Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Aber]

Haha, are they trolling for clicks or something? They literally say they are a 'biological woman' and 'female' haha, don't fall for that ◊◊◊◊ it's ragebaiting nonsense. They know it's nonsense.

Do they?

When pushed, they start talking about hormones.

 

[Rolfe]

Killington Lake service station on the M6.

Sorry, didn't have time to finish this. I was there for about 45 minutes. I used the toilet once, and walked past again on the way out. I didn't see anyone else go in or out. (I couldn't see the doors from where I was drinking my coffee.) If you want to set up camp there to check who goes in, you're welcome.

I flat guarantee you will not see any trans-identifying man approach the facilities, clock the sign, then divert to the "MALE" door.

 

[John Freestone]

Haha, are they trolling for clicks or something? They literally say they are a 'biological woman' and 'female' haha, don't fall for that ◊◊◊◊ it's ragebaiting nonsense. They know it's nonsense.

Perhaps, but they're also stating that they have all rights afforded to women (p0lkaspeak ETA, and IndiaWilloughbySpeak: 'females') whatever terms any sick transphobe throws at them, and yet more evidence undermining your stupid positions that I'm sure you will ignore, rinse and repeat.

 

[John Freestone]

That's ridiculous. Or American. Who knows. Mare, hen, vixen, cow (there are no male cows), also ewe, nanny, bitch, doe, sow and so on are common parlance.

Sometimes it makes no difference. Like whether Thermal talks cow ◊◊◊◊ or bull ◊◊◊◊, but then - as we've seen with the extreme end of the gender cult - species doesn't matter either, and horse ◊◊◊◊ or chicken ◊◊◊◊ will do just as well.

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree. When "father" and "mother" are listed on a birth certificate, those are biological reproductive sex roles, not gender roles.

Yup, and when you talk about a man being a great father, or a woman being a great mother, those are gender roles.

 

[Aber]

Darlington nurses win their employment tribunal
“By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman… the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.

https://christianconcern.com/ccpres...ms-is-unlawful-harassment-and-discrimination/

the Tribunal clearly declared that the law leaves no scope for permitting men to use a female changing room based on their ‘gender identity’ or under any other pretext.

 

[Pixel42]

NHS trust 'violated dignity' of nurses by allowing trans woman to use female changing room, tribunal rules

However, the tribunal dismissed several other claims, finding that the trans woman had not harassed or victimised the nurses.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[d4m10n]

But that's not what p0lka was arguing for.

Like I said, I think @p0lka is onto something but I'm not here to defend all their claims.

All I'm saying is that if we can clearly nail down what language we are using it will help alleviate much confusion in the discussion of these issues. People I've talked to seem to really believe sports leagues were segregated to be "consistent with gender identity" rather than "consistent with sexed physical development" because the shorthand language we use to describe those leagues invokes the social roles of manhood and womanhood rather than the scientific idea of two distinct developmental pathways which diverge pretty sharply around puberty.

Post-modern thinking generally proceeds by muddling all the key terms and then saying that we can socially reconstruct a new world based on one utopic vision or another, whereas analytical philosophy encourages us to clarify language in order to carve nature at its joints, that is, to describe the world accurately enough to make useful predictions. All the nonsense about sex as a spectrum is just another application of the general po-mo approach to reshaping the social world without regard to basic realities about (human) nature.

 

[Thermal]

Hmm, I've never seen anyone suggest the idea of the "self-supporting idea" before. I thought ideas were supported and propagated in people's brains. Maybe Thermal thinks they just float about in the aether.

Yes, you have. It ain't that ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ complicated.

Random person: "Hey legislator, trans people are being discriminated against under our sex and gender discrimination laws."
*Legislator looks at ambiguity and lack of clear definition in laws* "Oh, ◊◊◊◊."

And the whole debate can run on it's own with no further input from TRA advocates. And that is +/- where we are at in this thread, except that the regulars here are at the extreme of the anti-trans end, some even denying that there are real/sincere transpeople. But those posters are anti-evidence and in fact anti-science, ignoring the worldwide and historical medical consensus that transpeople are in fact real and sincere. And round and round we go till we get bored of the repetition.

 

[Ziggurat]

Random person: "Hey legislator, trans people are being discriminated against under our sex and gender discrimination laws."

That's not a "random person". That's a TRA.

And the whole debate can run on it's own with no further input from TRA advocates.

No, it cannot. The people advocating the TRA position are TRA's. That's what it means to be a TRA. It's not a priesthood, there's no sacred induction ceremony, no robes of office. A debate requires people to advocate for a position, and if you're advocating for a TRA position, then you are a TRA. That's what the word means.

And that is +/- where we are at in this thread, except that the regulars here are at the extreme of the anti-trans end

No, we are not. The actual extreme of the anti-trans end wants to execute most of them. You can probably find such people in places like Afghanistan. You will not find any of them here.

, some even denying that there are real/sincere transpeople.

You are lying. No one here has taken that position.

But those posters are anti-evidence and in fact anti-science, ignoring the worldwide and historical medical consensus that transpeople are in fact real and sincere. And round and round we go till we get bored of the repetition.

More lies. And the anti-science side is the TRA side, which denies that sex is binary, that puberty blockers have permanent effects, that the evidence for the efficacy of transition is weak at best.

 

[Thermal]

That's not a "random person". That's a TRA.

Wrong. Anyone can observe the core issue without being pro or anti trans.

No, it cannot. The people advocating the TRA position are TRA's. That's what it means to be a TRA. It's not a priesthood, there's no sacred induction ceremony, no robes of office. A debate requires people to advocate for a position, and if you're advocating for a TRA position, then you are a TRA. That's what the word means.

Ok, I'll take you at your word. Up till now, a TRA was more or less the extreme advocates in the debate. But you want to globalize that to a TRA is no more or less than a trans rights advocate. Someone who advocates for the rights of transpeople. Under your definition, I would be one, as I tend to advocate for everyone's rights, even the most heinous criminals being afforded due process.

You see the flip side of your new and improved definition, right? You are against advocating for transpeople's rights. Wear that with pride.

No, we are not. The actual extreme of the anti-trans end wants to execute most of them. You can probably find such people in places like Afghanistan. You will not find any of them here.

Do you really need to rely on such an extreme to make your position seem less ghastly? It doesn't work.

You are lying. No one here has taken that position.

Our 'new' contributor, John Freestone, has said exactly that. So has Rolfe. You, tp, and sc have said the same thing with less courage and forthrightness.

More lies. And the anti-science side is the TRA side, which denies that sex is binary, that puberty blockers have permanent effects, that the evidence for the efficacy of transition is weak at best.

You're moving the goalposts again. We are talking about the historical and medical recognition of transpeople, not the red herring of whether or not sex is binary.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrong. Anyone can observe the core issue without being pro or anti trans.

You didn't claim they "observed the core issue". You claimed they advocated for more trans rights through legislation. That makes them a TRA.

Trans people already have protections from discrimination in employment and housing. They already have hate crime protections. The additional protections being requested are either about access to female spaces or access to medical care. These are TRA positions.

Ok, I'll take you at your word. Up till now, a TRA was more or less the extreme advocates in the debate. But you want to globalize that to a TRA is no more or less than a trans rights advocate.

Does exactly what it says on the tin.

But again, the only advocacy happening now is about positions which I think are extreme, because the non-extreme stuff has already been accomplished. You don't have to advocate for what you already have.

Under your definition, I would be one, as I tend to advocate for everyone's rights,

Except women's right to have their own space without males present. I never see you actually advocating for that.

You see the flip side of your new and improved definition, right? You are against advocating for transpeople's rights. Wear that with pride.

I'm against advocating for more rights than they already have, yes. I do wear that with pride. Why wouldn't I? They aren't entitled to more rights than I have.

You're moving the goalposts again. We are talking about the historical and medical recognition of transpeople, not the red herring of whether or not sex is binary.

I'm not moving any goalposts. You just continue to lie. Nobody here doesn't recognize the existence of trans people. You keep lying that we do. Perhaps you buy into the TRA lie that to deny trans preferences is to deny their existence, but that's complete bull ◊◊◊◊.

And whether or not sex is binary is VERY relevant if you want to talk about who is denying the science and who isn't. Which is a claim you brought up, not me.

 

[theprestige]

Wrong. Anyone can observe the core issue without being pro or anti trans.

Ok, I'll take you at your word. Up till now, a TRA was more or less the extreme advocates in the debate. But you want to globalize that to a TRA is no more or less than a trans rights advocate. Someone who advocates for the rights of transpeople. Under your definition, I would be one, as I tend to advocate for everyone's rights, even the most heinous criminals being afforded due process.

You see the flip side of your new and improved definition, right? You are against advocating for transpeople's rights. Wear that with pride.

Do you really need to rely on such an extreme to make your position seem less ghastly? It doesn't work.

Our 'new' contributor, John Freestone, has said exactly that. So has Rolfe. You, tp, and sc have said the same thing with less courage and forthrightness.

You're moving the goalposts again. We are talking about the historical and medical recognition of transpeople, not the red herring of whether or not sex is binary.

Thermal, what trans right(s) are you even talking about, here?

Can you name a single trans right that you think has been controversial in this thread?

 

[theprestige]

You didn't claim they "observed the core issue". You claimed they advocated for more trans rights through legislation. That makes them a TRA.

Trans people already have protections from discrimination in employment and housing. They already have hate crime protections. The additional protections being requested are either about access to female spaces or access to medical care. These are TRA positions.

Does exactly what it says on the tin.

But again, the only advocacy happening now is about positions which I think are extreme, because the non-extreme stuff has already been accomplished. You don't have to advocate for what you already have.

Except women's right to have their own space without males present. I never see you actually advocating for that.

I'm against advocating for more rights than they already have, yes. I do wear that with pride. Why wouldn't I? They aren't entitled to more rights than I have.

I'm not moving any goalposts. You just continue to lie. Nobody here doesn't recognize the existence of trans people. You keep lying that we do. Perhaps you buy into the TRA lie that to deny trans preferences is to deny their existence, but that's complete bull ◊◊◊◊.

And whether or not sex is binary is VERY relevant if you want to talk about who is denying the science and who isn't. Which is a claim you brought up, not me.

This is why I've transitioned from "Trans Rights Activist" to Trans Privilege Activist" (the transition from TRA to TPA is accomplished by cutting the dangly bit off the R).

 

[Thermal]

You didn't claim they "observed the core issue". You claimed they advocated for more trans rights through legislation. That makes them a TRA.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I never said a word about 'more'.

Trans people already have protections from discrimination in employment and housing. They already have hate crime protections. The additional protections being requested are either about access to female spaces or access to medical care. These are TRA positions.

There are no 'female spaces'. That's at the core of the debate. You want to keep begging the question that there is and always has been, or your argument falls apart. But everyone else can see that it was never as clear as it needs to be to take that as a starting assumption.

Does exactly what it says on the tin.

Agreed. Advocating for the rights of transpeople. Which you have said you are quite clearly are against, as have several of your comrades.

But again, the only advocacy happening now is about positions which I think are extreme, because the non-extreme stuff has already been accomplished. You don't have to advocate for what you already have.

And your position is they should shut the ◊◊◊◊ up and be happy with what you so graciously allow them, and they shouldn't be able to go where it feels natural to them/where they identify, as you have the right to.

Except women's right to have their own space without males present. I never see you actually advocating for that.

I think they should, and yet again, you are lying to say I haven't. I have repeatedly argued quite adamantly for sex segregated spaces where nudity would be expected, and that a lesbian themed social group should be able to exclude males, and all similar issues.

I'm not moving any goalposts. You just continue to lie. Nobody here doesn't recognize the existence of trans people. You keep lying that we do. Perhaps you buy into the TRA lie that to deny trans preferences is to deny their existence, but that's complete bull ◊◊◊◊.

I didn't say existence. I said real/sincere. And don't think I didn't notice what you took the extra time to snip out.

You up for an avatar bet? Or did you know you were lying as you typed it?

And whether or not sex is binary is VERY relevant if you want to talk about who is denying the science and who isn't. Which is a claim you brought up, not me.

It is not. It's you awkwardly trying to shift the debate from women, and who exactly that entails, to binary sex, which distinction transpeople are aware of and acknowledge OR THEY WOULDN"T CALL THEMSELVES TRANSPEOPLE.

 

[Matthew Best]

There are no 'female spaces'. That's at the core of the debate.

And yet...

I have repeatedly argued quite adamantly for sex segregated spaces where nudity would be expected, and that a lesbian themed social group should be able to exclude males, and all similar issues.

Well, I'm baffled.

 

[Thermal]

This is why I've transitioned from "Trans Rights Activist" to Trans Privilege Activist" (the transition from TRA to TPA is accomplished by cutting the dangly bit off the R).

Oh, you want to rewrite the acronym to beg the question in and make your arguments fly? Sounds fair. Shall we do the same with your side?

You guys like to whitewash your position as Gender Critical, which doesn't mean anything because both sides are being critical of the concept, even if arriving at opposite conclusions. We cant really lop off a dangly bit in GC, so how about we shift to the preceding letter in the alphabet for both G and C? I think we gots some poetry there.

 

[Thermal]

And yet...


Well, I'm baffled.

Right. We don't have them, and really never had them. But we should, and need to get that codified clearly in law, along with definitions of 'wo/man' as well as 'gender'. Still baffled, or just playing dumb?

 

[Brainster]

But those posters are anti-evidence and in fact anti-science, ignoring the worldwide and historical medical consensus that transpeople are in fact real and sincere.

I love it when you pretend science is on your side.

 

[p0lka]

So - the question you keep evading - this again suggests that your terminology includes "female man" and "male woman". All the people in the male toilets should be male, but some of them will be men and some will be women. I will now just keep stating what you believe, since you never actually confirm it and dodge the question. Admittedly, I give you excuses every time by asking two or three at once.

Yes. The people in the male toilet can take on whatever social gender role they want, or none at all, as long as they are male. The same for the female toilets, they can be whatever gender they want as long as they are female.

This again reinforces the idea - you're suggesting (not that you advocate it) a possible further subdivision in the female toilet for the men and the women (for those who "do" gender).

No it was just having the ability to allow transmen to go to the male toilet etc.

So you wish people weren't getting into all this "gender" stuff, you don't want to have to deal with it, but you throw up your hands and advocate it "because it's happening". You might say you don't advocate it, you resent it, but if you keep saying there are female men and male women, you're definitely talking gender ideology.

I'm saying that most people accept it, some people don't like the social gender roles that society subtly indoctrinates you into and so like me just refuses to accept it, but there are others that do accept it but feel they want to swap the role and that's where the problem lies. Our society has been using the role labels instead of the sex labels which has caused people the ability to argue about the vagueness. Society has the ability to make it clearer and relabeling everything including laws and should do so.

Indeed, so society should emphasize that either sex has more freedom than we tend to think, and just because a boy doesn't like football, he shouldn't start fretting that he's a girl. But accommodating the gender-ideological wishy-washy redefinition of "man", "woman", "boy" and "girl" is a terrible way to try to accomplish that. The way to accomplish it is to affirm that all women are female, and all men are male - these are simple biological facts we can't change, and if we have some (in my view, fanciful) notions of our 'gender' and its expression or preferred roles, those have nothing to do with whether we're actually a man or woman. JFC, I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation with someone who's fed up with the entrenched gender roles, and thinks the way forward is to let some females be 'men'! Why would they be 'men', because they like football?!

Great! More power to us all!

Yes, that's the problem. Caveat: I don't think there are actual 'gender roles', and I suspect you mean the same. There are behaviours that are commonly associated with one sex or the other. Hence, as you say, some people try to be non-conforming and adopt behaviours typical of the opposite sex. And a large proportion of them say that's because, although they're "male" (e.g.), they are in fact "a woman". This language is what you are colluding with.

I also agree with the opposite criticism leveled at you, that if you think this is a solution to gender idiocy, and enforcing "male" and "female" this and that, you've not understood the political forces at play, and there are plenty of TIMs who assert they are not just women but female, and vice versa.