smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Bollocks. All transwomen are men... all of them, without any exceptions.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Evidence?
Do children grow out of gender dysphoria? - Transgender Trend
Do children change their minds and grow out of opposite-sex identification? Looking at the evidence and predictors for persistence and desistance.
www.transgendertrend.com
It is. When I find the study, I will post it
For the future, yes. For now, not so much
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks @d4m10n - I couldn't remember where I saw that
Last edited:
Rolfe, have you seen this from the Faculty of Advocates? https://www.advocates.org.uk/news-a...aculty-protests-msp-s-attack-on-the-judiciary
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
I don't object to doing research but I do object to chasing a needle in a haystack on your say-so. It's there somewhere? Is there a pony too? Yeah?
I don't need a PhD to assert:
Autogynephilia is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ issue designed to kink-shame and discredit trans-people.
If we don't need to check pelvic bones, DNA or geneltalia to correctly identify people's gender, then we also don't need to check those things to validate a person's gender dysphoria.
Equating all trans-women with a particular scary trans-person who did something heinous years ago is bigoted fear-mongering which should have no place in civil discussion.
There is such thing as men's/woman's clothing, and attempts to claim otherwise are gaslighting. Seriously, this is really stupid.
Terms such as woman's-face, larping and cosplaying in the context of discussing trans-people is not just disrespectful, but actual hate-speech.
If TERFs can assert excluding transwomen from women's bathrooms as a civil rights issue for cis-women, then we can also talk about how excluding transwomen from women's bathrooms is a civil rights issue for transwomen. Yes, on par with not wanting black people to share your bathrooms.
So yeah, the reading I've done indicates blocking puberty can be reversed. If you think there is a needle in your haystack that says otherwise, then go find it yourself. It's not my job to make your argument for you.
Thermal
August Member
Not directed to me, but;
Does Danielle identify as a woman, or is it kind of a thought bouncing around that has not been acted on (the proposal is a little unclear)? If she does, sure, she should be able to use the ladies room. Andy doesn't, so no-go.
How do other occupants discern the difference? By Danielle's wanting to go there and Andy not wanting to go there. Outside observers are not the Penis Patrol. Ya do ya business, ya clean up and leave, and ya done, and that goes for users and interested occupants. Will Danielle get some stares and perhaps unwanted attention? You better believe it. When you claim to identify that strongly with a given sex, but make no effort to get yourself looking similar, it's going to draw attention. I would expect the same if I walked into a men's room dressed like Darth Vader. Your outward appearance, from your clothing to your hairstyle to your mannerisms, conveys information to others, and you absolutely have to accept responsibility for that. You may not intend to radiate danger, but if your appearance can be forseen to be taken that way by others, that's a 'you' thing. When in Rome and all that.
So yeah, Danielle should be allowed in based on her assertion that she belongs there, and nothing else. She should also do some self reflection if she doesn't feel comfortable with being stared at. She might feel 100% comfortable with her gender representation, but that social role has social cues that she can't ignore if she wants to be seen (literally) as just another woman.
Eta: I typically wear work clothes (I am construction worker identifying) because i am typically working, and I am also 100% hip that it might alarm some people in some circumstances, especially a woman who might run across me on a dark, lonely street. Even though there is nothing 'wrong' with my presentation, imma go out of my way to put them at ease, even if it means briefly crossing the street. Danielle might want to grab a page from that book.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh yes. This is heating up in a very entertaining way. I've also seen several articles about it, and the inevitable chants.
Maggie, Maggie, Maggie - out, out, out!
Thermal
August Member
Your heavy reliance on facts which are irrelevant speaks volumes about why you try to hide behind them.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Among other things, yes.
Does that mean they exclusively wear woman's clothes? Nope.
Does that mean they are incapable of wearing gender-neutral or men's clothes? Nope.
So...what's your issue, exactly?
Danny Trejo is just wearing lipstick. Otherwise he's wearing his normal clothes. Which are men's.
Wanna beat this horse some more? I think it's dead.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
She chose the name "Danielle" along with new pronouns, so it's safe to assume she identifies as a woman.
What if Andy really wants to use the ladies room, though? It has a comfy couch and his feet are tired.
I'll get to the rest in a bit, but for now I'm really curious why there would any point whatsoever in keeping Andy out given that he doesn't look much different than his trans-identified sibling.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Safe, sure. Just allowing for the off chance that she was still wallowing around in the not-sure zone.
The segregation of the rooms is based on gender identity, not comfort of amenities. Although as I've mentioned before, women walk into the men's room in my bars when the line is too long at the ladies. It's not like getting a swastika tattoo on your forehead. There's plenty of wiggle room.
What he looks like is not at issue, much like a guy or gal doesn't have to look suitably butch to use the gents room. It's loosely guys in here, gals in there, but once in a while you get an atypical. It shouldn't create the kind of existential angst that this thread generates.
Last edited:
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
You didn't read what I actually wrote.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Do children grow out of gender dysphoria? - Transgender Trend
Do children change their minds and grow out of opposite-sex identification? Looking at the evidence and predictors for persistence and desistance.
Do you have a citation that doesn't come from an anti-trans website?
Thermal
August Member
We have the same distinction in some US States. Rape, definitionally, requires a penis. The charge is some variety of sexual assault without one. The penalties are often the same, so it does seem a little pedantic.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Your diminutive attitude is. Gender reassignment surgery is not just cutting a penis off.
She's also gay, which may have something to do with her non-conforming to regressive stereotypes of womanhood.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I always said it would take a long time to reverse this nonsense, and I still think that. Nevertheless, I didn't anticipate that there would be quite such a sudden tipping-point. And that it happened in my country, and was initiated by an organisation I support, have been to meetings of, and wear their badge!
There was what seemed at the time an ominous silence for two days after the judgement. Why were political leaders not commenting on (and welcoming) the clarity provided by the SC? I think now they were just reeling. They'd been told so firmly by Stonewall and the rest that TWAW and that was what the law said, that they genuinely hadn't anticipated such a completely clear and well-reasoned argument to the contrary. Or that it would be quite so wide-ranging.
During the holiday weekend a number of chancers took their chance to come out and try to undermine the judgement. We had that Whatsapp group of Labour also-raners getting together to plot some way to oppose it. We had law firms and organisations putting out advice that transpeople could be included in opposite-sex spaces on a case-by-case basis when proportionate. One legal page (now removed) declared that it would be discriminatory to exclude a transwoman with a GRC from a women's service, because the SC judgement didn't cover GRCs! For a moment it seemed as if the entire establishment simply intended to ignore the whole thing and go on as usual. (FWS, meanwhile, were loading for bear.)
However, back to work and the people in charge have obviously been boning up on the real implications while they were off-duty. The hypocrisy of Keir Starmer and Labour declaring that they always supported single-sex services on the basis of biological sex is breathtaking, as Kemi Badenoch pointed out in the house in embarrassing detail, but as she said at the end, "I welcome it." There have been some extremely clear and extremely welcome statements coming out. Some feet are still going to have to be held to the fire, but those in charge have seen the writing on the wall. Mene, mene tekel upharsin, Keir Starmer.
Some extremely interesting commentary also. This from someone who wasn't really committed either way to start with, and seems sympathetic to the trans cause, but then...
https://archive.ph/CC1UW (Archive link as the original is paywalled.)
This one is advice for employers and service providers from someone who actually knows what the law says, with some very pertinent case-law to back it up. (Yes, it looks as if women will be able to claim sex discrimination if they are forced, by the provision of only mixed-sex facilities, to perform intimate tasks in a facility shared by men, depending on the exact circumstances.)
12kbwemploymentlaw.wordpress.com
I wouldn't get too comfortable in the idea that this only applies to "Terf Island" either. There are inevitable international repercussions, starting with international sporting competitions. Where one prominent international member is fielding strictly sex-segregated teams, others are going to be put under some pressure to conform. But the main effect will take a little while to manifest itself, or at least sufficiently for us to gauge its magnitude.
Some of the enthusiastic TWAW proponents were and are no doubt sincere and committed. However, many probably were not, even of the vocal ones. A huge proportion of the people saying little or nothing about it can be safely assumed to have been keeping their heads down, because the fate of those who raised them above the parapet was clear. Ostracism, cancellation, loss of friends, loss of income, loss of employment, even harassment by the police and the issuing of non-crime hate incident records.
These people are now becoming emboldened. I'm seeing the start even of politicians who have been silent or simply paying lip service coming out and welcoming the SC judgement wholeheartedly. They've been forced to say nothing or even support a proposition which is simply ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nuts, and it's a relief not to have to do that any more.
People in Australia and Canada are taking heart, because the laws in these former colonies even now are modelled on English law. Their lawmakers take notice. More widely, it's as if the little boy has pointed out that the emperor is absolutely starkers, and the ripple is going round the court. Are we allowed to say so, now?
There was what seemed at the time an ominous silence for two days after the judgement. Why were political leaders not commenting on (and welcoming) the clarity provided by the SC? I think now they were just reeling. They'd been told so firmly by Stonewall and the rest that TWAW and that was what the law said, that they genuinely hadn't anticipated such a completely clear and well-reasoned argument to the contrary. Or that it would be quite so wide-ranging.
During the holiday weekend a number of chancers took their chance to come out and try to undermine the judgement. We had that Whatsapp group of Labour also-raners getting together to plot some way to oppose it. We had law firms and organisations putting out advice that transpeople could be included in opposite-sex spaces on a case-by-case basis when proportionate. One legal page (now removed) declared that it would be discriminatory to exclude a transwoman with a GRC from a women's service, because the SC judgement didn't cover GRCs! For a moment it seemed as if the entire establishment simply intended to ignore the whole thing and go on as usual. (FWS, meanwhile, were loading for bear.)
However, back to work and the people in charge have obviously been boning up on the real implications while they were off-duty. The hypocrisy of Keir Starmer and Labour declaring that they always supported single-sex services on the basis of biological sex is breathtaking, as Kemi Badenoch pointed out in the house in embarrassing detail, but as she said at the end, "I welcome it." There have been some extremely clear and extremely welcome statements coming out. Some feet are still going to have to be held to the fire, but those in charge have seen the writing on the wall. Mene, mene tekel upharsin, Keir Starmer.
Some extremely interesting commentary also. This from someone who wasn't really committed either way to start with, and seems sympathetic to the trans cause, but then...
https://archive.ph/CC1UW (Archive link as the original is paywalled.)
Look around you: you'll see we are in the age of the imbecile
This one is advice for employers and service providers from someone who actually knows what the law says, with some very pertinent case-law to back it up. (Yes, it looks as if women will be able to claim sex discrimination if they are forced, by the provision of only mixed-sex facilities, to perform intimate tasks in a facility shared by men, depending on the exact circumstances.)
For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers: four lessons for employers
Author: David Green, Head of 12KBW Employment Team Oh good. Another article about For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. One week on from the Supreme Court delivering its judgment, I am unconvinc…
12kbwemploymentlaw.wordpress.com
I wouldn't get too comfortable in the idea that this only applies to "Terf Island" either. There are inevitable international repercussions, starting with international sporting competitions. Where one prominent international member is fielding strictly sex-segregated teams, others are going to be put under some pressure to conform. But the main effect will take a little while to manifest itself, or at least sufficiently for us to gauge its magnitude.
Some of the enthusiastic TWAW proponents were and are no doubt sincere and committed. However, many probably were not, even of the vocal ones. A huge proportion of the people saying little or nothing about it can be safely assumed to have been keeping their heads down, because the fate of those who raised them above the parapet was clear. Ostracism, cancellation, loss of friends, loss of income, loss of employment, even harassment by the police and the issuing of non-crime hate incident records.
These people are now becoming emboldened. I'm seeing the start even of politicians who have been silent or simply paying lip service coming out and welcoming the SC judgement wholeheartedly. They've been forced to say nothing or even support a proposition which is simply ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nuts, and it's a relief not to have to do that any more.
People in Australia and Canada are taking heart, because the laws in these former colonies even now are modelled on English law. Their lawmakers take notice. More widely, it's as if the little boy has pointed out that the emperor is absolutely starkers, and the ripple is going round the court. Are we allowed to say so, now?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
"Gender identity" didn't exist as a scientific concept when these bathrooms were built in the early 1960s, so presumably they were segregated by other characteristics at the time. Do you recall any policymakers (at any level from school board to federal legislature) having an open debate about switching from from the old system to the new one?
Seems to me Andy really should factor in how he looks, given the discomfort and apprehension his appearance would cause in one room but not the other.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As long as he continues to believe in the Dogma of The Holy Scripture of the TRA faith, ergo that transwomen are not men, he will never understand this.
Thermal
August Member
How many times do I have to scream this one? Yes, over half the problem is 'gender' kind of slithering into the lexicon and being argued in terms of discrimination law without ever being clearly defined and more importantly, limited.
If Andy does not take it upon himself to enter the one, he has no problem. Kind of like I don't have to worry about my appearance when standing over a sleeping teenage girl in her bed. I just don't do so. If I felt compelled to for whatever reason (say, i was called in to do an emergency repair), the obligation to deal with the alarm I understandably cause is on me.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,952
Surely you mean to use the past tense here? Starmer's spokesman seemed quite clear that he no longer believes transwomen are women. It's striking that he waited a few days before saying anything. It indicates that this pivot is permanent.