Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

No it's not, by a long shot. A guy coming in without shoes on is not comparable to a sexual predator.

Oh? How exactly are they different?

You are basically requiring low paid workers to confront, according to you, violent criminals

Not all sexual predators are violent criminals. Many aren't. The guys who install hidden cameras in women's bathrooms might never be willing to get in a fight with anyone. And do you think no shirtless, shoeless person has ever gotten violent? I'd be potentially more worried about having to remove such a person because they might simply be insane, whereas a lot of predators are still rational.

So go ahead, call the cops per company policy. They'll be along in 20 minutes or so.

You say that like waiting makes the whole exercise futile. It doesn't.

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.

Of course they won't take it seriously if the law isn't on your side. But that's the scenario YOU want, not me.

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.

That's precisely why social pressures fail when the law doesn't back them up. Women don't complain because they don't want to be the center of a scene either, especially when they cannot get support. That's why women like Rolfe simply stop showing up. That won't show up in your crime statistics, but it's still a problem, one you don't care about.

And what makes you think that no trans-identifying men are willing to make a scene anyways? We know that plenty of them are.

Police don't want to be portrayed as bigots.

Quite so. Which is why they won't help women who have problems with males in their spaces unless the law prohibits those males from being in their spaces. All you're doing here is providing arguments for why social pressures to keep men out of women's spaces erode when the law doesn't support them.

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

Too fraught? What the hell are you talking about? There's nothing fraught at all with sex segregation for bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports. It all worked fine until self-ID ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up.

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.

Anything? I didn't say anything. But you absolutely said that men who identify as women should be able to use women's bathrooms. That's not a lie, those are your words. Here, let me quote you:

ETA: I'll repeat this answer again to you: the women's room is for those who believe they are women.

That's self ID. And in practice, that means any man who wants to can enter the women's bathroom.

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

You have not given an actual standard. Nor have you been consistent at all. You have said that your standard is no one who presents as a man should enter the women's bathroom. You have not actually said what it means to present as a man. But any standard that excludes Bryson is going to exclude some "authentically" trans people as well. Your "presents" standard and your "believe" standard are not actually compatible. And god only knows what your "reasonable person" standard is.

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

Surprise, surprise, these are the same thing. If you provide access on the basis of self-declared gender identity, then any male can access that space.

I have. It was easy.

You have not. Seriously, what exactly do you think gender is?

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

Oh, I didn't say there was no controversy. But what exactly is the controversy? It's not actually about sex itself. The controversy is about the attempt to substitute made up bull ◊◊◊◊ gender for sex. Then we get into all sorts of controversies. But keep gender out of it, and sex itself is quite clear.

 

[d4m10n]

Came across an interesting series of events in my reading today, which I'll briefly relate here.

Back in February, Maine State Rep. Laurel Libby posts a couple of photos to Facebook, complaining about a male student athlete displacing female student athletes from the pole vault competition/podium.

Libby's colleagues voted (along party lines) to ban her from speaking and voting until she repents and apologizes for her conduct.

Inevitably, these events gave rise to a federal lawsuit.

Maine's Democratic Party remains foursquare behind the idea that males deserve to compete in the category that matches their feelings about themselves rather than their actual body type, so much so that they are willing to disenfranchise the people who live in Libby's district until the end of the current legislative term. In an ideal world, state reps from both parties might have decided to openly debate the relatively new statewide policy of integrating the sexes in school sports. Instead, they have focused on punishing one legislator for publicly speaking out.

 

[Thermal]

Oh? How exactly are they different?

Come on. There is no law in any US state regarding wearing shoes. Sexual predation is universally criminal by definition, usually accompanied by registering on the sex offender database. You're trying to compare this to Jeff Spicoli grabbing some munchies?

Not all sexual predators are violent criminals. Many aren't. The guys who install hidden cameras in women's bathrooms might never be willing to get in a fight with anyone. And do you think no shirtless, shoeless person has ever gotten violent? I'd be potentially more worried about having to remove such a person because they might simply be insane, whereas a lot of predators are still rational.

Youve been invoking Bryson constantly to refute my examples. Suddenly he's no longer representative of the characters in your examples? Come on, man.

And indecent exposure/ lewd and lascivious conduct are again, not like Jeff scoring some snacks. They are not in the same comparative universe.

You say that like waiting makes the whole exercise futile. It doesn't.

Methinks it does.

Of course they won't take it seriously if the law isn't on your side. But that's the scenario YOU want, not me.

Yet again: what kind of Mayberry are you theorizing where Andy and Barney have nothing to do but respond to ◊◊◊◊ like this? They don't even pursue rape with anything resembling diligence.

That's precisely why social pressures fail when the law doesn't back them up. Women don't complain because they don't want to be the center of a scene either, especially when they cannot get support. That's why women like Rolfe simply stop showing up. That won't show up in your crime statistics, but it's still a problem, one you don't care about.

Rolfe currently claims she doesn't show up, given full legal protection, for the reasons I'm basically proposing. No one is going to give a ◊◊◊◊ except the tranny bashers who now feel empowered.

And what makes you think that no trans-identifying men are willing to make a scene anyways? We know that plenty of them are.

Of course they are. And such people
are more than willing to make a scene with or without a policy in their favor, or against them. They are unaffected by policy.

Quite so. Which is why they won't help women who have problems with males in their spaces unless the law prohibits those males from being in their spaces. All you're doing here is providing arguments for why social pressures to keep men out of women's spaces erode when the law doesn't support them.

What makes you think a cop wants to step into that with any policy in place? He can't win. No matter what the policy, he is demonized by one side, and his wife kids in school ultimately take the brunt of that.

Too fraught? What the hell are you talking about? There's nothing fraught at all with sex segregation for bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports. It all worked fine until self-ID ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up.

So I've been saying.

Anything? I didn't say anything. But you absolutely said that men who identify as women should be able to use women's bathrooms. That's not a lie, those are your words. Here, let me quote you:

That's self ID. And in practice, that means any man who wants to can enter the women's bathroom.

It's not. That's just the narrative you've latched onto. Rinse and repeat.

You have not given an actual standard. Nor have you been consistent at all. You have said that your standard is no one who presents as a man should enter the women's bathroom. You have not actually said what it means to present as a man. But any standard that excludes Bryson is going to exclude some "authentically" trans people as well. Your "presents" standard and your "believe" standard are not actually compatible. And god only knows what your "reasonable person" standard is.

The same one you use for, say, self defense, which also has no objective standard for "imminent grave peril".

Surprise, surprise, these are the same thing. If you provide access on the basis of self-declared gender identity, then any male can access that space.

You have not. Seriously, what exactly do you think gender is?

If you are just waking up to how gender factors in here, you probably need to go back to page one of this thread's first part. Y'all gots a lot of catching up to do.

Oh, I didn't say there was no controversy. But what exactly is the controversy? It's not actually about sex itself. The controversy is about the attempt to substitute made up bull ◊◊◊◊ gender for sex. Then we get into all sorts of controversies. But keep gender out of it, and sex itself is quite clear.

Which is why I keep harping about clarifying the definitions. Saying gender doesn't exist just puts you into the looney bin side of the argumentation. It exists, without question. But it's limitations are the part that has run rampant.

As I've said, I agree with sex segregation, as a practical matter. Maybe I'm more tolerant of the rare nonconforming person than you are (understatement of the year). Making it work fairly and legally is not a simple task, unless we adopt your model, which will allegedly have the trains running on time. I don't think it's a net win, nor do I think it would stand in court very long. By acknowledging gender as your representation/ID, but not your sex, I think the problems resolve for both our sides neatly. It reverts to the status quo we've been at.

 

[Hercules56]

= this discussion

 

[Emily's Cat]

Something that didn't seem to occur to Blanchard when concocting his AGP theory was that maybe he should kinda sorta consider if cishet women were also aroused at the thought of themselves as a woman? I mean, that would be kind of significant, no? Blanchard asserts flatly that women don't, but surprise surprise, provides no factual support at all for that. Dr Charles Moser decided to find out. Turns out 93% of cishet women are also sexually aroused at the thought of themselves as women when posed with similar questions that were posed to Blanchard's transwomen group, and 28% on multiple instances of multiple criteria. Similar to the rates of the transwoman subjects (considering the understandably small study group sizes).

From Moser's peer reviewed work:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918360903005212?src=recsys

Do you get turned on by the thought of you being male? Does the fact that you have a penis arouse you?

I've never been turned on by the thought of myself as female, the fact that I have breasts isn't arousing to me. I've never once stood in front of a mirror and gotten all hot and bothered because I have a vulva.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The current trend of enforcement may be catty wompous, but that's a different issue. If a guy is doing something inappropriate, he should be ejected.

A male shouldn't be there at all. Literally, not at all.

Same if a woman is. If he's not, he's not. And his simple presence, if he is not trans, is enough to warrant thar ejection.

A male's simple presence regardless of if they're trans is enough to warrant their ejection. You know why? Because nobody can tell if they're trans or not. There's no way to tell who is and who is not trans. But we can tell that they're male, therefore they should be ejected!

 

[Emily's Cat]

ETA: I'll repeat this answer again to you: the women's room is for those who believe they are women. That's over 99.5% of the time a biological female. Every once in a while, it's a male who believes he is a woman. That's why it matters whether he is trans or not.

This is false. The women's room is for FEMALES. It's not for whether or not someone 'believes' they are woman in some newfangled freshly-minted "a woman is anyone who says they're a woman" humpty-dumpty sense.

How do you know if someone believes they're a woman? How can you falsify their claim?

 

[Emily's Cat]

When talking about whether it is normal to become aroused thinking of yourself as a woman, they for damn sure should be. I mean, think of how powerfully we sexualize femininity and women. I'd be shocked if anyone didn't equate women and sexual arousal in 21st century America. Seen any advertisements for anything at all lately?

Okay, you and Moser have missed a truly and spectacularly fundamental element of this.

Females are not generally speaking aroused by the thought of ourselves as females. That's not a thing. We are, however, often aroused by the thought of the target of our desire being aroused by us. We're generally not turned on by our own boobs, but we can be turned on by imagining a person we're turned on by being turned on by our boobs.

AGP is Buffalo Bill: "Would you ◊◊◊◊ me? I'd ◊◊◊◊ me."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Meant to post this earlier: this was Blanchard's questionaire. I found it hard to not get somewhat aroused just reading it. Does that mean I am Frank from White Lotus, or are sexually loaded questions gonna make a lot of folks kinda hot?

Gender Dysphoria & Autogynephilia

Results of Blanchard (1989) "The Concept of Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male Gender Dysphoria"

www.genderpsychology.org

I score zero on that.

The closest section is in the Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy Scale, but it's still a zero. Because even in my wildest fantasies, where I'm in skimpy lingerie for some hunky male... the image of myself is not what's arousing. The image of myself has nothing at all to do with it - it's the thought of that male being attracted to me that's arousing. The lingerie is to attract that male, it's to arouse that male - it's their arousal that's arousing. It's not the image of myself - I am not arousing to myself.

Flip the sexes, and test yourself - and really think about it. Think about whether or not you're actually aroused by the thought of yourself as a male, with a male body... or if you are aroused by being arousing to a female. These are entirely different things.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In reality, we have seen this problem is imaginary.

In reality, we've seen scores of males in dresses and lipstick videoing themselves masturbating in female toilets and changing rooms.

 

[Thermal]

Do you get turned on by the thought of you being male? Does the fact that you have a penis arouse you?

Honestly: yes. When I think of my own naked body, or the body of the sex I am atteacted to, general sexual feelings get going. I think Blanchard ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up by posing his queries in a way that would get a lot of people indirectly aroused, and then he assigned his hobby horse theory to the specifics of what caused their arousal.

{Eta: maybe because he posed these questions to bio males, there's a testosterone thing that you might not be as subject to?}

I've never been turned on by the thought of myself as female, the fact that I have breasts isn't arousing to me. I've never once stood in front of a mirror and gotten all hot and bothered because I have a vulva.

Ive gotten horny seeing myself getting out of the shower and thinking about how my partner sees me in more romantic settings, yes. Specifically remembering the look on her face and what followed in short order, absolutely. Or I used to, before that little muffin top thing started distracting me a few years back.

 

[Rolfe]

Because nobody can tell if they're trans or not. There's no way to tell who is and who is not trans.

How do you know if someone believes they're a woman? How can you falsify their claim?

We've asked this about a hundred times now in slightly different words and he simply ignores it. Because there is no way.

 

[Thermal]

In reality, we've seen scores of males in dresses and lipstick videoing themselves masturbating in female toilets and changing rooms.

I haven't seen scores. I've seen a couple. And that kind of thing has gone on long before there were gender wars.

 

[Thermal]

We've asked this about a hundred times now in slightly different words and he simply ignores it. Because there is no way.

Liar. I've addressed it repeatedly and directly.

 

[Thermal]

This is false. The women's room is for FEMALES. It's not for whether or not someone 'believes' they are woman in some newfangled freshly-minted "a woman is anyone who says they're a woman" humpty-dumpty sense.

Hate to break it to you, but if it was "FEMALE only", we wouldn't be having this discussion and this thread wouldn't exist.

How do you know if someone believes they're a woman? How can you falsify their claim?

Same as I've said the other thousand times: you don't, and it ain't ya business. You're not the self proclaimed Penis Police. Your assumption that you are is the root of the problem. You think all others must cater to your personal beliefs. That's not the way anything, anywhere works.

If a woman walks into the men's room at a bar, I don't require her to prove she "really has to go and can't wait in the long line at the ladies room". I trust her subjective assesment on the matter. Same with a transwoman (who also occasionally comes in the men's rooms I've been in).

 

[Rolfe]

You just want any man at all to be able to walk into the women's facilities, then?

Honestly, we'd be better off going into the men's I think. At least the men in there tend to be normal, not cross-dressing perverts.

(And you know and I know that the transcult has appropriated the word "female" too. You even see it in newspaper reports. "Trans female" used for a man with lady feelz. They're working on "biological female" too.)

 

[Thermal]

You just want any man at all to be able to walk into the women's facilities, then?

No, and am.bored out of my skull repeating it. Rinse and repeat.

Honestly, we'd be better off going into the men's I think. At least the men in there tend to be normal, not cross-dressing perverts.

There it is. Kudos to you for showing your true colors. Most people are ashamed to do so as boldly as you do.

(And you know and I know that the transcult has appropriated the word "female" too. You even see it in newspaper reports. "Trans female" used for a man with lady feelz. They're working on "biological female" too.)

And they shouldn't. Like I've said a hundred times, define and limit the definitions, and all our problems vanish.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ive gotten horny seeing myself getting out of the shower and thinking about how my partner sees me in more romantic settings, yes. Specifically remembering the look on her face and what followed in short order, absolutely. Or I used to, before that little muffin top thing started distracting me a few years back.

That bolded bit - that's the distinction, Thermal. It's a nuance, but it's an important one.

If you were NOT thinking about how your partner sees in you a romantic setting, would you be sexually aroused by your male body? Just by the thought of being male in and of itself? Or is it imagining your partner being aroused by you that is exciting?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Police respond to trespassing calls, shoplifting calls, drunk and disorderly calls, public disturbance calls all the time. Just the other day I watched a bodycam video of police responding to a call from a shopkeeper, who had been accosted by a little boy, who was afraid of a strange man who was trying to talk the boy into going on a boat ride with him. The police not only arrived in time to secure the little boy, but also to apprehend the creep.

I'm not talking about the stalker-rapist, who pounces on solitary women. I'm talking about regular everyday creeps, who have traditionally been deterred from creepiness in public restrooms by the fear of public outcry backed by police response.

And I'm talking about new policies about self-ID, which criminalize the outcry, and put the police on the side of the creeps. Used to be, a woman could simply say, "you're a man, get out or I'll make a scene and call the police." With self-ID, that woman would have to get into a debate on the scene, about whether this man was being sufficiently creepy, or if it should be her that's led away in cuffs. You've given no reason why we should prefer this new situation over the old rule of "no men in the women's restroom".

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

We already have a workable policy with zero need for torquing the details: Sex segregation.

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.

From your mouth to the TRA's ears.

Not at all. Direct challenge to the theorized threat potential.

That was not 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?

Now that we're talking about the theorized threat potential: To a first approximation, the exhibitionist doesn't even try it on, for fear of a scene and possible police intervention. To a second approximation, the exhibitionist leaves once someone makes a scene, or threatens to make a scene. To a third approximation, the police arrive at the scene of a public disturbance, something they do all the time already, and matters proceed from there.

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

Restrooms, locker rooms, spas... pretty much any traditionally safe space for women, where exhibitionists think they can get away with it.

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

We have seen this increase.

Your faith in the police is charming.

It's served women well for decades, prior to the advent of self-ID in public policy.

And responses need to be reworked, agreed.

Not agreed. We already have a police response paradigm that works quite well. Replacing the status quo ante with self-ID is the problem.

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

Again, police respond to these kinds of disturbances all the time. The internet is full of police body cam videos ofmen v women altercations that the police arrive in time to get involved in.

Also, "the police don't always arrive in time to catch the pervert, so we should just decriminalize perversion" is a terrible way to run a civil society.

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

I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, you're promoting some very unhealthy ideas, for no good reason.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hate to break it to you, but if it was "FEMALE only", we wouldn't be having this discussion and this thread wouldn't exist.

Hate to break it to you, but up until about 5 minutes ago (historically speaking) the word "women" meant "female". Specifically, it meant female human. In exactly the same way that "mare" means female horse, or "cow" means female bovine or "vixen" means female fox or "hen" means female chicken.