Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Aber]

And details of UK trials on puberty blockers:

Pathways Trial is a clinical study that will recruit an estimated 226 young people over the next three years. The youngest participants are expected to be 10 to 11 for biological females and 11 to 12 for biological males – although the team note the rigorous selection process means participants will probably be older – and the upper age limit for joining the study is 15 years and 11 months.

Participants will be randomised to immediately start puberty blockers or begin using the drugs after a year’s delay, alongside a wider package of care and support.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ss-impact-of-puberty-blockers-in-young-people

 

[smartcooky]

BlackBeltBarrister (Daniel ShenSmith) thinks that Webberly and her husband are breaking the law and need to be investigated. In effect, he says that using cross-sex hormones to get around the current ban on puberty blockers is an illegal practice.

 

[Thermal]

So why do YOU think that trans identifying males should be denied access to female bathrooms?

For the reasons I have repeatedly said. If you continue to forget, please consult the previous year of my participation here.

Because I don't really believe that you do.

Ya I can see that, which is why the repetition is pointless.

As opposed to the thin mask of misogyny that so many other TRA's wear. Somehow, that mask is opaque and credible to you.

They are not misogynistic. That's another cheap cop out used to demonize them.

They genuinely like transpeople, presumably because they are close with some and want them to be treated well. I get that. But i think they are a little short sighted in not realiizing how their well-intended inclusiveness can be abused, or create an even less comfortable environment.

But this is always what it seems to boil down to: you think the gender critical folks are bad people.

I'm gender critical, ducky. I only differ from you guys in that I don't despise trans people and have contempt for them, and post the worst examples I can find of "their kind" over and over.

I make no claim about percentages of pervs, though they absolutely exist and they matter for how rules are implemented. But mentally ill? Of course they are mentally ill, just as people with depression are mentally ill. If they weren't mentally ill, they wouldn't require any treatment, and wouldn't deserve any accommodations.

There's a difference between a gender dysphoric and a trans person. Are you deliberately conflating them, or is it genuine confusion?

That's not really the important question. I see three actual important questions:
1) What's the best treatment for people with gender dysphoria?
2) To what extent does the public need to accommodate the desire of gender dysphorics to be treated as their preferred sex?
3) What do we do about sexual predators who want to take advantage of accommodations?

The TRA answers are
1) Transition for anyone who desires it, to whatever extent the desire it, and whatever age they desire it, preferably at taxpayer expense.
2) The public should have to accept self-ID completely.
3) Do nothing, deny it's even an issue.

Note that NONE of these questions actually depend on how one defines "woman".

My answers are
1) Never transition kids, they don't know what the ◊◊◊◊ they're doing. Adults are responsible for themselves, but no taxpayer money for transition. I doubt the efficacy of transition as a treatment, but if adults want to do it anyways, I won't stop them. Just don't make me pay for it.
2) People can voluntarily make whatever accommodations they want to, but nobody should be forced to make any at all. Note: not discriminating against someone for housing, employment, etc. is NOT an accommodation. I make this explicit because otherwise you will likely try to claim otherwise.
3) See #2. By allowing people to treat trans-identifying males as males, we mostly remove the benefit for predatory males to try to use female "gender" to gain access to victims.

I still don't really know your answer to these, I can only guess at them.

Well I've answered them.all repeatedly, but let's Fringe Reset for you and roll them out again. My answers:

1) Therapy. GD is the life-altering distress, not being trans itself. For whatever reason, you switch up to gender affirmation surgeries and who pays. I agree that it should be an elective body modification surgery, much like getting breast augmentation or Botox to fit your idealized self-image, and not the responsibility of the taxpayer base.

2) I think they should accept them, as a matter of simple civility. Exactly how they should will vary based on circumstance. For example, if you deliberately misgender someone to the point of harassment in the workplace, that might rise to criminality, much as if I constantly called you a woman in front of your coworkers, despite your objections.

3) We should first consult the data, rather than our feels about what we are sure is totally inevitable. How we doing on that data? I've presented some which shows zero increase or declines in assaults, but I haven't seen a single data point presented that assaults increase under open gender policies.

You guys show tweety after tweety of transcpeople behaving badly (and we can just as easily show cis people behaving badly), but I don't recall a single tweety of a cis predator 'saying the magic words' and getting away with it.

You harp on Misty Hill. Hill didnt assault anyone. You go on and on about Bryson. He didn't do a damn thing to anyone as trans, only as a cis man, and is in a man's prison anyway.

Where is the data that says assaults increase under open gender policies? Don't pursue any other arguments before we resolve that. It's the basis of your argument, and the data says you are wrong.

When push comes to shove, you keep defending actual implementations of self ID, which makes me think you basically agree with the TRA's even though you claim you don't.

As I've said... repeatedly... I think restrooms should allow users to self-police. No bigots demanding a butch looking user to show their papers with legal force, or penalties for objecting to a threatening looking person.

I get that you don't like that, so you act like it is contradictory and you refuse to believe me. I can't help you there.

 

[Ziggurat]

They are not misogynistic. That's another cheap cop out used to demonize them.

You are in no position to accuse others of cheap cop outs to demonize people. Because that's exactly what you're doing here.

They genuinely like transpeople, presumably because they are close with some and want them to be treated well. I get that. But i think they are a little short sighted in not realiizing how their well-intended inclusiveness can be abused, or create an even less comfortable environment.

You say this, and yet, at every turn, you deny the existence of the importance of abuse or discomfort. As you do later in this post.

I'm gender critical, ducky. I only differ from you guys in that I don't despise trans people and have contempt for them, and post the worst examples I can find of "their kind" over and over.

See, this is why I don't believe you. You say that "inclusiveness can be abused", and yet, whenever anyone else points out how it actually gets abused with real-world examples, that's hateful. No. That's bull ◊◊◊◊. I don't despise trans people (that's just your demonization of me), but pointing out actual abuses of inclusivity isn't off limits because it offends your feelings.

There's a difference between a gender dysphoric and a trans person. Are you deliberately conflating them, or is it genuine confusion?

I keep hearing this, but nobody can really explain what it means to be trans without being dysphoric. But even more importantly, nobody can explain why someone without dysphoria deserves any sort of accommodation at all. The logic of accommodation for those with dysphoria is that treating them as the opposite sex helps relieve that dysphoria and therefore prevents suffering. Which is a worthwhile consideration. But why should we do so for someone without dysphoria? If they don't have dysphoria, they don't suffer living as their actual sex, even if they prefer not to. So why do we need to give them access to opposite sex spaces? To satisfy a preference? A kink? What's the logic here?

1) Therapy. GD is the life-altering distress, not being trans itself

And for the "trans" people without GD?

. For whatever reason, you switch up to gender affirmation surgeries and who pays.

I didn't "switch up" anything. Medical transition is a pretty central question to all of this. The ONLY hard question is what to do with that minority of trans identifying males who have undergone complete "gender transition" surgery. For everyone else, the question is actually very easy.

I agree that it should be an elective body modification surgery, much like getting breast augmentation or Botox to fit your idealized self-image, and not the responsibility of the taxpayer base.

Fair enough.

2) I think they should accept them, as a matter of simple civility. Exactly how they should will vary based on circumstance.

Sure, it will vary based on circumstance, but if you don't specify exactly how, then you haven't answered the question.

For example, if you deliberately misgender someone to the point of harassment in the workplace, that might rise to criminality, much as if I constantly called you a woman in front of your coworkers, despite your objections.

If you constantly address an actual biological woman as "woman", that too can get to the point of harassment. I don't think anyone here is opposed to prohibiting actual harassment.

3) We should first consult the data, rather than our feels about what we are sure is totally inevitable. How we doing on that data? I've presented some which shows zero increase or declines in assaults, but I haven't seen a single data point presented that assaults increase under open gender policies. You guys show tweety after tweety of transcpeople behaving badly (and we can just as easily show cis people behaving badly), but I don't recall a single tweety of a cis predator 'saying the magic words' and getting away with it.

Like I said earlier, at every turn, you do everything you can to deny the problem. The shortcomings of your data have been pointed out before. And they absolutely don't apply to things like prisons.

You harp on Misty Hill. Hill didnt assault anyone.

He sure as ◊◊◊◊ made people uncomfortable. You CLAIMED that you cared about this, but you keep demonstrating that you don't. Now, you can argue that Hill isn't a predator, but that doesn't mean he's not a problem. And Alexis Black, the man at the center of the recent Gold's Gym controversy, is a predator. How do I know? Because he took on the name of his ex-wife, who divorced him because he physically abused her. He's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ predator. And he got away with going into the women's locker room to see naked women. And when he got called out on it, the woman who called him out was the one who got ejected, not Black. So don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ tell me that predators can't get away with anything by claiming to be trans, because they do.

Where is the data that says assaults increase under open gender policies?

Again, why are assaults the only thing you care about? It sure as ◊◊◊◊ isn't the only thing women care about.

Don't pursue any other arguments before we resolve that. It's the basis of your argument, and the data says you are wrong.

No, it's NOT the basis of my argument, because assault IS NOT the only predatory behavior that males engage in.

As I've said... repeatedly... I think restrooms should allow users to self-police.

And yet, you keep defending policies that do not permit self policing, and attacking those who argue for the right to self police.

You make a few token statements against the TRA's, but then ever single time, the actual substance of your arguments are ALWAYS in their favor, swallowing their logic. And you want me to think you aren't on the TRA side? Why should I believe you?

 

[d4m10n]

Can you maybe start out here by considering that paraphilias aren't just "sexual appetites", and not all titillating things are paraphilias?

Can you maybe start out by showing which scientific studies led you to believe paraphilias are more like substance abuse addictions than they are like sexual appetites?

 

[d4m10n]

And details of UK trials on puberty blockers

I've often complained here (and in the Cass Report thread) that Tavistock never did anything like this despite ample opportunity.

I'd've preferred two different treatment modalities instead of the year-long delay but this is still much better than continuing to expect practitioners to exercise medial judgement in the absence of any scientific studies comparing blockers to alternatives.

 

[d4m10n]

Webberley's view is that transwomen were born female (although with what is commonly called a male body) and thus are women.

"Sex is between your ears" strikes again.

Give someone the ability to redefine key terms and a policy fulcrum incorporating those terms, and they can move the world.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't have a personal Humpty Dumpty definition.

Ok, but you could say which one from which dictionary makes sense of the claim "trans women are women" which was originally contested by the OP.

The English language has a couple.

Which of those two makes sense of "trans women are women" though?

I don't have a definition.

Presumably, though, you have one in mind here.

 

[smartcooky]

Gender Ideology is an Evil Coercive Cult - Billboard Chris​

Billboard Chris (Chris Elston) is an activist who wears a billboard saying that children cannot consent to puberty blockers. He campaigns against an ideology that tells children they are born in the wrong body.


Some excerpts

"I started off this campaign with an actual billboard and then one in Vancouver that said "I love JK Rowling". They took it down. I was following the lead of Kelly J Keen in England who put up a sign at the Edinburgh train station that said "I love JK Rowling" They took it down after one day because some people on Twitter complained that it was hate speech."​

I'd been learning all about this business of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and childhood sex changes I couldn't believe what was happening to kids and I couldn't believe we weren't allowed to talk about it and we couldn't even say we love the world's greatest children's author so I put up a big billboard in Vancouver that said the same thing it also lasted just a day. Vancouver politicians said was hate speech. I then put up a whole bunch more throughout the US​

So trans is not the same as gay, the left has been very successful in conflating these two things - -they call it the LGBTQ 2SA+ Community. Those are just a bunch of letters, it's not a community. You don't have gay men really hanging out with lesbians. Transgenderism is about a denial of reality. It's got nothing to do with being gay but the one connection there is is that many of these kids who experience distress with their sex distress about their gender I don't like that word. I don't use it, but historically kids with gender dysphoria, a majority of them grew up to be gay.​

​

If a gay youth was growing up today for sure he'd be told he was trans and he'd be indoctrinated to believe that he was born in the wrong body which is an extraordinarily abusive thing to tell a child ... but then to medicalize them to stop their puberty from happening, to stop their natural development to give them the opposite sex hormones which are causing a host of problems to cut off body parts of kids, this is what's happening in the US. We know from insurance data that up to 179 girls under the age of 12 and a half have had double mastectomies. We're talking about 12-year-old girls getting their breasts cut off when they've hardly formed because they've been taught that they're boys on the inside.​

​

​

The rest, I'll just let you hear for youself.

 

[Rolfe]

That first "I JKR" poster (because that's what was actually on it) was put up in Edinburgh (in Waverley station I think), the city where Joanne Rowling lives, on her actual birthday, at a time when she was getting a lot of online hate. It was removed within 24 hours for being hate speech. That's how insanely captured many authorities are.

 

[Thermal]

You are in no position to accuse others of cheap cop outs to demonize people. Because that's exactly what you're doing here.

You aren't granted immunity from your cheap cop outs via tu quoque.

This is why I don't believe you. You say that "inclusiveness can be abused", and yet, whenever anyone else points out how it actually gets abused with real-world examples, that's hateful.

I don't think most are showing actual.abuses. Most of the tweetys are transpeople behaving badly. They aren't actually doing anything where they abuse gender policies to gain some predition over unsuspecting victims.

No. That's bull ◊◊◊◊. I don't despise trans people (that's just your demonization of me), but pointing out actual abuses of inclusivity isn't off limits because it offends your feelings.

Ok. What is your strongest example of men taking advantage of gender policies to prey on women? You've harped endlessly on Hill and Bryson, who didn't attempt to harm anyone at all while 'saying magic words'. Even Alexis Black commited his assault as a cis man, like Bryson. Go ahead, cherry pick your worst of the worst that have been posted and we'll go over it again.

I keep hearing this, but nobody can really explain what it means to be trans without being dysphoric.

The English language and the DSM handle that with ease. No idea where you are bogging down on those definitions. Can you clarify?

But even more importantly, nobody can explain why someone without dysphoria deserves any sort of accommodation at all. The logic of accommodation for those with dysphoria is that treating them as the opposite sex helps relieve that dysphoria and therefore prevents suffering. Which is a worthwhile consideration. But why should we do so for someone without dysphoria? If they don't have dysphoria, they don't suffer living as their actual sex, even if they prefer not to. So why do we need to give them access to opposite sex spaces? To satisfy a preference? A kink? What's the logic here?

Common courtesy and respect for minorities and people that are different. I taught my kids that.

And for the "trans" people without GD?

You asked about people with GD. I answered. I did forget (until your scare quotes above reminded me) that you dont think transpeople are real. That really shuts down any constructive discussion on the matter until that gets resolved. I mean, global denial on your part is a bit of an impasse.

The ONLY hard question is what to do with that minority of trans identifying males who have undergone complete "gender transition" surgery.

I don't see what would be hard about treating someone who went through gender transition surgeries to be afforded recognition.

For everyone else, the question is actually very easy.

If it was so easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's easy if you accept your extreme position in its entirety. The same goes for your opposite extreme. But most of us aren't on either extreme.

Fair enough.

Sure, it will vary based on circumstance, but if you don't specify exactly how, then you haven't answered the question.

I gave a simple example. Must I give a hypothetical for every conceivable scenario to answer the question?

If you constantly address an actual biological woman as "woman", that too can get to the point of harassment.

Agreed, and on the same principle. It's a real thing, and applies to transpeople too.They are not exempt from those very protections.

I don't think anyone here is opposed to prohibiting actual harassment.

Disagreed.

Like I said earlier, at every turn, you do everything you can to deny the problem. The shortcomings of your data have been pointed out before.

Yet you present no data at all. You are free to present your data that assaults against women increase under open gender policies. I've been requesting it for quite some time. Instead, I get 'here's a tweety of a trans person that dresses funny and when they were cis, they commited offenses'.

And they absolutely don't apply to things like prisons.

Which I have agreed to ad nauseum, as I have in showers and locker rooms and elsewhere.

He sure as ◊◊◊◊ made people uncomfortable.

So said the invisible child and her invisible mother, and they remain invisible. We only heard briefly from Hill and the manager, who gave conflicting versions of the incident, then nothing more. Nothing at all is sure as ◊◊◊◊ in that story.

You CLAIMED that you cared about this, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.

This is beyond stupid. Do you understand that I can care about a convicted rapist walking the street after serving his sentence, but I can't advocate perpetual laws against him being able to do so?

Now, you can argue that Hill isn't a predator, but that doesn't mean he's not a problem.

How's his track record doing?

And Alexis Black, the man at the center of the recent Gold's Gym controversy, is a predator. How do I know? Because he took on the name of his ex-wife, who divorced him because he physically abused her. He's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ predator.

He commited domestic assault against his wife. I hate to break it to you, but that's not predatory by nature. People in an intimate relationship are not the equivalent of a predator on the hunt for victims.

And he got away with going into the women's locker room to see naked women.

He appears to had legit 'gone trans' based on what I have been reading. I don't think his objective was trying to see naked women. If he did, it was an awful lot of work for very little payoff.

And when he got called out on it, the woman who called him out was the one who got ejected, not Black.

Think that one through: he was allowed to be there, by Gold's Gym policy and that state's law. The woman who called him on it was aware that he frequently went in the women's locker room (she said she and others had already complained to management repeatedly in writing). So answer me this: what is the basis for her complaint and screaming fit? She knew 100% that he went in there, and was allowed to, and she chose to go there anyway. She was 100% eyes open and knowledgeable.

Again, why are assaults the only thing you care about? It sure as ◊◊◊◊ isn't the only thing women care about.

For whatever reason, you don't consider voyeurism and exhibitionism to be sexual assaults. I do, so your pedantic quibble is meaningless.

And yet, you keep defending policies that do not permit self policing, and attacking those who argue for the right to self police.

I do not. You have your comprehension on select fire again. Not my problem to solve.

You make a few token statements against the TRA's, but then ever single time, the actual substance of your arguments are ALWAYS in their favor, swallowing their logic. And you want me to think you aren't on the TRA side? Why should I believe you?

You've made it crystal clear that you choose not to believe me, and choose not to acknowledge what I write. So why keep doing this? What about this endless repetition is so engrossing to you?

 

[Thermal]

Ok, but you could say which one from which dictionary makes sense of the claim "trans women are women" which was originally contested by the OP.

Which of those two makes sense of "trans women are women" though?

Either, which is the problem. Are trans women physically women, as in female? No. Can we socially consider them the functional equivalent, for all intents and purposes? Yes. So when a competitor, who meets all of the requirements for being a woman in that competition wants to compete, are they a woman? Eeeeehhh... And that's the OP and this never ending thread in a nutshell.

Presumably, though, you have one in mind here.

In the post you are quoting, no, i didnt have *a* definition. That was the point. There are two. I don’t have only *one*, as others here do.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok. What is your strongest example of men taking advantage of gender policies to prey on women? You've harped endlessly on Hill and Bryson, who didn't attempt to harm anyone at all while 'saying magic words'. Even Alexis Black commited his assault as a cis man, like Bryson.

Black was oggling naked women in a changing room, and he got to do so by "saying magic words". That won't show up in your statistics, but it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem. Why are you ignoring that? Why are you pretending it's OK?

Common courtesy and respect for minorities and people that are different. I taught my kids that.

Where was the common courtesy and respect for women when Black decided to enter the women's changing room? Nowhere.

Where was YOUR respect for those women whose dignity was violated by Black? Also nowhere.

If it was so easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's easy if you accept your extreme position in its entirety.

There's nothing extreme about recognizing that males who claim to be female are still actually male. The extreme position is pretending that they can be female.

He commited domestic assault against his wife. I hate to break it to you, but that's not predatory by nature. People in an intimate relationship are not the equivalent of a predator on the hunt for victims.

Taking the name of his wife is a pretty god damn clear indicator that he's predatory.

He appears to had legit 'gone trans' based on what I have been reading.

What does that even mean? Do you just mean that he's taking hormones? Is that all it takes to be "legit"? What for you counts as not legit? And why does whatever you think it takes to be "legit" entitle you to violate sex segregation?

I don't think his objective was trying to see naked women.

Of course. You assume the worst motives for everyone here, but only the best motives for anyone "trans", even if they've actually demonstrated themselves to be terrible people.

If he did, it was an awful lot of work for very little payoff.

So what?

Think that one through: he was allowed to be there, by Gold's Gym policy and that state's law.

The state law part is the important part.

The woman who called him on it was aware that he frequently went in the women's locker room (she said she and others had already complained to management repeatedly in writing). So answer me this: what is the basis for her complaint and screaming fit?

Because he's a male entering an intimate female space where females would be naked. Why should it require ANYTHING more than that in order to be a problem? This is yet another example where you take the TRA side, even though you deny doing so.

For whatever reason, you don't consider voyeurism and exhibitionism to be sexual assaults.

Because according to California law, if you say the magic words, they aren't.

You've made it crystal clear that you choose not to believe me, and choose not to acknowledge what I write.

Because your actual arguments always contradict your claims. Every single time, you take the TRA side. Every single time.

 

[Thermal]

Black was oggling naked women in a changing room,

So says the complainant. Actually, she said he was 'staring' at her. No one else reported such a thing. So no, you have reworded a lone and possibly self serving account.

and he got to do so by "saying magic words".

Or, you know, by actually being trans and in compliance with law and gym policy. You are not demonstrating otherwise.

That won't show up in your statistics, but it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem. Why are you ignoring that? Why are you pretending it's OK?

I don't think it's OK, as I've said repeatedly. But as the existing condition of law, policy, and her knowledge, I don't think she is on strong ground. If you elect to voluntarily get naked in a place that you 100% know that it is not only ok, but is likely to actually happen, you've cast your own die.

Where was the common courtesy and respect for women when Black decided to enter the women's changing room? Nowhere.

I agree. Gold's Gym, the state of California, and the woman herself (by her knowing, willful, and entirely elective participation) do not.

Where was YOUR respect for those women whose dignity was violated by Black? Also nowhere.

'Imma get naked where I actually expect a specific man to walk in legally, and then Imma freak out about it' is a level of willful stupidity I dont readily sympathize with.

Taking the name of his wife is a pretty god damn clear indicator that he's predatory.

Or utterly meaningless, and he just really liked the name. I mean, wtf is this 'took her name'? He didn't take it from her. She still has it. I'd think she doesn't give him much thought anymore, and doesn't care what he calls himself, because ◊◊◊◊ him. Did she change her name because he 'took it from her'?

They were married, and apparently once he threw a punch that broke her jaw. Passionate people do things like that. It's a crime, and particularly reprehensible, but doesn't indicate 'predation' at all.

What does that even mean? Do you just mean that he's taking hormones? Is that all it takes to be "legit"? What for you counts as not legit? And why does whatever you think it takes to be "legit" entitle you to violate sex segregation?

He didn't violate any sex segregation in that gym or State. He did nothing wrong, legally. Weren't you the huge champion of the virtue of strict legal compliance on the Rittenhouse thread? 'Kyle did nothing wrong because it was legal', you argued?

Of course. You assume the worst motives for everyone here, but only the best motives for anyone "trans", even if they've actually demonstrated themselves to be terrible people.

People here stand on their postings. As far as I know, Black commited one assault once (the details and circumstances we know nothing about). I hate to break this to you man, but more than one guy has pled guilty to assault when he was defending himself, but couldn't prove it so took the plea rather than fight what he knew he couldn't prove, and get a harsher penalty. Without knowing the details, I can't jump to the conclusions you so willingly leap to.

The state law part is the important part.
Because he's a male entering an intimate female space where females would be naked. Why should it require ANYTHING more than that in order to be a problem?

Your question is answered in your hilited.

This is yet another example where you take the TRA side, even though you deny doing so.

Because according to California law, if you say the magic words, they aren't.

{Eta: bull ◊◊◊◊. Still crimes, and still illegal}

Because your actual arguments always contradict your claims. Every single time, you take the TRA side. Every single time.

Yeah, that's what you keep insisting. I guess you're doing that 'repetition till it registers as truth' thing again?

Eta: so is Alexis Black your ultimate cherry picked, slam dunk example of increased assaults using magic words that i requested? You picked a weak one, but I'll run with it if that's the best you got.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't see what would be hard about treating someone who went through gender transition surgeries to be afforded recognition.

What kind of recognition did you have in mind? They're still male. They're still unlikely to pass. They're still unable to experience any of the ways in which the lives of women actually differ from the lives of men. Small children are still going to ask them why they're pretending to be a woman. How would, for example, giving them permission to make actual women uncomfortable, distressed and even fearful change any of that?

Think that one through: he was allowed to be there, by Gold's Gym policy and that state's law. The woman who called him on it was aware that he frequently went in the women's locker room (she said she and others had already complained to management repeatedly in writing). So answer me this: what is the basis for her complaint and screaming fit? She knew 100% that he went in there, and was allowed to, and she chose to go there anyway. She was 100% eyes open and knowledgeable.

What was her alternative? Simply accept that she will no longer be able to go to the gym without encountering males in what used to be female only facilities, and if she can't accept that just self exclude from what might well be a significant part of her life? Either will be used as evidence by TRAs that there is no problem that needs to be addressed. Continuing to protest was the only recourse open to her.

 

[Thermal]

What kind of recognition did you have in mind?

Social. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere, and treat them like a woman in any way except medical treatment, for the practical reasons. Whether or not they sufficiently 'pass' is not relevant to me. Whether a kid can even tell, or care, or was taught to be rude by his parents, is also a matter of indifference to me. As an adult, a person who goes to that length passes the sincerity bar for me.

Eta: regarding making women fearful or distressed... of what? That this person went to great lengths to become someone else, and that means they are out to get you?

What was her alternative?

Not go to that Gold's Gym. It's not that complicated. Go to any other gym where transpeople are not 100% known to be in the locker rooms. Or buy a set of free weights and running shoes. Or go to the gym, and leave, in your workout wear, throwing a dry t-shirt or whatever over your sweaty workout clothes. It just ain't that complicated to not get naked in public.

 

[Aber]

regarding making women fearful or distressed... of what?

This is why you're never going to be accepted as gender critical.

Even though you accept that sex is binary and unchangeable, you simply don't think it is important, and you seem unable to understand that females have a very different point of view.

 

[smartcooky]

This is why you're never going to be accepted as gender critical.

Even though you accept that sex is binary and unchangeable, you simply don't think it is important, and you seem unable to understand that females have a very different point of view.

....no ability to see anything from any viewpoint other than his own.

 

[Ziggurat]

So says the complainant. Actually, she said he was 'staring' at her. No one else reported such a thing.

Everyone else is keeping their heads down.

And do you still not understand how his presence is a problem? You say he's "actually trans", but he's clearly male. You have previously admitted that causing discomfort to women is a problem, and yet here you are, denying it. And yet you act like you're confused when I say that you contradict yourself.

At every single turn, you take the TRA side.

I don't think it's OK, as I've said repeatedly.

And then you repeatedly turn around and deny or minimize the problem.

But as the existing condition of law, policy, and her knowledge, I don't think she is on strong ground.

She's on no legal ground, sure. But that's rather the problem. And the fact that you can't even recognize that at this late a stage is stunning.

They were married, and apparently once he threw a punch that broke her jaw. Passionate people do things like that.

"Passionate people"? Do you hear yourself?

That's not passionate. That's violent. Violent people do things like that.

It's a crime, and particularly reprehensible, but doesn't indicate 'predation' at all.

Using her name does. He wants to continue to torment her. This is a well established pattern, he's not the only trans identifying male to do so.

He didn't violate any sex segregation in that gym or State.

He did. The state allows for that violation, sure, but it's still a violation of sex segregation.

He did nothing wrong, legally.

I never said he did. But that's precisely the problem. The laws are wrong, because they encourage this outcome.

Weren't you the huge champion of the virtue of strict legal compliance on the Rittenhouse thread? 'Kyle did nothing wrong because it was legal', you argued?

Oh, I'm not arguing for prosecuting Black. The fact that his actions were legal does in fact properly protect him from any legal ramifications. That's not what's under debate here. What's under debate is whether the laws themselves are proper. And here, they are not.

People here stand on their postings. As far as I know, Black commited one assault once (the details and circumstances we know nothing about). I hate to break this to you man, but more than one guy has pled guilty to assault when he was defending himself, but couldn't prove it so took the plea rather than fight what he knew he couldn't prove, and get a harsher penalty. Without knowing the details, I can't jump to the conclusions you so willingly leap to.

He broke her ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ jaw. And then took her name when he transitioned. Yeah, that's totally a normal thing that "passionate" men do to defend themselves.

I really didn't think you would keep sinking, and yet here we are, with you defending actual violence against women. Because you're empathetic to oppressed minorities.

 

[Pixel42]

Social. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere,

So am I, whether they've had surgery or not, outside sex segregated spaces, services etc. Because sincerely believing that reality can be changed by the thoughts in their head does not make it true.

Eta: regarding making women fearful or distressed... of what? That this person went to great lengths to become someone else, and that means they are out to get you?

Of the fact that there is a strange male in what is supposed to be a female only space.

Not go to that Gold's Gym. It's not that complicated. Go to any other gym where transpeople are not 100% known to be in the locker rooms. Or buy a set of free weights and running shoes. Or go to the gym, and leave, in your workout wear, throwing a dry t-shirt or whatever over your sweaty workout clothes. It just ain't that complicated to not get naked in public.

So STFU, in other words, and let TRAs point to the lack of complaints as evidence that the abolition of sex segregated spaces is no big deal? Dream on.