Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

I'm not the one who's lying. Here's what you said. "Restrooms." Public toilets, in non-US speak. Nothing about nudity.

Perhaps you could have consulted your own post in your own words that I was responding to? It's a thought.

He says that, but then he adds that in his opinion the reasons given by posters in this thread do not pass his test of "good enough
" therefore he rescinds that concession and decrees that we should all have to put up with any hairy-arsed man who wants to get changed with us.

Do you understand the hilited? Do you understand that you are lying about my position on that matter, and playing dumb when called on it?

You have repeatedly declared that while you're sympathetic in principle to the idea of women having sex-segregated toilets, you have decided that the reasons given by posters in this thread don't meet your purity standards, so you withdraw your support for this provision.

Another lie. I don't withdrawal anything. I have said that I challenged your side's arguments... well, when they are repulsive. I haven't really changed my position at all, except to examine it more closely.

 

[smartcooky]

It's the same goddamned evidence as presented upthread, that no one else finds as uniquely challenging as you do to keep up with.

Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Others were reported by CNN, NBC, and others where no increase was reported in any jurisdiction adopting a gender open policy, but let's see what you want to do with the UCLA Law study before I go running any more errands for your lazy ass.

Hilarious. If that's your evidence, then is laughable. Those percentages are barely beyond the margins for error, if at all!

Also, this is transgender people being asked if they have been harrassed.... ahem... does the term "Turkeys voting for Christmas" ring a bell?

Try harder!

 

[Thermal]

Hilarious. If that's your evidence, then is laughable. Those percentages are barely beyond the margins for error, if at all!

Also, this is transgender people being asked if they have been harrassed.... ahem... does the term "Turkeys voting for Christmas" ring a bell?

Try harder!

"No increase" is no increase. Massechusetts specifically uses the number 'zero' in reported increases.

You have something more robust, I take it? Or just bluffing again? I'm all ears.

Where were we? Ah yes, your multiple versions of your daughters being attacked by transwomen (but sometimes not) and we hadn't even gotten to your other claims of your daughters pepper spraying people all over the greater Nelson area that you claimed on other threads. Do they wear capes and masks while pepper spraying the ◊◊◊◊ out of the population at large?

 

[lionking]

"No increase" is no increase. Massechusetts specifically uses the number 'zero' in reported increases.

You have something more robust, I take it? Or just bluffing again? I'm all ears.

Where were we? Ah yes, your multiple versions of your daughters being attacked by transwomen (but sometimes not) and we hadn't even gotten to your other claims of your daughters pepper spraying people all over the greater Nelson area that you claimed on other threads. Do they wear capes and masks while pepper spraying the ◊◊◊◊ out of the population at large?

Your constant ridicule of other posters isn’t working well for you.

 

[Thermal]

Your constant ridicule of other posters isn’t working well for you.

Disagreed. It's working fine.

Anything on topic to contribute?

 

[Pixel42]

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.

Keep in mind that you are a male who appears to be under the impression that the only difference between males and females is their genitals.

What makes no difference to you may make a big difference to a female who is well aware of all the ways in which males differ from females and may consequently be unwilling to accept that an obviously male security guard is entitled to strip search her, even if you do think they are presenting more like a woman (whatever the hell that means - still waiting for clarification).

 

[smartcooky]

Your constant ridicule of other posters isn’t working well for you.

Abusing the people you disagree with is the last resort of the desperate.

Keep in mind that you are a male who appears to be under the impression that the only difference between males and females is their genitals.

This nails it. A total lack of nuance and undersanding!

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps you could have consulted your own post in your own words that I was responding to? It's a thought.

Do you understand the hilited? Do you understand that you are lying about my position on that matter, and playing dumb when called on it?

Another lie. I don't withdrawal anything. I have said that I challenged your side's arguments... well, when they are repulsive. I haven't really changed my position at all, except to examine it more closely.

Your arguments have descended into such blatant bad faith that I will no longer be engaging with you.

 

[smartcooky]

Your arguments have descended into such blatant bad faith that I will no longer be engaging with you.

Likewise. I've had a gutsful!

 

[smartcooky]

Thermal's delicate flowers are at it again....

 

[Rolfe]

I think I mentioned that above. The mother in that incident has described the detail on Twitter. She had gone with her daughter to an M&S store, not sure exactly which one, but it seems to have been in Ayrshire. So Scotland again. The girl is 14 and the plan was to get her first bra, something which generally involves a trained bra fitter. The pair were however merely browsing the lingerie department, and at the time in question the mother was behind a display pillar and she's sure the man didn't see her. The approach was made to the girl, not the mother, and the mother is certain that the man thought the girl was unaccompanied.

The approach was made from behind and the mother said it was clear from his voice (he said something like "Can I help you?") that this was a man, before she turned round and saw him. He was over six feet tall and quite obviously male. The girl was freaked out and the pair left the store. However the mother made a complaint and acquired more detail about the employee.

This is very abnormal behaviour. Shop assistants in M&S do not normally approach customers who have not indicated that they need assistance. If you do need assistance you have to go and find someone, who will usually be doing something else like restocking or tidying shelves, and actively ask for help. Even if an assistant is tidying a shelf right by where you're browsing she won't engage with you unless you initiate it. The only exception might be if the customer is doing something improper or suspicious.

The man in question was not "deployed" to the lingerie department. His deployment was to homewares (fine) and women's clothing (not fine in my opinion but there you go) which are located on a different floor to the lingerie department. M&S layouts are normally designed so that the lingerie department is not somewhere you'd walk through going from one part of the store to another, but there he was. And he thought he saw an unaccompanied 14 year old girl looking at bras. And he didn't apparently think it was in any way inappropriate to approach her and offer unasked-for help? What was he even doing there in the first place?

The mother asked M&S to review its policies to ensure that no male staff, regardless of presentation, are allowed to be on the lingerie department at all and certainly not allowed to approach customers who haven't asked for assistance. M&S refuses to do that. The apology was very weaselly, and although they offered a pre-arranged appointment to the mother and daughter where they would be guaranteed to be attended to by an actual woman, they have refused to implement that as policy for all customers. They have also refused to say if they have any male people employed as bra fitters (the man in this incident wasn't).

This is absolutely outrageous. This is the behaviour of a predator and this man needs his hard drive checked. But M&S put his special feelz above the sensibilities of a young teenager going for her first bra fitting. I can tell you, the only people you want to see when you're that teenager (been there, done that) is your mother and a motherly middle-aged woman who has fitted scores of young girls for their first bra and isn't creepy in the slightest.

I hope this boycott takes off. Something needs to be done to curb these creepos and the businesses that enable them.

 

[Rolfe]

I see someone has noted that M&S was being sent furious letters about men being allowed in the women's changing room as early as 2017. It was 2017 or thereabouts when I went to my local M&S with a skimpy Laura Ashley sundress which I used to wear without a bra, but advancing age meant that really couldn't go on. It was inevitable that bra straps would show, and I was looking for a bra as near to the colour of the dress as possible.

I found a friendly assistant and I was in and out of that changing cubicle a dozen times with different bras, asking for an opinion on how much could be seen. The woman went out on to the shop floor and found more bras the right colour, and eventually I got one that was just right. If there had been a man there, regardless of "presentation", I would have been mortified and left the shop immediately. I had no idea at that time that this was something that might happen.

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose women wanting men kept out of their intimate spaces in case these sort of things happen are horrible bigots, by the lights of some posters here. Notably, one menstruation/panty-liner fetishist in the thread is the infamous "Tickle", the plaintiff in the case currently going on in Australia.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1952729588510908470

 

[Ziggurat]

You're on fire now! 3... count them three... out of 42,000 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ McDonalds franchisees found male and female signage to put on their doors
...
Your claim that 'McDonalds uses Male/female signs' continues to be factually wrong.

It's factually correct. No claim was made about how many franchises do that.

And the point was never how many used the signs, but what happens when they use the signs. And by your own admission, the signs don't keep out the trans identified males, because the rules don't prohibit them. That's the point. You're actually in agreement. But you're so caught up in your opposition that you can't even recognize that.

 

[Ziggurat]

"No increase" is no increase. Massechusetts specifically uses the number 'zero' in reported increases.

And once again, I have to point out to you that the problem isn't just reported crimes.

 

[Rolfe]

Women aren't even reporting rape because they don't think their report will be taken seriously or properly dealt with. The problem in women's intimate spaces isn't actual crime reported to the police, it's low-level discomfort caused by the presence of men, and self-exclusion because of that, and medium level harrassment and boundary-breaching. Women prefer to take themselves out of these situations rather than call the police to someone who will in any case be long gone before they get there. There's also the issue that voyeurism and exposure, definitely sex crimes, suddenly don't count if the person committing these acts is in a women's intimate space and claims to be a woman.

 

[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.

View attachment 62755

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.

The M&S incident took place in March. The store in question appears to have been identified as the one in Ayr. Now people are coming forward to say they have seen this man in the store, in the lingerie department, with no other members of staff in sight, as recently a six weeks or so ago. It would appear that M&S haven't even had a quiet word about the appropriateness of his behaviour.

 

[p0lka]

The categories for registration were segregated.

The labels were sex based. That was your claim: sex-based labels would cause people to segregate by sex.

They did not.

There's no data to make that conclusion. Maybe lots of trans people that didn't read the rules joined their own sex category? Maybe after reading the rules lots of female gays joined the male category and lots of male gays joined the female category? Maybe the spooky tras read the rules and joined whatever they wanted?

Your excuse is that the rules didn't require them to. But that's precisely my point: the rules matter, the labels don't. Park Run is an example of that. They used sex-based labels, but since the rules did not enforce sex segregation, sex segregation didn't happen. The labels made no difference.

Rules matter. Labels don't.

Exactly: the rules. Not the labels.

Even now, you can't get this difference through your head.

I didn't as far as I'm aware in this thread say that they were mutually exclusive, correct me if I'm wrong?

Yeah rules matter, the parkrun problem was caused by the rules not being in sync with the labels. Having a loophole.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's no data to make that conclusion. Maybe lots of trans people that didn't read the rules joined their own sex category? Maybe after reading the rules lots of female gays joined the male category and lots of male gays joined the female category? Maybe the spooky tras read the rules and joined whatever they wanted?

That's a whole lot of cope.

I didn't as far as I'm aware in this thread say that they were mutually exclusive, correct me if I'm wrong?

Not relevant.

Yeah rules matter, the parkrun problem was caused by the rules not being in sync with the labels. Having a loophole.

If all you change is the label, then everything will have that loophole. And the problem is not that the label and the rules were out of sync. If the label had been "women" instead of "female", you would still have a problem, because a lot of females do not like males intruding on their categories or spaces whether the label is "female" or "women".

 

[Thermal]

And once again, I have to point out to you that the problem isn't just reported crimes.

You're not pointing anything out. You're engaging in whataboutism.

Please follow the exchange back. theprestige congratulated my state for not experiencing the scare stories presented. I pointed out that no jurisdictions where we have any data report them either. Countering by taking the goal posts for a walk is irrelevant.