Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

That's a loaded and undefined question

No, it isnt!

A loaded question is a yes/no question in which the answer always results in the same implication. e.g.

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Not all yes/no questions are loaded.

wouldn't you have to define what 'matters' first?

No. Why?

 

[John Freestone]

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.

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

But you equated "the core issue" with what a "Random person" would ask, and the question they asked was clearly pro-trans. I mean, I understand this is your position, I just want to make it clear that this isn't the unbiased position that "random" suggests.

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

Correct, and that's what Thermal is.

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.

Noooo, I didn't say exactly that. I think it's highly likely that many, perhaps the majority, of people who identify themselves as 'trans' are sincere in that belief, and obviously those people are also 'real'. What they are not, IMHO, is some special category of person usually implied by the terms 'transperson', etc. There isn't an objective condition that matches being 'trans' unless it's defined according to the results of medicalising, or even more fluid behavioural states. There's no good evidence that people with gender dysphoria have opposite-sexed brains, for example. Obviously, in the final analysis, thinking anything changes our brain state, so those are potentially objective conditions, but we can't claim rights on the basis of things we happen to think that aren't being affirmed by society, especially when they're "crossed-wire" kinds of thoughts.

This is at least one reason why arguing that these special people called 'transpeople' are even being discriminated against. I might as well argue that my rights as a teenager are being denied if I think I'm 14 despite being 64. It's all in their heads.

But as you said, here we go round and round again, because you also believe in fairies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Where have I said this?

That is not what the medical community defines transpeople as,

The medical community doesn't define transpeople at all.

so yes, in your supremely cowardly way, you are flatly denying that transpeople are real/sincere/◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ exist.

Male people cannot become female, and believing that one's mind is opposite-sexed in some subjective way doesn't change reality.

They can sincerely belief false things as much as they want to, and as people they certainly exist. But their belief is false, and I have no obligation to pretend that their belief is valid.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is at least one reason why arguing that these special people called 'transpeople' are even being discriminated against. I might as well argue that my rights as a teenager are being denied if I think I'm 14 despite being 64. It's all in their heads.

Youu're being too generous.

You would be arguing that your rights as a teenager are being denied, because even though you have a 64-year-old body, and you've chronologically lived through 64 years of existence on this planet... you *identify* as a 14-year-old because you feel like you like teenagerish things and you enjoy performing teenagerish behaviors. You don't *think* you're 14, you just *feel like* you're 14.

 

[smartcooky]

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

There is no confusion here.

TRAs know exactly what their ultimate aim is... i.e, a world in which there is no place that a woman can go, that a transgender identified male cannot also go. No women's groups, no women-only toilets, bathrooms or changing rooms, no women's shelters or rape crisis centres, no women's hospital wards, no women's clubs, gyms or spas and no women's sports shall be permitted to bar entry to them.

No amount of sign changing will distract them from going after this goal.

 

[John Freestone]

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

For some unfathomable reason, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt on whether you're trolling and lying through your teeth, instead trying to squint hard enough to recognise that you might just be struggling with comprehension. But, to be clear, I saw exactly what EC saw, a gobsmacking response to a clear, compassionate, rational explanation of what we mean when we say 'trans' isn't real. Not only that, directing someone to the highlighted phrase appears just as mendacious, since the problem was not the phrase, but its selection. And since you seem at times to be intelligent, my charity on the question of trolling liar/unfortunate idiot is wearing thin. Maybe they're not mutually exclusive, and your dedication to failing to respond honestly creates crossed wires in your head. This is kind of apropos to the thread, ironically. It's what most of your tribe do.

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.

There is so little difference between saying "there are no 'real' transpeople, just people who become fixated on a false idea of their inner genderiness," and your statement that such people have a "crossed wire somewhere upstairs," that any reasonable person would recognise that and might engage in drilling down to where our actual differences lie. You do the opposite - twist everything put to you as close to 180 degrees as you can. I mean, I don't expect actual steelmanning of the GC position from you, but this is a monstrous level of duplicity. You have the gall to pretend that any of us think particular human beings don't actually exist if they have a mental illness, right in our faces, while we endlessly try to explain our position!? Shame on you!

 

[John Freestone]

Youu're being too generous.

Funny, I was just saying the same!

You would be arguing that your rights as a teenager are being denied, because even though you have a 64-year-old body, and you've chronologically lived through 64 years of existence on this planet... you *identify* as a 14-year-old because you feel like you like teenagerish things and you enjoy performing teenagerish behaviors. You don't *think* you're 14, you just *feel like* you're 14.

I meant to imply a hypothetical condition in which I might actually think I was 14. (I certainly don't feel it!) With trans-identifying people, I'm fairly sure there are both types, as well as those who pretend and neither believe nor feel it.

 

[smartcooky]

For some unfathomable reason, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt on whether you're trolling and lying through your teeth, instead trying to squint hard enough to recognise that you might just be struggling with comprehension. But, to be clear, I saw exactly what EC saw, a gobsmacking response to a clear, compassionate, rational explanation of what we mean when we say 'trans' isn't real. Not only that, directing someone to the highlighted phrase appears just as mendacious, since the problem was not the phrase, but its selection. And since you seem at times to be intelligent, my charity on the question of trolling liar/unfortunate idiot is wearing thin. Maybe they're not mutually exclusive, and your dedication to failing to respond honestly creates crossed wires in your head. This is kind of apropos to the thread, ironically. It's what most of your tribe do.

Oh, he knows EXACTLY what we mean when we say "trans isn't real" (and for the avoidance of doubt, we mean that there is scientifically and biologically no such thing as a person changing their sex from the sex they are to the sex they want to be.

We emphatically do NOT mean that transgender people do not exist!
We have emphatically stated over and over, that we believe transgender identifying people ought to be accorded all the rights accorded to every other group in society!

We have repeatedly stated that we do not think they should be accorded privileges that abrogate the rights of others.

@Thermal continues to remain wilfully blind to anything we say which does not comport with his personal opinion of us as a bunch of tranny-bashing bigots. That way he can continue perceive us bad people, and berate us accordingly.

 

[Rolfe]

Worth a read.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2012289335953866998

This is a particularly good point.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2012277320162124233

 

[Rolfe]

This seems to be a separate, earlier thread, also stuffed full of good points.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2012145514301808895

 

[Rolfe]

I had not seen this 2022 article till now. Of course the trans advocates will simply go "eeew" and stop reading. They'll then comment that the man in question is in prison, so those of us fortunate enough not to be in prison don't have to worry our pretty little heads about him.

But you know, I'm fairly confident that not every man with these kinks is in prison.

A trans prisoner, prosthetic sex aids and the sin of “misgendering”

A guest post by Naomi Cunningham of Sex Matters and Legal Feminist

www.thehelenjoyce.com

 

[Aber]

This judgement was against the bosses and their failure to act, the transmale was found to have done nothing wrong.

Almost - guilty of male behaviour at the least

It may be that Rose lacked insight generally into the effect of their presence in that environment on some colleagues.

In contrast to:

We accept that, as a general rule, considerably more women than men feel or would likely feel personal insecurity, distress and fear if required to change clothes in a communal changing room shared with a member of the opposite sex. This reflected many of the accounts given by the Claimants in this case. We accept that this is rooted in the different cultural and societal experiences of women compared to men. Further, we accept that women will feel things differently at different stages of life as their relationship with their bodies (comparative to men) changes with age. There will be moments of acute awareness and sensitivity on the part of women that do not apply to men, for example during menstruation, during pregnancy or during menopause. During these periods, women may and very many do experience physical reactions, such as bleeding, incontinence, sweating or heightened emotions, which inevitably has an effect on their sense of self. They are inherently private matters and can affect women’s perceptions of self and dignity. The relationship between a woman and her body is very different to the relationship between a man and his body.

It is, we find, a legitimate inference to draw from the empirical based research relied on and from the different relationship that women bear to their bodies than men, that women generally, compared to men generally, have or would have a greater sensitivity of having to undress (thereby exposing parts of their bodies or underwear) in the presence of members of the opposite sex.

We accept – as does the Respondent – that women are more likely to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence than men. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this is so. The risk posed to women generally by this state of affairs causes a reaction in many women and leads them to adjust their own behaviour according to the circumstances. Women do not have to experience sex-based harassment or violence personally. The experiences of some women can and does have an impact on others. Depending on the circumstances, a woman might experience fear and distrust in the presence of a man even though, objectively, as a matter of fact, the man is an entirely innocent actor. We take an example that we can all recognise, of a woman walking alone on a street at night, whereupon she notices an approaching male. She crosses the road to avoid the man, holding her keys in her hands in the event she needs to defend herself or she phones someone or pretends to do so. The approaching male is a perfectly decent and innocent person with no intention to harm anyone and is oblivious to the woman on the street. He would feel offended at the thought that someone might regard him as potentially harmful. But it is not the individual’s character that dictates the reaction in the woman. It is not the man himself but the fact that he is a man. The difficulty for the woman in this example is that she is unable to police the character or the intent or motivations of the approaching male. She is fearful of the risk presented in the knowledge of women’s experiences in life generally. Her reaction does not depend on personal experience, although of course it may be explained by this. The Tribunal is able to draw on its own experiences of life in recognising these fearful, defensive, precautionary traits in women in certain circumstances. They are not irrational reactions. On the contrary, they are entirely rational, based on the lived experiences of other women generally. Many women will feel anxious and may take extra precautions in what men might regard as normal situations.

There is a LOT of detail in this judgement that will be quoted at length in other cases, and which be immediately familiar to females who have been posting on this thread.

HR lawyers will be having a very busy weekend.

 

[John Freestone]

This judgement was against the bosses and their failure to act, the
transmale was found to have done nothing wrong.

I do think it's good that they are calling them female changing rooms in the judgement, and that rose is a biological male
transwoman. Yay progress of sorts.

Your sort of progress is regress. Your language adds even more confusion to the translinguistic swamp.
"There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language." - George Orwell.

ETA: It's crazy enough having to undoublethink "transwoman" without having to untriplethink "transmale". Write fantasy novels of you want to make up conlangs.

 

[John Freestone]

the transmale was found to have done nothing wrong

Do you think what he did was wrong?

 

[Rolfe]

This is interesting. He's not the only trans-identified man saying this either. I have yet to see any confirmed report of a man wearing women's clothes, make-up, whatever, being attacked in a men's toilet. Not even verbally, let alone physically.

These protestations that "I'd be beaten up, I'd be killed!" are so much performative nonsense. Especially when referring to normal facilities at work or in normal communities, as opposed to dockside bars.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2012197398953476336

 

[John Freestone]

Shock horror!

 

[John Freestone]

This is interesting. He's not the only trans-identified man saying this either. I have yet to see any confirmed report of a man wearing women's clothes, make-up, whatever, being attacked in a men's toilet. Not even verbally, let alone physically.

These protestations that "I'd be beaten up, I'd be killed!" are so much performative nonsense. Especially when referring to normal facilities at work or in normal communities, as opposed to dockside bars.

<snip>

Ah, but in that photo you can't see his machete.

 

[smartcooky]

Love Maya Forstater's comment on the tribunal's ruling..

Hallelujah to this everyday wisdom being accepted by the tribunal. This is common knowledge. Professionals have been expensively trained to pretend not to know this, and to accuse those who admit to knowing it of "transphobia".

This professional training, of course, was courtesy of Stonewall et al.

It is beyond astonishing to me that we have to go through debates, arguments, court cases, tribunals and all the way to Supreme Courts to establish facts that EVERYONE already knew were facts for decades...

 

[Ziggurat]

This is interesting. He's not the only trans-identified man saying this either.

Note also that he refers to himself as transsexual, not transgender. Old school.

 

[Rolfe]

https://thecritic.co.uk/a-victory-for-common-sense/