Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[WWBDD]

As usual, you are misrepresenting something that you do not understand.

The only lack of understanding here is yours.

This Executive Order was about discrimination in the workplace, in housing, in access to healthcare among other things. Nothing in that EO mandated that biological males be allowed to participate in female sports, nor did in [sic] force any sporting organizations to do so.

Did you miss the second sentence of Section 1?

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy.

Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. [emphasis added] ...

These principles are reflected in the Constitution, which promises equal protection of the laws. These principles are also enshrined in our Nation’s anti-discrimination laws, among them Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... . In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Under Bostock‘s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, ... along with their respective implementing regulations — prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity [emphasis added] or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary. ...

It is the policy of my Administration to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. ...

Have you read Bostock? Do you even know what Title IX is?

In fact, there are numerous state sporting organizations, and even state legislatures that have enacted bans or restrictions. They are

Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming,South Dakota, Iowa, Utah, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arizona, Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida

All of the above ban biological males from participating in female sports. a further five states have gone even further. They have also banned biological females from competing in male sports.

Missouri, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas

Interestingly, even the NCAA has gone to a sport-by-sport policy.

None of the above would have been possible if the EO did what you claim it does.

Biden's unconstitutional EO was intended to do exactly what Samson claimed, and more.

In 2021, President Biden directed the Department in both Executive Order 13988 on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation and Executive Order 14021 on Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to review its current regulations to ensure they fully implement Title IX's protection against sex discrimination.

The states you listed are those that were granted injunctions preventing DoE enforcement of its unlawful "interpretation" of Title IX.

Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 With [sic] Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County

A Federal court has “vacate[d]” this document and “enjoined” the Department from “implementing or enforcing” this document against the state of Texas and its respective schools, school boards, and other public, educationally based institutions. See State of Texas v. Cardona, No. 4:23-cv-604 (N.D. Tex.) (June 11, 2024). Pursuant to a different Federal court order, the Department has been preliminarily “enjoined and restrained from implementing” this document against the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. See State of Tenn., et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 3:21cv-308 (E.D. Tenn.) (July 15, 2022).

The DoE appealed the preliminary injunction in Tennessee, et al. v. U.S. DoE, et al., The district Court's ruling was upheld in June of this year.

After the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision, the U.S. Department of Education issued three documents under Title IX—each stating that the Department will now fully enforce Title IX to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Department’s actions prompted twenty states to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. A district court granted the States a preliminary injunction. On interlocutory appeal, the Department challenges this ruling, arguing that the States lack standing, the Documents are unreviewable, and the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. We disagree and affirm.

Simply put, Samson is doing what we call "over-egging the pudding".... He is trying to pretend the EO in question was doing things it clearly was not.

Pretend? Clearly? GTFOH with the kiwisplaining. DoE did their best to define a kid's failure to accept self-ID as sexual harassment, and force boys into girl's sports, restrooms, and locker rooms.

Totally different story if you're directly affected, though. Right?

My response to this is somewhat less nuanced and more direct, more along the line of the sentiment expressed on this bumper-sticker. I have taken steps to make sure that my girls and women are able to defend themselves when confronted with one of those men self-IDing as women... if they **** around, they're gonna find out.

 

[Graham2001]

The right's weaponisation of this issue has been depressing to watch, but they could hardly be expected to refuse such a gift.

One of the contrarians at Spiked came to much the same conclusion, here is the ending of their article on the subject, with link to the full article below.

Ultimately, the insanity of trans ideology – and the Democrats’ fealty to it – has achieved the impossible: it made Donald Trump look like the sensible choice.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/13/did-trans-help-trump-to-victory/

 

[Rolfe]

Again, this is what I was talking about earlier.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856390325981364593

This is about a charity dedicated to helping women who are having difficulties breastfeeding welcoming in men with a lactation fetish who want to abuse their children by simulating nursing them, or, even worse, are taking a cocktail of drugs to induce the secretion of some sort of fluid from their nipples that they then offer up to the poor child.

 

[Emily's Cat]

... but still less than climate change, which has a really big and very material impact on ALL of the population.

Risking a derail...

I get where you're coming from, I really do. But climate change is a luxury concern. It's only a concern for people who have a fairly comprehensive level of freedom, sufficient food, and aren't at immediate risk of harm. To the female inmate who has been forced to share a cell with a male prisoner and is constantly worried about their privacy and safety, I don't think climate change matters at all. More broadly... it's completely irrational to believe that climate change should be the most important topic for females in afghanistan. Or anyone in
Ukraine.

 

[Rolfe]

I was thinking much the same thing. Even if you  are concerned about climate change, the insanity of the sex denialists still seems much more immediate. We're looking at an increasingly unstable climate as the century progresses, but girls and women are being seriously disadvantaged now, today. It feels as if the climate is something we have to tackle as time goes on, but if women's rights are comprehensively lost (as they already have been in Germany), how do we ever get them back?

I'm not American so I didn't have to make a decision, but I was certainly a lot less appalled by Trump's win this time than I was in 2016.

 

[smartcooky]

Risking a derail...

I get where you're coming from, I really do. But climate change is a luxury concern. It's only a concern for people who have a fairly comprehensive level of freedom, sufficient food, and aren't at immediate risk of harm. To the female inmate who has been forced to share a cell with a male prisoner and is constantly worried about their privacy and safety, I don't think climate change matters at all. More broadly... it's completely irrational to believe that climate change should be the most important topic for females in afghanistan. Or anyone in
Ukraine.

I'll reply to this and no more as its a derail....

NO! Climate change is a more immediate concern than the transgender issue, and it is in no way limited to the people you say.

The latter can be fixed later with changes in attitude, something that is happening right now. The tide has been turning on the madness for sometime now, even if it seems like its three steps forward and two steps back. Some will be affected for the rest of their lives, but not all

But climate change needs to be addressed NOW.... RIGHT ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ NOW. We are perilously close to the point of no return (some argue we may have already passed it). If we go past PONR, there will be no fixing it later with changes of attitude or heart. We're done and dusted... the earth will become uninhabitable within a few years, and unless we can colonize Mars or another planet, the human race will go extinct, and there will be nothing we can to do stop it, let alone reverse it.

 

[Samson]

I'll reply to this and no more as its a derail....

NO! Climate change is a more immediate concern than the transgender issue, and it is in no way limited to the people you say.

The latter can be fixed later with changes in attitude, something that is happening right now. The tide has been turning on the madness for sometime now, even if it seems like its three steps forward and two steps back. Some will be affected for the rest of their lives, but not all

But climate change needs to be addressed NOW.... RIGHT ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ NOW. We are perilously close to the point of no return (some argue we may have already passed it). If we go past PONR, there will be no fixing it later with changes of attitude or heart. We're done and dusted... the earth will become uninhabitable within a few years, and unless we can colonize Mars or another planet, the human race will go extinct, and there will be nothing we can to do stop it, let alone reverse it.

Carl Sagan predicted exactly so a general tick.
I bet he would be unimpressed with this disgraceful desertion of evolutionary biology.

 

[Hercules56]

Risking a derail...

I get where you're coming from, I really do. But climate change is a luxury concern. It's only a concern for people who have a fairly comprehensive level of freedom, sufficient food, and aren't at immediate risk of harm. ...

Absolute nonsense. Just ask anyone who lives near a coast and is threatened by hurricanes and sea-level rise. Most of them are dirt poor.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's the thing. Intellectually, rationally and sensibly, I agree with you. But viscerally, that's not how it feels. Maybe it's because for me it's just that we haven't had a really serious dump of snow for about eight years, but the threat of men being legally recognised as women and insisting on being treated as women feels a lot more immediate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Absolute nonsense. Just ask anyone who lives near a coast and is threatened by hurricanes and sea-level rise. Most of them are dirt poor.

Tell you what. You go convince those dirt poor people who are struggling to make sure they have enough to eat that they need to stop worrying about their immediate survival and instead focus on the impact that will be felt by their great-great-grandchildren.

Look, I care about the environment. But the insistence that it should be everyone's single highest priority is a privileged perspective. It's a viewpoint coming from someone who has sufficient food, a fairly safe place to live, has a steady enough income to meet their basic needs. Furthermore, you're essentially insisting that females should just accept being subjected to increase sexual assault and boundary violations, that females should just give up on basic dignity and surrender to letting males into female-only spaces against our will... because our current right this minute suffering isn't important enough to you, and we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves now for something that will occur several hundred years in the future at the soonest.

 

[d4m10n]

The latter can be fixed later with changes in attitude, something that is happening right now.

Came here to say something more-or-less like this.

It will take some effort to roll back gender-as-soul theology in the broader culture and "meat lego gnosticism" in the medical professions, but ultimately all that really needs to happen is a shift in the idea space around sex/gender from Tumblr & TikTok memes to something more like traditional or even critical thinking.

To roll back climate change, we'll have to remediate all the CO₂ dumping we've done as a global civilization for the past five generations or so while transitioning to a sustainably fossil-fuel free infrastructure and continuing to keep up with increasing demand for rapid transit and computing power.

 

[Paul2]

Edited to remove derail about how long it will take to feel the effects of climate change.

 

[Hercules56]

Tell you what. You go convince those dirt poor people who are struggling to make sure they have enough to eat that they need to stop worrying about their immediate survival and instead focus on the impact that will be felt by their great-great-grandchildren.

Look, I care about the environment. But the insistence that it should be everyone's single highest priority is a privileged perspective. It's a viewpoint coming from someone who has sufficient food, a fairly safe place to live, has a steady enough income to meet their basic needs. Furthermore, you're essentially insisting that females should just accept being subjected to increase sexual assault and boundary violations, that females should just give up on basic dignity and surrender to letting males into female-only spaces against our will... because our current right this minute suffering isn't important enough to you, and we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves now for something that will occur several hundred years in the future at the soonest.

Wow, I've never seen soo many lies and strawman arguments in one post.

Congrats.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Came here to say something more-or-less like this.

It will take some effort to roll back gender-as-soul theology in the broader culture and "meat lego gnosticism" in the medical professions, but ultimately all that really needs to happen is a shift in the idea space around sex/gender from Tumblr & TikTok memes to something more like traditional or even critical thinking.

To roll back climate change, we'll have to remediate all the CO₂ dumping we've done as a global civilization for the past five generations or so while transitioning to a sustainably fossil-fuel free infrastructure and continuing to keep up with increasing demand for rapid transit and computing power.

Yep, and that's only a portion of our effects on the environment (see plastic everywhere, toxic compounds other pollution, species going extinct that could lead to ecological collapse). In contrast, I'm betting gender ideology will mostly be seen as discredited by the next US presidential election - the evidence is increasingly being shown to be lacking, and the negative effects will keep coming to light. I think those two Dem congressmen noting the sports issue (post-election) is a sign.

 

[smartcooky]

Here's the thing. Intellectually, rationally and sensibly, I agree with you. But viscerally, that's not how it feels. Maybe it's because for me it's just that we haven't had a really serious dump of snow for about eight years, but the threat of men being legally recognised as women and insisting on being treated as women feels a lot more immediate.

I never thought I would ever say this to you Rolfe, but facts don't care about your feelings, however visceral they might be.

Climate change is an existential crisis for all humanity, for just about every species of mammal. We're all like frogs in a kettle, happily cruisin'... by the time we realize what's happening... too late! We get this wrong, its all over rover. Call up the Vogons and tell them there a dead planet through which they can run their hyperspace bypass.

 

[smartcooky]

Tell you what. You go convince those dirt poor people who are struggling to make sure they have enough to eat that they need to stop worrying about their immediate survival and instead focus on the impact that will be felt by their great-great-grandchildren.

Look, I care about the environment. But the insistence that it should be everyone's single highest priority is a privileged perspective. It's a viewpoint coming from someone who has sufficient food, a fairly safe place to live, has a steady enough income to meet their basic needs. Furthermore, you're essentially insisting that females should just accept being subjected to increase sexual assault and boundary violations, that females should just give up on basic dignity and surrender to letting males into female-only spaces against our will... because our current right this minute suffering isn't important enough to you, and we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves now for something that will occur several hundred years in the future at the soonest.

OH, FFS GO EDUCATE YOURSELF AND STOP SHOWING YOUR ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ IGNORANCE!!

(no more derails from me - I'm out of this thread altogether)

 

[Rolfe]

I never thought I would ever say this to you Rolfe, but facts don't care about your feelings, however visceral they might be.

Climate change is an existential crisis for all humanity, for just about every species of mammal. We're all like frogs in a kettle, happily cruisin'... by the time we realize what's happening... too late! We get this wrong, its all over rover. Call up the Vogons and tell them there a dead planet through which they can run their hyperspace bypass.

They sure don't. The thing is, people may choose to vote based on their feelings rather than facts. I didn't have a vote anyway, so that's academic, but people who did have feelings too. As I said, I agree with you intellectually and rationally, then I think about a man in a wig and a female nurse's uniform appearing to do my intimate care in 15 or 20 years time, and my skin crawls.

I hope Louden is right that the tide is on the turn on this issue but given the legislation passed in Germany the other week, given the state of things in Canada, I think the claws are deep set.

 

[Puppycow]

They sure don't. The thing is, people may choose to vote based on their feelings rather than facts. I didn't have a vote anyway, so that's academic, but people who did have feelings too. As I said, I agree with you intellectually and rationally, then I think about a man in a wig and a female nurse's uniform appearing to do my intimate care in 15 or 20 years time, and my skin crawls.

I hope Louden is right that the tide is on the turn on this issue but given the legislation passed in Germany the other week, given the state of things in Canada, I think the claws are deep set.

I posted this in a thread over in USA politics, but I don't think anyone actually watched it.

He talks about the reasons why, as he sees it, the Democrats lost. Near the top of the list is the trans issue. That's not the only thing he talks about. It's a few minutes near the beginning. I found it interesting.

 

[d4m10n]

I posted this in a thread over in USA politics, but I don't think anyone actually watched it.

I've been reading and listening to Sam H. since "New Atheism" was actually new and even I'm a bit surprised at how hard he went at the Dems for their embrace of transgender ideology/rights (strike as appropriate). He cites the link given upthread at #970 for a specific quantitative example and then goes a bit broader:

[T]he truth is, every shibboleth that came out of the far left in recent years contains within it the same recipe for the destruction of Democratic politics. Each is like an evil hologram. Take the term “Latinx.” Who was that for? Only 3 percent of Latinos are in favor of this silly rebranding of their ethnicity. Again, Trump did better among Latinos than any Republican in memory. Do you think it was because there wasn't enough identity politics rammed down their throats from the left? Do you think they just need to see some more white people admonished for the sin of cultural appropriation? You think another lecture about sensitive Halloween costumes might do the trick? Much of Democratic politics has become a bad SNL sketch.​

I think he's really on to something, but then I've had to deal with quite enough pile-ons and purity testing coming from the social justice left to skew my sense of how these shibboleths (e.g. "Trans women are women!") work out in practice. If you refuse to affirm them without hesitation or question, the interaction which follows will likely not resemble a reasoned and open debate.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I've been reading and listening to Sam H. since "New Atheism" was actually new and even I'm a bit surprised at how hard he went at the Dems for their embrace of transgender ideology/rights (strike as appropriate). He cites the link given upthread at #970 for a specific quantitative example and then goes a bit broader:

[T]he truth is, every shibboleth that came out of the far left in recent years contains within it the same recipe for the destruction of Democratic politics. Each is like an evil hologram. Take the term “Latinx.” Who was that for? Only 3 percent of Latinos are in favor of this silly rebranding of their ethnicity. Again, Trump did better among Latinos than any Republican in memory. Do you think it was because there wasn't enough identity politics rammed down their throats from the left? Do you think they just need to see some more white people admonished for the sin of cultural appropriation? You think another lecture about sensitive Halloween costumes might do the trick? Much of Democratic politics has become a bad SNL sketch.​

I think he's really on to something, but then I've had to deal with quite enough pile-ons and purity testing coming from the social justice left to skew my sense of how these shibboleths (e.g. "Trans women are women!") work out in practice. If you refuse to affirm them without hesitation or question, the interaction which follows will likely not resemble a reasoned and open debate.

Yes, I'm getting that over in the "what did the democrats do wrong" thread. My question is why? Why do people not seem amenable to a discussion? Is there so much invested for (some) Dems/left-leaning people that it would be too humiliating to admit that they were wrong or at least that average folks do not accept it?

 

[stanfr]

Tell you what. You go convince those dirt poor people who are struggling to make sure they have enough to eat that they need to stop worrying about their immediate survival and instead focus on the impact that will be felt by their great-great-grandchildren.

Look, I care about the environment. But the insistence that it should be everyone's single highest priority is a privileged perspective. It's a viewpoint coming from someone who has sufficient food, a fairly safe place to live, has a steady enough income to meet their basic needs. Furthermore, you're essentially insisting that females should just accept being subjected to increase sexual assault and boundary violations, that females should just give up on basic dignity and surrender to letting males into female-only spaces against our will... because our current right this minute suffering isn't important enough to you, and we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves now for something that will occur several hundred years in the future at the soonest.

You must have missed the heat waves in India that killed 100s this year. Let's see your stats on assaults by men in female spaces, and how they have exponentially risen thanks to this issue.

 

[Rolfe]

Winding a long way back to the innate ability of human beings to recognise the sex of other human beings, I had a very slow penny-drop moment the other evening, which I'm still only 90% sure I'm interpreting correctly. I am, I should say, a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.

I should mention that I have such a lousy facial recognition ability that I frequently fail to recognise actors I've seen before when they appear in new roles. My friend often nudges me and asks if I recognise someone from a previous film. A couple of times she commented that I had expressed marked appreciation of the good looks of a particular actor three times, in three different films, without realising it was the same guy each time.

I went to see "Paddington in Peru". There is a character in the film called Hunter Cabot (played by Antonio Banderas) who is the latest in a line of gold hunters, fixated on finding the fabled city of El Dorado. He is haunted by the ghosts of several ancestors, all egging him on to keep at it and find the treasure city. One of these ancestors is a woman, the stereotypical pioneer aviator woman. When I saw her on screen my instant thought was, "that's a man." Then I wasn't quite sure why they would have cast a man in a female role, and sort of forgot about it as the film progressed.

Much later, looking at Hunter Cabot right next to the most distant ancestor, a conquistador type, it finally dawned on me that it was the same actor. Even later, towards the end, I twigged that all the Cabot ancestors were played by a single actor. Good makeup job, I thought, they all looked quite different.

Half way home, on the motorway, the other shoe dropped as I realised that applied to the female ancestor as well. Good makeup job indeed. I hadn't recognised that part as being played by the same person, no sirree. But I sure as hell realised it was a man the second I clapped eyes on "her".

I have checked the cast list on a couple of movie-buff sites and this conclusion is not confirmed. Antonio Banderas is only listed as playing "Hunter Cabot". But I can't see any listing for anyone playing any of his ancestors, and one of these sites at least listed everyone who had even the tiniest identifiable part in the film.

I relate this only to note the instant "That's a man! Why would they cast a man in that part? That's weird" reaction that I had the minute the character appeared on screen. Despite the fact that Hollywood had obviously done its level best to make the actor look convincing as a woman.

 

[Orphia Nay]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

 

[Samson]

I posted this in a thread over in USA politics, but I don't think anyone actually watched it.

He talks about the reasons why, as he sees it, the Democrats lost. Near the top of the list is the trans issue. That's not the only thing he talks about. It's a few minutes near the beginning. I found it interesting.

I sure watched it when it came out.
A good video for the democrats.
Many gender critics are Trojan horsed through this issue, to find other wholesome goodness in Trump, but Sam Harris remains a zealot.
And Musk is deemed a fellow "freak".
Seriously lacking nuance here, but a great podcaster generally.

 

[Samson]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

Caitlin Jenner and Andrea Shu Long both claim to be autogynephiles.
Hateful is completely the wrong word, but the world might be better if they had managed their fetishes differently, rather than being cast as role models.

 

[Rolfe]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

It doesn't matter. Nobody can change sex, not by putting on different clothes, not by taking drugs, and not by undergoing cosmetic surgery. That isn't "hateful", it's reality.

Nobody can tell, by looking at a man, whether or not he has had cosmetic surgery to his genitals. Indeed, nobody can tell if he's taking synthetic cross-sex hormones either. The castrated man with the inverted penis and the man taking feminising drugs and the man who is simply playing dress-up all look the same. Assuming all are playing dress-up.

I certainly don't want visual confirmation of surgery. It wouldn't make any difference if this was provided, anyway. A man's a man for aa that. Nobody can change sex, and no man has any business inserting himself into women's intimate spaces. The very desire to do so makes such a man the very last person who should be permitted to do this.

 

[Orphia Nay]

A "man" with all those changes deserves safe space too.

 

[stanfr]

Caitlin Jenner and Andrea Shu Long both claim to be autogynephiles.
Hateful is completely the wrong word, but the world might be better if they had managed their fetishes differently, rather than being cast as role models.

I mean Jenner *is* a role model for Trumpism, the normalization of hypocrisy, self-destruction, and insanity.

 

[stanfr]

It doesn't matter. Nobody can change sex, not by putting on different clothes, not by taking drugs, and not by undergoing cosmetic surgery. That isn't "hateful", it's reality.

Nobody can tell, by looking at a man, whether or not he has had cosmetic surgery to his genitals. Indeed, nobody can tell if he's taking synthetic cross-sex hormones either. The castrated man with the inverted penis and the man taking feminising drugs and the man who is simply playing dress-up all look the same. Assuming all are playing dress-up.

I certainly don't want visual confirmation of surgery. It wouldn't make any difference if this was provided, anyway. A man's a man for aa that. Nobody can change sex, and no man has any business inserting himself into women's intimate spaces. The very desire to do so makes such a man the very last person who should be permitted to do this.

shhh..don't let this go public, but apparently some mad scientistes (make sure you pronounce that correctly) have recently discovered a means of changing one's biological sex (shortly after they allowed AI to became sentient)--it is part of a vast conspiracy by an elite cabal of satan-worshipping pedophiles (led by Trump of course) to create a master race of all females. But there is hope, some of us cis-men are quietly building a resistance!

 

[Samson]

I mean Jenner *is* a role model for Trumpism, the normalization of hypocrisy, self-destruction, and insanity.

There are no winners but the surgeons and pharma.
I only recently realised my first cousin in Oxford UK's husband is a specialist trans surgeon.
He seems the most decent person, I would love to chat to him some time for a view from the trenches.

 

[Pixel42]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

A transwoman is any male who says they identify as a woman. What they're wearing is irrelevant (though they do seem to wear dresses a lot more often than most females do), it's the thoughts in their head that matter. Figures quoted earlier in this thread suggest that only about 20% of them make physical changes to their bodies, whether by taking hormones or having surgery.

Trans rights activists insist that all of them actually are women, and demand they be treated accordingly.

 

[Pixel42]

A "man" with all those changes deserves safe space too.

Indeed. Unfortunately it's not just them that TRAs insist be granted access to female safe spaces, it's any male who is willing, if challenged, to utter a few magic words. That would include flashers, stalkers and sexual predators, and would mean there would no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.

In the long term the obvious solution is individual unisex cubicles. Interestingly there's some resistance to that solution amongst TRAs. It's almost as if getting access to female safe spaces is more important to them than their safety (and far more important than the safety of females).

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed. Unfortunately it's not just them that TRAs insist be granted access to female safe spaces, it's any male who is willing, if challenged, to utter a few magic words. That would include flashers, stalkers and sexual predators, and would mean there would no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.

In the long term the obvious solution is individual unisex cubicles.
Interestingly there's some resistance to that solution amongst TRAs.It's almost as if getting access to female safe spaces is more important to them than their safety (and far more important than the safety of females).

They resist this for a similar reason they resist the idea of three categories in sport... Men's, Women's and Open.

They know full well that no actual biological females will ever compete in the Open category. They will only ever be competing against transwomen and a smattering of males. This will not satisfy their desire to do what they really want - to win, with their icing on the cake - the beating and humiliating of actual women.

 

[Rolfe]

A "man" with all those changes deserves safe space too.

Absolutely. Men should not be making men's spaces unsafe for nonconforming men. And to be fair I don't see much evidence that they are.

But women's spaces need to be entirely off limits.

 

[stanfr]

Indeed. Unfortunately it's not just them that
TRAs insist be granted access to female safe spaces, it's any male who is willing, if challenged, to utter a few magic words. That
would include flashers, stalkers and sexual predators, and would mean there would no longer be any such thing as female safe spac
In the long term the obvious solution is individual unisex cubicles. Interestingly there's some resistance to that solution amongst TRAs. It's almost as if getting access to female safe spaces is more important to them than their safety (and far more important than the safety of females).

I've heard this argument over and over from the right (not saying you are right) and sure, on the surface it seems reasonable.
But on what scientific or statistical basis do you arrive at the conclusion? There are laws on the books that forbid the behavior you describe, and they aint going anywhere. There are never gonna be security guards standing at the entrance to every 'female space' asking people what sex they are. So how exactly are self-id laws (or whatever you are implying the TRAs want by a 'few magic words') gonna change things? How are they gonna make the behavior you describe significantly more likely to occur? I've seen the presentation of supposed examples of this happening in practice, and on a case-by-case basis the vast majority don't hold up.

 

[Pixel42]

The difference is that, currently, if a male enters a female safe space and behaves inappropriately, the women know that all they need to do is raise the alarm and something will be done about it. If TRAs get their way, women will know that if a male enters their safe space and behaves inappropriately, there's a real chance that they will find themselves being accused of a hate crime if they object. That in itself is going to make many women (especially victims of sexual violence and harrassment) much more reluctant to even enter what were previously female safe spaces.

 

[d4m10n]

There are laws on the books that forbid the behavior you describe, and they aint going anywhere.

Whether Agee Merager violated those laws depends on whether the California criminal courts rule that they had a legal right (under state nondiscrimination law) to be nude in a space formerly reserved for females. Right now the cultural clash is between activists who believe civil rights laws need to protect male-bodied people in such situations and the more traditional sort of folks who prefer the old "laws on the books" which date much further back in common law countries.

 

[smartcooky]

The difference is that, currently, if a male enters a female safe space and behaves inappropriately, the women know that all they need to do is raise the alarm and something will be done about it. If TRAs get their way, women will know that if a male enters their safe space and behaves inappropriately, there's a real chance that they will find themselves being accused of a hate crime if they object. That in itself is going to make many women (especially victims of sexual violence and harrassment) much more reluctant to even enter what were previously female safe spaces.

After their encounters with cosplayers, neither of my daughters will use public toilets now unless they absolutely have to. They will hold on, or ask to use the facilities in a commercial premises rather rather than use the public facilities.

 

[stanfr]

Whether Agee Merager violated those laws depends on whether the California criminal courts rule that they had a legal right (under state nondiscrimination law) to be nude in a space formerly reserved for females. Right now the cultural clash is between activists who believe civil rights laws need to protect male-bodied people in such situations and the more traditional sort of folks who prefer the old "laws on the books" which date much further back in common law countries.

Well, how has that law played out? Has Merager been cleared of all charges? I get the 'cultural clash'--I just find it suspicious how these isolated cases like the Wi spa case turn into rallying cries. Hence my request for stats.

 

[stanfr]

The difference is that, currently, if a male enters a female safe space and behaves inappropriately, the women know that all they need to do is raise the alarm and something will be done about it. If TRAs get their way, women will know that if a male enters their safe space and behaves inappropriately, there's a real chance that
they will find themselves being accused of a hate crime if they objectThat in itself is going to make many women (especially victims of sexual violence and harrassment) much more reluctant to even enter what were previously female safe spaces.

I didn't ask for speculation, I asked for *evidence*!