• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
I dont think it's his job to comply with your personal stsndards of femininity.
Click to expand...
So we're back to anyone who says the words that they're trans must be accepted as being mentally the opposite sex, regardless of whether it makes any sense at all?
Thermal said:
Unevidenced. Only claimed by the woman who screamed profanities in the gym so disturbingly that her membership was revoked.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see. The female was supposed to be calm and mild mannered, and just politely accept the obvious male in a female-specific space, where the female was surprised while naked. Obviously, if a female reacts poorly to an obvious male being there while they're nude, that female is overreacting and should be nicer? At a minimum, the female should know their place well enough to understand that it's unacceptable for a female to utter profanities when doing so might offend a male.

Hyman's membership wasn't revoked because they yelled profanities. It was revoked because Hyman - a female human - was determined to be transphobically violating the legal rights of Black - a male human - and the gym has no tolerance for females who aren't willing to share intimate space with males who say they're "women".
Thermal said:
Disagreed, but ivr been arguing with enough voices in others' heads lately and am bored with it.
Click to expand...
You've gone out of your way to defend Black, including suggesting that since it's legal in CA, then if females don't want to have males looking at them in the gym showers, females should just not go to the gym, or at least shouldn't shower at the gym.
Thermal said:
Please don't lie. I said she knew what she was walking into, and walked in anyway. You can't buy a ticket for a XXX movie then stand cursing up a streak in the lobby, claiming you didn't know you would bd shown sexual content..
Click to expand...
And we're back to females having to self-select out of equal participation in society. And if they don't then those females have no grounds for complaining when they're unexpectedly faced with a male watching them shower without consent.
Thermal said:
OK. I oppose males having access to female single-sex spaces. But including restrooms, unless the occupants have no objection (as I have no objection to women in thr men's room).
Click to expand...
Great - if you oppose males having access to female single-sex places, then what is your problem with Hyman objecting to a male being in a female single-sex space? And what's your problem with us opining that Black is a perv with a history of domestic abuse charges who took his ex-wife's name as his new trans name?
 
Thermal said:
I don't know what it means to be s male that professes to have female feelings in their souls.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. What the actual ◊◊◊◊ do you think transgender identified males are doing? They objectively do not have a female body, nor do they have a female brain, nor is there anything at all about them that is objectively and verifiably female in any fashion whatsoever. all they have is a claim to have female feelings inside of them, in a place that only they can access and evaluate, and that everyone else must accept that their claimed internal state is somehow so real that everyone else must ignore objective reality.
 
Thermal said:
I did not.

I did not.

The same as I have indicated for the past year (note that you ask a different question than above).

The same as you've indicated for the past year.

And as I have responded repeatedly, you don't get to demand I answer your questions when you don't show the courtesy to do the same.

"What questions?" she wails. The same ones that have been popping up on your alerts that you ignore. You're asking me to Rinse and Repeat for your personal Fringe Reset, and the answer remains NO.
Click to expand...
My pal, are you intentionally trying to be as confusing as possible? Because if so, you're doing a bang-up job.
 
Emily's Cat said:
My pal, are you intentionally trying to be as confusing as possible? Because if so, you're doing a bang-up job.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, Thermal passed a confusion inflection point a month or so back, when he misunderstood a post and then leaned hard into "trolling" instead of just admitting the mistake and correcting it. Having passed that inflection point, he's now dangerously far down the slope of a confusion incident pit, and risks not being able to escape even with help.
 
Ziggurat said:
Lawyers take easy cases on contingency all the time, and this would be an easy case if they were actually lying. So the fact that he's broke isn't actually an impediment. And source confidentiality? There's no source confidentiality here. They're claiming the contents of court documents. For a case that he himself was involved in. That's VERY easy to produce in court. There's nothing for them to hide behind. And as I said already, this would defamation pro se, so we're talking actual monetary damages, not just a retraction.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If the documents were fake and/or the allegations were false, any lawyer worth his salt could see this was a slam-dunk and win it with one hand tied behind his back and gaffer tape covering his mouth. All he would need to do is approach Freeman and say "Wanna earn some free money? You sue, I'll be your counsel - I'll pay all the costs, when we win, we split the difference!"
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
he's now dangerously far down the slope of a confusion incident pit, and risks not being able to escape even with help.
Click to expand...
That's one way of describing it... here's another way...

keepdigging2.gif
 
Emily's Cat said:
So we're back to anyone who says the words that they're trans must be accepted as being mentally the opposite sex, regardless of whether it makes any sense at all?

Ahh, I see. The female was supposed to be calm and mild mannered, and just politely accept the obvious male in a female-specific space, where the female was surprised while naked. Obviously, if a female reacts poorly to an obvious male being there while they're nude, that female is overreacting and should be nicer? At a minimum, the female should know their place well enough to understand that it's unacceptable for a female to utter profanities when doing so might offend a male.

Hyman's membership wasn't revoked because they yelled profanities. It was revoked because Hyman - a female human - was determined to be transphobically violating the legal rights of Black - a male human - and the gym has no tolerance for females who aren't willing to share intimate space with males who say they're "women".
Click to expand...
Well what do you expect... this gym is in California - the epicentre of entitled, elitists, ultra-liberal progressivism!

Emily's Cat said:
You've gone out of your way to defend Black, including suggesting that since it's legal in CA, then if females don't want to have males looking at them in the gym showers, females should just not go to the gym, or at least shouldn't shower at the gym.

And we're back to females having to self-select out of equal participation in society. And if they don't then those females have no grounds for complaining when they're unexpectedly faced with a male watching them shower without consent.

Great - if you oppose males having access to female single-sex places, then what is your problem with Hyman objecting to a male being in a female single-sex space? And what's your problem with us opining that Black is a perv with a history of domestic abuse charges who took his ex-wife's name as his new trans name?
Click to expand...
Indeed!!
 
Ziggurat said:
I cannot reconcile these two statements. They contradict each other.
Click to expand...
Let me walk you through it. I'll try to keep it simple:

Try prefacing the first one with "ideally,". Does it make sense now?

This part is tougher: the "ideally" doesn't need to be said among reasonably sharp adults. They can figure out that the "should" is not absolute. It shouldn't be this complicated.

Bonus points if you caught the same meaning of "should" employed in that last sentence.
 
Thermal said:
I've explained it repeatedly. They should be able to go to the places that align with their gender, just like everybody else.
Click to expand...
It's illegal in the US to discriminate on the basis of gender or gender expression. There are no places that "align with gender" in a meaningful way - i.e., in a way that legally controls access based on gender alignment. Given that gender, decoupled from sex, is about as meaningless as favorite color or one's mood upon waking up in the morning, it would be almost impossible to devise a ruleset that managed access based on gender alignment. Where would you even start?

You'd start with sex, and then promptly end with sex, too, since that's where all the meaningful distinctions are.
 
Thermal said:
Let me walk you through it. I'll try to keep it simple:

Try prefacing the first one with "ideally,". Does it make sense now?

This part is tougher: the "ideally" doesn't need to be said among reasonably sharp adults. They can figure out that the "should" is not absolute. It shouldn't be this complicated.

Bonus points if you caught the same meaning of "should" employed in that last sentence.
Click to expand...
Nope, still a contradiction. "Ideally" and "should" don't change that.
 
Thermal said:
I wish you a greater understanding of the language in the coming year, then.
Click to expand...
You are the only one who doesn't think you contradicted yourself. Everyone else thinks you did. Maybe it's not me with the language problem.
 
theprestige said:
It's illegal in the US to discriminate on the basis of gender or gender expression. There are no places that "align with gender" in a meaningful way - i.e., in a way that legally controls access based on gender alignment. Given that gender, decoupled from sex, is about as meaningless as favorite color or one's mood upon waking up in the morning, it would be almost impossible to devise a ruleset that managed access based on gender alignment. Where would you even start?

You'd start with sex, and then promptly end with sex, too, since that's where all the meaningful distinctions are.
Click to expand...
A few posts back, you declared transpeople to be either mentally ill, misogynists, or perverts. I just realized how ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up that is.
 
Thermal said:
In this thread, which is That Thread.

Communication with people of... your disposition... is in fact challenging, conceded.
Click to expand...
Indeed, you have shown an incapacity to communicate coherently with people who do not share your beliefs.

I would not brag about that.
 
theprestige said:
It's illegal in the US to discriminate on the basis of gender or gender expression.
Click to expand...
This is sort of true, based on Bostock v. Clayton County, but Gorsuch specifically noted that "sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes" are not implicated by that ruling.

I mention dress codes because that is an area of emerging civil rights litigation by plaintiffs such as non-binary flight attendant Justin Wetherell. He (they?) wanted to prevent his employer from forcing him (them?) into the usual shirt-and-trousers getup required of beardy bros with testicles, but federal law didn't get him (them?) there.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I wish you a greater understanding of the language in the coming year, then.
Click to expand...
Based on your continual contradictions, your constant flipping of your positions, your complete failure to make your points clear and obvious to every single person in this thread, and your inability to parse the simple phrase "Once again, as is always the case, it is the trans activists who bring the violence to protests", I would judge that @Ziggurat's understanding of the English language exceeds yours by orders of magnitude!

If you cannot make yourself undertood to multiple people when you are making repeated efforts to do so, that is not a "them" problem, its a "YOU" problem
 
d4m10n said:
I mention dress codes because that is an area of emerging civil rights litigation by plaintiffs such as non-binary flight attendant Justin Wetherell. He (they?) wanted to prevent his employer from forcing him (them?) into the usual shirt-and-trousers getup required of beardy bros with testicles, but federal law didn't get him (them?) there.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many female flight attendants would prefer not to be forced into the usual blouse-and-tight-skirt getup required of sisters with tits and a ◊◊◊◊, and would rather wear shirt-and-trousers. Most, would be my guess. But they voluntarily took a job that comes with different sex based uniforms, so I doubt federal law would come to their aid either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom