Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
One unclear incident, no evidence presented
Click to expand...
What do you mean, no evidence? Witness testimony is evidence. It's not proof, but it sure as ◊◊◊◊ is evidence. It's mostly what your own statistics rely on.
Thermal said:
nine years ago,
Click to expand...
Unless you want to claim things have changed which would prevent this or make it less likely, what's that got to do with anything?
Thermal said:
in a state of nearly 10 million...
Click to expand...
This is an example of a problem your statistics will never include. So you cannot use your statistics to argue that it's not a problem. You need to do so on some other basis. And so far, your basis seems to be that I only found one example.

Do you really think this is the only time it happened? That it never happens without making the news? Hell, do you think this person never made anyone else feel uncomfortable in any other bathrooms?
 
p0lka said:
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?
Click to expand...
I've never claimed they were mutually exclusive, whatever that even means. I have claimed that the rules matter, the labels don't. I have never objected to changing the labels along with the rules. But your claim that just changing the labels will make a difference is delusional. Park Run demonstrates that the labels don't matter, the rules do.
 
Thermal said:
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
Click to expand...
Do you really treat people differently, based on whether you perceive them to be more like women or more like men? How does your treatment vary, between the two groups?

I ask because "what does 'womanhood' mean, in practical terms?" is one of the great unanswered conundrums of the debate here. But it seems like you have cracked this code. You can tell at a glance what makes a person a woman rather than a man, and you even know how to treat women differently than how to treat men. Can you share these insights with the rest of us, so that we can also apply them?
 
Ziggurat said:
I've never claimed they were mutually exclusive, whatever that even means. I have claimed that the rules matter, the labels don't. I have never objected to changing the labels along with the rules. But your claim that just changing the labels will make a difference is delusional. Park Run demonstrates that the labels don't matter, the rules do.
Click to expand...
Here's a novel idea, let's make the labels conform to the rules?
 
p0lka said:
Here's a novel idea, let's make the labels conform to the rules?
Click to expand...
I have no objection to that. But it won't make any real difference. People are fighting about the rules. They will continue to fight about the rules, regardless of the labels. The rules have always been what matters, and they will always be the real battleground. Changing labels cannot prevent or avoid this fight, or change its outcome.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I will consider MtF/FtM, even though it's incontrovertibly false
Click to expand...
A lot of things are false. Sometimes ugly people think they are beautiful. But we can meet them halfway in the spirit of being good people, yeah?

Seriously, that's all I want out of this. There's so much ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ societal misery generated for no damn reason that I just want to be chill with everybody as much as possible.
 
Thermal said:
A lot of things are false. Sometimes ugly people think they are beautiful. But we can meet them halfway in the spirit of being good people, yeah?
Click to expand...
Why is lying to people being good? Why would I lie to them and tell them they're beautiful if they're ugly? Or even that they're not ugly when they are? Encouraging self-deception isn't being good. It's not a moral approach. Going up to an ugly person and telling them that they are ugly is rude and unnecessary and a bad thing to do, but lying to them isn't the only alternative to calling them ugly. In general, I don't need to give anyone my opinion about their appearance, particularly unsolicited.
Thermal said:
Seriously, that's all I want out of this. There's so much ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ societal misery generated for no damn reason that I just want to be chill with everybody as much as possible.
Click to expand...
I'm generally happy to be chill. But if the choice I'm offered is that I have to lie in order to be "chill", then I won't be chill.
 
p0lka said:
Here's a novel idea, let's make the labels conform to the rules?
Click to expand...
I prefer the status quo ante: Woman is a sex-based label.

It's already obvious that gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless. It's already obvious that every entitlement that trans women want is a sex-based entitlement. So there's no reason to pretend that "woman" isn't a sex-based label. Stick with the long-standing convention that "woman" means "adult human female", and this whole orwellian pretense of confusion over labels goes away.

And in conclusion, nobody is as confused about the labels as you pretend to be.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is lying to people being good? Why would I lie to them and tell them they're beautiful if they're ugly? Or even that they're not ugly when they are? Encouraging self-deception isn't being good. It's not a moral approach. Going up to an ugly person and telling them that they are ugly is rude and unnecessary and a bad thing to do, but lying to them isn't the only alternative to calling them ugly. In general, I don't need to give anyone my opinion about their appearance, particularly unsolicited.

I'm generally happy to be chill. But if the choice I'm offered is that I have to lie in order to be "chill", then I won't be chill.
Click to expand...
I don't think we have to *lie*. Just redefine a little without going way over the line.

I've learned to be cool with calling an (obviously male) transwoman "she", just by mentally adjusting to the secondary definition. It doesn't mean I need to scream at bystanders that she is "a real woman, you transphobe!11!1!!". I think there is a middle ground where we can all be OK without polarizing to our relative extremes. That's how I walked into the thread, and how I still hope to walk out of it.
 
theprestige said:
Do you really treat people differently, based on whether you perceive them to be more like women or more like men? How does your treatment vary, between the two groups?

I ask because "what does 'womanhood' mean, in practical terms?" is one of the great unanswered conundrums of the debate here. But it seems like you have cracked this code. You can tell at a glance what makes a person a woman rather than a man, and you even know how to treat women differently than how to treat men. Can you share these insights with the rest of us, so that we can also apply them?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure we went over all that many times? I know I have.
 
Thermal said:
I don't think we have to *lie*. Just redefine a little without going way over the line.

I've learned to be cool with calling an (obviously male) transwoman "she", just by mentally adjusting to the secondary definition. It doesn't mean I need to scream at bystanders that she is "a real woman, you transphobe!11!1!!". I think there is a middle ground where we can all be OK without polarizing to our relative extremes. That's how I walked into the thread, and how I still hope to walk out of it.
Click to expand...
As long as the middle ground doesn't involve overriding sex segregation by fiat self ID, I'm amenable.
 
Thermal said:
Pretty sure we went over all that many times? I know I have.
Click to expand...
No. Nobody has been over it. Not even you.

Outside of sex-based distinctions, I don't think anyone treats men and women differently according to their their degree of "gender expression". If they do, I don't think they should.

I was going to say that if they do, it's sexist, but we're not referencing sex here.

But okay, sure. Just name one thing you differently based on a person's gender expression of womanhood.
 
theprestige said:
No. Nobody has been over it. Not even you.

Outside of sex-based distinctions, I don't think anyone treats men and women differently according to their their degree of "gender expression". If they do, I don't think they should.

I was going to say that if they do, it's sexist, but we're not referencing sex here.

But okay, sure. Just name one thing you differently based on a person's gender expression of womanhood.
Click to expand...
I tend not to punch them in the face.
 
theprestige said:
Do you really treat people differently, based on whether you perceive them to be more like women or more like men? How does your treatment vary, between the two groups?

I ask because "what does 'womanhood' mean, in practical terms?" is one of the great unanswered conundrums of the debate here. But it seems like you have cracked this code. You can tell at a glance what makes a person a woman rather than a man, and you even know how to treat women differently than how to treat men. Can you share these insights with the rest of us, so that we can also apply them?
Click to expand...
Maybe he really is incapable of clocking a TIM when he sees one... a sort of trans-exclusive version of prosopagnosia? ;)
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I don't think we have to *lie*.
Click to expand...
But you want me to. You want me to consider Misty Hill as just an ordinary person who happens to have a gender expression different than his biological sex. Which is a lie, because I know that Misty Hill is a disturbed individual with weird fetishes and severe dysfunctions.
 
Thermal said:
More frequently than you'd think, yes.
Click to expand...
Then there's something wrong with you. And you sure as ◊◊◊◊ aren't just trying to be chill with everyone. People who are actually trying to be chill with everyone don't go around punching other people in the face.
 
Rolfe said:
I'll guarantee you there is not one trans-identifying man who will waltz happily into a space marked women or ladies, believing he is entirely at liberty to do so, who would then pause - even mentally, for a moment - at a sign saying female, thinking, I shouldn't really be here.
Click to expand...
Not one? That's one helluva guarantee—given the numbers involved—but I cannot think of any way to bet on this without first inventing telepathy and then deploying it to franchisees at great personal expense.
Thermal said:
Ummm... it never was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom