Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Mycroft]

Whether or not you prefer any of these alternatives, the existence of these alternatives should be obvious. Were they not obvious to you?

They are obvious to me. We could have been discussing these alternatives for dozens of pages now, but you won't stop trying to force everyone you disagree with into your self-ID box.

Are you ready to stop now?

 

[Mycroft]

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.

You want to build policy around Bryson while pretending he represents all trans-women. I reject that as bigotry.

It's looking more and more like you cannot handle the real world.

Argument not the arguer. The need to attack the arguer is, in my opinion, a sign of a weak argument.

 

[Mycroft]

Based on the numbers given here I'd expect around ⅗ as many transwomen as natal females, which is to say their probability of offending in this category is over 17x higher.

Does that factor for people who became trans after being caught?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well lets break out the crayons yet again and you can show me exactly where it gets too complicated.

I believe you can self ID your gender in almost all circmstances, yet still have sex segregated spaces where gender doesn't apply.

That's nice. It's also not what the term "self ID" means. As I have explained to you multiple times, "self ID" includes transcending sex segregation. That's the policy TRA's want, that's what they mean by the term, and that's what they have achieved in some places.

Opportunistic transitioning in a prison becomes pointless, as it would gain no benefit.

It does if you get put in a women's prison as a result. Which might not have happened in the Bryson case, but has happened in other cases.

Opportunistic transitioning for street attacks isn't statistically a thing.

Sure. Because transitioning doesn't gain you any additional access to streets since streets are not sex segregated, so logically, why would anyone expect it to? That has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with sex segregated space.

We have data presented in states where gender doors are already open. That particular boogeyman is pretty much imaginary.

You seem to think that if it's not captured in the statistics, it's not a problem. That's a rather blinkered view. Voyeurism, for example, is not going to be accurately captured in those statistics.

Can you show me where you are bogging down?

The part where you think a case of opportunistic transitioning is an argument against my position.

 

[Thermal]

Does that factor for people who became trans after being caught?

Aliens, brah. They know all.

 

[Ziggurat]

You want to build policy around Bryson

I never said that. You imagined that. But any policy you come up with is going to have to do something with Bryson, because again, Bryson is real, not hypothetical. So what should happen in that case? If you cannot even say what your preferred policy is for Bryson, then you do not HAVE a preferred policy. You don't have a policy at all.

 

[Mycroft]

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."

What's your best guess?

My best guess is only a guess. I wasn't there, I don't know any of the participants.

At the same time, I wonder that a group of women visiting a LA spa that's trans-friendly with a minor wasn't a set up. It's not something I would do.

Another possibility is the people at the front desk were just protecting their usual clients in a knee-jerk fashion.

Ultimately, the police were called, statements were taken, and the person was prosecuted.

 

[Mycroft]

I never said that. You imagined that. But any policy you come up with is going to have to do something with Bryson, because again, Bryson is real, not hypothetical. So what should happen in that case? If you cannot even say what your preferred policy is for Bryson, then you do not HAVE a preferred policy. You don't have a policy at all.

I reject the idea that Bryson represents all trans-people. Cherry-picking a scary trans-person and using them to represent all trans-people is bigoted fear-mongering and I will not participate.

 

[Mycroft]

The part where you think a case of opportunistic transitioning is an argument against my position.

The argument is the scary trans-person transitions to gain access to gender segregated spaces. If they don't transition until after the crime, your whole argument is blown.

 

[Ziggurat]

I reject the idea that Bryson represents all trans-people.

That's nice but irrelevant. I never made the claim he was. I never suggested he was. But he's still real, and you still can't handle him. Make all the excuses you want for not dealing with reality, that's still what's happening here.

 

[Ziggurat]

The argument is the scary trans-person transitions to gain access to gender segregated spaces. If they don't transition until after the crime, your whole argument is blown.

That's a massive logic fail. Do you think transitioning will prevent further crime? No. Do you think that if they've committed a crime, you can stop them from transitioning? You cannot. So why does it matter that they committed the crime before transitioning? Is it because you think they're fake trans? OK, they're fake trans. I agree completely. But a system of self ID cannot distinguish between fake trans and real trans, making that distinction irrelevant.

Nothing you posted here actually withstands even basic scrutiny.

 

[Thermal]

That's nice. It's also not what the term "self ID" means. As I have explained to you multiple times, "self ID" includes transcending sex segregation. That's the policy TRA's want, that's what they mean by the term, and that's what they have achieved in some places.

You actually linked a definition from Wikipedia earlier, where I demonstrated that you forgot to read it. As I recall, you got quiet fast.

Also, if you want to argue with TRA activists, go somewhere and do so. As has been explained to you, I am not a TRA activist and IDGAF how they want to define things.

It does if you get put in a women's prison as a result. Which might not have happened in the Bryson case, but has happened in other cases.

It does not, if sex segregated spaces are codified as such, and gender is defined as not equivalent to sex. I note that sudden onset selective memory loss continues to plague you, as I have explained this multiple times.

Sure. Because transitioning doesn't gain you any additional access to streets since streets are not sex segregated, so logically, why would anyone expect it to? That has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with sex segregated space.

Don't play dumb. A street attack means public toilets, as opposed to a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ prison.

You seem to think that if it's not captured in the statistics, it's not a problem. That's a rather blinkered view. Voyeurism, for example, is not going to be accurately captured in those statistics.

True. Also imaginary, like your imaginary trans-posing bathroom attackers. Your somewhat vivid imagination regarding those pervs should not dictate a reasonable stance.

The part where you think a case of opportunistic transitioning is an argument against my position.

It stands as-is. The guy is in a men's prison, as he should be.

 

[theprestige]

I've answered your question. But I've got a new answer for you:

I reject the idea that Bryson represents all trans-people. Cherry-picking a scary trans-person and using them to represent all trans-people is bigoted fear-mongering and I will not participate in it.

I'm tired of this merry-go-round. That's the response you get verbatim every time you bring up Bryson or any other scary trans-person.

Bryson (and too many others) represent a problem with self-ID as an entitlement to override sex segregation.

Self-ID, as a policy, benefits no-one. It doesn't benefit women. It doesn't benefit people who actually suffer from gender dysphoria*, and need acceptance and support. The only people it benefits are misogynists and predators.

---

*On the other hand, you've dismissed gender dysphoria as a medical hoax, perpetrated by anti-trans fearmongers.

(Ironically, this is in fact backwards. Gender dysphoria has been dismissed as a medical hoax, by the misogynists and predators that have infiltrated the LGBW rights movement, gutted it, and are wearing it like a skin suit while demanding respect. But whatever.)

Very well. If gender dysphoria isn't real, then we can safely dismiss any appeal to mental health, medical necessity, etc. to justify an entitlement to women's spaces.

So what's left? Just your circular and ultimately meaningless "definition" of what a woman is. Speaking of which...

Earlier you asserted that women's clothing exists and signifies womanhood. I'm happy to stipulate that women's clothing exists. But does it really signify womanhood? Do you really want it to signify womanhood?

If a man puts on a dress, do you think that makes him a woman?

If a woman puts on trousers, do you think that makes her a man?

Can a man be a woman if he says he's a woman, even if he's wearing trousers at the time?

Tig Notaro wears trousers and says she's a lesbian. Does that make her a heterosexual man, in your view?

 

[Ziggurat]

You actually linked a definition from Wikipedia earlier, where I demonstrated that you forgot to read it.

There's a difference between reading and understanding. You did the former, but not the latter.

It does not, if sex segregated spaces are codified as such

True, which is why I included an "if". But here's the thing: sex segregated spaces are NOT always codified as such. They aren't in California, for example. In California, you can in fact house prisoners according to their gender identity instead of their sex.

Don't play dumb. A street attack means public toilets, as opposed to a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ prison.

That's not me playing dumb, that's you not being clear. If you meant public toilets, you should have said public toilets.

 

[Ziggurat]

Self-ID, as a policy, benefits no-one.

That's not true. It's massively beneficial to opportunistic transitioners.

 

[Mycroft]

That's a massive logic fail. Do you think transitioning will prevent further crime? No. Do you think that if they've committed a crime, you can stop them from transitioning?

I don't understand why you ask these questions.

If the assertion is people will transition in order to gain access to women's only spaces to rape them, then people who don't transition until after they've been caught and prosecuted don't fit that model.

That has nothing to do with transitioning preventing further crime, and the suggestion that it does is silly.

That has nothing to do with preventing anyone from transitioning after they've committed a crime, and the suggestion that it does is silly.

Don't be silly.

 

[theprestige]

That's not true. It's massively beneficial to opportunistic transitioners.

Addressed three sentences later, at the end of the same paragraph.

 

[Mycroft]

...and signifies womanhood.

I don't remember saying that. I could put on my wife's clothing, and I would be wearing woman's clothing. Nowhere did I say that alone would make me a woman or a transwoman.

I remember a lot of gaslighting, people telling me there was no such thing as men's/woman's clothing. I'm glad that bit of foolishness was put down.

I remember saying transwomen wear women's clothing, and was immediately jumped by people claiming I was saying they were somehow compelled to wear woman's clothing exclusively and other silly things I can't remember. That bit of foolishness was put down too.

In fact, most of your post followed similar foolishness, which is why I cut it down to just these three words.

 

[Thermal]

There's a difference between reading and understanding. You did the former, but not the latter.

You know I have the receipts, right? Literally posted in this very thread? You relied on a definition, which included the linked words 'gender identity'. You forgot to check on how your source defined that phrase, which contradicted your interpretation

True, which is why I included an "if".

My entire premise assumes that stated 'if', so you were tilting at a windmill.

But here's the thing: sex segregated spaces are NOT always codified as such. They aren't in California, for example. In California, you can in fact house prisoners according to their gender identity instead of their sex.

Agreed, as I've said. Cali's global self-ID is unsustainable and counterproductive. They go far beyond the restrictions I am advocating.

That's not me playing dumb, that's you not being clear. If you meant public toilets, you should have said public toilets.

I thought it was clear enough in context, since we haven't breathed a word about self ID in random street assaults, but spoke at length about public restrooms 'on the street'. My bad.

 

[theprestige]

I don't understand why you ask these questions.

If the assertion is people will transition in order to gain access to women's only spaces to rape them,

The assertion is that opportunistic predators and misgynists will self-ID as women, in order gain access to women's spaces to sexually harass and exploit them, and that making self-ID public policy would put their victims at risk of legal sanction if they object.

This assertion has been borne out by incidents that have occurred in many places where self-ID has become public policy. We've seen it in sports. We've seen it in prisons. We've seen in medical settings. We've seen it in commercial settings. We've seen it in locker rooms and public restrooms. The thing you say isn't happening keeps happening. And it's a new phenomenon. There's a whole category of misogynistic predator that was not active, before these policies were enacted. A category that emerged because these policies emboldened and enabled such predators.

Meanwhile, there's no good evidence that such policies actually help people who suffer from gender dysphoria.* There's even reason to believe it harms them too, much the same way it harms women, to have a chilling effect on safe spaces that uphold their privacy and dignity.

I'm not saying all transwomen are misogynists and predators. Far from it! I'm saying that fiat self-ID, as a policy, doesn't help the non-predatory types.