It *does* stretch across the culture. We routinely exclude males from spaces where females are naked or vulnerable. And that isn't restricted to transwomen - all we're doing is clarifying that transwomen are still males.
Look, can we set aside the entire rape discussion? It's an artificial limitation, and it elides one of the actual material problems: voyeurism and exhibitionism.
Transwomen should be denied the fiction of being female, nothing more. They should be free to dress and present however they wish, without harassment or harm.
First off, no it hasn't been accepted. In some areas it has been *mandated* over the very loud objections of the majority of female citizens. And it continues to be objected to and challenged every single day because we females did NOT consent to it at all. Often, the decision was made by one set of males to allow a different set of males to override female boundaries on the basis of magic words.
I don't know what the ◊◊◊◊ you're talking about either, Thermal.
Also, Bailey didn't construct the device in question - it was brought by a guest lecturer.
The lead author, J Michael Bailey. Or first of the two authors listed, however you want to say 'the first human name visible on the page'.
This is the psychology professor Thermal thinks is not a well-accredited expert in the field (with 192 publications in peer-reviewed journals and 13, 685 citations).
You are being dishonest. Again, almost no transpeople have DSD's. To the extent that people with DSD's represent anything "intersex" (and they almost never do, they are still overwhelmingly clearly male or female), they are irrelevant to the issue of transpeople. This debate has NOTHING to do with DSD's. It is ENTIRELY about how to treat developmentally normal males and females who want to be treated as if they are the other sex, to what extent the rest of society is obligated to do so, and how much of a difference various degrees of "transition" should affect that.
www.pewresearch.org
Elaedith, please stop. I know he is very accredited in his field. Many experts are brilliant in their field, yet still absolute yahoos if they take a step out of their lane, Linus Pauling being the classic poster boy.
No, that's just a conspiracy theory on your part. As I'm sure you well know, The Man Who Would Be Queen was met with scathing criticism, which was predictable, but as I haven't read it, I make no comment. It may well be that his findings were sound, but unacceptable to the trans community. But you are 100% in tin foil hat territory to insist that trans activists took over the Southern Poverty Law Center. His membership in HIB was real, as were the other white supremacist and anti Semitic eugenics-dedicated members.
More tin foil hattery. Scientists and researchers generally go with the data. No one else is finding what the three musketeers so desperately insist that we take as gospel. As long as their work on AGP is largely put on the crank shelf (and don't forget Blanchard actually gave input to DSM-5, who he couldn't convince to accept his zany postulates),then I'm not taking them that seriously either. When their work on the subject gets some peer acceptance (after decades being well-publicized), I'll be happy to defer to the experts.
What evidence is there to present? It's definitional. Seriously, what do you think the word "male" even means? It's one thing to try to invest "woman" and "man" with cultural meaning separated from biology, but "male" and "female" are exclusively biological. "Sex change" operations don't actually change your sex, even if they give the cosmetic appearance of having done so.
No I am not going to stop. And he didn't 'step out of his lane'.
The supply of false information by trans activists that Bailey supported eugenics to eliminate gay people to the SPLC is documented in Dreger's account. The piece by SPLC includes all the lies that were cooked up by activists as part of their campaign. He was on a listserv discussion list which included a wide range of people including Pinker and a number of other prominent evolutionary psychologists, presumably to discuss scientific issues (you know, that thing researchers are supposed to do rather than morally grandstand and focus on being popular and socially acceptable).
No one is finding anything because nobody can do research on approaches that offend activists. If you were in any sense a genuine skeptic, you would be focusing your concern on that, the same way as if people couldn't conduct research that offended scientologists, creationists, or anyone else.
Public split over bathroom use by transgender people
Americans overall are closely divided on the question of which public restrooms transgender individuals should be using. But similar to the other issues
Polls show that on average women are more accepting of transgender women in female bathrooms.
I do consider it from a skeptics point of view. That's exactly how I arrived at the conclusion. Their postulate on AGP is by their own admission not evidenced. It's their postulate, that they are enamored with. When they (or anyone else) can come up with evidence and replicate findings, great. That's what skeptics value.