Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

And yet the men who wanted in, over the objections of women, by and large knew to stay the ◊◊◊◊ out anyway.

Yeah, how about that? It doesn't really happen, then or now, under segregation policies or open gender, does it?

What you fear monger is not borne out in any data. To you and @smartcooky above, and anyone else:

I live in the petri dish. Every TRA wish has been codified into law for years. This is the perfect place to pull our data and observations from, in addition to Massachusetts and the other jurisdictions under open gender.

Where is the evidence of the imposter hordes increasing the assaults on women? No more bobbing and weaving and changing the subject. Everything you fear monger is in place in my state. Or use any other comparable sized or larger jurisdiction (obviously New Zealand and Scotland don't make the cut, lol).

No more excuses. What does the data say about your predictions?

 

[Thermal]

No idea what this phrase is even supposed to mean.

Yes you do. It means opportunistic cis male criminals who pose as transwomen (or use the "magic words") in order to gain access to female safe spaces. You could figure that out in context.

Did you guys do a mass DM and all agree to act like reading is beyond your? Cuz I'm really not buying it anymore.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ordinarily, I'd be happy to but you've demonstrated a long long track record ITT of firehosing a dozen replies, not listening to the responses, disappearing for weeks, returning and asking the same goddamned questions again.

Guess what is likely to happen if I answer them again during this firehosing session?

Fine. Since I've answered this directly to you several times, go back in the thread for multiple paragraphs of fleshing out. The short answer is: no.

Okay, to reiterate... You agree that males remain males, regardless of how they identify. Thus a male with a transgender identity is *still* a male. And you take the position that you're not sure that males should have a right to enter female intimate spaces. But you also take the position that males with transgender identities should have a right to enter female intimate spaces, because that's what feels right to them.

So at the end of the day, you do think that some males should have a right to use female intimate spaces, as long as they say that they have a transgender identity. Do you get why so many of us see your position as being self-contradictory?

Same caveats as above: if they say they do, they probably do. The impostor trannys theorized here do not materialize in the real world when we look at the available data.

If you or anyone else has data that suggests the imposter hordes go off the leash under open gender policies, I'm all ears. Been asking fot many months now, only to hear the crickets chirping away.

Here's where you're playing some games, even if it's not intentional.

How do you tell a male with a transgender identity from a male without a transgender identity? On the basis of their having said so - they say they do, therefore, they are. That's what you expressed above.

Then you go on to say "imposter trans" (although you chose to use a derogatory slur) don't exist.

But here's the catch: How do you tell that a self-proclaimed transgender identified male is an imposter? You cannot, because the act of them saying that they're transgender is the only requirement for them to be transgender. There's no reasonable or rational way to say that one male who claims a transgender identity is genuine but another who claims a transgender identity is dishonest. They both have claimed a transgender identity, therefore they are both transgender. There's no test, there's no way to tell.

If it happens, as you claim, let's consider the evidence. If the only evidence is "aw come on man, just imagine there is some", I'm going to direct you to a dictionary with the word "skeptic" highlighted.

The evidence does not exist because ESP does not exist. There is literally no way at all to determine whether one male is "true trans" and another male is "fake trans" when they both claim that they are trans. They've made the claim, therefore they're trans. There's no test for it, it's all based solely on their say so.

You've rejected Bryson as being genuinely trans - why? Because to you, rationally, it seems like they're abusing the system. Well, the same thing goes for Merager from my point of view - they have a history of felony sexual offenses. But the state of CA disagrees, and because Merager says the magic words, the law is on Merager's side, and they have a legal right to be naked in front of a room full of females who did not consent to see their dick and balls. I also reject the claim made by Eddie Izzard, who has a long history of transvestism, and whose newfound "womanhood" to me seems a ploy to regain some notoriety while also getting the thrill of forcing their way into the presence of females who do not want them there. I also reject the claim of Dylan Mulvaney, and of Alex Drummond, and of Hannah Barnes, and of a large host of many, many, many other males who have claimed a transgender identity and have used it in ways that allow them to trample on the equal rights and access of females.

Why do you seem to think that where you draw the line on who is "real trans" is somehow correct, and where I draw the line is bigotry? More to the point, why do you seem to think that you have the authority to tell females which males we must let into our presence, and reject the authority of females to have an opinion of our own?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Where is the evidence of the imposter hordes increasing the assaults on women?

Twitter and Pornhub.

Seriously you just keep pretending like we're all just making ◊◊◊◊ up for giggles. But there are dozens and dozens and dozens of twitter and intragram and tiktok accounts out there by males with transgender identities who take selfies of themselves in female restrooms, prancing and stroking their crotches provocatively. There are more than enough instances on various porn sites of males with self-proclaimed transgender identities masturbating in female restrooms and changing rooms. And there have been a few studies now that show an increase in sexual assaults and sexual offending in unisex restrooms.

On the other hand... it frequently seems as if you don't have a problem with males jerking off in female restrooms and you don't seem to think that's something that females should be bothered by.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, somebody had to do it. This is why we pay him the big bucks.

Down On The Beaches

We’ve written already about the magnitude of the error transactivists have made in bringing about the arrest of Graham Linehan on trumped-up incitement charges. But thanks to the excellent wo…

wingsoverscotland.com

Apparently there is more and worse to come.

 

[Thermal]

Okay, to reiterate... You agree that males remain males, regardless of how they identify. Thus a male with a transgender identity is *still* a male.

Yup.

And you take the position that you're not sure that males should have a right to enter female intimate spaces.

"Female" intimate spaces are not known to exist. We've been over that several times. If the sign on the rest room door said "FEMALE ONLY", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Do you get why so many of us see your position as being self-contradictory?

Yes. Because you don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ READ the paragraphs and paragraphs I've spent fleshing it out. You knee jerk to keywords with no comprehension and blame me for lack of clarity. Great example: female and woman do not mean the same thing. usually they do, but dictionary definitions have been provided by yours truly, noting that the English language acknowledges a very common secondary definition.

And read your argument above: that's exactly what you rely on for your word games. You conflate female with woman, and don't acknowledge the English language.

Here's where you're playing some games, even if it's not intentional...There's no test, there's no way to tell.

Yes, you've repeated the "how can we tell" argument a dozen times, and I've responded a dozen times. You use the same examples and the same words. Let me guess- you forgot or didn't bother reading? Yeah, this is just what I said in the last post. You just want to keep disappearing, rinsing and repeating.

So how you doing on the evidence for the imposter transwomen? That should settle things neatly. Spreadsheet format, pie charts, anything. What do you have?

 

[smartcooky]

Twitter and Pornhub.

Seriously you just keep pretending like we're all just making ◊◊◊◊ up for giggles. But there are dozens and dozens and dozens of twitter and intragram and tiktok accounts out there by males with transgender identities who take selfies of themselves in female restrooms, prancing and stroking their crotches provocatively. There are more than enough instances on various porn sites of males with self-proclaimed transgender identities masturbating in female restrooms and changing rooms. And there have been a few studies now that show an increase in sexual assaults and sexual offending in unisex restrooms.

On the other hand... it frequently seems as if you don't have a problem with males jerking off in female restrooms and you don't seem to think that's something that females should be bothered by.

He calls this "cherry-picking", while remaining wilfully, and blissfully ignorant of the fact that its not just a few cherries, but an orchard of fully-laden cherry trees.

 

[Thermal]

Twitter and Pornhub.

There's some quality data points.

I spent a lot of time looking at the tweets, mostly posted by Rolfe. I kept pointing out that they were either factually wrong, not found in any news source anywhere, and the majority are simply dimwitted. Twitter is showing pretty much zero for evidence of increase. It shows the same type of occasional freaks that were running around decades ago. Yet even this late in the game, years into this thread, you're still dicking around in the dozens of picked cherries, among millions of transpeople. Twitter ain't showing dick.

Pornhub... sorry I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Seriously you just keep pretending like we're all just making ◊◊◊◊ up for giggles. But there are dozens and dozens and dozens of twitter and intragram and tiktok accounts out there by males with transgender identities who take selfies of themselves in female restrooms, prancing and stroking their crotches provocatively.

Dozens and dozens and dozens have been doing the same kind of thing before there was an internet, much less the gender wars. You ate not showing your predicted increase under open gender policies.

There are more than enough instances on various porn sites of males with self-proclaimed transgender identities masturbating in female restrooms and changing rooms. And there have been a few studies now that show an increase in sexual assaults and sexual offending in unisex restrooms.

True. Compare the incidence before and after open gender policy adoption before concluding anything. Did that occur to you?

On the other hand... it frequently seems as if you don't have a problem with males jerking off in female restrooms and you don't seem to think that's something that females should be bothered by.

And with that bald faced lie, I'm out. You have no excuse for saying such a thing.

 

[Thermal]

He calls this "cherry-picking", while remaining wilfully, and blissfully ignorant of the fact that its not just a few cherries, but an orchard of fully-laden cherry trees.

Then quantify them, sweetie. That's how you seperate bull ◊◊◊◊ from reliable data. What have you come up with, or are you too confused to understand?

 

[mumblethrax]

The evidence does not exist because ESP does not exist. There is literally no way at all to determine whether one male is "true trans" and another male is "fake trans" when they both claim that they are trans. They've made the claim, therefore they're trans. There's no test for it, it's all based solely on their say so.

You don't need to make this determination in order to test the proposition. The assumption here is that if everyone is permitted to use the bathroom matching their proclaimed gender identity, both transwomen and imposters will be permitted to use the ladies'. If either imposters or transwomen presented a threat, we'd expect assault (or other crime) rates to go up as a result (barring weird effects, like one of these groups causing rates to go down while the other causes them to go up).

 

[smartcooky]

You don't need to make this determination in order to test the proposition. The assumption here is that if everyone is permitted to use the bathroom matching their proclaimed gender identity, both transwomen and imposters will be permitted to use the ladies'. If either imposters or transwomen presented a threat, we'd expect assault (or other crime) rates to go up as a result (barring weird effects, like one of these groups causing rates to go down while the other causes them to go up).

And do we really want to wait until people are assaulted before deciding that its not a good idea? We know for a fact that sexual assaults in women's prisons have increase since transgender identified males have been house in them -
- we know that transgender identified males are almost 18 times more likely to be sex offenders than women
- we know that transgender identified males are more than five times more likely to be sex offenders than cis men

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

When and idea is so bad, and the negative consequences of introducing it are so obvious, to we really need to test it an put people at risk

NOTE: My position is that if just ONE women is sexually assaulted in a toilet by a transgender identified male, that is too many

 

[mumblethrax]

And do we really want to wait until people are assaulted before deciding that its not a good idea?

This has already happened and has been the status quo for years. In NYC, for around two decades. The waiting period is over, and the data is in.

NOTE: My position is that if just ONE women is sexually assaulted in a toilet by a transgender identified male, that is too many

Personally, I'm against women being assaulted or harassed by anyone.

 

[Rolfe]

Really interesting article.

Brave and Inspiring, or Deviant and Disturbing?

Depends which body parts are chopped off

genspect.substack.com

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yup.

"Female" intimate spaces are not known to exist. We've been over that several times. If the sign on the rest room door said "FEMALE ONLY", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and you should ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ know it. Throughout the overwhelming majority of my life AND YOURS the word "woman" was understood to be synonymous with female human being, and at no point during that time did ANYONE AT ALL think that "woman" meant "person of either sex who likes to wear spinny skirts". It's absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ absurd of you to play this game that somehow "woman" has always meant some ephemeral gendery soul feeling that anyone can have. It's absolutely untrue and you know it. This is so far beyond disingenuous that I'm struggling to take you seriously.

FFS. Now you're playing the same idiotic linguistic game that p0lka was, pretending like if the sign used the specific word "female" everything would magically be fixed. You know it's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Thermal, don't pretend like you think this makes sense.

Yes. Because you don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ READ the paragraphs and paragraphs I've spent fleshing it out. You knee jerk to keywords with no comprehension and blame me for lack of clarity. Great example: female and woman do not mean the same thing. usually they do, but dictionary definitions have been provided by yours truly, noting that the English language acknowledges a very common secondary definition.

Again, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. You're pretending that the appropriation of a word within the last two minutes somehow means that it has changed in all cases across the entire goddamned world. You ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ KNOW that the word "women" on the restroom door uses the FIRST definition, you KNOW it has NEVER meant "anyone who says they have womanly feelings inside their heads".

And read your argument above: that's exactly what you rely on for your word games. You conflate female with woman, and don't acknowledge the English language.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. I refuse to surrender the word "woman" so that it can only mean some mystical feeling that males can appropriate in order to violate female boundaries.

Yes, you've repeated the "how can we tell" argument a dozen times, and I've responded a dozen times. You use the same examples and the same words. Let me guess- you forgot or didn't bother reading? Yeah, this is just what I said in the last post. You just want to keep disappearing, rinsing and repeating.

You have never actually given a reasonable or coherent answer. All your answers have been wishy-washy sidestepping and tapdancing. So far as I can tell, you're doing your damnedest to avoid having to acknowledge that you want to give some males special extra privileges regardless of how much this ◊◊◊◊◊ over real women.

So how you doing on the evidence for the imposter transwomen? That should settle things neatly. Spreadsheet format, pie charts, anything. What do you have?

There's no such thing as an "imposter" transgender identified male because LITERALLY the only thing that makes them transgender in the first place is that they said the magical phrase!

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't need to make this determination in order to test the proposition. The assumption here is that if everyone is permitted to use the bathroom matching their proclaimed gender identity, both transwomen and imposters will be permitted to use the ladies'. If either imposters or transwomen presented a threat, we'd expect assault (or other crime) rates to go up as a result (barring weird effects, like one of these groups causing rates to go down while the other causes them to go up).

Nothing quite like experimenting on female human beings to see if we experience enough of an increase in our already staggeringly high rate of sexual victimization for males to decide that it's too much.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When and idea is so bad, and the negative consequences of introducing it are so obvious, to we really need to test it an put people at risk

It's just female humans who are put at risk. Who really cares about females, its not like we're full humans or anything.

 

[mumblethrax]

Nothing quite like experimenting on female human beings to see if we experience enough of an increase in our already staggeringly high rate of sexual victimization for males to decide that it's too much.

Any novel change in policy constitutes an 'experiment'. The alternative is paralytic rejection of any proposed change on the grounds that it could make matters worse. This is not a sensible objection, given that any change in policy designed to improve safety for women would also constitute such an experiment.

 

[Rolfe]

And this is even more interesting. Nick Wallis, the journalist who exposed the Post Office scandal, is now working on the trans scandal.

An open letter to the UK Government and its Parliamentarians

Dr Joseph Chrysostom Not from me, obvs. This is from Dr Joseph Chrysostom MBBS, MS (Gen Surg), FRCSEd (pictured right), who very kindly contributed two anonymous posts to this blog comparing real v…

genderblog.net

Remember, gender medicine is highly evidenced and has the support of all medical bodies.

What exactly is a neovagina, then?

I was recently contacted by an NHS doctor who is concerned about gender ideology and its capture of his profession. Let’s call him Dr J. Following retirement from full time work, Dr J is curr…

genderblog.net

What exactly is a neophallus, then?

This is the second blog post on a theme. The first is called “What exactly is a neovagina, then?” This post is about the creation of an artificial penis for women who believe they are m…

genderblog.net

 

[Rolfe]

Another perspective.

The NHS data scandal

Victoria Keilthy is a senior manager in an NHS trust and the author of “Incoherent and Unsafe”, a report on the dangers posed by the NHS’s current approach to recording sex and ge…

genderblog.net

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, somebody had to do it. This is why we pay him the big bucks.

Down On The Beaches

We’ve written already about the magnitude of the error transactivists have made in bringing about the arrest of Graham Linehan on trumped-up incitement charges. But thanks to the excellent wo…

wingsoverscotland.com

Apparently there is more and worse to come.

Well. Lynsay Watson seems like a really completely stable individual...

I've read bits and piece of tribunal tweets for Linehan's hearing, and it's been quite a bit of an own-goal for the litigants. But Watson here is just beyond nutso.