Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Ziggurat said:
WTF is going in in Loudoun County schools? This is the same county that had a male student in a skirt who sexually assaulted a girl in the girl's bathroom back in 2021. And then the school tried to cover it up, transferred the student, and then let him sexually assault another girl. Is it something in the water?
Click to expand...
It turns out that the boy in question is not transgender, but that isn't the point. LPCS has a policy that allows transgender kids to use any bathroom whether or not it aligns with their biological sex. This student has taken advantage of those policies by wearing a dress to gain easier access to sexually assault female students...the thing that trans allies keep telling us never happens, happened.
 
Last edited:
You guys know that "doll" does not literally refer to a toy, right? It means "she's a real doll", the way the previous generation referred to a sweet woman? The way calling a woman "sweet" doesn't literally mean "tastes sugary"?
 
Aber said:
What would you like to see done?
Click to expand...
I'm happy with the status quo in NYC, at least with respect to bathrooms.

theprestige said:
These things are already established.
Click to expand...
They aren't. We've seen conflicting decisions from federal courts, and the Supreme Court has so far declined to take up the issue.

It's worth pointing out that few people (and certainly not the courts) understood Title VII to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for the first 50 years of its existence. We don't yet know what the hyper-formalists on the court will find about this.
 
Ziggurat said:
WTF is going in in Loudoun County schools?
Click to expand...
Whatever is going on, it's likely nothing to do with a lack of material resources.

The county also marks the western tip of the biggest cluster of affluence in the country. Between Loudoun County and north-west Washington, DC, there are over 800,000 people in exclusive postcodes that are home to the best-educated and wealthiest 5% of the population, dubbed “superzips” by Charles Murray, a libertarian social scientist.​

web.archive.org

The rich and the rest

American inequality is a tale of two countries
web.archive.org web.archive.org
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Did you google "dollification" yet? It's not about "guys and dolls" in the vernacular of my Sinatra-loving grandparents.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a specific kink unrelated to basic being trans. A lot of derivations do not match their root precisely, like gentrification. Do you suppose dollification must match ol' blue eyes' meaning too, or is that different?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
They've been the norm, and normative, since the inception of women being inducted into the ranks of public facilities users. They've been positively permissible the entire time as well.
Click to expand...
Intentionally misunderstanding the meaning of these words doesn't get you anywhere.
 
Thermal said:
Yes, it's a specific kink unrelated to basic being trans.
Click to expand...
Beyond asking to be treated as the opposite sex would be treated in some given social situation, what "basic" reality are you talking about?

Ontology aside, I'm not remotely confident that someone like Andrea Long Chu isn't more interested in becoming a womanly doll (in the kink sense) than in becoming a fully-realized woman (in the feminist sense), to judge from her own writings on the nature of femaleness.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
Intentionally misunderstanding the meaning of these words doesn't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think its you who is misunderstanding.

It is clear that sex-segregated bathrooms, changing rooms and restrooms have been the well-established societal norm for decades. It has been clearly and unequivocally understood that males use the "Men's", and females use the "Women's", and that a male entering a woman's facility was considered both inappropriate and unacceptable by society as a whole. A male in a women's toilet has placed himself out of bounds.

The fact that it may not have been written into law is irrelevant. Prior to the advent of mentally ill men laboring under the delusion that they are women, such a law was never necessary because decent people almost always complied with the convention.

I consider it an indictment on the current state of society that such laws are now necessary - all thanks to a bunch of male, cosplaying wannabes wearing womanface.
 
smartcooky said:
Sorry, but I think its you who is misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
It's not. In the context of law, a positive argument addresses what the law is, and a normative argument addresses what the law ought to be.

"Social norms" aren't any kind of argument, and can of course be harmful and discriminatory. This is an attempt to assert the status quo as self-justifying, which doesn't work.
 
Ziggurat said:
And yet, and yet. I can't help but feel there's some Freudian slippage going on.
Click to expand...
I don't think.it's all that. Googling it, it came from the 1980s flamboyant dressing/acting ballroom trans subculture, which would be very acquainted with women being referred to as a 'doll'.

Gratuitously assuming its some pervy sex doll thing out of nowhere... that might be the subconscious taking a peek, though.
Ziggurat said:
That describes very few trans identifying males.
Click to expand...
You might try actually meeting some? The ones y'all scour the earth and history to lampoon here are not exactly representative.
 
d4m10n said:
Beyond asking to be treated as the opposite sex would be treated in some given social situation, what "basic" reality are you talking about?
Click to expand...
...being trans? I thought I just said that?

Of course, you could argue that people aren't real, being mostly an internal sense in a bag of meat. Vaya con Dios.
d4m10n said:
Ontology aside, I'm not remotely confident that someone like Andrea Long Chu isn't more interested in becoming a womanly doll (in the kink sense) than in becoming a fully-realized woman (in the feminist sense), to judge from her own writings on the nature of femaleness.
Click to expand...
Rule 34 brah.
 
Thermal said:
Gratuitously assuming its some pervy sex doll thing out of nowhere... that might be the subconscious taking a peek, though.
Click to expand...
Out of nowhere? Where have you been?
Thermal said:
You might try actually meeting some? The ones y'all scour the earth and history to lampoon here are not exactly representative.
Click to expand...
The trans cohort today is not the trans cohort of even 20 years ago. And the trans identifying males who actually pass don’t need any protection. It’s precisely the ones who don’t pass, because they aren’t dolls in the sense that you’re claiming, that the “protect the dolls” folks are sticking up for. People like Misty Hill. Misty Hill is the “doll” that they mean.
 
Thermal said:
...being trans?
Click to expand...

I think many of our discussions here suffer from people using the same words or phrases without noticing that they have different meanings in mind, which is why I oppose posters who complain about "fringe resets" instead of allowing us to loop back to basics every now and again.

Other than asking to be treated as the opposite sex, what would you say "being trans" actually means?

If you want to invoke "gender identity," please define it without invoking vicious circularity or a sexed soul.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Out of nowhere? Where have you been?
Click to expand...
Right here, watching posters distort and malign stuff to a comical degree. Watching self-proclaimed skeptics act like they are oblivious to the concept that a few dozen hand-picked atypicals are not necessarily representative of millions of trans people.
Ziggurat said:
The trans cohort today is not the trans cohort of even 20 years ago. And the trans identifying males who actually pass don’t need any protection. It’s precisely the ones who don’t pass, because they aren’t dolls in the sense that you’re claiming, that the “protect the dolls” folks are sticking up for. People like Misty Hill. Misty Hill is the “doll” that they mean.
Click to expand...
Ok. The wider trans community is advocating that their members, who fail the Ziggaraut paper bag test for girliness, might also be people who deserve to be treated with the same dignity as those Ziggaraut approves of. That's not all that offensive to me.
 
d4m10n said:
I think many of our discussions here suffer from people using the same words or phrases without noticing that they have different meanings in mind, which is why I oppose posters who complain about "fringe resets" instead of allowing us to loop back to basics every now and again.
Click to expand...
Now and again? Now and again?? Team anti-trans runs that Groundhog day loop every few pages, for years on end.

You wanted to talk about dollification as it relates to trans people being called dolls. OK. Let's finish that up before you snip it out again and change the subject till you wave the jazz hands and say "let's just take it from the top for the two thousandth time".

Your clear implication was that dollification, a kink play, is the source of trans people being called dolls, and is what is meant by that (your invocation otherwise makes no sense), which is back to the "they're all a bunch of pervs" narrative that some of us object to. Are you still there, or were you planning to Socratically lead somewhere else?

Dollification, btw, is a kink power play, a la BDSM dom/sub, not specifically trans at all, so I'm really curious what convoluted reasoning made that connection for you. A typical introductory article from Vice {eta- four letter words in article}
www.vice.com

Come on Barbie, Let's Go Party: Inside the World of Dollification Kinksters

We talk to human dolls and the people who like having sex with them.
www.vice.com www.vice.com
d4m10n said:
Other than asking to be treated as the opposite sex, what would you say "being trans" actually means?

If you want to invoke "gender identity," please define it without invoking vicious circularity or a sexed soul.
Click to expand...
Feel free to refer to any of the dozens of times I have answered that question in depth and detail, where the subject was changed till the jazz hands were waved and we just took it from the top. Again. I see no point in this endless looping.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Right here, watching posters distort and malign stuff to a comical degree. Watching self-proclaimed skeptics act like they are oblivious to the concept that a few dozen hand-picked atypicals are not necessarily representative of millions of trans people.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing that these examples aren't representative, but somehow, I'm never shown what is representative, according to you. Strange.
Thermal said:
Ok. The wider trans community is advocating that their members, who fail the Ziggaraut paper bag test for girliness
Click to expand...
Girliness. That's quite an interesting choice of words. Yes, a 40 year old male who looks male but dresses like a teen girl does not in fact look girly. Oh, but I'm cherry picking again. From an orchard.
Thermal said:
might also be people who deserve to be treated with the same dignity as those Ziggaraut approves of. That's not all that offensive to me.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no problem with people wanting to be treated with dignity. But again, word choice. Why choose "dolls" if they aren't dolls? If I saw a men's rights advocate saying "hunks have rights", I'd wonder why he picked that word. Most men aren't hunks, and ugly guys deserve to be treated with dignity too. If your point is that people shouldn't be judged just based on their looks, then why pick a term which, according to you, is intrinsically attached to attractive looks?

Perhaps it's not really about dignity. Perhaps it's about something a bit different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom