Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

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.

You keep losing the plot. I'm saying that the manager could not now remove this person from the bathroom. I did not say the manager couldn't check on them. The fact that the manager did not choose to escalate says nothing about whether they would currently be legally entitled to escalate. There is no "according to the manager" about that point.

...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.

No. I want the manager to have the right to ask this creepy as ◊◊◊◊ male to leave the women's bathroom.

So... nothing happened at all.

No. Something did happen. A trans identified male who does not pass as female, and gives off creepy as ◊◊◊◊ vibes, scared a girl in the women's bathroom. I think that's a problem. You are indifferent to that problem.

I'm guessing you were trying to find something more salacious, and this inexplicably empty story is all that came up?

As usual, you are wrong. I was trying to find out information on McDonalds policy, which I had no reason to think is salacious at all. Funny how you can only assume the worst of me. That's basically what your entire position rests upon.

 

[Pixel42]

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

Exhibitionism and voyeurism were (and in most places still are) illegal. In some places males are now free to indulge in them as much as they wish, as long as they commit them in [what used to be] female only spaces.

 

[Thermal]

You keep losing the plot. I'm saying that the manager could not now remove this person from the bathroom.

She could, then or now. Scaring a child, then getting loud and disruptive about it, is more than enough to warrant immediate expulsion.

But we don't even actually know what happened beyond two conflicting versions and no evidence. The truth could be either version, or somewhere in between, so it's kind of...?

I did not say the manager couldn't check on them. The fact that the manager did not choose to escalate says nothing about whether they would currently be legally entitled to escalate. There is no "according to the manager" about that point.

No. I want the manager to have the right to ask this creepy as ◊◊◊◊ male to leave the women's bathroom.

Creepy people in restrooms can be summarily ejected in the here and now. Places of public accommodation are not required to serve everyone.

No. Something did happen. A trans identified male who does not pass as female, and gives off creepy as ◊◊◊◊ vibes, scared a girl in the women's bathroom. I think that's a problem. You are indifferent to that problem.

The presence of a little girl has not been established. If she were there, we still don't know exactly what was done or said. For all we know, the little girl could have come out giggling, and it was her mother who hates tranny pervs, and exaggerated/ lied to the manager. We know nothing about the veracity here, at all. So as some kind of cautionary tale or whatever, it's about as weak as it gets.

If a little girl was being scared by anyone in any restroom, that is grounds for expulsion in this State.

{Eta: you keep repeating that I don't care, or am indifferent to problems that I express concern about. Please stop. Posting lies about my concerns is annoying.}

As usual, you are wrong. I was trying to find out information on McDonalds policy, which I had no reason to think is salacious at all.

We know McDonald's current policy. The story you chose says not a word about their past policy. it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion about McDonals policies that we were having, that you abruptly abandoned when you realized how far out in left field you were after I repeated it for the tenth time.

Funny how you can only assume the worst of me. That's basically what your entire position rests upon.

No, just trying to make some kind of sense of your arguments, beyond "I really hate those trannys and want to kick them out and publicly humiliate them at any oportunity".

{Eta: also, your repeated lying about what I do or don't care about or what I am indifferent to has me questioning your motives quite a bit}

 

[Thermal]

Exhibitionism and voyeurism were (and in most places still are) illegal. In some places males are now free to indulge in them as much as they wish, as long as they commit them in [what used to be] female only spaces.

No... no, still illegal here, regardless of gender identity.

And that's not what he said. He said "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." It was never illegal.

Eta: apologies, thought you were lionking.

 

[Ziggurat]

She could, then or now. Scaring a child, then getting loud and disruptive about it, is more than enough to warrant immediate expulsion.

On what basis? On the basis that they're a creepy male?

Sorry, that's transphobic and discrimination against a protected class.

But we don't even actually know what happened beyond two conflicting versions and no evidence.

Oh, bull ◊◊◊◊. We know which version we should conclude is probably true, because we know that Misty Hill is a liar, because we've already seen him change his story. Did you miss that bit?

Creepy people in restrooms can be summarily ejected in the here and now.

Only if they're actively misbehaving.

The presence of a little girl has not been established. If she were there, we still don't know exactly what was done or said. For all we know, the little girl could have come out giggling,

If she came out giggling from an encounter with Hill, I'd be even more worried.

If a little girl was being scared by anyone in any restroom, that is grounds for expulsion in this State.

I don't believe you. I think trying to do so risks legal action for discrimination against a protected class, and most businesses won't risk it without more cause than just being creepy. Let me remind you of what you said earlier:

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.

 

[p0lka]

Irrelevant to p0lka's claim.

Definitely relevant to my claim,

If a proprietor means to allow restroom access based on biological sex, say so clearly with the signage. Why choose the more ambiguous genered men/women wording if you adamantly don't want gender to factor in at all?

Definitely relevant, thanks Thermal.

 

[Thermal]

On what basis? On the basis that they're a creepy male?

Sorry, that's transphobic and discrimination against a protected class.

No, it's on the basis of being harassing a child, especially when isolated from their parents.

Your personal feelings about "creepiness" in this restroom incident are the very definition of tranny hate. What is on a Facebook or whatever page is irrelevant if this person was not exhibiting those behaviors in this public place.

Oh, bull ◊◊◊◊. We know which version we should conclude is probably true, because we know that Misty Hill is a liar, because we've already seen him change his story. Did you miss that bit?

Some people are better at speaking to reporters than others. Some get flustered and say things they don't mean. The story didn't change in the big elements, and certainly doesn't make the mom or manager unimpeachable. As I said, the truth is often in between.

Only if they're actively misbehaving.

Like scaring a lone child? Yeah.

If she came out giggling from an encounter with Hill, I'd be even more worried.

I don't believe you. I think trying to do so risks legal action for discrimination against a protected class, and most businesses won't risk it without more cause than just being creepy. Let me remind you of what you said earlier:

They may not want to make waves, true enough. But if the story was real, protecting an upset child would outweigh trans activists in the public eye.

In any event, the story is as weak an axample of anything as you can get. Nothing really happened, but you see it as an example of a problem. The only problem is not having the right to summarily eject one of those creepy trannys. I don't consider that a problem. I do consider it a problem that you want to be able to do this so badly.

Eta: your eta: yes, bring it on and challenge it on those grounds. Not yours ("I hate those creepy trannys"), but on the ones I put forth. Make it a battle and see it through.

 

[p0lka]

You've lost the plot. In the Park Run case, which you claimed has a loophole, the label is sex but the rules are gender, which is exactly backwards from what you describe here. And it's only a "loophole" in the sense that the rules are more permissive than the label suggests. But the problem isn't the mismatch. The problem is males entering female spaces and categories, which the rules permit. Changing the labels doesn't matter. Changing the rules does.

Worrying about gender labelled segregation and all the loopholes that can be used to get around that, whilst not realising that sex labelled segregation does not have any loopholes to get around, is surprising to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's on the basis of being harassing a child, especially when isolated from their parents.

No. Nobody claimed that he harassed the child. You are inventing facts to justify your position.

Your personal feelings about "creepiness" in this restroom incident are the very definition of tranny hate.

Are the girl's feelings of fear the very definition of tranny hate?

Some people are better at speaking to reporters than others. Some get flustered and say things they don't mean. The story didn't change in the big elements, and certainly doesn't make the mom or manager unimpeachable. As I said, the truth is often in between.

Or, he's a liar.

I'm going with he's a liar. As would anyone else who examined his history.

Like scaring a lone child? Yeah.

They may not want to make waves, true enough. But if the story was real, protecting an upset child would outweigh trans activists in the public eye.

I wouldn't risk it if I were a business owner in New Jersey. God only knows how the public is going to interpret events that they may only hear about second or third hand. And it doesn't even matter what public opinion is if the law cracks down on you for protected class discrimination.

In any event, the story is as weak an axample of anything as you can get. Nothing really happened,

You keep saying nothing happened, because you don't care that this guy scared a child. Just be up front about that: you don't care.

The only problem is not having the right to summarily eject one of those creepy trannys. I don't consider that a problem.

Of course you don't. That girl should have shut the ◊◊◊◊ up and accepted the presence of an obvious male in the bathroom with her. How dare she complain.

 

[p0lka]

So here's an example of a problem that occurred in New Jersey due to a trans identifying male entering a women's bathroom (in this case, at a McDonalds):

Transgender Woman Says She Was Harassed and Told to Leave After Using Bathroom at NJ McDonald's

A Delaware transgender woman says she was harassed and told to leave a Gloucester County McDonald’s after she used the women’s restroom.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

According to the manager (who I find more credible, seeing as how the trans person contradicted himself when talking to reporters), the manager approached the trans person because of a complaint from a girl about his presence. Note that no illegal activity is alleged. This incident WILL NOT show up in any police reports. But it's still a problem. Misty Hill does not pass as female, not even close. I would be incredibly uncomfortable with his presence in a women's bathroom at the same time as my child. And obviously the child was uncomfortable too. Now, Thermal might not care about this sort of case. After all, Misty didn't assault the child. But that is, frankly, not good enough.

Oh, and you can learn more than you probably ever wanted to know about the sort of person Misty Hill actually is here (including a rather expected fascination with menstrual products):

Misty Lana Hill / Brian Casey Pierce / diracdrynx

I've never made one of these posts before, so if I ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, let me know. I'm usually more for commenting than making original content, sorry. Farms, meet Brian, a beyootiful lady. http://archive.is/WyCNN /cow/ already talked about this one back in March, but he's been up to so much, I...

kiwifarms.st

That child had good instincts to be afraid of him.

So they were spooked about a new thing and nothing happened? Throughout history people have been spooked about new things, kids will probably learn about it in school if not from their parents.

 

[Ziggurat]

Worrying about gender labelled segregation and all the loopholes that can be used to get around that, whilst not realising that sex labelled segregation does not have any loopholes to get around, is surprising to me.

Are you trying to be wrong every time?

Park Run had sex labelled segregation. And by your own words, they had a loophole. So for you to claim that sex labelled segregation does not have any loopholes is just a stunning self-contradiction. Of course sex labelled segregation can have loopholes, because the rules DO NOT have to match the label.

The rules matter. The label doesn't. Park Run is an example of that. We have no counter-examples.

 

[Thermal]

No. Nobody claimed that he harassed the child. You are inventing facts to justify your position.

Are the girl's feelings of fear the very definition of tranny hate?

Or, he's a liar.

I'm going with he's a liar. As would anyone else who examined his history.

I wouldn't risk it if I were a business owner in New Jersey. God only knows how the public is going to interpret events that they may only hear about second or third hand. And it doesn't even matter what public opinion is if the law cracks down on you for protected class discrimination.

You keep saying nothing happened, because you don't care that this guy scared a child. Just be up front about that: you don't care.

Of course you don't. That girl should have shut the ◊◊◊◊ up and accepted the presence of an obvious male in the bathroom with her. How dare she complain.

I don't know that the child even ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ exists, much less why and to what degree she was scared or what she said to her mother, or how the mother chose to recount all this to the manager. I'm not particularly entranced with exploring your hypothetical imaginings being stapled onto this story.

 

[p0lka]

Are you trying to be wrong every time?

Park Run had sex labelled segregation. And by your own words, they had a loophole. So for you to claim that sex labelled segregation does not have any loopholes is just a stunning self-contradiction. Of course sex labelled segregation can have loopholes, because the rules DO NOT have to match the label.

The rules matter. The label doesn't. Park Run is an example of that. We have no counter-examples.

Are you paying attention?
The parkrun was a sex labelled event where the rules negated the sex labels, therefore not actually a sex segregated event. I'm gonna reply as you do.......... It's dead easy to get this.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you paying attention?
The parkrun was a sex labelled event where the rules negated the sex labels,

Exactly. The labels DO NOT MATTER. The rules matter.

therefore not actually a sex segregated event.

Exactly. Because labelling it a sex segregated event doesn't make it a sex segregated event. Only the rules can do that. Labelling something with sex makes no difference. Only changing the rules will make a difference.

I'm gonna reply as you do.......... It's dead easy to get this.

And yet, you still somehow manage to ◊◊◊◊ it up, every single time.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know that the child even ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ exists, much less why and to what degree she was scared or what she said to her mother, or how the mother chose to recount all this to the manager. I'm not particularly entranced with exploring your hypothetical imaginings being stapled onto this story.

The thing that keeps happening isn't actually happening.

 

[Thermal]

The thing that keeps happening isn't actually happening.

One unclear incident, no evidence presented, nine years ago, in a state of nearly 10 million... and you think this is evidence something that keeps happening?

Can you at least come up with something more substantial? I mean this is a country of a third of a billion. You should be able to dump a few hundred stories a year of well videoed "problems", in addition to the thousands without clear evidence. You know, if they existed.

 

[p0lka]

Exactly. The labels DO NOT MATTER. The rules matter.

Exactly. Because labelling it a sex segregated event doesn't make it a sex segregated event. Only the rules can do that. Labelling something with sex makes no difference. Only changing the rules will make a difference.

And yet, you still somehow manage to ◊◊◊◊ it up, every single time.

I asked you in an earlier post If I had said they were mutually exclusive at any point and you said not relevant. Yet you are still trying to make them mutually exclusive?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Correct. And?

It makes your prior statement false.
You said:

It's almost like they don't see transwomen as men, innit?

Clearly, that's not the case - they DO see transwomen as men, and so do you. Nobody actually perceives them as being actual women.

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.

You say this... but I doubt that this is as true as you think it is. I'm sure you alter your behavior some in order to make them feel good, that's reasonable to a degree. Sure, you probably call them "ma'am" or similar, and maybe you open the door for them. But I bet there are tons of ways that you still interact with them as males rather than females. I bet you tend to be more protective toward females than males, regardless of their presentation. I bet you'd interact differently with a transwoman in your self-defense class for females, and I bet you'd monitor their sparring with females very differently than if it were a competition between two females. I'm speculating, of course - but I ask you to give it some real thought. Because I bet that you don't interact with them as if they're females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Fine. What "blatantly bigoted" reasons are being argued?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

No. Because I want the dignity of having a word that identifies my sex while also acknowledging my humanity. I want to retain the word that distinguishes me from sows and bitches.

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

I will consider MtF/FtM, even though it's incontrovertibly false.