Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

Stupid effing argument. There are moron heterosexuals, and racists of all sorts. There is always one or a few is not a reason to throw up your hands. You're making perfect the enemy of good.

Alternatively, you're trying to make perfect for a small number of special males the enemy of good for the vast majority of females.

 

[Thermal]

Dude, no. There's an acknowledgement that sex is binary and immutable in humans.

Which absolutely, 100% does not matter when you are going into an enclosed privacy stall to relieve yourself.

What someone "feels like" doesn't change their reality. Furthermore - if you actually go read things written by transgender identified males, talking about how they feel... I assure you it does NOT align with how actual females feel about being female. It's usually an incredibly misogynistic view based on negative stereotypes of females as being dumb bimbo sex dolls, being a receptacle for someone else's sexual titillation, being useable and devoid of full personhood, being subjugated and demeaned. It's not flattering, and it's not what females generally feel - in fact, a whole lot of it is the stereotype and treatment that we've been fighting against for my whole life.

I get that. I think you know where I am ultimately coming from here: I want everyone to be accommodated, from women to transwomen to everyone else. But it's a conflict of comforts and rights. Transwomen can come in the men's room, that's fine. But many will say it feels horrible to them, feeling like a woman but having all these men staring at them, or much worse. So is there any issue with them coming in the ladies room, as you and others say they have been doing for generations? I think it makes sense: yeah, do either. But the pushback ITT is to say no way Jose, we don't want the weirdos in here anymore (with some fig leaves).

So whether you mean it or not, and I'm confident you don't, you are allying with the intolerant side. Surely you can see how that sits to an outside observer? These guys want to object so mightily when it is pointed out that they are being bigots... while spouting intolerant bigotry.

 

[Elaedith]

Meaningless, both in the problem with search being disabled, and also that most members aren't ongoingly participating in decade long threads. We just ain't that obsessed.

Then you should stop implying that we don't know what we are talking about.

Nor do I care, as I said in the very post you quoted. The study you just posted actually makes the point for me, though. Brains were seen to be sex consistent with the exception of "the right inferior fronto-occipital tract, connecting parietal and frontal brain areas that mediate own body perception." That substantiates my claim that transwomen can be physiologically shown to be sincere, and not play-acting like the transracial people seem to be.

Your claim (without any supporting evidence) was that transgender people show brain activity resembling their identified sex.

A neurologically-based difference in self-perception is an entirely different phenomenon, and there is no way of knowing if it is causally linked to transgender identity or a consequence of adopting it, or linked to some other condition that tends to correlate with transgender identity. And there is no data available to compare it with the adoption of any other type of identity, which may also be linked to disturbance in self-perception.

 

[Rolfe]

IMO the totalizing instinct is part of the problem on both (progressive and conservative) sides of the bathroom policy debate.

Rather than allowing individual businesses and services leeway to modify their public accommodations to adapt to the situation which we find ourselves in (viz. decoupling birth sex from gender-at-a-glance) we've got people on one side demanding full self-i.d. as a matter of legal right and people on the other side demanding strict sex segregation as a matter of state policy.

I think that's fair. There will be particular situations where the clientele is such that making all the bathrooms mixed-sex might be reasonable. But the issue now is the possiblity that the trans lobby will start pressurising ordinary businesses and organisations to upend everything and make everything mixed-sex, as they've been pressuring everybody to accept self-ID as the defaul norm up till now.

It depends what you mean by "strict" sex segregation. I don't know anyone who has a problem with a third space being introduced where practical to accommodate people with unusual needs. But the vast majority of men and women are OK with sex-segregated facilities and want these to continue. Forcing everyone to use mixed-sex facilities against their will to appease what is still a small (but vocal and violent) minority is inequitable and gross overkill.

There is also the issue that this is undoubtedly a passing fad. We're already seeing the beginning of the end. Let's not spend millions in rebuilding all the sanitary provisions in the western world for something that is on the way out.

 

[Thermal]

No, it's ENTIRELY about their feelings. They are objectively male. They feel as if they want to be female, even though they objectively are not.

It doesn't matter in an enclosed privacy stall.

And they demand that they should have right-of-entry to female-only spaces, on the basis that it affirms their feelings.

No, it removes the right for others to be intolerant of them. I have yet to see a sign on a restroom that says "Female Only". I see men's and women's (which are defined as genders) and the stick figure wearing a dress or not, but never a sex test.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, don't worry - I completely understand that YOU DGAF. But you're also insisting that because YOU DGAF, nobody else should either. You're using your DGAF to rhetorically insist that females should allow "true trans" to use our single-sex spaces because it doesn't bother you. You keep drawing a distinction between "true trans" and "imposters" and essentially asserting that we should let the "true trans" into our spaces because you think it's nice for those "true trans" males to be allowed into female-only spaces... but that we should be able to exclude the "imposters".

If we can't tell the difference between "true trans" and "imposter", then letting any of them in allows ALL OF THEM right of entry.

We've said this so many times, using the best explanations we can, and nobody ever answers it. In practical terms, if you create a subset of males who are allowed as of right to use women's facilities, how do you distinguish between them so that you can keep the ones who aren't allowed in, out? There is no possible way.

The Supreme Court came at it a different way and came to the same conclusion in legal terms. If you allow some males to use the women's facilities but not others, that is illegal discrimination against the males you have excluded. You can't do that. The facility is now mixed-sex, and so any male has the legal right to be there.

 

[Thermal]

Then you should stop implying that we don't know what we are talking about.

LOL, doing something for a long time doesn't mean you are doing it right.

Your claim (without any supporting evidence) was that transgender people show brain activity resembling their identified sex.

A neurologically-based difference in self-perception is an entirely different phenomenon, and there is no way of knowing if it is causally linked to transgender identity or a consequence of adopting it, or linked to some other condition that tends to correlate with transgender identity. And there is no data available to compare it with the adoption of any other type of identity, which may also be linked to disturbance in self-perception.

Great!

 

[Rolfe]

It doesn't matter in an enclosed privacy stall.

No, it removes the right for others to be intolerant of them. I have yet to see a sign on a restroom that says "Female Only". I see men's and women's (which are defined as genders) and the stick figure wearing a dress or not, but never a sex test.

This is classic Humpty-Dumpty-ism. Men and Women are defined as "genders" (whatever that means) in your head, and perhaps in the heads of some people you know. The position where I live has been clear for many many years (since the English language developed these words, really) and has recently been confirmed.



I strongly suspect the same is true in America, in law, and would be confirmed in a similar challenge. This bait-and-switch you are indulging in is pure sophistry.

 

[Thermal]

We've said this so many times, using the best explanations we can, and nobody ever answers it. In practical terms, if you create a subset of males who are allowed as of right to use women's facilities, how do distinguish between them so that you can keep the ones who aren't allowed in, out? There is no possible way.

The Supreme Court came at it a different way and came to the same conclusion in legal terms. If you allow some males to use the women's facilities but not others, that is illegal discrimination against the males you have excluded. You can't do that. The facility is now mixed-sex, and so any male has the legal right to be there.

Your Great Unanswerable Question has been answered multiple times. You either ignore it or don't understand.

It doesn't matter. There are no tests and never have been. You keep using the facilities as you always have. When one of those 1 in 200 transwomen might want to use 'yours' (some are comfortable about using the men's room), you just don't call the cops.

Your further weirdness about the Ladies Room becoming a Man Cave is statistically unfounded. Things just keep going as they have been for generations.

 

[Thermal]

This is classic Humpty-Dumpty-ism. Men and Women are defined as "genders" (whatever that means) in your head, and perhaps in the heads of some people you know. The position where I live has been clear for many many years (since the English language developed these words, really) and has recently been confirmed.

View attachment 60267

I strongly suspect the same is true in America, in law, and would be confirmed in a similar challenge. This bait-and-switch you are indulging in is pure sophistry.

Yet again, my state and others have come to a different legal conclusion. Your continued ignoring of this changes nothing.

 

[Rolfe]

Yet again, my state and others have come to a different legal conclusion. Your continued ignoring of this changes nothing.

I'd be mildly interested to see the legal statute about that. Because I think your President is of a different mind.

 

[Rolfe]

Your Great Unanswerable Question has been answered multiple times. You either ignore it or don't understand.

It doesn't matter. There are no tests and never have been. You keep using the facilities as you always have. When one of those 1 in 200 transwomen might want to use 'yours' (some are comfortable about using the men's room), you just don't call the cops.

Your further weirdness about the Ladies Room becoming a Man Cave is statistically unfounded. Things just keep going as they have been for generations.

If I see a male person in a women's bathroom, I will be asking him to leave. Because he has no right to be there, and because it makes me intensely uncomfortable, and because his permitted presence there makes it a mixed-sex space in law, meaning that any male person is entitled to be there.

Your opinion is noted, and dismissed as being irrelevant. Also, by being founded on pure male entitlement.

 

[Thermal]

I'd be mildly interested to see the legal statute about that. Because I think your President is of a different mind.

I linked my state's dot gov page upthread, and California's has been discussed ad nauseum. Many others are quietly interpreting it the exact same way.

And don't you dare imply that my President has a mind.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, since "upthread" could mean anything, that obviously has to slide. But I note the "quietly" part. That's what some were trying to do here, until it blew right up in their faces, classic over-reach.

And whether or not your President had a mind, he's still your President, and seems to have a great deal of power and influence.

 

[Thermal]

If I see a male person in a women's bathroom, I will be asking him to leave. Because he has no right to be there, and because it makes me intensely uncomfortable, and because his permitted presence there makes it a mixed-sex space in law, meaning that any male person is entitled to be there.

Right, that is currently the situation in the UK as I understand it. And?

Your opinion is noted, and dismissed as being irrelevant. Also, by being founded on pure male entitlement.

When your intolerance is pointed out, you don't get to grab the fig leaf of womens rights versus mens rights. This issue doesn't even effect over 99% of men at all. Its a battle between 51% of the population against a half percent.

 

[d4m10n]

I'd be mildly interested to see the legal statute about that...

I actually linked and excerpted California Civil Code Section 51 several pages back.

Here is one example of how it is being interpreted to legally bar sex-segregation:

Restrooms - ACLU of Socal

In California, business establishments, non-profits, and government agencies that serve the public cannot discriminate based on someone’s gender identity or gender expression. Know Your Rights When Using Restrooms Under Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b), business establishments, non-profits, and government...

www.aclusocal.org

I think your President is of a different mind.

That doesn't really matter, aside from those of us lucky enough to work in federal buildings, where executive EOs carry much more weight.

 

[Thermal]

Well, since "upthread" could mean anything, that obviously has to slide.

I haven't been here that long, so im.assuming you blanked out government sources that conflict with your ideology, although I do get a chuckle recalling how you personally have admonished me over how many times 'we have covered this' ITT.

But I note the "quietly" part. That's what some were trying to do here, until it blew right up in their faces, classic over-reach.

And whether or not your President had a mind, he's still your President, and seems to have a great deal of power and influence.

Aside from all this: we're sorry about him.

 

[Ziggurat]

This issue doesn't even effect over 99% of men at all.

That's not really true. If self-ID is accepted, then ALL men have the right to enter female spaces. They might not want to do so, they might not choose to do so, but they are nevertheless granted the right to do so. I consider that to affect them.

 

[Thermal]

That's not really true. If self-ID is accepted, then ALL men have the right to enter female spaces. They might not want to do so, they might not choose to do so, but they are nevertheless granted the right to do so. I consider that to affect them.

They only have the 'right' if they selfID as women, which basically means the other 99.5% would have to lie. Not much different from where we are right now.

 

[Rolfe]

Right, that is currently the situation in the UK as I understand it. And?

When your intolerance is pointed out, you don't get to grab the fig leaf of womens rights versus mens rights. This issue doesn't even effect over 99% of men at all. Its a battle between 51% of the population against a half percent.

It doesn't Affect (for crying out loud!) over 99% of men, maybe. But it affects 100% of women.