Because that is what "protected against discrimination" means for those two specific individuals.
Almost the entire point of this thread is to argue about when carveouts should take precedence over general principles of antidiscrimation.
Reading tea leaves. Works every time.
...
Well there's that, down-playing the violent misogyny of those men (it's not about the numbers, it's about policies and principles that enable them, as I'm sure you know), and there's the whining that we should honour their preferred nomenclature and call them 'trans women' and refer to them as 'she' and 'her', and not remind anyone of the simple, neutral, obvious fact that they are trans-identifying males because this is 'tranny-bashing' (you being the only one to use the insult 'tranny' except when I deliberately aped your language), in order to repeatedly put words in our mouths. There's your response to one poor woman's story of being encouraged to transition, being given misinformation by doctors, regretful and angry at the medical abuse done to her, which was to blame her for taking bad advice.
That's... not the vibe you give off. At all. You vibe like you're the bully.
If you unplug from YOUR foregone narrative, you'd see that I've never said anything hateful about trans people.
You don't even understand what I'm talking about. "Them" is people like those men who walk around in public trying to dress like a scantily dressed underage girl. And you absolutely said a word about them. You attacked anyone who brought them up, because that's transphobic. But they are part of the vibe you give off.
No it isn't. This is a major and fundamental error you are making here, and I'm surprised you're making it this late in the game.
The two "carved out limited exceptions" mentioned by @Thermal at #16,183 were the one allowing the U.S. military to discriminate against transgender servicemembers and the one allowing the NCAA to maintain separate record books and locker rooms for females. Trans rights advocates certainly do want to see these two policies rescinded.
Mine are not.
They are male, so that's what they should normally do. That fits in perfectly with my beliefs about trans identifying males. Some of them do this. I think that's entirely appropriate behavior.
No idea, just as I have no idea if a random cis male using the men's bathroom is mentally ill or a bad person or a perv. You have not provided sufficient data to make any evaluation of these questions. But that person is acting properly in regards to which facility he is using. Which is a good thing.
They want to rescind the first one (which ISN'T a sex-based carveout, so getting rid of it doesn't eliminate a sex-based carveout). I have never heard that they want to rescind the second one. Where are you getting that from?
Yup, Sooooo predicable!
Indeed. These are all directly out of the TRA playbook.
Of course. It has not gone unnoticed that when the discussion turns to the pain and suffering endured by detranisitioners, he either goes radio silent, or does exactly what TRA's do... criticize the detransitioner.
Indeed. It would have been exceedingly difficult to research, because mainstream media almost never publish these types of stories. For example, at the BBC, such stories will never, ever get past the filter of the LGBTQ+ desk, whose job it is to censor any account that shows transgender identifying males in a poor light, as well as to ensure that only TRA-approvedTM pronouns are used.
Absolutely 100% on the money
This person has a very similar attitude to my friend who is a member of our quiz/games team... a transgender identifying man who acknowledges they are male, uses the men's room and thinks that TRAs are extremist idiots who have caused a lot of harm to the majority of the transgender community.
I read something today that linked the anti-trans people with funding from oil industries, I don't think it was peer reviewed or anything but ooh spooky.
That shorted out my brain.
I followed Debbie Hayton's blog for several years, another who seems rational, accepts he's male, accepts any pronouns, has maintained his marriage since "transsexual" transition, and writes a gender-critical blog. Yet I still disagreed with one or two of in his opinions. He suffered the common misconception that he passed brilliantly as a woman, and was accepted as one most of the time, including at airports, where he'd usually get greeted as 'madam', when it's fairly obvious he's a transsexual, I think, to most people. I don't have a problem with that, but it did make him argue that he should be able to have his "F" on his passport and other documents (since why would anyone at customs have a clue he wasn't male - it would just cause confusion if it said "M"). He basically has the view that if people see you as a woman, you kind of are a woman, even if you're female. Gender in the eye of the beholder, so no harm done. I hold no negativity about that, but I couldn't accept it philosophically. And I started to wonder about the wisdom of his employment as a teacher in a school, although he seems harmless enough. He's quite a celeb on the GC circuit, friends of Glinner et al.
It could be, I don't know. My life, in a sense, is linked with funding from oil industries, and so is yours.
Ya it was really brilliant of you to figure out that I'd note the stellar shortcomings in your 'proof' of how violent these pervs are.
Oh stop lying. i wholesale condemn each and every one. Pointing out your blatent bashing when you say 'this is how they are' is not downplaying anything.
Then why are you posting this 'huge' List of offenders? You want to imply that them trannys are all violent pervs. 'Here, lookit this huge List!' But neither you nor the other bigot that made The List were sharp enough to realize how woefully short it was for making that point. Hell, the doofus that compiled it wasn't even bright enough to make sure the offenders were all trans. You'd think he wouldn't have to be deceptive if there were so many to choose from, wouldn't you?
Again, a reasonably sharp poster would have seen that I don't do that, re I consistently refer to the criminals like Bryson and Merager as 'he'.
Blatant bashing is not 'neutral reminding'.
Damn straight. Sin is in the intent, ya ape.
Your own words are doing a stellar job of that.
Lol, for such a commited bigot, you'd think you could keep your own terms straight. That 'woman' was both born a male and says he identifies as a gay male. I respect that and have called him a 'he' consistently. But you genuinely don't give a ◊◊◊◊, Captain Biological Realist, and can't even be bothered to get even that straight. That shines a bright light on your global contempt for anyone wrestling with their identity, even when they are now on your side.
Another bald faced lie. You're on a roll! I sympathized with HIM for getting a lot of bad advice. That wasn't his fault, he trusted the doctors. Now he's believing other cranks. This guy has had an exceptionally rough time of it, and I hope the highly troubled life he has led gets better.
Then enjoy being surprised. You might consider reading the words posted instead. I've said consistently that minors shouldnt get therapies till they are well into adulthood, and adults need to find their own way. A good start is to at least try to be open minded, which means not listening to people like you who hold up lists of them tranny pervs for.. some reason. Well-intentioned, I'm sure.
Again, please lie about someone else's postings. You're boring the ◊◊◊◊ out of me.
Ya think? Actually, no, you're still wrong. It ain't 'almost certainly' anything to anyone with two ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ neurons firing. It's for goddamned sure incomplete. The issue is it is off by several orders of magnitude to represent anything at all, except representing your contempt for transpeople.
More bald claims, powerfully wrong. Ya boring.
Oh my God, this is priceless. Seems I read you all wrong. The truth is, you are a compassionate helper who is trying to protect Da Trans. And you're trying to protect them from me! This is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hysterical. Do you post this ◊◊◊◊ with a straight face?
Ill bet. Maybe you could go pleasure yourself while looking over The List again. Pretty sure it wouldn't be the first time.
Because it is the one that appears in the medical literature, common speaking and in the media, and the trans community it refers to takes no issue with it. 'Universal' is a good descriptor.
It does not appear in the medical literature, does not appear in common speaking and the media, and the trans community it refers to takes issue with it. 'Derogatory dog whistle' is a good descriptor.
You know I was replying to theprestige, right? And that he laid out three and only three options earlier in the thread, that I am referencing here?
Mr theprestige gives three options. You see that your scenario is not restricted as his is, yes? I of course agree wth you that there should be a wider spectrum of options ,but it is his *checks notes* considered and rational conclusion that they are all one of the three, and other options don't exist.
It would not be. Why do you ask?
We already do. Many sports allow both sexes to compete, and some bathrooms are fully gender neutral. Changing rooms can be gender neutral, with minor partitioning and screening, but are best made sex segregated IMO, and based on sex.
For example, when what is between your legs is irrelevant. Let's play a quick round of What Would You Do? (open to any other players, too):
And you were all wrong, as usual. The harm is entirely real. It's relevance to restroom policies is not demonstrated. Only one story that I saw had the bad trans in a restroom, taking a pic under the adjacent stall, and even that one was unclear. The actual media never referred to a 'transwoman', just a woman. Seems the low-credibility basher sites kind of tacked the trans bit on the tail end.
So you keep saying. Youre lying, but dont let that stop you.
And that's a stupid thing to say, and you know it full and well. You know i agree with the GCs that transwomen should not be in women's changing areas, yes? So by your dip ◊◊◊◊ reasoning, I must be one of you, too. Yet that's not the song you keep singing.
Liar. I've shown nothing but sympathy for that guy, actually a lot more than you guys have. He's had a bad time of it, his whole young life.
*adjusts tin foil hat*
Well I wouldn't comply. Its a dude... I would simply not use gendered pronouns .. I would use they/them or their name in third person, and you or their name in first person.
There is no situation in which I would accept any male routinely using the women's changing area, no matter what girlie feels they might claim to have.
This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation in the Sandie Peggie case. It was not a case of a new female worker coming along and objecting to an existing accommodation that all the coworkers had come to. Sandie Peggie had been working at Victoria Hospital for 30 years. Upton didn't start working there until August 2023, the same month as Peggie's first complaint about him being in the women's changing area.
