Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
He was literally criticizing a bad study. That was the entire point of Moser's paper. How the ◊◊◊◊ are you not getting that?
Click to expand...
I don't really believe people who say "its just a joke bra" after they've been called out and you gave no indication you thought it was a joke when you posted it. Do you think some of the papers criticised in the Cass report were also jokes?
 
Manger Douse said:
I don't really believe people who say "its just a joke bra" after they've been called out and you gave no indication you thought it was a joke when you posted it.
Click to expand...
I didn't say 'a joke'. I said he might have had a sense of irony.

Blanchard's work was not rigorous. In his defense, he said it was pretty weak himself. Moser likely didn't do a high effort study because a high effort was hardly required to demonstrate Blanchard's shortcomings. But yet again, man: that was the point. Blanchard's postulate falls apart under very light scrutiny.
Manger Douse said:
Do you think some of the papers criticised in the Cass report were also jokes?
Click to expand...
Beats me, haven't been following that thread or that issue. I don't live and breathe this stuff.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I didn't say 'a joke'. I said he might have had a sense of irony.

Blanchard's work was not rigorous. In his defense, he said it was pretty weak himself. Moser likely didn't do a high effort study because a high effort was hardly required to demonstrate Blanchard's shortcomings. But yet again, man: that was the point. Blanchard's postulate falls apart under very light scrutiny.

Beats me, haven't been following that thread or that issue. I don't live and breathe this stuff.
Click to expand...
You didn't say anything when you presented it and only suggested irony when I asked about how extrapolating these views made sense.

With reference to the Cass report - Trans Rights Activists have a habit of making ◊◊◊◊ up and I wondered if this was the same
 
Manger Douse said:
You didn't say anything when you presented it and only suggested irony when I asked about how extrapolating these views made sense.
Click to expand...
...yes, that's how discussions work. Normal people don't entrench in a position and ignore everything else said. Your observation prompted me to think about it a little more.

My initial take was that it was low effort. He passed out some questionaire to women who (I guess) worked at the hospital he worked at. A little better than half bothered to respond. Low effort, strong criticism, because Blanchard's postulate didn't take much effort to take down. Your comments made me think it might have been even more intentional than I originally thought.
Manger Douse said:
With reference to the Cass report - Trans Rights Activists have a habit of making ◊◊◊◊ up and I wondered if this was the same
Click to expand...
Ya no idea.
 
varwoche said:
While it may not happen a lot, it does happen. If we had a search function I'd point you to my post way upthread which documents several incidents.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the actual data shows that the incidents happened in the same level of occurance before or after open door policies. The UCLA study was the first to quantify dead zero statewide increased incidence of poser/transgender crimes related to selfID access.
 
Thermal said:
...yes, that's how discussions work. Normal people don't entrench in a position and ignore everything else said. Your observation prompted me to think about it a little more.
Click to expand...
Thermal said:
My initial take was that it was low effort. He passed out some questionaire to women who (I guess) worked at the hospital he worked at. A little better than half bothered to respond. Low effort, strong criticism, because Blanchard's postulate didn't take much effort to take down. Your comments made me think it might have been even more intentional than I originally thought.

Ya no idea.
Click to expand...
So why did you say "How the ◊◊◊◊ are you not getting that?" when you didn't even get it yourself when you first posted it as true and factual?
 
Manger Douse said:
So why did you say "How the ◊◊◊◊ are you not getting that?" when you didn't even get it yourself when you first posted it as true and factual?
Click to expand...
I said "how thr ◊◊◊◊ are you not getting that the whole point was criticism and a takedown specifically of Blanchard's methodology and conclusions drawn", which i entirely got up front, not "how the ◊◊◊◊ are you not getting the gag?"
 
Thermal said:
Nor do I care. Nor should you.
Click to expand...
You claim that trans identifying males should be permitted in female spaces but other males should not. That makes no sense if you cannot distinguish.
Thermal said:
In reality, we have seen this problem is imaginary.
Click to expand...
No. In reality, we have seen that you don't care. If females are uncomfortable with the presence of males when they are vulnerable, you are indifferent to that.

This sort of callousness gives men a bad name.
 
Thermal said:
I said "how thr ◊◊◊◊ are you not getting that the whole point was criticism and a takedown specifically of Blanchard's methodology and conclusions drawn", which i entirely got up front, not "how the ◊◊◊◊ are you not getting the gag?"
Click to expand...
When you posted that study, as far as you were concerned it was all true and factual. It seems like your criticising me for not getting a joke you yourself didn't get, correct?
 
Thermal said:
It is 1:24 AM and I simply don't care anymore. You win. Well done.
Click to expand...
I think a better answer should have been along the lines of "good point, maybe its a joke" not "how the ◊◊◊◊ aren't you getting it?" considering you didn't get this alleged joke yourself.
I assume you're going to retract your claim that women world wide sexually fanaticise about being women now
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
ETA: I'll repeat this answer again to you: the women's room is for those who believe they are women.
Click to expand...
And that is where you are running into most of your pushback.

The allocation of safe spaces is along the lines of biological sex, NOT gender identity as TRAs desperately want you to believe. This is the word game they are playing. Transgenderism falls on its face if being transgender is determined by sexuality - so they have undertaken a years-long campaign of lying, cancelling, deplatforming, threatening, intimidation and violence to change the definition so that it is understood as a matter of gender identity. Its a game that the mainstream media, a large part of the medical profession, academia and you, have fallen for lock, stock and barrel.

The women's room is ONLY for those who actually are biologically female... that does NOT include transwomen... who are actually biologically male.

ETA: The allocation of safe spaces is along the lines of biological sex is now law in the UK. Once one of the cases under way in the US gets to a conservative Circuit Court such as the 3rd or the 5th, then its going to become law in all of the states within its jurisdiction. Eventually, one of those cases will make it all the way to SCOTUS, then its all over rover - the 6:3 conservative bias and the Supremacy Clause of your constitution will make it the law of the land there too.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
No. In reality, we have seen that you don't care. If females are uncomfortable with the presence of males when they are vulnerable, you are indifferent to that.
Click to expand...

It is, apparently, a small price to pay in order that males who are uncomfortable with the presence of males when they are (much less) vulnerable should be allowed to avoid that feeling by imposing their presence on females.

We're being told that transwomen are now unable to go out in the UK because they have nowhere to pee, despite there being male toilets everywhere. In other words, they are choosing to self exclude rather than pee in the presence of males. I doubt that the possibility that many women make that same choice in places where transwomen's comfort is given priority over women's even occurs to them.

This sort of callousness gives men a bad name.
Click to expand...

Men are so accustomed to putting men's needs and feelings ahead of women's they usually don't even notice they're doing it.
 
Last edited:
A peer-reviewed critique of the Cass report has just been published

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

It seems to focus on methodology to construct an argument that as it is not perfect it should not be relied upon.

However there are some interesting statements:

Furthermore, the coercive nature of access to puberty blockers potentially being contingent on consenting to participation in research is also of great ethical concern.
Click to expand...
Finally, and perhaps more fundamentally, evaluating the efficacy of GAC based on psychosocial well-being alone is misguided.
Click to expand...
GAC should instead be considered through a similar lens as reproductive healthcare, akin to how healthcare providers and the public think about contraception, HRT, or fertility treatment
Click to expand...
While many of our authors have been publicly critical of the Cass report and some have significant experience in working with trans youth in different capacities and/or are trans themselves
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Addressed repeatedly. The data shows that there is not a "slight" increase of risk; there is dead zero.
Click to expand...
Well that is a lie... its not zero. Both of my daughters will testify to that, and they are not the only ones in the world to be confronted by transwomen in women's safe spaces. The reason you don't see it in the mainstream media is obvious - the mainstream media is captured... they are in the tank for TRAs so they are not going report stuff against their own interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom