Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
I didn't say inconsistencies in gender. I'm talking about inconsistencies with being truthful.
 
Emily's Cat said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to answer questions that have already been answered, just because you're here now.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
I didn't say inconsistencies in gender. I'm talking about inconsistencies with being truthful.
Click to expand...
About what? We're talking about claims of their gender identity, so inconsistencies in their gender identity is the only relevant inconsistency.
 
Ziggurat said:
About what? We're talking about claims of their gender identity, so inconsistencies in their gender identity is the only relevant inconsistency.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Behavior inconsistent with being truthful is possible in general. Being evasive, or looking around furtively. Lying about something else. It's hardly impossible to develop suspicion about something you can't empirically verify.
 
mumblethrax said:
And? I didn't say you can tell, only that it's possible to lie about it.
Click to expand...

But it's not. When "it" is only defined circularly, it becomes impossible to lie about it.

Here's a made up example just to highlight the underlying logic issue. We take as a premise that some people are "helicals." And we define "helical" as "any person who asserts that they are a helical."

If I then say, "I am a helical," and I'm a person, I cannot be lying. It doesn't matter how I behave, what I believe, whether or not I claimed not to be a helical an hour ago, or whether I have a well-established reputation as a compulsive liar.

Changing the definition of "helical" to "any person who truthfully asserts that they are a helical" changes nothing, by the way, as any such assertion is already logically truthful.

Does the definition of transwoman include anything about any particular patterns of behavior, or any particular required beliefs, or any particular form of consistency? If not, it's not logically possible for a biologically male human to lie about being a transwoman.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Dr Smartcooky was kind enough to post the NJ police standards that says he can do exactly that
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. Officers are allowed to question it under fairly narrow conditions. Nothing in the guidance indicates that they are ever allowed to contradict or deny it.
 
Myriad said:
Does the definition of transwoman include anything about any particular patterns of behavior, or any particular required beliefs, or any particular form of consistency?
Click to expand...
I would argue that someone born male must believe that they ought to be treated by others as a woman in at least some social contexts (e.g. pronouns, fitting rooms, bathrooms, etc.) in order to fit the bill.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
No, it isn't. Behavior inconsistent with being truthful is possible in general. Being evasive, or looking around furtively. Lying about something else. It's hardly impossible to develop suspicion about something you can't empirically verify.
Click to expand...
Why would a male trying to access a women's bathroom in NJ need to lie about anything? Why would the police be empowered to demand answers to anything? There's no crime, and there's no reasonable or articulable suspicion of a possible crime.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, no. Officers are allowed to question it under fairly narrow conditions. Nothing in the guidance indicates that they are ever allowed to contradict or deny it.
Click to expand...
They don't even have to question it. If they have reasonable suspicion, they can act on that suspicion just like they can in any other context of being suspicious of a suspect, up to and including arrest.

The guidance doesn't have to reiterate on every page what a cop can do, having reasonable suspicion.
 
Myriad said:
But it's not. When "it" is only defined circularly, it becomes impossible to lie about it.
Click to expand...
If you define it in a completely circular way and strictly in terms of what is asserted, sure. So we probably shouldn't do that.

Does the definition of transwoman include anything about any particular patterns of behavior, or any particular required beliefs, or any particular form of consistency? If not, it's not logically possible for a biologically male human to lie about being a transwoman.
Click to expand...
I guess it will depend on the definition.

I would tend to think some kind of social transition is required to make sense of the idea.

But even "a trans woman is an man who believes they are a woman" is distinct from the purely circular definition you gave.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
They don't even have to question it. If they have reasonable suspicion, they can act on that suspicion just like they can in any other context of being suspicious of a suspect, up to and including arrest.
Click to expand...
Suspicious of what? That they are falsely claiming to be transgender? That isn't even a crime. But no, the guidelines DO NOT allow them any room to actually act against someone's claimed gender status.
Thermal said:
The guidance doesn't have to reiterate on every page what a cop can do, having reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...
Reasonable suspicion of what? Not being authentically trans? Again, not a crime, but more to the point, not provable. Because the only actual legal standard is whatever they claim.
 
Myriad said:
But it's not. When "it" is only defined circularly, it becomes impossible to lie about it.

Here's a made up example just to highlight the underlying logic issue. We take as a premise that some people are "helicals." And we define "helical" as "any person who asserts that they are a helical."

If I then say, "I am a helical," and I'm a person, I cannot be lying. It doesn't matter how I behave, what I believe, whether or not I claimed not to be a helical an hour ago, or whether I have a well-established reputation as a compulsive liar.

Changing the definition of "helical" to "any person who truthfully asserts that they are a helical" changes nothing, by the way, as any such assertion is already logically truthful.

Does the definition of transwoman include anything about any particular patterns of behavior, or any particular required beliefs, or any particular form of consistency? If not, it's not logically possible for a biologically male human to lie about being a transwoman.
Click to expand...
Hm. Let me take that for a test spin:

I have a good idea of what a transwoman means, without getting into "particular patterns of behavior", which definition I couldn't satisfy for man, woman, dog, or anything else. So:

"I am a transwoman".

Yeah, still a lie. I do not fit my sense of what a transwoman is in any sense at all. To claim I do is willfully untrue.
 
Thermal said:
"I am a transwoman".

Yeah, still a lie. I do not fit my sense of what a transwoman is in any sense at all. To claim I do is willfully untrue.
Click to expand...
We only know that you don't fit your sense of a transwoman because you tell us so. Absent you telling us, we cannot know. The only way to tell if someone is lying about being transgender is if they tell us they are lying. But it gets worse, because they could just be lying about lying. You could be lying that you don't fit your sense of being a transwoman just as easily as you could lie about being a transwoman.
 
Ziggurat said:
Suspicious of what? That they are falsely claiming to be transgender? That isn't even a crime. But no, the guidelines DO NOT allow them any room to actually act against someone's claimed gender status.

Reasonable suspicion of what? Not being authentically trans? Again, not a crime, but more to the point, not provable. Because the only actual legal standard is whatever they claim.
Click to expand...
A man being complained about in a woman's restroom and refusing to leave is probable cause for a cop to believe they are being a petty disorderly person or possibly worse, under usual, customary, and reasonable standards (a NJ judge went into great depth with me personally about UCR standards and NJ's support of their persuasiveness in the face of ambiguity).

So yeah, by reasonably having suspicions about the claim of transgenderism, a cop can act, including arrest on petty disorderly person charges or whatever else he believes applies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom