Thanks for answering, Il answer your question. I define gender as being a social construct that has and still does pressure people to conform to society roles. More and more people question the roles and decide to not conform to the roles by picking a different role, they are unknowingly still conforming though. Some people just don't accept the concept though, and they look on as everyone else fights about imagined concepts.
That rothblatt statement is absurd,
Um... attacks by males on females are happening everywhere. Why would you feel more safe in a bathroom than elsewhere?
Your propensity to label arguments you don't like as "wrong' or "stupid" betrays your own lack of ability to refute them.
Again YOU are the only person here who uses such derogatory terms in relation to transgender identifying people. That alone speaks volumes.
Why should one argument you don't like invalidate all the other arguments you claim to find acceptable?
Again, the world doesn't revolve around your tiny speck of the planet. Places where women's rape crisis facilities accept males are in a tiny minority. Ones that employ males in front-line staff positions are even more rare.
Exactly my point ..nothing changed, the law did not permit a ladies club to exclude biological males, and that club faced legal consequences for daring to try to eject a male from a women-only section - they were not allowed to enforce their own rules.
(Attacks by imposter/transwomen in public restrooms don't seem to be happening anywhere)
Again, why are you limiting the problem to reported attacks only? What Richard Cox did in Fairfax won't show up in the statistics. But if you think his presence was not a danger, then you're delusional.
That the argument should not be dictated by unreasonable extremists is hardly irrefutable.
So you keep saying, with zero evidence. Thr problem, as I keep pointing out and you keep snipping out, is that you flat out lie about the content of my own posts over and over.
It does. I use the same terminology to their faces, too, because they know the difference between me saying it out loud and you whispering it behind their backs.
?
So you say.
I didnt ask about the female only club having their own rules. I asked about Wi Spa.
Because you said 'attacks', not theoretical maybes.
Why do you do this? The only thing I said 'never happens' is evidence presented that such incidents increase under open gender policies. Others here lie out of habit. Why are you doing so?
Not trying to argue it is not absurd, I'm pointing out that even if the word "gender" only ever conveyed the meanings known to Noah Webster in 1828 and was never once appropriated by the transexual movement and their intersectional feminist allies, those activists would still be able to convey their core ideology by reconceptualizing "sex" and various terms derived therefrom. The problem faced by those who want to preserve single-sex spaces and services is the reconceptualization of sex from a condition of the body to a condition of the mind, it doesn't matter all that much which specific words were used to accomplish this feat.
I did. And my statement was correct: males attack females everywhere. You didn't actually dispute that, you disputed something else that I didn't say in that post.
And that post was in response to me opining on why men were more accommodating in ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rest rooms.
Never happens, right?
Can you read? Zig and I were talking about why men were less concerned about nonconformists in a public rest room. You respond with weird non-sequitors.
Over the past decade, there's been a concerted push from activists for transgender privileges to systematically dismantle language that is specific to the female sex. Things like:
1) For like the fiftieth time, please stop using derogatory language in reference to people with transgender identities. I've asked you to stop using slurs multiple times now, and you keep doing it. You might think that because you're shoving those terms into someone else's mouth that makes it okay, and it really doesn't - that just makes it doubly offensive.
Females do not want males in our intimate spaces. How those males dress, and how they think about their inner gendered souls is 100% irrelevant to that. Their subjective feelings about their special unverifiable identity has nothing at all to do with it - they are still males.
They're legitimate struggles and pressures though. I don't think that the experience of being male is necessarily easier or harder than that of being female, but they are inarguably different.
This is actually a myth. The word "woman" came from "wiffmann", where historically "mann" meant human and was a sex neutral term, and "wiff" meant female. Over time, the use of "mann" narrowed to represent males, and the "ff" sound fell out of "wiffmann" leaving "woman" as the current word. It was never a prefix added on to a male term. The old english term for a male human was "wermann", commonly shortened to "wer". "Wiff" is the root for the modern english word "wife". The evolution of language over time ended up landing on "wiffmann" --> "woman" and "wermann" --> "man".
And? Is it your contention that restrooms are uniquely safe spaces? That males are less able to assault females in restrooms than they are anywhere else? Is it your contention that females should let their guard down in front of males, provided that those males are with them in a restroom?
This word still survives today in the form of "werewolf", or a man wolf.