Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

Rolfe, I never knew you to be so catty.

All the insults for females not kowtowing to males, and none at all for males opining that females who don't let them in to single sex spaces should be beaten, raped, decapitated, or otherwise killed. Apparently you're fine with males being insulting and threatening toward females, but you seem to think that females should always "be nice"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not. As I keep saying, the 'why' is often in conflict with what laws allow us to do.

I can desire and need all kinds of stuff, but if I can't put a reason down for society to accommodate them that complies with law, no one really gives a ◊◊◊◊, nor should they.

You could, you know, actually join us and support efforts to make single-sex spaces actually recognize sex as a reality instead of granting supremacy to the feelings inside a male's mind.

You can advocate for stupid laws to be changed.

 

[Rolfe]

 

[acbytesla]

All the insults for females not kowtowing to males, and none at all for males opining that females who don't let them in to single sex spaces should be beaten, raped, decapitated, or otherwise killed. Apparently you're fine with males being insulting and threatening toward females, but you seem to think that females should always "be nice"?

This post wasn't intended for you. It was kind of a joke that I thought Rolfe would pick up on.

But it should also be noted that Rolfe didn't address the merit of the YouTube video I posted, She just called them bullies. An ad hominem if I ever heard one.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Zero. Because I'm not the biggest or the baddest, but I'm always the meanest and much better trained.

ETA: I sincerely think you're overestimating the value of your training, and underestimating the value of your size and inherent strength.

When I'm the dummy (which I always am in the courses), I don't just stand there. I resist, and realistically, so they learn what works and what doesn't.

Eta: I wear a cup and depending on what we are working on, specific protective padding. I don't wear chest or abdominal protection at all, and I let them hit me. You can swing a freaking baseball bat on a guys torso and he'll barely flinch, because it is a strong area. You need to target the weak spots that even guys don't think about protecting much

Look, I get where you're coming from - you want to encourage these females to fight for themselves, to learn how to defend themselves as much as they can. I'm all for it... although I'm rather more inclined to concealed carry than fisticuffs. I appreciate your intent, and I 100% support female self-defense classes.

But if you instill a sense of false confidence, you're doing them a disservice. It sucks, I can't express how much it sucks. Like, in a completely irrational way, I don't even like putting it into words - every time I type this out, I flinch, because I absolutely hate that it's true, and it borders on superstition how much I don't want to speak it into the universe.

But to actually *be* safe out in the world, your students need to know their limitations. Not hypothetical wishful one, but actual real limits. They need to know that size and strength are real and extremely meaningful.

If you think you're 'too trained' to be a realistic example, ask some of your untrained male friends to take part. Seriously - all they have to do is pin the females down; all the females have to do is get away. And if you're worried that your female students would hold back because they don't want to hurt your male friend... keep them pinned until the fear sets in. It's a horrible thing, it will feel like a horrible thing to you and to them, and they'll be absolutely pissed off about it. But I genuinely believe that it's in their best interests to actually be pushed to their absolute limit, to be confronted by someone who is NOT playing nice and looking out for them, to be faced with the reality of male physicality and strength.

I get the feeling you think I'm cavalier about this - I'm not. I'm not a particularly physical person, and I have absolutely dog-◊◊◊◊ coordination. But I will fight with every ounce of my being if I have to. But I know, I mean I really truly know what I can't do, and that leads me to be aware of my surroundings and avoid being in situations where I'm that disadvantaged. It's not fair, it's not nice... but it's rock solid risk mitigation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I'm saying that we have to think about this not in terms of starting from scratch, but working within the existing mess.

Disagree, good buddy. We need to undue to current mess, and get it back to the reasonably presentable situation it used to be.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why? The Seattle woman took an afternoon class, and despite being an absolute twig, held her own. It takes so pitifully little to exploit an advantage.

Only if 1) they're not expecting it and 2) they aren't willing to take some pain and 3) they're not all that dedicated to hurting their victim.

Opportunistic criminals are not at all the same as a dedicated criminal.

 

[Rolfe]

This post wasn't intended for you. It was kind of a joke that I thought Rolfe would pick up on.

But it should also be noted that Rolfe didn't address the merit of the YouTube video I posted, She just called them bullies. An ad hominem if I ever heard one.

It didn't have any merits. The woman on top shouted down everything the other person said, and was absolutely determined to impose her own agenda on the dialogue. Which was probably set up anyway.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This post wasn't intended for you. It was kind of a joke that I thought Rolfe would pick up on.

But it should also be noted that Rolfe didn't address the merit of the YouTube video I posted, She just called them bullies. An ad hominem if I ever heard one.

I don't care if it was intended for me or not, or if you thought it was a friendly joke for Rolfe. After your posts the past few days, I don't think either of us are in a mood for joking.

I actually like you in general - I don't hate you, you're nowhere near my list of people I have no tolerance for. For the most part, I respect you. But at the moment, I'm pretty displeased and simply not in a mood to be mollified by some offhand humor. You stepped in it, and well, your feet are going to stink for a bit.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't care if it was intended for me or not, or if you thought it was a friendly joke for Rolfe. After your posts the past few days, I don't think either of us are in a mood for joking.

I actually like you in general - I don't hate you, you're nowhere near my list of people I have no tolerance for. For the most part, I respect you. But at the moment, I'm pretty displeased and simply not in a mood to be mollified by some offhand humor. You stepped in it, and well, your feet are going to stink for a bit.

I know you don't care. And I don't care if you like or don't like me. It's irrelevant to the the thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I know you don't care. And I don't care if you like or don't like me. It's irrelevant to the the thread.

Just doing what I can to make it clear that it's entirely possible for two people to passionately and vociferously disagree on some topics but still get along.

 

[smartcooky]

Why? The Seattle woman took an afternoon class, and despite being an absolute twig, held her own. It takes so pitifully little to exploit an advantage.

Its still a bull-◊◊◊◊ argument though... which essentially boils down to "women shouldn't be worried about trans-identified males attacking them in the toilets because they can always fight them off".

Of course, the excuse TIMs give for wanting to access those women's toilets is that they fear being attacked by men in the men's toilets - and that leads to the logical counter argument, that "transwomen shouldn't be worried about males attacking them in the toilets because they can always fight them off".... and being physically and biologically males, those transwomen would have a far better chance of succeeding.

 

[acbytesla]

Just doing what I can to make it clear that it's entirely possible for two people to passionately and vociferously disagree on some topics but still get along.

I get along with most people most of the time. But that isn't going to stop me from saying that the anti-trans movement from my view is based on hate. Like homosexuality before it, it is icky and makes people uncomfortable. My view on it is the same as it is for homosexuality. Not my cup of tea, but that's their choice. I shouldn't make my feeling uncomfortable their issue. Live and let live is my position.

 

[Rolfe]

Do you still think it's a nothing-burger that affects almost no-one, after today?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I get along with most people most of the time. But that isn't going to stop me from saying that the anti-trans movement from my view is based on hate. Like homosexuality before it, it is icky and makes people uncomfortable. My view on it is the same as it is for homosexuality. Not my cup of tea, but that's their choice. I shouldn't make my feeling uncomfortable their issue. Live and let live is my position.

The issue here is that you insist on seeing it as "anti-trans". But that's not an accurate perception. None of us are actually opposed to transgender people. We don't actually care at all what people wear, and we all completely support protecting transgender people from harassment or physical attack, from discrimination in housing or employment or law.

The issue is that transgender identified males are still males. And females wanting to retain single-sex spaces and services and athletics that exclude males is *not* anti-trans. It's anti-male-inclusion-in-specific-situations.

ETA: All in this context means all of us currently participating in this discussion on ISF. There exist some people who are actually opposed to transgender people being allowed to dress and present as they wish... they just aren't at all relevant to any interaction here.

 

[Rolfe]

You've said that umpteen times. So have I, and other women in the thread. He isn't taking in a word of it.

 

[Thermal]

Its still a bull-◊◊◊◊ argument though... which essentially boils down to "women shouldn't be worried about trans-identified males attacking them in the toilets because they can always fight them off".

Of course, the excuse TIMs give for wanting to access those women's toilets is that they fear being attacked by men in the men's toilets - and that leads to the logical counter argument, that "transwomen shouldn't be worried about males attacking them in the toilets because they can always fight them off".... and being physically and biologically males, those transwomen would have a far better chance of succeeding.

Seriously: I am not at all saying they "shouldn't worry, just fight". EC was painting such a defeated outlook that I just wanted to let her know that there are things you can do. It's a sidebar, and conceded, this ain't the time or place to use it as an argument against legally removing the likelihood in the first place, which I prefer.

 

[Rolfe]

Here, in the judgement, is spelled out what I have been saying repeatedly.



It is about privacy and decency. Safety is a nice side-effect, but even if every man alive were courteous and considerate, we still don't want them in our spaces because they are men and it is not DECENT.

Actually that entire thread is fantastic.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912505677810995231

 

[acbytesla]

The issue here is that you insist on seeing it as "anti-trans". But that's not an accurate perception. None of us are actually opposed to transgender people. We don't actually care at all what people wear, and we all completely support protecting transgender people from harassment or physical attack, from discrimination in housing or employment or law.

The issue is that transgender identified males are still males. And females wanting to retain single-sex spaces and services and athletics that exclude males is *not* anti-trans. It's anti-male-inclusion-in-specific-situations.

ETA: All in this context means all of us currently participating in this discussion on ISF. There exist some people who are actually opposed to transgender people being allowed to dress and present as they wish... they just aren't at all relevant to any interaction here.

I DEFINITELY view it as anti-trans. People attempt to dress it up. For sure.

,But I simply don't buy the argument that making it illegal for a trans person to use a woman's bathroom protects women. It might make some women feel more comfortable if such laws were made and enforced. But I don't buy for a second that women are more than a minuscule safer.

And I believe such laws are unlikely to stop trans people from using them,

 

[Thermal]

Disagree, good buddy. We need to undue to current mess, and get it back to the reasonably presentable situation it used to be.

Ok, and that's what I was saying from early on. Define the sex and gender lines, like this UK ruling did, but put it on steroids and take the limitations and qualifiers away. Define, as a matter of law, that sex segregation is distinct from gender segregation.

Even though there appears to be no problems in my Garden State with trans access, the idea of self IDing teen boys walking into the girls showers terrifies me. There are reasonable lines, and I think they should get carved in stone, not sidestepped anymore. We've been playing hot potato with the definition of gender for too long, considering we make freaking laws about it.