Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

There's no value in it. A marker to say whether this person wears clothes bought from the men's or the women's department? Seriously? T-shirts and hoodies don't always come in male or female in the first place, and even when t-shirts are available in these "women's cut" styles, most women wear the neutral-cut ones as far as I can see. I'm sitting here now in jeans and a hoodie. The jeans were bought as "ladies" because my natural body shape can't wear men's jeans. Some women can and do though. The hoodie is generic. It's very easy to tell that I'm female, by my body shape, my feminine face (and absence of male pattern baldness) and the fact that my trainers are a size 4. That's a European 37, if that helps. What gender marker is supposed to be on my passport? Who would it help?

Not only that, I would strongly object to being compelled to have any such marker. I don't identify as any gender. I wear what I please, I do my hair as I please, and I wear or don't wear makeup as I please. It's easy to see that I'm female, but if you were to say, I see you identify as woman gender, I'd probably clock you one.
I could see an argument that there should be an optional marker on IDs for gender. If we want sex to remain natal sex on IDs (which I prefer for a host of reasons including medical ones), there will end up being a small group of people who will face problems as a result. Not a ton, sure, but still. Much as I dislike their posting, and much as I acknowledge that the filters are far overused... there's a plausible argument that India Willoughby is passing enough that an ID that only says "M" could present challenges in some settings. Allowing an optional gender marker of "F" would allow the identity-checker to go through the process of "Male? Huh... oh, yes I see, okay, Trans" and just move on with their day.

It would also work the other way, of course. You'd get the Izzards of the world where everyone know that they're male, and having that "F" for optional gender at least allows the identity-checker to say "Ahh, yep, male who slaps on a ton of bad make-up, but still male".
 
In 99% of cases, you don't have to strip anyone down to know what sex they are. We're really, really, really good at accurately sexing people by face alone, especially when we're in person without filters and precise camera angles intended to deceive the observer.

In many cases, you don't even need a face.

I am a frequent dog walker. When walking along the boardwalk at my local beach, I can see someone 50m-100m ahead of me, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, and I can immediately tell 100% of the time whether that is a man or a woman....
a. body shape
b. how they walk.
 
Last edited:
Gender isn't actually well correlated with appearance.
Not sure how to test this claim; most everyone I've known tends to dress and groom themselves fairly consistently either one way or another.

You can tell which half of the closet is mine and which half is my wife's just by looking at the clothing on the hangars.

You can tell which sink is which because one of them has hair curlers and one of them has an electric head shaver.
 
I could see an argument that there should be an optional marker on IDs for gender. If we want sex to remain natal sex on IDs (which I prefer for a host of reasons including medical ones), there will end up being a small group of people who will face problems as a result. Not a ton, sure, but still. Much as I dislike their posting, and much as I acknowledge that the filters are far overused... there's a plausible argument that India Willoughby is passing enough that an ID that only says "M" could present challenges in some settings. Allowing an optional gender marker of "F" would allow the identity-checker to go through the process of "Male? Huh... oh, yes I see, okay, Trans" and just move on with their day.

It would also work the other way, of course. You'd get the Izzards of the world where everyone know that they're male, and having that "F" for optional gender at least allows the identity-checker to say "Ahh, yep, male who slaps on a ton of bad make-up, but still male".
It's estimated that there are 12 million transwomen worldwide. Out of a population of 8 billion, a gender marker would address a minor problem encountered by ~0.15% of the population at most.
 
Not sure how to test this claim; most everyone I've known tends to dress and groom themselves fairly consistently either one way or another.
If gender correlated with appearance, people wouldn't have to declare preferred pronouns. We could tell their gender just by looking at them. But no, the whole point of preferred pronouns is that it's rude to assume their gender correlates with their appearance.

The whole thing makes a lot more sense when you realize that sex is well-correlated with appearance, and that declaring preferred pronouns is supposed to override that correlation.

Which is to say, the claim has already been tested, and the results are in: Gender does not correlate with appearance. Which makes sense; a lot of effort was put into gender-queering the usual stereotypes and expectations, not too long ago.
 
Last edited:
I can't see how it would ever be possible to get real stats as to the percentage of trans-identified men who are porn addicts, kiddie-fiddlers, exhibitionists, wife-beaters and so on. Most of these creeps have never been arrested or charged. Much of the objectionable behaviour falls short of the actual criminal. The convicted paedophiles and rapists are just the tip of a very nasty iceberg. But the stats we went over before, from Scotland, England and New Zealand I believe, showed that trans-identifying men were four to five times more likely to be imprisoned for sexual offences than other men.

It would be interesting to know what these US stats would look like if you took women out of the BOP population, but since in most jurisdictions there are few incarcerated woman and many incarcerated men, it might not change the result much.
Just to mollify those few who aren't up to speed here... Let's also acknowledge that the correlation/causality issue is in play too. Perverts exist, have always existed, and have always presented a risk to females and to children at a might higher level than they to do males.

So... does identifying as transgender cause sexual deviance? Or is it the other way around - does an innate tendency toward deviance result in these males identifying as trans, in part because it provides them an easily exploitable loophole? Something else to consider is that paraphilias very often cluster, so someone with one pre-existing paraphilia is more likely to develop another paraphilia as well. They're very similar to addiction, without the physical dependency aspect. Feeding an addiction makes it worse; feeding a paraphilia exacerbates it. Having an addiction to one substance increases the likelihood of developing an addiction to another substance; having one paraphilia increases the likelihood of developing other paraphilias.

ETA: For those who don't (won't?) comprehend that this isn't being universally applied, I'm not even remotely saying that all transgender people have a paraphilia. I'm saying that at least some have a paraphilia, and it's a paraphilia that is associated with sexual offending. And based on crime stats, it certainly appears that there's a higher incidence of sexual offending among transgender identifying males than among other males, both of which are orders of magnitude higher than the rate among females.
 
Last edited:
You each have your own bathroom sink?
 
This is probably the most accurate front cover of a Glamour magazine in years... probably ever...

GlamourTrans.jpg


"The actual title is within the name - dolls is what they are...
they're caricatures of women... they've got the fake nails, the
fake boobs, the fake hair, the fake eyelashes, and they just
think that is what being a woman is"

- Samara Gill on TalkTV show "Plank of the Week"

Straight-talking Samara Gill has a great "Aussie Sheila" way of just calling out and taking down the bull-◊◊◊◊ just with a few words.

Of course, as funny as her comments are, anyone who can think for themselves knows what the reality actually is...


GlamourBlokes.jpg

 
"Receptive homosexuality" in Viking times was liable to get you killed. According to the notes on some ribald flyting passages in my copy of the Volsunga Saga.
 
This is the clearest explanation I have seen of "Brollygate". The photo in the first tweet shows clearly that the part of the umbrella Susan briefly took hold of was the orange section, whereas the broken part was the green section. Which was obviously broken before she went near it.

Further down the thread there are a couple of short video clips which are even clearer. Harlow was using the umbrella as a sort of magnified "talk to the hand" gesture, swinging it up to cut off contact with anyone who challenged him. He was on a fairly small almost-island, and at one point Susan momentarily took hold of the edge of it, I think to avoid overbalancing into the water. She only touched it on one occasion, and the part she touched was orange. There are some shots from him setting up that show the umbrella was already broken when he unfurled it.

 
This is appalling. tl:dr version. Severely mentally ill young man with multiple psychiatric diagoses is imprisoned for attempted murder, the culmination of a long string of violent offences. He's well settled in Perth prison, a male prison, when he finds his inner "Sarah Jane" and demands to be allowed to "live as a woman", while remaining in Perth. Enter the SPS transgender policy. He must be moved to a women's prison, whether he (or the women in that prison!) like it or not.

This was predictably a howling disaster. He was batted around the prison system for a while, including a period living on licence in the community ( :rolleyes: ), and the proximate cause of his suicide seems to have been a refusal of parole. It's clear, though, that the attempts to force him into a women's prison, where he didn't want to be, and the instability this caused to his psyche, didn't help. One can't help feeling that if he'd simply been allowed to swan around in Perth prison in a dress and heels, he'd have been OK. But really, he should have been in Carstairs the whole time. (Nobody in the SPS seems even to have thought about Carstairs, the "secure hospital for the criminally insane".) The idea that he was allowed into the community is terrifying. But his "transgender" status seems to have overshadowed everything, including his own wishes and the multiple psychiatric illnesses he had been diagnosed with.


This (from the BBC report) was quite a shock to see.

1762616370083.png

"Too many transgender prisoners"! But they're such a tiny, minuscule, insignificant fraction of the population! How can this be?
 
Last edited:
And another one.


1762620071320.png

If only he had realised that all he had to do was go into a women's changing room to do his flashing, he could have occupied the moral high ground and had these pesky girls charged with a hate crime if they complained...
 

Back
Top Bottom