Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

If a male tells me they are female then I would tell them that they are not as we don't have that technology and they're talking bollocks. Start labeling all the private spaces according to biology and not gender man woman wishywashyness and things would be much clearer.

Sure, because the piles of males with transgender identities who insist that they have female minds and therefore are female will suddenly change their tune and abide by a different word.

I very, very strongly suspect that they'd simply start insisting that "female" means a feeling inside their head and doesn't have any actual objective meaning. They've already put a whole lot of effort into trying to dismantle sex, including asserting that sex is a spectrum, that it's possible to have a brain sex that's different from one's genitalia, and that people with transgender identities are intersex by definition of having an internal feeling of femaleness.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, that's what I keep hearing. I just keep not seeing it.

One of the first things I asked when joining this discussion over a year ago was if there was any data about assaults on women in bathrooms, before or after open gender policies, or preferably both. You, personally, and a half dozen others chided me that it had been presented, and the burden was in me to catch up. After many requests (search was down and the thread was tens of thousands of posts long), you all said it was five pages back. I checked it, and the data had nothing whatsoever to do with restroom assaults.

That's been my experience with you guys. Lots of claims of what you have presented, and every word of it is pure bull ◊◊◊◊.

Do you have data about assaults on males with transgender identities in male bathrooms?

 

[Emily's Cat]

When did all these bootstrap conservatives suddenly want government all up in their business?

Why do you think calling us conservatives makes any sense at all? Opposition to a blatantly stupid policy of self-id doesn't make all us moderate liberals magically transform into conservatives.

 

[theprestige]

If a male tells me they are female then I would tell them that they are not as we don't have that technology and they're talking bollocks. Start labeling all the private spaces according to biology and not gender man woman wishywashyness and things would be much clearer.

Sure, because the piles of males with transgender identities who insist that they have female minds and therefore are female will suddenly change their tune and abide by a different word.

I very, very strongly suspect that they'd simply start insisting that "female" means a feeling inside their head and doesn't have any actual objective meaning. They've already put a whole lot of effort into trying to dismantle sex, including asserting that sex is a spectrum, that it's possible to have a brain sex that's different from one's genitalia, and that people with transgender identities are intersex by definition of having an internal feeling of femaleness.

Honestly, why even bother?

p0lka's been through this exchange before. It's obvious their views haven't changed at all since the last time. It's obvious they have no new arguments to bring to the table, no new food for thought. Just the same prescription that's already been rejected with a complete explanation. Just because they cannot comprehend that explanation, or refuse to accept it, doesn't mean they're entitled to have it explained to them again every time they decide to fringe reset. Just let the fringe dangle, is what I say.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you want to return to the PF story, I'm in. The young lady wasnt overly bothered by a guy in there, or being made 'uncomfortable' any more than people are made uncomfortable around others every day. When Captain Pud Puller went to work, she sounded the alarm. The 'violence advocates' took it from there. Self policing at its finest, and I haven't heard of any repeat performances by our intrepid solo artist. Seems the social pressure worked just dandy? And no cops involved. That's my ideal, and you found a comprehensive example in the wild, but didn't realize it.

It may be your ideal, but it's not mine. My ideal is that social pressure backed by legal enforcement when necessary prevents that guy from entering in the first place, because males aren't allowed in female spaces.

What I said. Personal responsibility and handling your own affairs are generally preferable to government intervention and interpersonal management.

You do realize that theprestige's first and preferred option was to tell the person to leave and have them leave, right? It's only if that doesn't work that law enforcement gets called in. And I much prefer law enforcement to handle that escalated situation, rather than have to resort to violence myself. I want the state to have a monopoly on the use of violence. That is a VERY traditional conservative position, and I'm still baffled that this confused you.

What you're advocating isn't a conservative position at all, it's more like an anarchist position.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you think calling us conservatives makes any sense at all?

In fairness, theprestige is conservative at least relative to this forum. So am I, compared to this forum. But he still gets conservatism wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

I very, very strongly suspect that they'd simply start insisting that "female" means a feeling inside their head and doesn't have any actual objective meaning.

Start insisting? A lot of them already do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In fairness, theprestige is conservative at least relative to this forum. So am I, compared to this forum. But he still gets conservatism wrong.

Well, compared to the norm on this forum, we're all conservative, including Rolfe and smartcooky. Outside of this forum, theprestige might vaguely qualify as right-leaning independent. I've been consistently about 1/3 on the libertarian and 1/3 on the left axes of political compass for the 25 years I've been posting on various skeptic/atheist discussion forums. My views haven't really changed any.

 

[theprestige]

YouTuber shoeonhead has almost convinced me to reflag, from small government libcap conservative to left-hating socialist-populist Bernie bro.

 

[Thermal]

Where's that long-requested data about how the citizens of CA support naked males having access to female spaces by a 3-1 margin?

You asked me if I had any 24 hours ago. I've been asking for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ year. Guess who we are waiting on?

 

[Thermal]

Do you have data about assaults on males with transgender identities in male bathrooms?

Didn't claim there was any. Didn't even mention it. Lying about my position again? Your team claims to not only have it, but to have presented it repeatedly. In between lying about my postings, could you point vaguely to where I might find it, so I can yet again demonstrate that you didnt understand the question??

 

[Pixel42]

Well, compared to the norm on this forum, we're all conservative,

For the record, I'm a lifelong socialist.

 

[Thermal]

It may be your ideal, but it's not mine.

Which is all I claimed.

My ideal is that social pressure backed by legal enforcement when necessary prevents that guy from entering in the first place, because males aren't allowed in female spaces.

Which is pretty circular, leading right back to your starting assumption and forgone conclusion.

You do realize that theprestige's first and preferred option was to tell the person to leave and have them leave, right? It's only if that doesn't work that law enforcement gets called in.

Yes. He wants to have power over people he doesn’t like, and have police do his dirty work as needed.

Alternatively, we could let the occupants decide what they are ok with, rather than having the proprietor dictate what he sees as what other people should be ok with.

Again, I'm not lobbying for open access to the girls showers. I'm lobbying for a policy that serves everyone's interests, if not ideally than at least tolerably.

And I much prefer law enforcement to handle that escalated situation, rather than have to resort to violence myself. I want the state to have a monopoly on the use of violence.

*Penny and Rittenhouse gaze pleadingly at Ziggurat*

That is a VERY traditional conservative position

To one brand, I guess. The kind I grew up with fairly shouted "keep government out of our lives as much as possible".

and I'm still baffled that this confused you.

Seriously? We're doing "you are confused" again?

What you're advocating isn't a conservative position at all, it's more like an anarchist position.

They have their points. But self policing in trivial matters is hardly Madame Guillotine being rolled out.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Yeah, that's what I keep hearing. I just keep not seeing it.

One of the first things I asked when joining this discussion over a year ago was if there was any data about assaults on women in bathrooms, before or after open gender policies, or preferably both. You, personally, and a half dozen others chided me that it had been presented, and the burden was in me to catch up. After many requests (search was down and the thread was tens of thousands of posts long), you all said it was five pages back. I checked it, and the data had nothing whatsoever to do with restroom assaults.

That's been my experience with you guys. Lots of claims of what you have presented, and every word of it is pure bull ◊◊◊◊.

Logically, the burden would be on those advocating for inclusion of a sub-group of males into female spaces to show this group to be no more dangerous to females than other females. The evidence is not trending that way.

 

[Thermal]

Logically, the burden would be on those advocating for inclusion of a sub-group of males into female spaces to show this group to be no more dangerous to females than other females. The evidence is not trending that way.

Logically, in the States they are not lobbying for introducing inclusion of any group into any other. The advocates are lobbying for discrimination against them to formally end, and allow them access to where they should have been (and were) allowed in the first place.

I kinda disagree with that, and think they are in fact carving out a formal new niche where there was only an informal one before, but it seems they stick to their guns on this, maybe in anticipation of just such a new inclusion being perceived

 

[Louden Wilde]

I'd like to recall attention to the essay that d4m10n posted around the holidays. It is long - with many links/references/receipts. Read at once, I think it does good job of illustrating the oversteps of the movement and why it is unfeasible to return to the former status quo - I wish it could be pinned for lurkers/those who have only a passing familiarity with the issues. An excerpt from the issue that got me to a deep dive - the mis-truths about sex and re-framing of sexuality to be about gender:

Standing in the way of the maximally inclusive liberation of transness was the age-old bugbear of leftists everywhere: human nature — in this case, human biology. So naturally, biological sex had to go. Under pressure from activists, universities, magazines, newspapers, activist groups, online encyclopedias, dictionaries, and popular health resources began quietly removing “sex” from their definitions of sexual orientation in favor of gender identity-based definitions. To be heterosexual or homosexual no longer meant opposite- or same-sex attracted, but opposite- or same-gender attracted. At first glance, this may not seem like a big deal, however to redefine sexual orientation in this way is to obliterate it.

Within the framework of gender identity-based “sexual orientation”, it becomes effectively impossible to be straight or gay without overriding one’s own ingrained anatomical sexual preferences — in other words, their sexual orientation. After all, if you’re only attracted, not to one sex, but to one gender identity, and anyone of any sex can identify into that gender, then what place is there for being sexually attracted only to certain anatomies?

Indeed, no sooner was sexuality de-sexed than activists, radicals, and fellow travelers began telling lesbians not attracted to the penises of trans women that they were “transphobic perverts.” As one lesbian woman told the BBC in 2021, “I’ve had someone saying they would rather kill me than Hitler [...]

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is pretty circular, leading right back to your starting assumption and forgone conclusion.

It's not circular, because it doesn't lead back to that. It's a one-way street. My desired outcome flows from my starting premises about what's good and what's bad. That's true for everyone, including you. You haven't done anything beyond saying that what I want is based on what I think is good. Which, no ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock.

Yes. He wants to have power over people he doesn’t like, and have police do his dirty work as needed.

That's a funny way of saying he wants people (not just himself) to have property rights.

Alternatively, we could let the occupants decide what they are ok with, rather than having the proprietor dictate what he sees as what other people should be ok with.

That's stupid, and a recipe for conflict. If it's just up to the occupants, then you're never going to know beforehand whether there's going to be a problem, even if you want to avoid one. Females won't know if they're going to walk in and encounter a male (you criticized Trish for complaining because she should have known it was possible). Males entering nominally female spaces won't know if they're going to walk in and encounter females who object to their presence or females who accept their presence. The absence of a clear policy from the property owner basically guarantees MORE conflict, not less, because it becomes harder to avoid conflict when there isn't even a set of rules for people to follow when they want to.

And why shouldn't the property owner get to decide? Why are their desires irrelevant?

*Penny and Rittenhouse gaze pleadingly at Ziggurat*

Really? That's what you're going with?

The concept of government having a monopoly on violence does not automatically preclude self defense. That's just stupid. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you.

They have their points. But self policing in trivial matters is hardly Madame Guillotine being rolled out.

I don't think this is a trivial matter. A lot of women don't think this is a trivial matter. And having police trespass people from where they don't belong when they refuse to leave is hardly Madame Guillotine being rolled out either.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Logically, in the States they are not lobbying for introducing inclusion of any group into any other. The advocates are lobbying for discrimination against them to formally end, and allow them access to where they should have been (and were) allowed in the first place.

I kinda disagree with that, and think they are in fact carving out a formal new niche where there was only an informal one before, but it seems they stick to their guns on this, maybe in anticipation of just such a new inclusion being perceived

I disagree with the first two sentences. Yes, that's the way activists frame it, but not being allowed into spaces /activities designated for females is not discrimination.
Yes - the earlier status quo (letting some "passing" males in in female spaces) was informal - that is to say, tolerated in some cases. But I think - as Pixel, EC (and women I know have said) - this was viewed as a privilege, not a right.

But again, if you want to make a case for letting this subgroup of males into female spaces - and you care about female safety - then the logic is to show that they do not pose any greater threat or induce any more discomfort than other females. I think we all know that's not going to happen. What we'll see are further incidents and more anti-trans sentiment - which can only be detrimental to trans people.

The tide was already turning by the end of the Biden admin - I suspect a good chunk of what's propping the movement up now is (understandable) animus towards the Trump admin and activists relative success in framing all the issues surrounding trans policy as left (good) vs right (evil).

 

[Emily's Cat]

For the record, I'm a lifelong socialist.

How our various actual positions get interpreted by others is kind of all over the place.

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree as it's a lot easier to justify/argue about being a member of a label that is vaguely defined, versus being a member of a label that is clearly defined. You are wrong.

Nope, YOU are wrong.

You may be marginally right about justification/argument for one side - the side that wants to keep men out of women's spaces, but it won't make any difference to the side that wants to give transgender identified males free reign to invade women's only spaces. You could have a sign that says "Biological Females Only" with a Ghostbusters syle sign showing "No Penises" and they will go in anyway. If you try to tell them no, or point out the sign, they will tell you to ◊◊◊◊-off just the same.

Changing signs from "women" to "biological females" would be a hugely expensive non-solution!