Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Maybe some trans-identifying men did indeed see the female sign and then went to the male signed toilet?

Bwahahahahaha!

No.

Also why is no caring about the trans-identifying women? I care about you all.

This has been dealt with extensively. But in short, there's two big reasons. 1) trans-identifying females tend to pass better (see my previous post), and 2) there is an asymmetry between the sexes. Not only are women more vulnerable to sexual assault than men, but patterns of male and female sexual predation are fundamentally different. Female sexual predators (they absolutely exist) have little incentive to invade male-only spaces to find victims, and so have no incentive to pretend to be male in order to engage in sexual predation. Male sexual predators do have an incentive to invade female-only spaces, and so do have an incentive to pretend to be female in order to engage in sexual predation. No one is making a fuss about trans-identifying females in male spaces because they aren't really causing problems. So why would we? This isn't actually driven by hatred of trans people.

I won't bother talking about athletics, that should be obvious why it's not an issue.

 

[theprestige]

Crazy to think how quickly it went from perfectly normal for a woman to complain about males in female spaces to a "hate incident" which might be seen as gross misconduct. I'm beginning to understand why social conservatives reflexively refuse all progressive demands for policy change, given how gay marriage (of which I fully approve!) freed up Stonewall to pursue this sort of nonsense.

It's kind of like the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. You watch those movies, and suddenly you realize that the Prequel Trilogy, while not perfect, is actually a pretty good story, well told in an audiovisual medium.

The "gay agenda" that kept conservatives awake at night all through the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, turns out to be pretty wholesome and prosocial. You want to see antisocial toxicity, look no further than the trans agenda.

 

[p0lka]

Doping in East Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think I would categorize the drug doping they did as going through male puberty, but it definitely did significantly masculinize a lot of women in the pursuit of increased athletic ability. In one case, Andreas Krieger (ne Heidi Krieger) actually underwent a "sex change" operation from female to "male", and attributes the decision at least in part to the masculinizing effects of anabolic steroid use.

That's Andreas on the left. If I didn't know better, I would assume Andreas was biologically male. I won't second-guess Andreas's decision to transition, but he himself thinks what was done to him was a crime, that the doping essentially killed any chance he had at living as a female, and thinks he was essentially deprived of the ability to make the decision to transition on his own.

Your link under the photo goes to a 'having to sign up' to view it, I had to disable javascript to actually view it without signing up.
It's a personal account from them and while I feel for them cos it sounds terrible, I had to go to the wiki to find out about them.

It seems they actually felt that because of their masculinity they had to conform to it? and lob off the female bits? That's society getting into andreas's brain. It's gender and society ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with people once again.

 

[p0lka]

Bwahahahahaha!

No.

Are we back in the realms of "because I said so!"?

This has been dealt with extensively. But in short, there's two big reasons. 1) trans-identifying females tend to pass better (see my previous post), and 2) there is an asymmetry between the sexes. Not only are women more vulnerable to sexual assault than men, but patterns of male and female sexual predation are fundamentally different. Female sexual predators (they absolutely exist) have little incentive to invade male-only spaces to find victims, and so have no incentive to pretend to be male in order to engage in sexual predation. Male sexual predators do have an incentive to invade female-only spaces, and so do have an incentive to pretend to be female in order to engage in sexual predation. No one is making a fuss about trans-identifying females in male spaces because they aren't really causing problems. So why would we? This isn't actually driven by hatred of trans people.

I won't bother talking about athletics, that should be obvious why it's not an issue.

Ok, thanks for your reply.
regarding the underlined, it does seem that there's an idea that all trans are predators though?
Also, using your emtyology wouldn't saying women are more vulnerable to sexual assault than men also include trans men being vulnerable?

Are transmen women?

I wish people would just say the sex labels but i'm on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Rolfe]

Aber was flat wrong, and knows it. Rolfe also knows she is wrong, but prefaced her post with "just for giggles" to plausibly deny being taken at her word. You alone seem to be the only one taking this seriously.

I said "just for giggles" because I realised that in the week I had been away from the thread people were no longer talking about this. But I thought it was interesting that when I remembered to look, the first McDonald's I happened to enter was indeed as Aber described.

... really only one small resteraunt in Bumble ◊◊◊◊ Scotland has such signage, is supposed to give the argument credibility, then that is profoundly dishonest.

The first one I went into. I have no evidence that any of the others are any different.

And lay off the international insults. I've seen the sort of one dirt street and three shacks places that call themselves cities in America. An Gearasdan may not be London or Paris or Tokyo or even Edinburgh, but it's a sizeable and respectable town. Despite being established by the evil Hannovarian occupiers.

 

[Rolfe]

Bwahahahahaha!

No.

It's interesting that although I've been in that restaurant a number of times, I only registered the pictograms on the signage and couldn't have told you whether or not there was any lettering accompanying them, let alone what it said. I suspect a lot of people are in the same position.

We see the pictograms and we know which door to enter because of convention. I was wearing trousers but I didn't enter the door indicated by the trousered silhouette. Men wearing the kilt (highly likely in that neck of the woods) would not enter the door indicated by the skirted silhouette. The pictograms are symbolic, we understand them metaphorically, not literally. Most people probably don't even notice the lettering is there.

And if you think trans-identifying men are peering at the lettering to see if it says women or female, and turning away to use the male facilities if it's the latter, I have a monster to sell you.

 

[Thermal]

The pictograms are symbolic, we understand them metaphorically, not literally.

Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife.

And if you think trans-identifying men are peering at the lettering to see if it says women or female, and turning away to use the male facilities if it's the latter, I have a monster to sell you.

Bald assertion/assumption or observation based? I think I know.

Also, apologies for "global insults" earlier, wasn't meant that way. I was feeding a troll and got rammy. Although your comment about "dirt road and three shacks" calling themselves an American city makes one question how much you really object.

Agreed, smaller towns frequently have more charm and character than big cities.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are we back in the realms of "because I said so!"?

No. We are back in the land of basic understanding of human nature. First off, the labels don't determine the rules, and everyone knows that. The sort of people who actually obey the rules because they are the rules will obey them based on the rules, not the label, and the people who will disregard the rules will disregard them regardless of the label.

Second and perhaps more importantly for our conversation, when alternative definitions exist, people tend to choose which definition to adopt based on the outcome they want, rather than choose the outcome based on the definition they have adopted. In other words, whether you think it's OK for a trans-identifying male to enter a bathroom labelled "women" IS NOT a result of which definition of "women" you have adopted (though the reverse may be true). Instead, it's entirely about whether you think it's OK for a trans-identifying male to share a bathroom with females. If you're OK with that, you're OK with it regardless of the label. If you're not OK with that, you're not OK with it regardless of the label. This is how humans actually behave. None of us actually decide on the definitions of disputed words first, and then decide on policy/behavior after that. That's not what people do.

regarding the underlined, it does seem that there's an idea that all trans are predators though?

No. Again, this has already been beaten to death. Why are you bringing this up as if it's a new argument?

All trans people aren't predators, just like all males aren't predators. But some males are predators, which is one of the reasons for sex segregation. And male sexual predators can take advantage of self-ID rules to access female spaces. Even if there were absolutely zero sexually predatory authentically trans-indentifying males (which isn't the case), non-trans male sexual predators can still pretend to be trans, if doing so gives them access to victims. The fight to prevent that access DOES NOT presume that all trans are predators. It doesn't even depend on any trans people being predators, although (again) we know some are. Rather, it presumes that trans-identifying males are still males.

Also, using your emtyology wouldn't saying women are more vulnerable to sexual assault than men also include trans men being vulnerable?

Yes. What's your point?

Are transmen women?

Yes. What's your point?

 

[smartcooky]

Trans changing room row nurse cleared of misconduct as tribunal resumes

The hearings for Sandie Peggie's case against NHS Fife and transgender medic Dr Beth Upton began in February.

www.bbc.co.uk

Good, but this took far too long.

 

[p0lka]

No. We are back in the land of basic understanding of human nature. First off, the labels don't determine the rules, and everyone knows that. The sort of people who actually obey the rules because they are the rules will obey them based on the rules, not the label, and the people who will disregard the rules will disregard them regardless of the label.

I made a statement...

Surely you would have to collect some data before declaring the result?
Maybe some trans-identifying men did indeed see the female sign and then went to the male signed toilet?
Maybe they wouldn't have done so seeing a gender assigned sign?
Also why is no caring about the trans-identifying women? I care about you all.

You went baawaaha no in reference to the underlined statement with it seems no evidence? That is a 'because I said so' reply to me.
Feel free to back up your 'no' with evidence.

Second and perhaps more importantly for our conversation, when alternative definitions exist, people tend to choose which definition to adopt based on the outcome they want, rather than choose the outcome based on the definition they have adopted. In other words, whether you think it's OK for a trans-identifying male to enter a bathroom labelled "women" IS NOT a result of which definition of "women" you have adopted (though the reverse may be true). Instead, it's entirely about whether you think it's OK for a trans-identifying male to share a bathroom with females. If you're OK with that, you're OK with it regardless of the label. If you're not OK with that, you're not OK with it regardless of the label. This is how humans actually behave. None of us actually decide on the definitions of disputed words first, and then decide on policy/behavior after that. That's not what people do.

No. Again, this has already been beaten to death. Why are you bringing this up as if it's a new argument?

All trans people aren't predators, just like all males aren't predators. But some males are predators, which is one of the reasons for sex segregation. And male sexual predators can take advantage of self-ID rules to access female spaces. Even if there were absolutely zero sexually predatory authentically trans-indentifying males (which isn't the case), non-trans male sexual predators can still pretend to be trans, if doing so gives them access to victims. The fight to prevent that access DOES NOT presume that all trans are predators. It doesn't even depend on any trans people being predators, although (again) we know some are. Rather, it presumes that trans-identifying males are still males.

Yes. What's your point?

Yes. What's your point?

Is it males being the problem then? Not transwhatever, but actual males being the dodgy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that you can't trust with anything, sort of view?

 

[p0lka]

It's interesting that although I've been in that restaurant a number of times, I only registered the pictograms on the signage and couldn't have told you whether or not there was any lettering accompanying them, let alone what it said. I suspect a lot of people are in the same position.

We see the pictograms and we know which door to enter because of convention. I was wearing trousers but I didn't enter the door indicated by the trousered silhouette. Men wearing the kilt (highly likely in that neck of the woods) would not enter the door indicated by the skirted silhouette. The pictograms are symbolic, we understand them metaphorically, not literally. Most people probably don't even notice the lettering is there.

Re: the underlined....Yes that's my point, I am glad you agree.

And if you think trans-identifying men are peering at the lettering to see if it says women or female, and turning away to use the male facilities if it's the latter, I have a monster to sell you.

According to you, the labels that we use are all symbolic pictograms and metaphors? C'mon? wouldn't it be easier to just label them as male and female?

 

[Ziggurat]

You went baawaaha no in reference to the underlined statement with it seems no evidence?

Again, the evidence is an understanding of basic nature. Now, could there be a few such individuals? Perhaps. Does that matter? No, it doesn't. What matters in this case is what the typical behavior would be. And the typical result will be that the difference in label makes no difference in behavior. Because why would it?

Is it males being the problem then?

Not all males, but yes. That's why we have sex segregation.

Not transwhatever, but actual males

Hold the ◊◊◊◊ up. Trans-identifying males are actual males. They aren't pretend males, they aren't pseudo males, they aren't previously males but no longer males, they are males.

being the dodgy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that you can't trust with anything, sort of view?

It's not that you can't trust males with anything. Society in fact trusts males with the most important things. If we couldn't trust males with anything, we wouldn't allow them to become doctors, police, judges, politicians, or any position of power or authority at all. But we do. In some ways, we seem to trust males more than we trust females.

But god damn straight that males commit a lot more sexual assaults of strangers than females do. There's a biological basis for this (just like there's also a biological basis for men being more willing to risk their own lives to protect strangers). Are you trying to argue against sex segregation for intimate spaces? If so, on what basis? And if not, why does it sound like you are?

 

[Ziggurat]

wouldn't it be easier to just label them as male and female?

It wouldn't make one bit of difference. No one is confused by "women" or "men" labels. That has never been the problem.

 

[d4m10n]

It's kind of like the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. You watch those movies, and suddenly you realize that the Prequel Trilogy, while not perfect, is actually a pretty good story, well told in an audiovisual medium.

If we'd mass boycotted the prequels, we could've avoided the sequels.

 

[Rolfe]

It wouldn't make one bit of difference. No one is confused by "women" or "men" labels. That has never been the problem.

That's what I meant about the pictograms. They're so universally recognised that most people don't even read the lettering. Whatever words are chosen.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's what I meant about the pictograms. They're so universally recognised that most people don't even read the lettering. Whatever words are chosen.

I'm half expecting p0lka to suggest we use diagrams of male and female genitals to disambiguate the whole thing.

 

[Agatha]

Some commentary on Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife and Dr Theodore "Beth" Upton which recommenced today: https://archive.ph/Ghirm Times article unpaywalled.

Apparently NHS Fife's woefully inexperienced Equality & Human Rights Lead Officer is just as confused about sex as Dr Upton is, testifying under oath today that she's not sure whether she's female or not.

It is astonishing how much taxpayer cash is being spaffed up the wall on this tribunal where it was clear from the very beginning that NHS Fife had breached the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

ETA: A bit more about the tribunal https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/...tand-against-the-tyranny-of-the-new-misogyny/

 

[theprestige]

I'm half expecting p0lka to suggest we use diagrams of male and female genitals to disambiguate the whole thing.

"This is the ladygina room. The gentledick room is across the way."

"Well I have a ladydick, which entitles me to the lady room. Also, 'ladygina' is transphobic. Not all ladies have vaginas."

"Oh, okay then. Nobody here wants to be a transphobe!"

 

[d4m10n]

I'm half expecting p0lka to suggest we use diagrams of male and female genitals to disambiguate the whole thing.

Isn't that sort of the point of the ♂ vs. ♀ typology?

(Maybe I'm hallucinating that part into the backstory.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Isn't that sort of the point of the ♂ vs. ♀ typology?

(Maybe I'm hallucinating that part into the backstory.)

The version I heard is that male is the symbol for Mars, a shield and spear. Female is the symbol for Venus, a woman holding a mirror out in front of herself.

ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_symbols
Not genitalia.