Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

lionking said:
Well I can only talk for Australia, but even when I worked for the police in the late 80s and early 90s police participated in gay parades in uniforms. And nobody was worried about it.

This turned sour in recent years as activists (to my understanding only the LGB component) objected to police purely on the basis that their friends were often arrested by police. Not for being gay etc (perfectly legal) but for other offences. Which is disgusting behaviour by said activists.

Anyway, police are no longer allowed to participate in uniform.
Click to expand...

It's been quite different here. The police have lately been acting as the enforcement arm of the trans rights movement.
 
Darat said:
Feel free to rewrite my personal history to meet your agenda, I was obviously mistaken in what I thought it was.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about your personal history. I drew some conclusions about your thinking processes based on your expressed opinions.
 
Rolfe said:
It's been quite different here. The police have lately been acting as the enforcement arm of the trans rights movement.
Click to expand...
So far, at least, the trans lobby, despite some fringe victories, hasn’t seemed to dominate the debate here.
 
Rolfe said:
I wasn't actually being sarcastic. It's a huge mystery as to how the police, notorious for their homophobia, could flip into what we've been seeing recently with their adulation of all things trans even to the point of turning a blind eye to sex offences, pursuing people for "anti-trans" tweets and acting as enforcers for trans vexatious litigants. I mean not just how it was accomplished but how it was even possible.

The stock answer is that it's an overcompensation for having persecuted gay people in the past, but I don't think that's it, or at least it's not the whole story. Like Darat I suspect the underlying homophobia hasn't gone away. There's something deeply unhealthy about the adulation of frank, overt perversions and the wildly over the top performative "allyship", going all the way to the top of the force.
Click to expand...
My hypothesis is that the police, like other institutions, hit an inflection point in generational shift. Enough younger cops who had been socialized as schoolchildren to be more LGBT friendly. This combined with a broader cultural shift that told cop leadership what line they needed to take, to keep their jobs. The homophobic cops basically got ratioed out of being the face of UKian policing.
 
Rolfe said:
Those men who blithely tell women that the best solution to the bathroom issue is for them to be deprived of their single-sex facilities and forced to use single-occupancy cubicles turn about with men, should read this.
Click to expand...
Who has been arguing that all single-sex facilities must be forcibly torn down in favor of single occupancy cubicles, thereby depriving women of any other options? I don't recall anyone taking such an authoritarian approach.

Admittedly, new builds I've been seeing with enclosed toilet cubicles in one area and sinks in an adjacent common area wouldn't be particularly helpful in the event of a menstrual catastrophe of the sort described, but it seems pretty fair to say that facilities are generally designed around ordinary use cases rather than extraordinary ones.

Oddly enough, I recently came across a number of much older builds which take the same approach, including several restaurant buildings in the U.S. Virgin Islands, one of which has been operating for a century now.
 
Quite a few posters here arguing for that as the ideal solution. Ivor particularly, most recently.

Period disasters are ordinary case use and most certainly not "extraordinary". Men simply can't seem to comprehend the variety of reasons women value their single-sex toilet areas and I'm fed up with them constantly telling us we don't really need them and they need to be taken away from us to placate the trans lovelies. (Who also want women's single-sex spaces, not mixed-sex, because they get off on being in these spaces.)
 
Rolfe said:
I think Darat's problem is that he still regards "LGBT" as a single group, all for one and one for all. He doesn't see that the T doesn't belong, that the T has infiltrated the LGB like a cuckoo in the nest (or maybe more like an ichneumon fly) and is using it for its own purposes. There have always been ultra-feminine gay men who liked to wear women's clothes and take on what they saw as a "feminine" persona, so there was a natural connection there, but that has been completely subverted. Trans is no longer about ultra-feminine gay men, it's about AGP and the AGP takeover or women's rights.

Darat doesn't realise that a fair proportion of the L has already left the group, either by self-exclusion or expulsion, for the sin of not being prepared to have heterosexual sex with men who say they're women. A proportion of the G is beginning to catch on as the importunate, disturbed girls with their testosterone injections and their floppy bits of transplanted arm skin between their legs (or indeed without the latter) become more of a nuisance, demanding to be included in gay social events and dating pools. I think more normal gay men will join the exodus.

The T is actually profoundly homophobic. If there's no such thing as sex there's no such thing as same-sex attraction. If anyone can be a man or a woman just by saying so, and if it's evil transphobia not to want to have sex with them because of the type of body they happen to have, then "gay" and "lesbian" no longer mean anything. Girls being shamed for not wanting to be penetrated by trans-identifying men who have hooked up with them on lesbian dating sites was the start, but they were easily bullied. Gay men who are being pressurised to accept androgenised women as sex partners might not be quite so easy to brush aside.
Click to expand...
Fred Sargeant, involved in the Stone Wall uprising and one of the founders of the first NYC Pride March is not a fan of the current trans movement. He's been vocal on Twitter/X about these issues
 
Rolfe said:
Quite a few posters here arguing for that as the ideal solution. Ivor particularly, most recently.

Period disasters are ordinary case use and most certainly not "extraordinary". Men simply can't seem to comprehend the variety of reasons women value their single-sex toilet areas and I'm fed up with them constantly telling us we don't really need them and they need to be taken away from us to placate the trans lovelies. (Who also want women's single-sex spaces, not mixed-sex, because they get off on being in these spaces.)
Click to expand...
The thing is, men don't have to comprehend the variety of reasons. They only have to comprehend that women like their sex-segregated safe spaces.

Women aren't asking for unisex public restrooms. Even in the fabled country of Europe, I bet their vaunted unisex restrooms didn't come about because of any outcry by women that they wanted to caucus with the men in such matters.

On this side of the pond, Starbucks (and a lot of similar establishments) have fully-equipped one-person restrooms with locking doors. Not because women were demanding them. Certainly not because trans-identifying men were demanding them. Rather, because it was the most cost-effective use of the available space in the shop.

Remember: TIMs don't want a private restroom that everybody takes turns using. They'll use one, of course. But what they want is the women's restroom, wherever they encounter it. Meanwhile, it seems that women are rather okay, for the most part, with communal restrooms. Getting rid of communal restrooms for women is not the answer. It just sweeps the issue under the rug, at the expense of women in particular, and taxpayers in general.

That's the thing that Ivor and others can't seem to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
They only have to comprehend that women like their sex-segregated safe spaces.
Click to expand...
This sort of statement would be all the better if it came with some supporting evidence. I am skeptical whether women who happen to be posting in this thread are representive of women more generally.

Remember Nate Silver's viral map from 2016?

https://twitter.com/x/status/785972385836961792

Turns out American women are perfectly content to vote away their sex-based spaces, overwhelmingly supporting the party which has been ideologically captured by the trans rights lobby.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
This sort of statement would be all the better if it came with some supporting evidence. I am skeptical whether women who happen to be posting in this thread are representive of women more generally.

Remember Nate Silver's viral map from 2016?

https://twitter.com/x/status/785972385836961792

Turns out American women are perfectly content to vote away their sex-based spaces, overwhelmingly supporting the party which has been ideologically captured by the trans rights lobby.
Click to expand...
How naive! And how stupid do you think we are? Do you understand that women aren't single issue voters?

How much of that vote do you think was due to Donald "Grab 'em by the Pussy" Trumpf's objectification of women?
How much do you think that vote was influenced by the Repugnican's vile attitude to abortion rights?
How much do you think the fact that Clinton is a woman affected how women voted in that election?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
This sort of statement would be all the better if it came with some supporting evidence. I am skeptical whether women who happen to be posting in this thread are representive of women more generally.

Remember Nate Silver's viral map from 2016?

https://twitter.com/x/status/785972385836961792

Turns out American women are perfectly content to vote away their sex-based spaces, overwhelmingly supporting the party which has been ideologically captured by the trans rights lobby.
Click to expand...
Show me the women's advocacy groups that have been advocating for unisex communal restrooms.

The suffragettes didn't ask for this.
First-wave feminists didn't ask for this.
Second-wave feminists didn't ask for this.
Third-wave feminists didn't ask for this.
Radfems didn't.
Not even post-feminist LGBTQ+ advocates have asked for this.

The only time I've ever seen it come up is from people in this thread desperately trying to square the circle of getting men into women's restrooms over the objections of women.

Women's advocates have successfully clamored for a national women's soccer team, and women's pro basketball team. You think if women really wanted unisex bathrooms, we wouldn't have heard of it by now?

No, the voting pattern you see is women who haven't really thought through the implications of fiat self-ID, and aren't aware of how hard TRAs are working to reify those implications.
 
theprestige said:
No, the voting pattern you see is women who haven't really thought through the implications of fiat self-ID, and aren't aware of how hard TRAs are working to reify those implications.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
In one of the many talks given by Helen Joyce* I remember her talking about a poll that was done, I think in UK, where people were asked how they felt about transwomen using women's restrooms and being allowed into women's sports, about half of them were fine with it. It seemed like an astonishing result, until those who commissioned the poll realised that a large percentage of those polled did not understand that transwomen were not woman who are transgender, but were actually but transgender men (mostly fully intact) who claimed they were women. Once the facts were known, the poll response changed from about 50/50 to around 85/15 opposed.


* Helen is coming to New Zealand this year. I will be travelling to Christchurch in October to hear her speak. She will need a LOT of security because she is bound to bring the TRA freaks, in numbers, out from under their flat stones. I think the oraganizers need to get private security as well as police, because I don't think the NZ Police can be trusted to protect her.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
No, the voting pattern you see is women who haven't really thought through the implications of fiat self-ID, and aren't aware of how hard TRAs are working to reify those implications.
Click to expand...

Or women who are well aware of the the repercussions of fiat self-ID and the TRA agenda, but when forced to choose between that issue and the issue of women's reproductive rights and medical body autonomy, opted for the latter.
 
Tomboy said:
Or women who are well aware of the the repercussions of fiat self-ID and the TRA agenda, but when forced to choose between that issue and the issue of women's reproductive rights and medical body autonomy, opted for the latter.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Post #10,233 by @d4m10n is the sort of knee-jerk thing that comes out when you spend most of your time being contrarian, and never really thinking through the implications of what you post.
 
theprestige said:
The thing is, men don't have to comprehend the variety of reasons. They only have to comprehend that women like their sex-segregated safe spaces.

Women aren't asking for unisex public restrooms. Even in the fabled country of Europe, I bet their vaunted unisex restrooms didn't come about because of any outcry by women that they wanted to caucus with the men in such matters.

On this side of the pond, Starbucks (and a lot of similar establishments) have fully-equipped one-person restrooms with locking doors. Not because women were demanding them. Certainly not because trans-identifying men were demanding them. Rather, because it was the most cost-effective use of the available space in the shop.

Remember: TIMs don't want a private restroom that everybody takes turns using. They'll use one, of course. But what they want is the women's restroom, wherever they encounter it. Meanwhile, it seems that women are rather okay, for the most part, with communal restrooms. Getting rid of communal restrooms for women is not the answer. It just sweeps the issue under the rug, at the expense of women in particular, and taxpayers in general.

That's the thing that Ivor and others can't seem to comprehend.
Click to expand...

I've seen a variety of toilet provisions in Starbucks (that comes with their predilection for hosting Ionity chargers in their car parks). One I've been to a few times has two completely self-contained toilets labelled men and women, but in practice women don't usually bother to wait for the one labelled women to be vacant!
 
theprestige said:
Show me the women's advocacy groups that have been advocating for unisex communal restrooms.
Click to expand...
Sure thing, after you show me evidence for your claim that "women like their sex-segregated safe spaces" based on representative sampling rather than talking to a handful of gender critical women who happen to be way more tuned in to trans issues than average voters.
smartcooky said:
Do you understand that women aren't single issue voters?
Click to expand...
This is just another way of saying that women don't actually prioritize these issues. Women were 10 percentage points more likely than men to support the Democratic ticket in 2024, which is to say they would have selected the candidate that did not promise to reimplement sex segregation in sports leagues and in federal agencies but did promise gender affirming care for males in women's prisons.
smartcooky said:
@d4m10n is the sort of knee-jerk thing that comes out when you spend most of your time being contrarian
Click to expand...
Asking for claims to be backed by evidence isn't contrarianism, it is skepticism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom