Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
I think it's much better to painfully tease out the problem bit by bit.
Click to expand...
Clearly. I'm still wondering to what end, beyond the propaganda purpose of saying something that obviously isn't true is technically true, even though it also isn't technically true.

I've no idea why you would say that a space which is legally required to be inclusive of both sexes is not technically unisex.
Click to expand...
Because it isn't legally required to be inclusive of both sexes.

Seems to me that you—among many others—may well have mistaken a history of sex segregation for a history of discrimination against trans people. When women and girls complain about seeing a penis at the spa, they aren't complaining about the bepenised individual's subjective sense of self.
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to explain this? The history of discrimination need not have anything to do with discrimination against a protected class in specific circumstances where anti-discrimination law would apply.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
Because it isn't legally required to be inclusive of both sexes.
Click to expand...
You've completely lost me here, much like when you said "trans" in lieu of "cis" earlier.

Are we both talking about jurisdictions—such as New Jersey—where businesses are required by law to allow both (transgender) males and (cisgender) females into bathrooms and locker rooms originally designated for women?
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
If I saw someone who looked very much like a man waiting around outside a women's restroom, watching the door, and entering only after another woman does, that's more than enough for me to let someone know my suspicions.
Click to expand...
How public spirited of you.

What does 'looked very much like a man' mean to you?
 
Ziggurat said:
You're dancing around the fact that males can still legally expose themselves to females in California.
Click to expand...
No they cannot. Not insomuch as you might expose yourself to your doctor, anyway.
Ziggurat said:
They have to do it without sexually arousing themselves, but as long as they pull that off (which isn't impossible), yes, it very much is legal in California.
Click to expand...
Still not. It is not 'legal'; they might get away with an illegal.activity, but thar is nowhere near the same thing, and you damn right well know it.
Ziggurat said:
So even if you conclude that Merager committed a crime that he got away with, other people could do basically the same thing legally.
Click to expand...
Still no. The law does not ever permit this. I get the screwball logistics. They are just gaming the system, like a gay man who wants to expose himself or engage in voyeurism in a guys' shower can get away with it.

It all relies on lying and deception in order to get away with it. Many crimes rely on lying and deception and gaming the system. That doesn't make them ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ legal.

Ziggurat said:
Not at all equivalent. OJ's claim to innocence is that he didn't do the act at all. Motive could only shift which exact crime he was convicted of. No possible motive could make those killings legal, and his defense did not rest upon a disputed motive. Whereas for Merager, motive was an intrinsic part of the crime itself, without which there is no crime at all.
Click to expand...
It. Doesn't. Matter. We are talking about what a verdict means, not how it was arrived at. 'Not proven' does not mean 'innocent', no matter how it was arrived at or what the motive was. It is substantially a different finding.
 
smartcooky said:
Wrong!

Downloads a 217KB PDF

If gender expression (actual or perceived) does not clearly indicate a transgender person's identity, officers may politely and respectfully ask how the person wishes to be addressed. For example, officers may ask a transgender person which name and pronoun the person prefers.​
​
1. When a person self-identifies as a transgender person, officers should not question this identity or ask about the person's transition status. Officers shall not engage in any argument, disagreement, or debate regarding a person's self-identification as a transgender person.​

So, if a biological male self-ID's as a women, the cop is NOT allowed to argue about it

2. If officers do question such self-identification or ask about a person's transgender status, officers should have compelling, professional, articulable reason for having done so. These reason(s) shall be thoroughly documented in the corresponding CAD/RMS record or law incident report.​

What cop is going to question self-ID, knowing that it involves doing a crap load of extra paperwork, and a ticking-off if they get anything, even slightly, wrong

3. Officers shall not ask questions or make statements about a transgender person's genitalia, anatomy, breasts, sexual practices, or transition status. If an officer does ask such questions or make such statements, it shall be necessary to do so because of the ongoing criminal investigation or if the individual raises the issue, without prompting by the officer and the officer’s inquiries are tailored to ensure the individual’s safety and dignity. That officer shall have a compelling, professional, and articulable reason for having done so. The reason(s) shall be thoroughly documented in the corresponding report.​
Click to expand...
I love you man. This is award level Poe.

You toot your horn thinking you found a gotcha, when in the second part (which I assume you didn't understand) it says exactly what I told you. If the cop has good reasons, he can act on his suspicions of the claim. Exactly what I said.

Then you say he won't because it's a 'crap load of paperwork'. That's just stupid. You have not the foggiest idea how much or little is involved, or what a cop is willing to do as part of his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ job and sworn duty. Cops can put down far less than you might think, at it will stand under scrutiny. What all that wording means is they can't pull your rationale and just use their feels about dem cross dressing pervs to justify abuse. They simply have to articulate reasonable and justifiable cause.

You are truly priceless.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Are we both talking about jurisdictions—such as New Jersey—where businesses are required by law to allow both (transgender) males and (cisgender) females into bathrooms and locker rooms originally designated for women?
Click to expand...
Yes, or close enough. And to say that this policy is "inclusive of males" is idiotic.

A voting law that prevents black people from voting unless they can pass a literacy test is not "inclusive of black people," even if at least some will pass that test. It is, very obviously, designed to exclude black people.

You're intentionally misunderstanding the ordinary meaning of basic words and concepts in an attempt to declare a pyrrhic victory that gains you nothing more than a talking point that will strike normal people as completely wrong-headed.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
And to say that this policy is "inclusive of males" is idiotic.
Click to expand...
It's weird to me when people put quotes around stuff that no one wrote, but out of good manners I'm not going to call it idiotic.

I did say that formerly single-sex spaces must now include both sexes and I would add that this will often "strike normal people as completely wrong-headed" at least when it comes to changing rooms and other areas with total nudity.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
No they cannot. Not insomuch as you might expose yourself to your doctor, anyway.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Merager's actions would be legal provided he was not trying to get aroused. That's a male exposing himself to females.
Thermal said:
Still no. The law does not ever permit this.
Click to expand...
The law DID permit it.
Thermal said:
It all relies on lying and deception in order to get away with it.
Click to expand...
You seem to be asserting that a male cannot possibly expose himself to a female without getting aroused.

I don't think that's true. And if it's not true, then you're just wrong.
Thermal said:
It. Doesn't. Matter. We are talking about what a verdict means, not how it was arrived at.
Click to expand...
I know that. You don't seem to understand what it means. Because what it means is that intent is required. Regardless of what the jury decided about Merager's intent in this specific case, it's clear that there is no crime absent intent. That's why their decision hinged upon their evaluation of his intent.
Thermal said:
'Not proven' does not mean 'innocent'
Click to expand...
But it DOES mean innocent if the intent isn't there. Again, that's not a conclusion I'm drawing based on the jury's decision, it's a conclusion I'm drawing based on the instructions to the jury, which is how the law gets applied. No intent means no crime.
 
d4m10n said:
It's weird to me when people put quotes around stuff that no one wrote, but out of good manners I'm not going to call it idiotic.
Click to expand...
It's weird to me that you would make this objection, since I'm sure you're aware of the existence of scare quotes.

I did say that formerly single-sex spaces must now include both sexes
Click to expand...
An immediately necessary consequence of "inclusive of both sexes" is "inclusive of females" and "inclusive of males."

Gender-segregated bathroom are not inclusive of males. They, by design, exclude the vast majority of males. And that's also what they do, in practice.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
I don't know who that is, as I'm not completely obsessed with trans people.
Click to expand...
He was discussed earlier in the thread. Here's a picture of him, posing with a tampon dispenser (because that's a thing women do):
saidnowomanever-png.98565
 
mumblethrax said:
Gender-segregated bathroom are not inclusive of males. They, by design, exclude the vast majority of males. And that's also what they do, in practice.
Click to expand...
No. Most males self-segregate out of gender-segregated bathrooms. But under self-ID, by design, they don't have to.
 
Thermal said:
I love you man. This is award level Poe.

You toot your horn thinking you found a gotcha, when in the second part (which I assume you didn't understand) it says exactly what I told you. If the cop has good reasons, he can act on his suspicions of the claim. Exactly what I said.

Then you say he won't because it's a 'crap load of paperwork'. That's just stupid. You have not the foggiest idea how much or little is involved, or what a cop is willing to do as part of his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ job and sworn duty. Cops can put down far less than you might think, at it will stand under scrutiny. What all that wording means is they can't pull your rationale and just use their feels about dem cross dressing pervs to justify abuse. They simply have to articulate reasonable and justifiable cause.

You are truly priceless.
Click to expand...
I find actual guidance to the New Jersey police that DIRECTLY contradicts a statement YOU made about them, and you call it a Poe

swingandamiss.gif
 
Ziggurat said:
He was discussed earlier in the thread. Here's a picture of him, posing with a tampon dispenser (because that's a thing women do):
saidnowomanever-png.98565
Click to expand...
Looks like a man who has transitioned to a transwoman.

Is there anything else I can do for you?

Ziggurat said:
Most males self-segregate out of gender-segregated bathrooms.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean out of the women's room (I'm not avoiding the men's, myself.)

They are assisted in this task by the clear markings outside the rooms, which are generally legally required.

If they were actually unisex, there would be no such markings, and it would be close to impossible to even know which room I should be avoiding before I go in.

They are, by design, not unisex.

But under self-ID, by design, they don't have to.
Click to expand...
By design, they do. They aren't permitted. They can, if they want to, lie about it. But virtually no one does.

And round and round we go....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom