Thermal
August Member
Nirvana's second album. We're just taking it from the top on another anti-trans rinse and repeat fringe reset.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Well I'm not conflicted at all, and neither are most women. They want males OUT of their spaces, regardless of what those males pretend to be.
Sadly, we don't always get what we want.
Please explain why 50% of the general population should be expected sacrifice their safe spaces, to afford dignity to a minuscule number of mentally ill men?
But its not about just being comfortable (as you well know). Its about transgender identified males forcing and intimidating women to accept them as women. Its about those males wanting to authenticate themselves. And how do we know this I hear you ask? We know this because even in cases where three sets of toilets are made available, Men's, Women's and Unisex... transgender identified males ALWAYS reject using the Unisex toilets (in which they will be perfectly safe and comfortable) and DEMAND to use the women's. When you understand why this is, you will be closer to understanding why the women here object to transgender identified males in their safe spaces.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I still have no idea what you're talking about. You asked a valid (in principle) question about who would have standing to enforce sex-segregated bathrooms. I gave three examples, and then realized it all distills down to "we all have standing" (and also we don't need to see penises to enforce this).
Instead of addressing my answer(s) in a scrutable way, you've spiraled off into non sequiturs like they're some sort of exotic particle knocked loose from spacetime by the LHC.
Thermal
August Member
Vigilantes policing for men and acting on them with assumed authority are de facto Penis Police by any other name.
Do you know what actual violent criminals would do, being confronted by some random unarmed person? I'm not thinking it would be the docile public humiliation you seem to envision. I think you are recommending people pick fights with other people that might just give them one.
It's what I do. I'm a science guy, like Thomas Dolby.
Thermal
August Member
Not so.long ago, white people wanted black people out of their spaces, for exactly the reasons you give now. 'They're dangerous! It's improper! They make me uncomfortable! They are rude and obnoxious!"
Yes, I know you have to push back hard against that particular comparison. If I were in your role in it, I'd push back hard too, with any bull ◊◊◊◊ argument I could conjure up. No one is fooled.
A) 50% aren't giving up anything. I asked my wife/ daughters/friends/family what they have "given up' since our gender open nightmare unfolded under law here. With one voice, they say "what are you talking about? Nothing changed".
B) You ain't a doctor, scooter, and have no qualifications to make medical diagnoses of people in the abstract which flies against all the accepted actual medical opinions.
Wait, don't tell me: "the medical community is ideologically captured, just like the law enforcement community, and the judicial communities, and... etc etc etc ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ c.
And I look over at transwomen in the touching grass real world around me. Your posit is not happening. Nothing is happening, and continues to not happen. Your fears are not real.
Why do you suppose that my fair state, a petri dish for every horror you pose, doesn't show the problems you wail about? That's a serious question that you keep ducking. Are New Jerseans more highly evolved? Not exactly the assessment I'm used to hearing about us.
Last edited:
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
You don't need to be violent to commit voyeurism and exhibitionism. I suspect a lot of offenders in this situation would flee rather than trying to start a fight after the alarm has been raised
Thermal
August Member
Changes nothing of what is being suggested. Go ahead, stop a man jaywalking in the middle of the street and tell him to get back on the curb under your command. Pick up your teeth afterwards and get back to me on what a great idea it is to confront random men on the street.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
At least you're talking about men and their propensity for violence when called out.
And this is even a new argument in favor of fiat self-ID: If a man demands access to a women's restroom whether you like it or not, you should just let him in, because he'll probably knock your teeth out if you object.
Thermal
August Member
Just realized I shouldn't be snipping out questions. That's your sides slinking, not mine. SO:
That's what we are debating. It's not been convincingly shown that women have anything to be afraid of, or at least more than they have under strict segregation. So if the conflict is based on irrational fears, I think you guys have been clear on how to act when facing what you perceive as irrationality.
In a mens prison, having not even been suspected of any harm while living as 'trans'. Seems to have curbed his dangeous inclinations?
Let's consult the complaints against them to evaluate that. One report of one McDonald's manager confronting them, and some as yet invisible girl that may or may not have been scared by something about them. Ok. How is Hill's track record doing beyond this ambiguous story that kind of disappeared? What problems or conflicts with Hill have been reported?
I can't imagine what you are now confused about. Is this an Ivor thing again?
Thermal
August Member
Damn straight. And you're recommending a public browbeating and giving them orders you expect obedience to.
Damn straight. You think someone's actually dangerous? Get the ◊◊◊◊ out of there, or throw down. "Give him a piece of your mind" ain't one of your prudent options.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The race debate and the transgender debate are unrelated, so this part of your response is (again) a non sequitur
I don't push back just because I dislike it, I push back because it's an incorrect position for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by multiple people
...for them.
Are any of them women who have
- self selected out of women's public toilets because they have been harassed and attacked by a transgender identified male?
- been forced to accept a fully intact, six-foot, 200lb biological male in their changing rooms and been told that if they complain, they will punished and or lose their jobs?
- been strip searched (which includes being body cavity searched) by a transgender identified male policeman?
- been told they must accept a fully intact biological male as their rape counsellor, and that if they refuse, they will be told to leave
- ever had to go to a women's refuge and accept that biological males will be present?
If not, then it doesn't surprise me they have not been affected.
Doesn't change my opinion. There is no such thing as being "born in the wrong body". Men who think they are women have some wires crossed in their brains
Yep, many of them are.... that is changing now. Many are rolling back on their opinions about butchering trans children.
Appeal to claimed personal experience noted.
Tell this to someone who cares what happens in your neck of the woods.
Rolfe
Adult human female
There was a big demonstration for women's rights outside Holyrood this morning. (I couldn't go, unfortunately, prior appointment.) These affairs have a "platform" (it's not raised) from where invited speakers address the attendees. It was pretty much a flop because a man turned up with a very loud loudspeaker and a garden chair and set himself up right beside the women and turned on the sound system. It was so loud that it drowned out everything the speakers were trying to say.
The organisers of the demonstration approached the police who were supervising the demonstration, asking them to speak to this man and get the interference removed. Instead they formed a cordon round the man, protecting him, and let him carry right on drowning out the speakers. Women were warned that any approach to him would constitute harrassment. When someone protested that this was "two tier policing", the reply was, no, that's England.
Joanna Cherry observed that if a woman had done the same thing next to a pro-trans meeting the police would have escorted her away immediately. I think this is an experiment that should be made.
The organisers of the demonstration approached the police who were supervising the demonstration, asking them to speak to this man and get the interference removed. Instead they formed a cordon round the man, protecting him, and let him carry right on drowning out the speakers. Women were warned that any approach to him would constitute harrassment. When someone protested that this was "two tier policing", the reply was, no, that's England.
Joanna Cherry observed that if a woman had done the same thing next to a pro-trans meeting the police would have escorted her away immediately. I think this is an experiment that should be made.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
"Sophia Brooks" has been giving evidence against Graham Linehan in Westminster today, and his cross-examination is frankly incredible. He has admitted to all sorts of harrassment, doxxing, violence and stalking as far as I can see. Lots of evidence to back that up too.
Then, afterwards, masked trans activists staged a violent demonstration as he left the court.
Oh wait. Twitter is speculating that the attempts to prevent people filming the alleged victim might be to prevent his picture becoming common currency. (The pictures of himself he releases are heavily filtered.) Because then people might notice that (a) he's obviously a man, and (b) his claim to have been 17 years old at the time of the alleged offences (just a couple of years ago) might be shown to be completely implausible, and indeed a pack of lies.
ETA: Posts below have suggested that that is not in fact Brooks. Sorry if I've misled anyone, it's possible an ambiguous tweet has misled a number of people into thinking it is him.
Then, afterwards, masked trans activists staged a violent demonstration as he left the court.
Oh wait. Twitter is speculating that the attempts to prevent people filming the alleged victim might be to prevent his picture becoming common currency. (The pictures of himself he releases are heavily filtered.) Because then people might notice that (a) he's obviously a man, and (b) his claim to have been 17 years old at the time of the alleged offences (just a couple of years ago) might be shown to be completely implausible, and indeed a pack of lies.
ETA: Posts below have suggested that that is not in fact Brooks. Sorry if I've misled anyone, it's possible an ambiguous tweet has misled a number of people into thinking it is him.
Last edited:
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
I'm a lot more prepared to stop sexual assault than I am jaywalking and I suspect that goes for you too. The crimes have nothing common - one of them isn't even a crime in my country
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Something rather interesting about the testimony of "Sophia Brooks". He managed to find out Graham Linehan's address and phone number. In cross-examination he was asked how he did this. He said that there were photos of him (Linehan) at his home published in the Telegraph, and from that he was able to work out the address from these, using publicly available images. He then, I think, implied that he had paid someone to find out the mobile phone number.
The only snag here is that the photos in the Telegraph were taken in his garden, close-up, with none of the house showing. There's no way anyone could deduce the address from these images. Speculation is that he was actually supplied with the address and phone number by the police themselves. I doubt it will be possible to prove this though.
The only snag here is that the photos in the Telegraph were taken in his garden, close-up, with none of the house showing. There's no way anyone could deduce the address from these images. Speculation is that he was actually supplied with the address and phone number by the police themselves. I doubt it will be possible to prove this though.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Here's a better photo of what was going on in Edinburgh. I see now what the women meant when they said they were told that if they stepped into the water they would be guilty of harrassing the man.
The police have a clear right to facilitate the legal, advertised protest. They have a clear right to stop any noise of that volume that is causing an annoyance.
But time and time again, they do this. (Damn, I wish I'd been there.)
The police have a clear right to facilitate the legal, advertised protest. They have a clear right to stop any noise of that volume that is causing an annoyance.
But time and time again, they do this. (Damn, I wish I'd been there.)
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This is "Sophia" Brooks? Really
If this is an 18 year old girl, I'm a Top Gun fighter pilot!!
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
No, that's someone else - Stephanie Hayden. Self-posted photographs of Hayden tend to look like this:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Are you sure? I may have been misreading the tweets, but it was more than one. Possibly several people have been misled by an ambiguity. We'll get pictures of Brooks yet. And when we get them, no matter what age he looks, he will not be a girl.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Pretty sure. I don't think anyone has claimed that's a photo of Brooks, have they?