Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

The simplest it can possibly be, I think.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ask questions that have clearer meanings, and you will get clearer answers.

My questions are quite clear, but fine, I'm make it even clearer. Who should be allowed to use a public women's bathroom? Nothing you have posted so far gives me an answer to this very simple, very clear question. I'm betting that even now, you will equivocate.

 

[Thermal]

Thanks for ENTIRELY ignoring the content of my post, and the context in which that statement was made.

EC, I luv ya. You know I luv ya. But every post you made in that firehosing round (like half a dozen) were already responded to, often in nearly the same words. I didn't ignore it. We had already done it.

Yeah, no. I reject this. I use the term because it is accurate, and because it removes any confusion about whether or not the object of discussion is a female in any sense at all. It emphasizes that they remain male regardless of their internal subjective feeling about their personality traits.

Why should I be obligated to adopt terminology that intentionally obfuscates material reality in order to cater to the feelings of a group of people that are actively trampling my rights, dignity, and safety?

You get that you can't self declare the n-word to mean whatever you say it means, right, Humpty?

TIM has a meaning, and only one. There is no second non-derogitory meaning. You're trying to make fetch happen with a tainted word. It's not going to happen. No amount of calling a black man 'darkie', while saying it's perfectly innocent and legitimately descriptive, is going to get your ass out of that ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you think such a weirdo could not effortlessly still do so, regardless of law? Wait a couple minutes till you are confident the rest room is empty, then close himself in a stall and perv away? It ain't rocket science to do so, and with no serious force of law penalties, the most that would likely happen is if he is caught entering, he'd be asked to leave?

That's why these arguments don't pack much punch. The practical application of them is to keep law abiding transpeople out, not save womankind from the pervy criminal hordes, which we know are vanishing rare (and undeterred by laws by definition anyway). Unlike, you know... actual transwomen.

Do you think a weirdo could not effortlessly break into a car, regardless of the law? Wait a few minutes until nobody's watching, then use a slim-jim to unlock it. It ain't rocket science to do so, and they're unlikely to face any legal penalties if they're not immediately caught. That's why arguments for people locking their cars don't pack much punch. They practical application of them is to keep law abiding people from breaking into cars, not save innocent car owners from having their stuff stolen, and we know they're vanishingly rare.

You're making the argument that laws have no deterrent power. Thus, laws against jaywalking, littering, speeding, and even murder are unnecessary. Even more so, you're pretty much arguing that laws against littering don't do anything at all to prevent littering and only serve to cause harm to litterers who aren't really doing anything wrong.

Laws have at least some deterrent power. They also cement social expectations regarding adherence to those laws. The most important aspect of them, however, is that they provide an avenue of recourse when those laws are broken.

 

[Ziggurat]

TIM has a meaning, and only one. There is no second non-derogitory meaning.

Says who? The TRA's? They can piss up a rope. They're trying to invest offense in a term because it doesn't affirm that transwoman are women. There's no reason the rest of us need to play along.

No amount of calling a black man 'darkie', while saying it's perfectly innocent and legitimately descriptive, is going to get your ass out of that ◊◊◊◊.

One of the games that the TRA's play is to paint anyone who doesn't agree with them as being the equivalent of a racist. So if you use terminology that people who don't agree with them use, then that automatically makes you hateful, and automatically makes that terminology hateful as well.

I'm not going to play along. I am instead now going to adopt the same terminology that EC used, that offends you, because I will not let you or the TRA's control my language. ◊◊◊◊ that ◊◊◊◊. You want to choose their side? Go ahead. You want to remain neutral? Don't side with them on language policing bull ◊◊◊◊. Trans identifying males is in fact perfectly logical and descriptive language. Hell, it's almost clinical. If you want to claim that it's hateful because it doesn't affirm them, go ahead. I'll join EC on this one quite proudly. I'm not motivated by hatred of anything except Orwellian control.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Holup: that's exactly what it means, and I've put up definitions to support that. All y'all are playing fast and loose with an alternate extremist definition, which I have said I does not represent my views. I'm speaking in English, not the Trans Wars Jargon Speech.

You're making up your own meaning of a term, and you're ignoring the way it's actually being used by advocates and transgender people for policy purposes, Thermal.

If he ain't interfering with you, what's the problem? You just don't like his appearance?

And can we please drop this inane extreme anomaly transwoman thing? Eddie Hall ain't in your bathroom. I mean, what if a big ugly male walks into the men's room in a pink shirt? Does a small, weak man have reason to object about the scawy freak that kinda sorta might be a pervy criminal?

The problem is that they are MALE and they're in a space that is expected to be FEMALE-ONLY, and where FEMALES ARE PARTIALLY OR FULLY NUDE AND ARE MORE VULNERABLE THAN IN AN OPEN PUBLIC SPACE and FEMALES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE AT RISK OF MALE SEXUAL PREDATION THAN MALES ARE.

All of that is something you seem to insist we should just ignore. For all intents, your argument ends up boiling down to "This male has special feels, and he's not comfortable in the presence of males. Because he's not comfortable among males, he should be given the right to use female facilities. And if females feel uncomfortable being in the presence of males, well ◊◊◊◊ those uppity bitches, they're just bigots and need to get over themselves, their feelings don't matter."

Oh, and all of this is based on literally nothing more than the male asserting that they're not comfortable using male restrooms, and would be more comfortable being surrounded by females.

You're elevating the desires and comfort of males way, way, way above any remote consideration of the feelings or dignity of females. And you're completely ignoring that by opening up this gigantic gaping loophole, you are effectively allowing ANY MALE AT ALL to use female facilities if they want to, even it the entire reason they want to is to be a complete and utter perv.

Your default position in this is that males are more important than females, and that females who object to giving males whatever they want are bad people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No they probably couldn't. Maaaybe as a parole condition, but that is basically still being under semi-control of the State, not having served their sentence. No one is forbidden to walk on a street.

Generally speaking, parolees are NOT allowed to drink alcohol. There are probably some exceptions depending on the particular offense, but for pretty much all non-white-collar crimes, alcohol is forbidden while on parole.

ETA: It's also relatively common for some felonies to result in individuals being barred from working in certain sectors, as well as other disclosure requirements that carry beyond their sentence. Sex offenders registry for example. And ferinstance if I were convicted of a financial crime, I could be barred from working in a financial role.

 

[Rolfe]

You're making up your own meaning of a term, and you're ignoring the way it's actually being used by advocates and transgender people for policy purposes, Thermal.

The problem is that they are MALE and they're in a space that is expected to be FEMALE-ONLY, and where FEMALES ARE PARTIALLY OR FULLY NUDE AND ARE MORE VULNERABLE THAN IN AN OPEN PUBLIC SPACE and FEMALES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE AT RISK OF MALE SEXUAL PREDATION THAN MALES ARE.

All of that is something you seem to insist we should just ignore. For all intents, your argument ends up boiling down to "This male has special feels, and he's not comfortable in the presence of males. Because he's not comfortable among males, he should be given the right to use female facilities. And if females feel uncomfortable being in the presence of males, well ◊◊◊◊ those uppity bitches, they're just bigots and need to get over themselves, their feelings don't matter."

Oh, and all of this is based on literally nothing more than the male asserting that they're not comfortable using male restrooms, and would be more comfortable being surrounded by females.

You're elevating the desires and comfort of males way, way, way above any remote consideration of the feelings or dignity of females. And you're completely ignoring that by opening up this gigantic gaping loophole, you are effectively allowing ANY MALE AT ALL to use female facilities if they want to, even it the entire reason they want to is to be a complete and utter perv.

Your default position in this is that males are more important than females, and that females who object to giving males whatever they want are bad people.

Another one quoted for truth.

 

[varwoche]

Then it would be faster to listen to the responses.

"The responses" aren't as clear as you seem to think.

Self ID is sufficient to acknowledge the person is transgender. It is not an all-access pass into the girls showers (override sex segregation, in theprestige's words). We simply need to legitimize sex segregation and the limits of gender idemtification. It really ain't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

What then are the requirements to get into the girls shower?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm speaking in English, not the Trans Wars Jargon Speech.

I am highly skeptical that anyone in this thread has managed avoid using jargon preferred by one side or another in this particular culture war skirmish. Too many new concepts to revert to the plain language you grew up using; it takes too long to say "people who don't want to be seen as either men or women" when you could just say "non-binary people" or "NBs" instead.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They shouldn't, no. But the available data suggests the conundrum is imaginary, so I'm not losing a ton of sleep.

Let me google that for you...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Guys, the word "criteria" is plural. Stop torturing the language.

What's the singular? I always thought it was like "deer" where the singular and the plural were the same...

 

[Ziggurat]

Your question remains nonsensical, as we frequently don't have clearly defined sex segregated spaces

First, I'm asking should, not is. Second, we have a VERY clearly defined space: a public women's bathroom. The question allows you to determine how YOU want that segregation to happen. It can be on the basis of sex, it can be on the basis of self-declared gender identity, it can be on the basis of whatever you want. How do you think this space should be segregated?

Ask questions that have clearer meanings, and you will get clearer answers.

This is a very well defined, very clear question. You are purposely obfuscating it in order to refuse to answer. These pathetic tactics are transparent.

Or should I say trans parent, because "transparent" is transphobic? Oh no, I did it again, I should have said trans phobic.

 

[Ziggurat]

What's the singular? I always thought it was like "deer" where the singular and the plural were the same...

Criterion. Although criteria is often used as singular as well.

Definition of CRITERION

a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based; a characterizing mark or trait… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Thermal]

Do you think a weirdo could not effortlessly break into a car, regardless of the law? Wait a few minutes until nobody's watching, then use a slim-jim to unlock it. It ain't rocket science to do so, and they're unlikely to face any legal penalties if they're not immediately caught. That's why arguments for people locking their cars don't pack much punch. They practical application of them is to keep law abiding people from breaking into cars, not save innocent car owners from having their stuff stolen, and we know they're vanishingly rare.

You're making the argument that laws have no deterrent power. Thus, laws against jaywalking, littering, speeding, and even murder are unnecessary. Even more so, you're pretty much arguing that laws against littering don't do anything at all to prevent littering and only serve to cause harm to litterers who aren't really doing anything wrong.

Laws have at least some deterrent power. They also cement social expectations regarding adherence to those laws. The most important aspect of them, however, is that they provide an avenue of recourse when those laws are broken.

We, you and I, literally had this exact same argument recently. Allow me to refresh you on how I responded and how it ended:

Locks actually stop people. Physically. It would take aggressive violence to break the door down (no, picking locks hasn't been particularly easy with anything north of a $10 lock anymore, they have pick resistant pins which are a royal bitch- I have to pick them on occasion for work).

A sign on an unlocked door and some legal policy that means little to nothing to a criminal or perv is not remotely comparable to a lock, even metaphorically.

Your response was to ignore all that and change the subject. Then it gets brought up again ss if it wasnt already addressed squarely. That's what I'm seeing over and over ITT, from multiple posters.

 

[Rolfe]

What's the singular? I always thought it was like "deer" where the singular and the plural were the same...

Criterion.

 

[Rolfe]

Criterion. Although criteria is often used as singular as well.

Definition of CRITERION

a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based; a characterizing mark or trait… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Your "although" is an example of a grammatical error being committed so often that some woke dictionaries list it as actual usage.

 

[Ziggurat]

A sign on an unlocked door and some legal policy that means little to nothing to a criminal or perv is not remotely comparable to a lock, even metaphorically.

If occupants can complain and get someone kicked out, that's a big real-world difference from having them complain and getting kicked out for complaining. So what's allowed and what isn't still really matters, in the real world, even if no one is at the door checking.

This is yet another excuse for not explaining your position.

 

[Thermal]

Generally speaking, parolees are NOT allowed to drink alcohol. There are probably some exceptions depending on the particular offense, but for pretty much all non-white-collar crimes, alcohol is forbidden while on parole.

ETA: It's also relatively common for some felonies to result in individuals being barred from working in certain sectors, as well as other disclosure requirements that carry beyond their sentence. Sex offenders registry for example. And ferinstance if I were convicted of a financial crime, I could be barred from working in a financial role.

Speaking of ignoring stuff: I also said a rapist being allowed to walk dark streets at night. Did you forget that one? Not rhetorically convenient to address?

 

[Rolfe]

Let me google that for you...

There is an entire category of porn devoted to covert filming in women's toilets. It's one reason why the use of unisex facilities should be kept to a minimum. Ladies, whenever you go into a public toilet where men are allowed (or go anyway), there is a risk you will end up on PornHub.