Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

We've seen a lot of ideological capture in the medical profession. Your vague handwave towards an appeal to that authority doesn't impress me.

Ok, Humpty. You have your own definitions and standards for what is a fetish. Not the first time ITT unique definitions have appeared and been insisted on, so ok.

Anyway, self-ID in restrooms opens the door to predation and thus creates a chilling effect that is detrimental to the comfort of women in society.

If it's implemented as policy, it also criminalizes women's attempts to proactively police their own spaces, further undermining the value of those spaces to women.

Same as I said to Zig... actually, no. You want women to police this... themselves? You want them to confront dangerous predatory males...on their own? This is even more hateful of women and their safety than Penis Police. Would you mind walking me through the enforcement process? I'll play the part of the 6 foot 220 lb psychopathic rapist. You be Rolfe. Aaaaaand...action!

Nor you nor anyone else has so far demonstrated a compelling societal to cause these problems for women.

I'm not suggesting the women bounce him themselves, either, champ.

Nor you nor anyone else has so far demonstrated a compelling medical need to cause these problems for women.

Not trying to, either.

I still have no idea why you're so invested in pushing this idea,

Because the arguments against it have been so uniformly icky. Except yours, with minor caveats. Like what a fetish is today.

nor why you are so enamored of vilifying anyone who doesn't support you in this effort of yours.

It's what I do.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, Humpty. You have your own definitions and standards for what is a fetish. Not the first time ITT unique definitions have appeared and been insisted on, so ok.

As long as you're okay with it.

Same as I said to Zig... actually, no. You want women to police this... themselves? You want them to confront dangerous predatory males...on their own? This is even more hateful of women and their safety than Penis Police.

No. I want women to be able to call upon the police to help them evict unwanted males, without having to worry that they themselves will be the ones policed for "hate" crimes.

I want the fact of this police support of women, in public policy, to serve as a deterrent to would-be predators.

Would you mind walking me through the enforcement process? I'll play the part of the 6 foot 220 lb psychopathic rapist. You be Rolfe. Aaaaaand...action!

Straw man.

Play the part of a 6 foot 220 lb autogynaephiliac who gets off on exposing himself to vulnerable women, but knows better than to try it on in a public restroom because he'll be arrested and jailed if he does, and then we'll talk.

We're not talking about opportunistic rape in public restrooms. We're talking about an increase in opportunistic sexual harassment and indecent exposure, protected by anti-women, pro-trans policies of self-ID.

Policies that you advocate, without honestly acknowledging the trade-offs you want women to accept without question.

If you want to talk about opportunistic rape arising from self-ID in public policy, we can shift the venue to women's prisons. This is another situation where police are no longer on the side of women, due to self-ID policies.

I want to return to the principle of police being on the side of women, when it comes to protecting women's spaces. I want women to know the police are on their side. I want opportunistic predators to know police are on their side.

And that's why I oppose your idea of making self-ID policy for such spaces. Because your idea puts the police on the side of the predators. This is demonstrable. We've seen it happen.

I'm not suggesting the women bounce him themselves, either, champ.

I'm suggesting women have the right, in law, to bounced him themselves if they wish, and to be confident in the support of the police if they choose to summon the police instead.

I'm suggesting that "leave now or I'll call the police" be a credible threat against unwanted males, and an effective deterrent against some forms of opportunistic predation that women did not have to deal with before such predation was effectively legalized by self-ID policies.

Not trying to, either.

I know. That's the problem: You're advocating a policy without even trying to come up with a good reason why this policy should be implemented. Even worse, you insist on ignoring all the good reasons not to implement this policy.

Because the arguments against it have been so uniformly icky. Except yours, with minor caveats. Like what a fetish is today.

I suspect that what's giving you the ick is your own cognitive dissonance.

However, regardless of you you feel about the arguments against, you still haven't given any argument for. No argument for, that is, except your own icky feelings towards women who don't want to share their spaces with males.

I'm about to go one step further than Ziggurat: Not only do you not care about the harm to those women, you actually want them to suffer. You actually want them to feel less safe.

It's what I do.

Defend a bad idea with hate is what you do, yes. I just don't understand why. Unless you're saying the why is that it's in your nature to be this way.

 

[Thermal]

As long as you're okay with it.

No. I want women to be able to call upon the police to help them evict unwanted males,

You're glossing over the problem again. Police are so easy breezy carefree that they will now be sprinting to Penis Police calls? They don't even pursue rape kits, man. Or chase down a stolen bike. You're kidding yourself if you think you're gonna try to bounce a guy out of a women's room in Home Depot or McDonalds and the police are going to do a mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing about it.

without having to worry that they themselves will be the ones policed for "hate" crimes.

That's fair, but workable with either policy in place, with some torquing of details.

I want the fact of this police support of women, in public policy, to serve as a deterrent to would-be predators.

Ya i want them to not stick guns in my face quite so often when ive done nothing threatening but we don't always get what we want.

Straw man.

Not at all. Direct challenge to the theorized threat potential. Run it with an exhibitionist instead of rapist if you prefer. What's she gonna do? Who's going to come in the relevant moment?

Play the part of a 6 foot 220 lb autogynaephiliac who gets off on exposing himself to vulnerable women, but knows better than to try it on in a public restroom because he'll be arrested and jailed if he does, and then we'll talk.

Are you unde the impression that exposing yourself would become legal in a public rest room? Like the Portland High School, for instance?

We're not talking about opportunistic rape in public restrooms. We're talking about an increase in opportunistic sexual harassment and indecent exposure, protected by anti-women, pro-trans policies of self-ID.

Which we dont see when the rubber meets the studied road.

Policies that you advocate, without honestly acknowledging the trade-offs you want women to accept without question.

I want to return to the principle of police being on the side of women, when it comes to protecting women's spaces. I want women to know the police are on their side. I want opportunistic predators to know police are on their side.

Your faith in the police is charming.

And that's why I oppose your idea of making self-ID policy for such spaces. Because your idea puts the police on the side of the predators. This is demonstrable. We've seen it happen.

And responses need to be reworked, agreed.

I'm suggesting women have the right, in law, to bounced him themselves if they wish, and to be confident in the support of the police if they choose to summon the police instead.

Again, your faith in Mr Policeman and his speedy benevolence is touching.

I'm suggesting that "leave now or I'll call the police" be a credible threat against unwanted males, and an effective deterrent against some forms of opportunistic predation that women did not have to deal with before such predation was effectively legalized by self-ID policies.

I know. That's the problem: You're advocating a policy without even trying to come up with a good reason why this policy should be implemented. Even worse, you insist on ignoring all the good reasons not to implement this policy.

I suspect that what's giving you the ick is your own cognitive dissonance.

However, regardless of you you feel about the arguments against, you still haven't given any argument for. No argument for, that is, except your own icky feelings towards women who don't want to share their spaces with males.

I'm about to go one step further than Ziggurat: Not only do you not care about the harm to those women, you actually want them to suffer. You actually want them to feel less safe.

Defend a bad idea with hate is what you do, yes. I just don't understand why. Unless you're saying the why is that it's in your nature to be this way.

Ok, we've slithered over to some unhealthy territory again. C ya.

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting conversation during a reading group meeting yesterday afternoon. I don't recall how this train of conversation started, we definitely weren't talking about trans issues or the SC ruling as far as I was aware, but one member, Bridget, suddenly said that she gets challenged in Ladies' toilets all the time. I said "Really???" in a really surprised tone, and she said yes, at least once a month, sometimes more often. She's not butch or anything like that, just in her sixties, a bit overweight, with short hair, and wearing trousers and pullovers like a lot of us do. I looked and looked at her and couldn't see why, but then I've known her for over 40 years so I'm obviously prejudiced.

She said, I just turn and grin at them - like a shark. And she demonstrated. And then it's all apologies and we laugh about it.

Two main points here. First, as soon as she makes eye contact and interacts with the other woman, her actual sex is self-evident. Second, nobody is being attacked. A mistake is made, corrected, then everyone has a laugh. Bridget herself didn't seem particularly bothered about it, she was just telling the story as something a bit daft that keeps happening to her.

And then thirdly, there are a lot more women around who want males to stay out of female spaces and who are prepared to act even on a suspicion than I for one had any idea of.

 

[Rolfe]

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZU088/

Just realised that's a pretty old article. That'll be why the "executive director of the Transgender Law Center" was able to say it was the first such case he'd heard of. I'm sure.

 

[smartcooky]

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZU088/

Just realised that's a pretty old article. That'll be why the "executive director of the Transgender Law Center" was able to say it was the first such case he'd heard of. I'm sure.

View attachment 60766

I've posted about this creep before. He is a serial offender at this sort of thing.

 

[Pixel42]

No. I want women to be able to call upon the police to help them evict unwanted males, without having to worry that they themselves will be the ones policed for "hate" crimes.

We (and he) certainly need to know that the law is on our side in order to do anything at all, but calling the police is a last resort. If there's more than one woman present we'll probably be able to eject a misbehaving male ourselves, otherwise just going to the door and raising the alarm should be sufficient to ensure that he leaves before the management/the man we came in with/other helpful people come to our aid.

But the important point is that knowing the law is on our side, and that swift ejection is almost certainly the best they can expect (with finding themselves in court charged with indecent exposure the worst) is all that's ever kept most such men out of female spaces. Take away that legal protection, and women's choices reduce to putting up with it or self excluding.

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting conversation during a reading group meeting yesterday afternoon. I don't recall how this train of conversation started, we definitely weren't talking about trans issues or the SC ruling as far as I was aware, but one member, Bridget, suddenly said that she gets challenged in Ladies' toilets all the time. I said "Really???" in a really surprised tone, and she said yes, at least once a month, sometimes more often. She's not butch or anything like that, just in her sixties, a bit overweight, with short hair, and wearing trousers and pullovers like a lot of us do. I looked and looked at her and couldn't see why, but then I've known her for over 40 years so I'm obviously prejudiced.

She said, I just turn and grin at them - like a shark. And she demonstrated. And then it's all apologies and we laugh about it.

Two main points here. First, as soon as she makes eye contact and interacts with the other woman, her actual sex is self-evident. Second, nobody is being attacked. A mistake is made, corrected, then everyone has a laugh. Bridget herself didn't seem particularly bothered about it, she was just telling the story as something a bit daft that keeps happening to her.

And then thirdly, there are a lot more women around who want males to stay out of female spaces and who are prepared to act even on a suspicion than I for one had any idea of.

I have remembered the context of the conversation now. One of our group had only just got out of hospital and was complaining that his hair was down to his collar and his moustache had turned into a soup-strainer. This turned the conversation to people not getting haircuts during lockdown, and stories of lockdown haircuts were being exchanged. I then related the story of being addressed as "Sir, oh sorry madam" by several waiters while I still had shoulder-length hair (tied back in a pony-tail) from lockdown. When I said to the last waiter, "You're about the fourth person who has done that, what am I doing wrong?" he said, "It's the hair, madam." I was even more baffled than I had been before.

That prompted Bridget to say that she gets challenged frequently in ladies' toilets, something which startled me more than a little. As I said, she wasn't bothered by it, because as soon as she interacted with the other woman, it became obvious that she was female. Nobody was assaulted and nobody died. But it did open my eyes to just how many women are so concerned about men in our spaces that they're prepared to challenge someone who is at worst ambiguous.

I say this just to demonstrate that we weren't talking about the SC ruling or about trans anything. It arose naturally out of the conversation.

 

[Rolfe]

We (and he) certainly need to know that the law is on our side in order to do anything at all, but calling the police is a last resort. If there's more than one woman present we'll probably be able to eject a misbehaving male ourselves, otherwise just going to the door and raising the alarm should be sufficient to ensure that he leaves before the management/the man we came in with/other helpful people come to our aid.

But the important point is that knowing the law is on our side, and that swift ejection is almost certainly the best they can expect (with finding themselves in court charged with indecent exposure the worst) is all that's ever kept most such men out of female spaces. Take away that legal protection, and women's choices reduce to putting up with it or self excluding.

One of the reasons I was surprised by Bridget being challenged so often was sort of the opposite from what I just said. That there are so many women who aren't inhibited by the likelihood of being called a transphobic bigot. It does demonstrate the method, though. Speak to the presumed interloper, reasonably politely. If you've made a mistake it will be obvious when you interact with them. If you have, apologise, laugh about it, and move on. (Though I don't think I'd say anything unless I was really sure.) If it really is a man, politely insist that he leave. Any man who is there by accident will have left already! Anyone who is confused or trying it on will go at that point. If he doesn't, other women will pile on and he'll pretty much have to go.

Until about ten years ago, if the man still refused to go, we'd call a staff member, management, security, whatever, to eject him. If we was still recalcitrant it would be up to them to decide how to escalate it, although if it was getting to the point of a breach of the peace they might consider calling the cops. Particularly if it seemed likely his purpose was voyeurism or worse. But it wouldn't get that far. The man would leave at some point prior to cops getting involved, maybe thinking of trying it on somewhere else. It was the prospect of this happening everywhere else that kept most of them at bay.

This trans nonsense has upset this balance. Women became concerned about being called transphobic bigots, or even being reported to the police for a hate crime. Men in dresses and bad wigs became emboldened and entitled. The SC ruling redresses the balance, but only if we can rely on staff members, management and security to uphold the law. These men are likely to be bigger trouble than the classic dirty old man, and we need support.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does one call the Penis Police to eject him?

Depends on the venue. In a venue such as the theater Rolfe was mentioning, you would go to the venue management. In, say, a public park, you might go to the police, or just whoever is available to help.

Who exactly does the physical ejecting, and how? Is it by force? What is the response time and acceptable level of force?

You ask this as if it's an unsolved question, but it isn't. You handle it like you trespass anyone. The acceptable level of force depends on the behavior of the person being trespassed.

This idea of 'ejecting' seems largely like security theater.

It's not. You are treating this as if it either needs to have armed guards on standby or it won't do anything. But that is simply not true. The prohibition on males in women's bathrooms has worked reasonably well for a long time. Not perfectly, but reasonably well. Normally it doesn't escalate to law enforcement, but the fact that it could is part of what makes it work. Take that away, and in fact make law enforcement support male invasion of female spaces, and that crumbles. And the fact that you don't see a problem in one cherry-picked statistic despite all the evidence and testimony to the contrary is not in the least bit persuasive. Your explicitly preferred outcome is for Bryson to use the women's bathroom.

You don't care about males invading female spaces. You get offended that I'm pointing it out, but it's just the truth. You spin and spin to try to justify your indifference, but that's all it is at the end of the day. When women like Rolfe tell you they have a problem, you don't care.

 

[Mashuna]

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I've posted evidence of transwomen experiencing dramatically higher instances of assault in men's rooms.

Maybe they'd like to pee without getting slapped around, though? You would think these angelic women i keep hearing about would be more sympathetic to such a transwoman getting abused and harassed by men. Alas, no. "◊◊◊◊ them".

Men assaulting men in toilets is an issue for women to sort out? But somehow men assaulting women in toilets either doesn't happen or is impossible to manage or police.

Depends on the venue. In a venue such as the theater Rolfe was mentioning, you would go to the venue management. In, say, a public park, you might go to the police, or just whoever is available to help.

You ask this as if it's an unsolved question, but it isn't. You handle it like you trespass anyone. The acceptable level of force depends on the behavior of the person being trespassed.

It's not. You are treating this as if it either needs to have armed guards on standby or it won't do anything. But that is simply not true. The prohibition on males in women's bathrooms has worked reasonably well for a long time. Not perfectly, but reasonably well. Normally it doesn't escalate to law enforcement, but the fact that it could is part of what makes it work. Take that away, and in fact make law enforcement support male invasion of female spaces, and that crumbles. And the fact that you don't see a problem in one cherry-picked statistic despite all the evidence and testimony to the contrary is not in the least bit persuasive. Your explicitly preferred outcome is for Bryson to use the women's bathroom.

You don't care about males invading female spaces. You get offended that I'm pointing it out, but it's just the truth. You spin and spin to try to justify your indifference, but that's all it is at the end of the day. When women like Rolfe tell you they have a problem, you don't care.

Quite.

 

[Thermal]

Depends on the venue. In a venue such as the theater Rolfe was mentioning, you would go to the venue management. In, say, a public park, you might go to the police, or just whoever is available to help.

You ask this as if it's an unsolved question, but it isn't. You handle it like you trespass anyone. The acceptable level of force depends on the behavior of the person being trespassed.

You conveniently snipped out the situations I questioned you on. You expect the teenage McDonalds manager to confront Bryson? Exert force against them? Walk me through the practicalities, that happen within the couple minutes that a guy would be using a women's rest room.

You're relying on a cop to be nearby, or... whoever is available to help? Vigilantism is it now? Go on, I'm interested to hear about your scenarios here.

In the real world, I agree, you would handle it like we handle any trespass. Nothing gets done by police, ever, unless a much more serious crime was in the works.

The prohibition on males in women's bathrooms has worked reasonably well for a long time. Not perfectly, but reasonably well.

That was my earlier point, that the status quo works better than trying to codify any of this into law. I got a lot of pushback.

Normally it doesn't escalate to law enforcement, but the fact that it could is part of what makes it work. Take that away, and in fact make law enforcement support male invasion of female spaces, and that crumbles.

Disagreed. The social force makes it work. A transwoman doesn't want to be the center of a scene for using the bathroom. A predator absolutely does not want a scene, for the appallingly obvious reasons. The froot loopy activists absolutely want a scene, and will do so with indifference to law, as we have seen.

The only way I see to avoid the legal discrimination problems is to sharp line define sex and gender. The transgender activists have exploited the living ◊◊◊◊ out of the ambiguity, and that's why we are in this whole thing. If we could find a legal way to say "it doesn't matter what you think you are, if you present as a male (even a male in a dress), the public is reasonable in treating you as a male", then Bryson is not in the women's room anymore, but a transsexual woman is fine (which she should be, IMO).

And the fact that you don't see a problem in one cherry-picked statistic

Bull ◊◊◊◊. The UCLA study is not a "cherry picked statistic", because there ain't no other cherries to pick from.

despite all the evidence and testimony to the contrary

Tweetys from bigots amounts to nothing in terms of evidence and testimony, and I've already ripped a bunch of them apart, showing that they range between outright lies or have no basis in reality beyond their unevidenced, bigoted claims.

is not in the least bit persuasive. Your explicitly preferred outcome is for Bryson to use the women's bathroom.

Please don't lie. It's not a good look, for you individually of for the forum.

You don't care about males invading female spaces. You get offended that I'm pointing it out, but it's just the truth.

No, it's a lie. I don't want males in the women's restrooms, as I've said. But we have these annoying anti-discrimination laws that we kind of take seriously here, and bathroom access seems to fall afoul of them. So we need a workaround to serve everyone's interests fairly. Your side's solution is to make open, public bigotry legal. I find that suboptimal.

You spin and spin to try to justify your indifference, but that's all it is at the end of the day. When women like Rolfe tell you they have a problem, you don't care.

Exactly. What Rolfe pushes for is exactly what I don't want. I want people treated like humans. At the same time, I want the ability to pull Bryson out by the throat and have the law recognize that if you present as a man and walk into a women's rest room, it is reasonable to treat you as having criminal intent. Clarifying the sex/gender line should work for that, but your side has been highly resistant to that for whatever reason.

 

[Thermal]

Men assaulting men in toilets is an issue for women to sort out?

No, it's not. Why do you ask?

But somehow men assaulting women in toilets either doesn't happen or is impossible to manage or police.

Of course it happens. Why lie about that? What the evidence has shown (that skeptics like as much as bigots don't) is that it doesn't happen with an iota more frequency whether you have pro trans or pro bigot policies in place. Do you get the significance of Dead Zero? It's not a trivial statistic. It's stunning.

 

[Ziggurat]

You conveniently snipped out the situations I questioned you on. You expect the teenage McDonalds manager to confront Bryson?

I didn't answer in detail because this isn't actually a new problem, it's not peculiar to bathrooms, and people already know how to handle it. If you go into a McDonalds, or any place that has a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy without shirt and shoes, you will be kicked out. Yes, I expect a teenager at McDonalds to be able to ask someone to leave. No, I do not expect them to manhandle someone they are removing. They can and do call police to eject people who will not voluntarily leave.

You act like this is some unsolvable problem, but it isn't. It is a solved problem.

In the real world, I agree, you would handle it like we handle any trespass. Nothing gets done by police, ever, unless a much more serious crime was in the works.

Are you unaware that it's fairly standard practice for police to remove trespassers?

Disagreed. The social force makes it work.

The social forces themselves work because they have the backing of law.

The only way I see to avoid the legal discrimination problems is to sharp line define sex and gender.

No ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. Segregate bathrooms by sex and not gender. That's your sharp line That solves the problem as well as it can be solved.

But you don't want that. You want self ID.

If we could find a legal way to say "it doesn't matter what you think you are, if you present as a male (even a male in a dress), the public is reasonable in treating you as a male", then Bryson is not in the women's room anymore, but a transsexual woman is fine (which she should be, IMO).

Go on, try to legally define what you mean by "present as male". And in case you haven't noticed, a lot of trans identifying males look just as male as Bryson does.

No, it's a lie. I don't want males in the women's restrooms, as I've said.

Yes you do. You said that you want anyone who identifies as a woman to be in the women's restroom. That includes males. That includes males who look like males.

But we have these annoying anti-discrimination laws that we kind of take seriously here, and bathroom access seems to fall afoul of them.

Who is "we"? Maybe where you live. Not in the UK, and not US federal and constitutional law.

So we need a workaround to serve everyone's interests fairly.

No, we do not need a workaround for bad laws. We need states that have passed laws which require male access to female bathrooms to change those laws.

Your side's solution is to make open, public bigotry legal. I find that suboptimal.

By bigotry, you mean segregating bathrooms by sex. Which is what you said you wanted in this post. Even though it contradicts your earlier statement that you wanted males who identify as women to be allowed into women's bathrooms.

Exactly. What Rolfe pushes for is exactly what I don't want. I want people treated like humans.

Treating males as males and females as females isn't treating anyone as not human.

At the same time, I want the ability to pull Bryson out by the throat

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't support self ID, but you do.

and have the law recognize that if you present as a man and walk into a women's rest room, it is reasonable to treat you as having criminal intent.

The law cannot define this in any way that would exclude Bryson but include other transpeople. It is delusional to think it can.

Clarifying the sex/gender line should work for that, but your side has been highly resistant to that for whatever reason.

I'm not resistant to clarifying the gender line. It cannot be done, because gender is made up bull ◊◊◊◊. If it could be done, you wouldn't need my help to do it, you could do it yourself. But you haven't. You haven't even really tried. Instead, you blame me for your own failure to construct a self-consistent framework for gender.

The sex line is already perfectly clear. You are resistant to using it, for whatever reason.

 

[Mashuna]

No, it's not. Why do you ask?

Because of the words you typed.

 

[Thermal]

I didn't answer in detail because this isn't actually a new problem, it's not peculiar to bathrooms, and people already know how to handle it. If you go into a McDonalds, or any place that has a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy without shirt and shoes, you will be kicked out. Yes, I expect a teenager at McDonalds to be able to ask someone to leave. No, I do not expect them to manhandle someone they are removing. They can and do call police to eject people who will not voluntarily leave.

You act like this is some unsolvable problem, but it isn't. It is a solved problem.

No it's not, by a long shot. A guy coming in without shoes on is not comparable to a sexual predator. You are basically requiring low paid workers to confront, according to you, violent criminals, which most store policies would be adamantly against. So go ahead, call the cops per company policy. They'll be along in 20 minutes or so.

Are you unaware that it's fairly standard practice for police to remove trespassers?

If and when they show up within the window we are talking about. Try it at Depot sometime. Wait till you see how long it takes to find a manager, convince them to do anything (odds are they will hold off as long as possible till the situation resolves itself) and get a police response. You're kidding yourself if you think police will ever take this seriously.

The social forces themselves work because they have the backing of law.

Wrong. They work for the reasons I said: nobody wants to be the center of a scene, except the people who are trying to create a scene.

Police don't want to be portrayed as bigots. Neither does management of the store owner. No one is going to do anything, except those quite happy to be dicks to trannys in public.

No ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. Segregate bathrooms by sex and not gender. That's your sharp line That solves the problem as well as it can be solved.

No, it still doesn't (as-is). You're right back to discriminating by sex, which is fraught with too many problems in a non-nudity situation.

But you don't want that. You want self ID.

You lie about this one too much. Again: I think a transgender can selfID to be acknowledged as trans. I do not think that gender ID gets you access to anything at all. Wee been through this before (Zig's rinse and repeat), yet watch how often you continue to lie about it for rhetorical /strawman convenience.

Go on, try to legally define what you mean by "present as male". And in case you haven't noticed, a lot of trans identifying males look just as male as Bryson does.

The reasonable person standard is not the Shangri-la unattainable ideal you seem to think it is.

Yes you do. You said that you want anyone who identifies as a woman to be in the women's restroom. That includes males. That includes males who look like males.

Rinse and repeat.

Who is "we"? Maybe where you live. Not in the UK, and not US federal and constitutional law.

No, we do not need a workaround for bad laws. We need states that have passed laws which require male access to female bathrooms to change those laws.

I don't believe we have any that "require male access". Could you identify one? I've only heard of ...surprise surprise... gender access.

By bigotry, you mean segregating bathrooms by sex.

No, I meant what I said. The only practical teeth your proposal will have is to legally be dicks to them trannys.

Which is what you said you wanted in this post. Even though it contradicts your earlier statement that you wanted males who identify as women to be allowed into women's bathrooms.

Rinse and repeat.

Treating males as males and females as females isn't treating anyone as not human.

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't support self ID, but you do.

Rinse and repeat.

The law cannot define this in any way that would exclude Bryson but include other transpeople. It is delusional to think it can.

Reasonable person standard.

I'm not resistant to clarifying the gender line. It cannot be done, because gender is made up bull ◊◊◊◊.

You find it impossible, then, to distinguish reality from made up bull ◊◊◊◊? If you say so.

If it could be done, you wouldn't need my help to do it, you could do it yourself. But you haven't. You haven't even really tried. Instead, you blame me for your own failure to construct a self-consistent framework for gender.

I have. It was easy.

The sex line is already perfectly clear. You are resistant to using it, for whatever reason.

Oh, its clear? You haven't noticed the international controversy surrounding this? OK. If you say so.

 

[Thermal]

Because of the words you typed.

I don't recall any such words. Hardly the first time that posters here recall imaginary postings, though. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Rolfe]

Remember Andrew Miller a.k.a. "Amy George". He was dressed as a woman when he abducted and raped a little girl. The Amy George persona wasn't adopted for the abduction, it was something he did a lot. He was known as the "local tranny" and regarded as creepy. Then it got a lot more than creepy.

If we decree that a man who "presents" as a woman is legally permitted to be in women's single-sex spaces, then we're cool with Andrew, because he does exactly that. No possible way to exclude him. But then we're also cool with Peter Sutcliffe and Jack the Ripper and Ian Brady and Ian Huntley and Fred West and anyone else you can think of who just might be prepared to do the same as Andrew did, and put on women's clothes.

You're right back to discriminating by sex, which is fraught with too many problems in a non-nudity situation.

It really, really isn't. Men look like men, women look like women. Once you're within a few feet of the person in the flesh and talking to them, there is seldom any serious doubt. It's something human beings can do to a high degree of accuracy even from infancy. It's quite hard to deceive people about your sex, and most adult men are not able to do it.

Conversely, as I said, any man who wants to can put on women's clothes any time he likes. Or, indeed, simply dress in the sort of clothes worn by both men and women - jeans, a hoodie, a t-shirt, trainers, that sort of thing - and he can be whichever suits his purposes at any particular moment without even having to change.

 

[d4m10n]

You want to run with DSM for...whatever your reasons are.

Someone asked for a "jaunt back into the real world of data and credible research" so I turned to the relevant scientific expert consensus on gender identity development and disorders thereof. No idea why this should prove confusing or off-putting to anyone here in this forum for people who prefer a more scientific approach.

 

[Thermal]

Someone asked for a "jaunt back into the real world of data and credible research" so I turned to the relevant scientific experts in gender identity.

No idea why this should be confusing to anyone.

Great. Run with it.

Eta: regarding your edit: Great. Run with it.