Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

Dè an diofar eadar
(a) faodaidh duine fireannach sam bith às an deach a bhod a thoirt air falbh goireasan boireann a chleachdadh, agus
(b) faodaidh duine fireannach sam bith goireasan boireann a chleachdadh
mura h-eil e ceadaichte faighinn a-mach a bheil bod aig neach no nach eil?

Freagair sin dhomh.

 

[d4m10n]

There are two.

Which one makes sense of "trans women are women" though? Sorry if you've posted this upthread but I'm asking to see it.

Can we socially consider them the functional equivalent, for all intents and purposes?

Not really, no. "All intents and purposes" would include things like prostate exams and PSA screening tests, and it would be malpractice for GPs to pretend like certain patients don't need those when they actually do. "All intents and purposes" would also include Brazilian bikini waxes, which (as we discussed in the J. Yaniv kerfuffle) aren't really designed to be performed on relatively loose and rugated tissue. "All intents and purposes" would also include women's locker rooms and showers, and that will be considered a breach of social contract by the sort of feminists who believe women and girls should not be required to consent to seeing grown men naked.

I could go on here, but there are countless relatively narrow intents and purposes where the social equivalency approach gets people into trouble.

 

[Ziggurat]

And before you say it, I'm not defending this guy.

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

Sounds like a defense to me.

 

[Rolfe]

Can we socially consider them the functional equivalent, for all intents and purposes? Yes.

Chan urrainn.

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1992995393404014699

 

[theprestige]

Are trans women physically women, as in female? No. Can we socially consider them the functional equivalent, for all intents and purposes?

I don't think we can consider males functionally equivalent to females for any intents or purposes. All of the functionality of being female comes from actually being female. All of our intents and purposes when considering someone to be functionally female is based on them actually being functionally female.

Or, as I've been saying for years: Gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless.

 

[Rolfe]

Saoilidh mise gu bheil Thermal dha-rìribh a’ ciallachadh seo. Ma tha cead aig aon bhuidheann de fhireannaich àiteachan boireann a chleachdadh, agus nach eil cead aca dùbhlan a thoirt do dhuine sam bith a bhios a’ cleachdadh nan àiteachan sin, faodaidh duine sam bith fireann na h-àiteachan sin a chleachdadh gun bhacadh.

Obair deiseil.

 

[smartcooky]

Saoilidh mise gu bheil Thermal dha-rìribh a’ ciallachadh seo. Ma tha cead aig aon bhuidheann de fhireannaich àiteachan boireann a chleachdadh, agus nach eil cead aca dùbhlan a thoirt do dhuine sam bith a bhios a’ cleachdadh nan àiteachan sin, faodaidh duine sam bith fireann na h-àiteachan sin a chleachdadh gun bhacadh.

Obair deiseil.

Translation:
I think Thermal really means this. If one group of men are allowed to use women's spaces, and they are not allowed to challenge anyone who uses those spaces, then any male can use those spaces without restriction.

Job done.

Yup. Pretty much sums it up!

 

[Thermal]

There are several on the other forum I belong to who will assure you that they are women, they are female. There are plenty of men who agree with them - we had one in this thread a few days ago, remember? "Transwomen are women. End of".

We are not on that other forum, and I am not that 'end of' poster.

This is the eternal bull ◊◊◊◊ here in a nutshell. You guys will only argue your extreme versus your opposite number, and anyone who doesn't swallow your version hole, you consider your extreme opposite.

Their whole argument is that they are not asking for the abolition of sex segregation - they themselves point blank refuse to share facilities with males, remember? - but that the female only spaces are the ones they should be allowed to use because they are female. How can you possibly be unaware of this, after participating in this thread for so long?

'They' is the operative word, yet again. I ain't them. Please make a note of it to move things more briskly along.

You don't understand very much at all about this issue, that has been clear for some time.

See above. Ive said from the beginning, I'm largely on your side, with the caveat that I want to be cool to transpeople and not call them all perverts, to which your side shrieks that I am an ideologically indoctrinated TRA and the other stupid ◊◊◊◊ I've been listening to.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think we can consider males functionally equivalent to females for any intents or purposes.

That's overstating it. There are some purposes for which males and females are functionally equivalent because sex is irrelevant to those purposes. So for example, purposes for which sex discrimination is strictly prohibited (ie, the right to vote) do treat males and females as functionally equivalent, but these are also purposes for which gender is irrelevant. In other words:

Or, as I've been saying for years: Gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless.

Absolutely.

 

[Thermal]

Here we go again. Thermal doesn't want to believe something happened,

A lie.

so he writes his own version,

Another.

accuses everyone else of deliberate lying,

Number three.

and demands evidence that's not practically attainable.

Not exactly a lie, but stupid. The NY Post (essentially a right wing tabloid rated of mixed credibility) said their unevidenced claim came from public records. Why doesn't that charge appear? Why is Tish posting a page about his Failure to Comply conviction instead of the one being used to discredit Freeman?

On reflection, it was a lie. I didn't demand anything of anyone. I noted that the claim is unevidenced, as a skeptic should. I also questioned Ziggurat on his claim that 'everyone else is keeping their head down', which he appears to have pulled out of his ass. He can present evidence, acknowledge that he made it up, or pretend he never said it. I think we know which he is doing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ive said from the beginning, I'm largely on your side,

Then why does no one believe you?

with the caveat that I want to be cool to transpeople and not call them all perverts

Nobody here is doing actually that. We're calling some specific people who claim to be trans perverts, because, get this, there are specific people claiming to be trans who are perverts. And it's not the fact that you don't want to call people perverts that has really raised people's hackles. It's the excuses you make for the TRA positions which you claim you don't agree with. That and ◊◊◊◊ like calling someone "passionate" for breaking a woman's jaw.

 

[Thermal]

So you mean a woman  can challenge someone she believes to be a man,

Of course she can.

even though you said that wasn't allowed.

Thats a lie. I said it was something you won't be doing, not that you can't.

But then what? The man refuses to leave. She has no further recourse. He can do what he likes.

How do you think it was handled before the gender wars?

 

[Thermal]

Then why does no one believe you?

Because this thread is That Thread.

Nobody here is doing actually that. We're calling some specific people who claim to be trans perverts, because, get this, there are specific people claiming to be trans who are perverts.

You might note that some here are saying 'so they are mosly/all perverts' or some variation of that.

And it's not the fact that you don't want to call people perverts that has really raised people's hackles. It's the excuses you make for the TRA positions which you claim you don't agree with. That and ◊◊◊◊ like calling someone "passionate" for breaking a woman's jaw.

Re 'passionate': you know what that word means, yes? When you are in an intimate relationship, you may interact much more intensely with your SO than you would with a stranger. That's what I meant by 'passionate'. My wife, for instance, is not violent at all, but once when we were younger she got mad and punched me in the face three times. She was not and is not a violent person. I just breifly brought out the worst in her.

But conceded, it was worded poorly, especially for this crowd, who trawls for something to crow about while ducking direct challenges.

Speaking of which, how you doing on the ones posed to you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not generally in the habit of counting representation and sweating profusely about the rounding error level of transpeople, so I can't really say I give much of a ◊◊◊◊. Trying to answer anyway, I would probably count them in different ways depending on context. One of the great benefits of not having a stick shoved up my ass 24/7 is that I don't mind counting people in different groups at different times as appropriate. Representative McBride, for example, I would generally refer to as she/her, yet would count her as transgender if we got all wired out about putting her in a box and the representative count was really important for whatever reason. Counting her as transgender spells it out so that the reader knows exact;y what the situation is, rather than hard-lining one label and the confusion that can follow.

Does that answer your question thoroughly, or do you want to go back to the strawman misrepresentation you were rocking a couple posts up?

If we were to discuss the representation of females in politics, do you think McBride should be counted as a female, and thus say that females in the US have gained ground in political representation?

 

[Ziggurat]

You might note that some here are saying 'so they are mosly/all perverts' or some variation of that.

No, they are not.

Re 'passionate': you know what that word means, yes? When you are in an intimate relationship, you may interact much more intensely with your SO than you would with a stranger. That's what I meant by 'passionate'.

I know what you mean. But you're applying that to describe a man punching a woman so hard that her jaw broke. That's not "passionate". That's violent. You do understand that people can feel very strong emotions without actually getting violent, right?

My wife, for instance, is not violent at all, but once when we were younger she got mad and punched me in the face three times. She was not and is not a violent person. I just breifly brought out the worst in her.

She's not violent except when she's violent.

Do you hear yourself?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Dude, I'm having a hard time here. You're defending arthwollipot and catsmate and the views they've expressed as being "not misogynistic" and just a cop-out to demonize them... but you castigate Rolfe and me and Elaedith and others as being nasty bigots? You defend those who DEMAND that female rights and dignity be overridden for the emotional well-being of some males as being "well-intentioned inclusiveness", but you think that we who wish to retain female rights and protect our safety and dignity have ill intentions?

Endless defense for one side, no matter how unsavory or abusive the rhetoric. Endless criticism for the other, simply because we don't kowtow to the feelings of some special males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Hannah Tubbs.

A male predator who raped a 10 year old female in a female restroom when Tubbs was 17. But because Tubbs claimed to be "trans" when they were arrested in their 20s, they served their sentence in a FEMALE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY.

There've been other cases of males who have committed sexual offenses or found in possession of truly horrific child porn, who end up with a slap on the wrist and the judge saying that their after-the-fact claim of being trans was an extenuating circumstance.

And let's not forget the many, many, many cases of male criminals who have been hand-waved away because they're "not really trans" so they don't count for some reason or other.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Obviously, the female is a liar and a bigot, and the completely male appearing male is just a delicate flower who needs to be sheltered and catered to...

I mean, the male said they were totally being good and that's all you need, right? The female who says they were being inappropriate really just must be out to make this poor male suffer for no reason at all. What a bitch, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

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.

Seemingly, the only way that females can avoid being bigots to special males is for females to not take part in society.

And you wonder why so many of use complain that our rights are being rolled back?