about the trans thing and going to a women's prison?

The article goes on to say that there is no actual reporting on this. Some unnamed claimed inmates claimed it to Reduxx. Ok. But if this is true, surely there would be some credible sourcing? So I googled the alleged trans name. Nothing. No word of this story beyond the vocally anti-trans site Reduxx, and tweeters and other anti-trans sites reposting it.

This is not an argument minimizing the threat of men in women's prisons. What I am pointing out is that the anti-trans arguers are coming across as universally dishonest, lying at every available opportunity. Endless misinformation and willful misrepresentation. It's not a good look, guys.

@Rolfe , do you have any comment on the credibility of your posting?