Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Mashuna]

No, it isn't. It's saying, you're still male, you have to use the room for males. That may be a rejection of their preferences, but it isn't a rejection of them. You are not automatically entitled to your preferences.

Second, "birth sex"? I defended you over "sex change" because that's long standing terminology. But "birth sex" is not. It's just sex. At least in mammals, there is no such thing as birth sex separate from sex. The term is used to dishonestly imply that there is, and your use of the term is unjustified, especially since there is an established and superior alternative: sex.

Yeah, birth sex was my fault, Thermal was just quoting me. . .

 

[Thermal]

No, it isn't. It's saying, you're still male, you have to use the room for males. That may be a rejection of their preferences, but it isn't a rejection of them. You are not automatically entitled to your preferences.

Second, "birth sex"? I defended you over "sex change" because that's long standing terminology. But "birth sex" is not. It's just sex. At least in mammals, there is no such thing as birth sex separate from sex. The term is used to dishonestly imply that there is, and your use of the term is unjustified, especially since there is an established and superior alternative: sex.

I know. I'm trying to use terminology to make the distinction clear, more than literal accuracy, much like the term 'sex change surgery' itself.

 

[Mashuna]

Walk a mile. What if you were told by the government and society "hey Pixel- you have to use the men's room. We don't give a ◊◊◊◊ how you feel about that". That's what it feels like to a transwoman.

'hey Pixel, you have to allow anyone who claims to be a trans woman to use the ladies' room. We don't give a ◊◊◊◊ how you feel about that.'
That's what it feels like to many women.

 

[Rolfe]

No no no... you say you can simply reject a challenge and not respond (in this case your refusal to provide evidence for your AGP claims). I am doing the same. How's it feel? Honest?

But no: I am not a sniveling, lying coward, and will address it directly for the hundreth time (apologies to Pixel for the repetition, but as you can see, it is demanded by those on your side).

Ok. First we have to make sense of your question. Who has posed a scenario where a medically transitioned transwoman must be accepted without question, and any and all intact transwomen must not enter?

Second: your question seems to be asking 'who can I still be a hateful hag to, and how can I spot them?" Ask your fellows about that one, figuring out how to be recreationally hateful is not my area.

A transwoman who has gone to the lengths of surgical transition, hormone therapy, etc should not be hard to spot. Someone who has done nothing should be similarly easy to make. You have said yourself how easy it is to visually identify them.

So let's try it a little more in depth, because maybe I'm not understanding your question. Why are you trying to 'tell' anything? Are the people bothering anyone or not? Whether they are intact or not makes no difference to harassing others; they don't have that right. The short version I have been repeatedly answering this question with is that it ain't ya business, you're not the Penis Police. You don't have to 'tell' anything about someone who is not bothering you or anyone else. Your question becomes nonsensical, because there is no reason to 'tell' anything.

"But what if it's a cross dressing perv or opportunistic rapist?" you ask. We have seen that it doesn't happen. Pervs and criminals are smarter than posters ITT, and know they have gained no advantage by calling attention to themselves, which being a guy in drag is going to do. They might also think about the women having SOs outside, who will beat the creep into next week when they leave the restroom. They gain no advantage by selfID policies; that's why we see no incidence of increased perving, anywhere.

So what does someone do when a highly questionable person that makes you uncomfortable is in the restroom? The same as we have done for generations- wait till the weirdo finishes their business and clears out. I've done so in men's rooms. It's part of living with other people who are way different. Just keep clear and don't interact.

But your question says "but man, I really want to interact and get confrontational with these people who I think are dangerous". That makes no sense to me. You gonna throw down against someone who you believe to be a physically stronger criminal? Or are you assuming everyone is just going to listen to you and do what you say?

Just so we can resolve this question to your satisfaction: why do you want to 'tell' anything? What are you going to do with this information? You just got done saying that even with your SC ruling in your favor, you believe society is going to ignore it, so you self-exclude from using a rest room at a theater because there are apparently violent transwomen who lurk in the women's rooms that management supports, or something like that.

What a lot of words, and still no answer.

I am asking you what might be termed an academic question. You have proposed that men who have had their genitals removed (that is surgical transition, as opposed to medical, which is hormones and stuff) should have the legal right to use women's single-sex facilities. However, you constantly protest that your proposal doesn't allow any man at all to use women's single-sex facilities. How does that work? How does anyone at all, say the person running the venue, know who is allowed to be there and who isn't? How does your proposal differ from simply allowing any man who wants to use the women's facilities?

That is the question, and banging on about my unrelated issues with Ambassador Theatres Group and rephrasing my academic question in the most offensively personal ways you can think of is doing nothing to answer it.

HOW DO YOU (where "you", if you like, is the venue owner, who is concerned to obey the law) OPERATE A SYSTEM WHERE SOME MEN HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE WOMEN'S FACILITIES AND SOME DO NOT? HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH WHICH GROUP IS WHICH SO THAT YOU CAN KEEP OUT THE GROUP THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE THERE, WHILE ADMITTING THE GROUP THAT DOES?

Leave me out of it. I don't want any men there at all. That's simple. You're the one introducing the complexities by insisting that some, but only some, men should have the right to be there, but refusing to reveal how that would operate. Consider your advice to, say, a gym owner who wants to obey Thermal-law and asks you how to go about doing that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know. I'm trying to use terminology to make the distinction clear, more than literal accuracy, much like the term 'sex change surgery' itself.

What distinction? A distinction between birth sex and current sex? There is no distinction there. There is only one sex for a mammal, and it does not change after birth. "Birth sex" terminology is not more clear, it is more deceptive. By design.

If you want to make a distinction between sex and gender expression, "birth sex" is unnecessary. The distinction in that case is between sex and something which isn't sex. No meaning would be lost or obscured from your post by the omission of the word "birth".

 

[Rolfe]

Walk a mile. What if you were told by the government and society "hey Pixel- you have to use the men's room. We don't give a ◊◊◊◊ how you feel about that". That's what it feels like to a transwoman.

No, it isn't. You're projecting. You're wrapped in your little bubble where all men who call themselves "transwomen" are clones of Hayley Cropper. Hayley Cropper was fiction. There is no actual person on earth like Hayley Cropper. There are, sadly, too many like Robin White and Michael Gallagher and even Adam Bryson and Lennon Dolatowski.

 

[Rolfe]

Women don't want to be put in the position of having to police and defend their single-sex spaces in the first place. Women want men to respect the sign on the door and not go where they have no right to be. If you're in a hotel or a restaurant or a department store and there's a door or a staircase marked "staff only", there's nobody stationed there asking for your employment contract, and yet you don't go marching in there regardless. It should be the same with single-sex spaces.

However, we seem to be in the position where a significant number of men refuse to respect the sign on the door. Thermal's solution is that we should simply capitulate and relinquish our right to single-sex spaces. I'm interested in not doing that.

 

[Thermal]

What a lot of words, and still no answer.

I am asking you what might be termed an academic question. You have proposed that men who have had their genitals removed (that is surgical transition, as opposed to medical, which is hormones and stuff) should have the legal right to use women's single-sex facilities. However, you constantly protest that your proposal doesn't allow any man at all to use women's single-sex facilities. How does that work? How does anyone at all, say the person running the venue, know who is allowed to be there and who isn't? How does your proposal differ from simply allowing any man who wants to use the women's facilities?

That is the question, and banging on about my unrelated issues with Ambassador Theatres Group and rephrasing my academic question in the most offensively personal ways you can think of is doing nothing to answer it.

HOW DO YOU (where "you", if you like, is the venue owner, who is concerned to obey the law) OPERATE A SYSTEM WHERE SOME MEN HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE WOMEN'S FACILITIES AND SOME DO NOT? HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH WHICH GROUP IS WHICH SO THAT YOU CAN KEEP OUT THE GROUP THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE THERE, WHILE ADMITTING THE GROUP THAT DOES?

Leave me out of it. I don't want any men there at all. That's simple. You're the one introducing the complexities by insisting that some, but only some, men should have the right to be there, but refusing to reveal how that would operate. Consider your advice to, say, a gym owner who wants to obey Thermal-law and asks you how to go about doing that.

Ok, Rolfe. Olive branch time. I think I seriously understand why we are talking past each other. Please bear with me here:

Your question is "BUT HOW DO WE TELL?" and my answer has been "YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT THE PENIS POLICE". Is that a fair description of this disagreement?

As I see it, men's and women's rooms have never had a 'Bio Only' sign on the door, and no law with penalties enforcing it. It has always been a kind of 'men here, women here, y'all just play nice'. But we have never been 100% on that. As you say, you have sometimes tolerated transwomen in your midst. In the guy's room, we have always tolerated everybody, pretty much without discriminating at all, but we maybe have the luxury of not giving a ◊◊◊◊ one way or the other.

So the current bruhaha is about radically changing the status quo, not maintaining it. It's the changing that I am bristling against, because it is a move towards less acceptance and lower toleration for people who are different. I think we should be broadly moving towards greater acceptance of our nonconformists, not lesser.

So while we clearly are not going to agree, can you at least understand that I am answering you very directly? We never had hard laws against cross sex access, and we never had Penis Policing. You are demanding it now, presumably because you believe the abuses are going over the top and beyond the noise range tolerable level. I respect that belief, but I don't see the anticipated, inevitable threat borne out in practice.

 

[Thermal]

No, it isn't. You're projecting. You're wrapped in your little bubble where all men who call themselves "transwomen" are clones of Hayley Cropper. Hayley Cropper was fiction. There is no actual person on earth like Hayley Cropper. There are, sadly, too many like Robin White and Michael Gallagher and even Adam Bryson and Lennon Dolatowski.

No, as I have said repeatedly, I am going off the one transwoman I have known personally for years, and the couple I just see around in a couple specific areas. I honestly have no idea who this Hayley Cropper is, never googled them to find out, and have never typed their name before doing so just now.

 

[Thermal]

'hey Pixel, you have to allow anyone who claims to be a trans woman to use the ladies' room. We don't give a ◊◊◊◊ how you feel about that.'
That's what it feels like to many women.

And that's a legitimate beef. So we discuss it, and weigh it out. That's what my involvement in this thread has been fueled by.

 

[Ziggurat]

And that's a legitimate beef. So we discuss it, and weigh it out. That's what my involvement in this thread has been fueled by.

But I don't see you doing anything about that. I don't see you proposing any ways to address that concern. So it doesn't look like it's got anything to do with why you're participating.

 

[Rolfe]

Ok, Rolfe. Olive branch time. I think I seriously understand why we are talking past each other. Please bear with me here:

Your question is "BUT HOW DO WE TELL?" and my answer has been "YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT THE PENIS POLICE". Is that a fair description of this disagreement?

As I see it, men's and women's rooms have never had a 'Bio Only' sign on the door, and no law with penalties enforcing it. It has always been a kind of 'men here, women here, y'all just play nice'. But we have never been 100% on that. As you say, you have sometimes tolerated transwomen in your midst. In the guy's room, we have always tolerated everybody, pretty much without discriminating at all, but we maybe have the luxury of not giving a ◊◊◊◊ one way or the other.

So the current bruhaha is about radically changing the status quo, not maintaining it. It's the changing that I am bristling against, because it is a move towards less acceptance and lower toleration for people who are different. I think we should be broadly moving towards greater acceptance of our nonconformists, not lesser.

So while we clearly are not going to agree, can you at least understand that I am answering you very directly? We never had hard laws against cross sex access, and we never had Penis Policing. You are demanding it now, presumably because you believe the abuses are going over the top and beyond the noise range tolerable level. I respect that belief, but I don't see the anticipated, inevitable threat borne out in practice.

You still do not get it. I am asking you a technical question about the enforcement of "Thermal Law", the situation you repeatedly propose where some men (the definition of the group seems to vary, but it's never "all men") have the legal right to use women's facilities, but other men do not. If you get the law you propose, how do providers of services act so as to obey your law?

What is the difference between your proposal, and the situation where any man at all is free to use the women's facilities? I interpret this latest post as simply saying "it says "women here" on the door, but that means nothing because women are obliged to say nothing and do nothing whenever a man ignores the sign and comes in anyway.

You have repeatedly said you oppose "self-ID", which is the situation where any man can claim to be a woman if he wants to, and you favour women having (at least some modicum of) privacy, but you never, never say how the men you don't believe should be permitted in women's facilities should be prevented from going there, or ejected if they do.

 

[theprestige]

Some of us think that is unneccesarily intolerant as a starting point.

Biological sex seems to me like the most appropriate starting point for discussions about gender expression and sex segregation.

Where do you start from?

Where do you think transwomen start from?

---

"I'm uncomfortable."

"Uncomfortable about what?"

"You know, uncomfortable!"

"Let's start with what's making you uncomfortable."

"◊◊◊◊ you, you intolerant jerk!"

 

[Thermal]

What distinction? A distinction between birth sex and current sex? There is no distinction there. There is only one sex for a mammal, and it does not change after birth. "Birth sex" terminology is not more clear, it is more deceptive. By design.

If you want to make a distinction between sex and gender expression, "birth sex" is unnecessary. The distinction in that case is between sex and something which isn't sex. No meaning would be lost or obscured from your post by the omission of the word "birth".

Jesus Christ dude, It was in quotes and everything, because Mashuna had just used the exact phrase.

 

[Ziggurat]

Jesus Christ dude, It was in quotes and everything, because Mashuna had just used the exact phrase.

You should have led with that defense. It's much better than your previous one. But the fact that you didn't tells me you agree with that phrasing, and didn't use it only because you were quoting him.

 

[Thermal]

Biological sex seems to me like the most appropriate starting point for discussions about gender expression and sex segregation.

"I'm a cis guy, so I think it is reasonable for everyone to accept the purely cis-centric solution".

Yeah. Yeah, that's the whole discussion in a sentence.

Where do you start from?

Where do you think transwomen start from?

---

"I'm uncomfortable."

"Uncomfortable about what?"

"You know, uncomfortable!"

"Let's start with what's making you uncomfortable."

"◊◊◊◊ you, you intolerant jerk!"

A concise summation of both side's POVs.

 

[Thermal]

You should have led with that defense. It's much better than your previous one. But the fact that you didn't tells me you agree with that phrasing, and didn't use it only because you were quoting him.

I didn't lead with it because it was literally spelled out in black and white before your eyes. 'You forgot to read the post you were quoting" wasn't on my radar, conceded.

 

[Thermal]

You still do not get it. I am asking you a technical question about the enforcement of "Thermal Law", the situation you repeatedly propose where some men (the definition of the group seems to vary, but it's never "all men") have the legal right to use women's facilities, but other men do not. If you get the law you propose, how do providers of services act so as to obey your law?

What is the difference between your proposal, and the situation where any man at all is free to use the women's facilities? I interpret this latest post as simply saying "it says "women here" on the door, but that means nothing because women are obliged to say nothing and do nothing whenever a man ignores the sign and comes in anyway.

You have repeatedly said you oppose "self-ID", which is the situation where any man can claim to be a woman if he wants to, and you favour women having (at least some modicum of) privacy, but you never, never say how the men you don't believe should be permitted in women's facilities should be prevented from going there, or ejected if they do.

Because it seems to be an imaginary problem, not a real one.

So how would you eject (apparently for no reason other than you object to their existance) a transwoman, when you say yourself that force of law does nothing, in your theater experience? Make a scene. A transwoman who just wants to pee doesn't want to be the center of a scene. It's one of those opportunistic exploiting pervs that seem not to exist in any greater numbers than before? Ok, same solution. A perv can't perv if they are the center of attention. Call in the guys to work him over (obviously extrajudicial solution).

In short, handle it like you've always handled it, and everyone all over the world has always handled it. No cops. Societal pressure.

What have you done when confronted with the hordes of cross dressing pervs that fill the ladies room in the past?

 

[theprestige]

"I'm a cis guy, so I think it is reasonable for everyone to accept the purely cis-centric solution".

Okay, so what's your starting point for the trans-centric solution?

It just seems to me that biological sex is (a) a fact, and (b) at the heart of the issue. You can't be unhappy with your body's sex, without first having a sexed body. Where else could you possibly start?

And once again you complain about something, but ignore/dismiss/refuse any and all requests to offer an alternative.

 

[Ziggurat]

So how would you eject (apparently for no reason other than you object to their existance) a transwoman

You complain about this thread being toxic, but you keep contributing to that yourself. Rolfe is not objecting to anyone's existence. She is objecting to someone's presence. That is not even remotely the same thing. You yourself have conceded that it's OK to object to some people's presence in some places.

, when you say yourself that force of law does nothing, in your theater experience?

The law is on Rolfe's side. The problem is that the theater isn't. Which, as a practical matter, makes enforcing the law very difficult.

Make a scene.

She shouldn't have to.

A transwoman who just wants to pee doesn't want to be the center of a scene.

Rolfe doesn't want to be the center of a scene. Funny how you're concerned about how a transwoman feels about this, but not Rolfe.

In short, handle it like you've always handled it, and everyone all over the world has always handled it. No cops. Societal pressure.

Societal pressure has collapsed in many places.