Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

I'm going to request that you begin posting in good faith. You know damn right well we were talking about potential criminals exploiting the opportunity (which the data and common sense shows doesn't happen).

Again, please consider posting in good faith for a change. Try it! It's fun!

Gey your strawmen and childish hyperbole straight, and it will all sort itself out as if by magic.

I was not talking about potential criminals exploiting the opportunity. I was describing how the presence of a man, any man, in a women's toilet has been handled since about forever, and how it should continue to be handled if women are to have any agency at all as regards their intimate spaces.

But there is a point there. We see a man. How do we know whether he is a violent criminal or just one of these entitled dicks who wants to pee beside the women? We don't. By your way of it we have to say nothing and do nothing whenever we see a man, any man.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes, that's intolerance.

Males not having their feelings taken into account is intolerance, females not having their feelings taken into account is fine. Gotcha.

 

[Thermal]

I guess
this is what counts as an olive branch to Rolfe in Thermal's world.

I tried olive branch. You saw how she responded.

 

[Rolfe]

I guess
this is what counts as an olive branch to Rolfe in Thermal's world.

My IQ is 161. I'm fairly confident Adam Bryson's is lower than that.

I brought up Bryson merely as a concrete example of a male Thermal has repeatedly said should not be permitted in women's single-sex spaces, to try to get some answers about how he would prevent him going there. In the abstract. I wasn't even remotely referring to Bryson in my 7-stage plan, I was describing how women were accustomed to police their spaces and how a great many, certainly a large majority where I live, would like to go on policing them.

Now, it seems, that as well as not challenging the entitled dicks who just want to pee, if we see a man we somehow know has no right to be there we shouldn't challenge him either as he'll murder us.

 

[Rolfe]

I tried olive branch. You saw how she responded.

Your "olive branch" consisted of you repeating your position and inviting me to agree with you.

 

[Thermal]

Males not having their feelings taken into account is intolerance, females not having their feelings taken into account is fine. Gotcha.

Pardon the repetition, as you may have heard this before, but the entirety of this discussion is the difficult conflict of rights and comfort that BOTH SIDES LEGITIMATELY HAVE.

No one is having their feelings about it dismissed. They are all legitimate (except for a couple posters here that I think are actually running a long game Poe performance piece).

Arguing against one bad argument does not mean absorbing its extreme opposite. No one in this thread should be befuddled by that, yet you all pretend to be

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

On the other hand, my spouse whose AF MOS was visual communications spent four months deployed in an active war zone providing support. At a base that got bombed, had IEDs regularly explode inbound vehicles, and was periodically attacked by enemy forces.

It's nice that you didn't have to face any danger. That doesn't change the fact that military personnel are required to be able to be deployed into combat. Part of that ability requires physical and mental stability sufficient to be able to do the job if needed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Indeed. Thus my post:

Now... If an individual identifies as transgender, but does not require psychological or medical treatment, and does not require accommodations in housing or clothing, then I don't care. If a male has gendery feels, but is content to serve in male military clothing, in male military dormitories, and being referred to as "sir" when such comes up... then there's no problem at all.

 

[Thermal]

Your "olive branch" consisted of you repeating your position and inviting me to agree with you.

No it wasn't. I honestly thought we might make some headway there. I've since come back to my earlier conclusion based on your own posts, in your own words: you think all transwomen are cross dressing pervs. The rest of your arguments are just a fig leaf to cover that.

 

[angrysoba]

@Thermal, I think it is important to see how there is a fundamental zero-sum problem here.

To the extent a toilet solution can work for a transwoman, it can only do so in exactly the same degree in which it transfers that problem to women.

What is the problem?

A man feels more comfortable expressing himself as a woman, and by this is meant by adopting the outward stereotypes of femininity in dress, voice, mannerisms etc..

And then, having done so, said transwoman no longer feels comfortable in the men's room? Why? Because men are dangerous, apparently. But the solution requires transferring the same danger to the women's room which defeats the purpose of the women's room.

Now, I get the objection: but transwomen are women!
First, I don't think anyone really believes that. The compromise has always been about politely accepting a fiction.
Second, even if real transwomen were in a different class to the predatory opportunists who only pretend to be transwomen, there is no way to sort between them.

 

[acbytesla]

It would seem, in that case, that your neighbour has been taking large amounts of synthetic testosterone, and yet has still managed to become pregnant. I hope the baby is all right.

I don't know that. Maybe she did. But you don't know that either.

Interestingly enough, the recent Supreme Court ruling did rule about this, and what it said was that if a woman has masculinised herself by taking male hormones, sufficiently so as to be indistinguishable from a man, she may lawfully be excluded from women's facilities due to the potential for disruption. She should be provided with an alternative place to go.

So. That doesn't make it the right decision. The courts in the UK use to order castration for homosexual men,

So you're not bothered then. So you deny anyone else the ability to be bothered. We see you.

No, you can be bothered. One of my neighbors is bothered if I let my lawn grow too long. He's entitled to feeling bothered by that. But his being bothered doesn't make it mandatory that I mow my lawn.

 

[theprestige]

On the other hand, my spouse whose AF MOS was visual communications spent four months deployed in an active war zone providing support. At a base that got bombed, had IEDs regularly explode inbound vehicles, and was periodically attacked by enemy forces.

It's nice that you didn't have to face any danger. That doesn't change the fact that military personnel are required to be able to be deployed into combat. Part of that ability requires physical and mental stability sufficient to be able to do the job if needed.

I think part of the problem is that the military markets service as a jobs program. But this is the carrot, to boost recruitment. The stick of onerous, life-threatening, sanity-testing labor remains the same.

Which brings us to the question. Are transwomen sane enough to do the job, when preferred pronouns and hormone pills go by the wayside? Is that really an experiment the military should be burdened with carrying out?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I don't think this is true. Yes, there are 13 states that explicitly restrict sex-specific restroom use to the person's actual sex, and preclude usage based on gender identity.

But I don't think the remainder of the states and all 5 territories actually have open gender laws in place. I think only a handful have explicit legislation that requires people be allowed to use restrooms on the basis of their gender identity. You've said NJ does, and MA. I believe WA, OR, and CA all do.

You seem to be assuming that if a state doesn't ban use on the basis of gender identity, then they explicitly support it - and that's a false assumption. My state has no laws either way - transgender identified people are not prohibited from using bathrooms on the basis of their gender identity, but they're not given protections either. It's up to each establishment to do whatever works for them. I think a great many states currently have that approach.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Women's rights weren't fully legislated for until the early 1990s, though. We had a good 25 years before the trans lobby came for us.

In the US, they're still not fully legislated. The Equal Rights Amendment has been stagnating since the 1920s, but we can't get enough states to support it to get it actually passed into our constitution. It gained a little bit of traction recently... but only because males with gender identity issues were added to the never-ending list of what "sex" is supposed to mean.

It's infuriating that we can't actually get codified equal constitutional rights for females... but in dozens of statutes, "sex" has been re-re-redefined to mean actual biological sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, sex-based stereotypes, gender identity, presentation, and I'm pretty sure left-handedness at this point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This pisses me off to a degree I can't adequately capture.

The balls of you, insisting that females who object to males in our intimate spaces are hateful hags.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know that. Maybe she did. But you don't know that either.

No, I'm pretty sure I know that. Some women naturally have male-like facial hair. But those women do not develop male facial features, body proportions, or musculature. If the woman in question has both facial hair and masculine features and musculature, she is taking male hormones. That's the only way to produce that combination.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Walk a mile in those shoes. How would you like it if society as a whole said "hey d4m10n, you're not a man or a woman in our eyes, and we don't give a ◊◊◊◊ what you think you are. Use the 'others' room, ya freak"?

That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, Thermal.

It's society as a whole saying "Hey, I get that you are unhappy with your sexed body, and that sucks, but it doesn't make you the opposite sex. So if you don't want to use the male restrooms, we'll support an accommodation and make a third option available to you."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Saying 'use the room that aligns with your birth sex' is saying 'we reject you, freak'. That's the heart of the discussion here. Some of us think that is unneccesarily intolerant as a starting point.

No, it's saying that sex is a real, physical, objective thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

How the ◊◊◊◊ do you know what it feels like to a transwoman?

 

[Rolfe]

No, I'm pretty sure I know that. Some women naturally have male-like facial hair. But those women do not develop male facial features, body proportions, or musculature. If the woman in question has both facial hair and masculine features and musculature, she is taking male hormones. That's the only way to produce that combination.

That is true. I have no idea what the women who challenge Bridget are smoking, but she says that invariably when she interacts with them, they realise their mistake. A woman who isn't pretty much marinaded in artificial testosterone looks like a woman. Quite a lot of the ones who do take a lot of testosterone still look female. It astonishes me that any woman who rejects her sex sufficiently to want to do this is still prepared to have normal sex with a man, but apparently quite a lot of them do. It astonishes me still more that this terrible dysphoria doesn't prevent some of them from choosing to be pregnant, the most female thing any of us can do. But there you go, some do. It's really really risky for the baby though.

I suspect that the women who achieve a convincing masculine appearance are also doing a lot of gym exercise. You don't get these sorts of muscles purely by taking anabolic steroids, you have to work out too. (Ask me how I know.)