Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

At the time the Dutch protocol was developed watchful waiting was the standard approach. Under watchful waiting, children were allowed to display gender nonconformity in clothing, toy choices etc. but were not affirmed in the belief that they were the other sex. This was considered essential in predicting whether gender dysphoria was likely to persist past puberty. If children were socially transitioned or affirmed it was thought this would prevent natural resolution of gender dysphoria and make it impossible to determine whether the persistence was due to social reinforcement. Watchful waiting was branded 'conversion therapy' in the AAP 2018 policy statement written by Rafferty, based on no evidence whatsoever.

These days, gender ideological "best practice" is to rush these children (as young as three or four years old) into transition before they have a chance to change their minds.

 

[smartcooky]

It could be as Ziggurat said, but then neither "Aimée" nor "Rosalie" has ever accused their father of abusing them.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Historically, parental sexual abuse has been hugely underreported. If this guy has been habitually kiddie-fiddling multiple 14 to 16 year-olds, the odds are strong that he has fiddled with his own kids as well.

 

[d4m10n]

There is a podcast series by the New York Times that goes into the origins of the use of puberty blockers on gender dysphoric children.

Just finished it up on the morning commute; would recommend.

I expect it's going to piss off partisans on both sides, in part because the people running the show seem to be trying to engage with opposing factions (Olson-Kennedy for the gender affirmative model, Edwards-Leeper for a more restrained psychotherapeutic approach) with at least a modicum of objectivity. I even get the sense that the NYT folks wanted to put together a woke progressively politically correct podcast, but their dedication to factual reporting kept getting in the way.

 

[angrysoba]

Just finished it up on the morning commute; would recommend.

I expect it's going to piss off partisans on both sides, in part because the people running the show seem to be trying to engage with opposing factions (Olson-Kennedy for the gender affirmative model, Edwards-Leeper for a more restrained psychotherapeutic approach) with at least a modicum of objectivity. I even get the sense that the NYT folks wanted to put together a woke progressively politically correct podcast, but their dedication to factual reporting kept getting in the way.

Hmmm…

Either you are Andrew Sullivan or your just think the same way!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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).

Thermal, buddy, you seem unable to take what you dish out.

Seriously, you don't seem to have any qualms at all about challenging, insulting, and denigrating other posters in this thread... but boy oh boy do you get your dander up when you aren't treated with the utmost respect and care. What bothers me most is that you get far more bent out of shape when the person opposing you is female than when they're male. That by itself is annoying, but it's infuriating when the topic is something that has significant impacts on females and virtually no impacts on males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you can expect a conflict, and do not want it, you do what you have to to avoid it, no matter who is right or wrong.

This right here is a problem. Think this through, where does this end? The only end I can see that would satisfy your assertion is that females are never allowed to meet or organize on any topic whatsoever without being open to any male that wants to be there, regardless of the topic.

So... Afghanistan then. Females are only allowed to participate in public with the supervision of a male.

 

[Thermal]

So yeah - you accuse Rolfe of cherry picking, so they're providing you more and more and more cherries. At some point, it's no longer cherry picking, cherries are the dominant fruit.

Just want to briefly touch on the cherry-picking thing, since it gets brought up so much:

There are millions of transpeople in the world. You guys are dicking around in the couple dozen range of providing worst actor examples. Your examples are not only not the 'dominant fruit', but are still drizzling around in the noise range.

Rolfe once put up a long list of trans people claimed to be sex offenders that attacked women in intimate spaces. No links, of course. I spot searched a bunch at random, and each and every time, the author was blatantly lying about what these people were even accused of. The tweet she posted was deleted quickly. Can you hazard a guess as to why that might have been so?

So to be the 'dominant fruit, how many would you expect to be able to provide daily? A thousand? Couple hundred? Instead, you've got something in the dozens, worldwide, spanning decades.

To dismiss the charge of the textbook cherry-picking that y'all are doing, you need exponentially more credible examples. Like, more every single day than you have collectively come up with in many years. Till then, you aren't even demonstrating a higher rate than the general population.

One stat was repeatedly brought up earlier: 79 trans sex offenders in a nation of 69 million, and it was acknowledged by your side that they were not even known to be actually trans, but may have well been faking it to get into the women's prison. Either way, vanishingly insignificant to a skeptic.

So. We are skeptics, that ridicule fallacious reasoning, right? Yet y'all gleefully employ it with every tweet. What is the data? Remember, please, that you are saying this is the dominant fruit. Your words. Anyone is welcome to pick up on the evidentiary challenge, of course, but let's lay your collective fallacious assumption to rest, shall we?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Probably the sign that said "WOMEN ONLY" but really meant "JK, NATAL FEMALES ONLY, ◊◊◊◊ OFF TRANNY"

And the consequence of views like this ends up being that females are NOT ALLOWED to have any activities that do not include males.

Do you think that's reasonable? Do you think that's fair and just? Do you think that results in females having the ability to participate fully in society?

 

[p0lka]

Wrong. Completely wrong.

Males have a physical advantage in ALL sports that involve ANY physicality.
ALL contact sports
ALL collision sports
ALL combat sports
ALL sports that involve running - with just one exception: ultramarathon (distances over 300 km)
ALL sports that involve jumping
ALL racquet and batting sports
ALL throwing sports
ALL water sports

Oh yeah, males definitely have a physical advantage in certain sports that involve male physicality, sorry for the tautology.

You say I'm completely wrong? Then add an exception that makes me completely right, nice.

The reasons are many and various, but they all boil down to the fact that men are bigger, taller, stronger, faster, have a greater lung capacity, have a greater muscle density with more fast-twitch fibres, have a higher bone density and have a more advantageous Q angle

Since transgender self-indentified men are biologically, anatomically and physiologically male, they should not be competing in ANY sports involving physicality against women.


The photo is from the NCAA Championships in 2022. Its the 500 yd freestyle. Thomas won by two body-lengths, and it was clear to see watching the race that while the girls were swimming as fast as they could, Thomas was clearly sandbagging.

I agree. Also thanks for the race result.

 

[Thermal]

Thermal, buddy, you seem unable to take what you dish out.

Seriously, you don't seem to have any qualms at all about challenging, insulting, and denigrating other posters in this thread... but boy oh boy do you get your dander up when you aren't treated with the utmost respect and care. What bothers me most is that you get far more bent out of shape when the person opposing you is female than when they're male. That by itself is annoying, but it's infuriating when the topic is something that has significant impacts on females and virtually no impacts on males.

EC, you know that's not true. We had completely pleasant and beneficial exchanges, till you started getting aggro with me over comments I made to others. And come on- I'm no shrinking violet. I'll go to the mat till I get suspended, and have done so before, although I am trying to dial that back because management has expressed it's disapproval. And make no mistake (although it's going back a ways): I took the first few slaps from your side before giving it back. Then I was Tone Policed by your crew, and am only objecting to the blatant hypocricy from your side.

You want to go bareknuckle over this or anything, I'm your guy. But we kind of aren't supposed to do so here, yeah?

 

[p0lka]

"Can you spot the dude in this photo?"

"I dunno, it looks to me like a bunch of ignorant women trying to swim at the collegiate championship level."

One of the most tragicomic TRA shenanigans is when they desperately scramble to avoid granting a conclusion they secretly agree with.

@polka giving us a textbook example. Knows that men shouldn't be competing with women in sports. Knows that William Thomas competing in women's NCAA championships is a travesty. Will hedge and equivocate and dodge as long as possible, rather than actually say it out loud. Would rather ◊◊◊◊ on women, than acknowledge the truth. Would rather resort to casual misogyny, than risk being called a transphobe by people who deny the truth. It'd be funny, if it weren't so irrational and toxic.

This is rather funny tbh. You're arguing with an imaginary woman hating misogynist in your head, not much to do with what I typed.

 

[Thermal]

This right here is a problem. Think this through, where does this end? The only end I can see that would satisfy your assertion is that females are never allowed to meet or organize on any topic whatsoever without being open to any male that wants to be there, regardless of the topic.

So... Afghanistan then. Females are only allowed to participate in public with the supervision of a male.

No, I think they can do as they please. But just like if you wear a 'Trump Sucks' t-shirt in the middle of a Trump rally, you can expect trouble, fairly or not. Expectations and consequences are not always fair, but they are foreseeable and predictable.

But again, Sisters Salon had every right to hold their meeting. They also had every reason to expect pushback. So the practical issue becomes, do you want to have a successful and beneficial meeting, or do you want to promote your visibility and maybe get a public conflict going? I'd support them on either front.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just want to briefly touch on the cherry-picking thing, since it gets brought up so much:

There are millions of transpeople in the world. You guys are dicking around in the couple dozen range of providing worst actor examples.

How many air travelers are terrorists? Almost none, right? And yet, we have to institute security screenings because of that miniscule fraction.

The fact that they are a small fraction doesn't mean we should ignore them. The problems they cause are severe enough to justify taking protective measures.

 

[Thermal]

And the consequence of views like this ends up being that females are NOT ALLOWED to have any activities that do not include males.

Do you think that's reasonable? Do you think that's fair and just? Do you think that results in females having the ability to participate fully in society?

I don't think it globally extrapolates as you seem to think it does. Sometimes you can legitimately have a 'women only' sign up (like on a changing room), and sometimes you will be picking a fight. Putting a sign up that says 'women only', on the day there was an anti-transphobia event within walking distance occurring just before it, might maybe be the latter?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I would like those arguing for mixed-sex toilets, in school and elsewhere, to read this.

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

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.

I've had excessively heavy bleeding with severe pain during two periods of my life, both of which ultimately were caused by uterine fibroids. The first bout was when I was in my early thirties, and I has hesitant to talk about it with males around. Partly, because I didn't really want to talk about my private parts in front of males... but also because a lot of males get grossed out by the entire topic. Males are weird that way, happy to talk about all sorts of grody stuff, but if it involves female body parts it's a problem for them.

Now that I'm older, I'm not at all hesitant, and I consider it part of my civic duty to educate everyone - male and female alike - about the symptoms and risks of fibroids, as well as endometriosis. I almost died in my thirties because the fibroid went undiagnosed until it hemorrhaged and I nearly bled out. I was far more vocal this time around, and downright pushy with my gynecologist - no, I don't want to try other treatments, I don't even want to discuss them, I want a hysterectomy ASAP.

 

[Thermal]

How many air travelers are terrorists? Almost none, right? And yet, we have to institute security screenings because of that miniscule fraction.

The fact that they are a small fraction doesn't mean we should ignore them. The problems they cause are severe enough to justify taking protective measures.

That would be fine if they all got comparable attention. To your traveler example, I am given the same treatment as my wife or kids. But here, you want to treat a very specific demographic as more dangerous. Do you apply the same standard to the cishet population? If you did, this thread would not exist.

A miniscule percentage of men sexually abuse little boys. Be honest and stay consistent with your above argument: are you lobbying that all adult men not be allowed in a public rest room because there might be a young boy alone in there?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think it globally extrapolates as you seem to think it does. Sometimes you can legitimately have a 'women only' sign up (like on a changing room), and sometimes you will be picking a fight. Putting a sign up that says 'women only', on the day there was an anti-transphobia event within walking distance occurring just before it, might maybe be the latter?

You say it's picking a fight, but so what? I'm far more interested in whether or not the action is justifiable on its own terms. Is it OK to label a changing room as women only? I would say yes. Will that piss off some trans activists? Maybe, but if it does, they can ◊◊◊◊ off, because it's OK to label a changing room as women only. The activists shouldn't get a heckler's veto, not even for a single day, not ever.

 

[Thermal]

You say it's picking a fight, but so what? I'm far more interested in whether or not the action is justifiable on its own terms. Is it OK to label a changing room as women only? I would say yes.

As would I. {eta: more usefully, as 'Female Only'}

Will that piss off some trans activists? Maybe, but if it does, they can ◊◊◊◊ off, because it's OK to label a changing room as women only. The activists shouldn't get a heckler's veto, not even for a single day, not ever.

Agreed. But sometimes the objective of a successful meeting might be more important than taking a stand. Sometimes you want to get something else accomplished as a higher priority and aren't looking for a fight right then. So don't set up camp on the battleground right then.

 

[Ziggurat]

That would be fine if they all got comparable attention. To your traveler example, I am given the same treatment as my wife or kids. But here, you want to treat a very specific demographic as more dangerous.

Yes, I want to treat males differently than females. Because they are. Males are more dangerous than females in the context of bathrooms, that's just a fact. There's no sense in pretending otherwise. I don't want to treat trans people any differently than non-trans people.

And there is a significant difference when it comes to airport security. The reason that treating children the same as adults when it comes to security screening at airports isn't because children are just as likely as adults to be terrorists. It's because if you didn't, then that would create a security vulnerability that adults could exploit by making children smuggle the contraband onto planes. And once on the plane, the adult could reclaim that contraband from the child and then use it for harm. There is no equivalent vulnerability with sex segregation. Admitting a female associate of a male into a female-only sex segregated space, for example, does NOT give the male who did not enter that space access to that space.

Do you apply the same standard to the cishet population? If you did, this thread would not exist.

Wow. There's plenty of stuff you have said that I thought was wrong, but this is the first time I remember you saying something that I thought wasn't simply wrong, but actually stupid. That may be rude of me to say, but I need you to understand that this is not simply something I disagree with. It's wrong on such a basic level that no reasonable dialogue is even possible if you cannot rectify this error.

The reason this thread exists is precisely because the trans activists DO NOT want trans people to be treated the same way that cishet people are treated. Cishet people are treated according to their sex. The trans activists want trans people to be exempt from this. They want trans people to be treated differently than cishet people because they are trans. *I* am on the side that wants to treat them the same. Not you.

 

[Hercules56]

I don't think it globally extrapolates as you seem to think it does. Sometimes you can legitimately have a 'women only' sign up (like on a changing room), and sometimes you will be picking a fight. Putting a sign up that says 'women only', on the day there was an anti-transphobia event within walking distance occurring just before it, might maybe be the latter?

"Women Only" sign on a bathroom is not offensive.

Trans who find it so, need to grow up. Chix with Dix go to the Men's room.