Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

That was from 2016, and even then less than half of females age 30 or older were in support. The only thing that skews it to 55% for females is very young people. Views have changed since then. In particular, we've now learned that over 80% of transgender identified males are intact, and that rather changes our tolerance.

Ooh, I didn't clock that one was nearly 10 years old! I did reply with two almost identical surveys from Britain about five years apart, 2020 and 2024, showing that public attitudes to trans people transgressing sex boundaries had hardened considerably even in that time.

I remember the whole gay rights and equal marriage thing. The more people learned about the issues, the more accepting they became of these objectives. With the trans thing, the more people learn about the issues the less accepting they become. Funny that.
 
There are a lot of things you have no idea about.

I'm actually skeptical the interior of a women's bathroom is so dramatic. While I'm sure there are miscarriages and menstrual accidents, I don't think they're that common nor affected by the transwoman peeing a few stalls over.
 
Well... agreed. Like I've said, 99+% of the time, that's the reliable barometer. In some fringes, it's not.

Last summer, I saw someone in the park where I walk my dog. Young person, 20 or so, and the most perfectly androgynous human I've ever seen. I wasn't eight feet away, in perfect lighting, and couldn't figure out if they were male or female. It was unnerving because I couldn't clock them as anything.

With most people I clock what they want to be seen as, which usually jibes with their sex. Some guys are feminine, some gals as butch, but something just feels right about the ID. I might see a man who is unquestionably a male, but if he has long hair and makeup and a dress on, I'll probably take the shot and treat them as a woman unless I'm told otherwise. I just don't feel the need to argue with them that it's 'biological fact' that they are male. In our social interaction with each other, I don't find that to be a hill to die on

Treat him as a woman? How do you treat women? Differently from how you would treat a man? Why? I treat people as people.

Unless by that you mean, opening the door of the women's toilets and telling him he's welcome to use these, or supporting his entry for the women's category in the Parkrun.
 
I'm actually skeptical the interior of a women's bathroom is so dramatic. While I'm sure there are miscarriages and menstrual accidents, I don't think they're that common nor affected by the transwoman peeing a few stalls over.

I rest my case.
 
Not really. Biology is pretty goddamned consistent.

Except when it's not.

Even if you want to try to be very generous and include DSDs in the mix, biology has this down pat 99.8% of the time. And bear in mind that the majority of the most common DSDs doe not present with any genital ambiguity at all - they present with either infertility or with a failure of puberty to follow the expected path. If we're talking about DSDs in which there's some degree of uncertainty on visual observation of sex at birth, we're talking about biology being right 99.997% of the time.

Biology is. Right and wrong are human constructs. Gender dysphoria is likely a product of biology.
 
So what? The people who have that (whatever is actually meant by that catch-all term) are still male and female, the sex that was coded in their genes when they were conceived. That doesn't change and can never change. It's a mental condition. People who think they're Napoleon are not actually the Emperor of France and we don't give them command of the French economy.
 
It's not a copout at all.

There are an infinite number of possibilities between the extremes.
No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock.
I'm not married to any one of them.
Then pick one that you think is reasonable. Can you do that? Do you think there are any reasonable solutions? If so, then tell me what even one of those infinite reasonable solutions is.
I point out that one of the extremes being hard or messy doesn't mean we automatically default to the other extreme.
Straw man. Nobody thinks there are only two options. So why can't you provide one?
Now deal with what I actually say and stop trying to force me into your paradigms.
I'm not forcing you into any paradigm. Pick your own damn paradigm. I've been offering you the chance to name any solution you can think of, I'm not limiting you in any way. But you won't even do that. Instead, you're just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on everyone else's preferred solutions without offering any alternative.
 
Gender dysphoria is likely a product of biology.
Possibly. But so what? Gender dysphoria doesn't change the sex of the person who has it, regardless of whether it's the product of biology.

Again, what do you think sex even is?
 
I think it's the mentality of the men who are utterly and implacably determined that other men must be given women's stuff, and whom no argument will sway, that fascinates me. It's like arguing with committed homoeopaths, only more so.
 
I disagree trans-women are definitively male or trans-men are definitively female.
In your view, what specifically do you think is a female sex attribute that transgender identified males have? What about them is female?
In your view, what specifically do you think is a male sex attribute that transgender identified females have? What about them is male?
 
Treat him as a woman? How do you treat women? Differently from how you would treat a man? Why? I treat people as people.

Unless by that you mean, opening the door of the women's toilets and telling him he's welcome to use these, or supporting his entry for the women's category in the Parkrun.
Call them Ms or she or whatever, as appropriate.
 
Do you think body dysmorphia is biological?
I want to challenge your premise.

Do you think that schizophrenia is biological?
If you do think that schizophrenia is biological, does that then imply that a schizophrenic who believes themselves to be Napoleon is *in reality* at least partly Napoleon?

Do you think anorexia is biological?
If you do think that anorexia is biological, does that then imply that an anorexic is in some fashion *actually* overweight?
 
Then pick one that you think is reasonable. Can you do that? Do you think there are any reasonable solutions? If so, then tell me what even one of those infinite reasonable solutions is.

It's like being asked what my preferred solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should be. I don't really care about the details so long as they stop killing each other. In a similar way, we can find solutions that allow trans-people to participate in normal life without defaulting to the extreme of transwomen are men and transmen are women.

Straw man. Nobody thinks there are only two options. So why can't you provide one?

I never said anyone thinks there are only two options. I said the anti-trans people believe self-ID is unworkable, therefore we must default to the other extreme of excluding trans-people from important parts of daily life. If you acknowledge there are more than two options, why are you stuck on one of the extremes?

I'm not forcing you into any paradigm. Pick your own damn paradigm. I've been offering you the chance to name any solution you can think of, I'm not limiting you in any way. But you won't even do that. Instead, you're just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on everyone else's preferred solutions without offering any alternative.

Just like you are. The only difference is you default to the other extreme while dismissing all the possibilities in between.
 
Last edited:
I think it's the mentality of the men who are utterly and implacably determined that other men must be given women's stuff, and whom no argument will sway, that fascinates me. It's like arguing with committed homoeopaths, only more so.

Straw-man.

My actual opinion is trans-people should be included in everyday life, and that includes participating in sports and using the public bathrooms they feel comfortable with.

For those who equate being trans with schizophrenia (which is abhorrent) we also try to let schizophrenic people participate in society. They are allowed to play sports and use public bathrooms.
 
Exactly.

As much as I loathe women declaring men are lecherous if we get an erection or look in an appraisingly fashion at an attractive woman. Do women think an erection is achieved by command?

Okay, here's where I am prepared for some shade to come my way.

Males - not just human ones - are lecherous by nature. The primary drive of males across all species is to have sex and spread their seed. Evolution doesn't care at all about our social conventions. So yes, males are instinctively primed to be sexually aroused and sexually motivated.

I expect that pretty much all heterosexual male humans will look appraisingly at females they find attractive; I expect that homosexual males do the same to other males.

Most males are self-aware enough that they glance surreptitiously and appreciate inside their minds. Some males lack that self awareness, and will lasciviously ogle a 12-year-old's breasts (and anyone else's they see). Some males lack the wherewithal to keep their sex-related thoughts locked up in their brains, and allow those thoughts to spill out into the world for all to hear. Those males make life supremely uncomfortable for pretty much all females once puberty hits - and I very much appreciate that there are good males out there who will help keep them in check.

I am aware that erections almost never occur on demand (caveat for porn stars, perhaps?). I am also aware that erections can happen based on sexual thoughts. But also happen when the breeze strikes from the right angle.

And I'm also aware that the random inappropriate erections tend to calm down by the early 20s for most normally developed males ;)
 
It's like being asked what my preferred solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should be. I don't really care about the details so long as they stop killing each other. In a similar way,
That is indeed a copout.
I never said anyone thinks there are only two options.
You sure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ implied it, and absent that, most of your prior response is nonsensical.
I said the anti-trans people believe self-ID is unworkable,
Because it is. And you haven't provided any counter-argument.
therefore we must default to the other extreme of excluding trans-people from important parts of daily life.
Straw man. If a transwoman has to use the men's bathroom instead of the women's bathroom, they are no more excluded from daily life than men are.

And I don't think you actually understand what "extreme" means. An actually extreme anti-trans position would be things like wanting anti-trans discrimination in housing and employment to be legal, which to my knowledge nobody here agrees with.
Just like you are. The only difference is you default to the other extreme while dismissing all the possibilities in between.
What other possibilities? You won't even name one!

God damn, but it's worthless trying to discuss this issue with you.
 
It's shocking that you don't see the obvious parallels, here.

During the Civil Rights Era, whole towns and police forces fought against integration and the rights of black Americans. The good guys didn't back down from the fight.

Guess which side you are on in this?
Yes, those evil female oppressors keeping males down for millennia...
 
Not to jump on Thermal's question, do you present as a woman socially?
What do you think presenting as a woman socially means?

I am physically female, I am built like a female, I have female facial structure, pelvis and skeletal formation, and fairly typical female fat distribution. I have a female reproductive system.
 

Back
Top Bottom