Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

I tend not to punch them in the face.

Oh now I have questions.

Do you tend to punch random males in the face? If you were to get into an altercation with a male who identifies as transgender, and they got physical, would you avoid punching them in the face when you would otherwise punch a male in the face? Are you okay with that male who identifies as transgender punching a female in the face or would you interfere because they are - in actuality - a male?

 

[Thermal]

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?

We can cook up random hypotheticals all day. Might a small child be unfazed? Sure. Might another be screaming in fear over a woman with tattoos? Sure.

Do a lot of things scare some people? Yes. Is that a reason to treat them differently?.I'm not so sure. If you, for whatever unintended reason, scared a little boy in a restroom, should you be ejected?

 

[Thermal]

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?

Is that really your idea of meeting them halfway? I'm curious if that extremism is actually what you literally think giving an inch from your own extremist position entails.

 

[Thermal]

Oh now I have questions.

Do you tend to punch random males in the face?

No.

If you were to get into an altercation with a male who identifies as transgender, and they got physical, would you avoid punching them in the face when you would otherwise punch a male in the face?

Depends on the specifics/variables. There's no such "general" response. You do what you need to for winning/escaping, and no more.

Are you okay with that male who identifies as transgender punching a female in the face or would you interfere because they are - in actuality - a male?

I'd interfere one way or the other.

Not sure where these questions are going? Are we going to circle back to something?

 

[Ziggurat]

We can cook up random hypotheticals all day.

Hill isn't hypothetical. His presence in women's bathrooms isn't hypothetical.

Do a lot of things scare some people? Yes. Is that a reason to treat them differently?.I'm not so sure.

I am. He's male, and obviously so. He should be treated differently than females because he isn't female. He shouldn't be in women's bathrooms.

If you, for whatever unintended reason, scared a little boy in a restroom, should you be ejected?

Not if the reason I scared him is because I'm a male in the men's bathroom. That would indeed be unreasonable.

 

[Thermal]

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!

It was never a crime in my beloved Garden State for a transwoman to be in the women's room. Anything that happens that was criminal remains a crime.

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.

We are talking about crimes committed by these alleged inevitable imposters who will inevitably appear.

Nothing was decriminalized. Assaults of any kind would still be reported and counted. If you were right, woman on woman assaults would skyrocket, along with the general assault rate. We do not see this happen. At all. Not even a teeny tiny bit. In my own state, assaults continued their downward trend.

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?

Nothing was decriminalized in the transgender policy being discussed. Global analogy fail.

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?

So... the tortured analogy here is that women aren't complaining about being violently attacked by these invisible transpeople and/or imposters... because they don't want to lose likes on social media?

 

[Thermal]

Hill isn't hypothetical. His presence in women's bathrooms isn't hypothetical.

But the rest of the tale is. We have literally no idea if this young girl even exists, or what she did and if she was scared. It's all a Rorschach blot. It's just as plausible that the manager is a smooth talker covering her ass.

I am. He's male, and obviously so. He should be treated differently than females because he isn't female. He shouldn't be in women's bathrooms.

Not if the reason I scared him is because I'm a male in the men's bathroom. That would indeed be unreasonable.

Why the distinction? You can scare a young boy with no consequence, but it should be criminal for a transperson?

"You don't like them" is not grounds for treating them like second class citizens.

Is it okay for this transwoman to scare little boys in the men's room undisturbed? Or do you call dibs on that privilege?

 

[Rolfe]

Hoo bloody ray.

Ban trans women from single-sex spaces, equality watchdog to say

EHRC guidance to be submitted to ministers this month will tell schools, hospitals, leisure centres and cinemas to limit trans access

www.thetimes.com

What this does is give back to women the ability to police our own intimate spaces. The ability to call management or security if a man is in there, and management or security will be obliged to ask him to leave. If he simply leaves, nobody has committed any crime as far as I can see. However if he refuses to leave we are into breach of the peace territory and the situation may/will be escalated. Hopefully repeated tastes of this medicine will gradually deter those men who are currently insisting that they're going to damn well go in anyway.

A slight issue is that a birth certificate will be taken as proof of sex, when birth certificates can be changed. Not many men have done that as of yet, but there could be an explosion. The Supreme Court was absolutely clear that the criterion is actual sex, not certified sex, and a changed birth certificate following the issue of a GRC is certainly certified sex. The sight of a hulking great bloke waving a birth certificate that says female (how is anyone supposed to know that's even his own birth certificate?) might become fodder for comedy sketches. (It's likely that the birth certificate thing is more intended for entries to sporting events and applying for jobs that involve the intimate care of female patients, but these issues need to be thought through.)

So far so good, this is a big step forward. My current aim is to get an assurance from the Theatre Royal management that they are operating the Ladies rooms in the theatre as genuine single-sex spaces before the production of Tristan und Isolde next season. I can usually go an evening without needing to visit the loo, but not a Wagner evening, and I refuse to go in there again without such an assurance after having seen men in dresses march in there as if they owned the place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Meh. Maybe one. At the end of the day, we're talking about an infinitesimally small number of people.

There are a fair number of transsexuals who already don't use female spaces, regardless of whether it says "women" or "female" on the door. There's also a large number of people who express a transgender identity who use female spaces with little concern for the females in them, and they do so regardless of whether the sign says "women" or "female". So at the end of the day, most people who fall into the category under discussion have consistent behavior that has nothing at all to do with the signage.

The number of people who will use a female space that's labeled "women" but will NOT use a space that's labeled "female" is so close to zero as to be pointless to discuss. Unless you just really love pedantry, of course.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

If a male who did NOT identify as transgender went into the female side of the nude Korean spa with their penis and testicles visible, do you think the jury would have found that it wasn't lewd and lascivious behavior? Do you think they would have opined that the non-trans male was doing what any other male would do by being naked in the female side of the spa?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Or... and hear me out... you could actually answer the question. I know what you've said when it comes to nude spaces. That's still irrelevant to the questions I'm asking about what is and is not considered a crime, and how it gets reported. It still speaks directly to your repeated claim that there are no problems at all in NJ - because your entire position is based on there not being any increase in police reports for things that would no longer be considered a crime.

So answer the goddamned questions:
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]

Is that really your idea of meeting them halfway?

I think halfway is not referring to their looks at all. I don't think that's at all analogous to what you appear to think is "halfway" when it comes to males who identify as transgender. Your version of "halfway" for males who identify as transgender seems to be pretty much akin to referring to an ugly person as sexy and pretty, and referring to them as a hottie. Perhaps you don't put them on the catwalk... but you support taking modeling pictures of them in smaller venues and having them printed and framed. In case you're not picking up on it, that would be using female pronouns and letting them use female restrooms but not places where people are completely nude.

I'm curious if that extremism is actually what you literally think giving an inch from your own extremist position entails.

You excel at avoiding providing answers to direct questions. You are really good at not even bothering to give any consideration to what's being asked, and instead just turning it back on the other person as a but of an ad hom.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No.

Depends on the specifics/variables. There's no such "general" response. You do what you need to for winning/escaping, and no more.

Would you punch a female in the face to make sure you can win?

I'd interfere one way or the other.

Not sure where these questions are going? Are we going to circle back to something?

It circles back to me not believing you when you say that you treat males who identify as transgender the same way you treat females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nothing was decriminalized.

Ahem... Let me point you right back to the core of the topic:

Or... and hear me out... you could actually answer the question. I know what you've said when it comes to nude spaces. That's still irrelevant to the questions I'm asking about what is and is not considered a crime, and how it gets reported. It still speaks directly to your repeated claim that there are no problems at all in NJ - because your entire position is based on there not being any increase in police reports for things that would no longer be considered a crime.

So answer the goddamned questions:
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?

Things that would be considered a boundary violation and a transgression if done by a male who is not transgender are now considered "normal woman behavior" if the male says the magic words.

If a male who is not transgender went into the female restroom and started talking to a young female in a way that made her scared, that would at minimum be harassment or trespassing, but because that exact same male says they're trans, it is not a crime. Their magic words exempt them from their actions being a transgression. The exact same actions... different belief about themselves.

That's the problem that you are willfully skipping around.

 

[Rolfe]

Perspective: Erasure is a new form of violence against women

With her stance, Reem Alsalem is on the right side of history.

www.deseret.com

I wonder how many men in Afghanistan have come out as "transwomen" and demanded to be treated exactly as any "other" woman? I wonder how many girls in Afghanistan have been allowed to shed the burkha and go to university and walk the streets unaccompanied by declaring themselves to be "transmen"?

Must be really terrible for all these poor trans people in Afghanistan. Desperate to be women, but daren't because they'd be condemned to a life that's a living hell. Like actual women are condemned to. Or desperate to be men but the Taliban won't listen to them when they explain that their special gendery feelz should allow them out of that hell.

 

[Ziggurat]

But the rest of the tale is. We have literally no idea if this young girl even exists, or what she did and if she was scared.

Do you think his presence in the women's restroom is appropriate?

Why the distinction?

Because males are supposed to be in the men's room. If the presence of males in the men's room frightens you because they are male, the problem isn't their presence. This is not equivalent to the presence of males in the women's room.

You can scare a young boy with no consequence, but it should be criminal for a transperson?

I never said anything about anything being a crime. Having the power to eject someone does mean their presence was criminal, that's not how it works. Nor do I think it's ok for me to scare young boys for any reason whatsoever.

"You don't like them" is not grounds for treating them like second class citizens.

"They are male" is grounds for treating them as male. I am not asking for Hill to be treated any differently than I want to be treated.

Is it okay for this transwoman to scare little boys in the men's room undisturbed?

Depends why they get scared. If it's because the transwomen is male, then yes.

 

[smartcooky]

Or... and hear me out... you could actually answer the question.

Good luck with that Emily

 

[Thermal]

Or... and hear me out... you could actually answer the question. I know what you've said when it comes to nude spaces. That's still irrelevant to the questions I'm asking about what is and is not considered a crime, and how it gets reported. It still speaks directly to your repeated claim that there are no problems at all in NJ - because your entire position is based on there not being any increase in police reports for things that would no longer be considered a crime.

So answer the goddamned questions:

Gotta give you points for your goddamned gall, not answering dozens of direct questions from yours truly spanning months, and once even lecturing me on 'who the hell did I think I was making demands of you?' But unlike so many others in the thread, I have integrity and will answer directly.

Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in public?

No.

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?

No.

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?

No.

There. How's that? Wait...'You are confused?' Fine.

From coast to coast, California to Jersey, exhibitionism (in my state falls under lewd and lascivious) requires that it be done with the expectation to shock or affront the victim, and be done for the alleged perpetrator's sexual titillation. Obviously, that clears occurrences of accidental and incidental exposure, right down to why you don't criminally charge a bare assed toddler running around. That is no trivial distinction; it's why the Wi spa guy.. ahem... got off. A transwoman is no more getting off than any female in the showers, and if a female was staring at other women while masturbating, she too would probably be guilty of L&L. And yes, you and a few others will be confused, and say 'but they are all a bunch of AGP pervs. Everyone knows they are doing it to be perverts'. I'll let you guys huddle up together to sort out why that is so very wrong. It'll be a bonding experience.

So another half assed gotcha falls flat. Nothing was decriminalized, and the same crimes remain crimes.

 

[Thermal]

Do you think his presence in the women's restroom is appropriate?

Not particularly, but many, many things I think are inappropriate are perfectly legal, and frankly none of my business. Live and let live.

Because males are supposed to be in the men's room. If the presence of males in the men's room frightens you because they are male, the problem isn't their presence. This is not equivalent to the presence of males in the women's room.

I never said anything about anything being a crime. Having the power to eject someone does mean their presence was criminal, that's not how it works. Nor do I think it's ok for me to scare young boys for any reason whatsoever.

"They are male" is grounds for treating them as male. I am not asking for Hill to be treated any differently than I want to be treated.

Depends why they get scared. If it's because the transwomen is male, then yes.

OK, you seem to be down to repeating that 'men go in the men's room', and variants. Yes, thank you. I am aware that it is both your position and foregone conclusion. What it is *not* is an argument.

 

[Thermal]

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.

As I've said a dozen times, I am not interested in extremist advocates. I am interested in the thoughts of forumites here. What some random TRA wants everyone to say is of little interest to me, as is a Nazi's favorite slur for a Jew.

FFS, YOU refer to transgender identified people with coarser and more insulting language than I do - you refer to them as "trannies",

Do you know what sardonic means, EC?

which I never do.

Trust me, you use much darker words.