theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
He literally just said that's not what he thinks.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
Ya that's the next thorn, and a tricky one. But as I said, the toxic element is a bit overpowering lately (or for the last several years), and I'm not a particularly even tempered poster. I'm not thinking the discussion has any hope of moving forward. Which is a shame, because I think bridges could actually be built if we actually worked together. But we have a few here which are committed to bridge burning (or more accurately, dwelling beneath them).
ETA: point made for me, right on time!
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
This is false. I know it seems crazy, and that people with functioning brains have a hard time believing it... but there have been at least a few thousand minor females who've had their perfectly healthy boobs lopped off - including one of my relatives. And there's a well publicized and televised case of Jazz Jennings getting a complete penectomy, orchiectomy, and vaginoplasty at 17.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
A nonviolent incident in which women felt free to report a male in their space, right?
It's never about the sign on the door, it's always about what that sign means to all the people in the building.
This is true whether the perp is physically violent or merely voyeuristic/exhibitionistic.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
But it is a safety net against opportunistic criminals.
Locking the front door to your house isn't going to keep out hardened criminals intent on robbing you. Do you therefore leave your door unlocked?
Thermal
August Member
Literally addressed this already. theprestige challenged me to address the issue. I gave my proposed position and resolution.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
If you could manage to get that codified, I'd be fine with it. It would mirror the prior situation in athletics, where there was a female-only league, and then there was a nominally male league that was actually open and never excluded females in the first place.
The doubt you're receiving here is because we're quite certain that transgender identified males would absolutely positively and loudly object to your solution. But that's a different problem.
Your proposal is acceptable to me.
Thermal
August Member
No point in exploring this one, but to answer your question: I have not locked my doors, day or night, at home or off the continent, for like a decade and a half, for reasons that might even make sense to you if spelled out.
Thermal
August Member
A) it wasn't a claim
B) I literally apologized if it was a misunderstanding, and took your advice in addressing the issue with EC
C) nice use of aggressive pronouning.
Clutch Cargo
Muse
Thank you for your input.
Thermal
August Member
Exactly. That's why i think it could fly. There is well-supported and established precedent.
It's also one that would be logically inconsistent for them to succeed with.
Thought it might be, but some of your outspoken cohorts have considered it *checks notes* incel/MRA based. So I give.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I am not comfortable with denying men their own space, since so many seem to want it. It is not equitable to allow women their own space and deny the same to men.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Ironically, that was the thorn I started with, all those years ago when this thread was in its first installment. I naively assumed trans rights was mostly a solved problem, with just a few niggly bits around gatekeeping access to public restrooms. It was only as I grappled with that problem alongside others here, that I realized...
... that yes, the toxic element was overpowering - not in this thread, but in trans rights activism itself. It's not a question of finding a good-faith approach to letting gender dysphorics use the bathroom of their choice without harassment. It's a question of profound anti-science, anti-social, and misogynistic values pervading the entirety of the current trans rights movement.
Tolerating transwomen in public restrooms isn't some last little loose end, that can be happily tied off with a little good will and compromise. It used to be. I thought it still was. But it's not. Not anymore. Now it's the thin end of a very brutal, very toxic wedge.
Not only that, but the way I see it, once you conclude that fiat self-ID is a nonstarter, and that overriding sex segregation is in no way medically necessary, the entire rest of the edifice immediately crumbles. If transwomen don't need to be in women's sports for their own health or sense of self-worth, then they don't need to be in women's restrooms either. At that point, why try to find some compromise with sociopaths, at the expense of women?
Maybe trans identity is a mental health condition. If it is, then it should be diagnosed. Following diagnosis it should be treated with the best that science and medicine have to offer. It should not be enabled and catered to, any more than any other mental health condition.
Or maybe trans identity is not a mental health condition. If that's the case, then there's no reason to upend sex segregation just to please men who are wearing womanface on the inside.
If you still want to grapple with the problem of identifying legitimate transwomen for sex segregation purposes, you could do a lot worse than choose either of those options - just for the sake of argument - and see where it leads you in terms of a policy for trans access to restrooms.
Rolfe
Adult human female
One problem with "Following diagnosis it should be treated with the best that science and medicine have to offer," is that that's what Blanchard thought he was doing when he groomed AGP men to be able to LARP womanface as well as possible, and then gave them certificates saying it was OK for them to use the women's facilities once he approved of their performance. He didn't ask women whether they consented to this, he just arrogantly assumed he didn't need to. He has declared since then that his only duty was to the AGP men who were his patients, and he had no duty of care to wider society. So suck it up, ladies.
This was actually the start of it all. An attempt to treat AGP with what was thought to be the best medicine had to offer, without considering the wider consequences. It was the thin end of the wedge, and even Blanchard's "precautions" of trying to get his patients to behave in a way he thought wouldn't upset women too much were deemed "gatekeeping" and discriminatory, and the whole thing has degenerated to a point where any man can go where he likes merely by claiming he's a woman, and any suggestion that he takes any steps to try to "fit in" is discrimination and transphobia.
This thread repeatedly founders on the refusal of the pro-trans activists to take on board the whole autogynaephilia issue. Without understanding the mentality of the AGP man, his desires and compulsions, his aggression, sense of entitlement and narcissism, the discussion is futile. These men will brook no resistance, and they will neither tolerate nor respect any space or category reserved for women only. They will gatecrash, they will throw tantrums and they will insist that the law is on their side even when it is not.
They have tasted victory. They have succeeded in brainwashing organisations, businesses and governments to believe that "trans rights" are the next social justice crusade, and you don't want to be left on the wrong side of that as you were when you opposed gay rights, do you? They have worked on the natural tendency of men to side with men, and of many women to accede to what men want so as to #bekind, to get a great deal of what they wanted. They're getting the push-back now as more and more men and women realise what's going on and what these men are really like. But they will not give up any of what they have gained (or even claim to have gained) without a tooth and nail fight.
But it seems as if a bunch of people in this thread have no idea what they're really like. Like the three wise monkeys, they will see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil of the holy trans cult. They're still wedded to the entirely fictitious image of the poor marginalised oppressed "transwoman" who feels like a real woman inside (whatever that means), wishes no harm on anyone, and only wants to pee. So they routinely fly to the defence of this imaginary person when people who understand what the AGP male is actually like propose any solution to deal with that entity.
I don't know whether AGP should be categorised as a mental illness or not, any more than S&M or having a shoe fetish. But given that it won't confine itself to consenting adults in private but is intent on imposing itself on society as a whole, making "lesbians" of faithful wives, transgressing women's modesty and decency any way it can and striving to take women's sporting successes when it itself is too old, fat and out of shape to get anywhere in the men's division, some sort of remedy seems indicated. That remedy cannot be to give these aggressive, narcissistic men anything they want, though.
This was actually the start of it all. An attempt to treat AGP with what was thought to be the best medicine had to offer, without considering the wider consequences. It was the thin end of the wedge, and even Blanchard's "precautions" of trying to get his patients to behave in a way he thought wouldn't upset women too much were deemed "gatekeeping" and discriminatory, and the whole thing has degenerated to a point where any man can go where he likes merely by claiming he's a woman, and any suggestion that he takes any steps to try to "fit in" is discrimination and transphobia.
This thread repeatedly founders on the refusal of the pro-trans activists to take on board the whole autogynaephilia issue. Without understanding the mentality of the AGP man, his desires and compulsions, his aggression, sense of entitlement and narcissism, the discussion is futile. These men will brook no resistance, and they will neither tolerate nor respect any space or category reserved for women only. They will gatecrash, they will throw tantrums and they will insist that the law is on their side even when it is not.
They have tasted victory. They have succeeded in brainwashing organisations, businesses and governments to believe that "trans rights" are the next social justice crusade, and you don't want to be left on the wrong side of that as you were when you opposed gay rights, do you? They have worked on the natural tendency of men to side with men, and of many women to accede to what men want so as to #bekind, to get a great deal of what they wanted. They're getting the push-back now as more and more men and women realise what's going on and what these men are really like. But they will not give up any of what they have gained (or even claim to have gained) without a tooth and nail fight.
But it seems as if a bunch of people in this thread have no idea what they're really like. Like the three wise monkeys, they will see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil of the holy trans cult. They're still wedded to the entirely fictitious image of the poor marginalised oppressed "transwoman" who feels like a real woman inside (whatever that means), wishes no harm on anyone, and only wants to pee. So they routinely fly to the defence of this imaginary person when people who understand what the AGP male is actually like propose any solution to deal with that entity.
I don't know whether AGP should be categorised as a mental illness or not, any more than S&M or having a shoe fetish. But given that it won't confine itself to consenting adults in private but is intent on imposing itself on society as a whole, making "lesbians" of faithful wives, transgressing women's modesty and decency any way it can and striving to take women's sporting successes when it itself is too old, fat and out of shape to get anywhere in the men's division, some sort of remedy seems indicated. That remedy cannot be to give these aggressive, narcissistic men anything they want, though.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Agreed, which is why the resolution will be precedent-setting, and thought out to that end. I think mine accomplishes this.
I'd suggest leaning on that defined sex line as a justification, not their sense of self-worth. Open the men's division, have a women's only division. My problem with that is that the optics of a women's only category is it sounds like a handicapped (in the golf sense) sub-division, not taken as seriously. So maybe we'd need to lean hard on the strictly sex based classifying, citing testosterone levels, etc for fair competition?
Because trans people are #NotAllSociopaths. Some just want to fit in and feel normal, like you and I take for granted. We have to balance the legit desires for inclusivity against the WI spa guy, who I believe was opportunistically exploiting it.
Like so many things, it's likely not a binary y/n mental health condition, but a spectrum.
You're backsliding. There are no actual transwomen in your view? They're either mentally ill or faking?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Transgender identified females also exist. And because we care about males as humans as well, we generally don't think that males should be required to tolerate females in their single-sex spaces either.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I know, I'm trying to keep up and not resurrect things from days ago. That said - that post was from 3:43 yesterday afternoon, and I responded at 9:36 am today. I think it's reasonable to allow me a chance to eat dinner, hang out with my spouse, sleep, and get some morning work done
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Then his views change by the day, cuz yesterday he said the only transition necessary for a trans person to use womens facilities is between their ears.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I hear you, and I would prefer to allow completely single sex spaces too. That said, there's room for some pragmatism here.
Let's talk bathrooms along - leave prisons and showers and such out of it for the moment. Now we're back to chickens and foxes. I would certainly prefer to keep the chickens and foxes entirely separate, because to me it makes sense. On the other hand... the chickens simply aren't a risk to the foxes.
Relative to all of the various approaches that have been put forth over the years, this is one of the least objectionable ones that doesn't strictly enforce sex. It also allows for the uncomfortable reality that transgender identified females who take testosterone and have mastectomies have a significantly easier time passing as an unusually short male than the other way around. Having a beard goes a really, really long way in passing cursory visual assessments. So long as the TiF in question heads to a stall and follows male restroom courtesy of not staring at other dude's junk... I think there's a reasonable chance that many males wouldn't really notice.