Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Rolfe said:
Of course, these are just isolated individuals (even more of them).

I'll say it again. I don't care how many shy, vulnerable trans-identifying men there are out there who really really want to use women's facilities. I don't care how often I'm urged to "be kind" to these poor souls. There is nothing that excuses opening our intimate spaces to these grotesque perverts. Men need to step up and take responsibility for any nonconforming men whose apprehension over using men's facilities is justified. If any exist, of course.
Click to expand...
Semisan totally ignorant of the fact that the men who demand access to women's restrooms, whether women like it or not, are far more likely to be the real perpetrators of violence against women in women's restrooms, than they are to be the protector of women in women's restrooms.

Also, I question the premise that trans-identifying men are noteworthy for being able to "break like a twig" other men like themselves. Also, this fantasy seems to be undermined by statistics of trans sex workers being victimized. You can't say "protect the dolls" out of one side of your mouth and "the dolls kick more ass than cismen!" out of the other side of your mouth. (Well, you can, but it makes you look unhinged.)
 
theprestige said:
Semisan totally ignorant of the fact that the men who demand access to women's restrooms, whether women like it or not, are far more likely to be the real perpetrators of violence against women in women's restrooms, than they are to be the protector of women in women's restrooms.

Also, I question the premise that trans-identifying men are noteworthy for being able to "break like a twig" other men like themselves. Also, this fantasy seems to be undermined by statistics of trans sex workers being victimized. You can't say "protect the dolls" out of one side of your mouth and "the dolls kick more ass than cismen!" out of the other side of your mouth. (Well, you can, but it makes you look unhinged.)
Click to expand...

If Semisan isn't a trans-identifying man, I will be very much surprised.

The entire trans cult is a walking mass of contradictions anyway, and yes it does look unhinged, but rationality was never their strong point.
 
California is in hot water for trying to deceive a court about their school policy of hiding transgender status of kids from their parents. They were being sued over the policy, and rather than defend it honestly, they kept the policy but hid it from the public, and then falsely claimed to the court that they got rid of it in order to have the case thrown out as moot.
justthenews.com

Federal judge threatens to sanction California for 'misleading' him in 'gender secrecy' case

State claimed lawsuit over muzzling teachers, hiding students gender identity from parents was moot because it removed FAQ page with challenged policies, but they secretly popped up again in required teacher training.
justthenews.com justthenews.com
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't know how you get Reader View to work - in Firefox it just gives me the same truncated page as I get normally.
Click to expand...

I got another Telegraph page which did lead me to a paywall. I closed it again, then re-clicked on the link with my mouse pointer hovering over the area on the screen where the "Reader View" option would appear. As soon as it appeared, I clicked. I got the whole article.
 
"The selective skepticism of Rebecca Watson"

I though this YouTube video might be of interest, given that Rebecca Watson is an ex-ISF member and I understand still popular amongst the tribalist skeptics.

It has to be viewed on YouTube but that seems to be a bug with all embedded YT videos at the moment.

 
Ziggurat said:
I do think people should wear what they please. I want that man to dress like that, because then I know what I'm actually dealing with. It's aposematism in action. Although in this case, it doesn't signal a warning to potential predators, but to potential prey.
Click to expand...
I try to say "dress how you please within the bounds of polite society and appropriateness for the venue".

I don't want anyone to show up to work wearing pajamas or a bathing suit, irrespective of how they "identify". Basic decency should still hold sway.
 
novaphile said:
The 'night clothes' one is interesting...

It's quite common around here, to see young Asian people (males and females) to be out in public, in their pyjamas.

I'm assuming that this is a distinct cultural difference.

I can remember as a child, that if a neighbour was seen outdoors in their pyjamas (and dressing-gown typically) everyone would be immediately worried that they may be having some kind of mental health episode.

Even staying home and wearing your pyjamas during the day, was seen as some kind of aberration.

:)
Click to expand...
When I was young, it was pretty much just the elderly who were in PJs all day. And even then, mostly those who had limited mobility and weren't out and about. One of my grandmothers would wear their nightgown and robe out into the yard when it was nice, but never anywhere more public than that.

Somewhere around the late 90s to early 00s, it started to be a lot more common to see younger people - teens and early 20s - out in public in PJs. I thought it was weird. Now I end up seeing middle-aged people in PJ pants and t-shirts at the grocery store and I still think it's weird.
 
Rolfe said:
I think it would be difficult to impossible to prescribe or proscribe what people wear, beyond the general laws about public decency. However that wasn't quite my point. The mantra "dress as you please" seems to imply that no opprobrium should be directed at people in respect of the way they dress. I disagree entirely. Come out in public dressed in a pink tutu with "sissy" across your chest, and unless you are under the age of about ten max, I reserve the right to believe that you're somewhat strange at best. If you're a middle-aged or elderly man, I reserve the right to call you a pervert.
Click to expand...
I largely view it in a way similar to speech. Sure, you have free speech and can say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean that there won't be responses to your speech, and some speech can ultimately result in civil charges (libel and slander are civil not criminal in the US). At a minimum, people are going to form opinions about you basedon what you say and how you say it.

Same thing with clothes. Sure, you can legally wear whatever you want (within public decency laws). But I absolutely will judge you based on your choices. I'm totally judging the middle aged male dressed like a female toddler as a pervert and probably a sex pest. But I won't lie - I'm judging the 300 lb female in a bikini top and cheek-chiller jean shorts at the mall too, at a minimum I judge them of having no taste and no sense of decorum..
 
Emily's Cat said:
I don't want anyone to show up to work wearing pajamas or a bathing suit, irrespective of how they "identify". Basic decency should still hold sway.
Click to expand...
Sure, employers should enforce reasonable dress codes for employees. An employer that does not is probably not one I want to do any business with.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I try to say "dress how you please within the bounds of polite society and appropriateness for the venue".

I don't want anyone to show up to work wearing pajamas or a bathing suit, irrespective of how they "identify". Basic decency should still hold sway.
Click to expand...
Ok, but... 'appropriateness and decency'? By what standard? Pygamas are no less decent than sweatpants, and some would say more 'decent' than the popular yoga pants. It wasn't that long ago that wearing jeans to the office was unthinkable, and go back a little further and a woman not wearing a skirt or dress in public was cause to stare. We've gotten more casual over the years, and what is appropriate and decent differs wildly across a generation or so.

And lest the mods think this off-topic, we are still flirting with the idea of changing roles and acceptability of dress in society.
 
Nothing to say about Agatha's first-hand account of the event you were so keen to discuss when you had the participating sides the wrong way round? Do you still condemn the side that "brought violence" to a peaceful meeting now you know which side did that?
 
Thermal said:
Ok, but... 'appropriateness and decency'? By what standard? Pygamas are no less decent than sweatpants, and some would say more 'decent' than the popular yoga pants. It wasn't that long ago that wearing jeans to the office was unthinkable, and go back a little further and a woman not wearing a skirt or dress in public was cause to stare. We've gotten more casual over the years, and what is appropriate and decent differs wildly across a generation or so.

And lest the mods think this off-topic, we are still flirting with the idea of changing roles and acceptability of dress in society.
Click to expand...

Oh, and appropriate and decent by the standards of the venue in question and the time in question.
 
Rolfe said:
Oh, and appropriate and decent by the standards of the venue in question and the time in question.
Click to expand...
Ok, but whose standards are enforceable? Half the population might think it's a mortal sin to wear white after Labor Day. The other half thinks it's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom