• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Ziggurat said:
I suspect he may have envisioned that the "Others" would be a category excluding non-trans people, and thus using it would draw attention to them they would not like. But I don't think he followed up on my clarification, so who knows.
Click to expand...

That's not the case though. There are others who might prefer single-occupancy facilities that can be used by either sex, such as people with a carer of the opposite sex, a parent with a child of the opposite sex, and anyone who doesn't care for the communal vibe in the sex-segregated toilets. Hell, if the Theatre Royal is still refusing to back women against the trans invasion by the time of Tristan und Isolde next season (this being so long that there is no prospect of my going the whole evening without paying a call), my best bet is to find their gender-neutral single-occupancy lockable toilets and use one of these.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
As I've said every time you brought this up, you don't have to check. It ain't ya business.
Click to expand...

Let's concentrate on this part, since I simply reject the rest of your assertions.

You advocated for men who have had their penis and testicles removed to have access as of right to women's facilities. You say I don't have to check whether they actually have had their penis and testicles removed, because that is none of my business. Am I on track so far?

Therefore, the implication is that I must accept any man in women-only facilities, because some men (those without a penis and testicles) have the right to be there, but I have no way to check who has and who hasn't, and it isn't my business anyway.

In what way is this different from allowing any man who wants to, to use the women's facilities? Explain it to me like I'm five.
 
Thermal said:
No. Jesus Christ, NO. It's the literal opposite. My argument is that you know who is male and female WITHOUT a genital iinspection. You.literally never have to know what is going on downstairs unless you are planning to bang them. Don't know, don't care.
Click to expand...
If you're assessing a threat its handy to know what's going on downstairs
 
Thermal said:
No. Jesus Christ, NO. It's the literal opposite. My argument is that you know who is male and female WITHOUT a genital iinspection. You.literally never have to know what is going on downstairs unless you are planning to bang them. Don't know, don't care.
Click to expand...

Now, I'm happy to go along with that. I know who is male and female without a genital inspection. (If the very occasional deceiver is so good that I don't realise, well that's not ideal, but it's an imperfect world.) It is therefore perfectly simple. The male people, all of them, are not allowed in female spaces. If one of them tries it on, I ask him to leave, and he has to leave, because he has no right to be there. Simples.

What I cannot tell, without a genital inspection, is whether a male has had his penis and testicles removed. And yet, you have said you believe these males should have free access as of right to female-only spaces.

Make it make sense, someone, please.
 
Emily's Cat said:
If the dysphoria is severe enough that the individual requires ongoing mental health treatment for it, that is a disqualifying condition for military service, because it directly precludes their ability to actually serve in wartime.
Click to expand...
No, it is a disqualifying condition because anti-trans activists in the White House said so.

Let's not pretend they ran a study to figure out which mental health conditions actually preclude anyone from doing anything.

Emily's Cat said:
There's never any guarantee that someone in a non-combat MOS will be entirely protected from combat. Every military service member is required to be able to serve in combat if needed. Even the chair force.
Click to expand...
The phrase "if needed" is doing some herculean lifting here.

A handful of Air Force officers are lucky enough to fly, and only a fraction of those get picked to do actual combat missions over an active war zone. I was one of the lucky few who got the chance to do several non-combat jumps, and that was about as much danger as I ever found myself in. Space Force commanders with advanced degrees (like Bree FramWP) aren't about to see combat in space or anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
No. Jesus Christ, NO. It's the literal opposite. My argument is that you know who is male and female WITHOUT a genital iinspection. You.literally never have to know what is going on downstairs unless you are planning to bang them. Don't know, don't care.
Click to expand...
This is true. EC confused your argument with someone else's.

Your argument has been that it's what's in their heads that matters, and that since it's impossible to know what's in someone's head, we have to just let all men in, and then try to evict the ones that act up.

The counterpoint to that is that it has never mattered what's in a man's head: Men have always been barred from women's restrooms based exclusively on "what's between their legs", so to speak.* And, as you say, that's easy enough to determine on sight.

This approach, of sex segregation, has served women and society very well pretty much since the inception of sex-segregated restrooms. Men aren't welcome in women's restrooms, and the law and society both have no problem with this arrangement.

But now we have a very small subset of men who say they should be welcome. Who say that what's in their heads entitles them to be there. Who say that it is women who should be unwelcome, if they object to these men being there.

"I'll be happier if I can use the women's restroom," say these men.

"We'll be happier if you don't," say (some) women.

It's unnecessary to examine what's in the head of each of these men. We can simply uphold the practice of sex segregation, which has served women and society well since forever.

Your only reason for changing this status quo is to privilege some men at the expense of some women. And you are so wedded to this prejudice of yours** that you refuse to make any attempt at all to come up with some way to mitigate the risk to women from your proposal. Even though you have no good reason to impose this risk in the first place.

The risk is there. The risk is new with your proposal. The risk is mitigated by rejecting your proposal in favor of sex segregation. You minimizing the risk doesn't serve. You vilifying anyone concerned about this new, unnecessary risk doesn't serve.

*Figuratively. I agree with you that literally inspecting their genitalia is superfluous.

**In before you try to tu quoque me on the matter of prejudice. Yes, I am prejudiced in favor of women over self-ID TIMs, in matters of sex segregation. I am convinced that history, science, and the human condition are on my side in these matters. I see no benefit to society, nor to men who suffer from gender dysphoria, from what you propose - no benefit that outweighs the value to women of a sex-segregated space upheld in law and custom. Can you make a similar case for your prejudice in favor of TIMs, at the expense of women?
 
Applying the description "the little guy" to the trans-identifying men of my acquaintance is just not in the realm of reality. Even the not-unpleasant ones are assertive. At the other end of the scale we have abusive, entitled bullies.
 
Ziggurat said:
Generally speaking, it's not.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this information?

Plenty of dysphorics get no treatment at all, some get only psychotherapy, some get only estradiol pills. I don't have the pie chart handy, but I'm not trying to make the case that dysphoria is comparable to other more debilitating conditions.
 
d4m10n said:
Where are you getting this information?

Plenty of dysphorics get no treatment at all, some get only psychotherapy, some get only estradiol pills. I don't have the pie chart handy, but I'm not trying to make the case that dysphoria is comparable to other more debilitating conditions.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm concerned, any dysphoric who can deploy without preferred pronouns, without access to women's spaces, and without a tour's worth of hormone pills, is welcome to get their don't ask don't tell on.
 
Just maybe, it's possible for people in one place to care a lot more about something than people in another place, even without some overt religious demographic divide. It's true what Thermal says, that Massachusetts has seen little problems with issues of trans customers in public facilities. On one side, few to no complaints about women feeling uncomfortable or being victimized (e.g. flashers or planted cameras) in changing rooms. On the other side, few to no militant trans people or TRAs being deliberately provocative, or violent language directed at "TERFs."

I can't be sure that most Massachusetts women aren't secretly seething about the erosion of their sex-specific spaces but are browbeaten into silence about it by the steamroller of progressive dogma. But I can at least be sure that if that were the case, it would be massively out of character for them. No one around here keeps silent about anything else that bothers them.

There's a sneaky false assumption making trouble in this discussion. MA is socially progressive. The UK is socially progressive. So what's the problem with UK females that they're being so uptight about males in their powder rooms? And what's the problem with UK males that they want to yell ugly rape threats at females who don't want males in their powder rooms? It works in MA so people in the UK must just be complainers who should suck it up. Or, it bothers people in the UK so people in MA must just be walking all over women's rights. Surely there couldn't be any actual relevant cultural difference between the two polities.

Maybe we really shouldn't assume that, and don't call me Shirley.

I can't say I understand the exact nature of the relevant differences or how they arose. It might arise from the differences in history and culture. There are deep aspects of the local "character" here in MA that go all the way back to the strange meeting-of-opposites that occurred between the native Americans and the English colonists four hundred years ago. The colonists were hierarchical, regimented, class-conscious, staid, and elaborately clothed; the natives were loosely organized, individualistic, self-driven, exuberant, and naked. After a century of engagement and conflict that doesn't even make it into the history books (New England history didn't start until Paul Revere kicked it off, don't'cha know), characters like "Yankee" and "frontiersman" and less-easily-named (because less attended to by historians) female counterparts appeared who resembled neither of those cultural predecessors. If you want to delve into the heart of this painful cultural birth, suspend all assumptions and look up captivity narratives.

Another factor could be the prevalence of certain present day subcultures. Beachgoers who often have to change, and hikers who often have to pee, where the only available "facilities" might be some shrubbery or a friend to hold up a towel. Theater folk who not only are used to changing costumes on the fly with all possible expediency, but might even have to appear onstage in various degrees of undress. Old people who, contrary to the stereotype of old fogies as prudes, have been through enough medical scrutiny and probing that they no longer care who sees what. (There could be many others; they're the ones I have at least some direct knowledge of.)

But Massachusetts doesn't represent the whole U.S. or anywhere close. I can estimate, to within a few dozen miles, how far I'd have to travel in any given direction to find locals who would be absolutely outraged by bathroom sights that people here at home take in stride. So I wouldn't assume that policies that don't cause problems for women in MA wouldn't cause significant problems for women in Virginia, Utah, Maine, or Florida. Let alone other countries. In the US we don't have TRAs bashing on TERFs, we have progressives protesting Executive Orders.

tl;dr: "It works fine in Massachusetts" is insufficient to prove an ideal universal solution.
 
Thermal said:
No, I didn't. I said ADD a privacy stall with its own sink to handle privacy issues, not make them all single occupancy. Y U do dis?

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I have sympathized with smartcooky's daughters experience, and his take on it as a father, very specifically and more than once. EC, I luv ya, buy your turning into one of them. You can't just make ◊◊◊◊ up because you like the narrative better.

Rolfe has recently said she self excludes, despite having gotten full legal protections. So what the hell are you accomplishing? She gets exactly what she wanted in her country, and is still playing the martyr. You wanna pee? Go pee. Ill bet you its like every other time you peed and NOT A DAMN THING DIFFERENT HAPPENS.

You also forgot about the Massachusetts statewide data and other work from the Williams cats.

What scenarios you cook up in your head are beyond anyone's external control. Are you going to lobby for no men allowed out in public after dark because you feeeel like they might be a threat to you personally?

I'm saying what they have informally been in practice, and what the law in my state and others says unequivocally that they are.

No. I think it will do nothing at all to you. I think this based on experience and data and an understanding that bad guys are brighter than the anti-trans brigade, and know they get no advantage from every eye in the place being on them, regardless of the policy.
Click to expand...
This is just wall of horsecock. You summarily dismiss everyone else's concerns and experiences, and substitute your own personal experiences from the little closeted bubble you live in, and expect to apply it to the world as a whole, and expect everyone here fall in line. You're all over the place like a madman's faeces on this issue.
 
In the US, 37 states, DC, and 5 territories have open gender restrooms. 13 states (shocker of shockers: almost all small Red ones, with ever so rational Florida thrown in there) have anti-trans laws in place, with penalties ranging from nothing at all to misdemeanor crime.

Three to one open door states in the USA. Over three to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ one. Law and society have indeed spoken. And where are Rolfe's and EC's and theprestige's and Zig's hordes of tranny pervs taking advantage of this? Where are they?

Odds are, many American posters here live in open door states, where what you keep fear mongering about- they are actually living in, yet the hordes are nowhere to be seen.

Shall we do a poll of our freak-bashers statehoods? What states do you guys live in? I'll bet you already live in the dystopian nightmare you fear, and you don't even know it, or more likely, you know damn right well and have known all along.
 
Last edited:
If Massachusetts proves that not having single sex facilities is really no big deal and causes no problems, why are transwomen making such a big deal about being asked to use the men's facilities? Why can't they just go in, use a cubicle, wash their hands and leave? Why are they insisting that having to use the men's facilities is so traumatic for them that legislation must be put in place so that women who are uncomfortable with them in women's facilities are forced to put up with it?
 
Thermal said:
Pixel is currently not responding to a direct challenge, nor has she responded to any since I've been here.
Click to expand...

I only post if I think I have a contribution to make. If other posters are making the same points/arguments/rebuttals I would make I don't bother to make them again myself. I'm not aware of any challenge that you have made to me that hasn't been responded to by me or others multiple times. You complain about the rinse and repeat, but from my perspective you are by far the worst offender on this thread.
 
Myriad said:
Surely there couldn't be any actual relevant cultural difference between the two polities.

Maybe we really shouldn't assume that, and don't call me Shirley.

I can't say I understand the exact nature of the relevant differences or how they arose. It might arise from the differences in history and culture.
Click to expand...
Short version, as I see it.

Feminist activity in the US grew from civil rights and abortion. In the UK it was about equal pay.

US feminist activists prioritise rights of minorities and bodily autonomy. UK feminists activists prioritise equality and violence against women.

In the US the Democratic party sees transgender people as an oppressed minority; in the UK transwomen are seen as overentitled males.

In the US opposition to transgender policies is right wing lead; in the UK many of the leading campaigners are lifelong Labour voting lesbians.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
And in the interests of fair play, I simply reject yours.
Click to expand...

I'm asking a question you repeatedly ignore, or conversely insist you have already answered.

If men who have had their genitals removed have the right to use women-only facilities, but intact men do not, how can I tell which men I should accept without question and which men I can ask to leave?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom