Thermal
August Member
Never never never give up.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
I don't want Bryson in the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ womens room or men's room either. I'd like him banned from any situation that he could be alone with a potential victim. How's that for what I think 'should' be?
Gee, that's what some other remarkably good looking poster has been saying for many pages now, and getting a lot of pushback over it.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,663
But you oppose the actual methods which would keep Bryson out of the women's bathroom. Hence, your incoherence.
Thermal
August Member
No, I oppose one: legalized bigotry, because it does much more than control Bryson's legally protected access, which I don't think he would have much regard for anyway. Your ' solution' is to be bigoted across the board.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,663
Yet more incoherence. You want sex segregation, but sex segregation is also bigotry and we shouldn't legalize it.
My solution is sex segregation for intimate spaces. Call that bigotry all you want to, but it actually works pretty well.
Thermal
August Member
No, the type Rolfe advocates is pure bigotry, and at an all-or-nothing choice between that and all access, I'd probably lean towards all access. We have it in my state, and have for years. If there has been a problem, the twitrerers have forgotten to tweet about it, which I find kinda low odds.
I'm mostly down with that. I'm just not feeling 100% that a public rest room is an intimate space. Like the Portland high school, there ain't much shared intimacy going on in a closed stall by yourself and washing your hands, and maybe touching up.your makeup.
Yes, there are some feminine issues that require privacy in the name of modesty. An actual private single occupant room makes 1000% more sense to accommodate for such eventualities anyway, as well as for the occasional Rolfe who can't bear the thought of them cross dressing pervs anywhere near her. In a place big enough for multi occupant restrooms, a single occupant divided off should be no big deal.
In broad brush, and with the stipulation that not all transwomen are Bryson, is that a workable compromise?
Thermal
August Member
Btw: something that really should be repeated once in a while: I don't mean to be aggro with @Rolfe , @Ziggurat and others. We all get fired up and nasty in a heated subject, I'm no exception. Good vibes to all. No one here is actually a 'bad person', even if we disagree about what's best, which I am confident is all any of us want.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Defending women's rights (one of which is the right to spaces safe from biological males) is bigoted and transphobic. Got it!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
How are you going to manage those occasions when there are or aren't feminine issues, intimidation, a requirement for privacy individually, and how will you know when or if they should or should not be applied?
Seems to me you are creating something that will be a nightmare to deal with, and imposing that something on 99.6% of the population for the benefit of 0.4% of the population. Not acceptable IMV.
Thermal
August Member
{ETA: You keep saying imposing something on 99.6% of the population for the benefit of 0.4% of the population. First off, the men at 49% of the population are not affected at all. Of the 51% that are women, they don't run across that 0.4% hardly ever, and when they do, it's no different than when they run across any other member of the population. Nothing is being imposed that we all haven't been dealing with for years, except that some people want to treat tranny freaks like ◊◊◊◊ with legal.backing}
Honestly: when we say "transwoman", I think of the only one I know personally and the couple I've seen around. They are totally normal people, males who for all the world look and act like women. I don't think of them as freaky pervs. They're just some other people to me, like all the other people I come across. The only difference is they got a wire crossed up there somewhere.
I totally get the arguments you and others have put up (and they are very very different). I actually respect them all. But respecting someone's concerns doesn't mean they are the best choice in net.
Transpeople are less than half a percent of the population. The pervs are an even smaller percentage of them. There should be a way to make everyone reasonably comfortable here without flying off to the extremes.
On your side, women are put high on a pedestal. Despite my Southern chivalry, I look at women as my dead equals (as long as it isn't a physical contest), and what I put up with (like a transperson or natal woman in the men's room), I intuitively feel like women are strong and tough enough to handle without breaking a sweat. Hell, I'd expect that they might be less misogynistic and sexist than most men. It's not my perspective that they are the weaker sex and need to be protected from a man in a non combative situation. My mom, my wife, my daughters and my female acquaintances are forces to be reckoned with and will stare down anyone that thought they would intimidate them.
But as Emily's Cat says, sometimes it is a physical threat. What does the data tell us? It doesn't really happen. The pervs are perving with or without selfID access, and IRL we see that instances of creepiness and violence don't increase. That's something to consider, despite its counterintuitiveness.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
The right to be a dick to a transwoman because she thinks they are all cross dressing pervs is not a woman's right. That's a bigot's perceived privilege.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I for one am convinced Thermal's idea is a dead end.
The UK has already reinstated sex segregation as the standard. There seems to be zero appetite from either side to make the kind of compromise Thermal has in mind. Thermal himself can't figure out how to actually move it forward. Finally, we've already established that anti-TERF invective has no power here.
The UK has already reinstated sex segregation as the standard. There seems to be zero appetite from either side to make the kind of compromise Thermal has in mind. Thermal himself can't figure out how to actually move it forward. Finally, we've already established that anti-TERF invective has no power here.
Thermal
August Member
My state is wide open doors. No reported issues of any kind.
Tell me again how I just can't imagine what would work in the real world.
Tell me again how I just can't imagine what would work in the real world.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Again, arguing for sex segregation can be done without resorting to these types of bad arguments.
The arguments for sex segregation has nothing to do with the relative sizes of the populations.
The disabled make up a very small number of the population, but we shouldn’t say that accommodations for the blind, deaf and wheelchair-bound should provide no imposition on those who do not fall into these categories or that this is a problem for them and nobody else. That the blind, deaf and wheelchair blind should pay for their accommodations and not expect any tax-payer funding for them.
And again, I agree with keeping toilets sex-segregated and sports, etc… but do so for principled reasons, not for knee-jerk any-tool-will-do reasons.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Many folks here have said that they are just fine with laws or policies preventing employment discrimination against transgender people, but as soon as actual policies came up forcibly separating trans folk from active duty service (e.g. here in the U.S.) they either went mum or else switched sides and started arguing for employment discrimination against transgender employees under those specific circumstances.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Gosh, I'm so glad I only wasted about three minutes sourcing the figures that debunk all that nonsense about trans-identifying men being several times more likely to be murdered than anyone else. Since it was obviously a complete waste of time.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Man, could we do without this kind of ◊◊◊◊◊◊ post as well.
Pretty sure that Thermal doesn’t mean the person has literally changed sex. He’s made it clear often enough in the thread that he doesn’t believe that can happen.
What he is obviously referencing is what those of us older than 45 called the operation when you had your bits cut off. These days the in-vogue terminology is gender-reassignment surgery, but k will bet any money that you, lionking, that Rofle, smartcooky and others will have used the term “sex change operation” in the past. Maybe as recently as when the Atheist started this thread.
In fact, I’ll warrant that plenty of people have moved all over the shop on this issue. So knock off the gate-keeping, son!
angrysoba
Philosophile
Fact check: TRUE!
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Zombie statistics are notoriously hard to perish.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Let's skip over the fact that nobody can change sex and talk about the practicalities. I seem to have typed this so often it should be burned into my computer's memory.
How is anyone supposed to tell whether any given man has had his cock and balls cut off? Blaire White hasn't, for one. With clothes on, they look exactly as they always did. So are you advocating for "papers please!" or actual genital inspections?
In reality, if any special group of men has the legal right to use women's facilities, and can't be challenged, then no man can be challenged. All an interloper has to do is to claim to be a member of the special group, and knowing that that's what's going to happen, no challenge is possible. We're back to self-ID, and distressed women self-excluding.