Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

mumblethrax said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it your belief that males with transgender identities are NOT male?
 
Rolfe said:
You guys are saying "unisex" when you mean mixed-sex, but I suppose that's past praying for.

(A unisex facility is one designed to be occupied by one person at a time, with all facilities in one room behind a lockable door. It can be used sequentially by people of either sex. The issues from women's perspective is that men are disgusting and pee on the floor and the seat and leave wet paper everywhere, and they plant hidden cameras.)
Click to expand...
FYI - this is a UK vs US difference in terminology. Unisex facilities in the US are not necessarily single-use, fully encompassing facilities.
 
mumblethrax said:
And? I didn't say you can tell, only that it's possible to lie about it.
Click to expand...
No kidding, we already know that. That's actually a pretty fundamental part of the entire ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ argument.

The meat of the issue, however, is that there's no way to tell that someone is lying about it - especially when the entirety of legal positioning is based on what a person says they identify as. Everyone is essentially required to take on faith that no person who ever says they're trans could possibly by lying about it.
 
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
And yet again you seem to be completely eliding that the only person who can possibly know that it's willfully untrue is you.

Your claim is unfalsifiable.
 
Thermal said:
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).
Click to expand...
Alternatively... they could be a male with a transgender identity who does not pass very well, and they're defending their legal right to be there.
 
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...
You're sooooo close....
 
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Holy cow.

Male person who looks like a male person to everyone with a functioning brain goes into female showers, strips down so everyone can see their entirely male penis and scrotum. Male person says "It's okay, I'm trans". Females who object to dicks in their showers are now magically transformed into evil bigots.

That's a pretty normal ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rendition of the issue, all of this jumping through hoops is nothing more than those of us with some sense of compassion and decency doing our damnedest to avoid you getting your feelings second-hand hurt on behalf of hypothetical males with transgender identities who might experience hurt feelings if they aren't allowed to strip down in front of non-consenting females.
 
mumblethrax said:
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.
Click to expand...
Working to give males the legal right to use female-specific intimate spaces *is* working against sex as a protected class. It reifies an unverifiable, unfalsifiable, entirely subjective article of faith above the observable reality of physical sex.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Working to give males the legal right to use female-specific intimate spaces *is* working against sex as a protected class.
Click to expand...
Then you ought to be able to show your work, here.

It reifies an unverifiable, unfalsifiable, entirely subjective article of faith above the observable reality of physical sex.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that religion is also a protected class?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Then it IS legally required to be inclusive of both sexes, contrary to what you said here:
Click to expand...
No. I already gave an example of where this is obviously false.

A literacy test that is designed to grandfather in white people while excluding almost all black people, while nevertheless admitting a tiny minority of black people, is not "inclusive of all races."

I decline to answer further questions about my posts to other people until you learn to read what I've already responded with.
 
It certainly has been interesting watching, first Ziggurat, then Emily's Cat, using ruthless, unshakeable logic to turn all the trans ally arguments inside out, and then watching those latter arguers squirm, and twist themselves into a tangled mess, using inconsistent statements, goal post moves and strawmen. It's like watching a baker making pretzels and then seeing them being cooked.
Truly popcorn-worthy!! 🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Spitting the dummy because you are unable to get people to agree with you.

In these parts, we call that "flouncing"
Click to expand...
No. Refusing to relitigate lines of argumentation that have already been made is neither spitting the dummy nor flouncing.
 
smartcooky said:
It certainly has been interesting watching, first Ziggurat, then Emily's Cat, using ruthless, unshakeable logic to turn all the trans ally arguments inside out, and then watching those latter arguers squirm, and twist themselves into a tangled mess, using inconsistent statements, goal post moves and strawmen. It's like watching a baker making pretzels and then seeing them being cooked.
Truly popcorn-worthy!! 🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Cheerleading is embarrassing, but you should probably stick to it. Less embarrassing than your own attempts to string two thoughts together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom