Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
Guys... we did this already. DSM-5 does not indicate that AGP is a disorder of any kind. It's a specifier to what another actual disorder stems from. Kind of like wanting to be thin/attractive is what anorexia might stem from. Wanting to be attractive is not a disorder. Anorexia is.

AGP is nothing but a way for certain people to make transpeople sound like they have a mental illness. Please knock it off. People can read this.
Click to expand...
You are observably wrong, Thermal.

DSM-5 includes AGP as a specific expression of transvestic disorder, which is a diagnosis within the family of paraphilias. It is an actual ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ disorder.
 
d4m10n said:
What bright path is there to set the policies for federal and state managed facilities, other than democracy?
Click to expand...
You seem to be conflating how we make decisions with what decisions we should make.

And I will point out yet again that trans policies have not been advanced by popular support.
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed we do!! I would speculate that the % of men who object to TIMs getting access to safe spaces reserved for their wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, daughters, grandaughters and female colleagues and friends... i.e. women, would be a long way above 50% - probably up in the 80%. The more they understand the implications, the higher the percentage who would object.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that any male who thinks back to middle school and is honest with themselves would object.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I conveyed that YOU should perhaps look into how the phrase "gender euphoria" is OFTEN used IN PRACTICE by transgender identified males when THEY ARE DESCRIBING THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.
Click to expand...
You have no way of knowing whether those posters are actually transgender, or males, or even non-bots.

Cherry picked posts from social media is the lowest form of evidence I can think of offhand; I trust middle school rumors somewhat more.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
You don't really need legal protections for segregation by sex (observed at birth) or gender (declared at the moment) if you've repealed the laws under which plaintiffs file suit against places of public accommodation for treating customers differently based on these characteristics. That said, an explicit carveout might be easier to pass and easier for courts to interpret consistently.
Click to expand...
I like the laws that prohibit sex-based discrimination. I don't want them repealed.

d4m10n said:
I'm confident that you have specific examples in mind, but none of them spring readily into mine.
Click to expand...
Jessica Yaniv is a poster child for the kind of sexual harassment and lawfare I'm talking about.

d4m10n said:
Agreed.

It is indeed ominous to imply that you'd like to regulate people because they suffer from AGP, a psychological condition which isn't in the DSM and thus cannot be ascertained with any degree of medical consensus.
Click to expand...
I'm not proposing to regulate people who suffer from AGP.

I'm proposing to regulate access to sex-segregated spaces. Primarily by denying any entitlement to override sex segregation by fiat self-ID. This will, of course affect people who wish to act out their transsexual urges by overriding sex segregation, but we are not targeting them for regulation because of those urges.

If no such people exist, that's fine too. The regulation still serves a purpose, in denying self-ID arising from any motivation, without being concerned about any specific motivation.

Certainly I see no reason to carve out an exception to the "no self-ID" rule, just for people who suffer from AGP. Is that what you find ominous?
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're the one who took it upon yourself to turn that into a black-and-white topic, and to furthermore insist that sexual arousal isn't part of it...
Click to expand...
I don't recall ever insisting that sexual arousal and gender euphoria never co-occur.

What I did do was stipulate that they are distinct mental states which need not necessarily co-occur; you insisted that they almost always do and then brought the weakest evidence I can imagine in support of your hypothesis.
 
d4m10n said:
It's not remotely difficult to figure out whether the authors of the book I mentioned are trans or not.
Click to expand...
Did your brain get up on the wrong side of the bed today?

I don't care whether the author of the book you mentioned are trans or not. I do, however, care that you have dismissed out of hand what people who declare themselves to be trans have voluntarily shared about their own experiences and the behavior that they have voluntarily demonstrated and put out in public for all and sundry to see.

You pretty much decided all by your lonesome that the many reddit posters that I linked to - all of whom identify as trans - who talk about their euphoria erections pretty openly aren't "real trans" but instead are all trolls.
 
d4m10n said:
You have no way of knowing whether those posters are actually transgender, or males, or even non-bots.

Cherry picked posts from social media is the lowest form of evidence I can think of offhand; I trust middle school rumors somewhat more.
Click to expand...
Like I said - No True Transwoman". You're dismissing them all out of hand, not because you have any actual evidence that all of them are fakers... but because what they say and how they behave doesn't fit the narrative that you've chosen to promote.

Instead of evaluating your premise based on available evidence, you've opted to ignore the evidence.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Like I said - No True Transwoman". You're dismissing them all out of hand, not because you have any actual evidence that all of them are fakers... but because what they say and how they behave doesn't fit the narrative that you've chosen to promote.
Click to expand...
Narrative? I did not actually make any claims about what fraction of gender euphorics are aroused about it, that was you.

It's oddly common on forums for people to mistake "Do you have good evidence for that proposition?" with "I affirm the negation of your proposition."
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I do, however, care that you have dismissed out of hand what people who declare themselves to be trans have voluntarily shared about their own experiences and the behavior that they have voluntarily demonstrated and put out in public for all and sundry to see.
Click to expand...
It's just really awful evidence, posted on a skeptic forum.

Even if those unverified posts were all true, though, they would still represent a fraction of a percent of the relevant people.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
You are observably wrong, Thermal.

DSM-5 includes AGP as a specific expression of transvestic disorder, which is a diagnosis within the family of paraphilias. It is an actual ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ disorder.
Click to expand...
A specifier is not a disorder. It definitionally means "a term used to further clarify a diagnosis by providing additional information about the course, severity, or specific features of a mental disorder"

Eta: it's a goddamned adjective as used in the DSM
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'm not proposing to regulate people who suffer from AGP...

...Certainly I see no reason to carve out an exception to the "no self-ID" rule, just for people who suffer from AGP. Is that what you find ominous?
Click to expand...
No one "suffers" from AGP. Literally, by definition. it's an arousing thought and nothing more.
 
Thermal said:
No one "suffers" from AGP. Literally, by definition. it's an arousing thought and nothing more.
Click to expand...
When you put it that way... I still don't see any reason to grant them access to women's restrooms on the basis of self-ID.

Or any basis, really.

About the only reasons I can think of, to allow men into the women's restroom, is in an emergency, or if nobody notices they're a man and therefore don't think to disallow them.
 
theprestige said:
When you put it that way... I still don't see any reason to grant them access to women's restrooms on the basis of self-ID.

Or any basis, really.

About the only reasons I can think of, to allow men into the women's restroom, is in an emergency, or if nobody notices they're a man and therefore don't think to disallow them.
Click to expand...
And I can't think of any reason why I would disallow it, largely because I don't have any allowing powers and wouldn't exercise them if I did. Bounce disruptive people, live and let live for the rest.

Anyone can technically enter either rest room in my state. You know what this dystopian nightmare looks like? Pretty much exactly the same as it did prior to the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom