And you're conflating a figurative usage of the word 'woman' with the literal usage. "I'm a transwoman" means that the person thinks they're figuratively a "woman", even though they're literally a male human being.
Of course they aren't equivalent. The former is logically incoherent ("I am a woman very deep down," says the obvious man) while the latter actually makes sense without invoking unverifiable ideas like the soul.
Which one of those statements is most analogous to asking for the keys to the ladies floor, as an intact male?
I'm fairly confident that the patron was doing the asking, rather than the employees.
No, that was never the assertion. Why would it be? That assertion doesn't matter here. Only external falsifiability matters, so only external falsifiability was under discussion by everyone but you. You shoved it in for no reason. And you're still trying to shove it in when it doesn't matter, for God knows why. No one cares. This has been clarified to you multiple times now. Stop harping on irrelevancies.
One if the worst aspects of the BBC is that it's funded by people that have to pay a compulsory licence fee.... It has fallen dramatically from being the world's premier news broadcaster to a worldwide laughing stock.The capture of the BBC.
Graham Linehan is right: there needs to be a reckoning at the BBC | T…
archived 14 Sep 2025 05:10:57 UTCarchive.ph
They do in some areas of discrimination law, and not in others.
If I own a restaurant (or whatever) where a customer complains about a man in women's room, the last thing I'm going to do is try to "test trans identity". That just seems like a good way to expose myself to liability. Instead, I'd just look for reasons to suspect ill intention.
No accommodations are being requested at all.
Given that there is no evidence of an increase in crime where gender identity non-discrimination laws have been implemented, I think the current state of law in New York works just fine to protect women from predatory males.
No, I'd just say that to the extent we can make sense out of considerations of privacy and decency in a public bathroom, they're already baked into law.
No, not where "the religion demands it". The Olympus Spa case was notably argued on religion freedom grounds (among others), and those arguments predictably didn't fly. The spa likely received some bad legal advice.
I'm asking you to show your work, here. I see no reason to believe this is true.
Good luck with that.
Of course there is. Access to female spaces. That’s an accommodation.
Why do you think reported crimes are the only problem?
The movement as a whole is unreasonable, at least as it now stands. Indeed, it is inherently fatally flawed. The movement has made it clear that "trans women are women" i.e. that trans is an adjective. That is, they are to be treated as other women/girls in every way - with access to all women's/girls spaces, awards, relationships, etc. (& that any failure to do so is bigotry). To be sure, there are mixed messages from activists/allies with regard to actual sex - some claim they've actually changed sex, or that they have female brains in male bodies or that gender identity is more important than sex. None of these is true, nor is sex a spectrum.
Can you be more specific than that?
I'm not seeing how you draw a distinction between these positions.
This is precisely why I do not define transgender in terms of an internal sense of self—which is impossible to validate—but rather in terms of expressed requests for cross-sex accommodation. I treat Yaniv and Merager as trans women not because I'm convinced that they fit some particular DSM diagnostic criteria, but because they have clearly and repeatedly requested to be treated as if they were women in law and policy.
