Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your eggs are getting scrambled, bro. I don't care what you believe. You could insist my passport was faked and that I am a Venutian, and I really don't give a ◊◊◊◊ what you find convincing. You are not the Penis Police, and your judgement or belief does not matter to me.

To an actual policeman, that's a different story to deliberately report falsely or otherwise interfere with his duties.

Eta: also, we were talking about whether it is even possible to lie about yourself (don't ask me why). That has nothing to do with whether "you can tell" or dis/believe me. Whether I can lie about myself (either to myself or to others) is an entirely subjective matter.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
No, that's a test.

That's not the definition of a trans person under NJ law.
Click to expand...
The test IS the definition. How do you know if someone is trans? You apply the test. Change the test, you change the definition. That's how it works. What's the definition of an even number? It's a number that, when divided by 2, produces an integer. That's a test. The test is the definition.
 
Ziggurat said:
The test IS the definition.
Click to expand...
It isn't.

That's how it works. What's the definition of an even number? It's a number that, when divided by 2, produces an integer. That's a test. The test is the definition.
Click to expand...
That's an operational definition. Not all definitions are operational.

What's an atheist? It's someone who doesn't believe in god. How do you tell? They tell you they don't believe in god. Is it possible to lie about this? Yes.
 
Ziggurat said:
The test IS the definition. How do you know if someone is trans? You apply the test. Change the test, you change the definition. That's how it works. What's the definition of an even number? It's a number that, when divided by 2, produces an integer. That's a test. The test is the definition.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. If you ask someone what their internal sense of self is, by goddamned definition you cannot externally test it. You can accept it or not, believe it or not, or go into detail about exactly what elements of their representation you personally feel doesn't jibe with their self reporting. But you can't "tell" if they are lying, any more than I can tell you are a man and not a transwoman lying about her identity.
 
Thermal said:
No it isn't. If you ask someone what their internal sense of self is, by goddamned definition you cannot externally test it. You can accept it or not, believe it or not, or go into detail about exactly what elements of their representation you personally feel doesn't jibe with their self reporting. But you can't "tell" if they are lying, any more than I can tell you are a man and not a transwoman lying about her identity.
Click to expand...
No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. This is exactly my point. You aren't actually contradicting me.
 
Ziggurat said:
No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. This is exactly my point. You aren't actually contradicting me.
Click to expand...
You're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth again. We are talking about whether it is possible to subjectively lie. Whether a third party can objectively assess the veracity is another topic.

Eta: your claim is the test is the definition. Now you claim the test can't be the definition, and further that you can't even test or define any of it. Would you mind getting your personalities into a huddle and come up with a coherent stance?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
You're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth again. We are talking about whether it is possible to subjectively lie. Whether a third party can objectively assess the veracity is another topic.
Click to expand...
Whether a third party can assess veracity is the only one that matters in context. A subjective lie which no one can determine is a lie might be of some philosophical interest, but it is of no legal interest. I thought this was obvious and didn't need spelling out.
 
Ziggurat said:
Whether a third party can assess veracity is the only one that matters in context. A subjective lie which no one can determine is a lie might be of some philosophical interest, but it is of no legal interest. I thought this was obvious and didn't need spelling out.
Click to expand...
It's obvious to you guys, because you're all out there on your dogwhistled wavelength like ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Pluto. You have to translate back to rational for us normies.

When the direct question is "can you subjectively lie?", please don't answer another question you like better.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I don't know what point you thought you were proving. But what you actually proved is that in California, because of self ID, women DO NOT have any real protection against unwanted exposure by males.
Click to expand...
Females don't have a right to visual privacy from males in female-only areas anymore. If a male wants to look at a non-consenting female while that female is nude, the male now has the legal right to do so.
 
mumblethrax said:
You've just totally misunderstood the point here. It's the history of discrimination against trans people that makes gender identity a protected class. That's what motivates anti-discrimination law. It follow from that that discrimination on the basis of gender identity constitutes impermissible discrimination.
Click to expand...
Apparently the history of discrimination and continued disproportionate victimization of females apparently doesn't matter to you. The fact that laws which privilege males to violate female boundaries on their say so actively discriminate against and disadvantage females seems something you don't care about.

Why don't you have as much consideration for the equal rights and safety of females?
 
Thermal said:
Conceded. And you're changing the subject.

Your claim was the test IS the definition, and simultaneously that you can't test or define.
Click to expand...
No. New Jersey has defined transgender as anyone who says they are. That is both the definition and the test. I don't recall ever saying New Jersey couldn't define transgender. They have chosen a bad definition, but it is a definition.

I may have said that you haven't defined transgender, though I don't specifically remember. Certainly you could.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Apparently the history of discrimination and continued disproportionate victimization of females apparently doesn't matter to you.
Click to expand...
Of course it matters to me. Do you see me working against sex as a protected class? I think those protections should be more robust. The ERA should have passed in this country, and it's distressing that we couldn't all agree that the equality of men and women should be constitutionalized.

The fact that laws which privilege males to violate female boundaries on their say so actively discriminate against and disadvantage females seems something you don't care about.
Click to expand...
More imputation on the basis of nothing I've said.
 
Thermal said:
No they cannot. Not insomuch as you might expose yourself to your doctor, anyway.

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.

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.


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.
Click to expand...
Baloney. As long as a male in CA isn't obviously pleasuring themself, they can absolutely go into a female shower, expose their genitals to non-consenting females, and simply say "It's okay, I'm trans". And because they have declared themselves to be trans, they have the legal right to expose their penis and tesitcles to females.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom