Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Not to mention that he had had it clearly explained to him why he is less likely to see "a tweety of a cis predator 'saying the magic words' and getting away with it".
The evidence he needs is unlikely to come to prominence when women are intimidated, and in some cases threatened, into silence and choose to self-select out of situations where they may be confronted by transgender identified males. The UPenn swimmers are one example, the patrons of Golds are another, my own daughters are another (despite @Thermal's blithe dismissal of their experiences) - they no longer use the public facilities they once used. This is because of what happened to them, and how they were treated when they dared to complain.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Can you pretty please, with cherries on top, explain what part of our collective view you think is "extreme"?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
None of us calls all of them perverts. We do, however, generally feel that males who FORCE females to have to share intimate spaces with them against our will are largely perverts. And we do, however, understand that there are a non-negligible number of perverts among the group of people who call themselves transwomen.
And we don't call you an ideologically indoctrinated TRA because you don't think all trans a pervs. We call you ideologically biased because you consistently defend males who identify as trans and misbehave, you sweep that misbehavior under the rug and declare it to be cherry picking and not a big deal, and because you repeatedly castigate females for not surrendering our boundaries to let males show off their penises to us whether we want to see them or not!
We note that you are inconsistent, and that what you say you believe doesn't seem to align with your behavior. For example... defending local ISF TRAs as "well intentioned" and not misogynists when they basically tell females to STFU and let the males do whatever they want, while simultaneously berating Rolfe and I for literally showing you perverts being perverts and insisting that we're somehow "extreme" because we don't want a dude showing us his dick without consent!
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Characterizing transgenderism as sexual perversion, perhaps?
Alternatively, any one-size-fits-all solution such as a total ban on transition care or a total ban on transgender servicemembers.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Oh, and let's not forget Richard Cox, a registered sex offender who decided to identify as trans. And by doing so, he was allowed to enter women's changing rooms where children were present.
wjla.com
He was eventually arrested, and Thermal will no doubt try to argue that this means he didn't get away with it. But he was arrested in Arlington County, even though he was doing this in both Arlington and Fairfax. The Fairfax authorities were absolutely fine with his behavior.
Not all trans identifying males are like Richard Cox, but he absolutely is a pervert.
Virginia Attorney General criticizes Fairfax's handling of sex offender Richard Cox's case
Although Arlington is charging and prosecuting Cox for his alleged crimes in Arlington County, Fairfax County Police have not charged Cox.
wjla.com
Not all trans identifying males are like Richard Cox, but he absolutely is a pervert.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
To be fair, none of us has characterized ALL of it as sexual perversion. But at least SOME of it is autogynephilia and transvestism.
That's questionable framing. It's a ban on surgery, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers for MINORS. Adults can do as they please, although I prefer they do it on their own dime.
I suppose someone could take the position that banning people who profess to be something that they categorically and objectively are not from being able to serve in the military as the thing that they categorically are not is "extreme". On the other hand, I also don't think the military should be obligated to pretend that service people are things that they aren't. To me, if a male identifies as a female and wants to serve, they can do so as a male, in male uniform, in male barracks, and with no publicly-funded medical interventions, and without having a tantrum if they're referred to as "he".
Thermal
August Member
Yes, I do. I am of the belief that pretty much anyone can be violent, under the right circumstances. That doesn't mean we call them violent people.
Oh, wait, 'Thermal is being contradictory and I just can't understand him!"
There. Saved you the trouble. Please go on about your perfect pacifism.
Thermal
August Member
I am not. Didn't even mention them. Lie #1 for this post.
Lie #2. I really wish you would stop lying.
I have never ever not even once called you a bigot, nasty or otherwise. Same with Elaedith. Rofe's posts, I have called bigoted when they were inarguably bigoted.
Pull a quote and i'll eat humble pie. But you won't. You can't, because you are lying.
You forgot to read the post. I specifically criticized the 'well-intentioned exclusiveness' as BACKFIRING, not encouraging it.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
The right circumstances here is that you made her mad. Yeah, she's violent.
You should know already that I'm no pacifist. I'm very much in favor of using violence to protect yourself and others from threats.
Did you pose a threat to your wife? Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps she's not the violent one.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Translation:
@Thermal thinks that if a man is "passionate" enough about something, that man is fully justified in punching his wife in the face and breaking her jaw.
Bollocks
You accept sex is binary and unchangeable, but you do not accept that sex is important. You have few problems with males in female single sex spaces and are very dismissive of females who disagree with you.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
... putting it mildly!!
One of the hallmarks of misogyny
Thinking that a man punching his wife and breaking her jaw is excusable is another.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
In fairness, he's apparently OK with his own wife punching him in the face as well. So maybe he's just OK with violence in general.
Then again, it's probably pointless to try to make his position self-consistent.
Thermal
August Member
Really? Who told you that?
Then you are a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hypocrite for condemning others when you have not the slightest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue what the conflict was about. You decided he was the bad guy because she got hurt? Did he get hurt first? Do you even know or care?
Let's see if you are intellectually honest: do you conclude Rittenhouse was the aggressor, because using your same logic, he walked away without a scratch and left unarmed bodies in his wake? {eta: in case you want to rely on Kyle pleading not guilty, remember that he was throwing dice. If a jury found him guilty, he would likely have spent much of his life in prison. Sometimes the prudent thing to do is cop to a lower offense, and take the sure thing}
Please tell me all about the conflict where Black gave a compound fracture to his wife's jaw. I'm up for a ride on your Imagination Train.
Nope. I get that you are unfamiliar with the humans, so let me give you some Spark Notes: sometimes the humans get livid and furious over something or other. Then their SO comes home, and the seething anger gets turned towards them. It might also be significant that the seething human knows she could hit the SO with a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ baseball bat and not hurt him. See if you can work out any possibilities beyond your bonehead simplistic interpretations.
Then you can work on those challenges I put up to the claims you made. You wouldn't want to make it clear that not only were you lying, but you knew it then and still know it?
Let's save you some trouble again. The fable of the broken jaw remains unevidenced. The tranny bashers here embrace the tale like a lover, though. So I sullied my browsing history with tranny bashing websites and looked for something, somewhere, to back this story up besides the right wing tabloid's unevidenced claim.
Of all websites, freaking Infowars actually dug up the court records on this guy. You know what? No broken jaw. No guilty plea. No time served in Ohio or anywhere else. The whole story is imaginary.
What Infowars did find is an arrest for obstruction, where Grant's ex wife claimed he hit her head against a toilet seat (?). The police were apparently unconvinced, because they did nothing besides mention it as the reason for their arrival on site. Grant wouldn't let the police in, so they forced their way in and charged him with obstruction.
So the tale you cling to is bull ◊◊◊◊, as usual. Unless you care to show some integrity and address this? That goes for @smartcooky and any other tranny bashing sap that believed this bull ◊◊◊◊.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Do you sincerely believe anti-trans lobbying groups will declare victory and decamp once they manage to implement total bans on gender medicine for minors?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
You did, by implication. "she got mad and punched me in the face three times". I'm assuming she punched you (and not someone else) because you're the one who made her mad. If someone else made her mad and she punched you in response, well, that's even worse.
Your wife was a violent person.
ETA:
I should have kept reading. It is indeed worse. Your wife is (or at least was) a violent person. And your excuse, that her violence doesn't do any significant damage, doesn't keep your wife from being a violent person. It's fortunate for all involved that she is evidently weak, but she's still violent. Just like those chihuahuas who are always growling at everyone are aggressive dogs. An aggressive chihuahua is less of a problem than an aggressive St. Bernard, but it's still an aggressive dog, and still a problem.
The fact that you are OK with your wife's violence towards you is disturbing. It does not suffice that she did no serious harm. You should not find that sort of behavior acceptable, because it isn't.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
They won't push for a ban on medical transitions for adults. Why would they? The gender critical folks aren't pushing back against the TRA's just because they hate trannies. That's not what's going on here.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
With the obvious exception of puberty blockers (which will only really work on younger adolescents) the various treatments under discussion carry many of the same risks for 18-25 y.o.'s as they do for minors. I don't think that is the real motivation, though, since your typical cultural conservatives are generally happy to allow medical risks so long as the risks are taken on as the result of non-intervention rather than active intervention. See, for example, the populist backlash against vaccines.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think there's a general feeling that if you're a grown adult you can do what you want to yourself so long as it's not done on the public purse. But on the other hand, where do you draw the line? At some point the damage you do to yourself will come home to roost and you'll want society to treat the adverse effects and support you. And should the medical profession be allowed to prescribe harmful "treatments" if the patient demands them? So perhaps there is a debate to be had.
On the other hand, women are much more focussed on getting male people to stay in their lane and keep out of women's single-sex spaces, than policing what body modifications they choose to have.
On the other hand, women are much more focussed on getting male people to stay in their lane and keep out of women's single-sex spaces, than policing what body modifications they choose to have.