Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

That's the next step, surely. You don't want to a pedophobe, do you?

I don't, actually. I think pedophilia is a horrific mental disorder. I want nothing but support and help for those who suffer from it. Those who act on it, on the other hand...

 

[Rolfe]

What the TQ+ activists and the gendercrits have in common is the desire to win utterly and from the top-down (e.g. via Supreme Court rulings) rather than giving individuals and businesses the liberty to allow each side to give a little to make it comfortable for the other.

The only gendercrit top-down win I want is a Supreme Court ruling that gives individuals and businesses the liberty to do whatever they think best. I would rather it didn't come to this, but the TPAs have ensured that is no longer an option.

Bloody men still not getting it.

The "liberty" to "allow" each side to give a little? Businesses and individuals are overwhelmingly likely to cave to the demands of the violent, aggressive trans activists if that is a legal option. We've already seen that "compromise" in the form of limited access allowed for a subset of men who are deemed acceptable or low-risk is impossible. If one man is legally permitted to access women's spaces, they will all demand access. With menaces.

"The liberty to do whatever they think best"? Bye-bye to all women-only spaces and services in normal life then. Only the very determined will stand against the torrent of vilification and threats that will be directed at any organisation that tries. We've seen it again and again.

 

[smartcooky]

We're talking about sex-specific spaces and services. That's pretty much the only thing any of us cares about. If a male wants to wear dresses and make-up out in public, none of us cares. Go for it, have a blast. But that does not make a male into a female, and therefore such a male doesn't gain access to female single-sex spaces merely because of what they say their internal feelings are.

Indeed
Dressing up in women's clothing doesn't make me a woman any more tham dressing in black trousers and a white shirt with gold stripes on the epaulettes makes me an airline pilot.

 

[d4m10n]

I was explaining why I oppose gender affirmation medical interventions in minors, but not in adults, and why I think laws to that effect are reasonable.

I was explaining that sometimes in matters of sex and reproduction we allow minors to make their own choices, rather than deferring to their parents or their legislators. For now, anyhow.

I don't think we can go back.

Why not, though? Is there some reason why moderation is off the table now that extremists made progress on one side?

So now we're in a situation where females either have to surrender ALL female single sex spaces and allow any male who wants to be there to use them... or we have to backtrack a bit and enforce a reality-based interpretation of sex.

I see no reason to accept that we need to implement a top-down one-size-fits-all solution for all places of public accommodation rather than simply rolling back the sorts of laws which were passed by progressive states ("surrender ALL female single sex spaces") or conservative states ("enforce a reality-based interpretation of sex") and thereby allowing market forces to play out without rigging the game for one side or the other.

I think my local gyms should be allowed to be trans-inclusive if they want, they should be allowed to enforce sex segregation if they would prefer that, and they should even be allowed to become single-sex at all times. I know that my state legislators will object to the first of these options, but that is more than a bit hypocritical coming from people who brand themselves "Freedom Caucus" and proudly sing along to patriotic songs about freedom.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was explaining that sometimes in matters of sex and reproduction we allow minors to make their own choices, rather than deferring to their parents or their legislators. For now, anyhow.

Why do you think gender affirmation interventions should be one of those exceptions where we allow the desires of minors to override the wisdom of their responsible adults?

Why not, though? Is there some reason why moderation is off the table now that extremists made progress on one side?

The extremists exploited a loophole caused by our general good natures. Now that the loophole has been identified, we cannot leave it open just to avoid hurting the feelings of a few males who somehow now qualify as "true trans" by your measure would be negligent disregard for the safety and dignity of females.

I see no reason to accept that we need to implement a top-down one-size-fits-all solution for all places of public accommodation rather than simply rolling back the sorts of laws which were passed by progressive states ("surrender ALL female single sex spaces") or conservative states ("enforce a reality-based interpretation of sex") and thereby allowing market forces to play out without rigging the game for one side or the other.

The reason is the the potential harm that could occur is *only* born by one class of people: females. This experiment harms females, it's not a risk born equally by everyone. Why do you think females should be forced to bear the burden and the risk of this experiment which can only benefit males? Females gain nothing from this social experiment, we only incur heightened risk and harm. Some males gain immensely, and risk little. I don't think the safety, dignity, and health of half the human species is something that should be gambled away without our consent.

I think my local gyms should be allowed to be trans-inclusive if they want, they should be allowed to enforce sex segregation if they would prefer that, and they should even be allowed to become single-sex at all times. I know that my state legislators will object to the first of these options, but that is more than a bit hypocritical coming from people who brand themselves "Freedom Caucus" and proudly sing along to patriotic songs about freedom.

Again: What possible benefit do females gain from this experiment, compared to how much we're expected to risk?

 

[Rolfe]

Here's what has been going on in Australia. But women can't oppose this without being accused of extremism, apparently.

Pride and prejudice: The lobby group that captured Australia

archived 5 Dec 2025 09:01:02 UTC

archive.md

Anyone who is genuinely interested in learning needs to read this. Carefully. All of it.

One thing struck me in the middle, and that was the demand for all trans "healthcare" to be free to the user, paid for from the public purse. That reminded me of something I read some time ago about the origins of Australia's publicly-funded healthcare system, which is very recent in origin.

A woman with a chronic lung disease was dependent on oxygen to survive, but she couldn't afford all she needed. She was lying as still as possible trying not to use anything above metabolic baseline, but she was still in danger of dying of hypoxia when she couldn't afford her next cylinder. Her plight went what passed for viral at the time, people were shocked, money was raised, and this led to the establishment of a national health service.

And a few decades later we've progressed to entitled men demanding body-modification cosmetic surgery for free. Follow the money, people.

 

[Pixel42]

Again: What possible benefit do females gain from this experiment, compared to how much we're expected to risk?

It would be an interesting test of free market forces, though. We'd soon find out which strategy got a gym the most business. If we're right that most women would prefer not to share changing rooms and showers with males, the ones that opted to mix sexes would quickly become a minority.

 

[smartcooky]

It would be an interesting test of free market forces, though. We'd soon find out which strategy got a gym the most business. If we're right that most women would prefer not to share changing rooms and showers with males, the ones that opted to mix sexes would quickly become a minority.

In an earlier post, I told one of your members about this very thing..

A few years ago, an independent fitness centre opened in my town. It had no competition in the area, the nearest one at that time was a franchised "City Fitness" gym seven miles away in the city. The independent one had made the decision to only have unisex changing facilities - and the result of this is that they could not get women to join - local women voted with their feet and would travel into the city instead. The fitness centre was financially on the brink until they changed their policy and spent the money to install separate facilities for men and women. They are still open, but barely now, because "City Fitness" has opened a gym in my town.

 

[Rolfe]

The elephant that fills the entire room is the insistance by the trans lobby that women must not have any space at all from which trans-identifying men are excluded. We see it time and time again. Whenever someone requests that a women-only facility be provided, or actually sets one up, and I stress this is in addition to the facilities which have become "trans-inclusive", this is denounced as vicious bigotry, transphobia and an attempt to prevent trans people from "existing".

We saw it in Brighton, where a single female-only rape counselling session was requested, vehemently resisted, and finally agreed to after a lot of pressure, possibly legal. And then after agreeing to set this up to get the pressure off, the organisation simply didn't do it. We saw it with Beira's Place, the rape crisis service set up by J K Rowling because the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was male-inclusive. This was denounced as evil transphobia, trans-identified men were openly making plans to infiltrate it on social media, and for a time the women involved in it were fearful of their safety. Wild allegations were flying that a trans-identified man who applied there for help (why would he?) would be thrown on the street. (In fact the policy was to direct any such man, sensitively and discreetly, to the ERCC.)

The entitlement, the aggression, the narcissism and indeed the violence of the pro-trans lobby is a serious problem. If it was enough for them that there were some "trans-inclusive" services and some women-only, and they would leave the women-only facilities alone, we wouldn't be where we are today. That is not the case, however. They must have everything. Women must not have any spaces, or even any words, that don't include trans=identifying men, and they will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to establish anything.

 

[Rolfe]

By the way, in the middle of that article from Australia I linked to above there is highly suspicious evidence that the whole "Tickle vs Giggle" thing was a set-up from the start. That "Roxanne Tickle" deliberately tried to join the Giggle app with the intent of setting in motion exactly what followed.

I just hope it turns out to be another example of massive over-reach that will lead to the system eventually saying, oh no you don't, my lad.

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997148470504038483

 

[Rolfe]

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2026/the-trans-craze-aftermath/

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997511340584226994

 

[Pixel42]

Rules on single-sex spaces pose risk to trans people’s mental health, UK charities say

Fifteen organisations sign letter expressing deep concern over EHRC guidance being considered by ministers

www.theguardian.com

New rules on access to single-sex spaces could pose a significant risk to the mental health of trans and non-binary people, according to 15 of the UK’s most respected mental charities.

No apparent concern about how allowing males to access (what use to be) female single-sex spaces might affect the mental health of female victims of male physical and sexual violence.

 

[Rolfe]

How did so many people get so brainwashed?

 

[smartcooky]

Rules on single-sex spaces pose risk to trans people’s mental health, UK charities say

Fifteen organisations sign letter expressing deep concern over EHRC guidance being considered by ministers

www.theguardian.com

No apparent concern about how allowing males to access (what use to be) female single-sex spaces might affect the mental health of female victims of male physical and sexual violence.

... and there are far, far more of those in the general population than there are men cosplaying as women!

 

[Pixel42]

Tribunal says nurse in trans changing room row was harassed by NHS Fife but dismisses other claims

Sandie Peggie was suspended by NHS Fife after complaining about having to share a changing room with a transgender doctor.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Rolfe]

There's some weird stuff in there, especially the bit that says it would be fine just to keep Peggie and Upton apart by manipulating the shifts, and that excluding the male from the female changing room isn't necessary. I sniff an appeal coming. What about other women who may feel the same as Peggie did? There could be a lot of shifts to be changed. What about the workplace legislation about separate male and female facilities, which was explicitly disregarded? Going forward, what about FWS? Which in fact clarified that what is proposed was illegal even at the time these events happened.

 

[Thermal]

Sorry this is so late. Prepare for disappointment.

If that definition sufficed for social interaction, there'd be no call for preferred pronouns.

Of course there would. Gender is not always purely objective, so we communicate things that aren't always objectively black and white. Everyday example: I'm married, but don't wear a ring. In some social interactions, I will come out and say whether or not I am married, so that others know.

An internal sense can't suffice for social interaction, because nobody else can perceive your internal senses. In order to interact with others in society, you need to account for how they perceive you.

Agreed. Telling them is a great way to enhance that perception. We communicate internal senses all day long, verbally and non-verbally.

Traditionally, this was done by making a noticeable effort to "pass" as the opposite gender. But this was back when gender was synonymous with sex, and society's gendered expectations about dress and behavior were much more rigid and well-defined.

In modern times, it's done by aping traditional gendered dress, and by outright demanding (announcing preferred pronouns, etc.) that people behave as though they perceive you as the opposite sex.

Ok, no idea how you got there. How did you determine that 'traditionally' a transwoman was sincere, but now it's just a crude 'aping'? Why were they sincere before but just apes now?

All of which is effectively meaningless anyway, since in modern times there is no overt nor expected difference in the way we interact socially with each gender. We still treat the sexes differently in some cases, but gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless for social interaction.

I don't know where you get this either. I treat women very differently than I do men. In limited social interactions (my experience, anyway), we are all on a more or less even playing field. But generally, I'm watching my mouth and behaviors around a lady far more than around guys. Do you occasionally urinate or disrobe at the gym in front of women? I'm guessing not, and that you actually treat them very differently. And before you say it, no, that's not some kind of gotcha for sex trumping gender. It simply shows that you do, without question, interact with the genders very differently, no matter how you define them.

For example, people don't flirt based on the other person's internal sense of gender. They do it based on their own perception of the other's biological sex.

That's not a 'for example'. As I've said many times, that's the rare exception. If you are planning to ◊◊◊◊ them or perform certain medical procedures on them, their sex matters. In the vast overwhelming times we interact, their genitalia is irrelevant.

A much more realistic definition, which does not rely on invisible internal senses, and which is decidedly un-slippery, and which has practical applications beyond social interaction, is "adult human female". The only slipperiness to it, which baffles alien space robots but is immediately accessible to beings that communicate via natural languages, is that in some contexts the definition encompasses all human females, not just the adults (e.g., women's restrooms).

Again, the core problem. 'Human' doesn't matter either, because we are not overly concerned with Koala bears in restrooms. Your flat assertion here is Woman = Biological Female. Ok. That subtly negates the whole concept of transpeople, with all the baggage that comes with that negation. It turns a transwoman, as Ziggurat has insisted, into men pretending. That's a bridge too far for me.

Nothing capricious about it. Gender and sex have always been interlinked concepts in our society. Gender decoupled from sex has no practical applications. Your actual complaint, based on your recent arguments is that we're not capricious enough in decoupling gender from sex (e.g., again, women's restrooms; the sex-based definition, applied consistently, handles this case just fine, but you want to capriciously be inconsistent in this one case).

I've said this several times: you can be definitionally linked without being synonymous. Related, or correlated, as it were. Meaningless, or almost so, if the coupling is severed, but I see no reason to sever all connection, as you assert, to have a functional understanding of gender as unique but strongly related to sex.

We already have a hard line distinction: Adult human female.

That's one, yes.

According to this definition, it doesn't matter what you think of yourself as in the showers, but it does matter that you're showering in the sex-segregated facility appropriate to your sex.

Sez you. Which is why many see your preferred and limited definition as inadequate and denying of the trans experience. Note: yet I agree with you, but for different reasons.

As for policy: We already have very clear policy that you cannot treat someone differently in housing, employment, etc. because of their outward gender presentation.

Fairly useless in this context. If you insist on calling a transwoman 'he' at the workplace, is that person protected by policy? You seem to be leaning strongly towards removing their protections and allowing you to essentially humiliate, mock, and harass them multiple times a day at work, pointing to your definition of woman.

And note that this definition does not assail the dignity of trans-identified people. It makes no reference to, nor cares one whit about, allegations of mental illness or perversion. This entire discussion can be had - has been had, several times - dispassionately, respecting all internal senses and outward presentations, honoring the entire spectrum of human expression.

Denying their existence is not falling neatly under the 'honoring' halo from my POV.

You like to lean on policy as a talking point. Ok, clean pool. But the problem with policy is that it dumbs down the complexities of the human experience into drawing one-size-fits-all lines. The perfect everyday example is transforming into legal adult on your 18th birthday. Nothing changes, but policy intentionally dumbs it down to uselessness for the kind of nuanced discussion we are having here.

 

[d4m10n]

Why do you think gender affirmation interventions should be one of those exceptions where we allow the desires of minors to override the wisdom of their responsible adults?

Why do you think I think that? Certainly I said no such thing. My point was that those policy exceptions do exist and that those who support their existence have to consider whether the justification they use for those exceptions applies to gender medicine as well or whether the cases are distinguishable in a principled way.

The extremists exploited a loophole caused by our general good natures.

They did not create a loophole—they clearly and deliberately added gender identity into existing anti-discrimination laws and policies.

Now that the loophole has been identified, we cannot leave it open just to avoid hurting the feelings of a few males who somehow now qualify as "true trans" by your measure...

I don't recall using or defining "true trans" anywhere, but it's been several years so who knows.

Why do you think females should be forced to bear the burden and the risk of this experiment which can only benefit males?

Because they voted for it.

I don't think the safety, dignity, and health of half the human species is something that should be gambled away without our consent.

Agreed.