Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[angrysoba]

Awsome! This is a decision that will have a huge impact on policing throughout the UK. The courts are starting to come down hard on the ideologically captured Police force. And about time too.

I find this a bit confusing.

My understanding is that it became considered a Good Thing that the police were sometimes dancing along with LGBT Pride marches just as they might at, say, the Notting Hill Carnival.

smartcooky: " community/religious celebrations are NOT Politically controversial."

Well, have a look at some of the commentary on the Notting Hill carnival coming out of the right-wing. Plenty of commentators arguing it should be banned. I expect that plenty of lefties might think the same about Remembrance Day.

Also, "ideologically captured" is an extremely lazy way of saying you don't like something.

By the way, do I detect a little bit of nervousness from smarkcooky reading Rolfe's posts, almost as if he were saying, "Ha ha! Love the ...erm... sarcasm and ....ha ha... political satire. It's almost as if you are being a parody of what extreme intolerance looks like...."

 

[angrysoba]

I mean, fine, you might argue that maybe the police should NOT dance at the Notting Hill Carnival or give any endorsement one way or the other and remain poker-faced at any and every event they are present at. I wouldn't necessarily object.

But the article argues that it sets a precedent for just that which smartcooky laughs off with the idea that no such events are controversial.

They absolutely ARE, or could be.

 

[Rolfe]

Back in the day I went on quite a number of marches supporting Scottish independence. It was easy to regard the cops as supporters because the hi-viz jackets they wear are the same colour as the SNP colours. But they all very studiously showed no overt sign of partisanship one way or another. Sometimes it wasn't so hard to tell because a cop would give you a grin or just the way they met your eyes or the fact that they looked happy in general, but nobody ever did anything that could lead a journalist or a superior to imagine they were supportive. And that's the way it should be. We would have been quite shocked if any of them had joined in and started shouting "What do we want? Independence! When do we want it? Now!" or "Alba gu brath!" or anything like that. (Some of them did show up off-duty and out of uniform, and that was fine too, but when in uniform they showed no overt sign of support.)

 

[theprestige]

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.

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.
Asking for claims to be backed by evidence isn't contrarianism, it is skepticism.

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you; you're trying to convince me. I'm on the side of the status quo ante. If you think women want or need something different, make your case.

 

[theprestige]

I find this a bit confusing.

My understanding is that it became considered a Good Thing that the police were sometimes dancing along with LGBT Pride marches just as they might at, say, the Notting Hill Carnival.

smartcooky: " community/religious celebrations are NOT Politically controversial."

Well, have a look at some of the commentary on the Notting Hill carnival coming out of the right-wing. Plenty of commentators arguing it should be banned. I expect that plenty of lefties might think the same about Remembrance Day.

Also, "ideologically captured" is an extremely lazy way of saying you don't like something.

<nonsense snipped>

I mean, fine, you might argue that maybe the police should NOT dance at the Notting Hill Carnival or give any endorsement one way or the other and remain poker-faced at any and every event they are present at. I wouldn't necessarily object.

But the article argues that it sets a precedent for just that which smartcooky laughs off with the idea that no such events are controversial.

They absolutely ARE, or could be.

This is all an argument for police taking a further step back from other celebrations that might be seen as controversial. An argument I agree with.

As for "Ideologcially captured": Anything can be used in a lazy way. But this conversation has been pretty consistent about using the term judiciously. It's an accurate description of the way some institutions have been taken over by a particular ideology.

 

[p0lka]

Yes, I am biased. I make absolutely NO apology for believing, and stating, that biological males DO NOT belong in women's safes spaces... ever!

- Upton is a biological man... of this, there can be absolutely NO dispute.
- He entered a women's changing room, which is a safe space for women only - also NOT in dispute.
- He was asked to leave by an actual woman who was suffering a menstrual episode,

re:highlighted just say female? That's what they are.
I hadn't heard about this menstrual thing so I did a quick search to find coverage of the court case which wasn't very fruitful. But I did find a recent bbc article that was going on about a tribunal that peggie is in at the moment which is strange...

Nurse denies 'vindictive campaign' against trans doctor

Sandie Peggie said comments regarding Dr Beth Upton were made as dark humour.

www.bbc.co.uk

they seem to be question her about her prior posts and messages not related to the case but to do with racism which isn't part of the case. Weird.

and who was distressed by his presence. He refused. He prioritized HIS percieved rights over the distress being suffered by a colleague. I promise you, ANY woman, especially a fellow medical professional, would absolutely, have left immediately when asked.... but not this guy.
- Therefore, he is in the wrong, he is also a selfish arse-hole,

Any decent person would leave when asked to by someone in distress it doesn't matter what sex they are, so yeah selfish arsehole.

and have no problem with showing bias agaist him.

Showing bias to anything is letting your feelings govern your head.

I also make NO apology for stating that his attempts to pass as a women are a complete and total fail. To me it is blindingly obvious that he is a man wearing womanface. He is not even close to passing. If you are truly unable to tell this, then its a YOU problem.

What is both infuriating and entertaining is the length to which witnesses for the NHS tortured themselves into pretzels into order to avoid calling Upton exactly what he is... a man. His line-manager, Kate Searle, testified, that she couldn't tell the questioner what a woman is. She actually said, on the stand, that she couldnt tell if Upton was a man or a woman because she hadn't seen a karyotype test (chromosome analysis)! I kid you not! This is a so-called medical professional professing to not understanding the most BASIC facts of human biology.

 

[p0lka]

Unparsable word salad.

My grandkids would understand it, so that's a YOU problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

they seem to be question her about her prior posts and messages not related to the case but to do with racism which isn't part of the case. Weird.

It's not weird. It's slimy, but the point is simply to make her look like a bad person. If those deciding the case think she's a bad person, they will be more inclined to search for rationalizations to rule against her. It's a very normal tactic.

Showing bias to anything is letting your feelings govern your head.

That doesn't actually make sense. First off, while hiding bias can sometimes be the smart move, this isn't one of those times. This is just a discussion forum, he's not a moderator or anything, there's absolutely no reason or need to hide bias. It is much more honest to show whatever bias you have here. And there are very logical reasons to prefer honest and open discussions to hiding behind a fiction of neutrality.

If you mean that having a bias means letting your feelings govern your head, that too is a baseless conclusion. Some biases are irrational, some biases are immoral, some biases are based on emotional response, but that's not categorically true of all biases. Some biases are born out of logical considerations. So a categorical claim like yours doesn't withstand scrutiny.

If you have an argument for what's wrong with his specific bias, then make that argument. But this is just an appeal to maintaining a fiction of politeness, and there's really no reason for that.

 

[p0lka]

Voyeurism and possibly indecent exposure, two of the most common types of sexual offence in the UK, and ones which often escalate to more serious offences without intervention.

I would love to see the what the crime rate would be if we applied indecent exposure and voyeurism to toilets and changing facilities.

 

[p0lka]

It's not weird. It's slimy, but the point is simply to make her look like a bad person. If those deciding the case think she's a bad person, they will be more inclined to search for rationalizations to rule against her. It's a very normal tactic.

That doesn't actually make sense. First off, while hiding bias can sometimes be the smart move, this isn't one of those times. This is just a discussion forum, he's not a moderator or anything, there's absolutely no reason or need to hide bias. It is much more honest to show whatever bias you have here. And there are very logical reasons to prefer honest and open discussions to hiding behind a fiction of neutrality.

Thanks you made a good point, in discussions everyone should be honest, thank you. Show your bias so it's honest.

If you mean that having a bias means letting your feelings govern your head, that too is a baseless conclusion. Some biases are irrational, some biases are immoral, some biases are based on emotional response, but that's not categorically true of all biases. Some biases are born out of logical considerations. So a categorical claim like yours doesn't withstand scrutiny.

If you have an argument for what's wrong with his specific bias, then make that argument. But this is just an appeal to maintaining a fiction of politeness, and there's really no reason for that.

Bias doesn't lead you anywhere useful though, if discussions are about getting to the correctness of a thing then bias is just an added complication.

 

[p0lka]

That's nice - they can go back to spitting on us again!

Yeah we don't want the police trying to be nice, we should be throwing rocks at them.

 

[p0lka]

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.

It doesn't make any logical sense for the T to be with the LGB as I had said for a long time in this thread.
The LGB was all about "I'm not conforming to the gender roles that you tell me", whereas the T was about " yes I want to conform to the gender roles that you tell me, but It might not be the one that you expect.".

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.

My first complete desktop pc had an AGP port but it wouldn't be that, so I did a quick duck duck search and it points to early pc ports dammit, so ehh what does agp stand for?

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.

I don't understand what you are saying there? You are acting like people can't just say no to sexual encounters?

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.

Arguing that anyone can change their sex is a recent development though isn't it? It's the TRA's that have been mentioned in this thread that have been banging on about that physical impossibility (at this present time).

 

[Thermal]

It doesn't make any logical sense for the T to be with the LGB as I had said for a long time in this thread.
The LGB was all about "I'm not conforming to the gender roles that you tell me",

More sexual orientarion, I would think?

whereas the T was about " yes I want to conform to the gender roles that you tell me, but It might not be the one that you expect.".

I can see them banding together, at least sometimes. "We're the ones who ain't in the Ozzy and Harriet lifestyle model and that shouldn't be a problem"

 

[Ziggurat]

Bias doesn't lead you anywhere useful though

Why does he need to be led anywhere?

if discussions are about getting to the correctness of a thing

They often are not, particularly when debates are about values and not facts. And a lot of the current debate is about values and not facts. There are some facts in dispute, but they don't form the core if this. Differences in values do.

 

[theprestige]

Thanks you made a good point, in discussions everyone should be honest, thank you. Show your bias so it's honest.


Bias doesn't lead you anywhere useful though, if discussions are about getting to the correctness of a thing then bias is just an added complication.

If the correctness you're seeking is a value judgement, then bias is a necessary factor.

 

[p0lka]

Why does he need to be led anywhere?

I said 'you' but I meant ones own self, bias won't lead ones own self to the correctness of whatever matter is being discussed..

They often are not, particularly when debates are about values and not facts. And a lot of the current debate is about values and not facts. There are some facts in dispute, but they don't form the core if this. Differences in values do.

Ok I'll take that on board, I thought it was about facts.

 

[p0lka]

If the correctness you're seeking is a value judgement, then bias is a necessary factor.

Yeah sorry, I thought the thread was about facts.

 

[Ron Obvious]

It's a FACT, that so-called 'transwomen" are, in fact, men. It's a value judgement whether or not to allow those men to override sex segregation and when to allow that or indeed when to play along with how they see themselves. That's what this thread is about.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok I'll take that on board, I thought it was about facts.

Why would you think that?

I've told you repeatedly that the heart of this conflict is that some people want males to be able to enter nominally female-only spaces like bathrooms, and some people want to keep males out of female-only spaces like bathrooms. Conflicts about terminology (such as whether transwoman are women) are just proxies for this root conflict. Two incompatible interests are in conflict. Some people side with one interest, other people side with the other interest, but that conflict isn't about facts. It's about values. Which group's interest do you value more?

 

[Thermal]

It's a FACT, that so-called 'transwomen" are, in fact, men.

Yeah, that's what the "trans" part is all about, to make that clear.

It's a value judgement whether or not to allow those men to override sex segregation and when to allow that or indeed when to play along with how they see themselves. That's what this thread is about.

I think the thread and topic are more about how others are affected. The original weightlifter (remember the original story?) had an unfair advantage in having gone through a male puberty, with all that muscle growth and testosterone and stuff.

So do transwomen have some advantage in a bathroom? It gets argued here that attackers would, but we don't see attacks in the open bathroom policy areas any more than they were when strictly segregated. There is generally no open nudity in your higher class public restrooms. Most of us have used gender neutral facilities with no ado.

What some would conclude this this thread is really about is certain people being disgusted by transwomen, and not wanting them to be afforded any dignity, no matter how trivial.