Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

These tras sound like nutters and as far as I can see they are not representative of the t's as a whole.

They may not be representative... but they're the ones driving policy.

I don't care about people with transgender identities. That's not a slam, it's not dismissive. I genuine do not care one way or another. I care about a person's preference for presentation and behavior about as much as I care for a person's hair color. It is irrelevant to me.

But I *do* care about actual, real, physical, observable, verifiable sex in situations where sex matters.

 

[theprestige]

Whomever made the claim "women like their sex-segregated safe spaces" gets to shoulder the burden of that claim—I'm not going to bother go back and look up who said it in this thread. American women tend to support the political party which wants to abolish those spaces (in favor of sorting by gender identity) so we have prima facie reasons to be skeptical of that original claim, at least until we see look at some evidence (e.g. Pew Forum surveys) more directly on point. I'd go ahead and pull that evidence myself, but I'm fairly confident those are not my words.

I couldn't care less. I've concluded, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that women do not want, and never have wanted, unisex bathrooms. If you think that's something they want, fine with me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's the gender labels that are the causing a loophole for a minority of people to take advantage of, yet you're still using them?

They're not causing a loophole, p0lka.

Back to basics: Literal vs figurative language.

The word "woman" has two core meanings. The most commonly used meaning is a literal meaning - an adult female human being. This is the literal usage, and it's used in exactly the same way that the words mare and doe and hen are used when talking about female horses, female deer, and female chickens.

The second common usage is a figurative meaning, in which the single word "woman" is used as a metaphorical stand-in for "woman-like", and where woman-like can range from "that male cried in public therefore they're a pussy ass bitch" to "likes to cook and clean" to "effeminate in looks and bearing" and any number of other poetic meanings.

But context is a thing, and it very often matters. When we talk about a "women's shower" there is not a single person in any english speaking country who thinks that means it's the shower where males who cry in public go to get clean. Everyone and their uncle knows full well that the word "woman" in that context is meant literally.

I'm unwilling to surrender the literal usage of the word in order to assuage the feelings of some few distressed males. It has meaning to my entire sex class, and it's irrational and inappropriate to expect female human beings to give up the word that refers to us.

 

[smartcooky]

Because you said so?

No, because some things are so blindingly obvious, they need no further explanation or consideration.... water is wet, fire is hot, etc.

I thought TIM stood for transgender identified male? Anyway, gender labels are not biology/scientifically anything, other than societal constructs that not everyone follows, hence the problem with using them as fact based labels for anything.

It can be either.

I make no distinction - all men are male, all women are female. This is because I consider gender and sex to be two words that mean the same thing - you will find almost all gender critical people hold this position. My position on this is not only that gender = sex, but that gender ≡ sex, and the concept of gender separated from sex is a non-sequitur.

 

[Rolfe]

Not in my experience, you must be hanging around with these tra people. Also, female-only facilities? Surely you mean women-only facilities as that's what they are called at this present time.

In your experience, trans people and their supporters don't scream blue murder transphobia when any truly female-only space or service is established, and demand that trans-identifying men must be allowed access? You don't get out much do you? I advance just as one example the fact that after much campaigning it was agreed that the organisation that runs the domestic abuse and rape crisis services in Brighton had agreed to add one single female-only meeting to its existing range of services, all of which were and still are open to men who announce themselves as trans. One single group. No change to any of the existing groups, they carry on as before. Nothing taken away from the trans lovelies. Instant denunciation in the press, trans-exclusionary, discriminatory, appalling, shouldn't be allowed, trans-identifying men MUST have access to everything.

No, I do not mean facilities labelled as for women, we are specifically discussing facilites that are labelled "male" and "female", the labels you declare will sort everything out because trans-identifying men won't use the ones labelled female.

So, we know that there are establishments (certain McDonald's restaurants just for a start) where the toilets are indeed labelled "male" and "female". You postulate that on seeing these labels, trans-identifying men will recognise them as excluding them. In that case, where is the campaign to end transphobia in McDonald's?

 

[Rolfe]

Whomever made the claim "women like their sex-segregated safe spaces" gets to shoulder the burden of that claim—I'm not going to bother go back and look up who said it in this thread. American women tend to support the political party which wants to abolish those spaces (in favor of sorting by gender identity) so we have prima facie reasons to be skeptical of that original claim, at least until we see look at some evidence (e.g. Pew Forum surveys) more directly on point. I'd go ahead and pull that evidence myself, but I'm fairly confident those are not my words.

I posted a map to back up my claim that American women are not voting in such a way as to demonstrate that they "like their sex-segregated safe spaces" enough to prioritize that issue over others which they presumably find more important. It's entirely possible that the median female voter doesn't much care whether they encounter males in those spaces, unlike the women who post here in this thread. I've no idea, really, since the progressive circles that I run in tend to treat this topic as taboo.

You keep saying this, backed up by no more than your own circle of acquaintances. Here's what happens when proper weighted opinion polls are done. This first table is the results from a poll conducted in 2020.



A spread of opinions, but the Yes to using wrong-sex toilets becomes a No when it's specified that these people have not had their naughty bits lopped off. (How anyone is supposed to tell whether they have had this done or not was not specified.)

Now here is the same table, but results from a poll carried out at the end of 2024, just four and a half years later.



The only thing even a plurality of respondents are inclined to allow trans-identified people to do is to "identify" as the opposite sex, but that doesn't get them any actual concrete concessions, as everything else has turned to a big fat No, most of it by a majority not just a plurality. The responses from women (to the left of the overall responses) don't differ much from the overall responses. No to pretty much everything, just a slightly more emphatic No as regards trans-identifying women when the stipulation that they have not had surgery to create a fake penis is added.

What changed in the space of less than five years? The fact that a lot of sunlight has been shone on the reality of trans demands and the entire trans agenda. That the myth of the poor vulnerable flower who has had all the surgery and does the absolute best he can to look like a normal woman and just wants to slide quietly into the Ladies', use the facilities and slide back out again without disturbing anyone has shrivelled and died in the light. The bearded men insisting on their rights, the wanking selfies in the Ladies', the pee protest in Parliament Square where trans people urinated on statues and everywhere else available to advance the cause of their being allowed to use the wrong-sex toilets, all these things leave an impression.

And it is absolutely not the case that women actively favour "sorting by gender identity". American women may tend to vote Democrat, but people have lots of reasons for choosing how to cast their vote and claiming that a vote for that party is a positive endorsement of a move to allow men into women's intimate spaces is disingenuous in the extreme. Ask American women questions like the above and see where you get. Then come back in 2030 and see if they're still in the same place.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's another outrage. A mother took her young teenage daughter to M&S with the intention of having a bra fitting for her first bra. While in the lingerie section they were approached by a sales assistant, a man of about six feet two, dressed in women's clothes, saying "can I help you?" or words to that effect. The girl was completely freaked out and the couple left the store.

Marks & Spencer apologises over trans employee in bra department

archived 4 Aug 2025 19:34:46 UTC

archive.ph

The employee in question apparently works across the store, not purely in the lingerie department, and is not someone who carries out bra fittings. But he didn't think it at all inappropriate to approach an adolescent girl in this very female department, among female underwear. And M&S doesn't seem to think this is a red flag at all, oh no. A very qualified apology and a request to make a specific booking time when it will be arranged that this particular mother and daughter will have a female sales assistant attend to them.



M&S seems to have no intention whatsoever of telling male sales assistants to stay the hell out of the women's underwear department, whether or not they are wearing women's clothes at the time. It seems to believe it's entirely appropriate that any woman going into such a store might be approached by a transvestite man in the lingerie area. It seems to have no idea at all that an employee behaving like this is a huge red flag waving to alert them to a predator.

This has to stop.

 

[smartcooky]

Whomever made the claim "women like their sex-segregated safe spaces" gets to shoulder the burden of that claim—I'm not going to bother go back and look up who said it in this thread. American women tend to support the political party which wants to abolish those spaces (in favor of sorting by gender identity) so we have prima facie reasons to be skeptical of that original claim, at least until we see look at some evidence (e.g. Pew Forum surveys) more directly on point. I'd go ahead and pull that evidence myself, but I'm fairly confident those are not my words.

I posted a map to back up my claim that American women are not voting in such a way as to demonstrate that they "like their sex-segregated safe spaces" enough to prioritize that issue over others which they presumably find more important. It's entirely possible that the median female voter doesn't much care whether they encounter males in those spaces, unlike the women who post here in this thread. I've no idea, really, since the progressive circles that I run in tend to treat this topic as taboo.

Feel free to enlighten me, if you like.

Probably, but it's a bit rude to ask.

OPINIONS...

You keep saying this, backed up by no more than your own circle of acquaintances. Here's what happens when proper weighted opinion polls are done. This first table is the results from a poll conducted in 2020.

View attachment 62753

A spread of opinions, but the Yes to using wrong-sex toilets becomes a No when it's specified that these people have not had their naughty bits lopped off. (How anyone is supposed to tell whether they have had this done or not was not specified.)

Now here is the same table, but results from a poll carried out at the end of 2024, just four and a half years later.

View attachment 62754

The only thing even a plurality of respondents are inclined to allow trans-identified people to do is to "identify" as the opposite sex, but that doesn't get them any actual concrete concessions, as everything else has turned to a big fat No, most of it by a majority not just a plurality. The responses from women (to the left of the overall responses) don't differ much from the overall responses. No to pretty much everything, just a slightly more emphatic No as regards trans-identifying women when the stipulation that they have not had surgery to create a fake penis is added.

What changed in the space of less than five years? The fact that a lot of sunlight has been shone on the reality of trans demands and the entire trans agenda. That the myth of the poor vulnerable flower who has had all the surgery and does the absolute best he can to look like a normal woman and just wants to slide quietly into the Ladies', use the facilities and slide back out again without disturbing anyone has shrivelled and died in the light. The bearded men insisting on their rights, the wanking selfies in the Ladies', the pee protest in Parliament Square where trans people urinated on statues and everywhere else available to advance the cause of their being allowed to use the wrong-sex toilets, all these things leave an impression.

And it is absolutely not the case that women actively favour "sorting by gender identity". American women may tend to vote Democrat, but people have lots of reasons for choosing how to cast their vote and claiming that a vote for that party is a positive endorsement of a move to allow men into women's intimate spaces is disingenuous in the extreme. Ask American women questions like the above and see where you get. Then come back in 2030 and see if they're still in the same place.

FACTS

Facts always win!

 

[Aber]

Oh no I'm paying attention, I just disagree with your ability to predict the future and dismiss something with belief.

Suggest you go back and look at Dr Upton's testimony in the employment tribunal, and how he described himself.

 

[Aber]

Also, female-only facilities? Surely you mean women-only facilities as that's what they are called at this present time.

Distinction without a difference after the Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Pixel42]

Distinction without a difference after the Supreme Court ruling.

And before.

 

[Rolfe]

Distinction without a difference after the Supreme Court ruling.

But not to Polka, apparently. He thinks that if the sign says "female" then men in dresses will respect this and stay out. That was my point. We know there are places where the sign says "female". Where is the evidence that this is actually preventing the men in dresses from going in?

 

[Aber]

But not to Polka, apparently. He thinks that if the sign says "female" then men in dresses will respect this and stay out.

I think Polka's view is slightly more nuanced.

Female spaces are sex identified and so are single sex spaces.

Women's spaces are gender based, and so can be used by transwomen.

This is roughly what NHS Fife seem to be arguing, and may be a product of motivated reasoning ie transwomen using women's spaces do not actually breach any norms.

 

[Rolfe]

But he's saying that all we need to do is to change the labels and trans-identifying men will respect the sign. All the evidence is that they don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think Polka's view is slightly more nuanced.

Not really. It may seem like that because his views are not even self-consistent, but incoherence is not subtlety.

Female spaces are sex identified and so are single sex spaces.

Women's spaces are gender based, and so can be used by transwomen.

That requires that transwomen will treat spaces labelled "female" differently than they will treat spaces labelled "women's". Which is not only not nuanced, but observably wrong, as we saw with Park Run.

 

[Thermal]

Here's the deal: The do see transwomen as men, almost all the time. They can pay lip service to the slogan, and loudly proclaim their affiliation to "TWAW"... but at the end of the day, they don't actually for realsies see them as indistinguishable from female human beings. Neither do you.

Correct. And?

the overwhelming majority of people absolutely know that transwomen are males, and they don't perceive them as females at all, nor as "women" in anything other than the vaguest figurative sense.

Why do we have to keep rinsing and repeating the same thing? Yes, they are biologically males. Since I don't interact with most people's genitals, it's their presentation that more defines how I treat them, and I find transwomen to present more like women than men, so even though I might know they are natal males, it makes no difference to me, unless I intend to get in their pants, which isn't screaming likely.

 

[Thermal]

The "blatantly bigoted" reason of not wanting males in a space where we're vulnerable, half unclothed, and sometimes dealing with a menstrual or pregnancy-related emergency. The "blatantly bigoted" reason of not wanting to make it even easier for males to engage in voyeurism and exhibitionism regardless of how they claim to identify. Yep. Totally bigoted.

Not those reasons. Surely you have noticed that different posters are arguing different points? Surely you have further noticed that I have repeatedly acknowledged feminine issues to be a damn good reason for sex segregation in restrooms? One of the better reasons, in fact? Or are you pretending that I'm saying something else?

 

[Thermal]

I'm not going to play this game. They've been declared to be slurs by people who have transgender identities - and it's done coercively. The only language that they deem to NOT be a slur is one that capitulates to their desires and labels them as "women" of some sort or other (or "men" for the females). But they're NOT women of any sort - they're male human beings, and therefore men.

I'm not willing to surrender common use of literal language to ideological zealots. Thus I stick with a clear description of what's actually under discussion here: Human males who profess to have a transgender identity.

If you'd like to suggest something that provides an accurate description of the issue while also NOT using the words "woman" or "girl", I'll consider it.

You just want to make sure that they can't be referred to by what they feel they are, even with clear modifiers. Because you want the 'dignity' of the word exclusively, so you can compare yourself with... sows and bitches? Gotcha.

How about the ones already widely used, MtF and FtM? Makes the point clearly about what they were and what they are transitioning towards.

 

[Aber]

Yes, they are biologically males. Since I don't interact with most people's genitals, it's their presentation that more defines how I treat them, and I find transwomen to present more like women than men,

Really, jeans & t-shirt = man; make-up = woman?

Other posters have clearly pointed out that women are likely to use things like body shape for male/female discrimination.

 

[Ziggurat]

You just want to make sure that they can't be referred to by what they feel they are

Emily isn't the one trying to dictate other people's use of language, you are.