• 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

I suggest you google trans men. There may be few trans women who "pass", but there are certainly some trans men who do, especially if they have a full beard, which even the most "masculine woman" is not going to have.

There are a very few "bearded ladies" who have a hormone issue that causes facial hair growth. However they're not masculinised otherwise, and once you've got over the fact of the beard it's very easy to read them as women. Think of the women riding extras in Lord of the Rings who had beards added by the makeup department so they could be Riders of Rohan. Close up, they were just women with beards, not men. (The reason bearded ladies often don't shave is that female facial skin is softer and more sensitive and doesn't react well to regular shaving.)
 

As usual, it's "But what about the poor men?" I have officially had it with worrying about the poor men.

There is a simple way to look at this. If these elderly trans people pass so well, and behave so well, that they never upset a woman in a women-only space, they have nothing to worry about. If women aren't uncomfortable in their presence, they are not going to shout at them. It's obvious. But the fact that "Christine" is still concerned that someone might should at him when he goes in there suggests quite strongly that he doesn't pass, he has never passed, and he has been making women uncomfortable and even afraid for nearly fifty years.

Sorry that Christine has been lied to all that time that he had a right to make women feel uncomfortable and afraid, but that's on the people who lied to him. Get mad at them, not at the women who have finally got their rights back.
 
Mate, if I saw a woman dressed like that, I would mock them. Seriously, a grown arse woman dressing like a grade-schooler?

ETA: Actually, having gone back and looked more closely at the photo I will revise the earlier statement and made a few pages ago. It doesn't just deserve mockery... it deserves a public warning.

A grown man wearing kiddie clothes, complete with a pink "Hello Kitty" heart-purse clearly has issues. The Creep Factor with this guy is off the charts.

If grown-up people choose to go out in public looking like absolute chookies, I reserve the right to point and laugh. The one on the left is absolutely prime entertainment. The one on the right is a bit more sinister to me.

1745763717824.png 1745763834962.png

Yes, I know the script. A couple more juicy cherries plucked to smear all those lovely trans ladies who only want to pee and whom you probably wouldn't notice anyway. But these are the ones that are pushing themselves into the public eye. They are the public face of the trans movement, or at least one of its public faces.

Once upon a time this sort of exhibitionism was kept in check by ridicule and mockery (and kink-shaming). I think that was a pretty good strategy. Now, though, we're being told these are transwomen, the people we're supposed to be sympathising with and letting them have whatever they want because they're such harmless, marginalised souls. That laughing at them, as they so richly deserve, is hatred.

Not playing that game.

ETA: The first compilation I found contained such disturbing and even obscene images I couldn't link to it on the forum, but this one is probably within acceptable parameters.


Just STOP trying to pity-shame women into accepting these absolute freaking perverts into our intimate spaces.
 
Last edited:
If grown-up people choose to go out in public looking like absolute chookies, I reserve the right to point and laugh.
Gotta hand it to you, you don't even try to hide it.

Are you so judgemental and openly mocking about a black person wearing flamboyant dress? You'd be very deeply regretting your open ridicule over here in the US in short order.
The one on the left is absolutely prime entertainment. The one on the right is a bit more sinister to me.

View attachment 60421 View attachment 60422

Yes, I know the script. A couple more juicy cherries plucked to smear all those lovely trans ladies who only want to pee and whom you probably wouldn't notice anyway.
Yeah, you keep posting the same person over and over and over. It's the very definition of cherry picking. It's really surprising that on a skeptics site, the weakness of your repetitive postings aren't being called out by your own team. I guess they can't see it anymore either.
But these are the ones that are pushing themselves into the public eye. They are the public face of the trans movement, or at least one of its public faces.
To wit: would you like me to post a pic of nazis protesting against transpeople, as if they were a good rendition of your side? Or would that be different?
Once upon a time this sort of exhibitionism was kept in check by ridicule and mockery (and kink-shaming). I think that was a pretty good strategy.
You said that out loud, you know. Really curious if your teammates call you out for this kind of stuff, or if they "missed it" in the thread.
Now, though, we're being told these are transwomen, the people we're supposed to be sympathising with and letting them have whatever they want because they're such harmless, marginalised souls. That laughing at them, as they so richly deserve, is hatred.

Not playing that game.

ETA: The first compilation I found contained such disturbing and even obscene images I couldn't link to it on the forum, but this one is probably within acceptable parameters.


Just STOP trying to pity-shame women into accepting these absolute freaking perverts into our intimate spaces.
Perverts. People who have really bad taste and maybe are a little impaired, at least in terms of how they present in public. I think I'll go find some homeless people to mock and ridicule for their presentation too. I'm sure they have their heads just as well together. And if they don't, ◊◊◊◊ 'em, right? Just point and mock. They deserve it
 
Last edited:
For crying out loud, this is absolutely nothing like a black person wearing flamboyant dress. These are the people you are so keen to pity-shame us into accepting into our intimate spaces, and they are fetishistic fruit-loops. Thankfully, that jig is up where I am.
 
Gotta hand it to you, you don't even try to hide it.
Hide what?

Are you so judgemental and openly mocking about a black person wearing flamboyant dress?
Non-sequitur - this is irrelevant whataboutism.

You'd be very deeply regretting your open ridicule over here in the US in short order.
Well, Rolfe is not "over here", she's in the UK, a country where they are on the path to returning to the science-based reality that sex is binary and that women ought to be protected. Over where you live, in the Republic of Gilead, not so much.

Yeah, you keep posting the same person over and over and over.
And?

It's the very definition of cherry picking.
No it isn't. A cherry can only be picked once.

It's really surprising that on a skeptics site....
What is surprising is that there are so-called skeptics who are prepared to deny observable scientific reality.

the weakness of your repetitive postings aren't being called out by your own team. I guess they can't see it anymore either.
There isn't anything to "see". And as for repetive postings, I suggest you look in a mirror sometime.

To wit: would you like me to post a pic of nazis protesting against transpeople, as if they were a good rendition of your side? Or would that be different?
Nazis aren't on anybody's side but their own - they latch on to the causes of others (such as white supremacists and anti-Semites) to promote their own agenda.

Besides, who needs to post pictures of Nazis, when the people YOU support have been showing us exactly who THEY are on the streets of the UK. I guess you are just fine with people urinating in public, defacing statues of suffragettes, and hold up placards urging their bretheren and supporters to punch, kick and kill TERFs, and threatened their children and families. A nice bunch of people you have on your side!

You said that out loud, you know. Really curious if your teammates call you out for this kind of stuff, or if they "missed it" in the thread.
There is nothing to call out.

Perverts. People who have really bad taste and maybe are a little impaired, at least in terms of how they present in public. I think I'll go find some homeless people to mock and ridicule for their presentation too. I'm sure they have their heads just as well together. And if they don't, ◊◊◊◊ 'em, right? Just point and mock. They deserve it
Any man who dresses like a little girl or a schoolgirl in public is creepy, and has serious mental issues. They need to be treated, but instead, people on your side celebrate their creepiness, and give them a pass.
 
Last edited:
Any man who dresses like a little girl or a schoolgirl in public is creepy
I'm imagining what those men would look like dressed up in little boy school uniforms, and it's still creepy.

Why can't these activists come dressed in a nice pantsuit or something? Because they are trying to rub their fetish in people's faces. That's a warning sign. That's apopsematism. It's not hateful to not ignore it.
 
Besides, who needs to post pictures of Nazis, when the people YOU support have been showing us exactly who THEY are on the streets of the UK. I guess you are just fine with people urinating in public, defacing staues of suffragettes, and hold up placards urging their bretheren and supporters to punch, kick and kill TERFs, and threatend the chilrens and families. A nice bunch of people you have on your side!
Millicent Fawcett was NOT a suffragette; she was a suffragist. The two groups had similar sounding names but very different tactics. Suffragettes tended to act like the Just Stop Oil campaign group whereas the suffragists, in general, and Fawcett specifically acted through the law.
 
I'm imagining what those men would look like dressed up in little boy school uniforms, and it's still creepy.

Why can't these activists come dressed in a nice pantsuit or something? Because they are trying to rub their fetish in people's faces. That's a warning sign. That's apopsematism. It's not hateful to not ignore it.
Exactly!
 
Wow, this thread sure has moved a lot. I have some chores to do, so no way I can catch up right now.

In the meantime, look what I've found?


While some of the answers here align with the TERF point of view, much more of them align with what was happening with my informal poll. Although not scientific, certainly indicative.
That Quora question is eight years old. The landscape has changed considerably since then; males have publicly been in such things as women's sports, prisons, lesbian clubs, hospital wards, DV and rape shelters, changing rooms, and yes, toilets, to the detriment of women.

When people once thought that it was a very few males who "just want to pee", now people have realised it's so much more than that.

Everyone poops the same.

We may poop the same but we don't pee the same. And we have periods to deal with, which most of us don't want to do in front of men.

And if these men "just want to pee", why can't they pee in the gents loos? If men are unsafe to be with, then they are also unsafe to be in the ladies loos
 
Eight years ago? I hadn't realised that. Eight years ago I would probably have said "come in sister" myself. (I would have had some private reservations, but I'd been brainwashed into thinking that's what I ought to say.) It was September 2017 when the penny dropped for me with a resounding clang.

It's sometimes hard to find stats again that you posted before, but I did post the results of two almost identical opinion polls, I think from YouGov, that were only a couple of years apart, and both considerably more recent than 2017. The hardening in attitudes against trans-identifying men being allowed into women's spaces (asked about separately) in only two years was extremely marked. If I find these again I'll save them and post them again.

I also mentioned the single poll that started with some very bald questions about whether the respondents supported trans rights in general, and whether transwomen should use women's bathrooms. Results were around 75% in favour, more so among young women. The poll then led the respondents through a series of questions that gradually revealed just what these propositions really meant, that transwomen were male (not female), that most were heterosexual, that most retained their male genitalia, and that no body modifications or particular forms of dress were required to be a transwoman - only the person's say-so. By the end, when the "do you agree that transwomen should use women's bathrooms?" question was asked again, but in slightly different words, the young women's responses had flipped from 80% in favour to 80% against, as far as I recall.

Trans is the only supposed civil rights movement where the more the public find out about it, the less favourably they regard it. There's a reason for this. Other campaigns such as rights for same-sex attracted people (saying that is now transphobic of course) and rights for non-white people, were conducted in the daylight. Nobody was hiding anything, and the more people understood the more accepting they became. Legislation followed public opinion. The push for trans rights was conducted in darkness. The campaigners knew their aims were unpopular, and took advice. They were advised to shun publicity and to work behind the scenes piggybacking on more popular causes (such as gay rights) to slide legislation through, and to get their training and guidance into organisations. It worked. It was good advice. But it was never going to work long term. The hope seems to have been that by the time public opinion turned, the legislation would be entrenched and very difficult to roll back. We had a damn close call in Scotland I can tell you, and Canada, Australia and New Zealand are in deep doo-doo.

It will all be unravelled in the end though. This period is going to spawn books and PhD theses like nothing on earth. How could the entire western world have gone quite so mad? It makes the tulip bulb Ponzi scheme look positively sane. Even witch-burning panics were more rational. I think we're seeing the first tentative steps on the road.

 
I'm imagining what those men would look like dressed up in little boy school uniforms, and it's still creepy.

Why can't these activists come dressed in a nice pantsuit or something? Because they are trying to rub their fetish in people's faces. That's a warning sign. That's apopsematism. It's not hateful to not ignore it.

I'm just going to have another bite at this cherry, because he grows on a tree too close to me for comfort (and this is the picture I couldn't find last time).

1745792427846.jpeg

If a fifteen-year-old girl with a nice figure went out in public like that, her mother would make her come in and get changed into something decent. If any woman below the age of 30 or so went out in public like that it would be assumed she was a prostitute, but I'm not sure how many men would be that interested in her. This outfit on a man is absolutely a sign of perversion. He's parading his fetish in public. He's probably the most gross example in that particular gathering, but as I said there were other photos of other men so revolting I wouldn't post them on the forum. And that's just in public. The pictures they take of themselves in private then post on social media are utterly revolting.

I don't care how many sweet, kind, polite, shrinking violet marginalised transwomen exist who only want to pee. No matter their number they don't outweigh the harms caused by letting these dangerous fruitloops into women's spaces. They can go pee in the men's,
 
Trans is the only supposed civil rights movement where the more the public find out about it, the less favourably they regard it. There's a reason for this. Other campaigns such as rights for same-sex attracted people (saying that is now transphobic of course) and rights for non-white people, were conducted in the daylight. Nobody was hiding anything, and the more people understood the more accepting they became. Legislation followed public opinion. The push for trans rights was conducted in darkness. The campaigners knew their aims were unpopular, and took advice. They were advised to shun publicity and to work behind the scenes piggybacking on more popular causes (such as gay rights) to slide legislation through, and to get their training and guidance into organisations. It worked. It was good advice. But it was never going to work long term. The hope seems to have been that by the time public opinion turned, the legislation would be entrenched and very difficult to roll back.
For years, British mainstream media, such as the BBC didn't cover much in the way trans rights activism protests - TRA's managed to keep their malarkey out of the public eye. That is why the general public mostly did not understand that NO transwomen were female, and over 95% of them were fully intact, biological males who needed to merely utter a few special words and they magically became women in the eye of the (wholly misunderstood) law.

After the Supreme Court ruling last week, the subsequent protests have worked against the protesters. They are now being covered wall-to-wall by that very same mainstream media. Trans activists are in the process of educating the public about exactly who they really are, and that public can see their vile and reprehensible behaviour.

I am hopeful this public education will accelerate the turning tide, and bring us back to observable reality.


We had a damn close call in Scotland I can tell you, and Canada, Australia and New Zealand are in deep doo-doo.

Correct... the two dominant parties are almost indiguishable from each other (one centre-left, the other centre), both ideologically captured to some degree. Its going to take sometihng like what the ladies at FWS did to rattle some cages here.

#forwomennzl
#forwomenaust

It will all be unravelled in the end though. This period is going to spawn books and PhD theses like nothing on earth. How could the entire western world have gone quite so mad? It makes the tulip bulb Ponzi scheme look positively sane. Even witch-burning panics were more rational. I think we're seeing the first tentative steps on the road.

Indeed
 
The BBC is completely captured. In thrall to its own trans association. It has a ridiculously disproportionate number of trans employees and they call all the shots.
 
Hide what?
You make my point for me. You can't even see it.
Non-sequitur - this is irrelevant whataboutism.

Well, Rolfe is not "over here", she's in the UK, a country where they are on the path to returning to the science-based reality that sex is binary and that women ought to be protected. Over where you live, in the Republic of Gilead, not so much.
Did you get confused? We were talking about Rolfe pointing and laughing at people she didn't approve of. This has nothing to do with sex being binary. You are mindlessly knee jerking to keywords.
And that shows how little she has of substance if she has to rely on this one person every time she wants to show how 'perverted' them trannys are.
No it isn't. A cherry can only be picked once.
I'll check my notes, but that may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.
What is surprising is that there are so-called skeptics who are prepared to deny observable scientific reality.
Not what we are talking about. Please make an effort to focus.
There isn't anything to "see". And as for repetive postings, I suggest you look in a mirror sometime.
Um...right. The numbnuts ask the same question 50 times. The answers get repetitive. Right, that's how it works. Rolfe, by contrast, wasn't reponding; she was initiating.
Nazis aren't on anybody's side but their own - they latch on to the causes of others (such as white supremacists and anti-Semites) to promote their own agenda.
Not remotely what we were talking about, but at least you responded to two or three keywords. Better than just one, yeah?
Besides, who needs to post pictures of Nazis, when the people YOU support have been showing us exactly who THEY are on the streets of the UK. I guess you are just fine with people urinating in public, defacing statues of suffragettes, and hold up placards urging their bretheren and supporters to punch, kick and kill TERFs, and threatened their children and families. A nice bunch of people you have on your side!
Time for an IQ test! Since I share virtually no opinions with the demonstrators, why do you suppose you think I support them or we are on the same side? Honest answer only, please.
There is nothing to call out.

Any man who dresses like a little girl or a schoolgirl in public is creepy, and has serious mental issues. They need to be treated, but instead, people on your side celebrate their creepiness, and give them a pass.
Are you familiar with the photographed transwoman? She's autistic, and so is her equally colorful partner. And I guess you didn't notice, but those were not public pics; they were very much taken in the privacy of their home.

But I get you guys are super uptight about atypical people. I'm really not, so even dressing how I consider 'weird' doesn't bother me much.

Certainly mocking and ridiculing autistics is a new low for y'all. "Oh, we didn't know" is not an excuse, either, considering the 10-15 seconds it took for me to run the image search. Do you generally mock the 'tards with the same nasty malice that you mock the trannys?
 
I'm imagining what those men would look like dressed up in little boy school uniforms, and it's still creepy.

Why can't these activists come dressed in a nice pantsuit or something? Because they are trying to rub their fetish in people's faces. That's a warning sign. That's apopsematism. It's not hateful to not ignore it.
If you seek out freaky people to mock and ridicule, you will surely find them. You guys are fairly obsessed with them.

If you want to try out being normal, consider Rep Sarah McBride. Pretty conservative attire, yet packing some heavier duty credibility than the goofballs you hold up as representative. Hey, McBride literally is a Representative.
 

Back
Top Bottom