Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

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

TIMS2020-2025.gif


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.
Click to expand...
Highlighted the actual social trend. Don't know what things are like in your part of the world, but in mine hate is on the rise, as typified by the ascendency of the far-right. This thread is an example of it, as well as the perennial myopic stupidity of humans. Don't say I didn't warn you!
 
Thermal said:
Not particularly,
Click to expand...
And that ultimately is the problem.
Thermal said:
but many, many things I think are inappropriate are perfectly legal, and frankly none of my business. Live and let live.
Click to expand...
Being perfectly legal isn’t an excuse when they should not be. And the presence of an obvious male in the women’s bathroom is not a situation of live and let live. His presence is an imposition.
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because I don’t need more than that, really. We sex segregate for reasons already covered at length, and I see no reason to repeat them here when that’s not even what you’re asking about. The appropriate place to put a male who needs to use the bathroom, no matter how creepy he is, is in the male bathroom. We cannot exclude people from using all bathrooms, and putting such a creepy male in the women’s bathroom is obviously worse. What more do you want?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Highlighted the actual social trend. Don't know what things are like in your part of the world, but in mine hate is on the rise, as typified by the ascendency of the far-right. This thread is an example of it, as well as the perennial myopic stupidity of humans. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Click to expand...
Not wishing to make sex-offenders lives easer doesn't make you right wing
 
Ziggurat said:
And that ultimately is the problem.

Being perfectly legal isn’t an excuse when they should not be. And the presence of an obvious male in the women’s bathroom is not a situation of live and let live. His presence is an imposition.

Because I don’t need more than that, really. We sex segregate for reasons already covered at length, and I see no reason to repeat them here when that’s not even what you’re asking about. The appropriate place to put a male who needs to use the bathroom, no matter how creepy he is, is in the male bathroom. We cannot exclude people from using all bathrooms,
Click to expand...
Holup: why not? If this person is such an imposition to others, give me one good reason why they shouldn't be denied services at all.
Ziggurat said:
and putting such a creepy male in the women’s bathroom is obviously worse.
Click to expand...
Only if your starting assumption is that women are inferior.
Ziggurat said:
What more do you want?
Click to expand...
A reasoned argument, not endlessly repeating the challenged assumption.
 
Thermal said:
Holup: why not? If this person is such an imposition to others, give me one good reason why they shouldn't be denied services at all.
Click to expand...
On a practical level, because we don't want people ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on the streets. On the level of principle, everyone has the right to use a bathroom, because it's cruel to force people to hold it in all the time.

You are the only person here who's even considered not letting someone use any bathroom at all. Which is quite a strange position for you to be taking in defense of trans access to bathrooms.
Thermal said:
Only if your starting assumption is that women are inferior.
Click to expand...
In what sense? They are inferior when it comes to strength. That's not an assumption, that's a fact.
Thermal said:
A reasoned argument, not endlessly repeating the challenged assumption.
Click to expand...
I'd like a reasoned argument for why trans identified males need to be given access to women's bathrooms. But you have provided no argument beyond not doing so offends their dignity.

This is ultimately a dispute about values, and values are always in the end axiomatic. You value the "dignity" of tans identifying males over the dignity of females like Rolfe and Emily's Cat. I don't. There isn't actually much more to it than that.
 
Ziggurat said:
On a practical level, because we don't want people ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on the streets. On the level of principle, everyone has the right to use a bathroom, because it's cruel to force people to hold it in all the time.
Click to expand...
They are not being forced to do anything. They can not be 'impositions' to others and use the accommodations, or if not, then they can't.

The only 'cruelty' is applying your standard only to a kind of person you don't personally approve of.
Ziggurat said:
You are the only person here who's even considered not letting someone use any bathroom at all. Which is quite a strange position for you to be taking in defense of trans access to bathrooms.
Click to expand...
As I've repeated, I am challenging your arguments, not the principle. Arguments can be for good reasons or bad ones. I think you are delivering very bad ones.

And no, of course I don't think people you personally find creepy should be denied restroom use. But that's what your argument leads to.
Ziggurat said:
In what sense? They are inferior when it comes to strength. That's not an assumption, that's a fact.
Click to expand...
Very often, yes. If they are running a powerlifting competition for priority access to the restroom, then you have a point.

If you are Slippery Sloping back to the Vicious Attacking Trannys in the Womens Restroom argument, we've done that.
Ziggurat said:
I'd like a reasoned argument for why trans identified males need to be given access to women's bathrooms. But you have provided no argument beyond not doing so offends their dignity.
Click to expand...
I have provided several. To refresh your failing memory, the US has these annoying discrimination laws, that literally the whole ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ debate is based on. We either mean them or we don't. To determine that, we need crystal clear definitions for gender, and rulings on whether we can enforce strict segregation, and when, without running afoul of them. As things are now, we really can't.
Ziggurat said:
This is ultimately a dispute about values, and values are always in the end axiomatic.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Ziggurat said:
You value the "dignity" of tans identifying males over the dignity of females like Rolfe and Emily's Cat.
Click to expand...
Disagreed.
Ziggurat said:
I don't. There isn't actually much more to it than that.
Click to expand...
There's a lot more, should you choose to confront it.

To repeat for I forget how many times: you value Rolfe and ECs 'dignity', and think transpeople are second class creepy pervs that need to obey and defer to all others, while others do what they please. You want force of law to ultimately be behind this gatekeeping. That is foundationally wrong, IMO.

What I think the argument should be is simple conventional modesty and privacy in maintaining sex separation, with accommodations made for the rare non-conformist if they are not being disruptive or 'imposing'. But I want no force of law in either direction. Basically the status quo of many generations.

Similar outcomes, even similar reasoning, but vastly different motivations.
 
Thermal said:
Only if your starting assumption is that women are inferior.
Click to expand...

We are, and that's hard for this pro-equality feminist to admit, although I wouldn't use the word "inferior," but I can't deny the biological reality that the average woman is decidedly at a physical disadvantage compared to the average man, and the average man is much more likely to be able to defend himself against another man than a woman would be.

I know the conversation has been here before and it didn't go anywhere, so I don't expect it to go anywhere this time, but here we are. It doesn't mean I'm constantly walking around in fear of every man I see. It doesn't mean that I think every man is an immediate threat to my safety. It does mean that I take sensible precautions to remain aware of my surroundings, especially when I'm in a potentially isolated and vulnerable situation. And sure, I use public restrooms all the time, but having my pants around my ankles still invokes a feeling of a certain degree of vulnerability.
 
Tomboy said:
We are, and that's hard for this pro-equality feminist to admit, although I wouldn't use the word "inferior," but I can't deny the biological reality that the average woman is decidedly at a physical disadvantage compared to the average man, and the average man is much more likely to be able to defend himself against another man than a woman would be.

I know the conversation has been here before and it didn't go anywhere, so I don't expect it to go anywhere this time, but here we are. It doesn't mean I'm constantly walking around in fear of every man I see. It doesn't mean that I think every man is an immediate threat to my safety. It does mean that I take sensible precautions to remain aware of my surroundings, especially when I'm in a potentially isolated and vulnerable situation. And sure, I use public restrooms all the time, but having my pants around my ankles still invokes a feeling of a certain degree of vulnerability.
Click to expand...
I get that, and despite my argumentation here, I sympathize.

But carry it out: a violent criminal is not deterred by a sign on an unlocked door, or some trivial annoyance for being accused of being in the wrong restroom. If some guy means to attack you in a restroom, there is literally nothing stopping him right here and now.

What would be different with the policy change? You think a rapist considers it a big deal to walk into a restroom for his crime now, but won't under policy change?

There is no real threat difference. So do you not use public facilities right now, for the same reasons you say you fear?

Eta: you think the sign on the door is deterring an attacker. Ok. How about we put another sign underneath it that says 'No Attacking Females'. All good now, right? Because these violent attackers are so concerned with misdemeanor policy compliance?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
They are not being forced to do anything. They can not be 'impositions' to others and use the accommodations, or if not, then they can't.
Click to expand...
Since public urination and defecation are illegal, then yes, they are being forced to hold it in if they are not allowed to use the bathroom. Remember, we're considering a hypothetical where the reason they are being excluded isn't because of conduct.
Thermal said:
The only 'cruelty' is applying your standard only to a kind of person you don't personally approve of.
Click to expand...
My approval of a person has nothing to do with anything. What I'm approving of or not approving of is their presence in specific places. I do not approve of Hill's presence in the women's bathroom. I do not approve of *MY* presence in the women's bathroom. I am not demanding anything of Hill that I am not demanding of myself as well. And there is nothing cruel about denying that access merely because they prefer to have it.
Thermal said:
As I've repeated, I am challenging your arguments, not the principle.
Click to expand...
You don't even seem to understand my arguments.
Thermal said:
If you are Slippery Sloping back to the Vicious Attacking Trannys in the Womens Restroom argument, we've done that.
Click to expand...
We aren't. We're where we have always been: trans identified males are males, and males shouldn't be allowed in female intimate spaces. There's no slippery slope here.
Thermal said:
I have provided several. To refresh your failing memory, the US has these annoying discrimination laws
Click to expand...
You seem to be unable to distinguish between what the law currently allows and what the law should allow. You cannot use what the law currently is as an argument for what it should be. It doesn't work like that.

And you don't seem to understand the law either. Some locations like New Jersey may have such laws prohibiting the exclusion of trans identified males from female spaces, but federal law doesn't, and never did.
Thermal said:
To repeat for I forget how many times: you value Rolfe and ECs 'dignity', and think transpeople are second class creepy pervs that need to obey and defer to all others, while others do what they please.
Click to expand...
This is a completely unhinged interpretation. I don't think anyone should simply get to choose to do as they please. I don't think non-trans males have any right to enter the women's bathroom. Nor do I think trans people are second class citizens. Rather, I do not think that their trans status earns them any additional privilege. You clearly think it does.
Thermal said:
You want force of law to ultimately be behind this gatekeeping. That is foundationally wrong, IMO.
Click to expand...
But you DO want the force of law to be behind gatekeeping, just in the opposite direction. After all, you have already said that you want the force of law to punish a business owner who ejects a trans identified male from a women's bathroom.
Thermal said:
What I think the argument should be is simple conventional modesty and privacy in maintaining sex separation, with accommodations made for the rare non-conformist if they are not being disruptive or 'imposing'.
Click to expand...
What counts as being disruptive or imposing?
Thermal said:
But I want no force of law in either direction. Basically the status quo of many generations.
Click to expand...
We no longer have the status quo of many generations. And the status quo was that law enforcement would side with ejecting males from female spaces.
 
Thermal said:
To repeat for I forget how many times: you value Rolfe and ECs 'dignity', and think transpeople are second class creepy pervs that need to obey and defer to all others, while others do what they please.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine. I'd like to go on record and say that I do not think the bolded. (I won't speak on behalf of EC and Rolfe.) I have no issue with people who are transgender. I support their right to wear what they want and to not be discriminated against with regards to employment or housing or any of the other rights that the rest of us enjoy. It's not transpeople that I object to in sex segregated spaces for women. It's men. It's biological males. That's been said by multiple people in this thread multiple times. To put it bluntly, it's not transpeople who are "second class creepy pervs" to use your words, but men. Not all men. Not even most men. But some men.

Thermal said:
What I think the argument should be is simple conventional modesty and privacy in maintaining sex separation, with accommodations made for the rare non-conformist if they are not being disruptive or 'imposing'. But I want no force of law in either direction. Basically the status quo of many generations.
Click to expand...
I dig it. That's the way it was for decades. It was understood by all that the women's bathrooms were for women, and most men stayed out. If a creepy man came in, it would be obvious pretty quickly that he was there for an inappropriate reason and a woman could alert someone and have the creepy person removed and, and here's the key, the woman who reported the situation wouldn't be punished or admonished or ignored or worse. If a transperson came in and wasn't inappropriate, used the bathroom and left, generally not a big deal. It might get a raised eyebrow, but probably not more than that.

The problem is that that's not the status quo any more. Women have lost the right to moderate our own sex segregated spaces. If we try, we're declared the problem, the criminal even, and the inappropriate male is the victim.

So know that I'm right there with you. All I want is to return to that status quo of the old days, but at this point, I don't see how we can do that unless we have the force of law backing us up. I really don't like that, by the way. The less the law and the government is involved in my life the better, so if there's an alternative, I'd love to know it. But the alternative can't be to wait until an actual crime is committed and let the existing laws take over, because once a crime is committed, it's too late. Whatever is implemented should have the benefit of reducing the risk of criminal activity, not allowing it to happen and reacting after the fact.

(Gah, I think too much and change my mind too much and take too long to formulate a post. Posting this anyway.)
Edited to clarify wording. And again for typo fix. Ha! Made the timer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom