Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

No, that's someone else - Stephanie Hayden. Self-posted photographs of Hayden tend to look like this:
View attachment 63502

Oh, that's Anthony Halliday then, the convicted child molester and serial false complainer to police. Well dispite all his best efforts plastering on makeup and lip gloss, then running his photo through filters, he still looks like a bloke to me.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Vigilantes policing for men and acting on them with assumed authority are de facto Penis Police by any other name.
You really are obsessed with this silly notion of yours that sex segregation is unworkable without your famous "Penis Police" (even though we seem to have been able to cope perfectly well with out them for over a century)

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.
Because perfect is the enemy of good. Amirite?
 
Last edited:
You really are obsessed with this silly notion of yours that sex segregation is unworkable without your famous "Penis Police"
Also, oblivious to the problem of "gender police" that would be needed if any given space or league chose to segregate by gender instead of sex.

What is easier to police, an internal feeling or an external feature?
 
Vigilantes policing for men and acting on them with assumed authority are de facto Penis Police by any other name.
Yes, that's fine. Regular citizens have been policing voyeurs, frotteurs, and exhibitionists through public outcry and direct verbal confrontation for decades.

Do you know what actual violent criminals would do, being confronted by some random unarmed person?
I'm pretty sure most exhibitionists and voyeurs tend to be opportunistic cowards, who will flee if confronted.
 
Yes, that's fine. Regular citizens have been policing voyeurs, frotteurs, and exhibitionists through public outcry and direct verbal confrontation for decades.


I'm pretty sure most exhibitionists and voyeurs tend to be opportunistic cowards, who will flee if confronted.
I'm sure. And then there's the other very predictable outcome: off duty cop working security confronts a suspected voyeur (not trans) and the guy tackles the cop, bloodies him up, steals his taser and uses it on some other vigilante as he escapes, assaulting a woman on his way out.


This was an actual trained cop with weapons that got his ass handed to him by one of those timid criminals. Don't underestimate people, man. My advice is to not pick confrontations with people you won't fare well against if things go south.
 
Last edited:
You really are obsessed with this silly notion of yours that sex segregation is unworkable without your famous "Penis Police" (even though we seem to have been able to cope perfectly well with out them for over a century)


Because perfect is the enemy of good. Amirite?
You're not paying attention. Again. I bring up Penis Policing when one of y'all bring up Penis Policing. "How can you tell?" you wail. You only need to tell if you are Penis Policing. There's no other reason.

For 'over a century', there have been no laws or policies preventing men from entering women's rest rooms. You want them now, and want to be able to Police for Penises on your own, with theoretical legal support. Without an actual cop there, I don't know how you think that's going to work, unless you assume (as you clearly do) that they pose no actual threat whatsoever and you think you are just going to humiliate someone who is docile and harmless.
 
I'm a lot more prepared to stop sexual assault than I am jaywalking and I suspect that goes for you too.
Absolutely. But we are not talking about sexual assault. We are talking about someone's presence, and nothing more. You cant just stretch that to 'sexual assault in progress' any more than I could take someone waiting in line at the grocery store to be 'murder in progress'. Remember the girl at Buffolo Wild Wings? There was no even theoretical assault in the queue. She was a woman peeing in the women's restroom.
The crimes have nothing common - one of them isn't even a crime in my country
Substitute whatever misdemeanor you like, then, if that's the point you're going to get hung up on.
 
Absolutely. But we are not talking about sexual assault. We are talking about someone's presence, and nothing more. You cant just stretch that to 'sexual assault in progress' any more than I could take someone waiting in line at the grocery store to be 'murder in progress'. Remember the girl at Buffolo Wild Wings? There was no even theoretical assault in the queue. She was a woman peeing in the women's restroom.

Substitute whatever misdemeanor you like, then, if that's the point you're going to get hung up on.
A lot more people are prepared to step in to prevent a serious crime like sexual assault than they are a misdemeanour
 
I still advise my sons to pay on the first date; women seem to want that despite having overtaken men in college degrees.
The advice I was given in the late 80s was whoever does the asking does the paying, unless there's specific discussion of splitting the bill. There were a few occasions where I asked a male out and I paid the bill.
 
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.



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.
Ah yes, Linehan's horrific recommendation for how females could protect themselves from males who transgress their boundaries and don't stop or leave when told to do so results in an arrest by FIVE officers, because it's "inciting violence"... But the many posts that have been reported multiple times calling for people to physically assault "terfs", decapitate them, punch them, and the most recent version of "change your heart or die" paired with images of knives or guns... those are totally harmless and not at all an incitement to violence.

Honestly, I'm at a point where I sort of expect all the females of Britain to assault the police en masse. It's beyond a travesty to see the two-tier justice system at work.
 
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 ◊◊◊◊.
It's a lovely thought... but you seem to be glossing over the fact that California Law PROHIBITS that solution, because California has made it law that "gender identity" must be recognized in all cases as being synonymous with sex... and therefore a male person with a tallywhacker is allowed by law to show off their dangly bits on the FEMALE side of the spa, regardless of their multiple past felony sex offenses... because said male "identifies as a woman" now.

How about you help us fight these insane laws that massively disadvantage females? Have you considered that as an option for you personally?
 
Or, codify the idea that anyone running a business open to the public can legally choose to segregate by either gender identity or sex at birth and just let the market decide. I'm beyond sick of activists on both sides demanding that their preferred solution must be applied across the board.
As long as they're explicitly clear about how they're going about it... this is at least approaching tolerable. The challenge comes in when activists carry enough power to get their preferred "optional" solution put in place regardless. If too many gyms and spas and clothing stores adopt a gender-soul based separation, then the net effect is to exclude a whole lot of females from equal participation in society.
 
Probably a lot of truth here. My only quibble is that I don't see it as extending a privilege, but as acknowledging that it's where they should be. I know that gets into the whole "but it's *not* where they *should* be" argument, but that's... the whole argument.
WHY do you think that some males should be in female intimate spaces?

Or more to the point, WHY do you think that some males should not be in male intimate spaces?
 
And as I've also acknowledged more than once, I'm still conflicted about it, and I truly don't think that is as far beyond your (or anyone elses) ken as you like to keep claiming.

I want women to feel safe and comfortable. I also want transwomen to be respected and afforded the dignity of using facilities that feel as natural to them as a men's room feels to me. We've been all over the available data about the fear mongering that hordes of Isla Brysons will be hiding in every stall. It's not happening.

So does it come down to what feels right? I don't think that's how we base our concept of 'rights'. We try them on our principles, and on that metric, trans rights seem to be winning, as uncomfortable as it feels. Are we serious, or do we want to say "sure, we respect trans people... as long as we don't have to put our money where our mouths are"?
I'm going to ask a question that I suspect you'll want to scoff at and hand-wave away. I'm asking you to please don't do that, please give it real serious consideration, and respond.

What if a male who does not claim to be transgender says that it feels natural to them to use the female restroom? Should that male be given the right to access female restrooms so that they feel more comfortable? Would you use as support the fact that restroom attacks are very rare, so any objection to said male using female restrooms for their own comfort is just fearmongering?
 
It's a lovely thought... but you seem to be glossing over the fact that California Law PROHIBITS that solution, because California has made it law that "gender identity" must be recognized in all cases as being synonymous with sex... and therefore a male person with a tallywhacker is allowed by law to show off their dangly bits on the FEMALE side of the spa, regardless of their multiple past felony sex offenses... because said male "identifies as a woman" now.

How about you help us fight these insane laws that massively disadvantage females? Have you considered that as an option for you personally?
I agree. I think (and have said repeatedly) that California and even my own New Jersey's laws are not reasonable or fair, or even particularly sane.
 

Back
Top Bottom