Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

Re: underlined. Yes we lack data on whether female and male signs do actually cause people to rethink which one to use? And if the tra's actually did a campaign against McDonald's then well that would be interesting to see as they would be admitting that their sex has not changed.
I can't see any downside to switching to male female signs.

So you think that trans-identifying men know that their sex has not changed, and so they regard the "Female" sign on the door in McDonald's as a barrier they may not pass, but they wouldn't campaign to get McDonald's to change this trans-exclusionary policy because to do that would be to admit that the sign is actually keeping them out?

Or what?

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say the underlined, I said 'Every lack of a downside is an automatic upside', they are vastly different statements.

Sure, but you did say it in response to my statement:

I don't think I ever asserted that there was a downside, only that there was no particular upside.

So "no upside" was already part of the conversation, even if it wasn't your words.

 

[Thermal]

You have this wrong. Except at the voting booth primary, we never need to know whether someone is a Democrat or Republican. And in that case, we DO NOT rely on what they say OR do, we rely on their voter registration. This confusion is part and parcel of your general incoherence on the topic.

JFC. Ziggaraut, babe. Please pay close attention and take notes if necessary:

WHAT IS ON THEIR ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ VOTER REGISTRATION IS WHAT THEY, THEMSELVES, SAID AND DID.

You're just playing around now. There's no way you think a voter registration is somehow unique from the other things they say and do.

Hey, you remember The Big Dog here, right? He openly said he was a registered Democrat. Proof positive, right?

And when you encounter a person for the first time, you cannot evaluate their behavioral history. You have no access to that. There are a few cases of sex segregation where the person making the decision will have some access to behavioral history (such as a judge deciding where to house a convict), but that won't be true in general. So what counts as what they "do"? Is it the clothes they wear? Whether they affect a feminine or masculine speech style? How long their hair is? Is there anything in this behavior that can actually distinguish an authentically trans person from someone just pretending to be trans? I still have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea how you think any of this can actually be done, even in principle.

Yes. Because you have no need to, even in principle. It's a stupid catch phrase you guys latched onto that means nothing to anybody. You don't need to tell. I don't need to tell. We are not the Penis Police. There are no Penis Police.

Allow them to transcend sex segregation or not allow them to transcend sex segregation. I thought that was obvious.

There is no issue of 'allowing', since they are not disallowed. There is no 'transcendence', lacking any law to transcend. There is no sex segregation. And if it was obvious, we wouldn't be here.

 

[Matthew Best]

I have, and many times. Well, not the first because of your derogatory language, and not the second because you imply that "they are all the same". So you are right, I can't/won't answer either.

This is excellent. "I've answered both these questions many times. Well, except for the first one, and also the second one. Both of which I won't answer."

 

[theprestige]

I didn't say the underlined, I said 'Every lack of a downside is an upside', they are vastly different statements.

Yes, they are vastly different statements. I disagree with your statement. I think you are wrong and that the truth is the opposite of what you said, for the reasons I gave.

 

[p0lka]

Sure, but you did say it in response to my statement:

So "no upside" was already part of the conversation, even if it wasn't your words.

Oh ok, but theprestige's statement is still vastly different to my statement, as I stated. Why state it when it's nothing to do with my statement.

Doing things for no good reason is a downside. Whether you calculate the cost in terms of money, time, calories, whatever... you're spending resources and getting nothing of value in return. No upside is an automatic downside, full stop.

That's not a facile quotation or an empty slogan. It's an argument, with premises, reasoning, and conclusion. It needs no attribution, because it stands or falls independently of who makes it. But if you're handing out participation trophies, I'll take credit for it.

My statement was "every lack of a downside is an upside", how does that even map on to "No upside is an automatic downside, full stop", it makes no sense, like by definition the statement itself makes no sense.

 

[theprestige]

Oh ok, but theprestige's statement is still vastly different to my statement, as I stated. Why state it when it's nothing to do with my statement.

My statement was "every lack of a downside is an upside", how does that even map on to "No upside is an automatic downside, full stop", it makes no sense, like by definition the statement itself makes no sense.

Lack of downside is not an upside, because there's always a downside. There's no such thing as a lack of downside. That's what doesn't make sense.

1. Doing something - anything - has a cost. This is a downside, baked into the very act of doing something.
2. If there is no upside, then there is a downside, and only a downside.

 

[p0lka]

So you think that trans-identifying men know that their sex has not changed, and so they regard the "Female" sign on the door in McDonald's as a barrier they may not pass, but they wouldn't campaign to get McDonald's to change this trans-exclusionary policy because to do that would be to admit that the sign is actually keeping them out?

Or what?

Don't do the "sO You tHink!" thing please, just ask. I was replying to this post by you

What we are lacking is any evidence of male people who want to use the women's toilets being deterred from this in these branches of McDonald's. Given the normal behaviour of trans-activists, I would expect a campaign against McDonald's to stop being transphobic and replace these signs with "gender" labels, if the current signs were actually forcing them to stay out!

and went with your expectation of a campaign and thinking well that would be quite illogical It would be interesting to see that.

 

[p0lka]

Lack of downside is not an upside, because there's always a downside. There's no such thing as a lack of downside. That's what doesn't make sense.

1. Doing something - anything - has a cost. This is a downside, baked into the very act of doing something.
2. If there is no upside, then there is a downside, and only a downside.

Yeah it's your statement I want to look at

edit: actually I don't, we all make mistakes including me making lots of them, let us move on.

 

[Ziggurat]

JFC. Ziggaraut, babe. Please pay close attention and take notes if necessary:

WHAT IS ON THEIR ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ VOTER REGISTRATION IS WHAT THEY, THEMSELVES, SAID AND DID.

Voter registration is a VERY SPECIFIC action. In the context of transgender stuff, it's perhaps most similar to getting a gender recognition certificate. It is NOT the equivalent of putting on lipstick. And it sure as ◊◊◊◊ isn't even remotely similar to saying that you're a woman.

There's no way you think a voter registration is somehow unique from the other things they say and do.

It's absolutely different from a lot of other things. Among other reasons, it is not in fact something they do on their own. They do it in conjunction with the government. Which, again, makes it similar to something like a gender recognition certificate, but not similar to putting on lipstick.

But when I ask you how you can tell, I don't want some nebulous ◊◊◊◊ like "what they do". That tells me ◊◊◊◊ all, because what they do could include putting on lipstick. And I sure as ◊◊◊◊ don't accept that putting on lipstick makes you a woman, or even a transwoman in any meaningful sense. So "what they do" DOES NOT SUFFICE as an answer. If you think getting a gender recognition certificate is what makes a man into an authentic transwoman in the UK (for example), then that's an answer I can work with. "What they do" is a bull ◊◊◊◊ answer.

Hey, you remember The Big Dog here, right? He openly said he was a registered Democrat. Proof positive, right?

For what purposes? For actually voting in a Democratic primary? No, it's not proof positive. Actually being on the voter rolls as a registered Democrat is. And if he is registered as a Democrat, then he is in fact a Democrat. Your criteria for what counts as a Democrat or not are actually not criteria for being a Democrat or not. You can in fact vote for Trump or even campaign for Trump while being a Democrat. You are even more confused about what it actually means to be a Democrat than you are about what it means to be a woman.

There is no sex segregation.

Yes, actually, there is. You even explicitly advocate for it, at least in certain contexts.

 

[Thermal]

Voter registration is a VERY SPECIFIC action.

It's nothing. Filling out a form, checking a box. It would take more effort and determination and expense to do a half assed makeup job.

In the context of transgender stuff, it's perhaps most similar to getting a gender recognition certificate. It is NOT the equivalent of putting on lipstick. And it sure as ◊◊◊◊ isn't even remotely similar to saying that you're a woman.

Ok. So you take registering as a Democrat seriously, factually, and it's the equivalent of a GRC. Let's remember that.

It's absolutely different from a lot of other things. Among other reasons, it is not in fact something they do on their own. They do it in conjunction with the government. Which, again, makes it similar to something like a gender recognition certificate, but not similar to putting on lipstick.

Gotcha. It's consequential, and meaningful, and based on your new postings about it, definitive.

But when I ask you how you can tell, I don't want some nebulous ◊◊◊◊ like "what they do". That tells me ◊◊◊◊ all, because what they do could include putting on lipstick. And I sure as ◊◊◊◊ don't accept that putting on lipstick makes you a woman, or even a transwoman in any meaningful sense. So "what they do" DOES NOT SUFFICE as an answer. If you think getting a gender recognition certificate is what makes a man into an authentic transwoman in the UK (for example), then that's an answer I can work with. "What they do" is a bull ◊◊◊◊ answer.

No, I think a GRC is likely evidence of effort or commitment, but really doesn't mean any more to me than self IDing. But just like TBD can lie for his own ends, so can the Wi spa guy when he checks a box for his Driver's License.

There's no way I can make it any clearer for you: you don't need to tell, any more than you need to tell if someone is a Christian. Take their word for it, observe if they seem to be outright lying (TBD again, and the jailhouse re-identifiers) or are convincingly sincere, and believe them or not.

For what purposes? For actually voting in a Democratic primary? No, it's not proof positive. Actually being on the voter rolls as a registered Democrat is. And if he is registered as a Democrat, then he is in fact a Democrat.

Remember what you were just saying about GRCs? You seem to have done a 180 on your position. If you make that VERY SPECIFIC action and register as a female on your drivers license, with the almighty government, then according to what you just said, you are factually a female.

Your criteria for what counts as a Democrat or not are actually not criteria for being a Democrat or not. You can in fact vote for Trump or even campaign for Trump while being a Democrat.

Of course you can, and nothing I said disputes that. You just wouldn't be a real Democrat, much as you say a transwoman would not be a real woman. Although you seemed to have flipped on that point. Register Democrat, factual Democrat, in the Book of Ziggzraut. Register as a woman... well, you know.

You are even more confused about what it actually means to be a Democrat than you are about what it means to be a woman.

No confusion here, babe. Just like not one anti-transer posting has any confusion at all about what exactly they think of TIMs and TIFs.

Yes, actually, there is. You even explicitly advocate for it, at least in certain contexts.

Not news, but nice to see you catching on at last. I think we don't properly have it, which has resulted in the gender blender hat full of problems. I have advocated for it, because we seem to need it. Let me guess: you still can't understand why I might advocate for something we don't have?

 

[smartcooky]

You can't always tell what someone's political persuasion is from what they say and do. Take me for example.
Look at the opinions I post on this topic, you'd think I was card-carrying religious Conservative. But go look at what I post about The Fat Orange Turd in the US Politics forums, or my opinions on climate change, firearms, renewable energy, environmental issues, abortion rights, welfare and universal healthcare, then suddenly, I look like a Liberal.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's nothing. Filling out a form, checking a box.

Oh, it's easy, I'll grant you that. But it's still very specific.

It would take more effort and determination and expense to do a half assed makeup job.

So effort is your metric? If so, then how much effort, and how do I tell? If not, then what ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difference does it make?

Ok. So you take registering as a Democrat seriously, factually,

Well, yes. Because that's what determines which primaries you can vote in. Other than politicians running for office, that is the ONLY thing where party affiliation actually means anything. Anything else you can do as a voter, you can do for neither, either or even both parties.

There's no way I can make it any clearer for you: you don't need to tell

That's true if you don't let transwomen access female spaces. In that case, whether they're trans or not is irrelevant. It's also true if you want to do away with sex segregation entirely.

If you do want to let transwomen access female spaces and not let other males access female spaces, then we do need a way to tell.

So which is it to be? You haven't said you want to abolish all sex segregation, but you also haven't backed not letting transwomen transcend sex segregation. Your position is incoherent.

Remember what you were just saying about GRCs? You seem to have done a 180 on your position.

Not at all. You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

Having a GRC is an example of a criteria that is testable. You can actually make a determination of whether someone has one or not. And being testable is a necessary criteria for sorting. "Their actions" is not a testable criteria.

But necessary IS NOT the same as sufficient. I do not think a GRC is a sufficient criteria for letting males access female spaces. I think it fails on that front. You may disagree. But that is still a completely different failure from a criteria that isn't even testable. I'm trying to get to a point with you where I can have even a testable distinction between real and fake transwomen. After that point we can examine whether I think it's a sufficient one to allow authentic transwomen to have access to female spaces.

Your confusion on this point is just another example of the incoherence of your thinking about the entire subject.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't always tell what someone's political persuasion is from what they say and do. Take me for example.
Look at the opinions I post on this topic, you'd think I was card-carrying religious Conservative. But go look at what I post about The Fat Orange Turd in the US Politics forums, or my opinions on climate change, firearms, renewable energy, environmental issues, abortion rights, welfare and universal healthcare, then suddenly, I look like a Liberal.

He's also confusing Liberal for Democrat. They are not and have never been synonymous. Party affiliation is in fact defined by party registration. It does not actually mean anything more than that, even if it correlates with other stuff.

 

[Thermal]

You can't always tell what someone's political persuasion is from what they say and do. Take me for example.
Look at the opinions I post on this topic, you'd think I was card-carrying religious Conservative. But go look at what I post about The Fat Orange Turd in the US Politics forums, or my opinions on climate change, firearms, renewable energy, environmental issues, abortion rights, welfare and universal healthcare, then suddenly, I look like a Liberal.

And your postings could all be untrue or misleading, too. So if we can't tell anything about anybody based on what they do or say, the "but how can you tell?" question becomes even more empty and meaningless. I know exactly what you mean.

 

[Thermal]

Oh, it's easy, I'll grant you that. But it's still very specific.

So effort is your metric? If so, then how much effort, and how do I tell? If not, then what ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difference does it make?

No, it means nothing. I was pointing out how effortless registering Democrat was, while you were comparing it to putting on lipstick. Makeup is actually a bigger deal.

So which is it to be? You haven't said you want to abolish all sex segregation, but you also haven't backed not letting transwomen transcend sex segregation. Your position is incoherent.

Only if we subscribe to your flawed dichotomy. And I'm tired of repeating the rest to you.

Not at all. You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

Having a GRC is an example of a criteria that is testable. You can actually make a determination of whether someone has one or not. And being testable is a necessary criteria for sorting. "Their actions" is not a testable criteria.

But necessary IS NOT the same as sufficient. I do not think a GRC is a sufficient criteria for letting males access female spaces. I think it fails on that front. You may disagree. But that is still a completely different failure from a criteria that isn't even testable. I'm trying to get to a point with you where I can have even a testable distinction between real and fake transwomen.

Which we not only can't do, but is a vacuous thing to want in the first place. We've been over this once or twice. Like your other repetitious catch phrases, you need me to agree and make the nonsensical assumptions too, or your position falls apart.

After that point we can examine whether I think it's a sufficient one to allow authentic transwomen to have access to female spaces.

Your confusion on this point is just another example of the incoherence of your thinking about the entire subject.

Still no confusion. Just watching you trying to weasel your foregone conclusions into the up front assumptions, which I am bored out of my mind with explaining that it can not work.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it means nothing. I was pointing out how effortless registering Democrat was, while you were comparing it to putting on lipstick. Makeup is actually a bigger deal.

So the ◊◊◊◊ what? The relevant distinction isn't the effort.

Only if we subscribe to your flawed dichotomy. And I'm tired of repeating the rest to you.

You have repeated incoherence after incoherence. I'm tired of you repeating it too.

I have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what you actually want, except to call other people transphobes.

 

[Thermal]

So the ◊◊◊◊ what? The relevant distinction isn't the effort.

Nor did I say it was. You are floundering around trying to make anything I post follow your ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up assumptions. They don't.

You have repeated incoherence after incoherence. I'm tired of you repeating it too.

I have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea what you actually want, except to call other people transphobes.

Well then you have probably hundreds of posts I've put up where I break it all down in considerable detail, including in this very exchange. I suggest reading them if you are interested, rather than ignoring them while simultaneously demanding I repeat them.

 

[theprestige]

Thermal: Sincere trans women should have access to women's restrooms for reasons of courtesy and practicality.

Also Thermal: I refuse to elaborate on how to practically define or identify a sincere trans woman.

Meanwhile I'm still lagging behind, stuck on questions of courtesy and practicality.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nor did I say it was.

You introduced the idea of effort, not me. Why? Nobody knows. Not even you, apparently.

And you wonder why I'm confused about your positions. You know that old saying about how if everyone you know is an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, it's you? Well, if nobody understands your position, it's you.

Nobody understands your position.