Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

We've got a person who is male who has... socially transitioned to male?

If we put something about having "been raised as a female for many years" in the ellipses, I'd say it works.

What it's missing from the usual transition narrative is a sense of being unable to accept the various changes wrought by puberty and the concomitant need to engage with endocrinologists and surgeons.

 

[Thermal]

Honestly Thermal, I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ if you've heard the stories.

Well, thats what you were replying to, Ziggurat's assertion that i was presented with them by you guys. If you dont give a ◊◊◊◊, why correct me on what you had no idea about in the first place?

The fact that you've already been presented with multiple instances of transgender identified males assaulting females in bathrooms and have just kept handwaving them all away as being "not real trans" is the problem.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I was presented with multiple stories of cis guys attacking women, and years later they identified as trans. Y'all tried real hard to blur that temporal line.

None of us should have to go through this process of showing you evidence over and over again until you finally concede that something you *believe* doesn't happen is actually really happening. One instance should have been enough...

No, it shouldn't. What you need to show is increased instances after open gender policy adaptation. If you don't, you're just repeating the status quo. Except that you are trying to vilify all trans people in the process. That, that right there , I find truly sleazy.

I'm still open to hear about the increased rates of assaults with adaptation of open gender policies. I've presented data that shows there is no increase. You guys, in return, trawl the internet for any story of them tranny freaks being scumbags, but no hint of whether those crimes occur in greater numbers under open doors. You do know that pervs have been perking for millenia before the gender wars, right?

- but ever time you've been given an example you've just dismissed it for one reason or another. Then you take a break from the thread, and you come back and make the same claim of "it never happens" all over again.

It's a lie to say that. I say it doesn't increase, as you and others insist with your Slippery Slope argumentation. You keep glossing over that, over and over and over.

In 95% of the interactions I've had with you, I *like* you, and I respect you, and I think you're probably a pretty cool person that I'd enjoy hanging with IRL. But on this particular topic... buddy... I'm really starting to feel like you just don't give a crap about females. And I'm really struggling to not get entirely and completely pissed off about it.

That's because you are not hearing a word I say, and projecting weird sgit onto my posts ans rewriting them. It's not the first time I pointed this out. I just did so again in this post.

I am more protective of women than you could imagine. That's why I keep returning to my original position, tat women's spaces should be sex segregated by force of law. Then I get a load of the arguments and slurs proudly posted here, and have to question it.

 

[p0lka]

I'm going to make some statements - you tell me where your skepticism rises enough for you to tap out.

ooh ooh can I try?

I'm 5'2" in measured height as an adult

Nice.

My mental image of myself is consistently about 6 inches taller than my measured height

Nice

I feel that I align better with society's expectations of tall people than of short people

Nice

I identify as tall

Nice

I believe my inner self is tall

Nice

I should be allowed to ride the roller coaster that has a 5'4" height requirement

No, don't deny reality.

Clothing manufacturers should avoid using bigoted terms like "short" or "petite" in their sizing, because it doesn't align with my identity, and it's exclusionary toward transtall people

Grow up, the world doesn't care about every little feeling you have.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, get back to me on Hannah Tubbs too while you're in the business of insisting that nothing like this ever ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ happens.

As promised, I checked into your claims. Pure bull ◊◊◊◊, straight across the board.

First up: Hannah Tubbs. You said very specifically to me that this was evidence presented to me. A refresher:

Holy cow, "Hannah Tubbs" sexually assaulted and raped a 10-year old female in a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ goddamned bathroom at the age of 17. When they were finally caught and tried, they were 26 - and yet they are serving their time in a FEMALE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE TRANS WHEN THEY WERE CAUGHT.

But sure, you've never been provided with anything. Nope, never ever happens.

Highlighted so you don't try to duck that you were referring to me being presented with evidence, basically calling me a liar for pointing out you hadn't. That particular irony will become clearer shortly.

So I searched the name Hannah Tubbs (that;s right baby- Search is back). Guess what? Not mentioned even once in this thread before you did so in that post. The last mention of her was in March of 2024, in part 14, long before I entered the discussion.

You lied. She was never even mentioned during my involvement in this discussion, yet you said I was ignoring it. I'd appreciate an explanation why you lied, or, if you prefer, didn't give a rat's ass about the truth, while wrongly character assassinating a fellow member.

Oh hey... here, why don't you look into these also?

https://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000577.pdf

Oh hey, I did. You obviously didn't. Under the banner of demanding a retraction for claiming no transgender person causing an issue in the bathroom, the list of articles goes on with about half having nothing to do with bathrooms at all (prison assaults, online threats, assaults by cis people while not in bathrooms, etc). When I got to the story about the skateboarder who won in a girls skateboarding competition (no bathrooms even mentioned) I was laughing too hard to continue. Because that's what bigotry looks like in the wild. They can't even see, much less care, that they are bald faced lying, for no other reason than to spread the bile that all transpeople are freaks and pervs.

ETA: I forgot about the Wi spa guy. Hw was referred to as both he and she without incident in the courtroom, but the charges basically didn't care about his gender ID. They were concerned with whether he was sexually gratifying himself, and the jury foreman said there just wasn't enough to convict.

Interestingly, spa management sent an email out to the workers there at the time, specifically instructing them to not let him in (referring to him by his membership number). This was ignored by workers, for reasons unclear.

 

[d4m10n]

Came across this video on Substack yesterday, meant to post it here earlier.


Longtime posters and lurkers (especially in the Cass Report thread) will be familiar with most of the basic details here, but I liked the way they were put together.

 

[smartcooky]

Reality is what it is, it doesn't care about how much you insist something is correct or incorrect. Those 'I look around' statements seem almost like religious prayers?
You're denying reality, I have to say.

I am stating the reality of what I observe. In my almost 70 years of life, I have yet to observe

An adult human female (i.e. a woman) who is a biological male
An adult human male (i.e. a man) who is a biological female

The term "woman" refers to "Adult Human Female" in exactly the same way that...

Bitch refers to an Adult Canine Female
Cow refers to an Adult Bovine Female
Mare refers to an Adult Equine Female
Ewe refers to an Adult Ovine Female
Nanny refers to an Adult Caprine Female
Hen refers to an Adult Gallus Female
Sow refers to an Adult Porcine Female

 

[smartcooky]

Is this a claim worth discussing here, in your view?

(I'm going to go ahead and do so, but interested to hear your answer nevertheless.)

Assuming the IOC (and her family in various interviews) didn't lie about the circumstances of her birth, she was assigned female at birth.

Assuming the IOC issued correction was not misinformation, they admitted that Khelif "not a transgender case" while disclaiming the original unscripted claim that Khelif was "not a DSD case."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819667573698445793

While you are correct that her medical records have not been made public (unless we count Le Correspondant as a credible source) the DSD hypothesis seems much stronger than the hypothesis that she undertook a course of gender affirmation contrary to her birth sex while growing up in a nation overwhelmingly dominated by Sunni Islam.

If he's a male with DSD, then he's gone through male puberty and has gained all the physiological advantages that accompany it. Allowing him to get into the ring and punch women is morally reprehensible and dangerous.

The evident confusion of top-level IOC representatives between these two issues strikes me as a good enough reason to discuss them together, especially considering that we already agree that the optimal solution is the same in either case.

What a great plan... embrace the ignorance!!

 

[smartcooky]

So I searched the name Hannah Tubbs (that;s right baby- Search is back). Guess what? Not mentioned even once in this thread before you did so in that post. The last mention of her was in March of 2024, in part 14, long before I entered the discussion.

You lied. She was never even mentioned during my involvement in this discussion, yet you said I was ignoring it. I'd appreciate an explanation why you lied, or, if you prefer, didn't give a rat's ass about the truth, while wrongly character assassinating a fellow member.

Hannah Tubbs has been mentioned frequently in earlier iterations of this thread, Parts 8, 9 and 14 at least going back to January of 2022.

That's what you get for coming into a debate ill-informed and then going off half-cocked while trying to tell others what's what.

But I get it.... its all about you. If you haven't seen it personally, it never happened... amirite?

 

[p0lka]

I am stating the reality of what I observe. In my almost 70 years of life, I have yet to observe

An adult human female (i.e. a woman) who is a biological male
An adult human male (i.e. a man) who is a biological female

I have yet to observe
An adult human female who is a biological male
An adult human male who is a biological female
as that would be illogical,
but you're adding some extra variable in the brackets in your statements that makes your statements not clearly defined.

The term "woman" refers to "Adult Human Female" in exactly the same way that...

Bitch refers to an Adult Canine Female
Cow refers to an Adult Bovine Female
Mare refers to an Adult Equine Female
Ewe refers to an Adult Ovine Female
Nanny refers to an Adult Caprine Female
Hen refers to an Adult Gallus Female
Sow refers to an Adult Porcine Female

Yeah, but one of them can actually communicate how they feel about the labels, which is brilliant. It's a shame the others can't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Self ID declared, to agents of the state obligated to respect it. Denied. Yes, it was used. Yes, it was denied.

You are confused about what self ID means. It does not mean how you identify yourself. Self ID means a policy where everyone has to treat you according to what you declare yourself to be. If they aren't treating people according to what they declare themselves to be, then by definition it's not self ID.

You are very deep into this topic to only be discovering this now.

 

[Tomboy]

Some behavior is learned, but some is innate. Female humans are more risk averse than males. Again - that's not prescriptive. There's nothing that dictates that female humans are incapable of taking risks or doing dangerous things, and there's nothing that makes males incapable of being cautious. But in generally it holds true - you're not going to find a lot of female humans working electrical lines, or doing wind turbine maintenance. They're functionally able to do that work, just as capable as males... but vanishingly few females desire to do so, in part because those are high risk vocations. IIRC, there've been studies done measuring the tendency toward fight or flight in various situations, and they conclude that female humans have a higher likelihood of reacting to a dangerous or threatening situation by fleeing rather than fighting, and males are more likely to fight.

Yes! This is the sort of thing I was thinking when I said that some gender stereotypes exist for good reason in my previous comment. Some of those gender roles and stereotypes are backed by biology. It doesn't mean they're written in stone and can never be changed, but there's more to 'em than just learned behavior.

At the risk of going too far astray, I recently read a really interesting article about the genes that govern oxytocin receptors in the brains in both neurotypical and autistic males and females, using brain imaging to see if there was a neurological difference between males and females and if that might explain why autistic females often display different symptoms and are much less frequently diagnosed than autistic males. It's already know that there are sex specific differences in the oxytocin system in males and females, and not just in the "uterine contractions and breast let down" sense. Since oxytocin also has a role in things like socialization and bonding and risk and reward systems and learning, it goes a long way towards explaining some of those stereotypical gender roles.

And sure enough, autistic males and autistic females do seem to exhibit different neurology even when the same genetic defects are present. I need to read it again for better comprehension, but my initial oversimplified take away is that autistic girls are neurologically more similar to neurotypical boys in key areas than they are to autistic boys. Which makes a lot of sense from an anecdotal perspective, at least.

/end diversion, back to topic

Oh, you're still mixing up gender and sex.

I assure you I am not. My definitions are different than yours. I understand your definitions; I simply don't agree with them.

Grow up, the world doesn't care about every little feeling you have.

That's... an interesting statement in the context of this thread, gotta say.

Meh. I also suspect that Tomboy doesn't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about pronouns.

Correct on all counts. A younger version of myself used to shop in the men's department and occasionally got misgendered. Heck, I got called "sir" at a doctor's appointment relatively recently for absolutely no good reason - I'm far too curvy these days to be mistaken for a man - and the only reason it even crossed my mind was because it meant that the doctor hadn't even looked at my chart before walking in the room. I only sorta care in this thread because my opinion is as a woman who is directly affected by the issues discussed here.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm still open to hear about the increased rates of assaults with adaptation of open gender policies. I've
presented data that shows there is no increase.

No you haven't. If you have, please present it again

 

[Thermal]

You are confused about what self ID means. It does not mean how you identify yourself. Self ID means a policy where everyone has to treat you according to what you declare yourself to be. If they aren't treating people according to what they declare themselves to be, then by definition it's not self ID.

You are very deep into this topic to only be discovering this now.

You've asserted this before. You were wrong then, too.

Every definition I have found disagrees with your assertion, so I'm rolling with Planet Earth over Planet Ziggurat.

 

[theprestige]

The situation according to Thermal:

Me: "Should men be entitled to go into a women's restroom whenever they want?"

Thermal: "No, of course not!"

Me: "Okay, then when should men be entitled to go into a women's restroom?"

Thermal: "When they say they want to."

Me: "What?"

Thermal: "But only if they're sincere about it."

Me: "How do you know when they're sincere?"

Thermal: "How the ◊◊◊◊ should I know? I'm not the trans police! Just take them at their word, you hater!"

Me: ". . . "

Thermal: "Also, your question is irrelevant, because #notallmen."

 

[Thermal]

Be careful with all that straw, while being inflammatory.

 

[theprestige]

You've asserted this before. You were wrong then, too.

Every definition I have found disagrees with your assertion, so I'm rolling with Planet Earth over Planet Ziggurat.

How many definitions did you find?

Because I coined the term "fiat self-ID" in this thread, specifically to denote the TRA proposition that trans status and privilege should depend only on a person claiming to be trans, without any kind of independent corroboration or verification.

 

[Ziggurat]

Every definition I have found disagrees with your assertion, so I'm rolling with Planet Earth over Planet Ziggurat.

Either you have not looked very hard, or you have misunderstood what you read. Because what I described is exactly what it means in this context. It is the policy that the trans activists want. Do you dispute that this is what they want? Or do you just dispute that self ID is the term to describe what they want?

 

[smartcooky]

I have yet to observe
An adult human female who is a biological male
An adult human male who is a biological female
as that would be illogical,
but you're adding some extra variable in the brackets in your statements that makes your statements not clearly defined.

"Woman" is not a variable. Its the name we use to describe an adult human female.

Yeah, but one of them can actually communicate how they feel about the labels, which is brilliant. It's a shame the others can't.

Irrelevant to the topic of the debate.

 

[theprestige]

Be careful with all that straw, while being inflammatory.

My bad. Let's try it in real time, and you can point where your actual position deviates from my straw synopsis.

I'll start with my customary boundary-setting question: Do you believe men should be entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want?

 

[Thermal]

My bad. Let's try it in real time, and you can point where your actual position deviates from my straw synopsis.

I'll start with my customary boundary-setting question: Do you believe men should be entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want?

Why does it always have to be a game?

Fine. "No."