Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Out of nowhere? Where have you been?

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.

Exactly! The "Protect the Dolls" meme doesn't apply to, and is not meant to apply to, people like Munroe Bergdorf, Ariel Nicholson or Zaya Perysian. People like those are very much the exception (For mine, none of those three pass. They all look like men in drag to me, but I can see why naive people might be fooled at first glance.

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.

This is EXACTLY the issue that trans supporters try to play the "nothing to see here card" with. Misty Hill is an obvious male.

"Protect the Dolls" applies to people like this lot...

,

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Rubbish! Your entire argument is based in the spurious idea that sex-segregated spaces don't exist because there is no law mandating them (there actually is in some countries and local jurisdictions). Well, I am telling you they DO exist and have done for decades... and least all seven that I have lived, and at least all of my parents', grandparents' and great-grandparents' lifetimes.

Was it a law? No
Does it need to be? No, of course not!
Was it a universally accepted convention? Yes, absolutely!

I will repeat the part you snipped out of my post you quoted, because it applies whether you like it, or believe it, or not. 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.

 

[Thermal]

I keep hearing that these examples aren't representative, but somehow, I'm never shown what is representative, according to you. Strange.

Representative McBride has been shown. Other posters here (including anti-transers) have mentioned several.of their acquaintance or friendship, none of which present in the extreme manner y'all trawl Twitter back for literal decades, so you can hold up a pic and shriek "look at the freak!".

So yes, you have been shown. They just don't do anything much to get featured on Reduxx and the other trans bashing sites. Just people.

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.

Till you get out of the dozens of 'freaks' out of millions of transpeople, that's the world's smallest orchard.

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?

We literally just went over that. It's an old throwback to a generations old subculture. You plan to argue about why guys are called 'dude' next, having never worked on a dude ranch?

If I saw a men's rights advocate saying "hunks have rights", I'd wonder why he picked that word.

I wouldn't. It's a simple high self esteem moniker, a pride thing. Are you now headed to ugly people being required to call themselves ugly? In the eye of the beholder, man. My wife calls me handsome.

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?

Don't know why you think 'doll' has to refer to appearance. I think of it as more like a sweetheart. I'd call my daughter a doll with no hesitation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe we do need to protect the dolls... from other dolls.
Ex arrested after Minneapolis woman found dead under tarp, mattress following car crash
The phrasing on this line from the story is really something:

Both Tsai [the victim] and Lewis [the murderer] are transgender women, but officials reportedly said there did not appear to be any indications of an anti-trans hate crime.​

"but"? That shouldn't be a "but". That should be an "and". When the perp is trans, it should be obvious that the motive probably isn't anti-trans.

 

[Aber]

I'm happy with the status quo in NYC, at least with respect to bathrooms.

Fine, but I'm still struggling to follow the route that you took to get there; it seems to me that your focus is on discrimination.

As I understand it, you do not believe that making females use mixed sex toilets is discrimination on the basis of sex; and that making transwomen use male toilets is discrimination on the basis of sex.

Please clarify if I have misunderstood.

 

[Pixel42]

What I'm still struggling to understand is why expecting transwomen to share toilet facilities with biological males is outrageous and unacceptable, but expecting actual women to share toilet facilities with biological males is not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Representative McBride has been shown.

What evidence do you have that McBride is representative?

Other posters here (including anti-transers) have mentioned several.of their acquaintance or friendship, none of which present in the extreme manner y'all trawl Twitter back for literal decades, so you can hold up a pic and shriek "look at the freak!".

More cherry picking. And unverifiable cherry picking at that.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe we do need to protect the dolls... from other dolls.
Ex arrested after Minneapolis woman found dead under tarp, mattress following car crash
The phrasing on this line from the story is really something:

Both Tsai [the victim] and Lewis [the murderer] are transgender women, but officials reportedly said there did not appear to be any indications of an anti-trans hate crime.​

"but"? That shouldn't be a "but". That should be an "and". When the perp is trans, it should be obvious that the motive probably isn't anti-trans.

At this point I'm not even sure about that anymore.

 

[Thermal]

What evidence do you have that McBride is representative?

About the same as yours. In case you forgot, you said you were never shown an example, according to me. That ends my responsibility to prove your statement factually wrong. I just don't scour the depths of twitter to find more examples (only the ones that confirm your biases, of course).

More cherry picking. And unverifiable cherry picking at that.

Complaining about cherry picking is pretty rich, seeing as your side has literally nothing else. And if you recall, I've criticized many tweetys reposted here, as they were either unverifiable or often demonstrably lies.

Trans people are people. I have no reason to broadly classify them as pervs. If you want to make the argument that they are, you are no stranger in how to compile data to make your case. I've asked more than a few times, and keep getting met with snippage and subject-changing.

 

[Rolfe]

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"?

And trans-identifying men who are not dolls (that is, most of them) are referred to as "bricks" in the same parlance. Is anybody protecting them?

 

[Matthew Best]

Don't worry - this case will be added to the list of crimes caused by transphobia regardless.

 

[Thermal]

And trans-identifying men who are not dolls (that is, most of them) are referred to as "bricks" in the same parlance. Is anybody protecting them?

How would i know? Since you guys think 'dolls' means the plastic kind, maybe you think 'bricks' means one of those old Nokia phones? They could call for help themselves, if so?

 

[d4m10n]

Feel free to refer to any of the dozens of times I have answered that question in depth and detail

I don't recall you doing this even once, but admittedly this thread moves pretty fast.

Typically people just say it's having a "gender identity" at odds with your body, and then don't bother to define the key phrase.

 

[Thermal]

I don't recall you doing this even once, but admittedly this thread moves pretty fast.

Seems you accidentally snipped out the question. I asked where you were going with the dollification thing you wanted to talk about. It would be aggravating to have it brought up in a few pages, á la "Have you googled dollification YET??" which has become the repeated style of argumentation ITT.

Typically people just say it's having a "gender identity" at odds with your body, and then don't bother to define the key phrase.

Ok, seems we are going to take it from the top again (*jazz hands*).

You, and others, seem confounded by the admittedly ambiguous idea of an identity, since it is feeling based and doesn't precisely define well. So let's try to get on the same page first: how would you define a d4m10n, or Thermal? Not using fingerprints, DNA and all because it is functionally useless outside of a laboratory, and screen IDs dont properly have meatspace identities anyway. Much easier: how would you define an ISF member, without being circular?

 

[Thermal]

What I'm still struggling to understand is why expecting transwomen to share toilet facilities with biological males is outrageous and unacceptable,

It's not. They are perfectly welcome in the gent's room too.

but expecting actual women to share toilet facilities with biological males is not.

The issue is more that it has always been kind of +/- for strict sex access, with women occasionally in the men's room and vice versa, but now transwomen are being grabbed by the throat and told "but not you, perv. We have different rules for your kind". That really doesn't feel right.

 

[Ziggurat]

That thing that never happens, keeps happening. This time in Fairfax County and Arlington County, which are right next door to Loudoun county. Same water, I guess.

x.com/NickMinock/status/1971247626755752396

 

[Aber]

That really doesn't feel right.

Why?

 

[smartcooky]

That thing that never happens, keeps happening. This time in Fairfax County and Arlington County, which are right next door to Loudoun county. Same water, I guess.

x.com/NickMinock/status/1971247626755752396

For the benefit of those who cant see posts on X (or claim they can't)

Right now, registered sex offender Richard Cox is in an Arlington court hearing where women are testifying that they saw Cox naked in Arlington high school girls locker rooms. ​

​

Cox says he’s a woman and asked the judge to tell the prosecutor to stop misgendering him. The judge said no. ​

​

One woman testified when she walked in an Arlington girls high school locker room after swim class for her young daughter she saw Cox masturbating in a shower stall with the curtain open. She said her young daughter was with her when she saw Cox touching his erect penis.​

​

Arlington Public Schools allows people to use locker rooms and bathrooms based on their gender identity.​

And for the benefit of who who will scream "cherry picking of X" and the top of their lungs...

Witnesses testify against sex offender accused in Arlington school exposure case

Registered sex offender Richard Cox was back in an Arlington, Virginia, courtroom Thursday for a lengthy preliminary hearing.Cox is accused of exposing himself

wjla.com

Clearly this man wanted to do more that just pee. Of course, this never happens, amirite.

 

[Pixel42]

It's not.

According to the transwomen on the other forum I belong to it's so outrageous and unacceptable that they are confined to their homes because the SC said they can't use female only facilities, which of course are the only facilities which are acceptable to them.

They are currently up in arms about an interview Wes Streeting gave to mumsnet. The one who found it won't link to it but shared this screenshot:



Their predictable response was that even to consider accommodating women's discomfort about sharing facilities with biological males is transphobic. As usual the fact that the only reason for granting them access to female only spaces would be to accommodate their discomfort about sharing facilities with biological males is ignored.

They think Streeting's plan is to make disabled cubicles available to anyone who is uncomfortable using the single sex facilities appropriate to their sex (which is of course also outrageous and unacceptable). It seems like a reasonable solution to me. It's not perfect, but at least it doesn't prioritise one group's comfort over another's.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The issue is more that it has always been kind of +/- for strict sex access, with women occasionally in the men's room and vice versa, but now transwomen are being grabbed by the throat and told "but not you, perv. We have different rules for your kind". That really doesn't feel right.

You seem to be willfully ignoring the actual situation, and instead you're substituting some activist-generated narrative here.

Yes, historically there has been some occasional usage of opposite sex restrooms. The key word being occasional. And the context being 1) accidental use of the wrong restroom, 2) extreme need that necessitated a reasonable exception, or 3) the very rare well behaved transsexual who was tolerated out of courtesy and who did their best to avoid making females uncomfortable. In all of those cases, it was a rare exception being made on a conditional basis.

Much like we historically might have allowed a complete stranger to use our phone to call for help, on the basis that we believe them to be low risk and contingent on them behaving appropriately... but we always had the right to say no and to deny them access to our homes if we, in our sole view, decided they were suspicious or threatening or otherwise perceived a risk of some sort.

That is not the case any longer.

Now we're being told that we are obligated to let in any male who says they have transgender feelings, regardless of their behavior, regardless of whether we perceive a risk, and regardless of how we feel about it. It's being FORCED on us, under threat of both law and physical intimidation. And to add to it, we've had years of seeing males to whom courtesy was extended turn around and post videos of them masturbating in female restrooms, confronting females in our own space and calling us names and threatening us.

These males with transgender identities that you're so committed to defending are highly invested in applying force, coercion, and intimidate to females in order to override our boundaries and rob of us the right to say no.

Why do you support that?