Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Which part of the decision led you to believe he entered the club itself without permission?

It was in the subsection titled "IDGAF".

The defendant was found to be guilty of criminal trespass because he was put on notice as a male that the women's area was off limits to him.

Although the occupancy of the ladies' room is extensive, encompassing all women in the club, it is nevertheless true that all women in the restroom may exclude all men, even those legitimately in the club, from occupying that area. The ladies' room is therefore "separately secured or occupied" for precisely the same reason that an office in an office building is — it is reserved for the exclusive use of only a subset of the total population authorized to use the larger structure.​

See above.

This was a private club with a policy. Lionking asserted that police would not respond to a biological male being in a women's restroom because it was no longer ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal, referring to our "stupid ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ gender laws".

Are you under the impression that anything you posted about Com of PA v White has a goddamned thing to do with gender laws, which were changed, that previously made it illegal for biological males to enter a women's space?

The private club can reserve spaces for whomever it likes, making said space a seperate and secure or occupied space, where the criminal trespass law would kick in. There was still no law in Jersey or PA making it illegal for a bio male to enter a female space. It was never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal. Gender laws did not change that. Criminal trespass laws tangentally referencing the use of a private club's spaces does not have sweeping application on the general public.

Eta: since you suggested I take a few minutes to Google it, here is the first Google hit which jibes with the subsequent ones: "There actually aren't any laws which prohibit a man from enter a women's bathroom - as long as they are not entering the bathroom for illegal purposes."

Those last couple words might give you pause .

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

1. Why should there be?2. There is no grey area... everyone but a minuscule exception (in the 100ths of a percent) is either biologically male or biologically female. Even the vast majority of people with DSD are still one or the other.

Because human behaviour is complex and social mores naturally evolve over time, generally becoming more inclusive of human differences. From what you've found on the Internet below I think both of these things are unsettling to you. You appear to engage in a lot of black and white thinking on this and other topics. The most likely explanation is that you are just a crusty old person, but perhaps you have always had a brain that struggles with empathy. Either way, it must make your life difficult at times, though you probably blame everyone else for these difficulties!

When examples are provide that show how social mores have changed, such as the acceptance of gay people, you have to delude yourself it was obvious all along that gay people were not mentally ill and needed to be treated, when anyone who has been alive for 40+ years or has some basic Internet search skills knows that that was not the case. When examples of harm reduction are provided you can't even address them, instead fly off at a tangent ranting about women being raped.

The acceptance of transgender people seems to be following a similar arc to that of gay people, though as they are at a more extreme end of a bell curve and far less prevalent in society it will probably be easier to stigmatise them for longer. I think we will eventually find more physical differences in the brains of people who feel they are a different gender to their biological sex and maybe even understand more about how gender is encoded in the brain.

Edited by jimbob: 

. Rule 12 removed

.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because human behaviour is complex and social mores naturally evolve over time, generally becoming more inclusive of human differences.

In the 60's and 70's, the "sexual revolution" started dismantling a lot of sexual taboos, to become, as you say, "more inclusive". It's often forgotten today, but one of the things that some people were trying to dismantle was the taboo against pedophilia.

That taboo managed to survive. From a purely objective viewpoint, this is a demonstration that the pattern of "liberalization" isn't always inevitable. From a more subjective standpoint, though, do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing that this taboo remains?

 

[d4m10n]

Are you under the impression that anything you posted about Com of PA v White has a goddamned thing to do with gender laws, which were changed, that previously made it illegal for biological males to enter a women's space?

No idea what "gender laws" should be taken to refer to here; I was addressing your claim that it never was illegal for biological males to enter women's spaces by pointing out a specific counterexample rooted in a fairly straightforward application of the law of trespass.

There was still no law in Jersey or PA making it illegal for a bio male to enter a female space.

There need not be a law spelling that specific scenario out so long as places of public accommodation are legally permitted to set aside areas which are "separately secured or occupied" based on the characteristic of sex and so long as the courts are free to apply the law as Pennsylvania did.

It was never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal.

This will come as welcome news to Mr. White.

 

[Thermal]

No idea what "gender laws" should be taken to refer to here;

That was the entire point being discussed with lionking. There were none.

I was addressing your claim that it never was illegal for biological males to enter women's spaces by pointing out a specific counterexample rooted in a fairly straightforward application of the law of trespass.

Nope. You cited a trespass law regarding a seperate and secured space within a larger one. The room could have been the All Manly Man Board of Directors Lounge, and White would have been found guilty of criminal trespass on the identical grounds. Because it had nothing to do with sex or gender, but only bring a seperate secured space, based on what-◊◊◊◊◊◊◊-ever private access structure the club had in place.

There need not be a law spelling that specific scenario out so long as places of public accommodation are legally permitted to set aside areas which are "separately secured or occupied" based on the characteristic of sex and so long as the courts are free to apply the law as Pennsylvania did.

I'm sorry, did you say 'public accommodation'? This club wasnt. And thats why such sweeping applications do not apply. The illegality centers around the seperate nature, not the reason for the seperate nature, which, as a private club, could be anything.

This will come as welcome news to Mr. White.

And all the gender warriors, who can flip the tables with this newfound precedent! Tip 'em off, bro. You'll be internet famous.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Unmet desire, sure. Need? I'm not convinced.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Explain to me why males should be allowed to use female single-sex intimate spaces. Go on, make your argument.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Yes... we're repeating the historical mistake of forcing females into second-class citizen roles, and granting males dominion over female boundaries.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Define "woman", without reference to sex, and without circularity.

Oh hey - Merriam Webster no longer has a "special feelings" definition under the heading "woman"!

Definition of WOMAN

an adult female person; a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination; womankind… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Emily's Cat]

I suspect that several of us laughed at that for an entirely different reason than you intended.

I'm genuinely curious - why do YOU think it's funny?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I suspect you think people who absolutely believe that a particular limb does not belong to them and want it chopped off are not making a choice to believe that their limb doesn't belong to them. You think, just as I do, that there is something in their brains that makes them perceive their body that way. So why do you think people who believe they are in the wrong body are making a choice? I can't comprehend either point of view and find them both logically inconsistent: the body I'm 'in' is the only body I could be 'in'. While I don't think the trans point of view should be promoted to anyone, particularly children whose personality is still developing and are often not comfortable in their own skin, I accept that there are adults who genuinely hold it.

You're so very, very close Ivor.

Let's assume that every single person who expresses gender dysphoria has an actual neurological or psychological issue with their perception - that they genuinely and completely believe that they are in the wrong body and that their body should be different.

Even if we accept that premise... does it then follow that their objectively false belief should be encouraged?

If someone has BIID (as you reference above) do you think doctors should cut off the limbs that the patient thinks are wrong? Should society support and encourage people to cut off appendages that they think shouldn't be theirs?

If someone has anorexia do you think doctors should prescribe ozempic and weight-loss programs for them? Should society support and encourage people with anorexia to lose enough weight to feel comfortable and happy in their bodies?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Its not a pretense, it's a construct humans have developed to protect the most naturally vulnerable members of society.

BS. It's as much of a pretence as any crazy religious rule.

Why do you think this?

Just look around at the animal kingdom. It's incredibly common for female members of a species to be protected by males - often protected from other males of their own species. Horse herds are largely composed of females, and a single herd stallion. That stallion's role in the herd is to protect the mares from predation and from unwanted attention from other stallions. Male lions serve to protect lionesses and their young from harm, especially from other lions. Heck, when we're talking about elephants or deer, the social groups are entirely female and the males are essentially solitary and only aloud in the presence of the female herd when it's breeding season.

Different species have different solutions, certainly. But the burden of reproduction comes into play in the role division of a whole lot of species. When the species is sexually dimorphic with females being smaller, it's pretty common for males to take on a protector role.

Given that this is observably a pretty common arrangement among mammals, why do you think that humans are exception and did NOT evolve this protective instinct?

 

[Thermal]

You're so very, very close Ivor.

Let's assume that every single person who expresses gender dysphoria has an actual neurological or psychological issue with their perception - that they genuinely and completely believe that they are in the wrong body and that their body should be different.

Even if we accept that premise... does it then follow that their objectively false belief should be encouraged?

If someone has BIID (as you reference above) do you think doctors should cut off the limbs that the patient thinks are wrong? Should society support and encourage people to cut off appendages that they think shouldn't be theirs?

If someone has anorexia do you think doctors should prescribe ozempic and weight-loss programs for them? Should society support and encourage people with anorexia to lose enough weight to feel comfortable and happy in their bodies?

If someone is morbidly obese and wanted to lose weight, does your analogy still make sense?

You are begging the question that the transperson is mentally ill, and further that their illness is self destructive. That's generally not the case with transpeople.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You describe gender as being junk science and then claim to believe in free will. Can you point to where free will resides in the brain?

Free will is a term that covers a fairly broad concept - that the universe in its totality is not deterministic. The deterministic view takes as it's core assumption that if we could know the starting conditions of any given situation in their entirety, we would be able to predict without error the outcome of any given path. It assumes a one-to-one causal path without uncertainty, and holds that any uncertainty we humans observe is due solely to our lack of perfect knowledge.

Determinism vs Not is an argument about the fundamental nature of reality.

Free will comes into play, because the most salient counter to determinism is the act of making choices. We can observe and directly experience that we make choices in our lives. And the act of making choices does reside in the brain - there's an entire area devoted to it, in the prefrontal cortex. This is where executive function resides, and where the weighing of pros and cons, relative value and preference, timing and ordering, and extrapolation takes place.

Thus, with the understanding that the phrase "free will" is figurative, it resides in the prefrontal cortex.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are begging the question that the transperson is mentally ill, and further that their illness is self destructive.

Gendery dysphoria is a mental disorder. It causes them distress. There's no question begging involved.

And if you want "gender reassignment" surgery, yes, that absolutely is self destructive. You are mutilating the body in order to treat a mental disorder. Whether or not that's worth it on balance (there is very little evidence about long term benefits), they are in fact paying a price for it in terms of their bodily health.

That's generally not the case with transpeople.

I've been informed that not all trans people have gender dysphoria, which I'm willing to accept.

But if a trans person doesn't have gender dysphoria, I don't see any necessity for accommodating them either.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My point was that if someone believes it is obvious that males and females need to be segregated for the safety of the females, then that person should be asking that society addresses why males are so dangerous, rather than just shrugging their shoulders and disappearing off into the nearest "safe space". But I suppose it is also possible to believe that it is an innate and immutable part of maleness and nothing can be done about it.

Sure sure, and if hens believe that it's obvious that chickens and foxes should be separated for the safety of hens... then those hens should try to address why foxes are so dangerous instead of creating a safe coop for the chickens to live in.

Seriously though, have you not been paying attention? Females have been trying to address male violence for eons. We've petitioned to have laws made against rape and sexual assault, against sexual harassment, and to make sure that marital rape is recognized as rape. So far, it hasn't resulted in males managing to abandon or overcome their tendencies in any culture.

Why do you (a male) think that females should be forbidden from having safe areas free from male risks while we continue to fight for a behavioral and judicial adjustment?

ETA: And furthermore, why do you think that males who have transgender identities should be granted safe spaces from males?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If someone is morbidly obese and wanted to lose weight, does your analogy still make sense?

Of course not, because a morbidly obese person is not anorexic. Duh. Why do you think it makes sense for you to ask this question?

You are begging the question that the transperson is mentally ill, and further that their illness is self destructive. That's generally not the case with transpeople.

I didn't introduce that assumption, I only followed what Ivor posited.

My premise is that males with transgender identities are still males, and that it's fundamentally impossible for male humans to transform into female humans because our species is anisogamous and gonochoric. The mental health of males with respect to their body type is entirely irrelevant to my position, as is how they choose to present.

 

[smartcooky]

Why do you (a male) think that females should be forbidden from having safe areas free from male risks while we continue to fight for a behavioral and judicial adjustment?

ETA: And furthermore, why do you think that males who have transgender identities should be granted safe spaces from males?

And furthermore, why does he think males should decide what is best for females?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

This has probably been asked before, but I've only dipped into this megathread from time to time so I may have missed it.

I've heard enough from trans-activists to know that when someone identifies as a woman, for example, they do not have to adhere to any particular type of presentation, mode of dress, speech patterns, expectations of behavior, roles, life pathways, or anything else. They can pretty much do and act however they please while retaining their gender identity as a woman.

In this case, how is it any different from identifying as a "man", a "nonbinary person", a symbol (as the musician Prince did), or even a random collection of letters. In fact, it seems as the word "woman" when used as a gender identity has thereby just been reduced to a string of letters. It doesn't signify anything with any properties at all to distinguish it from "man", "nonbinary", or "xyzzy".

I think in linguistics speak, it's sort of like a signifier with no signified. Why does the gender identity term "woman" have anything whatsoever to do with the other word "woman" that is used to signify adult human females, other than that they share the same spelling?

 

[smartcooky]

Because human behaviour is complex and social mores naturally evolve over time, generally becoming more inclusive of human differences.

Perhaps, but not in a sense of being wholly accepting.

Do we have carve-outs for paedofiles? Rapists? Murderers?

From what you've found on the Internet below I think both of these things are unsettling to you.

Not at all. Progress is good, abrogating rights is not progress - especially when they are rights that have been fought so hard and so long for.

You would have us go back to a time when women have no say in society.

You appear to engage in a lot of black and white thinking on this and other topics.

Only on topics that are black and white (i.e. binary) in nature. Sex is one of those.

The most likely explanation is that you are just a crusty old person but perhaps you have always had a brain that struggles with empathy. Either way, it must make your life difficult at times, though you probably blame everyone else for these difficulties!

Now you're just being rude - delivering a personal attack because you can't understand why you're wrong and you've got nowhere else to go. You don't realise that you are in a small minority of people who think the way you do, and cannot understand why the majority don't just fall in line with your worldview

When examples are provide that show how social mores have changed, such as the acceptance of gay people, you have to delude yourself it was obvious all along that gay people were not mentally ill and needed to be treated.

At no stage of my life did I consider gay people were mentally ill.

, when anyone who has been alive for 40+ years or has some basic Internet search skills knows that that was not the case. When examples of harm reduction are provided you can't even address them

What harm reduction?
Letting transgender identified men invade women's spaces?
Giving gender dysphoric children puberty blockers and a cocktail of other drugs instead of treating their mental illness
Encouraging transgender people to undergo irreversible mutilation surgery?

...instead fly off at a tangent ranting about women being raped.

Rape denial? Is that where you're going now?

The acceptance of transgender people seems to be following a similar arc to that of gay people, though as they are at a more extreme end of a bell curve and far less prevalent in society it will probably be easier to stigmatise them for longer. I think we will eventually find more physical differences in the brains of people who feel they are a different gender to their biological sex and maybe even understand more about how gender is encoded in the brain.

Its been studied enough that if there were any such thing as a "transgender brain" we would know by now. There is no evidence that the brain of a transgender identified male is any different from that of any other male.

Again, thanks for the above. It's given me a better understanding of where you're coming from and how you perceive the world and other people.

I don't accept your thanks, so stop being patronizing.