Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

@Emily's Cat - I really appreciate the breakdown; of course I've no way to validate or disconfirm, it's just good to get a sense of where you're coming from.

You too, @Rolfe

 

[Emily's Cat]

That may be, but so what? It's illegal, he's being prosecuted for it. Beyond that, what do you want? Do you want some change in the law to make it harder for him to do that? If you don't have a proposal for a change, then on what basis can you claim that we can't address the trans identifying male in the women's bathroom because we're not doing something about this guy?

Reminds me of other discussions in the past where some male takes the stance that since we haven't first found a solution for males who are victims of male sexual violence, we can't try to find a solution to address female victims at all. We have to solve male problems first, and only after everything is perfect for males can we turn our attention to females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree, of course. The point I was making was a different one.

Well you did a ◊◊◊◊ job of it, then.

 

[theprestige]

I'll WAG at 50%.... But I'm also going to add some commentary.

Of the total number of males who have transgender identities, I wildly speculate that 20% of them don't use female restrooms at all, because they actually respect females. Take that with a grain of salt, add or subtract to whatever feels right to you.

Of the remaining 80%, let's say that only half of them are pervy. I say pervy not as a judgement on transgenderiness, but a judgement on males of the human species. Required "not all males" disclaimer. At the end of the day, males are simply pervier than females. It is what it is.

So let's talk about the remaining 40%. Of those, I would guess that at most 1/4 of them are old-school transsexuals who've put in the work and the effort and arguably pass well enough that they can get away with it, and it's the most rational thing for them to do.

The rest of them, however... even if they're not perving about it, they're intentionally violating female boundaries while knowing full well that it makes females feel uncomfortable and threatened, and they relish the power they have to force females to bend to their will. They're exerting a very masculine kind of power to intimidate and control females for their own benefit.

In summary... out of the entire population of males with transgender identities:

• 20% don't use female restrooms out of courtesy and respect
• 10% are old-school transsexuals who pass well enough that it's the rational thing to do
• 40% are pervs
• 30% are engaging in intimidation and dominance displays in order to control females

I have no data, so take it or leave it as suits you. Either way, that's 70% of males with transgender identities that I don't want anywhere near a female restroom.

I'd go as far as to say that 30% are also pervs, and especially dangerous when legal constraints are relaxed.

 

[theprestige]

Seems to be, under your reasoning. You find a Ticky Tocker taking selfies so be so vile that we have to change laws, but the pee pee guy is kind of casual to you. And if we must ban ALL transpeople because of the cherry picked ones, surely we must ban ALL males from their intimate spaces? Who knows what those pervs will do?

Of course we can, and your argument seems to lead that way. If you are consistent, that is.

No no no... it's not a numbers game, (according to you). It's any threat *at all*, even just a creepy vibe, that must result in banning. So pee pee guy is enough of a threat to justify banning men from the men's room.

Or maybe he should be forced go to the ladies room? Doesn't seem that he would be a threat there, as he has demonstrated himself to be in the men's room.

You seem hell bent on trying to solve any other problem than the problem people actually have: Men inviting themselves into communal intimate spaces for women, without their consent, but with legal backing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

@Emily's Cat - I really appreciate the breakdown; of course I've no way to validate or disconfirm, it's just good to get a sense of where you're coming from.

You too, @Rolfe

There's probably never going to be a good way to figure it out for real. For example, most males are perfectly safe and aren't going to commit any sexual offenses ever. But the ones that aren't safe cause a LOT of harm. I don't know what percentage of males are responsible for the harms that females experience. Let's assume for argument's sake that only 5% of males that cause harm... but they're responsible for harms that 80%+ of females experience.

If one in twenty apples is going to cause you severe gastric distress for a day, and there's no way to tell which apple is the bad one... how many apples will you eat each day?

 

[lionking]

In really good news, Australia’s UHC system, Medicare, is holding back of funding for gender surgery until there is evidence of no harm:

Medicare funding for gender surgery denied despite ‘unmet need’

The committee that recommends public funding for procedures has called for more information about regret rates.

www.theage.com.au

“A federal government agency has asked for more information about the long-term impacts of gender-affirming surgery for transgender adults before agreeing to fund it under Medicare, despite acknowledging an unmet need for the service.”

Poor reporting by the Age, because the unmet “need “ has not been demonstrated.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's the problem with your argument. There are masses of centre to left people hold these same opinions. The same people who who are pro-abortion rights, pro-women's rights, anti-authoritarianism also support the idea that men should not be allowed access to women's safe spaces by simple dint of calling themselves women. None of those are aspects of the political far-right.

Far right weaponising LGBTQ+ rights in Europe to sow division, campaigners say

At the start of Pride month, groups report rise in hate crimes as politicians use laws and speeches to target trans people in particular

www.theguardian.com

That's how this is such a clever play: find something to unite the self-styled liberals and the conservative far-right in hate. You've all been played and you don't even realise it.

You are cherry-picking individuals with severe behavioural problems and using them as examples to stereotype an entire group.

Some conservatives don't like the idea of gay people in the same toilets as them. Should gay people have to use the opposite biological sex toilet facilities? Where should bisexual people toilet when out in public? With the justifications used in this thread, because some of them are voyeuristic or predatory, the whole group of gay and bisexual people cannot be trusted and should be excluded. Perhaps we should make gay and bisexual people wear a symbol so we can easily identify and exclude them from places that some people are not comfortable being around them? I wonder where that might lead...

Our feelings shouldn't impact on the freedom of other individuals to go wherever they like in public if they are just going about their business and not harming anyone.

 

[lionking]

Far right weaponising LGBTQ+ rights in Europe to sow division, campaigners say

At the start of Pride month, groups report rise in hate crimes as politicians use laws and speeches to target trans people in particular

www.theguardian.com

That's how this is such a clever play: find something to unite the self-styled liberals and the conservative far-right in hate. You've all been played and you don't even realise it.

You are cherry-picking individuals with severe behavioural problems and using them as examples to stereotype an entire group.

Some conservatives don't like the idea of gay people in the same toilets as them. Should gay people have to use the opposite biological sex toilet facilities? Where should bisexual people toilet when out in public? With the justifications used in this thread, because some of them are voyeuristic or predatory, the whole group of gay and bisexual people cannot be trusted and should be excluded. Perhaps we should make gay and bisexual people wear a symbol so we can easily identify and exclude them from places that some people are not comfortable being around them? I wonder where that might lead...

Our feelings shouldn't impact on the freedom of other individuals to go wherever they like in public if they are just going about their business and not harming anyone.

Or you can view it as a long delayed reaction to ridiculous demands from TRAs. And please stop talking about gays. This analogy is both wrong and stupid.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Or you can view it a a long delayed reaction to ridiculous demands from TRAs.

I view it as if we are all living in a nightmare where we repeat the same mistakes from history over and over and over again.

 

[lionking]

I view it as if we are all living in a nightmare where we repeat the same mistakes from history over and over and over again.

Still talking about gays? This has nothing to do with sex segregation, women’s change rooms, sports, safe places etc etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

Our feelings shouldn't impact on the freedom of other individuals to go wherever they like in public if they are just going about their business and not harming anyone.

The brave progressive male wants to do away with all sex segregation, thus removing fundamental protections for women. Everything gets sacrificed at the altar of politics, even one's nominal allies.

 

[smartcooky]

Still talking about gays? This has nothing to do with sex segregation, women’s change rooms, sports, safe places etc etc.

Its the usual canard that TRA's all spam the debate with.... "oh, gays and lesbians went through the same prejudice years ago, this is just history repeating but trans people are the victims this time"

No, it isn't, and that canard is pure ignorance

The simple fact is that gays and lesbians are same-sex attracted. Their mutual attraction impacts NO-ONE, and tramples on no-one rights

Transgender ideology, on the other hand, impacts EVERYONE, especially women. It abrogates their rights.

ETA: Its worth noting that all the while @Ivor the Engineer invokes gays and lesbians to support his case... its actually gays and lesbians who object far more than people like you and me. The LBGTQ+ (whatever) is on the point of breaking up. LGB people have been ejected/banned from Pride marches and and parades for not being sufficiently on-board with trans ideology. TRA's preach tolerance. but they donlt practise it in the slightest.

 

[smartcooky]

You are cherry-picking individuals with severe behavioural problems and using them as examples to stereotype an entire group.

Cherry-picking is unavoidable when the cherry tree holds a bumper crop of low-hanging fruit.

Some conservatives don't like the idea of gay people in the same toilets as them.

Doesn't bother me, and never has

Should gay people have to use the opposite biological sex toilet facilities?

Of course not, they should use the facilities that align with their biological sex, just like everyone else should.

Where should bisexual people toilet when out in public?

Same as everyone else - use the facilities that align with their biological sex
(BTW, this question makes me wonder if you even understand what "bisexual" means

With the justifications used in this thread, because some of them are voyeuristic or predatory, the whole group of gay and bisexual people cannot be trusted and should be excluded.

Yup, just exactly the same as all other males. A small number of males cannot be trusted, so all of us must be excluded.

Perhaps we should make gay and bisexual people wear a symbol so we can easily identify and exclude them from places that some people are not comfortable being around them? I wonder where that might lead...

Our feelings shouldn't impact on the freedom of other individuals to go wherever they like in public if they are just going about their business and not harming anyone.

And the feelings of some individuals shouldn't impact on the rights of others

 

[Rolfe]

This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation - or skin colour come to that. The demand is that everyone, gay, straight, bisexual, black, brown, pink or yellow, should use the facilities for the actual biological sex their genes led their body to develop as in the womb. That the trans-lovers keep having to derail the debate into sexual orientation or even race shows that they have no argument without shifting the grounds to bad analogies.

 

[Thermal]

Whether defendant committed misdemeanor defiant trespass (as his lawyers argued) or the higher-level infraction of criminal trespass (as prosecutors argued) doesn't really matter since your claim that was that it "never was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal" for him to enter that part of the building at all.

Based on his sex/gender, yes. You're trying to gloss over that with some misdirection.

Either way, he was breaking the law of trespass in that jurisdiction.

Because he knowingly entered the club (and then further into the locker room) without permission, knowing he was not allowed to be there, not because he was a man/male entering a woman's space.

Moreover, every state is free to interpret their own trespass laws in the same way.

Right, but that has nothing to do with anything. The defendant was found to be guilty of criminal trespass because he trespassed into a 'separately secured or occupied' part of the building, not because he was male entering a women's space. The court compared the trespass to breaking into an individual office within a building. He would have been found guilty of exactly the same offense, under the court's reasoning, if he trespassed into the men's locker room (that was a separate secured and occupied part of the building reserved for men/male club members only).

Next time you want to claim that something was never criminalized, you might consider a couple minutes of googling beforehand.

We all have, I'm sure. But your example here is irrelevant; it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender or sex legality for restroom access. Which is what we were talking about. And you know this.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation - or skin colour come to that. The demand is that everyone, gay, straight, bisexual, black, brown, pink or yellow, should use the facilities for the actual biological sex their genes led their body to develop as in the womb. That the trans-lovers keep having to derail the debate into sexual orientation or even race shows that they have no argument without shifting the grounds to bad analogies.

They are not bad analogies, they are uncomfortable for you and others who have become so indoctrinated with hate you openly use derogatory terms such as 'womanface' for transsexual women, safe in the knowledge that few left in this thread will call you out on it. Do you also use 'retard', 'spastic', 'fag' and 'dyke'?

Gender and biological sex are synonymous. Pretending segregation is the natural order for humans rather than just a social construct is exactly the same type of thinking used to justify all prejudiced and de-humanising behaviour throughout history.

Maybe the far-right will give some of you a badge for being useful idiots.

 

[Manger Douse]

They are not bad analogies, they are uncomfortable for you and others who have become so indoctrinated with hate you openly use derogatory terms such as 'womanface' for transsexual women, safe in the knowledge that few left in this thread will call you out on it. Do you also use 'retard', 'spastic', 'fag' and 'dyke'?

Gender and biological sex are synonymous. Pretending segregation is the natural order for humans rather than just a social construct is exactly the same type of thinking used to justify all prejudiced and de-humanising behaviour throughout history.

Maybe the far-right will give some of you a badge for being useful idiots.

And maybe the male sex offenders that want the unrestricted access to women's safe spaces you demand will give you a badge too

 

[Thermal]

That may be, but so what? It's illegal, he's being prosecuted for it. Beyond that, what do you want? Do you want some change in the law to make it harder for him to do that? If you don't have a proposal for a change, then on what basis can you claim that we can't address the trans identifying male in the women's bathroom because we're not doing something about this guy?

Just for clarification: I'm pointing out that for any "tranny perv" you can hold up as "things that never happen that just keep happening", I can hold up worse in the general population. You're just basically showing very bad people who are also trans, with no indication whatsoever that there are proportionally more bad transpeople than cis folk. It's the very definition of cherry picking. As soon as y'all stop screwing around in the dozens of cherries and get into the several thousands, you might have a point. Till then, you are simply demonstrating that people do bad things and it is often on video nowadays.

BTW, your Ticky Tocker is not remotely what I said doesn't happen, or keeps happening. The strawmanning is getting old. The claim was that assaults against women would radically increase under the policy change, as imposters commited assaults with the "hey I'm trans and allowed to be here" defense. I point out that there is dead zero evidence of any such increase.

 

[Thermal]

Nvm