Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

They generally don't. And since McDonald's has no policy for its individual franchisees restroom signage, your statement still makes no sense.

It *only* matters what the proprietor means.

Let's be clear: Do you think proprietors should be legally allowed to enforce sex segregation in their restrooms?

 

[Ziggurat]

I do believe they did, now that the date is clear, based on the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" principle, which is alive and well (barring protected class discrimination). Just being loud or disruptive in NJ is enough to legally get the heave-ho.

You still don’t get it. The proprietor should be allowed to eject him from the women’s restroom simply for being there. NJ law says you can’t. Making people uncomfortable is a problem, but the law doesn’t account for that if they aren’t being loud or disruptive. But someone like this doesn’t need to be in order to make people uncomfortable.

This problem will not show up in your statistics, so your statistics do not prove this problem doesn’t exist.

 

[smartcooky]

Thermal, has it ever occurred to you that offensive behaviour in women’s restrooms in your state are no longer reported as crimes because of your stupid transgender laws?

Its almost certain that happens, not because women are OK with it, but because they have self-selected out of those situations. Its what my daughter's and some of their friends have done. I know this for a fact, and I know exactly why they have done this.

But no matter...he has made it clear he thinks they are violent, criminal, tranny- bashing bigots for not wanting to be vulnerable in a confined space with 6ft+ mentally ill males.

 

[Thermal]

A delusion is a delusion. They all need treatment, not enablement.

But okay, sure. Trans identifying males get by just fine, with no real distress, if they're not allowed in women's restrooms. Is that your argument?

No.

Fleshed out: you were talking about someone suffering under what is usually a debilitating condition. I countered that being trans is not suffering under a debilitating condition. There is no extension of "therefore, whatever bathroom they use is just hunky dory and swellzies" that you gratuitously added on. A transperson can suffer discomfort, ostracization, and more, without being comparable to the suffering of a paranoid schizophrenic.

ETA: also, I don't consider transpeople to be a faceless homogenous blob. I think they would experience a whole spectrum of reactions, from being embarrassed and uncomfortable to being actively ostracized and treated with indignity to a casual 'whatever, just gotta pee'.

No. Just no.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, another thing that just doesn’t happen……

Fascinating. What should we conclude about this blip on the local news from 9 years ago, involving some transgender tourist and a non-event with a McDonalds manager that nothing came of, then or since?

 

[Thermal]

Thermal, has it ever occurred to you that offensive behaviour in women’s restrooms in your state are no longer reported as crimes because of your stupid transgender laws?

Yes, it did. Then I realized it was a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bonehead stupid thing to think, and was shamed by by dimwittedness. You?

 

[Thermal]

Let's be clear: Do you think proprietors should be legally allowed to enforce sex segregation in their restrooms?

Yes, I think they should. I think they should have the right to say that they value the comfort of everyone, and welcome their transgender guests, but ask that patrons use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex, and thank you for your understanding. Then they can face the inevitable ◊◊◊◊ storm that they have invited to their front door, as well as the crushing financial penalties they are likely to be found liable for, with the laws as they are.

 

[Thermal]

You still don’t get it. The proprietor should be allowed to eject him from the women’s restroom simply for being there. NJ law says you can’t.

At the time of the story, the proprietor (or in the case of this story, his agent) could absolutely do so.

Making people uncomfortable is a problem, but the law doesn’t account for that if they aren’t being loud or disruptive. But someone like this doesn’t need to be in order to make people uncomfortable.

In Jersey, the right is to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. The exception is violating their civil rights via discrimination of a protected class, etc.

This problem will not show up in your statistics, so your statistics do not prove this problem doesn’t exist.

I don't have statistics. Others do.

Your reasoning is interesting, though. "If you let them in, all hell breaks loose!"

*they are let in. All hell does not break loose*

"Yeah but it really did, it just doesn't show up in crime statistics!"

"Then how do you know it is happening? Thousands of post reporting the atrocities on Twitter or something?"

"... I'm telling ya, they are cross dressing pervs!"


How did you run across that McDonalds story, anyway? A nothing little blip on the local news, of no consequence, yet you bring it up 9 years later?

I don't suppose you are trawling the internet for NJ trans crime stories, are you? And that's all you are coming up with?

Nah, I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

 

[lionking]

Yes, it did. Then I realized it was a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bonehead stupid thing to think

Of course you did…..

 

[Thermal]

Of course you did…..

You;re right, I was being facetious, because I knew that crimes aren't erased off police blotters based on gender laws, so the half-thought never fully formed.

 

[Ziggurat]

At the time of the story, the proprietor (or in the case of this story, his agent) could absolutely do so.

Not relevant to my point. They could not now.

In Jersey, the right is to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. The exception is violating their civil rights via discrimination of a protected class, etc.

Which this would be.

Your reasoning is interesting, though. "If you let them in, all hell breaks loose!"

*they are let in. All hell does not break loose*

This is an actual problem. I just demonstrated it to you. You want to ignore it, or pretend that there's nothing wrong with that situation.

"Then how do you know it is happening?

Because I just gave you an example of it happening.

How did you run across that McDonalds story, anyway?

By googling McDonald's transgender bathroom.

A nothing little blip on the local news, of no consequence, yet you bring it up 9 years later?

Because it's an example of a problem that you deny exists.

I don't suppose you are trawling the internet for NJ trans crime stories, are you?

There was no crime, so why would this show up in searches for crimes? You didn't really think that accusation through, did you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I think they should. I think they should have the right to say that they value the comfort of everyone, and welcome their transgender guests, but ask that patrons use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex, and thank you for your understanding. Then they can face the inevitable ◊◊◊◊ storm that they have invited to their front door, as well as the crushing financial penalties they are likely to be found liable for, with the laws as they are.

You just contradicted yourself. theprestige asked if they should have the legal right to do so. If you want them to face legal punishment, then you do not in fact think they should have that legal right.

This sort of incoherence is characteristic of all your thinking on the topic.

 

[Aber]

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

And Parkrun deciding not to change anything, when the "loophole" was pointed out.

 

[lionking]

You;re right, I was being facetious, because I knew that crimes aren't erased off police blotters based on gender laws, so the half-thought never fully formed.

Oh really? How do you know that when transwomen entering women’s restrooms is no longer an offence? I understand policing, and I am very confident that police would no longer respond to biological men being in women’s spaces because it’s no longer ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal.

 

[Brainster]

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

Just wanted to point out that you would have a hard time pointing out any of the successful progressive movements of the 1900s, from women's suffrage to desegregation, that suffered such a dramatic loss in public support. The questions don't map perfectly, but there are certainly a lot more green check marks to red xs in the first poll compared to the last one.

 

[smartcooky]

Just wanted to point out that you would have a hard time pointing out any of the successful progressive movements of the 1900s, from women's suffrage to desegregation, that suffered such a dramatic loss in public support. The questions don't map perfectly, but there are certainly a lot more green check marks to red xs in the first poll compared to the last one.

Indeed! And in only five years after over 20 years of madness. The collapse of support, even among Liberals, is dramatic.

Worth noting how things have changed in the 18/24 demographic. This rather makes a lie of the claim by @Ivor the Engineer that when old people start dying-off, attitudes will change. These statistics show the opposite is true - its been a complete turnaround. The tolerance for males cosplaying as women is rapidly diminishing.

By 2030, with the pressure coming on from UK's Supreme Court ruling, and stubborn establishments and organizations being sued for their lack of compliance, I would expect not just this part of the poll, but the whole of Rolfe's poll will be wall-to-wall red crosses.

On that last bit, I sincerely hope that when FWS, Sex Matters and JK Rowing start suing, the NHS will be the first target.

 

[Rolfe]

That had struck me too. Youthful idealism gets a shot of reality.

The Times has a thundering editorial on this today.

The NHS must accept the reality of sex

The law is now clear that the definition of sex is biological, yet Sandie Peggie’s absurd tribunal is dragging out an ugly chapter of public discourse

www.thetimes.com

 

[Thermal]

Not relevant to my point. They could not now.

Which this would be.

Not according to the McDonald's manager, who was told a child was being scared by someone, and the manager didn't escalate it. Kind of a non-event.

This is an actual problem. I just demonstrated it to you. You want to ignore it, or pretend that there's nothing wrong with that situation.

...this is the kind of nothingburger problem you are concerned about? Really? OK, then you're right. I have completely misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about problems of some significant import. You just want the right for people to be douchebags. Which... I mean ok. Not something I'm interested in arguing about though.

Because I just gave you an example of it happening.

...right... right which was nothing.

By googling McDonald's transgender bathroom.

Because it's an example of a problem that you deny exists.

The sacred right to be a douchebag wasn't on my radar, conceded.

There was no crime, so why would this show up in searches for crimes? You didn't really think that accusation through, did you?

Yeah... yeah, google searches, especially when not coming up with many results, will often throw up stories that are close, even when missing keywords. I'm surprised that this would be news to you.

So... nothing happened at all. I'm guessing you were trying to find something more salacious, and this inexplicably empty story is all that came up?

 

[Thermal]

You just contradicted yourself. theprestige asked if they should have the legal right to do so. If you want them to face legal punishment, then you do not in fact think they should have that legal right.

This sort of incoherence is characteristic of all your thinking on the topic.

You're serious, aren't you?

 

[Thermal]

Oh really? How do you know that when transwomen entering women’s restrooms is no longer an offence? I understand policing, and I am very confident that police would no longer respond to biological men being in women’s spaces because it’s no longer ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal.

Ummm... it never was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal. Did you know that?

You guys have really tripped out into some weird fantasy land lately.