Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[p0lka]

What need does the law have, to treat gender separately from sex?

(See how I'm directly acknowledging your rebuttal, and asking questions to advance our debate?)

Because the confusion will continue until it does. (see how I've directly replied to your question)

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is false. You've been corrected repeatedly on this, and you keep misrepresenting it. Why do you do this?

People who believe that they are transgender definitely exist. We recognize that people exist who believe they have an opposite-sexed inner essence. But we don't accept that their opposite-sexed inner essence is real, nor do we believe that their belief about their opposite-sexed inner essence should take precedence over their objective physical reality.

People who believe they are napoleon exist. We recognize that people exist who believe they are napoleon, but we don't accept that they are actually napoleon.

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.

More falsehoods.

And round and round we go till we get bored of the repetition.

Only because you keep repeating falsehoods.

 

[theprestige]

Because the confusion will continue until it does. (see how I've directly replied to your question)

Gotcha. We've already had this conversation. I'll keep checking back to see if you've come up with anything new.

 

[Thermal]

There's been a lot of compliance, from what I can tell. I never expected all affected entities to comply immediately without any pushback.

But you're the one who said we needed clear codification in law. The UK has it, but now you're saying it doesn't work? Make up your mind. Do you think clear codification is necessary, or not?

Same as I've said, and I'm bored with the repetition. We need it, but unlike the UK ruling, we need wo/man and gender defined to the rigorous standards of law. Then the problems sort themselves.

Why is nudity your cutoff? It's clearly not the cutoff for anyone else, or we'd already have coed restrooms everywhere as the norm.

Again, for the same reasons repeated ad nauseum. I remember why I keep leaving this pointless thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Saying that trans isn't a real thing is not the same as saying that people who believe they're trans don't exist. And you're applying an intentionally shallow read of that, despite it having been clarified for you multiple times.

Nobody is actually for realsies transgender - by which I (and everyone else in this thread) means that it is NOT POSSIBLE for someone to have an opposite-sex mind inside of their sexed body. People can have crossed wires, and have false beliefs about their special inner essence and gendery soul. There's plenty of evidence that some people truly believe that their minds are somehow female while they have an entirely male body (and vice versa of course). But that belief is rooted in fallacy, it is not factual. Minds aren't sexed at all. And brains always have the same sex as the body, because every single cell in your body has the same sex.

When activists and advocates say "transwomen are women" what they are communicating (and have blatantly said on some occassions) is that males with transgender identities are actually the same as females, and that there's no meaningful difference between them. And as a result of that males with transgender identities should be accorded *exactly* the same rights, access, and treatment in society as any other female. That's what they mean.

And our collective response to that is: BS, transgender in the way they have framed it, and in the context they use it, does not exist as such.

 

[p0lka]

There's been a lot of compliance, from what I can tell. I never expected all affected entities to comply immediately without any pushback.

But you're the one who said we needed clear codification in law. The UK has it, but now you're saying it doesn't work? Make up your mind. Do you think clear codification is necessary, or not?


Why is nudity your cutoff? It's clearly not the cutoff for anyone else, or we'd already have coed restrooms everywhere as the norm.

re highlighted: No it doesn't, it's still mixing them up.

 

[theprestige]

Same as I've said, and I'm bored with the repetition. We need it, but unlike the UK ruling, we need wo/man and gender defined to the rigorous standards of law. Then the problems sort themselves.

These have been defined to the rigorous standards of law in the UK. The problems are indeed sorting themselves.

Again, for the same reasons repeated ad nauseum. I remember why I keep leaving this pointless thread.

Because people suddenly got confused about gender, and without nudity nobody can tell anymore whether a women's restroom is supposed to be a single sex space?

Because modesty, dignity, and comfort aren't valid concerns for women?

Because sex segregation without nudity won't deter all rapists, so why bother?

Because we have a moral duty to men, to let them override sex segregation in restrooms whenever they want, regardless of how women might feel about it?

Yeah, I've heard all those. I was hoping you had something else.

 

[theprestige]

re highlighted: No it doesn't, it's still mixing them up.

Nobody is this confused.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why is nudity your cutoff? It's clearly not the cutoff for anyone else, or we'd already have coed restrooms everywhere as the norm.

There *is* nudity in restrooms. Every time someone sits on a toilet, they're at least partially nude. Behind a door generally, but still nude.

 

[p0lka]

Gotcha. We've already had this conversation. I'll keep checking back to see if you've come up with anything new.

I replied to your question.
If the answers are the same then feel free to ask a different question than you normally do, don't do that fringe reset thing you brought up where you go away then come back and ask the same questions, ask a different question.

 

[p0lka]

Nobody is this confused.

I agree, go look at the relevant laws.

 

[Thermal]

Saying that trans isn't a real thing is not the same as saying that people who believe they're trans don't exist. And you're applying an intentionally shallow read of that, despite it having been clarified for you multiple times.

And that is a punk ass cop out each and every time you use it, and here is a great example:

Nobody is actually for realsies transgender - by which I (and everyone else in this thread) ...

The words used in the post you were referring to are "some even denying that there are real/sincere transpeople." Go ahead, follow it back. I'll link it specifically if you are still in reality-denying mode.

Those were the words. None of your cowardly lying about 'existence". Simply real, and/or sincere, words which do not need explanation except to the retarded (thanks to tp for his totally-not-derogatory expression).

 

[Emily's Cat]

And that is a punk ass cop out each and every time you use it, and here is a great example:

The words used in the post you were referring to are "some even denying that there are real/sincere transpeople." Go ahead, follow it back. I'll link it specifically if you are still in reality-denying mode.

Those were the words. None of your cowardly lying about 'existence". Simply real, and/or sincere, words which do not need explanation except to the retarded (thanks to tp for his totally-not-derogatory expression).

You know that when you cut off a post to artificially make it seem like it means something different, we can all see that you did that, right? Like, every person who reads my original post, and then reads your artfully trimmed response, can see that you're manipulating it to give a false impression of context.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let's try a very clear and straightforward set of questions for you Thermal.

Do you believe that males with transgender identities are actually, for really real, indistinguishable from females in every way that matters?

 

[p0lka]

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.

This thread is weird, people think that just stating things as fact makes it become fact, sometimes with caPitaL letters!.

 

[Thermal]

These have been defined to the rigorous standards of law in the UK. The problems are indeed sorting themselves.

They have not. By the ruling's opening words, it does not attempt to define women or gernder, except as interpreted though the scope of the act in question, broad though it is.

Because people suddenly got confused about gender, and without nudity nobody can tell anymore whether a women's restroom is supposed to be a single sex space?

No. Never argued.

Because modesty, dignity, and comfort aren't valid concerns for women?

No. Not only never argued, but argued the opposite. You are a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ liar, like your comrades here.

Because sex segregation without nudity won't deter all rapists, so why bother?

No. Never argued.

Because we have a moral duty to men, to let them override sex segregation in restrooms whenever they want, regardless of how women might feel about it?

No. Never argued.

Yeah, I've heard all those.

In your evidently retarded mind, perhaps. Not my issue to deal with.

I was hoping you had something else.

Bored out of my skull with the repetition, only to get the eternally retarded replies.

 

[Thermal]

You know that when you cut off a post to artificially make it seem like it means something different, we can all see that you did that, right? Like, every person who reads my original post, and then reads your artfully trimmed response, can see that you're manipulating it to give a false impression of context.

I highlighted the phrase in question for you. Now go back to your lecture about deliberately changing context.

ETA: you keep saying that there are not 'real' transpeople, but they are mentally ill or perverts. That is not what the medical community defines transpeople as, so yes, in your supremely cowardly way, you are flatly denying that transpeople are real/sincere/◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ exist.

 

[Thermal]

Let's try a very clear and straightforward set of questions for you Thermal.

Do you believe that males with transgender identities are actually, for really real, indistinguishable from females in every way that matters?

I have answered this to you, personally, directly, dozens of times. I am 110% done with this retarded/lying act you guys keep putting on.

 

[p0lka]

Let's try a very clear and straightforward set of questions for you Thermal.

Do you believe that males with transgender identities are actually, for really real, indistinguishable from females in every way that matters?

That's a loaded and undefined question, wouldn't you have to define what 'matters' first?

If you were having a race against aliens from a moon of jupiter then yeah actually, for really real, they're indistinguishable from females in every way that matters.
If you are having a 'how far you can piss up a wall' contest then they're not indistinguishable from females as they have a hose whereas females do not.

 

[smartcooky]

But you're the one who said we needed clear codification in law. The UK has it, but now you're saying it doesn't work? Make up your mind. Do you think clear codification is necessary, or not?


Why is nudity your cutoff? It's clearly not the cutoff for anyone else, or we'd already have coed restrooms everywhere as the norm.

With all his chopping, changing and flip-flopping of position, he thinks he's too nuanced for us mere common plebs to understand, like he's playing 4D Chess, when the truth is he's really playing checkers and poorly so, because he keeps getting his pieces jumped.