As you may well have forgotten by now, I was trying to explain why Wi Spa would initially defend their decision to allow someone blessed with all the feminine grace and form of Danny Trejo (without lipstick) into the space where females expect to encounter each other in the nude. My hypothesis was that they (Wi Spa) were addled by "political correctness…like an ocean tide that sweeps away all common sense."
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand any of this stuff. The issue was never crossing gender lines. Blair White crosses gender lines entirely. She isn't creepy at all. Nor is it about looks, it's about behavior. And yeah, the behavior I'm referring to is creepy as ◊◊◊◊.
Your side's argument relies on the difference. We are constantly being told "look how vile and dangerous these trannys are", but when you actually look at the stories, they were not trans. They are stories of everyday lowlife 'cis-het' rapists. Opportunistic transitioning is a thing, and using a rapist who is trying to game the system is a far cry from posting over and over "what these guys are really like'.
Yeah, it's funny how with millions of transwomen in the world, just those same few names keep getting held up. That's the very definition of cherry picking.
You know not of what you speak.
For all I know, Bryson is OK with you, because you won't actually answer direct questions.
The fact that you can become trans after having committed sexual offenses is one of the the prime examples that support doing away with self ID.
Under self ID, Bryson is absolutely trans. There is zero grounds to claim he isn't trans. You have to come up with some standard other than self ID if you want to say he's not authentic. I'm not sure why you're struggling with that fact.
No ◊◊◊◊ it's a thing! That's what we've been saying! That's why self ID is a massive ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem, precisely because of opportunistic transitioning! This isn't a fact that undermines my position, it's at the heart of what I'm saying. How can you still not get that?
I'll try to find the video at some point, it's rather hard to describe just how creepy they are. Might take some time. But yeah, you're wrong.
That's bull ◊◊◊◊. This has nothing to do with paradigms. It's a very simple, very straight forward, real world question. Should Bryson be allowed to use the women's bathroom? You are free to use whatever paradigms, whatever definitions you want. But if your ideas cannot handle this very basic real-world questions, then your ideas aren't connected to the real world, and frankly aren't worth discussing.
One alternative is segregation based on biological sex, no exceptions. That's the simplest one. Another alternative would be to allow those who have had full surgical transitions (a bit of a misnomer) to transcend that segregation. Another would be to allow those on hormone therapy to transcend that segregation. Another alternative would be to allow those with professional diagnosis of gender dysphoria and who are undergoing professional treatment (medical and/or psychological) to transcend that segregation. I'm sure you could come up with more variations. There are multiple alternatives other than self ID. Whether or not you prefer any of these alternatives, the existence of these alternatives should be obvious. Were they not obvious to you?
Well lets break out the crayons yet again and you can show me exactly where it gets too complicated.
Congratulations, you've rejected a straw man. I'm not talking about all trans people. I am specifically and only asking about Bryson. How you handle Bryson does not have to be how you handle anyone else. But if you can't handle doing something with Bryson, then you cannot handle the real world, because Bryson is real, not a hypothetical.