Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

It is what I actually said.


And this is why it's obvious that you don't know how to deal with normative language. Ought implies can--what you may do is directly relevant to what you should to do.

"May" is only relevant to "should" when you should not do something because you may not do it. In such cases, the set of actions you should do is a subset of the set of actions you may do. But that's the full extent of the relevancy of "may" to "should". Saying you may do something DOES NOT indicate that you should do it, unless you're operating under the principle that the permissible is compulsory. But that's totalitarianism, and we don't live like that. So "may" =/= "should".

 

[mumblethrax]

"May" is only relevant to "should" when you should not do something because you may not do it.

Which means answering the "may" question is always relevant.

Saying you may do something DOES NOT indicate that you should do it, unless you're operating under the principle that the permissible is compulsory.

Of course it doesn't. Nobody made this claim.

But that's totalitarianism, and we don't live like that. So "may" =/= "should".

Someone who had the foggiest idea what they were talking about would not mistake "Ought implies can" for "Can implies ought."

 

[d4m10n]

In a complete turn-around, trans people all over the US are currently muttering "Please don't be trans. Please don't be trans."

Setting aside for the moment that it's very sloppy reasoning to generalize from exceptional individuals to vastly larger collections of people who don't generally share their specific psychopathic traits, in what sense is this a "turn-around" in your estimation? Were they rooting for the opposite outcome in some earlier case?

 

[Ziggurat]

Which means answering the "may" question is always relevant.

We all already knew the answer to the "may" question. And that's not the question I asked. So no, answering the "may" question wasn't relevant, especially when you gave that answer as if it was to the "should" question.

 

[mumblethrax]

We all already knew the answer to the "may" question. And that's not the question I asked. So no, answering the "may" question wasn't relevant, especially when you gave that answer as if it was to the "should" question.

It was. I gave you a perfectly serviceable answer to your question about what she should do. You told me that meant she should use the men's room. I said that's ultimately up to her--I don't know the circumstances of her life, like where she lives or how likely it is that she can use the women's room without disruption. My advice and her obligations are conditional on answering those questions, and she's in a better position to know than I am. There's no law requiring that she use the men's room in NYC, so if she's here, no reason to suppose that she has any political obligation to do so. Elsewhere, this story might be different. I was rejecting your contention that "she should use the men's room" necessarily followed from my answer. This is not a contradiction.

You've trying way too hard, man.

 

[Ziggurat]

It was. I gave you a perfectly serviceable answer to your question about what she should do. You told me that meant she should use the men's room. I said that's ultimately up to her--I don't know the circumstances of her life, like where she lives or how likely it is that she can use the women's room without disruption. My advice and her obligations are conditional on answering those questions, and she's in a better position to know than I am. There's no law requiring that she use the men's room in NYC, so if she's here, no reason to suppose that she has any political obligation to do so. Elsewhere, this story might be different. I was rejecting your contention that "she should use the men's room" necessarily followed from my answer. This is not a contradiction.

You've trying way too hard, man.

Your first response to the question of what he should do was that he should do what would be best for everyone involved. I conclude that using this criteria means using the men's room. It's true that this doesn't necessarily follow (but note that I never said it did), since you might reach a different conclusion than me using those same criteria.

But you didn't say that. You didn't simply challenge my conclusion based on your criteria. You CHANGED your criteria from what would be best for everyone to whatever he wanted to do. Which is a VERY different answer. And it's strange to see you now defend that new answer on the basis that you don't know him or his circumstances, because that also means you don't know what he wants and what motivates him. What he wants may not be what's best for everyone. He may even want to harm others. So god damn straight that this second criteria, whatever he wants, is not even remotely the same as whatever is best for everyone.

You continue to contradict yourself.

 

[mumblethrax]

You CHANGED your criteria from what would be best for everyone to whatever he wanted to do.

No, I didn't.

"In NYC? Whichever will cause less disruption and make her and everyone else safest, would be my advice. And I think that's all most people really want out of this."

That's clearly conditioning which bathroom to use on what will "cause less disruption and make her and everyone else safest," which will require her to fill in the blanks a bit. I don't actually know how likely it is that she's going to cause problems where she is by being who she is in the women's room.

What he wants may not be what's best for everyone. He may even want to harm others.

So then in what way would this "cause less disruption and make her and everyone else safest"?

At no point did I say she should just do whatever she wants. I said it's ultimately up to her to decide which room to use, in terms of the advice given. You are striving not to understand this.

Obviously, if she has malicious intentions, she should stay out of the women's room.

You continue to contradict yourself.

No, you're still just failing at basic reasoning tasks.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is incorrect. I can falsely identify. I do not have a gender identity that would allow me to use the ladies' room. If I say that I do, I am falsely identifying myself.

Dude, literally nobody other than you can tell that you're falsely identifying. NOBODY HAS ESP.

 

[mumblethrax]

Dude, literally nobody other than you can tell that you're falsely identifying. NOBODY HAS ESP.

And? I didn't say you can tell, only that it's possible to lie about it.

 

[theprestige]

And? I didn't say you can tell, only that it's possible to lie about it.

Not under NJ law it isn't.

Or rather, it's impossible to legally accuse someone of lying, and impossible to legally eject them on suspicion of lying.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not under NJ law it isn't.

It is possible everywhere.

Or rather, it's impossible to legally accuse someone of lying, and impossible to legally eject them on suspicion of lying.

If you think a cop isn't capable of having reasonable suspicion that someone is lying to them then you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Rolfe]

No. I'm saying that a woman who is wondering about this manish woman could simply talk to her, and thereby discover that she is not in fact a man.

That is pretty much the experience of my friend Bridget, who isn't even butch, but who says she gets challenged every few weeks. (To my great surprise.) She simply engages with the other woman, smiles at her (like a shark, she said!) and embarrassed apologies and laughter ensue.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I didn't.

"In NYC? Whichever will cause less disruption and make her and everyone else safest, would be my advice. And I think that's all most people really want out of this."

That's clearly conditioning which bathroom to use on what will "cause less disruption and make her and everyone else safest," which will require her to fill in the blanks a bit.

Sure. But if he's filling in the blanks based on what would cause the least disruption and keep everyone the safest, that IS NOT the same criteria as doing so based on what he wants. Because he might not be interested in not causing disruptions or keeping everyone safe. So your change from the above to whatever he wants is a completely different basis for deciding.

At no point did I say she should do what she wants. I said it's ultimately up to her to decide which room to use, in terms of the advice given.

"Up to him" is absolutely whatever he wants. And what the ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about, advice? There's no advice being given here. I didn't ask what advice you would give, and Hill isn't here, so you can't even give Hill any advice either, even unsolicited. So who exactly were you giving advice to?

Obviously, if she has malicious intentions, she should stay out of the women's room.

No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. In which case, what he SHOULD do would contradict what he would decide. Which is the whole reason I asked what he should do and NOT what he wants to do or chooses to do. The proper answer to my question doesn't depend on assuming his intentions either way.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you think a cop isn't capable of having reasonable suspicion that someone is lying to them then you just don't know what you're talking about.

Lying about what? Their gender identity? Legally speaking, what does it even mean to lie about that, if what you say is how the law determines your gender identity? You can't. Legally speaking, it's only possible to conclude something is a lie if there's some other way to determine the truth. And there isn't. Not under NJ law.

 

[mumblethrax]

Sure. But if he's filling in the blanks based on what would cause the least disruption and keep everyone the safest, that IS NOT the same criteria as doing so based on what he wants.

I didn't say it was.

So who exactly were you giving advice to?

Should is a modal verb used to give advice or express obligation.

In which case, what he SHOULD do would contradict what he would decide.

Again, you have to understand "Ultimately, it's up her" in terms of the advice. Make the best decision with the information you have, not "Do what thou wilt."

Your failure to understand that is not on me.

 

[Thermal]

Not under NJ law it isn't.

Or rather, it's impossible to legally accuse someone of lying, and impossible to legally eject them on suspicion of lying.

Dr Smartcooky was kind enough to post the NJ police standards that says he can do exactly that, and any mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ can call any other mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ a liar should he so please.

 

[mumblethrax]

Legally speaking, what does it even mean to lie about that, if what you say is how the law determines your gender identity?

Legally speaking, the same as what it means to lie about almost anything.

You can't. Legally speaking, it's only possible to conclude something is a lie if there's some other way to determine the truth. And there isn't.

There is. You can look for inconsistencies in behavior and stated belief.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here is a handy little gif comparing this survey from 2019/2020 and 2024/2025. It shows just how much the tide has turned in those five years...

- The pluralities have ALL turned into majority disagree
- The equal split has turned into majority disagree
- One majority agree has flipped to majority disagree
- Nine majority agrees have turned into pluralities

and importantly, none of the points have trended the other way

My take on this has been that males disagree more strongly than females because males have a much better understanding of how pervy and dangerous some males can be.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is. You can look for inconsistencies in behavior and stated belief.

Nope. Gender is fluid, so inconsistencies aren't inconsistencies, they're changes. And behavior has nothing to do with it. Trans people often hide their trans status out of fear, so not acting trans doesn't mean you're not trans.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm pointing out that there have to be some common sense exceptions/considerations

Why do you think that any female should be required to make exceptions that allow males of any sort into intimate spaces where we're unclothed or vulnerable?