Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

By those criteria, Hill is a man. Lots of transwomen are.

Was there video or something? I don't recall that.

I also don't recall assigning the sex or gender roles to any of the criteria mentioned. Seems you pulled that out of thin air to fit your narrative.

A woman, any woman, can be brash or demure, look me in the eye or not, etc. You're unabashedly making ◊◊◊◊ up now.

I want them to be coherent. They are not.

What do you find incoherent? A quote would be necessary, and possibly a dictionary. I'll provide the latter.

 

[d4m10n]

I think there is also a good measure of "you want to be a gentleman? This is how a gentleman behaves" baked into my upbringing.

Would a gentlemen expose his wedding tackle to women and girls in a traditional Korean spa or an NCAA locker room?

The answer to this question used to be obvious and entirely free from victim blaming.

 

[Ziggurat]

Was there video or something? I don't recall that.

I also don't recall assigning the sex or gender roles to any of the criteria mentioned. Seems you pulled that out of thin air to fit your narrative.

See, this is what I mean about your incoherence. You are simultaneously telling me you treat people differently based on their gender (not their sex), but also that you treat them according to some other non-gender criteria instead of according to their gender.

Nothing you have said is at all coherent.

A woman, any woman, can be brash or demure

Indeed.

So what the ◊◊◊◊ even is gender, and why is it relevant?

 

[Thermal]

Most of what you're talking about seems like vestigial sexism to me.

Sure, a lot of chivalry is sexist. But I think there can be good sexism and misogynistic. Not sure the former is so bad.

 

[Thermal]

Sure, if you want; I'm arguing for the proposition that it's okay to decide which titles or pronouns to use based on your personal relationship to the individual being referenced rather than formulating a general rule which must be inflexibly applied in all like cases.

Agreed. But keep the current case in point at the forefront. He says it is non-negotisbly about sex, and is utterly uncompromising, and toots his own horn endlessly about just that.

Till a transwoman he likes is put in front of him. Then all that uncompromising absolutism is found to be pure bull ◊◊◊◊, and he actually shares my view that he put on his never ending mocking show of contempt for.

Calling out a liar and a hypocrite in a debate has its place as well as the abstraction.

 

[Rolfe]

Allies do read this stuff. It's what makes them allies.

OK, people decide to be allies to horrible people because someone pointed out that they were horrible people. I see.

 

[Rolfe]

Rather a lot of people pointing out the double standards going on after the Met police chief declared that he had no alternative but to arrest Glinner under current legislation. This thread is good.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963372633740792046

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963372659372110200

Also the numerous threads pointing out that if you're burgled or your bicycle is stolen or you're assaulted in the street the most you'll get from the police is a crime reference number.

 

[Thermal]

See, this is what I mean about your incoherence. You are simultaneously telling me you treat people differently based on their gender (not their sex), but also that you treat them according to some other non-gender criteria instead of according to their gender.

This is your example of incoherence? Fine. Let's look at what you actually asked.

You asked how I would treat Misty Hill. I answered directly that I have no idea. You then asserted, quite vacuously, that I determined how to treat people based on their appearance only, and that I knew what Hill looked like. Somewhat taken aback by how absurd a suggestion that is, I responded that I, like most people, have a far wider set of criteria for how i react to someone. You then decide that my response was meant for some other question, and that there is sex or gendered meaning to unisex observable traits that you use to size someone up and determine how you will react to them.

Note the patten. I respond to your posts, and in every instance, you reply by adding imaginary elements (that I base my interaction with someone based solely on appearance, that I assigned gendered roles to unisex behaviors etc). That entire ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ exchange was a ride on your derailing Imagination Train, and this was an example of *my* incoherence?

So what the ◊◊◊◊ even is gender, and why is it relevant?

You brought it up, not me. And gender is probably pretty much what it has been defined as for years here. Did you mentally erase those discussion points too?

 

[Thermal]

Would a gentlemen expose his wedding tackle to women and girls in a traditional Korean spa or an NCAA locker room?

Not normally. Why do you ask?

The answer to this question used to be obvious and entirely free from victim blaming.

Not sure anything has changed? Is Merager being claimed to be a gentleman? Thomas? Are you Ziggsrauting me?

 

[smartcooky]

OK, this is actually quite interesting. Could you indulge me by considering the following questions?

1. I don't wear restrictive clothing, makeup or jewelry. Would you still "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

2. Which, if any, of the following facts about me might affect your answer: I'm 5ft 5"; I'm not well muscled; I'm 72.

3. If I was still 5ft 5", not well muscled, and 72, but was male instead of female, would you be any less inclined to "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

4. If I was 6ft, well muscled, and 30, but still female, would you be any less inclined to "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

As soon as the hard and edge questions start getting asked, the performance art evaporates.

 

[smartcooky]

Nope. You're pulling a half-assed Mr Spock routine, insisting that if every detail is not perfectly correlated, there can be no approximation. That's just dumb. Sorry, Charlie.

Obvious handwave is obvious. You won't address those facts because you can't - you're on shaky ground and you know it

 

[d4m10n]

Not sure anything has changed?

Perhaps one of us is misremembering.

Refreshing that you've resuscitated gentlemanly social norms; disappointing that you won't apply them to folks like Merager and Thomas.

 

[Rolfe]

Graham Linehan’s arrest proves that trans ideology is a threat to us …

archived 3 Sep 2025 16:50:00 UTC

archive.is

The arrest of Graham Linehan should be a turning point

When a comedy writer is seized by armed police over tweets, Britain’s free speech crisis can no longer be ignored.

www.andrewdoyle.org

https://thecritic.co.uk/graham-linehans-arrest-is-stupid-and-sinister/

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps one of us is misremembering.

One of us is, yes. The other started by asking "you want to be a gentleman?", clearly indicating that it is a willful choice one makes. Many don't, or even want to.

Refreshing that you've resuscitated gentlemanly social norms; disappointing that you won't apply them to folks like Merager and Thomas.

Why would I? To repeat again, has anyone even insinuated that Merager aspired to be a gentleman?.Not seeing it. Why would he be held to a self-imposed standard he elects not to impose on himself?

 

[Rolfe]

The press are having a field day.

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963488596020560012

Father Ted creator Graham Linehan's arrest shows how bonkers Britain is going

Heaven’s sake ANYONE who doubts how Britain is going totally bonkers should read about the arrest of Father Ted comedy writer Graham Linehan. Getting off a flight from Arizona at Heathrow, he was i…

www.thesun.co.uk

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963492771286671376

Trans activist at centre of Graham Linehan arrest is disgraced cop

A TRANS activist at the centre of the Graham Linehan arrest is a disgraced cop behind scores of gender-based legal challenges. Lynsay Watson, 58, was sacked by Leicestershire Police for branding fo…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[d4m10n]

Why would I?

Because social norms have much more utility when (non-sociopathic) people know in advance that adherence to those norms will be expected of them by other people, rather than being "self-imposed" as an act of personal discipline. The gentlemanly thing to do when shaped like a man is not to expose your bits to non-consenting females; men ought to expect that level of behavior of one another and face social sanction—at a minimum—when failing to live up to that standard.

You want to be a gentleman? Expect better of your fellow men.

 

[smartcooky]

The press are having a field day.

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963488596020560012

Father Ted creator Graham Linehan's arrest shows how bonkers Britain is going

Heaven’s sake ANYONE who doubts how Britain is going totally bonkers should read about the arrest of Father Ted comedy writer Graham Linehan. Getting off a flight from Arizona at Heathrow, he was i…

www.thesun.co.uk

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963492771286671376

Trans activist at centre of Graham Linehan arrest is disgraced cop

A TRANS activist at the centre of the Graham Linehan arrest is a disgraced cop behind scores of gender-based legal challenges. Lynsay Watson, 58, was sacked by Leicestershire Police for branding fo…

www.thesun.co.uk

I don't buy Commissioner Rowley's cry-baby act about the Police being put in an impossible position by politicians. Police are supposed to apply the law "without fear or favour"...

- Display a placard that says "Kill All TERFS" - The Police do nothing.
- Post on social media a comment saying "Kill JK Rowling" - The Police do nothing.
- If you are a performer on the stage at a rock concert and scream "Death to the IDF" - the Police do nothing.
- Your house is burgled. The Police do nothing.
- Shoplifters ransack your retail premises. The Police do nothing.
- Rape & grooming gangs operate in the streets. The Police do nothing.

BUT

- Post a Tweet someone perceives as anti-trans, and three Policemen turn up at your door at 2am to "check your thinking".
- Show an English or British flag to counter protest a pro-Palestine march, and several cops will manhandle you out of the way.
- Yell out "We love bacon" at a Pro-Palestine march, and you'll be arrested for hate speech.
- Challenge what a pro-Palestinian commenter has said on social media, and six officers will show up on your doorstep, and handcuff you while they search your house, including your wife's underwear drawer.
- Post a comedic Tweet advising women to punch intransigent men "in the balls" if they refuse to leave you alone in a toilet, and five Policemen armed with GUNS will come and arrest you at the airport as you step off the aircraft.

All this and much more has happened in the last few years in the Democratic People's Republic of Great Britain. Over 30 people a day are investigated/arrested by police for posts on social media while pro-trans and pro-Palestinian activists are allowed to make public death threats -unchallenged!!

The Police are only in an impossible position because they have put themselves there by allowing the whole force to be ideologically captured. It is abundantly clear they have chosen sides on these issues, and CHOOSE to take this kind of action.

 

[smartcooky]

Because social norms have much more utility when (non-sociopathic) people know in advance that adherence to those norms will be expected of them by other people, rather than being "self-imposed" as an act of personal discipline. The gentlemanly thing to do when shaped like a man is not to expose your bits to non-consenting females; men ought to expect that level of behavior of one another and face social sanction—at a minimum—when failing to live up to that standard.

You want to be a gentleman? Expect better of your fellow men.

Indeed!

Any man, including any pretending they are not a man, who violates any boundary of any woman or girl, in any place, at any time, against her consent is a predator and needs to be treated as such.

Good men stay out so that the bad men stand out.

 

[Thermal]

Because social norms have much more utility when (non-sociopathic) people...

Holup. Are you under the impression that Merager was on the Kumbaya end of the ASPD scale? Not feeling you. Do you recall his rap sheet? It was rather colorful and ungentlemanly. Pretty sure we can dismiss any thoughts of peer pressuring the brother into a model of chivalrous behavior. Thomas likely didn't consider a gentleman's conduct to be applicable to a 'woman' either.

We've talked about the Wi Spa at length, and I still think they could have gotten around the gender/sex discrimination in the same way they got around the open nudity inherent to its operation: state plainly that this experience was designed to recreate the traditional Korean experience, and the suspension of nudity norms went hand-in-hand with the sex segregation. Like, I can't think of any reason that clothing was flatly prohibited other than 'well that's how we did it back in Korea'. Sex segregation should apply on the same mutual agreement, without any charges of discrimination.

And that's my argument. Determine when and where biological sex segregation is needed/desired, and get that codified into law. It circumvents the whole ambiguous gender dilemma. Gynecologists are unable to perform exams on males, as a practical matter of training, and a bikini waxer should have the same exemption- they are consenting to work with the female anatomy, not the male. Then we can bypass all the 'they're all cross dressing pervs and fetishists' bull ◊◊◊◊.

 

[d4m10n]

Thomas likely didn't consider a gentleman's conduct to be applicable to a 'woman' either

If you were to list out the reasons why a gentleman doesn't expose himself to women and girls, you will find that those reasons are based on how he is perceived by them, rather than being rooted in self-perception. Because Thomas is still shaped like a man, they ought to be held to the usual standard.

Sex segregation should apply on the same mutual agreement, without any charges of discrimination.

I'm not talking about California law here, I'm talking about social norms which young men ought to have learned. You broached that topic by bringing up what it means to be gentlemanly, and I heartily agree that this is a good analytical lens for discussing these issues.