Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

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).
Are you willing, at this point, to revise your prior position and simply state that any male at all has your full and complete support to use the female facilities, and that females should just suck it up and know their place?
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.
How do you know if someone believes they're a woman? How can you falsify their claim?

You've said it matters whether they're trans, that a male who is trans should be allowed to use female facilities. You've repeatedly attempted to say that regular males shouldn't be allowed - only trans. But you also acknowledge that there's no way to tell whether a male is or is not trans.

The conclusion of this line of flawed reasoning is that whether you cop to it or not, you pretty much think that any male gets to use the female facilities if they want to.
 
No, and am.bored out of my skull repeating it. Rinse and repeat.

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

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

OK. Tell me again. How do you allow your darling trans ladies to use the women's facilities, and keep out the men who simply pretend to be darling trans ladies. I'm waiting.

You keep saying that I'm showing my true colours or the mask is slipping or something, as if it's a gotcha and I've said something I should be ashamed of. Once again, my colours are Green, White and Violet, and I wear them proudly. And I'm not wearing a mask, unlike the Black Pamper brigade who shout down women's meetings and attacke them physically. I will repeat this again.

IF YOU ALLOW ANY MAN WHO DRESSES IN WOMEN'S CLOTHES TO USE THE WOMEN'S FACILITIES, THE WOMEN'S FACILITIES WILL BE FULL OF CROSS-DRESSING PERVERTS. It is not hard to put on some vaguely feminine garment.

You have given no clue at all as to what definitions or limits you propose, other than "any man who says he feels like a woman gets a free pass."
 
:rolleyes: 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.
Hate to break it to you, but we ain't down in da holler comparing people to chickens and saying "if it's good enough for a horse, it's good enough for my wife".

I'd like to take a moment to welcome a good chunk of this thread to the 21st century. Please be careful, we move faster than you are accustomed to. What was good enough for Grammy in the 1940s doesn't always fly anymore. Even coloreds are in your bathrooms now, and no one is asking you if you are okay with it, or if you feel safe and dignified about it.
 
I hate this subject. It brings out the worst in so many people. I strongly believe in women's rights. The right to vote. The right to be free to choose. The right to choose to have sex or refuse it. The right to career opportunities and the right to earn as much as any man. The right for full bodily autonomy. The right to control their own health decisions. Reproductive or otherwise. The right to be free from harassment. I also believe that women's sports is a boon to women.

Not having to compete directly with generally physically superior males is unfair to some men. But I think it has been a concession that is good for women and society.

But I see those rights and benefits to women as part and parcel to overall human rights. Which include race and LGBT rights. The individual's right of self determinism. And in my view, sexual preference and gender identity is part of self determinism. Finding oneself freely without coercion and oppression.

Gender expression is a social construct that evolves. And I believe in the freedom of expression.
 
The conclusion of this line of flawed reasoning is that whether you cop to it or not, you pretty much think that any male gets to use the female facilities if they want to.
He's all over the place on this.
He agrees that transwomen should be allowed into women's safe spaces, then he automatically MUST agree that biological males should be allowed into women's safe spaces - it is impossible to separate these two, because transwomen are functionally identical to biological males.

He claims to disagree with the concept of self ID, then states that men who believe they are women should be allowed into women's safe spaces. The latter is in direct conflict with the former...cognitive dissonance at its finest.
 
Are you willing, at this point, to revise your prior position and simply state that any male at all has your full and complete support to use the female facilities, and that females should just suck it up and know their place?
Of course not, since i think no such thing. Why do you ask?
You've said it matters whether they're trans, that a male who is trans should be allowed to use female facilities. You've repeatedly attempted to say that regular males shouldn't be allowed - only trans. But you also acknowledge that there's no way to tell whether a male is or is not trans.
The last is not true, but hardly matters. So:
The conclusion of this line of flawed reasoning is that whether you cop to it or not, you pretty much think that any male gets to use the female facilities if they want to.
Not true, and we've been over it several times, and you get quiet, then pick it right back up from the top a few pages later. Rinse and repeat. Something else?

Let's try it a different way. When you see a woman come into the women's room, do you stop her and make her prove she has to pee? I mean hey, she might be using that stall to do drugs or download child pornography. Since you think you are the Holy Gatekeeper of Legitimate Restroom Usage, you surely are checking everyone's legitimate claim to be there, right? Lemme guess: That's different?

Consider Rolfe's claim above, in capitals and everything : "IF YOU ALLOW ANY MAN WHO DRESSES IN WOMEN'S CLOTHES TO USE THE WOMEN'S FACILITIES, THE WOMEN'S FACILITIES WILL BE FULL OF CROSS-DRESSING PERVERTS." Now, ignoring the base Appeal to Emotion and Slippery Slope and all the other fallaciousness, what would a skeptic say to this claim? How about something along the lines of 'What is the evidence?"

The evidence is that Rolfe is full of ◊◊◊◊. From the UCLA Williams Statewide study to my own state's wide open door policy, it simply doesn't happen. No amount of your begging the question fear mongering changes that. What you claim is inevitable is observed not to happen in meatspace when it is actually applied. The restrooms in Jersey, where as Rolfe says, any man can technically walk in, are NOT, as Rolfe demands we believe, full of cross-dressing perverts*.

*And funnily enough, that wording was not hyperbole on my part. It's a verbatim quote.
 
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?
Did you read Blanchard's questions I posted upthread? They did not ask if the guy was aroused by his own body. They specifically asked about "picturing nude female buttocks, oh and imagine they are yours". The questions were structured to be arousing first, then restricted later. I'd be shocked if anyone with testosterone coursing through their veins didn't perk up a few notches at those questions, regardless of their orientation or ID.

ETA: consider the actual question (not your rewritten paraphrasing):

"You became sexually aroused while picturing your nude female breasts."

Take the one word 'your' out of the latter part of the sentence and it becomes a literal command to become aroused picturing nude female breasts, which the XY guys don't normally need to be commanded to comply with.
 
Last edited:
Gender expression may be a social construct; sex isn't. Be free to dress as you like but society shouldn't have to be reorderd to placate narcissists with sexual paraphilas.
Similarly, the 51% of the human populaton who are biological females should not have to make adjustments to their rights in order to accommodate those narcissists with sexual paraphilias. Granting special rights to 0.4% of the population by trampling over the rights of the other 99.6% is completely unacceptable.
 
But I see those rights and benefits to women as part and parcel to overall human rights. Which include race and LGBT rights. The individual's right of self determinism. And in my view, sexual preference and gender identity is part of self determinism. Finding oneself freely without coercion and oppression.

Gender expression is a social construct that evolves. And I believe in the freedom of expression.
So say we all.

The point of dispute is sex segregation.

Do you believe men should be entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want?
 
Similarly, the 51% of the human populaton who are biological females should not have to make adjustments to their rights in order to accommodate those narcissists with sexual paraphilias.
Would your position on these issues change tomorrow if everyone on Earth was cured of all sexual paraphilias tonight?
 
Come on. There is no law in any US state regarding wearing shoes. Sexual predation is universally criminal by definition
Oh, but we aren't talking about sexual predation, we're talking about sexual predators. In general, there is nothing illegal about a sexual predator going into a restaurant or its bathroom. The relevant equivalence here is what you do about removing someone from somewhere they are not wanted.
Youve been invoking Bryson constantly to refute my examples. Suddenly he's no longer representative of the characters in your examples? Come on, man.
He's not representative of trans people in general. He IS representative of a class of people who pose a problem, one which you don't want to do anything about.
And indecent exposure/ lewd and lascivious conduct are again, not like Jeff scoring some snacks. They are not in the same comparative universe.
I said nothing about indecent exposure or lewd and lascivious conduct. Those are not required. Do you not understand that even the mere presence of Bryson in a women's bathroom is a problem?

And in a changing room where males are permitted, a naked male is not committing indecent exposure. Nevertheless, I think a naked and intact male in a women's changing room is a problem. It seems you do not.
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.
Are you under the impression that police won't trespass you from a store that wants to kick you out? They do. It's routine.
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.
Rolfe cares. She has essentially been excluded from a venue. YOU don't care, but again, you are indifferent to the problems that women face if they don't face you as well.
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.
Of course they are affected by policy. The outcome of such a scene is directly determined by policy. They have a preferred outcome. They don't get their preferred outcome if the policy doesn't favor them. That strongly disincentivizes them to make such a scene. Most people who are willing to make a scene do not have making a scene as their end goal, but is merely an acceptable means to it.
What makes you think a cop wants to step into that with any policy in place?
Because it's their ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ job.
As I've said, I agree with sex segregation, as a practical matter.
No you don't. You have stated that you want self ID. As a practical matter, that means the abolishment of sex segregation.
Maybe I'm more tolerant of the rare nonconforming person than you are (understatement of the year).
I don't care if they are nonconforming. That's not the issue. They can be as non-conforming as they want to be. But when males invade female-only spaces, that creates problems. You aren't just tolerant of non-conformity, you are tolerant of the problems they create for women. Because you don't care about those problems.
Making it work fairly and legally is not a simple task
Making it work legally is a very simple task. It had been working simply for a very long time until the TRA's ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up. You have strange notions of what fairness consists of, so if it isn't fair according to you, oh well.
By acknowledging gender as your representation/ID, but not your sex, I think the problems resolve for both our sides neatly.
No. The idea that gender is a matter for public policy is precisely what created the problems we have. How in the everloving ◊◊◊◊ would the thing that created the problem somehow solve it?
It reverts to the status quo we've been at.
The status quo was segregation by sex and not gender.
 
Hate to break it to you, but we ain't down in da holler comparing people to chickens and saying "if it's good enough for a horse, it's good enough for my wife".

I'd like to take a moment to welcome a good chunk of this thread to the 21st century. Please be careful, we move faster than you are accustomed to. What was good enough for Grammy in the 1940s doesn't always fly anymore. Even coloreds are in your bathrooms now, and no one is asking you if you are okay with it, or if you feel safe and dignified about it.
There's an elephant in the room here that rarely gets acknowledged, particularly by trans supporters. Namely, that the movement is inherently untenable over the long term. That is, trans-women are never broadly going to be considered a subset of women. Yes, one may be able to get people to call them that and (feign) be (ing) outraged when they're called male/men. Perhaps you can coerce some lesbians to date them. But sex is always going to be the primary determinant in choosing long term partners, i.e. men are never going to consider transwomen women (nor will women consider trans-men men). To say this goes further back than "grammy in the 1940s" is a whopping understatement. It's hardwired, not a prejudice that can be overcome

In addition to the effects on girls and women (e.g. losing single-sex spaces and activities) this movement has the potential to do real harm by creating a class of people who will find it particularly difficult to find long-term partners. Put simply, there is a false promise at the heart of this movement, and I fear too many young people are getting taken in by that.
 
Last edited:
Would your position on these issues change tomorrow if everyone on Earth was cured of all sexual paraphilias tonight?
My position would change. But in a vacuum, it wouldn't change all that much.

Presumably the biggest change would be the sudden absence of AGP-enabling efforts in public policy.

Are psychological derangements that manifest as sexual abuse patterns paraphilias? If they're not, then there's still a huge problem with letting men override sex segregation whenever they want.

And there's still the "status quo ante" issue: Even without paraphilias to worry about, we still have no good reason to think this kind of socio-sexual "transition" is an ethical course of treatment for gender dysphoria.
 
I hate this subject. It brings out the worst in so many people. I strongly believe in women's rights. The right to vote. The right to be free to choose. The right to choose to have sex or refuse it. The right to career opportunities and the right to earn as much as any man. The right for full bodily autonomy. The right to control their own health decisions. Reproductive or otherwise. The right to be free from harassment. I also believe that women's sports is a boon to women.
I notice that not listed in here is a right to female-only intimate spaces.

I believe in that right, as well as a right to male-only intimate spaces.
Gender expression is a social construct that evolves. And I believe in the freedom of expression.
Let me echo the sentiments of others in saying that no one here is opposed to allowing anyone to express their gender (whatever the ◊◊◊◊ that even is). But males going into female-only spaces isn't simply gender expression. Males should have no right to do this under the banner of gender expression.
 
And there's still the "status quo ante" issue: Even without paraphilias to worry about, we still have no good reason to think this kind of socio-sexual "transition" is an ethical course of treatment for gender dysphoria.
Yes- on this last bit - I think it will become clear to most people that intrinsically the best treatment for gender dysphoria is help with accepting the body they have, as 1) they can't change sex (& hence will not be treated as the sex they wish to mimic) nor 2) will gender identity ever supersede sex in importance.
 
My position would change. But in a vacuum, it wouldn't change all that much.

Presumably the biggest change would be the sudden absence of AGP-enabling efforts in public policy.

Are psychological derangements that manifest as sexual abuse patterns paraphilias? If they're not, then there's still a huge problem with letting men override sex segregation whenever they want.

And there's still the "status quo ante" issue: Even without paraphilias to worry about, we still have no good reason to think this kind of socio-sexual "transition" is an ethical course of treatment for gender dysphoria.

That's an interesting point. The push for men to be allowed to enter women's single-sex spaces would pretty much evaporate, so we'd actually have little difficulty in maintaining these spaces free of men.
 
That's an interesting point. The push for men to be allowed to enter women's single-sex spaces would pretty much evaporate, so we'd actually have little difficulty in maintaining these spaces free of men.
I think it's the most charitable way to approach damion's question.

A more cynical ("realistic") approach would be that the LGB movement has been so captured by the Ts that even if the AGP-enablers dropped out tomorrow morning, their advocacy would live on in the hearts and minds of their misinformed allies. So we'd still have to deal with unrelenting demands for fiat self-ID.
 
My fundamental reason for insisting on women-only spaces is not fear of attack, or rape, or voyeurism or exhibitionism or concealed cameras, or even a porn-addled man in the next cubicle wanking over the sound of women peeing and taking used sanitary towels from the disposal bins. These things make the demand more urgent, but if they could all be eliminated tomorrow the fundamental reason would still remain. Basic decency.
 

Back
Top Bottom