Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

Content warning for the video linked in this tweet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1940711333197943075

 

[Thermal]

Exemplar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An exemplar is a person, a place, an object, or some other entity that serves as a predominant example of a given concept​

He is using NJ to serve as a predominant example of gender identity based public bathrooms...

This is the very definition of using it as an exemplar.

Go down to the neighborhood drugstore.
Find someone who can read.
Have them look up 'predominant' and explain it to you.
You're welcome.

 

[smartcooky]

No, I'm saying there are plenty of opportunities for criminality irrespective of whether you let transwomen in. There is no magic forcefield that keeps men out of women's bathrooms.

Well gee whiz golly gosh, I wonder why/how men managed to stay out of women's bathrooms BEFORE the insanity of men cosplaying as women descended upon us?

Crimes by cis men women against women in public restrooms are unfortunately not unheard of. The MO for assault is usually something like a man waiting for a lone women to enter a bathroom before he goes in, or going in when he knows it will empty, hiding in a stall, and waiting for a lone woman to enter.

It used to be much harder for men to do that, but since the advent of men claiming to be women by fiat, it has become a lot easier.

That's not going to be limited by the number of women using the bathroom, unless it drops near to zero.

Evidence for this bare assertion?

Because if the number of women using the ladies' room was a limiting factor on crime in the ladies' room, crimes by cis men would drop as women stopped using public bathrooms.

I have provided evidence independent of statistics.

I ask you again, what do you think are the reasons behind the huge and steady drop in required consumables being supplied for women's bathrooms. You are still avoiding making any attempt to answer this question.

Assaults and other crimes. I wouldn't say a great number, but yes. Read the study I posted earlier.

I read the study already. I disbelieve the results because I consider the three authors to all have a conflict of interest (transgender advocates finding conclusions that suit their advocacy agenda). Also, as far as I can find, I'm not seeing any raw data, only their analysis... in effect, they have not shown their working. For these reasons, I don't find the study credible or scholarly.

Because I don't see any good reason to believe it. If there has been an 80% drop in women using public bathrooms here it would be impossible not to notice and would be widely reported on.

In your opinion. My opinion differs

This would effectively mean that the bulk of women would not be able to participate in public life at all. That hasn't happened, so it's extremely far-fetched.

Utter horsecock. Every women I know has self-selected out of using public bathrooms. They are all still able to "participate in public life", albeit with some diffulty, and some additional planning.

But throughout this discussion, you are still missing the most important point. No males should be permitted to use bathroom facilities that are reserved for females - for mine, that is a hard and fast axiom. Transwomen (in reality-based terms, transgender identified men) are male, so the exclusion should apply to them, regardless of whether they are just cosplaying, or truly believe their girlie feels are for realsies. Transgender identified men claim they must be allowed to use the women's bathroom because they personally feel uncomfortable using the bathroom that aligns with their biological sex. Sorry, but that is their problem. The solution to this should NOT be to make all women uncomfortable to assuage their own discomfort.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well gee whiz golly gosh, I wonder why/how men managed to stay out of women's bathrooms BEFORE the insanity of men cosplaying as women descended upon us?

They didn't.

Evidence for this bare assertion?

It isn't a bare assertion, it's just plain old modus tollens. If they're waiting until a lone woman walks in, the fact that women go in less frequently can only change how long they wait, and might result in lone women being in public restrooms more frequently.

I have provided evidence independent of statistics.

That's very low quality evidence, and have already told you why I consider it implausible.

I ask you again, what do you think are the reasons behind the huge and steady drop in required consumables being supplied for women's bathrooms. You are still avoiding making any attempt to answer this question.

Because I don't have any reason to believe it's true, and I'm not going to try to explain a second-hand story about a phenomenon that I have no way of investigating.

I read the study already. I disbelieve the results because I consider the three authors to all have a conflict of interest (transgender advocates finding conclusions that suit their advocacy agenda).

That's not a conflict of interest. That's you discounting research for ideological reasons.

Also, as far as I can find, I'm not seeing any raw data, only their analysis... in effect, they have not shown their working. For these reasons, I don't find the study credible or scholarly.

So then you didn't read it.

In your opinion. My opinion differs

Your opinion is unreasonable.

Utter horsecock. Every women I know has self-selected out of using public bathrooms. They are all still able to "participate in public life", albeit with some diffulty, and some additional planning.

I'm talking about New York, a city of over 8 million people. What kind of careful planning gets you through a 2-hour commute and a 10-hour workday in an office building without using public restrooms?

But throughout this discussion, you are still missing the most important point. No males should be permitted to use bathroom facilities that are reserved for females - for mine, that is a hard and fast axiom.

For the record, this would be an actual example of a bare assertion. You're attempting to settle the debate by fiat. That's not how reasoning works.

But would you make an exception for a mother bringing her young son into the ladies' room with her? If you would, then this 'axiom' does not seem so hard and fast.

 

[smartcooky]

They didn't.

This IS bare assertion. Just ask women

Oh wait, you don't care what women think, and you dismiss their opinions out of hand.

It isn't a bare assertion, it's just plain old modus tollens. If they're waiting until a lone woman walks in, the fact that women go in less frequently can only change how long they wait, and might result in lone women being in public restrooms more frequently.

Umm, no. It was bare assertion, and still is

That's very low quality evidence, and have already told you why I consider it implausible.

You still haven't addressed it.

Because I don't have any reason to believe it's true, and I'm not going to try to explain a second-hand story about a phenomenon that I have no way of investigating.

Who do you think you are, the evidence Police?
You don't need to investigate anything - that is not your job. I asked you a question. If you refuse to answer, I will just have to assume you are incapable of answering. Either that, or you can't think of an answer that will fit with your ideological pre-conceptions

That's not a conflict of interest.

Yes it is.

That's you discounting research for ideological reasons.

Not it isn't. Its discounting a study because the authors have a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

So then you didn't read it.

Yes I did.

Your opinion is unreasonable.

You opinion is unreasonable. See how that works?

I'm talking about New York, a city of over 8 million people. What kind of careful planning gets you through a 2 hour commute and a 10-hour workday in an office building without using public restrooms?

Using NYC as an exemplar? Did you learn that from Thermal?

For the record, this would be an actual example of a bare assertion. You're attempting to settle the debate by fiat. That's not how reasoning works.

I wasn't reasoning or even attempting to reason. I was stating my position.

But would you make an exception for a mother bringing her young son into the ladies' room with her?

Of course

If you would, then this 'axiom' does not seem so hard and fast.

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

Look, you clearly are not interested in any kind honest debate. You just automatically contrarian gainsay anything said by people you disagree with. Nothing can be gained by engaging with you any further.

 

[mumblethrax]

This IS bare assertion. Just ask women

No, it isn't. Men have been able to enter women's bathrooms for as long as they've existed, and in many jurisdictions this wasn't even illegal.

Oh wait, you don't care what women think, and you dismiss their opinions out of hand.

More dishonest imputation.

Umm, no. It was bare assertion, and still is

It's called reasoning, and you should really learn how to do it at some point.

You still haven't addressed it.

Because it's of extremely low quality.

Who do you think you are, the evidence Police?

None of us has any obligation to address evidence this unreliable.

You don't need to investigate anything - that is not your job. I asked you a question. If you refuse to answer, I will just have to assume you are incapable of answering. Either that, or you can't think of an answer that will fit with your ideological pre-conceptions

You asked me a question about a phenomenon that I have no way of investigating. I do need to investigate in order to make observations that would allow me to formulate an idea about why that happened. I'm not going to try to explain why somebody's grandmother's chair floated across the room, either. I don't believe it's down to supernatural forces, but I have no way of explaining it. I don't know. I wasn't there. And I don't have any reason to believe it happened in the first place.

Yes it is.

It isn't. A black scholar with a history of activism hired by a sociology department to research topic who writes a paper describing a result that happens to advance the interests of civil rights activists generally does not have a conflict of interest, either. Even if he goes to a BLM protest.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

Yes I did.

If you didn't see the data, you didn't. Did you notice it was behind a paywall?

You opinion is unreasonable. See how that works?

It doesn't work, because it isn't true.

Using NYC as an exemplar? Did you learn that from Thermal?

Suivez la piste. You tried to tell me the reason women weren't being subject to crime here is because they weren't using the restroom, "in droves". And you still don't know what exemplar means.

I wasn't reasoning or even attempting to reason. I was stating my position.

As if I didn't know it? You accused me of 'missing' something. You presented your position as an axiom. That is, in fact, an attempt to relieve yourself of any obligation to justify your position, by simply declaring it to be true by fiat.

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

It does. Axioms don't have exceptions.

Look, you clearly are not interested in any kind honest debate. You just automatically contrarian gainsay anything said by people you disagree with. Nothing can be gained by engaging with you any further.

Further attempts to fallaciously dismiss an argument.

 

[smartcooky]

Graham Linehan is suing the Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

 

[Aber]

That's you discounting research for ideological reasons.

Sill better than mansplaining.

 

[mumblethrax]

Sill better than mansplaining.

I don't think I've mansplained anything, but I'll be happy to accept a correction if you'd like to tell me where I did.

 

[lionking]

I don't think I've mansplained anything, but I'll be happy to accept a correction if you'd like to tell me where I did.

You are dismissing comments of women in this thread about feeling uncomfortable and anxious when men are in their previously safe places as irrelevant. That’s just for starters.

 

[mumblethrax]

You are dismissing comments of women in this thread about feeling uncomfortable and anxious when men are in their previously safe places as irrelevant. That’s just for starters.

I haven't dismissed those comments as irrelevant at all.

 

[Pixel42]

You are dismissing comments of women in this thread about feeling uncomfortable and anxious when men are in their previously safe places as irrelevant. That’s just for starters.

But a tiny percentage of males feel uncomfortable and anxious when using male only spaces, which obviously cannot be tolerated. Transferring that discomfort and anxiety to all females is the only possible solution.

 

[lionking]

I haven't dismissed those comments as irrelevant at all.

Ignoring them is the same as dismissing them.

 

[mumblethrax]

Ignoring them is the same as dismissing them.

I haven't ignored them, either.

 

[lionking]

I haven't ignored them, either.

Nonsense

 

[mumblethrax]

Nonsense

It isn't. I responded to Pixel42 about this.

 

[smartcooky]

Their arguments amount to all women having to STFU so that a minuscule number of poor widdle male, cosplaying snowflakes don't have to pee in the same room with their fellow males.

It's pathetic - misogyny so ripe you can taste it!

 

[mumblethrax]

Misogyny so ripe you can taste it!

Saying I don't dismiss women's fears and anxieties as irrelevant is misogyny?

I see you edited your post. Ok, so just another attempt to say that misogyny is the root of the beliefs I don't hold.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is the brief story of the disgraced transgender identified ex-policeman, Lyndsey Watson, who encouraged "Tarquin" (Sophia Brooks) to make the complaint about Graham Linehan's innocuous tweets.

What a scumbag Watson is...

 

[angrysoba]

Graham Linehan is suing the Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

It’s a complete disgrace to arrest people for their tweets unless they are explicitly inciting violence against specific people.

It made me a bit curious about whether Glinner has appeared on this forum before, and I discovered that I myself made a thread about him and when he was thrown off Twitter.

Here is one of the tweets…

Personally, I wouldn't ban people for any type of opinion, however nasty it is. And I definitely wouldn't prosecute for it, which unfortunately is becoming common.

I think that transphobic opinions, Holocaust denial, racism, bigotry of all kinds should be protected speech.

If, on the other hand, people are specifically being targeted or being made targets through incitement of others to do physical violence, or if there is harassment involved then I think it is easy to make the decision to ban someone (or in more serious cases bring in the old Bill).

Actually, this is where Linehan comes up against a charge of hypocrisy as he was in favour of seeing that guy with the Nazi dog prosecuted (IIRC). His excuse that he, Graham Linehan not suffer consequences for his opinions, and the Nazi pug guy facing consequences (including legal ones), is that he, Graham Linehan, has the right kind of politics, and Nazi pug dog guy does not.

So that latter part is interesting. When a guy was making videos teaching his dog to make Nazi salutes and was arrested, charged and prosecuted for it, whereas other comedians were aghast at jokes being criminalized, Glinner decided not to defend, but to condemn Meechan.

When Meechan pointed out that Glinner had himself made jokes about Nazis in Father Ted, Glinner responded with the pitiful argument that Meechan was not a proper comedian and therefore his jokes were NOT protected speech.

Graham Linehan on the art of the risky joke – and why the alt-right get it wrong

There’s a difference between transgressive comedy and hiding racism in plain sight argues the Father Ted comedian

www.radiotimes.com

Glinner apparently changed his mind when he began to fall foul of negative reactions to his own opinions.

I am a 100% in favour of Linehan’s freedom to say what he wants, and also for social media platforms to have their own terms of use, just as we do here at ISF. But unlike Linehan I am not a hypocrite who changes his mind opportunistically.