Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

I'm feeling like we should be bringing up Casey Anthony and Lorena Bobbit every time the rights of the virtuous, defenseless women are brought up. They are very representative.

Representativeness is irrelevant. But it is also true that any policy concerning the rights of criminally accused needs to be able to handle both cases. If you're talking about such issues and you run away from answering questions about how to handle those cases, your position probably isn't a solid one. That has nothing to do with how representative either case is. Cases don't have to be representative in order to handle them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Any of them is far more than self-ID. The very existence of these options demonstrates that there is a lot more than the extremes of self-ID and ...measuring hip bones?

No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock.

Yet for some reason, you refuse to explain which of those other options you would prefer.

 

[Thermal]

I want to understand what you would do with Bryson.

The same as you'd do with a cis-het rapist, as you recently agreed. No restrictions on his legal behavior, even if it is consistent with his MO for committing crimes in the past.

 

[Mycroft]

What actions would indicate someone is lying?

No effort other than self-ID.

Under self ID, you cannot gatekeep trans identity.

Then please stop talking about self-ID.

There is no obligation for anyone to act in any particular way in order to qualify as trans. They don't need to cross-dress or wear/not wear makeup, they don't need to undergo any medical or psychological treatment, they don't need to fill out any paperwork. So what would constitute lying under self ID? How would you determine that? Well, you can't. There is no way under self ID to determine that someone is lying, because none of the actions that they take can indicate they are not trans since no requirements can be placed on being trans.

Yep, you have correctly identified problems with self-ID.

And if you don't accept self ID, what requirements do you have in order for someone to establish that they are authentically trans?

You came up with a list of options earlier. Emily’s Cat just did too. Why are you pretending these options don’t exist?

 

[Mycroft]

Yet for some reason, you refuse to explain which of those other options you would prefer.

What feminine traits belong to all women? None? What masculine traits belong to all men? None?

 

[Ziggurat]

Effort greater than self-ID.

How much effort? How will effort be judged? Why effort (which seems pretty subjective) and not specific actions?

You came up with a list of options earlier. Emily’s Cat just did too. Why are you pretending these options don’t exist?

I'm not. But I am pointing out that you haven't explained what criteria you want. You still refuse to.

 

[Ziggurat]

The same as you'd do with a cis-het rapist, as you recently agreed. No restrictions on his legal behavior, even if it is consistent with his MO for committing crimes in the past.

That's not a useful answer. What is his legal behavior? Is he allowed into the women's bathroom or not?

 

[Thermal]

That's not a useful answer. What is his legal behavior? Is he allowed into the women's bathroom or not?

You're transparently trying to make any pro-trans position seem unusually horrific, yet you acknowledge that the same horrific standard exists every day, and you don't bat an eyelash.

Till it's about a transwoman. Now you suddenly give a ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're transparently trying to make any pro-trans position seem unusually horrific

No. I'm trying to identify what the pro-trans position even is. And you seem strangely reluctant to actually do that, or have anyone else do it.

 

[Mycroft]

How much effort? How will effort be judged? Why effort (which seems pretty subjective) and not specific actions?

It's like asking how you know a man/woman when you see one. You can do it with near perfect accuracy, but you can't describe what you look for without getting bogged down with, "not all men/women are like that!'

I'm not. But I am pointing out that you haven't explained what criteria you want. You still refuse to.

Partly because nothing I could say would be given to the guy guarding the bathroom door.

 

[Mycroft]

No. I'm trying to identify what the pro-trans position even is. And you seem strangely reluctant to actually do that, or have anyone else do it.

Because it's hard to distinguish exactly where orange becomes yellow on the colour wheel, the concepts of orange and yellow are invalidated.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm aware of the meaning of 'some', thank you. But what's the logic in associating a comedian not known for committing any offences with other people who are not recognisable to the general public, but are criminal? Are they trying to insinuate he's also guilty?

Come on zoot... Context. You shouldn't need this explained to you, and you wouldn't if you had not stopped reading after you read the bit you take issue with.

"This is what can happen when you celebrate mental illness instead of treating it"

I didn't just pick photos of eight random transwomen for this meme. These eight people are a small cross section of trans identified males.
- two convicted rapists
- a city councillor
- a convicted paedofile
- a medium profile celebrity
- a violent neigbour who issues death threats
- a convicted voyeur
- convicted child-endangering fetishist

I consider all eight of these transgender people to be mentally ill... THAT was the point.

 

[d4m10n]

But changing that to "it's literally impossible for him to lie" is exactly the kind of ambiguous bull ◊◊◊◊ that got this all started, ie gender is kinda sorta the same as sex. Keep the meanings crystal clear and that wiggle room starts vanishing.

If the meaning of "woman" is crystal clarified to be the one used by FFRF then it literally become impossible to lie about being a woman.

"A woman is whoever she says she is" doesn't ask whether the person speaking is sincere or not, the act of speaking itself confers womanhood.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's like asking how you know a man/woman when you see one. You can do it with near perfect accuracy, but you can't describe what you look for without getting bogged down with, "not all men/women are like that!'

Oh, but that's not even remotely true. I can easily describe the sort of features one uses to evaluate whether one is male or female.

If your criteria is subjective, you can still describe those criteria even if only in general terms. You won't even do that.

Partly because nothing I could say would be given to the guy guarding the bathroom door.

Suppose Bryson were to go into a women's room, and a woman complains to the police about his presence. Should the police eject Bryson? The question of whether he's allowed really isn't abstract at all. Perhaps that's why you struggle with it so much.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it's hard to distinguish exactly where orange becomes yellow on the colour wheel

It's not hard at all. The distinction is somewhat arbitrary, but it's really very easy to do. Trivial, even.

 

[Thermal]

No. I'm trying to identify what the pro-trans position even is. And you seem strangely reluctant to actually do that, or have anyone else do it.

I'm not reluctant, and have answered. You don't restrict him in any other way than you restrict any other violent criminal. If that means he is allowed in the women's room, so be it. He didn't attack strangers in restrooms, so not even his MO.

You could very likely have a good debate on whether rapists in general should be restricted from access to likely target victims, much like child predators are denied access to children.

But right now you seem busy with painting forum members in the worst possible light, by twisting the discussion to the dark corners that we have no interest in discussing on this topic, which has broader social implications.

 

[Mycroft]

Oh, but that's not even remotely true. I can easily describe the sort of features one uses to evaluate whether one is male or female.

Okay, let's hear it.

If your criteria is subjective, you can still describe those criteria even if only in general terms. You won't even do that.

When I started with clothing I was met with denial that men's/woman's clothing exist. Forgive me if I'm a bit Leary.

Suppose Bryson were to go into a women's room, and a woman complains to the police about his presence. Should the police eject Bryson? The question of whether he's allowed really isn't abstract at all. Perhaps that's why you struggle with it so much.

I reject the idea 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.

 

[Thermal]

If the meaning of "woman" is crystal clarified to be the one used by FFRF then it literally become impossible to lie about being a woman.

"A woman is whoever she says she is" doesn't ask whether the person speaking is sincere or not, the act of speaking itself confers womanhood.

Right, that's why such people are royal pains in the asses.

 

[Mycroft]

It's not hard at all. The distinction is somewhat arbitrary, but it's really very easy to do. Trivial, even.

And if someone disagrees?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If we assume only cis-women are allowed in the woman's room and cis-men are allowed in the men's room, how would we determine who is who without gender norms?

We don't make that assumption, Mycroft. YOU are making this assumption, but WE aren't. We're assuming that only FEMALES are allowed in the woman's room, and MALES are allowed in the men's room.

Gender identify (or lack thereof) is entirely irrelevant to this position.