Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

I abso-freaking-lutely gaurantee that if you sounded the verbal alarm for any misbehaving person, male or otherwise, virtually every guy within earshot would come ready to rumble, with yours truly leading the pack. No one is going to ignore a cry for help wondering if it will be politically correct to do so

Sure, sure. Because a ton of males showed up to protect the females at WiSpa when a blatantly male person showed up naked on the female side of the spa with their semi-erect dick and balls out in full view. Nobody at all called those females transphobic bigots, or told the females that they were deviant pervs for noticing that there was a naked male in the female spa.

Go ahead, pull the other one.

 

[Thermal]

Is it now your position that males with transgender identities are NOT male?

No. My position is the same as I've repeated over and over and over. I know they are bio males. I think of them /treat them as more like women. I believe I've said this a few dozen times.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nothing inherently bigoted about being devoutly religious? It's the dictionary definition of bigoted.
You can't name a single, none bigoted, non ridiculous reason for a woman to refuse to intimately search you can you?

Apparently Thermal sees no rational reason why a female might refuse to touch his dick, balls, and/or ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[Thermal]

Sure, sure. Because a ton of males showed up to protect the females at WiSpa when a blatantly male person showed up naked on the female side of the spa with their semi-erect dick and balls out in full view. Nobody at all called those females transphobic bigots, or told the females that they were deviant pervs for noticing that there was a naked male in the female spa.

Go ahead, pull the other one.

Wi spa had a transgender member list, and accommodated them regularly. What was their normal method of transgender accommodation? Was their policy dislosed to all members? Was that guy being there even out of the ordinary?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You could speculate that she is aware of the general norm that most people prefer to have such searches conducted (if they must be) by members of the same sex class as themselves.

Or, you know, the very realistic understanding that at least some males will be sexually aroused by having their genitals touched by a female, and that some of them even get off on forcing a female to handle their genitals against the female's will.

But of course, that's irrational. Thermal has previously voiced their opinion that there's nothing wrong with forcing strangers to take part in sexual roleplay without consent.

 

[Thermal]

Apparently Thermal sees no rational reason why a female might refuse to touch his dick, balls, and/or ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

If she performs strip searches professionally, why would she object? It's not a sexual thing. Unless you're suggesting it *is*, and she only wants to feel up other women? That's weird.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd find it difficult to believe she held a job conducting strip searches, if so. In any case, her employer would have words with her about failure to perform te duties she previously said she was willing to.

Oh FFS, are you somehow entirely ignorant of the fact that the person being searched has the right to request that the search be performed by someone of the same sex? AND that the person doing the search has the right to refuse to search someone of the opposite sex?

WTF is wrong with you that you think it's somehow acceptable to FORCE females to touch your dick against their will?

 

[Thermal]

Or, you know, the very realistic understanding that at least some males will be sexually aroused by having their genitals touched by a female, and that some of them even get off on forcing a female to handle their genitals against the female's will.

But of course, that's irrational. Thermal has previously voiced their opinion that there's nothing wrong with forcing strangers to take part in sexual roleplay without consent.

I see you read my previous response on the subject, ignored it, and came up with a pervy alternative. Thanks for that

 

[Ziggurat]

WTF is wrong with you that you think it's somehow acceptable to FORCE females to touch your dick against their will?

It's not that he thinks it's OK to force women to touch his dick. It's that he can't conceptualize why they wouldn't want to.

 

[Thermal]

Oh FFS, are you somehow entirely ignorant of the fact that the person being searched has the right to request that the search be performed by someone of the same sex? AND that the person doing the search has the right to refuse to search someone of the opposite sex?

WTF is wrong with you that you think it's somehow acceptable to FORCE females to touch your dick against their will?

Read harder. The question asked if I had a choice. I presumed the searcher would not object. If she did, where the ◊◊◊◊ do you come up with the logic that the one impersonally performing their paid work has a choice, but the recipient doesn't?

 

[Thermal]

It's not that he thinks it's OK to force women to touch his dick. It's that he can't conceptualize why they wouldn't want to.

I've had no complaints and quite a few compliments.

Why does the worker have a choice, and the one being sexually assaulted doesn't?

And yes, it would absolutely be sexual assault in any other context, and often is anyway for the recipient, context or no.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not how it happened for me - i.e. I wasn't led to criticize the trans movement by the right (nor were most posting in this thread). Like many, I assumed it must be essentially above criticism because the right was against it. As the pandemic hit, I spent more time on social media -
I first noted some folks on "sci-twitter" (people who had mutual connections with scientists I knew or institutions where I'd been) claiming that sex was a spectrum/ not a binary during (the biologists involved were mostly not repro/devo/evo types). I initially engaged a bit and was told that stating that sex is binary is seen as a "transphobic dog whistle". Those social media arguments and the recent papers referenced explicitly appeal to social justice/inclusivity in their critiques (i.e. rather than a well-reasoned functional issue with the definition).

The more I dug, the worse it looked - in addition to the the falsehoods about biology there was the misogyny, the homophobia, the lack of an assay and evidence for transitioning kids (+ denial of the the social contagion aspect) as well as the obviously false premise at the core of the movement. Yes, you can make people recite the mantra (TW are W/ TM are M), but it will never be widely believed. In short, the movement does not hold up under even a bit of scrutiny.

Regarding that scrutiny... I've lost track of the number of videos I've seen that make the falsehood apparent. There have been several people who purport to support the trans agenda who go to pro-trans events and interact with females. They'll ask questions about supporting trans right s"Do you support the right of transwomen to use women's changing rooms and showers?" for example. When the female expresses their support, the interviewer thanks them for their time... and then expresses support for their bravery coming out as a transwoman.

Of course there's going to be selectivity in what videos make it through to be posted... but the fact remains that a significant number of females who mouth the mantra, and who express unbounded support, end up being very offended that someone thinks they're a transwoman. At the end of the day everyone knows who the females are and they all know that males aren't females.

Support for this movement is entirely superficial for the vast majority of people. And the more people learn, the less support there is.

When I was a grad student, I heard an older scientist say the right (in the US) doesn't like science that conflicts with their interpretation of the bible and the left rejects that which conflicts with "accepted hippy wisdom."
The politicians on the right would love for the movement to continue as long as possible - it's a gift that keeps on giving for them.

It's a political cake handed to them on a silver platter.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why does the worker have a choice, and the one being sexually assaulted doesn't?

They both get to refuse a strip search of/by the opposite sex.

 

[Thermal]

They both get to refuse a strip search of/by the opposite sex.

Read harder. I didn't ask if they had a limited choice. I asked if they had the choice.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Theres nothing inherently bigoted about being devoutly religious" is comedy gold on a sceptics forum though - keep up the good work

Meh. I think it's misplaced in this thread, but I also think it rather strongly depends on what religion is being devoutly followed. Judeo-christian-islamic sects? Arguably a fair degree of bigotry. Hinduism is a much tougher argument to make though. Same for Buddhism, and arguably Taoism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Read harder. I didn't ask if they had a limited choice. I asked if they had the choice.

And I told you the choice they had.

 

[d4m10n]

Are okay with driving people to suicide because the gender identity they want to be treated as doesn't match their biological sex?

Imagine this same question but with other data categories from your official documents.

Are you okay driving people to suicide because they want to be granted birthright citizenship even though they were born abroad?

Are you okay driving people to suicide because they want to be recognized as Native American despite having only European ancestors?

Are you okay driving people to suicide because they want to compete as featherweight even though they are currently heavyweight?

Are you okay driving people to suicide because they want to be treated as if they were over 21 even though they are only 17?

See how weird that all sounds when the datum in question is anything other than sex? That should tell us something.

 

[Thermal]

And I told you the choice they had.

And you are pedantically repeating the obvious, knowing that's not what is being asked. You're better than playing dumb man.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I take it you didn't read my follow up. What a heterosexual even is, when how a woman is defined is in flux, gets a tad slippery. An article was put up recently about lesbians being pressured into (what we would call) heterosexual sex with transwomen under the guise of lesbianism with ladydicks gets me ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cranky.

Here's a couple of fun ones to add to your crankiness. I'm having a very cranky day, so I'm sharing it around.

First one: There's a male I've known for about 15 years in an online forum, let's call them "Y". Y has a long-term partner who is female. Y has never had any relationships with a male. About 7 years ago, Y decided that their gender identity is "eunuch", and that they don't identify as a "man" because they don't like their balls. They've been very vocal about wanting to remove their testicles... and that because of this identity as a eunuch, they should be entitled to use female restrooms, changing areas, and showers. About 3 years ago, Y's female partner decided they were a transman and started taking testosterone, but hasn't had any other interventions at all. So... now Y calls themself "queer" and is determined that they're not at all heterosexual, because they don't identify as a "man" but as a eunuch, and because their female partner identifies as a "man".

Second one: There's another male I've known for nearly 20 years, and we'll call them "S". S has decided they're non-binary at some point in the last 5 years. S is married to a female human being, who also identifies as non-binary. Neither takes any kind of exogenous hormones, neither takes any hormone suppressants, neither has had any surgeries. But because they're both non-binary, S now demands that they be referred to as a "gay" couple.

This is the problem with trying to be polite and accommodate irrational demands to alter the language. It results in nothing having any meaning at all. It's downright Orwellian.

 

[Thermal]

Here's a couple of fun ones to add to your crankiness. I'm having a very cranky day, so I'm sharing it around.

First one: There's a male I've known for about 15 years in an online forum, let's call them "Y". Y has a long-term partner who is female. Y has never had any relationships with a male. About 7 years ago, Y decided that their gender identity is "eunuch", and that they don't identify as a "man" because they don't like their balls. They've been very vocal about wanting to remove their testicles... and that because of this identity as a eunuch, they should be entitled to use female restrooms, changing areas, and showers. About 3 years ago, Y's female partner decided they were a transman and started taking testosterone, but hasn't had any other interventions at all. So... now Y calls themself "queer" and is determined that they're not at all heterosexual, because they don't identify as a "man" but as a eunuch, and because their female partner identifies as a "man".

Second one: There's another male I've known for nearly 20 years, and we'll call them "S". S has decided they're non-binary at some point in the last 5 years. S is married to a female human being, who also identifies as non-binary. Neither takes any kind of exogenous hormones, neither takes any hormone suppressants, neither has had any surgeries. But because they're both non-binary, S now demands that they be referred to as a "gay" couple.

This is the problem with trying to be polite and accommodate irrational demands to alter the language. It results in nothing having any meaning at all. It's downright Orwellian.

You guys have more colorful acquaintances than me, I guess.

If a guy told me he was nonbinary, with a non binary oppisite sex partner, and wanted to be called a gay couple, I would sit him down on the couch with a relaxing cup of tea, bring out a dictionary, sit next to him on the couch, and beat him into the ICU with the dictionary.

I want to be accepting and all, but the "I'm not anything!" bull ◊◊◊◊ gets on my last nerve.