Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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.

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.

Lol, it doesn't offend me, bud. Nothing does. I'm letting you know what your usage means to the rest of the world (l linked the term search and the Wikipedia entry so you would know exactly "according to who?"

Use 'darkie', and you understand what it means to others. No.one cares about the half asked fig leafs. It's a dogwhistle, and I just thought you should know, in case you didn't. So don't be surprised when your English language choice of words convey their defined meaning.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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).

Literally "picking" a lock is relatively challenging... but a whole lot of locks can be defeated surprisingly easily...

McNallyOfficial

Facebook: Mcnallyofficial Instagram: mcnallyofficial

www.youtube.com

LockPickingLawyer

This channel aims to educate consumers about weaknesses and defects in security devices so they can make better security decisions. It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: do not use any of the information presented in my videos for illegal purposes. My mailing information is...

www.youtube.com

My government issued spousal unit got interested a couple of months ago. They can defeat all of the padlocks that our local Home Depot sells, and can pick about 1/3 of them. Try some different tools

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.

"No Trespassing"

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.

Again, you take the position that it won't stop a hardened criminal intent on harm. But you elide that it will deter an opportunistic criminal, and that more importantly it provides an avenue for legal recourse when someone violates the policy.

 

[theprestige]

The simplest it can possibly be, I think.

View attachment 60378

bUt wHaT AbOuT ThE EdGe cAsEs

 

[Ziggurat]

Lol, it doesn't offend me, bud. Nothing does. I'm letting you know what your usage means to the rest of the world (l linked the term search and the Wikipedia entry so you would know exactly "according to who?"

Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't represent the rest of the world. It represents the opinions of whatever Wikipedia editors decide to spend their time editing that entry. That's a very small, self-selected group of people. The idea that we should take their opinion as representative is laughable on its face.

 

[Rolfe]

bUt wHaT AbOuT ThE EdGe cAsEs

Not that sure there even are any. 5ARD boys do have a penis, it's just unusually small and invisible, at least until puberty. It's a pretty good first approximation anyway.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't represent the rest of the world. It represents the opinions of whatever Wikipedia editors decide to spend their time editing that entry. That's a very small, self-selected group of people. The idea that we should take their opinion as representative is laughable on its face.

Wikipedia is also heavily policed to enforce woke-speak. The people who make the decisions are entirely captured. Try editing a page to alter TRA-approved terminology and it will be back the way it was before you can say "reverted". Wikipedia is thoroughly unreliable for anything that's even remotely controversial.

 

[Thermal]

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?

The same way I have repeatedly said. Men's and women's rooms will correspond to sex 99.5% of the time. There will be that 1 in 200 occasional non conformist to the sex rule, and it shouldnt pose a problem to anyone, much as it doesn't pose one today.

That's my 'should'. In practice, it may be more complicated, so I engage in a discussion thread about the topic, to hear opposing viewpoints and criticisms, which might be strong enough to alter my view. It's happened on more than one topic on this forum.

Wait... do you understand that? I'm not an entrenched TransWarrior. I'm discussing a controversial topic, and am open to persuasion, but I don't find blatantly bigoted arguments persuasive. Quite the contrary, really.

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

Your earlier question from post #6,908 was "On what basis should transwomen be able to transcend sex segregation?", which includes prisons and showers, obviously. Now you have switched to limiting public bathrooms. Then you get snide about how clear you are when you don't even ask the same question.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Lol, it doesn't offend me, bud. Nothing does. I'm letting you know what your usage means to the rest of the world (l linked the term search and the Wikipedia entry so you would know exactly "according to who?"

It doesn't mean that to the rest of the word - it's a term that transgender people and their activist allies take offense at. They take offense because it makes it very clear that transwomen are males, and it removes the implication that they are "women" by default. It makes their claim that transwomen are "just a different kind of woman" like black women or tall women is a false claim.

You're also appealing to wiktionary, which ends up being pretty heavily edited and is vulnerable to motivated manipulation. For example, under the heading for "trans-identified male" it says:

Noun​

trans-identified male (plural trans-identified males)

1. (derogatory, offensive) A trans woman. quotations ▼
2. (uncommon) A trans man. quotations ▼

Usage notes​

The first sense (under “adjective” and under “noun”), "trans female / trans woman", is used by people who believe that transgender women are men . The term is otherwise uncommon.

If you use your cognitive function, you might understand that this entry implicitly assumes that 1) transgender women are WOMEN and 2) anyone who doesn't believe that males who identify as women are actually women, are by default approaching the topic from a position of being intentionally derogatory and offensive.

But let's go a step further...

Noun​

[edit]
transwoman (plural transwomen)

1. (often derogatory, offensive) Alternative spelling of trans woman. coordinate term ▲quotations ▼Coordinate term: transman

Usage notes​

[edit]

• See usage notes on trans woman.

According to wiktionary, not putting a space in it makes it derogatory and offensive.

Noun​

trans woman (plural trans women)

1. A transgender or transsexual woman; i.e., a woman who was assigned male at birth; i.e., a person who was assigned male at birth but who has a female or primarily-female gender identity. quotations ▼

Usage notes​

• Trans woman is often spelled with a space, with trans as an adjective modifying the noun woman, similar to Asian woman, tall woman, fat woman, etc. The unspaced spelling transwoman is sometimes used interchangeably, including by a few transgender people. However, it is often associated with views (notably gender-critical feminism) that hold that transgender women are not women, and thus require a separate word from woman to describe them. For this reason many transgender people find transwoman offensive.

Again - wiktionary is taking the ideological position that not believing that transgender identified males are actually for realsies women is a derogatory and offensive belief.

It's clear that wiktionary has an ideological bias built into this entire category of definitions. Why are you then assuming that this is universally accepted as truth? Let alone tantamount to racism?

 

[Rolfe]

Did you forget that one? Not rhetorically convenient to address?

You know what, Thermal. If you weren't so condescending and passive-agressive to posters who disagree with you, or who at least challenge you to clarify what you mean, you might get on better.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't represent the rest of the world. It represents the opinions of whatever Wikipedia editors decide to spend their time editing that entry. That's a very small, self-selected group of people. The idea that we should take their opinion as representative is laughable on its face.

You have something better than a Google search which turned up nothing but the indication that it's a derogatory term (which the non-trans-haters knew anyway)? I'm listening.

 

[Rolfe]

The same way I have repeatedly said. Men's and women's rooms will correspond to sex 99.5% of the time. There will be that 1 in 200 occasional non conformist to the sex rule, and it shouldnt pose a problem to anyone, much as it doesn't pose one today.

That's my 'should'. In practice, it may be more complicated, so I engage in a discussion thread about the topic, to hear opposing viewpoints and criticisms, which might be strong enough to alter my view. It's happened on more than one topic on this forum.

Wait... do you understand that? I'm not an entrenched TransWarrior. I'm discussing a controversial topic, and am open to persuasion, but I don't find blatantly bigoted arguments persuasive. Quite the contrary, really.

Your earlier question from post #6,908 was "On what basis should transwomen be able to transcend sex segregation?", which includes prisons and showers, obviously. Now you have switched to limiting public bathrooms. Then you get snide about how clear you are when you don't even ask the same question.

If you think women trying to defend their modesty, and rights, are blatantly bigoted - as you have made clear pretty often - you most certainly are an entrenched trans-warrior.

 

[Thermal]

You know what, Thermal. If you weren't so condescending and passive-agressive to posters who disagree with you, or who at least challenge you to clarify what you mean, you might get on better.

Thanks, pot. You want me to pull up some of your charmingly condescending and passive-aggressive posts you've personally addressed to me?

 

[theprestige]

Self ID is sufficient to acknowledge the person is transgender.

Agreed.

It is not an all-access pass into the girls showers (override sex segregation, in theprestige's words).

Agreed.

We simply need to legitimize sex segregation and the limits of gender idemtification.

Agreed.

It really ain't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Agreed.

It gets even simpler if you just codify all the current conventions on spaces for women as sex-segregated.

So that's good public policy sorted. Now all we have to do is advocate for it, vote for it, and normalize it wherever we can.

I know the public policy stuff isn't really your jam. With that all addressed, what were your other concerns?

 

[Thermal]

If you think women trying to defend their modesty, and rights, are blatantly bigoted - as you have made clear pretty often - you most certainly are an entrenched trans-warrior.

Jesus Christ. If you recall when I started engaging in this thread, I was solidly in favor of sex segregated spaces, and no transgression (beyond the occasional mom with her kid or whatever).

You and a few others here have me very deeply questioning that starting assumption, from your own arguments. You give painfully few sound arguments, and a lot of really bad ones.

 

[theprestige]

Your question remains nonsensical, as we frequently don't have clearly defined sex segregated spaces, and I have said gender ID doesn't get you into the ones we have defined.

In regions where sex and gender are not clearly defined or equivalent, your question has no meaning at all.

Okay, this makes sense to me.

So. What's an example of a region where sex and gender are not clearly defined, and how would you propose handling it?

I think earlier you said something about public bathrooms being de facto gendered, not sexed, and that you propose we just codify that and let self-ID prevail in public bathrooms.

My proposal is, of course, the opposite: Codify public restrooms as sexed, and let sex segregation prevail.

Is there any particular reason you'd prefer one of those proposals over the other?

 

[Ziggurat]

You have something better than a Google search which turned up nothing but the indication that it's a derogatory term (which the non-trans-haters knew anyway)? I'm listening.

trans-identified male - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

"The first sense (under “adjective” and under “noun”), "trans female / trans woman", is used by people who believe that transgender women are men. The term is otherwise uncommon."

The TRA's think that it's hateful to consider transwomen to be men. That's the entire basis of thinking that it's derogatory. Note also the incoherence of some of their definitions. They say that "trans identified male" can mean a "transgender female", which indicates that they're using "female" to indicate gender and not sex.

This here is ideological capture. I'm not going to take my cues on what's offensive and what isn't by ideologically captured institutions. I don't know why you're so willing to bow down to them. That's stupid, and in the long run suicidal.

 

[Thermal]

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Right. I think we established many pages ago that you and I were broadly in agreement.

It gets even simpler if you just codify all the current conventions on spaces for women as sex-segregated.

This is the variable. I'm feeling less confident that at least most public rest rooms actually need to be sex segregated. Seems like it's less of an issue than I really thought to have a rare non-conformist using a gender segregated room, or go unisex with occasional genuinely private single occupant rooms.

So that's good public policy sorted. Now all we have to do is advocate for it, vote for it, and normalize it wherever we can.

I think it's probably what will prevail, because if it doesn't, the shower doors open wide and I can't see many people being okay with that. Not sure that's the greatest legal argument, though. "We are all kinda prudish at heart" seems less robust than "we don't discriminate based on sex or gender".

I know the public policy stuff isn't really your jam. With that all addressed, what were your other concerns?

Not seeing it as fully addressed, and of course public policy is going to be the overreaching endgame. Seems like we need to nail down the why and how of sex segregation first, and policy will follow.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, Wikipedia doesn't represent the rest of the world. It represents the opinions of whatever Wikipedia editors decide to spend their time editing that entry. That's a very small, self-selected group of people. The idea that we should take their opinion as representative is laughable on its face.

It's not even Wikipedia proper - it's Wiktionary. And if you read the discussion pieces, you'll see that even the various editors aren't in agreement that it's derogatory or offensive.

 

[Ziggurat]

Jesus Christ. If you recall when I started engaging in this thread, I was solidly in favor of sex segregated spaces, and no transgression (beyond the occasional mom with her kid or whatever).

Then why in the absolute everloving ◊◊◊◊ do you have such a hard time with saying that you want sex segregation? If that's really your position (and frankly, I have some doubts), why was this not how you answered my question pages ago?

Jesus Christ, why was that so hard?

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not even Wikipedia proper - it's Wiktionary.

Sure, but he's asking me about what comes up in a google search, and that comes up in a google search. He's setting the standard, I'm just examining it.