• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

smartcooky said:
Mycroft I think
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'll fix it. I get usernames with the same initial letter mixed up sometimes.

I once failed a university pharmacology exam because I wrote an excellent essay - about a drug whose name began with the same letter as the drug the question actually asked about. That's how bad it is.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Seriously, EC?

I do. And I don't think what we are discussing will change that one iota. That's what the data, meager as it is, has shown. Not a slight risk increase. Dead ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ zero. The 'additional' assault risks you have gone on and on about simply don't materialize. We don't see them.

If your state went doors wide open tomorrow (as mine have), I'd bet nothing would change for you. The threats you face would remain the same. You wouldn't even likely notice a policy had been enacted. It would just be another day, like all the others. That's what I mean about irrational threats. We have the data. What you believe happens, doesn't happen. So we get rational about it, not continue with the irrational assumptions.
Click to expand...

Turn that around, and require all males to use the men's facilities. I'd bet nothing would change for them. The threats they face would remain the same [that is, zero]. It would just be another day, like all the others. That's what I mean about irrational threats. We have the data. What they believe happens, doesn't happen. So we get rational about it, not continue with the irrational assumptions.
 
Thermal said:
Lol, you not only got his name wrong, but you demonstrated again that you are not paying the most remote attention to who you are arguing with and what their arguments are. You're priceless.

Please dont lie. It's really annoying. *I* don't tell them to do anything. As a culture, we don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ if their religion forbids women from holding high political office, for instance. We are going to do as we see fit.

Ya, how's it feel, pot?

Pretty much correct. How would I know? The only thing I've gathered from some female voices here is that men are animals and transwomen pervy freaks. Or 'weirdos', I think was your preferred slur?
Click to expand...

Suit yourself.
 
Rolfe said:
Turn that around, and require all males to use the men's facilities. I'd bet nothing would change for them. The threats they face would remain the same [that is, zero]. It would just be another day, like all the others. That's what I mean about irrational threats. We have the data. What they believe happens, doesn't happen. So we get rational about it, not continue with the irrational assumptions.
Click to expand...
Pretty much correct. But we would be sexist and discriminatory. So nah, thanks. Hard pass.
 
Thermal said:
Because I deeply, sincerely, want to be inclusive to trans people. I detest the little guy getting marginalized and told they don't belong.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.

If lack of clarity about sex and gender is your sticking point, lack of clarity about what is a trans person is my sticking point.

What is a trans person? What kind of inclusion should they be entitled to?

To me, a trans person is someone who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and is pursuing social transition in order to ameliorate their distress.
 
Thermal said:
Seriously, EC?

I do. And I don't think what we are discussing will change that one iota. That's what the data, meager as it is, has shown. Not a slight risk increase. Dead ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ zero. The 'additional' assault risks you have gone on and on about simply don't materialize. We don't see them.
Click to expand...
Pretty amazing hypocrisy on display here.

You dismiss all of women's concerns because the statistics show a very small increased danger to them, and and yet you are willing to turn their world upside down (that's 51% of the population) for the sake of giving a tiny percentage of males everything they want due to their girlie feels.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Okay, but it also ruled that neither self-id nor GRC entitles a male person to enter sex-specific spaces designated for the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's not in question is it? Although I understand the judges' argument about not requiring a GRC I'm still not convinced it's the right decision.
 
Thermal said:
Seriously, EC?
Click to expand...
Oh I'm poking you, definitely. But the fact - and I do mean fact - remains that transwomen are male. And by granting ANY males right of entry to female restrooms, you are of necessity granting access to ALL males who wish to enter.

So when you say that you don't think males should be allowed to use female restrooms, I'm assuming you mean ALL males can be excluded. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Thermal said:
I do. And I don't think what we are discussing will change that one iota. That's what the data, meager as it is, has shown. Not a slight risk increase. Dead ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ zero. The 'additional' assault risks you have gone on and on about simply don't materialize. We don't see them.

If your state went doors wide open tomorrow (as mine have), I'd bet nothing would change for you. The threats you face would remain the same. You wouldn't even likely notice a policy had been enacted. It would just be another day, like all the others. That's what I mean about irrational threats. We have the data. What you believe happens, doesn't happen. So we get rational about it, not continue with the irrational assumptions.
Click to expand...

Take note: I'm not assuming that these individuals are representative of all transgender people. I am, however, asserting that by allowing transgender identified males to have right-of-access to female restrooms, you are ALSO granting right-of-access to those who do the things you've insisted don't happen.

Since it's literally impossible for any of us to tell whether the male entering the bathroom is a "true trans" person who is harmless, or a run of the mill male pervert exploiting the loophole, there is no possible way to legally exclude any male who wishes to be there, regardless of their intent.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Appreciated. And the caveat, that Zig was torturing me over: I understand that what *I want* is not what *we should* do. That's a more complex weighing.
theprestige said:
If lack of clarity about sex and gender is your sticking point
Click to expand...
I'm clear, pretty much. Our governments, that enforce public policy, seem a little befuddled.
theprestige said:
, lack of clarity about what is a trans person is my sticking point.

What is a trans person? What kind of inclusion should they be entitled to?

To me, a trans person is someone who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and is pursuing social transition in order to ameliorate their distress.
Click to expand...
I think that's fair, but GD is the distress brought about by the switched wires. I think (or believe) that you can comfortably identify as trans, too. Especially in the last decade or so. No distress, so no GD.

Is the condition labeled wrongly? Should any trans person be assumed mentally ill, or just those who measurably suffer from the cognitive dissonance?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Why on earth would it be sexist and discriminatory to require males to use male facilities?

You're spare parts, bud.
Click to expand...
I am not convinced that we even have male facilities, or that male and female are anything but the majority identifying occupants of their respective restrooms. Seemed clear to me a long time ago. Not so much anymore.

Get the gubmint together on how we are defining sex segregated spaces and gender ones, and we can talk using the same terminology.
 
Darat said:
Yes, but that's not in question is it? Although I understand the judges' argument about not requiring a GRC I'm still not convinced it's the right decision.
Click to expand...
I think that's where your post led to some possible misunderstanding.

Your post:
Darat said:
The recent supreme Court judgement in the UK has moved the UK to self-ID.
Click to expand...
Seemed to imply that UK was upholding self-id as it pertains to policy with respect to single-sex spaces and services, allowing people to self-declare their gender identity and thereby supercede sex-based restrictions on access.

Perhaps we need to add capitalization or something. Lower case "self-id" might then refer to how people think of themselves. We generally don't talk about that, because we generally don't care one way or another. People can think of themselves however they want, more power to them. Upper case "Self-ID" might then refer to advocacy to allow people to override sex-restrictions on the basis of their self-declared gender identity. Although the likelihood of that getting mucked up is still very high.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Oh I'm poking you, definitely. But the fact - and I do mean fact - remains that transwomen are male. And by granting ANY males right of entry to female restrooms, you are of necessity granting access to ALL males who wish to enter.

So when you say that you don't think males should be allowed to use female restrooms, I'm assuming you mean ALL males can be excluded. Otherwise it makes no sense.


Take note: I'm not assuming that these individuals are representative of all transgender people. I am, however, asserting that by allowing transgender identified males to have right-of-access to female restrooms, you are ALSO granting right-of-access to those who do the things you've insisted don't happen.

Since it's literally impossible for any of us to tell whether the male entering the bathroom is a "true trans" person who is harmless, or a run of the mill male pervert exploiting the loophole, there is no possible way to legally exclude any male who wishes to be there, regardless of their intent.
Click to expand...
Ok. I promise to go through your list of links when I get off my jobsite (where I am getting exactly jack ◊◊◊◊ done today, lol).

I looked at the first one. The guy is not trans, and never claimed to be. This guy (and the criminal charges he faces) exists with or without adopting the proposed trans policies in either direction.

I've been saying this to others for a while: if you want to show me links on how bad the tranny freaks are, ya really should check to see if they are trans first, lol.
 
Thermal said:
Should any trans person be assumed mentally ill, or just those who measurably suffer from the cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...
Only if they insist that their discomfort should allow them to override sex-based boundaries, or that their feelings mean that they're in-effect the opposite sex and that everyone should treat them as such in all situations.

None of us cares how people think about themselves, how they feel inside their heads, or even how they dress*. It's their prerogative, and we literally don't actually care. It's when they assert that how they feel somehow makes them the opposite sex, and that their subjective feelings place an onus on the rest of us that we care.


*Caveat on clothing and presentation: I support anyone's right to dress however they wish, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to silently judge and mock extraordinary bad taste. And it doesn't mean I won't feel offended by presentations that are outright caricatures of females, or that I view as representing a pornified and objectified sentiment of womanhood. Drag queens are, in my opinion, engaging in performative and offensive womanface. A lot (not all) transgender identified males are also cosplaying or LARPing as their porn-based view of women. I still support their right to dress how they want. That doesn't mean I approve and it certainly doesn't mean I'm not going to call out derogatory portrayals when I see them.
 
Thermal said:
Ok. I promise to go through your list of links when I get off my jobsite (where I am getting exactly jack ◊◊◊◊ done today, lol).
Click to expand...
When I was taking exams ages ago, this was generally referred to as DNGAF Friday. Now that I'm all credentialled and have real responsibilities... well... it spills into my weekend this time of year. I've got about another month to go before it cools down to a mere simmer.
Thermal said:
I looked at the first one. The guy is not trans, and never claimed to be. This guy (and the criminal charges he faces) exists with or without adopting the proposed trans policies in either direction.
Click to expand...
How do you tell? Or more importantly how do females tell? When a male shows up in traditionally female attire, and appears to be presenting as female.... how can you tell who's genuine and who isn't?

That's the entire point, by the way.
Thermal said:
I've been saying this to others for a while: if you want to show me links on how bad the tranny freaks are, ya really should check to see if they are trans first, lol.
Click to expand...
How do you tell who is and is not trans? What indicators are there to a random observer?
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think that's where your post led to some possible misunderstanding.

Your post:

Seemed to imply that UK was upholding self-id as it pertains to policy with respect to single-sex spaces and services, allowing people to self-declare their gender identity and thereby supercede sex-based restrictions on access.

Perhaps we need to add capitalization or something. Lower case "self-id" might then refer to how people think of themselves. We generally don't talk about that, because we generally don't care one way or another. People can think of themselves however they want, more power to them. Upper case "Self-ID" might then refer to advocacy to allow people to override sex-restrictions on the basis of their self-declared gender identity. Although the likelihood of that getting mucked up is still very high.
Click to expand...
It would be a screaming good idea to get some kind of glossary together so readers of the thread who aren't hip to the lingerie can reference it. Maybe pick a post with a nice round number (easy to remember) and drop a glossary, which readers can be directed towards?
 
Thermal said:
Appreciated. And the caveat, that Zig was torturing me over: I understand that what *I want* is not what *we should* do. That's a more complex weighing.

I'm clear, pretty much. Our governments, that enforce public policy, seem a little befuddled.

I think that's fair, but GD is the distress brought about by the switched wires. I think (or believe) that you can comfortably identify as trans, too. Especially in the last decade or so. No distress, so no GD.

Is the condition labeled wrongly? Should any trans person be assumed mentally ill, or just those who measurably suffer from the cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...
My view is, no diagnosis, no trans.

Saying you identify as a woman and want to caucus with the women is just self-ID, and a complete non-starter for me.

But you haven't actually answered my question about definitions. I gave you my definition as a show of good faith and engagement, not to sidetrack you from giving your own definition.
 
Emily's Cat said:
When I was taking exams ages ago, this was generally referred to as DNGAF Friday. Now that I'm all credentialled and have real responsibilities... well... it spills into my weekend this time of year. I've got about another month to go before it cools down to a mere simmer.
Click to expand...
Word.
Emily's Cat said:
How do you tell? Or more importantly how do females tell? When a male shows up in traditionally female attire, and appears to be presenting as female.... how can you tell who's genuine and who isn't?
Click to expand...
If you can't detect a problem, there probably isn't one. This guy had a phone out and recording in rest rooms and changing rooms, and freaking pen cameras strapped to his shoes. His pervy behavior would get him acted on in the same nanosecond, no matter what the trans policy is.
Emily's Cat said:
That's the entire point, by the way.

How do you tell who is and is not trans? What indicators are there to a random observer?
Click to expand...
if you can't tell, it doesn't matter. That's the entire point, by the way.

Blow the whistle on the perv, no matter what the trans policy. Leave someone peeing alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom