• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

smartcooky said:
Sounds like they really are in full meltdown mode, flailing and lashing out anyone they perceive as doing the slightest wrong by them.
Click to expand...
I'm seeing this as well.

The grounds for doing so are muddled and I have not yet seen any real suggestion of what they would like to be changed in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Labour party's response is more Orwellian, than a conversion - "we have always been in favour of sex-segregated spaces".
 
Mycroft said:
If Trans-people should not be lumped in with the likes of Bryson, then bringing Bryson into the argument is meaningless fear-mongering.
Click to expand...
Bryson is trans, by definition. On what grounds do you plan to exclude him from that group? And how is it fear mongering to talk about facts? Bryson is real, I didn't make him up.

You don't seem capable of grappling with the reality of these issues.
 
I'll say it again. Watching the start of Parsifal from the Met, all the Grail Knights in dark grey trousers and open-neck white shirts, all men, and within minutes, even seconds, my eye was caught by a female figure among them, then another. Long before they began to sing. (Two of the squires are cast for female voices.) The hair and wardrobe department had done their best right up to chest binders I think, and the women were even slightly masculine-looking to start with, but they stuck out a mile.

The lady aviator in Paddington in Peru. Again the make-up was the best Hollywood could muster. But a single glance and I'm thinking, why have they cast a man in that part? (Because all the gold-fever ancestors were played by the same actor. They managed to fool me that it wasn't the same guy, but not that it wasn't a guy.)

Does anybody really think that Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie would have fooled anyone in real life for two minutes? Robin Williams in Mrs Doubtfire? We suspend disbelief because it's entertainment.

Still photos can deceive. Carefully-shot videos can deceive. (Although the ones I just referred to actually don't.) But at a distance of a few feet in real life, very very seldom. Especially if they speak.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Here's another one Mycroft presumably wants to exclude from the group.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1914956321201213552

How easy it is to have sympathy with a whole group of people when you can simply declare that anyone doing anything unpleasant is not a member.

He knows women won't challenge him, out of fear. He likes that feeling.
Click to expand...
Good point by Helen Joyce.

I think we should now put signs up outside the gents’s toilets saying “transwomen welcome here”.

That would actually solve the issue.

That said I think there is no issue with transmen using the men’s toilets. I honestly don’t think many men would care about that.
 
Mycroft said:
There are Antifa people who are prone to violence and doxing (which often gets people fired). Should we support fascism because we don't like their tactics?
Click to expand...

Replying from several pages back. We should not do that, but we know that many people will anyhow.

And they (Antifa as well as the extreme trans activists we're making an analogy to here) know it too. Which makes me wonder what their actual motives are.
 
Mycroft said:
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?
Click to expand...
You do object to doing research. If you did some research, you would be better informed about the lack of evidence supporting gender-affirmation for minors. Because you refuse to do any substantial research, one must conclude you don't care about the truth of what you say as long as it appears to be true because you can cite institutions backing it.
Mycroft said:
I don't need a PhD to assert:
Click to expand...
You can assert anything you like, but if you have no evidence or argument to back it up nobody sensible cares. Rejecting evidence because it contradicts a narrative that you think is progressive is no different from being a creationist and rejecting evidence that contradicts scripture.
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because you have done no reading. I don't need to find anything, I have done the reading. And I also posted evidence which you ignored.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Good point by Helen Joyce.

I think we should now put signs up outside the gents’s toilets saying “transwomen welcome here”.

That would actually solve the issue.

That said I think there is no issue with transmen using the men’s toilets. I honestly don’t think many men would care about that.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the transman. Some do look masculine at first glance, and they're not going to get a second glance in the men's room. But quite a lot just look like girls. I've heard a number of men expressing deep discomfort about having a girl walk into the men's room while they're there.

I read something written by a young woman who had detransitioned. She said she had decided she passed and was walking into the men's room. But in retrospect she realised that she didn't pass, and the men in there were extremely uncomfortable in her presence. She felt particularly guilty about embarrassing her own uncle, who was clearly mortified at having his young niece walk in while he was using the urinal.

We see a lot of pictures of women who have really worked at it, not just mastectomies and years on testosterone but a lot of intensive bodybuilding in the gym. I think these are actually the minority. There are a lot of TikTok videos by obvious girls claiming transman status.

The SC had it right. Single-sex spaces, and nobody has any right to be in the space reserved for the opposite sex. Men need to be able to ask these silly wee lassies to leave too.
 
Mycroft said:
Do you have a citation that doesn't come from an anti-trans website?
Click to expand...
I already provided citations that cover the research showing the majority of children re-identify with their natal sex at puberty if not socially or medically transitioned. You didn't even look at it carefully enough to determine what it was, and wrongly stated it was about reversibility of puberty blockers. Even after I corrected that, you again dishonestly pretended it was about reversibility of puberty blockers.

There will never be any evidence against your favoured narrative that does not come from an anti-trans source, because everyone who contradicts the narrative is branded 'anti-trans' or a 'hate group' for contradicting the narrative. The same way you brand speech that makes fun of your beliefs about gender identity as 'hate speech'. This is no different from scientologists calling people people who criticize scientology 'suppressive persons' and is why cults appeal to people who don't like confronting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
 
Elaedith said:
You do object to doing research. If you did some research, you would be better informed about the lack of evidence supporting gender-affirmation for minors. Because you refuse to do any substantial research, one must conclude you don't care about the truth of what you say as long as it appears to be true because you can cite institutions backing it.

You can assert anything you like, but if you have no evidence or argument to back it up nobody sensible cares. Rejecting evidence because you think it doesn't favour a narrative that you think is progressive is no different from being a creationist and rejecting evidence that contradicts scripture.

Because you have done no reading. I don't need to find anything, I have done the reading. And I also posted evidence which you ignored.
Click to expand...

It's the same with the autogynaephilia issue, which is really at the heart of all this. The pro-trans posters don't like it because it shines a light on the true motivations behind their darlings' protestations about having been born in the wrong body and having lady brains. So they just mock and dismiss the entire concept.
 
Courtesy of the contrarians at Spiked!

Keir Starmer has finally – and belatedly – welcomed last week’s Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of womanhood. Earlier today, the UK prime minister proudly declared to the media that a woman is an ‘adult female’. The message he wants to send is clear: he now identifies as a champion of women’s rights and as a believer in biological reality.

Whether or not we should buy this volte-face, given Starmer’s many years of pushing gender ideology, one thing can be said for certain: his transition to common sense has been long, torturous and, at times, hilarious.
Click to expand...

Keir Starmer’s most mental trans statements
 
Elaedith said:
There will never be any evidence against your favoured narrative that does not come from an anti-trans source, because everyone who contradicts the narrative is branded 'anti-trans' or a 'hate group' for contradicting the narrative. The same way you brand speech that makes fun of your beliefs about gender identity as 'hate speech'. This is no different from scientologists calling people people who criticize scientology 'suppressive persons' and is why cults appeal to people who don't like confronting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Quoted again, for truth.
 
Elaedith said:
There will never be any evidence against your favoured narrative that does not come from an anti-trans source, because everyone who contradicts the narrative is branded 'anti-trans' or a 'hate group' for contradicting the narrative. The same way you brand speech that makes fun of your beliefs about gender identity as 'hate speech'. This is no different from scientologists calling people people who criticize scientology 'suppressive persons' and is why cults appeal to people who don't like confronting anything that contradicts their beliefs.
Click to expand...
TRAs and their sycophants really are the ultimate well-poisoners.
 
Thermal said:
Ok, I got you now. Your playing games with definitions, ignoring the applicable context.

"It's literally impossible to lie about your self ID!"
Click to expand...
This is not an actual quote from me. Here's an actual quote from me:

"Is he lying? Under self-ID, no, he isn't."

Do you see the difference? Probably not, but it's actually VERY important, so let me lay it out for you. The term "self ID" that I used in my quote is NOT a noun referring to any individual person's self identification. It is a paradigm pushed by the trans rights advocates whereby gender identification trumps sex, your gender identification is whatever you say it is, and there can be no gatekeeping of that identification. That's why I did not refer to a person's "self ID", but to what a person identifies under self ID.

Do you get the difference now?

OK, so why am I using the term this way, and not the way you use it? I'm not doing it arbitrarily in order to score rhetorical points. I'm using that definition because that is what the trans activists are pushing for. That is what in many places they have achieved.
Thermal said:
*demonstrates lying about self ID*

"No, the word identify means exactly what I say it does, no more, no less!"

This is exactly how others here play games with the definitiom of woman. "It means adult human female, no more, no less!"
Click to expand...

You seem to think this undermines my argument, but it doesn't. Because I'm not the one trying to redefine words, the trans activists are. *I* don't want the self-ID paradigm I described above. It's the trans activists who want to play the Humpty Dumpty language game, not me. I'm merely describing what the rules of the game are, quite accurately. So when you object, it's not really me you're objecting to, it's the trans activists. You just haven't quite put it together yet that they are the source of the nonsense I described, not me. Yes, the self ID paradigm is insanity, but I didn't come up with it.

Thermal said:
"an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth"
Click to expand...

This is kind of a ◊◊◊◊ definition. What does it mean to "live as a female"? Does it mean anything deeper than "pretends to be a female"? How much pretending does one need to do to qualify? How good at pretending do they need to be? For how long, how often?
 
Rolfe said:
I think it depends on the transman. Some do look masculine at first glance, and they're not going to get a second glance in the men's room. But quite a lot just look like girls. I've heard a number of men expressing deep discomfort about having a girl walk into the men's room while they're there.
Click to expand...
It's generally easier for transmen to pass as men than for transwomen to pass as women. But as you said, not all of them pass. And if they don't pass, then yeah, it's uncomfortable.

What it isn't, though, is frightening. Not only because females are smaller and weaker than males, but also because female patterns of sexual predation are fundamentally different than male patterns of sexual predation. Male predators have an incentive to invade female spaces, female predators (they do exist) do not have an incentive to invade male spaces. They don't need to. And we know this on a gut level. So when a female invades our space, it's uncomfortable, and that's a good enough reason to not permit it, but it's not an equivalent threat. Which is part of why men aren't really complaining about it. But you are correct that it's not actually irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom