Oh, Oh! We can use facial recognition software that identified the sex of the person involved!We could have some sort of surveillance system where people and/or machines perform spot checks and assess fines to violators.
Meh, I think most of the audience would perceive Pat as female, but most of the audience already knew that Pat was performed by a female. The sex of the actor was irrelevant to the bit, the whole series of sketches was a gag about not being quite sure whether Pat is male or female and all of the confusion it causes.
I've been really noticing this now. There are a lot of shows I'm rewatching that end up with a trans character in them, and they're almost always played by a female. It's contributed to this mass belief that males who identify as trans pass well and nobody can tell the difference.
Those small shops have single-use facilities.
What the actual ◊◊◊◊?
I suspect Sall Grover might disagree with your take a bit
FYI... Radical feminism was an offshoot of 2nd wave, call it second-and-a-halfth-wave. (today I learned that halfth is a word, I really expected spellcheck to object)
The worst part of your post is that in real life... it the same damned women making both statements.
Indeed!
So true. We know it's not about facts, because TRAs, and their sycophants (of which there are a few here) are not the least bit interested in real facts. They make up their own facts.
The highlighted part doesn’t say anything, because it needs the part you didn’t hilight in order to understand her meaning.
The irony is that the only people I have actually heard say this and believe it is certain trans identifying males. Rolfe certainly never expressed anything of the sort.
Ok. Your wife’s experience is evidently not representative of Rolfe’s experience. So what?
Misogyny at its most obvious
Well good on her. My partner lived in five countries in her time on this planet (Switzerland, Croatia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and what Rolfe described would pretty much match her experiences.
Pretty confident you'll never hear a single voice saying "Men in our toilets!" Not one, not ever. It's almost like they don't see transwomen as men, innit?
Walk a mile, man. You're a man, right? OK. Picture being told by some bigot "no, Hon, you're a woman. Now go to the little girls room like you should, with the other girls".
You seemed to not understand that the second question was entirely, intentionally, and dear god obviously facetious.
It might seem like that, but I expect that most people would have already come up with the same obvious simple solution to males and females who are using whatever toilets they want, and entering whatever sports competitions they want, because they are not labelled male and female.
Which is where the analogy fails. Being sexually attracted to the same sex makes somebody gay. Believing that one is a woman does not make somebody a woman. Demanding that people accept an ideological belief that what makes somebody a woman is their feelings is not even remotely comparable in any way, shape or form to asking people to accept that some people are attracted to the same sex. It is more comparable to demanding that they accept the truth of a religious belief.
Refusing to look at evidence and accepting things without question if they make you feel morally superior and allow you to feel self-righteous in calling other people names. The hallmark of a true sceptic.
Yeah lots of people in this thread keep saying I don't get it, it's happened a few times.
I dont think they are. I think they are just pervs putting on gayface. Hows that sound? Familiar?
Nor do I assert it does. Thats why i dont call them women. They are transwomen. Have you heard that distinction made before?
Disagreed, but I do see the similarity. Here in the States, we are pretty tolerant of going along with religious expression, too.
Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but if you mean the AGP reference, yes, I looked at the evidence. Or rather, it's proponents flatly repeated statement that they have none. Yeah, "hunches" (their choice of words) are not particularly robust evidence for a skeptic.