Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

smartcooky said:
Apples and oranges. What Rosa Parks did was non-compliance, or if you like, civil disobedience. She hurt no-one and caused no disruption.
Click to expand...
"Breaking the law in protest is NEVER justified" doesn't admit exceptions for civil disobedience or lack of harm.
smartcooky said:
please stop trying to play the Devil's advocate
Click to expand...
Request denied.
 
d4m10n said:
"Breaking the law in protest is NEVER justified" doesn't admit exceptions for civil disobedience or lack of harm.

Request denied.
Click to expand...
Pedantry at its finest. You know exactly what I meant - your pathetic attempt at play acting the Devils Advocate was a dick move, and you know it.


ETA: But, if you want to jump on Mycroft's and Thermal's bandwagon of likening he transgender debate to racial segregation, go ahead - make my day!
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Rosa Parks should have just gone to the back?
Click to expand...
Congratulations, I award you one internets.

Yes, his statement as phrased is overly broad. But there is an underlying distinction here, one which I think you would agree with. The law that Parks violated was itself an unjust law. The laws against falsely pulling fire alarms, etc. are not unjust laws. Breaking an unjust law in protest of that unjust law is fundamentally different than breaking just laws in protest over something unrelated to the law you are breaking. The former is pretty easy to justify, the latter not so much. Do you concede that?
 
Thermal said:
I assume this is directed towards me? If so;

You're right, that was an unnecessarily short response. My apologies. I'm trying to leave this discussion for mental health reasons, and being asked further questions, challenges, and insults is counterproductive to that end (yes, saying my posts "reek of misogyny" is insulting).
Click to expand...
You should definitely leave this discussion for mental health reasons.
 
Thermal said:
It has been repeatedly acknowledged that prisons are a different story, and the volume of suddenly 'transwoman' inmates requesting to be in the women's prison increased exponentially, which seems to indicate imposters gaining access to new victims. Not exactly the gotcha you think it is.

ETA: i mean jesus christ dude, your own citation says that upon adoption of the policy, transfer requests suddenly went from 15 to 250. You think all those prisoners abruptly 'discovered who they really were' spontaneously overnight?

And no, I didn't say "as a result of allowing selfID for gender". You are rewording to make your half assed gotcha work. Join Rolfe and the cooky in the low integrity corner if you are going to argue like that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I haven't noticed you saying that prisons are a different story. Could you explain why you think this? For me, the principle is the same: men claiming to be women and demanding access to women-only spaces endangers women, regardless of whether that space is a prison, a changing room or a women's health meeting.
As for self-ID, what is your stance on that? Do you accept it, or would you like to see more stringent controls?
Yes, my link says that transfer requests increased exponentially: that was the whole point. If you allow men to access what were and should be women-only spaces, just because they say they want to, then there is no way to exculde those who are exploiting this policy. That's why women are, in general, opposed to it- and why many men are too.
 
Thermal said:
No, it's old news and long discussed.
Click to expand...

So, sorry for bringing it up again: it's a long and busy thread, and we don't have a search function.
However, I do wonder, if this is such old news, why you have not changed your mind in light of the evidence, and why you continue to insist that these things are not happening to any great extent in NJ, and are not increasing either.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
So, sorry for bringing it up again: it's a long and busy thread, and we don't have a search function.
However, I do wonder, if this is such old news, why you have not changed your mind in light of the evidence, and why you continue to insist that these things are not happening to any great extent in NJ, and are not increasing either.
Click to expand...
Yup
Trans Identifying males in women's prisons.
Trans Identifying males in women's restrooms.
Trans Identifying males in women's shelters.
Trans Identifying males in women's hospital wards.
Trans Identifying males in women's rape crisis centres.
Trans Identifying males in women's meeting groups.

All equally unwelcome, all equally as inappropriate. Any man, trans identifying or not, who desires to invade or enter women's safe spaces when the women do not consent to them doing so, is a bad man.

Good men stay out so that bad men stand out!
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Civil disobedience is very different from vandalizing the commons, in terms of protest actions.
Click to expand...
Civil disobedience is passive resistance to laws or policies deemed unjust or unfair. Such as sitting at a segregated lunch counter or blocking the entrance to a segregated theater.

Actively engaging in vandalism, arson, destruction of property is not civil.
 
This one will no doubt also be dismissed because of the account tweeting it. Although I would point out that many women don't have the stomach to dig up these horrors and if it weren't for a relatively small number of researchers we wouldn't know about most of it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1925383243227881576

This one is serving his sentence in a low-security women's prison. No doubt he counts as a "doll" who must be protected - one member here has even changed his avatar to "protect the dolls".

A compulsion to cross-dressing is frequently co-morbid with other paraphilias, including paedophilia, and including narcissistic rage syndrome (which seems to have been evident in Brighton at the weekend). I will never, ever accept the argument that, because you personally know a trans-identifying man who is the sweetest soul who would never hurt a fly (or at least that's the impression he has made on you) that women's single-sex spaces should be opened to any man who wishes to use them.

More so, I don't believe that any man who insists on being allowed entry to women's facilities is benign. At the very least he is selfishly disregarding the feelings of the women who don't want him there, prioritising only his own wants. But he may be much worse than that.
 
I would like those arguing for mixed-sex toilets, in school and elsewhere, to read this.

www.theguardian.com

Heavy periods affect school attendance and exam scores, study in England finds

Charities say more should be done to support girls who experience prolonged bleeding and severe menstrual pain
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

It's bad enough when this happens to you and you have a place to go that is for women and girls only. Imagine if your only "refuge" is a facility where men come and go freely. Even worse, where teenage boys may be waiting for the specific purpose of tormenting you.

It's a very real issue. I never had heavy bleeding, but throughout my teens and twenties I had two hours of excruciating pain every month, between 10 am and 12 noon. One such occasion happened on the morning of my medicine final written exam. I think I wrote a bunch of nonsense. At the ceilidh after the results came out I found myself dancing with the Dean of the Faculty, who said to me, "Excellent viva, my dear. What happened to you in the written?" Embarrassed, I mumbled something about not feeling very well that day. As I said to my friends afterwards, how could I tell the Dean I was absolutely felled by dysmenorrhoea? Maybe I should have. Maybe he guessed, actually.

Men have absolutely no idea about a lot of this. Pervy cross-dressing men want to fetish our misfortune and get off on immersive role-play where they mimic our pain. Stop telling us that they're women just like us and that we have to accept them in the spaces we need to cope with our discomfort.

Postscript. Later, when I was in my thirties and things were admittedly not so bad, it happened again. On the day I sat the test for Mensa membership. In Brighton, as I recall. (I wanted access to their dating magazine!) I'm pleased to report that in spite of this handicap I scored 161, which is the maximum possible score on that test.
 
We see this sort of thing all the time. Transitioned while his wife was pregnant, and wants to be the baby's "Mom".

1747906052530.jpeg

This guy needs industrial strength mental health treatment. But what he's getting is "affirmation" and a hormone prescription, which is only going to make him a lot worse, as people focussed on his wife and baby are never not going to see the big bloke with the two-day stubble.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
This is absolutely superb, for anyone wondering about the state of broadcasting in Britain and how it got there.

seeninjournalism.substack.com

The PR tactic of 'lived experience'

The BBC's focus on human stories was only offered to 'trans' people
seeninjournalism.substack.com seeninjournalism.substack.com

View attachment 60975
Click to expand...

Jesus! 😲 I knew the Beeb was captured, but not to this extent.

This will be one of the reasons why finding evidence of this sort of thing that we KNOW is going on is so damned difficult.... the media is actively blocking and suppressing publication of these stories.

Are ITV and the papers all as extensively captured as the Beeb?


ETA: One of my daughters can relate directly to the fifth one down on your list - confronted by a man in the women's changing rooms of a local public pool. Told him to leave. He refused, claiming he was a women. She complained to the management and was told she was a transphobe.

Never went back.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
ETA: One of my daughters can relate directly to the fifth one down on your list - confronted by a man in the women's changing rooms of a local public pool. Told him to leave. He refused, claiming he was a women. She complained to the management and was told she was a transphobe.

Never went back.
Click to expand...
But the statistics prove this never happens. </sarcasm>
 
smartcooky said:
your pathetic attempt at play acting the Devils Advocate was a dick move, and you know it.
Click to expand...
Instead of commenting on my character, you could just admit that your own stated principle is overly broad because it denies the possibility of civil disobedience as moral action.
Ziggurat said:
Do you concede that?
Click to expand...
Of course.
theprestige said:
Civil disobedience is very different from vandalizing the commons, in terms of protest actions.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this to @smartcooky though?

They seem to think "Breaking the law in protest is NEVER justified" and for some reason refuse to walk that back or even refine it until it makes sense, as Zig did at #8,365.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Instead of commenting on my character, you could just admit that your own stated principle is overly broad because it denies the possibility of civil disobedience as moral action.

Of course.

Can you explain this to @smartcooky though?

They seem to think "Breaking the law in protest is NEVER justified" and for some reason refuse to walk that back or even refine it until it makes sense, as Zig did at #8,365.
Click to expand...
Could care less. @smartcooky 's doing just fine. We all knew what he was getting at, even you. Let it go.
 
210 pages.

15th version of the same thread.

No progress in agreement.

Maybe its time to put this baby to rest.
 
theprestige said:
We all knew what he was getting at, even you.
Click to expand...
Fact check: Untrue.

If anyone here states a firm premise for the sake of making an argument, I'll take it at face value.

Doing a steelman remix in order to make something make sense has its place, but doing so may well lead to misinterpretation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom