Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Most schizophrenics aren't debilitated, as long they're under proper treatment and adhere to their medication schedule. My bff's schizophrenic sibling lived by themself their entire adult life, kept a job, and did just fine as long as they kept to their med schedule and had regular visits with their psychiatrist.

A male person who flees "girly" on the inside doesn't actually suffer anything at all by not being allowed to use female intimate spaces. At worst, it's a bit of a blow to their ego that other people don't feel compelled to pretend that they're anything other than male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Wait. Back that up.

Let's talk about Darren Merager and WiSpa. Merager had multiple felonies for sex offenses, including exposure, prior to them identifying as transgender and spending 30 minutes at the DMV to change the marker on their ID at their request. Nothing else was required - in CA anyone can change their sex on their ID on request for any reason.

After that ID change, Merager went to a nude Korean spa, and entered the female side of the facility with their penis and testicles visible to others. Females in the facility complained that there was a male in the female side of the spa. Much social media back and forth incurred. Police put out a BOLO, Merager was eventually charged and tried.

Merager was found to be not guilty because... their ID says "F", and they're a transgender person, therefore they did nothing wrong.

The laws in CA give precedence to gender identity. Because of that, Merager now has the legal right to engage in indecent exposure as long as they only do so in female intimate spaces and not in public.

I think this is a problem with the law. Many females and a lot of males think this is a problem with the law. The law has now legalized exhibitionism as long as the perpetrator claims to be trans. That means that there will be no charges when a male exposes themselves to females without consent in female intimate spaces.

Based on your comment here... it's a bonehead stupid thing to think that the law is a problem, and we should all be ashamed of our dimwittedness.

Yes, yes, I know, you've repeatedly said that your desire to let males use female spaces on their say-so is limited only to restrooms. The fact that this makes it easier for males to engage in voyeurism, and to violate female boundaries, and to creep on females, and gives them easier access to females in vulnerable situations doesn't matter to you... because you haven't seen any criminal charges against those males with transgender identities. "No increase in reported crimes" doesn't mean that the offenses haven't occurred, because they're no longer considered crimes in the first place. But that observation, apparently, is shameful and dimwitted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Dude, they're not "erased" because they never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ make it to the police blotters in the first place. Because the stupid ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ law makes it LEGAL for males to engage in actions that were previously considered crimes!

FFS, legalizing marijuana results in pot-related activities not being reported as crimes. That doesn't mean that the pot-related activities aren't happening. Pot-related activities have *increased* since legalization... but they're not reported as crimes.

Give this some thought. Treat it as a thought exercise. Imagine that NJ decriminalizes shoplifting of items under $50. Per freshly minted law, if a person takes a $40 item from a store without paying, it's not considered a crime. You look at the reported crime stats from before the decriminalization, and the stats from after... and you conclude that shoplifting has decreased. Do you think that's a good conclusion? Or do you see a potential flaw in the way you're trying to examine the issue?

Now add in a chilling effect, and imagine that any store proprietor who complains about inventory loss as a result of this change in law is lambasted on social media and subjected to harassment and abuse. Imagine that the proprietors who complain about the law change are declaimed as bigoted classist evil jerks who want to hurt poor people who can't afford stuff. How do you think that would impact the reporting of shoplifting that is above $50?

 

[Thermal]

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.

Come on dude. I don't expect you to have any feelings about Hill one way or the other. Be repulsed if you want. Cross the street to avoid her, whatever. Just don't go out of your way to be adversarial. Live and let live.

 

[Thermal]

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.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Thermal]

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148bdcadd7b04934528e0a

That was a restroom being considered a seperate and secure premises, while arguing that the whack job didn't commit defiant trespass.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Think this through.

Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in public?
Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in a female shower at the local gym if that male identifies as a man?
Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in a female shower at the local gym if that male identifies as a woman?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

If we that a male that looks like a male, is shaped like a male, and sounds like a male is creepy for going into a female restroom and making a child feel scared and uncomfortable... that's "hate"?

Do you not see a problem with this situation at all, Thermal?

 

[Thermal]

Wait. Back that up.

Let's talk about Darren Merager and WiSpa. Merager had multiple felonies for sex offenses, including exposure, prior to them identifying as transgender and spending 30 minutes at the DMV to change the marker on their ID at their request. Nothing else was required - in CA anyone can change their sex on their ID on request for any reason.

After that ID change, Merager went to a nude Korean spa, and entered the female side of the facility with their penis and testicles visible to others. Females in the facility complained that there was a male in the female side of the spa. Much social media back and forth incurred. Police put out a BOLO, Merager was eventually charged and tried.

Merager was found to be not guilty because... their ID says "F", and they're a transgender person, therefore they did nothing wrong.

No, the case had nothing to do with his gender, and he was referred to as he and she without incident. The charges were lewd and lascivious behavior (+/-), and the jury found that it was not well enough established that he was sexually gratifying himself.

The laws in CA give precedence to gender identity. Because of that, Merager now has the legal right to engage in indecent exposure as long as they only do so in female intimate spaces and not in public.

Not the finding.

Also, the Wi spa welcomed transgender clients. I still have not heard how they were usually accommodated.

I think this is a problem with the law. Many females and a lot of males think this is a problem with the law. The law has now legalized exhibitionism as long as the perpetrator claims to be trans. That means that there will be no charges when a male exposes themselves to females without consent in female intimate spaces.

Based on your comment here... it's a bonehead stupid thing to think that the law is a problem, and we should all be ashamed of our dimwittedness.

Yes, yes, I know, you've repeatedly said that your desire to let males use female spaces on their say-so is limited only to restrooms. The fact that this makes it easier for males to engage in voyeurism, and to violate female boundaries, and to creep on females, and gives them easier access to females in vulnerable situations doesn't matter to you... because you haven't seen any criminal charges against those males with transgender identities. "No increase in reported crimes" doesn't mean that the offenses haven't occurred, because they're no longer considered crimes in the first place. But that observation, apparently, is shameful and dimwitted.

If you are going to crow about all of the increased offences, and assure us they are taking place, then yes, you have a burden to demonstrate that. Imagination is not an impressive data point.

 

[Thermal]

If we that a male that looks like a male, is shaped like a male, and sounds like a male is creepy for going into a female restroom and making a child feel scared and uncomfortable... that's "hate"?

Do you not see a problem with this situation at all, Thermal?

Of course I do. I just don't know that any of it is real.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Why do you seem to have endless compassion for males with transgender identities? To the point where you'll happily suggest that anyone who presents cases of misbehavior on their part must be making it up or exaggerating or cherry picking.

You just keep excusing problematic behavior that increases risk and discomfort to females, and you evince no compassion or consideration for females at all Thermal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

It's evidence that the thing you have repeatedly insisted never ever happens not once does actually happen.

 

[Thermal]

Think this through.

Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in public?
Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in a female shower at the local gym if that male identifies as a man?
Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in a female shower at the local gym if that male identifies as a woman?

Since I have steadfastly maintained that in areas where nudity is expected, sex segregation should remain strong....

Oh, never-ending. I'm sick to death of repeating it only to have you accuse me of supporting mixed sex showers for the hundredth time.

Listen to me or don't, but don't make ◊◊◊◊ up about me.

 

[Thermal]

It's evidence that the thing you have repeatedly insisted never ever happens not once does actually happen.

It is not. I have never even once said a transperson has entered a restroom and.... something happened, although we have no idea what. As far as we know, a McDonalds manager checked on a customer complaint in a restroom and not much more verifiably happened in any direction. And that was nine years ago.

This is your great fear?

Eta: oh, and "never ever happens"? Bull ◊◊◊◊. What I said is that it is not seen to increase, as the Slippery Slope Chicken Littles keep screeching about here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You have got to be kidding me.

I'm absolutely not. Several of us have presented a plethora of reasons for why we don't want males of any sort, regardless of how they think about themselves, to be given right of access to female single-sex spaces including restrooms. They've run the gamut from a desire for dignity and modesty, to the need to be able to address menstrual and pregnancy and clothing related issues without males present, to the desire to have a male-free space to escape to in some particular venue, to the concern about increased likelihood of voyeurism and exhibitionism and even sexual assault, to the observation that at least some of the males who claim a transgender identity are unsavory people who seem to have nefarious objectives.

What blatantly bigoted reason do you think has been put forth?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's a novel idea, let's make the labels conform to the rules?

Here's a pragmatic idea, let's make the rules be reasonable and defensible?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I'll make you a deal. You go out in the world and harangue the various trans people, the ACLU, and many different organization for referring to female humans as "cervix havers" and "bleeders" and "gestational parents" and "menstruators" and "chestfeeders" and all of the other dehumanizing language applied to females... and I'll make an effort to avoid intentionally offensive language that I already don't use. FFS, YOU refer to transgender identified people with coarser and more insulting language than I do - you refer to them as "trannies", which I never do.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course I do. I just don't know that any of it is real.

What part do you think might not be real? That this male doesn't go into women's bathrooms? We know he does. Both parties agreed that he did, and Hill himself has posted many photos of himself in women's bathrooms. He particularly likes to take photos with tampon dispensers for some reason.

Do you think he has never encountered a child in a bathroom before? Do you think no child would recognize that he was male? Or do you think no child would be disturbed by his presence in the women's bathroom?

Would your opinion actually change at all if you knew for sure it did happen?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

What do you consider meeting them halfway? I mean, I would certainly avoid literally yelling "you so ugly" in their faces... but should we be expected to laud them for being beautiful? Should we be expected to refer to them as lovely and sexy? Should we be expected to put them on the catwalk during fashion week?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Here's the thing and I'm gonna tell you. [/wayne]

If you personally want to refer to a male who identifies as transgender as "she", that's totally cool. That's your choice. As much as it might irritate me, there are certainly many situations where I would do so because it's courtesy.

But it's also not as harmless as you seem to think. In particular, over the past decade there have been many instances of male criminals - especially sex offenders - reported by the news using entirely female references. And there've been several cases where "she" is described as a "woman" in ways that materially mislead the public about the situation. I don't have the reference at hand, but there was one a few years back where a criminal at large was reported entirely as is they were female, and asking the public to be on the lookout for a "woman" fitting an unsexed description. And there've been cases where the courts have compelled the victim of a crime committed by a male to refer to their male attacker as "she", and the victim ends up getting in trouble with the court for referring to the obviously male person in the courtroom as "he".

So I hope that you will be as understanding when some of us refrain from referring to Eddie Izzard or Caster Semenya or Isla Bryson as "she", because it hides their actual sex in situations where it's actually relevant.