Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Well I wouldn't comply. Its a dude... it would simply not use gendered pronounouns .. I would use they/them or their name in third person, and you or their name in first person.
If you don't mind my asking, why? You said about a year ago that you referred to transwomen at your pub quiz nights as 'she'. How do you refer to them now?
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.
I expect you would call me unkind... but if I did what you did, I would consider that being both unkind and a betrayal of my women co-workers. I would choose not to betray them.
How would you be betraying them, if they were in favor of it?
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.
Didn't say it was. I was pointing out the fact that Peggie felt she shouldn't be compelled to undress in front of a male (which I am 100% in agreement with).

Can you seriously not even understand when we are in total agreement? Why do you cling to those blinders so desperately?
 
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.

Debbie (David) Hayton has (or rather had, he's been rumbled) a very clever schtick. He has taken this apparently rational line about knowing he's a man and how all these pushy TRAs are damaging "sensible" trans people like him. He wormed his way into the good graces of quite a few prominent gender critical women and even got asked to speak at meetings, being given preference over women.

It was actually brilliant. An AGP's literal wet dream. Not simply being admitted to female company, but right into the enemy camp. And of course he used the women's toilets and of course nobody said anything. I mean, duplicitous as hell, but respect.

He's obviously male but lobbies for all sorts of concessions on the basis that nobody can tell! He treats his poor wife like dirt and when she has been interviewed on TV it looks like a hostage video. He exudes male entitlement.

He's a man wearing his fetish gear to his job as a schoolteacher. He's a TRA through and through, but his angle is very clever.
 
Last edited:
Trial lawyers and malpractice insurers will put a stop to a lot of the nonsense involving minors.
For those interested in the details of this case (Varian v. Einhorn) keep an eye on Ben Ryan over at Substack.

The entire case file was put under seal when the trial started (although I obtained all those documents before they was sealed), and all the transcripts from the trial are also under seal. The riveting trial was sparsely attended and there was only one other reporter at the trial; and he only attended for part of it and, as I observed, took few notes. So my own hundreds of pages of notes from the trial will likely remain the only way for the public to learn about the all finer details of what transpired, possibly ever (or until an appeal, should that happen).

 
Last edited:
If you don't mind my asking, why? You said about a year ago that you referred to transwomen at your pub quiz nights as 'she'. How do you refer to them now?
She.

It's a compromise I'm prepared to make because she is a personal friend - I have known her for years, from before she transitioned, and I am prepared to make a single exception in her case (note that she has never asked or even demanded this of me or anyone else)

I will not extended this compromise or make any other exception for anyone else.

How would you be betraying them, if they were in favor of it?
Your scenario is farcical - not an example of anything that is remotely likely to happen, so its moot.

Didn't say it was.
"Shades of Sandie Peggie" ?


Your farcical and entirely fictitious scenario is not even remotely comparable to the Sandie Peggie case.

I was pointing out the fact that Peggie felt she shouldn't be compelled to undress in front of a male (which I am 100% in agreement with).
Hard to reconcile this with your oft-stated support for the relevant law in your part of the world
Hard to reconcile this with your stated attitude to the California Planet Fitness incident

Can you seriously not even understand when we are in total agreement? Why do you cling to those blinders so desperately?
We are NOT in any kind of agreement. YOU parrot TRA talking points... I do not!
 
Last edited:
So is that one of many examples of me using the lingo and wearing the colors...?
One of many, but one where you clearly took sides between those who would preserve single sex spaces and those who would eradicate them.

It does not appear in the medical literature...
The act of self-identification is not a medical condition, so I'd expect to see it in the sociological literature.
 
Last edited:
Turns out competitive pinball has a transgender problem as well, but not the one you might expect:

Some of the best women’s pinball players in North Carolina had a dilemma: Though it was an honor to be among the 16 invited to compete for the state title in January and a shot at nationals, they wondered whether they should skip the tournament in protest.

Not because they were protesting a man (or possibly more than one in their midst). But because a trans-identified male was kicked out of a women's room at a different pinball tournament. Now you may think that these are certainly a bunch of enlightened women, but in reading the story, I get the feeling that they are a bunch of trans-identified males. Get some of these details:

She left the bathroom and immediately told Samantha Bacon, a co-director of the tournament. Bacon, an aerospace engineer from Wake Forest, is also transgender and one of the top players in the country.
Bacon began to panic. There were a lot of trans and gender-nonconforming queer players at the tournament who would need to use the restrooms, she said.
One of them is Kaylee Campbell. She came out as a trans woman in the fall of 2020 and asked the IFPA to change her name on official records. At that point, the IFPA didn’t have a clear policy on trans players, but leaders were welcoming.

Unless you've played competitive pinball, you may not know that males have a big advantage, which is one of the reasons women have separate tournaments in the first place. It takes a fair amount of strength to give those tables a nudge to save a ball from going down the drain. I'm not saying they can't be competitive or win open tournaments (I finished fourth out of 50 in a city tournament years ago, in a tournament that was won by a woman), but there's still a distinct advantage. Of course since this article is very sympathetic towards trans-identifying males playing as women, the writer comes up with a different reason for women's tournaments:

Players said the women’s-only matchups began in part because arcades and gaming culture can be misogynistic. Men are likelier to hover over players during a game, which can be distracting and intimidating, players said.
Apparently men can hover just like a drone.
 
On the obverse of the coin: Pinball is an important social and cultural activity. It's important that transwomen not be shut out of pinball.

On the reverse: It's only pinball, what's the big deal? So what if women get shut out? They're not missing anything important.
 
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.
This is you. You say you 'condemn' something, which is fine by you because you're doing it, but my presentation of the same facts, which I did to disprove your earlier claim that nobody ever showed it, is 'blatant bashing', and makes me a 'bigot'.

I'm a bigot because I posted such a long list although it's actually a tiny list and some weren't even 'trans'.

Somewhere in your wire-scrambled brain you know what a mug you're making of yourself. I can't be bothered to read any more of your tripe. It just makes me despise you more and more.

And if I talk about a victim of this medical scandal and get confused about whether they're male or female, it's not my fault, it's not their fault, it's the fault of the medical scandal that you do everything in your power to excuse and minimise and normalise, with no concern for the harm done. Your "seems like taking bad advice is a bit of a theme with (him)" you expect to gaslight as having compassion. You think everyone is a moron and will believe any contrary ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ you come out with.

Finally, I see you insinuating that I masturbate to a list of rapists, for no apparent reason. That is the desperate level of your discourse. You should be ashamed of yourself, but perhaps you don't have that emotion. Oh well, you do you.
 
He's a man wearing his fetish gear to his job as a schoolteacher. He's a TRA through and through, but his angle is very clever.
Thanks for this lightbulb moment, although I feel a twit for being taken in by him for so long. Ironically, his GC output must help the cause of sex realism, if one just reads the words and listens to him.

I have to say, I had worries about his wife, especially given the couple's dedication to 'Christian' values. In sickness and in health.

I really appreciate your posts here.
 
This is you. You say you 'condemn' something, which is fine by you because you're doing it, but my presentation of the same facts, which I did to disprove your earlier claim that nobody ever showed it, is 'blatant bashing', and makes me a 'bigot'.
Wrong again. Not merely wrong- an outright lie. I made no such claim. My sole claim is 'solving for X'; no one has done so, nor showed that X increases under inclusive policies, and what data we have indicates the opposite of your speculations. It doesn't matter that you keep trying to rewrite history and claim I said something entirely different. That's just dishonesty on your part, held up for all the thread to see.

So you want to talk about The List. Then stop weaseling and let's do it. What is The List supposed to show? That some transpeople commit heinous crimes? Yeah, no ◊◊◊◊. My broad brush estimates indicate that there should be exponentially more of them, only to keep consistent with the offender rate in the general population.

So come on, man. You trawled around to present The List (or maybe you keep it perpetually open in a tab, I dunno). Man up and tell us what you are trying to demonstrate. It has nothing at all to do with any claim I made. If you think it does, please, show what that claim was and we can get into it. Otherwise we chalk it up to the ever-increasing list of ◊◊◊◊ you 'got confused' about, like this one:
And if I talk about a victim of this medical scandal and get confused about whether they're male or female, it's not my fault, it's not their fault, it's the fault of the medical scandal
Oh, you 'got confused' about the entire ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point of the interview and its subject? You're asking us to believe that you are particularly dense, here.

You're up, slugger. You wanted to talk about The List. So talk about it. What is it, what is it supposed to represent, and what would you like to discuss? So far, you have only treated us to this:
It's always nice to look at their lovely faces again tho.
 
One of many, but one where you clearly took sides between those who would preserve single sex spaces and those who would eradicate them.
...no. No, d4m10n, I didn't. I pointed out that employing a derogatory term is employing a derogatory term. That has dead zero to do with 'preserving single sex spaces'.

So I ask for a fourth time: is that all you have, or are you going to continue waving your hands vaguely around? You had quite the little 'OMG guys' giggle out of this, so surely it would be effortless to tick off a bunch? Or are you waffling because you know you are bull ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?
The act of self-identification is not a medical condition, so I'd expect to see it in the sociological literature.
Are you aware that transwomen actually medically transition sometimes? 'Strue. And check it out- the doctors write about it. 'Salso true. Are you 'confused' as your kindred spirits seem to endlessly get? Here's a couple thousand more instances of it that Louden Wilde and I discussed earlier:
 
I pointed out that employing a derogatory term is employing a derogatory term.
No, you simply claimed (without providing any supporting arguments) that a neutrally descriptive term is derogatory, in an attempt to unsubtly control how other people talk about the subject of this thread.

That has dead zero to do with 'preserving single sex spaces'.
"You use their lingo, you wear their colors."

Since you've taken sides on what lingo should be used, you've also chosen sides on the relevant policy issues according to your own logic.

Are you aware that transwomen actually medically transition sometimes?
I'm not sure why you think this is even slightly relevant to the definition of either "transwoman" or "trans identified male" neither of which require anything more than the mere act of self-identification. The first transwoman I ever met at a skeptic conference was named Dave/Danielle Muscato and they were out and proud despite having yet to take any steps to physically transition at that time. Every LGBT activist organization has been consistent in their position that no physical transition should be required to invoke the legal and moral protections accorded to this marginalized group.
 
Last edited:
No, you simply claimed (without providing any supporting arguments) that a neutrally descriptive term is derogatory, in an attempt to unsubtly control how other people talk about the subject of this thread.
You are welcome to use it, or any other term you like. Please, do so. You're openly and proudly 'wearing your colors' in doing so.
"You use their lingo, you wear their colors."

Since you've taken sides on what lingo should be used, you've also chosen sides on the relevant policy issues according to your own logic.
Agreed! I'm using the term employed by the medical communities, the media (go ahead, search the hundreds of thousands of usages), and dictionary/Wiki definitions that indicate its universality. If you want to reeeeeaaaaly quibble, a couple trans groups actually disparage my usage, arguing about whether there should be a space between trans and woman. But I continue to defer to the widespread medical and media term.

So take your accusation of 'wearing their colors' and shove it. I'll ask for a fifth and final time: you got anything else, or was your little giggle fest based solely on that?
I'm not sure why you think this is even slightly relevant to the definition of either "transwoman" or "trans identified male" neither of which require anything more than the mere act of self-identification.
I don't, and are those goalposts getting heavy? We are talking about the terms used in the medical literature. How's your TIM/TIF count doing?

I already linked the online definition for TIM/TIF. It appears nowhere in polite society. Its sole usage is considered derogatory by those it refers to.

Do you have anything to contradict any of this, or is 'but we like it' as far as you can justify using an offensive term? Cuz that's not really the most shining rationalization.
 
We are talking about the terms used in the medical literature.
My bad, I thought we were talking about your ham-fisted attempts to shape what language is used on a skeptic forum to describe the non-medical phenomenon of personal self-identification with the opposite sex.
It appears nowhere in polite society.
Fists of ham.
So take your accusation of 'wearing their colors' and shove it.
Maybe you should avoid promulgating standards you hate to see applied to yourself.
I continue to defer to the widespread medical and media term.
What colors are they wearing?
 
Last edited:
My bad, I thought we were talking about your ham-fisted attempts to shape what language is used on a skeptic forum to describe the non-medical phenomenon of personal self-identification with the opposite sex.
How many times do I have to repeat this? Use the term. I prefer the honesty. If you recall, the whole bruhaha got brought up because a poster kept sanctimoniously chiding me not to use the offensive term 'tranny', which I often use sardonically. (G)you really don't get to act all high and mighty when you use slurs seriously.
What colors are they wearing?
The universal ones. The trans-positive colors are to not use the term 'transwoman' at all. You might have not noticed that bit while you were busily snipping it out.
 
you really don't get to act all high and mighty when you use slurs seriously.
I don't recall using any slurs here.
You might have not noticed that bit while you were busily snipping it out.
Hanging any argument on the inclusion or omission of a space is so embarrassing that I felt it perfectly charitable to leave that bit out.
 
I don't recall using any slurs here.
(It is fairly obvious that you took the extra time to snip out the '(G)' preceding that, which indicates clearly that it wasn't directed at you personally, and was intended for the others that I literally just described)
Hanging any argument on the inclusion or omission of a space is so embarrassing that I felt it perfectly charitable to leave that bit out.
Then your pearl clutching over 'wearing colors' falls remarkably flat.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom