Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

But won't somebody think about the sad men!

 

[smartcooky]

Bald rule 12ing,, no evidence. Ya boring.

You handwave all evidence you are shown if it doesn't fit whatever your ever-changing position is on any given day. There comes a point when you can't attack the argument because you can never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ tell what the argument actually is - and that is thanks to the intellectual dishonesty of the arguer.... so yeah, when that happens "Rule 12ing" is all there is left.

And I'll tell what's boring... watching you continually flip-flop your position; making pathetic attempt after pathetic attempt to gaslight everyone about what you have said previously, while claiming to be some ultra-nuanced gender crit, when its obvious to anyone who reads the bull-◊◊◊◊ you post here that you are in fact a card-carrying trans activist.

Ya, boring indeed!!

 

[Ziggurat]

And let me first quote what you were pointlessly arguing with:

You were trying to downplay Grant Freeman's presence by comparing it to Hyman's own presence since she's a lesbian. But for reasons that have been dealt with repeatedly in this thread, they aren't equivalent, because male and female sexuality isn't the same. Women are not generally voyeurs, female sexual predators don't follow the same patterns of predation, and the possible consequences of female sexual predation for female victims aren't even remotely similar. Could there be a few women upset by Hyman being a lesbian? Sure, it's possible. So the ◊◊◊◊ what? It's not a remotely comparable problem. And your attempts to make it seem like it is are pathetic.

We could start with not treating trans people like they are all represented by the worst actors you guys trawl the internet and history for cherry picked examples of. Would that be a fair start?

I have never done that. This claim is and has always been a straw man. But the fact that they don't represent all trans people doesn't mean that they don't exist, and that policy cannot take their existence into account. You seem to think that noticing reality is somehow offensive. And you consistently oppose an actions that might actually deal with the problems that they pose.

You know I don't.

I don't know that, because your position, at least as conveyed on this forum is incoherent and self-contradictory. So I can never really believe what you claim that you believe. But OK, for the purposes of this exchange I'll accept that you don't agree with the TRA's that not allowing trans identifying males to violate sex segregation deprives them of dignity. In which case, how can you say that you agree with the TRA's about treating trans people with dignity, when according to their metrics and your own statement here, you DON'T think they should be treated with dignity?

So other than the fact that you don't like the gender critical side, what do you actually agree with the TRA's about? I still have no idea. Because you're telling me you don't agree with them about trans identifying males accessing female spaces. So what's left for you to agree with them about? Castrating children?

What don't you think is dignified about someone who marches to the beat of a different drummer?

That depends very much on what that march is, something I note you're deliberately obfuscating here. A grown adult sexualizing childhood in public is not dignified. If you pay attention, you may note that this standard is not specific to trans people.

Seriously. You don't have to be bosom buddies with him. Just leave him be, if he is hurting no one else.

Did I ever advocate harassing him? No, I did not. Did I even advocate interacting with him in any way? No, I did not. How have I not left him be?

But the problem is precisely in your failure to be able to recognize that people such as him are at significantly higher risk of hurting other people. And it's not bigotry to recognize this reality. It's not hatred to recognize a risk before it turns into a reality.

That's what treating people with dignity is all about. You just want to treat people with dignity whose lifestyles you approve of.

This is a lazy accusation. Unless your position is that we should never judge anyone (which I doubt is a standard you hold yourself to, and is suicidal if you do), then you need to be a lot more specific about what sort of choices deserve respect and which don't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm arguing a slightly different angle: I'm saying she staged the confrontation. Kind of like going to a riot with a rifle and saying "omg, I had no idea I'd be forced to confront an assault against my will when I totally had no reason to expect it, it wasn't my fault!"

She had every reason to expect this guy in particular would be in that place in particular. I'm not saying she has no right to object. She does. I'm saying she has no intellectual right to act shocked and appalled at the foreseeable happening right on schedule, while she complains about being seen naked. Yes, she made that happen, then complained that it wasn't fair.

On what basis are you making this assumption? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that a left-leaning democrat who had expressed no public opinion on the matter prior to this event, orchestrated a massive publicity stunt to "come out" as a gender critical person?

How the holy ◊◊◊◊ are you somehow deciding that Tish staged this entire event? Is it just so that you can 'righteously' defend the poor, innocent, domestically violent transgender identified male who engaged in legal voyeurism in the female showers?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wolf Alice has one song I really like. But I don't look to musicians to figure out how to run society, no matter how famous or talented they are. That's stupid.

If we took the advice of entertainers just because they're famous, we'd have even more anti-vaxxers and scientologists than we already have. Singing and acting don't require any actual knowledge or critical thinking.

 

[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?

@Thermal would you provide a response to this? What is YOUR reason for disliking these laws, and what do you believe is OUR reason for disliking them?

 

[theprestige]

I wonder what Thermal considers "treating with dignity" when it comes to gender-fluid people. How do you verify the bona fides of someone whose preferred pronouns might change from day to day? What do you say to the person who occupies that sour spot on the spectrum, where they identify as woman enough to use the women's restroom, but also identify as man enough to ogle and harass people while he's in there?

 

[Rolfe]

The celeb ‘trans rights’ concert could hardly be more tone-deaf

From Sophie Ellis-Bextor to the Sugababes, Britain’s luvvies are singing the same damaging tune on gender.

www.spiked-online.com

Also,

 

[Brainster]

Whole bunch of stories out there this week about what the Democrats need (or don't need) to do on trans issues. First, Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego's frank messages with a (probably former) friend were leaked. A TRA is appalled:

Now, newly leaked texts—published by a conservative source but publicly confirmed as accurate from Gallego himself—suggest Gallego’s shift may not be a mere political calculation but a reflection of deeper, toxic beliefs that have become far too common in American politics. In the messages, he laments what he sees as a decline of masculinity in the Democratic Party, complains that Democrats are not “allowing women to be hot,” and goes so far as to write that “Dem women look like dem men and dem men look like women.” This rhetoric mirrors the language used relentlessly by the far-right to lament about the appearance and prevalence of queer and trans people, and reflects a worldview where the simple existence of gender diversity is treated as a threat to masculinity itself.

But Gallego isn't backing down:

Despite the insulting manner of his texts, he doubled down on the message, saying the private conversation was "a reflection of what I've been saying the whole time."

Another TRA says the Democrats' successes in 2025 show that trans rights are not a losing issue--why the Democrats won the Virginia governorship by 17 points! However note this:

Further cementing the fact that even actual voter antipathy to trans rights isn’t enough to make those voters reliably Republican, Spanberger picked up some 23% of the vote from people who expressly said support for trans rights had “gone too far.”

The writer is setting up a strawman there; nobody says that Republicans can win every election by focusing like a laser on trans issues. But click to the cited poll and you'll find that 50% of the respondents said support for trans rights has gone too far, while 24% said it hasn't gone far enough and 21% say it has been about right. Spanberger won despite her support for trans rights, not because of it.

My take is that the trans issues hurt the Democrats politically only at the margins, in races that otherwise are pretty tight. It's unlikely to matter in deep red or deep blue states. Unfortunately the one office that we can virtually guarantee will have a tight race is the presidency.

 

[Rolfe]

It’s now a crime in Switzerland to say skeletons can’t be trans

A Swiss man has been jailed for stating a simple biological truth.

www.spiked-online.com

 

[Thermal]

@Thermal would you provide a response to this? What is YOUR reason for disliking these laws, and what do you believe is OUR reason for disliking them?

Why? So you can ignore the answer, dissappear for a few days, then come back with a Rinse and Repeat as if I never answered?

What do you recall of the last several times I've addressed your questions? Nothing? Then first give me a reason why repeating the same answers would have a different outcome.

Actually, first you might give answering the questions I've been putting to you a whirl. You ignore them in their entirety.

 

[Thermal]

I wonder what Thermal considers "treating with dignity" when it comes to gender-fluid people. How do you verify the bona fides of someone whose preferred pronouns might change from day to day? What do you say to the person who occupies that sour spot on the spectrum, where they identify as woman enough to use the women's restroom, but also identify as man enough to ogle and harass people while he's in there?

Thermal doesn't acknowledge gender fluidity or being non binary, soooo... kind of a dead end premise.

 

[theprestige]

Thermal doesn't acknowledge gender fluidity or being non binary, soooo... kind of a dead end premise.

What happened to treating everyone with dignity?

 

[Thermal]

What happened to treating everyone with dignity?

It's still a great idea. Why do you ask?

Eta: in case you are giving the whole "I'm so befuddled" thing a whirl, you can treat anyone with dignity, even in disagreement. Saying "them trannies is all mentally ill pervs" is not what most would call treating them with dignity. YMMV.

And to clarify my stance on gender fluidity: your gender is a soy, not an estoy.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's still a great idea. Why do you ask?

Because you're denying the existence of gender fluid and nonbinary people. Which isn't treating them with dignity.

Eta: in case you are giving the whole "I'm so befuddled" thing a whirl, you can treat anyone with dignity, even in disagreement.

Everyone knows this already. In practice, the TRA's are the primary violators of this principle.

Saying "them trannies is all mentally ill pervs" is not what most would call treating them with dignity. YMMV.

Repeating this straw man won't make it true. And how do you square this with your stated belief that nonbinaries and gender fluid people don't exist?

And to clarify my stance on gender fluidity: your gender is a soy, not an estoy.

That's an interesting claim. First, what do you think gender is? Second (because this part is pointless without the first), what's the evidence for this claim?

 

[Thermal]

Because you're denying the existence of gender fluid and nonbinary people. Which isn't treating them with dignity.

As far as I can tell, they don't exist.

Everyone knows this already. In practice, the TRA's are the primary violators of this principle.

The current discussion here doesn't have any TRAs. If you prefer to argue with imaginary posters, kindly leave me out of it.

Repeating this straw man won't make it true.

There are a couple regulars ITT who say so quite proudly, and others who subtlely indicate their agreement, while having the good sense not to say it out loud.

And how do you square this with your stated belief that nonbinaries and gender fluid people don't exist?

Because as near as I can tell, they don't exist.

That's an interesting claim. First, what do you think gender is? Second (because this part is pointless without the first), what's the evidence for this claim?

Dude, seriously: im 110% done with Rinse and Repeat.

 

[Ziggurat]

As far as I can tell, they don't exist.

Based on what? They say they exist. Are you calling them all liars? Or is this a mental delusion, an illness if you will.

The current discussion here doesn't have any TRAs.

But they are frequently the subject of discussion. You only ever criticize them as a defense of yourself.

There are a couple regulars ITT who say so quite proudly

No, there are not. There are some who have said that trans identity is a mental illness (a claim which is hard to distinguish on principle from your own claim that nonbinary and gender fluid identities don't exist), but no one here said they're all perverts, which is what you are accusing them of. So you are lying about that.

Dude, seriously: im 110% done with Rinse and Repeat.

Yet you keep coming back, so I don't believe this either. And I have absolutely no idea why you think gender fluid or nonbinary people don't exist. If you ever made that argument before, I've never seen it. You can refuse to tell me your reasoning if you want, I can't compel you, but that's not generally a productive mode of discussion.

 

[Thermal]

Based on what? They say they exist. Are you calling them all liars? Or is this a mental delusion, an illness if you will.

I think they are not absorbing what a gender is.

But they are frequently the subject of discussion. You only ever criticize them as a defense of yourself.

Untrue. The points you most strongly disagree with them on, I have consistently agreed with you on.

Do you recall that I have unwaveringly agreed that in areas where nudity is expected, sex segregation should be implemented?

Do you recall that I've agreed that children should not have gender affirming/ puberty blocking medical procedures implemented?

No, there are not. There are some who have said that trans identity is a mental illness (a claim which is hard to distinguish on principle from your own claim that nonbinary and gender fluid identities don't exist), but no one here said they're all perverts, which is what you are accusing them of. So you are lying about that.

If you are going to rely on my faceitious representation of "all dem trannies is mentally ill pervs" as not being a direct quote, there's no serious discussion to be had.

Yet you keep coming back, so I don't believe this either.

I'm coming back for discussion points that haven't been Rinsed and Repeated dozens of times. The Groundhog Day bull ◊◊◊◊ fails to be engaging.

And I have absolutely no idea why you think gender fluid or nonbinary people don't exist. If you ever made that argument before, I've never seen it.

I have, but it has not been a hot topic here so i wouldnt blame you for not recalling.

You can refuse to tell me your reasoning if you want, I can't compel you, but that's not generally a productive mode of discussion.

Nor is Rinsing and Repeating but that ain't slowing y'all down.

Short version: we all agree sex is binary, and it is an immutable characteristic, yes? Then it's not a changing thing, like a mood. I can accept a crossed wire that makes you identify as one but not the other (I know one transwoman personally that I believe to be 100% sincere, and a couple "non binaries" that I believe to be 100% full of ◊◊◊◊) but saying "neither" or "both" or "ocelot" seems to me that you are not taking it seriously.

 

[catsmate]

Maniacal transphobes and legal threats force transwomen out of UK Girl Guides.

Trans girls banned from joining Girlguiding

Girls’ adventure charity says it made decision after seeking legal advice in wake of supreme court ruling on gender

www.theguardian.com

Hopefully the EU courts will reverse this nonsense.

 

[theprestige]

Maniacal transphobes and legal threats force transwomen out of UK Girl Guides.

Trans girls banned from joining Girlguiding

Girls’ adventure charity says it made decision after seeking legal advice in wake of supreme court ruling on gender

www.theguardian.com

Hopefully the EU courts will reverse this nonsense.

EU courts have jurisdiction over UK organizations?