Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

Bwahahahaha.

World’s Strongest Woman organizers discovered winner was born a man after graphic porn videos emerged: report

“It was coming from an adult entertainment website — let’s put it that way. Very explicit pictures and videos of this person, which then obviously put her gender into question,” T…

nypost.com

Makes you think, though. If he hadn't provided a "genital inspection" of his own free will, he'd probably still have the title.

 

[smartcooky]

Bwahahahaha.

World’s Strongest Woman organizers discovered winner was born a man after graphic porn videos emerged: report

“It was coming from an adult entertainment website — let’s put it that way. Very explicit pictures and videos of this person, which then obviously put her gender into question,” T…

nypost.com

Makes you think, though. If he hadn't provided a "genital inspection" of his own free will, he'd probably still have the title.

Hilarious. I saw that yesterday, and was going to post as well.

So unfair - mEn DoN't HaVe AnY AdVaNtAgE OvEr WoMeN aS rEgArDs StReNgTh... amirite

 

[Rolfe]

There are still people on Twitter insisting that "she" is a real woman who has been falsely stripped of a title.

 

[theprestige]

It is clear that you don't think single sex spaces are important; and are dismissive of those who do.

Whether this is simply misogyny, or because you don't like hard boundaries (or even both) is unclear.

What's weird is he doesn't seem to mind most single-sex spaces, or even most single-sex categories. He's content to tell transwomen in boardroom that they don't count as women for representation, for example. It's just restrooms he seems to feel should be mixed sex. Throwing the trannies a bone, as it were.

I wonder how he feels about women's shelters and the like.

 

[8enotto]

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".

As our friend Buddica on the site showed that gay being allowed in the military wasn't easy nor enough. He wanted trans to get all the special privileges that s/he thinks they deserve in public life.
It's not a social experiment, its national defence. There isnt room for special needs nor complications.
The individual needs to fit into the unit to make it effective. Not the unit adjusting to ones feelings.

Forget that the military is a special area that one is expected to extraordinary things on command and the individual isn't always bigger than the end goal.
There is a tolerated intolerance in the military from the top down, things will be said that would get someone arrested on a city street.

I seen and heard things well past the limits of good taste myself.
I have mostly held a live and let live attitude all my life and it was clear others were thinking very different. If there was anyone of any alternative persuasion there they hid it well.

Now someone is going to tell me that isn't right. Correct, in most settings. There is a time and a place a group of unthinking, intolerant macho men can get something done no one else could. Thankfully that isn't often outside of war.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I specifically criticized the 'well-intentioned exclusiveness' as BACKFIRING, not encouraging it.

Oh come on, buddy. You handwaved away some blatantly harmful, intolerant, and downright misogynistic views as "well intentioned", you didn't criticize the tone or the sentiment of the consequences of those views at all.

On the other hand, you very often criticize females for taking a hard-line stance against policies that allow males to use female single-sex spaces and services, and who point out that at least some non-negligible portion of those males are actually, for realsies, genuine perverts who are perving on females.

One side says "decapitate terfs" and "have you punched a terf today?" and "the only good terf is a dead terf" and "ciswomen can suck my ladydick" and "if you don't agree with me then we can't be friends" and "no debate"... and your general response is that they're well-intentioned inclusiveness is backfiring a bit.

The other side says "biology is real and immutable" and "males cannot be females" and "gender is not sex" and "leave the kids alone" and "sterilizing children is medical malpractice" and "look at this pervert being a pervert, we shouldn't have to be subjected to perverts being perverts"... and your response is that we're nasty bigots.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Really? Who told you that?

It seemed implied from your post:

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.

I think pretty much anyone would read that and infer that you made your spouse angry, because you say your brought out the worst in them.

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.

Look, how you and your spouse interact is up to you. You're both adults, and it doesn't sound as though your spouse routinely abuses you, nor that you abuse your spouse. That said... I think a great many of us would view being physically attacked by our spouse for something we didn't do in the first place, simply because they think they can take out their aggression through violent action without causing actual injury to be a pretty serious problem in the relationship. I dunno, maybe it was a one time thing, and you responded with "if you ever do that again I will divorce you in three minutes flat" or something similar, and that was the end of it. Could be it's not nearly as big a deal as it sounds.

But from an outside perspective... it reads as violent. It also read as you excusing a male physically attacking their spouse with enough violence to cause serious injury.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Here's the fallacy in your question: you have framed them as "anti-trans" and ask that we accept that framing in the first place. You're trying to sneak in the assertion that groups lobbying specifically against damaging medical experimentation being performed on children are "anti-trans".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You're right - they do carry the same risks. The distinction here is that regardless of whether they're completely cognitively mature, an 18 year old is a legal adult, who has the legal right to enter into contracts and to provide unqualified consent to such treatment. I absolutely think it's a bad idea for someone under 25... but they have the legal right to grant consent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

False. I have unswervingly held that in areas where nudity is expected, sex segregation rules. Since we already have gender neutral multi occupant restrooms, I'm not sure how touchy that should really be.

Okay... except that you more or less dismissed the objection of a female to a male ogling them while they were naked as being potentially fabricated and also, that male wasn't doing anything 'illegal' so the female should just stop using gyms altogether because males are legally allowed to use them.

Which really doesn't seem to line up with unswervingly holding that in areas where nudity is expected, sex segregation rules.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm struggling to come up with an explanation for your consistent defense of the TRA positions and criticism of gender critical positions other than you're actually mostly on the TRA side.

Saying 'it's complicated' is a copout.

Tone policing against a group that is predominantly female, presumably because there's a social expectation that females should be nice and compliant and not make waves... balanced against a group claiming civil rights and the noble fight against oppression which is predominantly male, and there's a social expectation that males should be dominant and strident in their opinions.

Might not be correct, but that's a plausible explanation at least.

 

[theprestige]

Fwiw, I'm anti trans ideology, much the same way I'm anti man boy love ideology. And, just as I have sympathy and support for people who suffer from pedophilia, I have sympathy and support for people suffer from gender dysphoria - especially because trans ideology serves them so very very poorly.

I suppose if I'm being honest, I'm also against people who don't suffer from gender dysphoria, who have embraced trans ideology and trans privilege for other reasons.

I'm not yet against people who do suffer from gender dysphoria, but who have been misled by trans ideology to believe that their solution lies in mysogynistic performative womanface. Not yet. But I think the trans privilege movement needs a reckoning, and I hope it comes from within.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not yet against people who do suffer from gender dysphoria, but who have been misled by trans ideology to believe that their solution lies in mysogynistic performative womanface. Not yet. But I think the trans privilege movement needs a reckoning, and I hope it comes from within.

I don't think that's structurally possible. The group is defined by the ideology, so to question the ideology is to be expelled from the group. If a group has a dominant ideology but is still defined by something other than that ideology, then an internal reckoning is still possible (though often external pressure is still required). But I really don't see that happening here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And yet, you constantly defend them and attack any arguments against them. Nobody actually believes you oppose these laws, because you keep defending them.

I dunno. I think Thermal opposes the laws in an abstract fashion, but also thinks that since they're laws then people following those laws are doing nothing wrong. So pointing out that those particularly people, who happen to all be male, are causing lots and lots of problems for females is perhaps the wrong tone?

It ends up feeling like a weird play. We say "These are bad, stupid, harmful laws" and Thermal says "sure, they're not a great law, but you're exaggerating, it's not that big a deal". We say "It's a big deal to us, I think you think it's not a big deal only because it doesn't affect you - we have a really big problem with males using female spaces, and there have been several instances where males who are abusing those lenient identity-based laws end up intimidating, threatening, or misbehaving and it's screwing things up for females". To which Thermal tends to respond with something akin to "Prove it, it's not happening, it's just fine - look NJ has open bathroom laws, and it's no biggie". So we say "Here are the receipts" and Thermal says "Those don't count... that's not a trans person it's just a misbehaving male... and in this case, that male is totally in compliance with the law".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was asked what alternatives she had to getting naked around strange males, if she objected to it yet knew it would happen. I ticked off the obvious alternatives. No one really needs to get electively naked in public, in an area where they know mixed sexes will be naked. You have to set that ◊◊◊◊ up to make it happen.

Dude, Tish didn't know it would happen. Tish complained after it happened unexpectedly!

Your position kind of boils down to "Well, it's the law, so if females don't like it they can just stay home and not use any amenities that require nudity". As if it's somehow reasonable for females to just roll over and stop using gyms or changing rooms at clothing stores or all those areas of public life where the law has now enabled males transgressing female boundaries. Sort of "Well you can either get with the program and not bitch about males being in female spaces or you can stay home".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't defend the laws; I dislike them. What I argue is the reasons your team presents for also disliking the laws. You can dis/like a law for good or bad reasons. Your side most often argues with very bad ones, and that's where you meet with pushback.

Needling aside, can you elaborate on this?

More specifically... what is YOUR reason for disliking the laws? And what do you think is OUR reason for disliking them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because she lives in a state where it is legal. She can complain, she can do a lot of things. What she can't do is claim to be a victim.

Females in afghanistan can be stoned to death for a male outside their family seeing their hair. It's legal. So clearly, those females can't claim to be a victim when they get killed for this.

Yep. Totally logical.

 

[smartcooky]

 

[smartcooky]

Graham Lineham cleared of harrassment. The judge said the TRA complainant did not tell the truth in court.


Linehan was found guilty of criminal damage (damage to the poor fragile flower's phone). He is appealing that decision, and the FSU will be helping him with that appeal

The FSU are absolute heroes in situations like this - I cannot understand how anyone can not be a member in today's world, where free speech rights are under constant threat.

 

[Rolfe]

I wasn't sure what grounds of appeal he had on that count, but I gather his version is that he batted the phone away because it was being repeatedly thrust in his face, and that the phone wasn't damaged. There were some scratches on the case which he contends were already there, but the phone still worked.