Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[d4m10n]

I dunno. Miles has apparently filed two other lawsuits. There's a decent chance we're talking about a grifter here.

Maybe, maybe not.

Is there some reliable method to separate litigious but fake trans women from the genuine article who are just striving for trans rights?

Sent from my Grotti Brioso using Tapatalk

 

[mumblethrax]

And my reply was meant to be to this. Offences by transwomen are being reported as offences by women.

Then they should really stick out like a sore thumb.

Do they?

 

[mumblethrax]

Maybe, maybe not.

Is there some way to reliable method to separate litigious but fake trans women from the genuine article who are just striving for trans rights?

I'd say so. The yoga studio in question apparently does accommodate trans women, but specifically and explicitly denied acccess to Miles, so they presumably had some reason to suspect something was up.

 

[d4m10n]

I'd say so. The yoga studio in question apparently does accommodate trans women, but specifically and explicitly denied acccess to Miles, so they presumably had some reason to suspect something was up.

From what I've seen they only accommodate post-op, which makes for an easy bright line test. That said, the question is what they should be legally required to accommodate under NYC or NY state law.

Sent from my HVY Nightshark using Tapatalk

 

[lionking]

Then they should really stick out like a sore thumb.

Do they?

Nobody ******* knows. How can anybody knows when there is no seperate listing of offences by transwomen?

 

[TomB]

I don't think they have. The mechanisms have been described, but not demonstrated. The outcomes aren't there at all.

If this was really a huge vulnerability that will definitely be exploited by predators, why wouldn't we see that in the assault rates? Far from being able to show that such policies cause increases in assault rates, people struggle to come up with examples of this happening at all.

I really don't see this as being a successful strategy for predators. Hiding in a bathroom when people aren't around seems like it would draw way less attention.

Instead of predators, think voyeurs.

 

[mumblethrax]

Nobody ******* knows. How can anybody knows when there is no seperate listing of offences by transwomen?

Because there would presumably be a spike in assaults committed by women after a change in law if this is the case.

 

[lionking]

Because there would presumably be a spike in assaults committed by women after a change in law if this is the case.

That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

You have taken on the mantle of the rational voice in this thread, yet have been merely rehashing thought bubbles which have been demolished long ago in earlier parts of this thread. But keep it up. It’s rather amusing.

 

[mumblethrax]

That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Not really. If there's a huge vulnerability here that will definitely be exploited, and sexual offenses by trans women are being counted as sexual offense by women, that should be visible in the crime rates after a change from less permissive to more permissive policies (or vice versa). Is it?

You have taken on the mantle of the rational voice in this thread

I don't think I'm the only one trying to be rational, but this isn't a difficult task, given that many in this thread seem to prefer theatrics to rationality.

 

[Samson]

Not really. If there's a huge vulnerability here that will definitely be exploited, and sexual offenses by trans women are being counted as sexual offense by women, that should be visible in the crime rates after a change from less permissive to more permissive policies (or vice versa). Is it?


I don't think I'm the only one trying to be rational, but this isn't a difficult task, given that many in this thread seem to prefer theatrics to rationality.

Many see a slippery slope.

 

[lionking]

Not really. If there's a huge vulnerability here that will definitely be exploited, and sexual offenses by trans women are being counted as sexual offense by women, that should be visible in the crime rates after a change from less permissive to more permissive policies (or vice versa). Is it?
.

Let’s just add crime statistics to the things you know little about. An increase in crime rates of any type has far more than one cause.

 

[Aber]

Not really. If there's a huge vulnerability here that will definitely be exploited, and sexual offenses by trans women are being counted as sexual offense by women, that should be visible in the crime rates after a change from less permissive to more permissive policies (or vice versa).

And in incarceration rates.

This means that the proportion of male-born transwomen in the prison system who are sex offenders is between 60 per cent and 61.3 per cent. That is significantly higher than the roughly 18 per cent of the general population of the male estate who are jailed for sexual offences

 

[Cain]

Instead of predators, think voyeurs.

I think it was a previous incarnation of this thread where I read that the two most common sex crimes against women are exposure and voyeurism. So why are most of you arguing over self-ID vis-a-vis restrooms? Users are generally protected by stalls, especially in women's restrooms. A far stronger argument could be made for changing rooms, saunas, and spas, which have not been discussed nearly as much despite the fact seeing and revealing naked bodies is almost inevitable. Public restrooms are also going to be a lot more difficult to regulate.

And in incarceration rates.

Your quote comes from an article in The Spectator, where the author goes on to ask, "Do these figures suggest that men who commit sexual offences are more likely than others to claim to be transgender? I think that possibility should be given more attention, not least by trans-rights advocates."

It bothers me that trans-rights activists do not want to do more to close, or even address, the self-ID loophole. I've heard that Native Americans in the past were happy and proud for just about anyone to claim they're part indigenous. I know first-generation immigrants who have been surprisingly proud that some celebrity has a grandparent from the homeland. If I recall correctly, there was a Harvard Law Professor who was part-Cherokee. Natives started to shift away from unexamined acceptance when sweet casino cash was at stake (or hiring preferences at universities).

I wish an eccentric multi-billionaire donated a generous lump sum to be split among the low-income trans population. I'd hope trans-rights advocates would be concerned about scammers stealing money from vulnerable people.

 

[Lplus]

I think it was a previous incarnation of this thread where I read that the two most common sex crimes against women are exposure and voyeurism. So why are most of you arguing over self-ID vis-a-vis restrooms? Users are generally protected by stalls, especially in women's restrooms. A far stronger argument could be made for changing rooms, saunas, and spas, which have not been discussed nearly as much despite the fact seeing and revealing naked bodies is almost inevitable. Public restrooms are also going to be a lot more difficult to regulate.

They haven't been forgotten at all on this thread, they just get lumped in with restrooms as "private spaces"

Your quote comes from an article in The Spectator, where the author goes on to ask, "Do these figures suggest that men who commit sexual offences are more likely than others to claim to be transgender? I think that possibility should be given more attention, not least by trans-rights advocates."

It bothers me that trans-rights activists do not want to do more to close, or even address, the self-ID loophole. I've heard that Native Americans in the past were happy and proud for just about anyone to claim they're part indigenous. I know first-generation immigrants who have been surprisingly proud that some celebrity has a grandparent from the homeland. If I recall correctly, there was a Harvard Law Professor who was part-Cherokee. Natives started to shift away from unexamined acceptance when sweet casino cash was at stake (or hiring preferences at universities).

It bothers almost all on this thread, but it doesn't surprise us.

I wish an eccentric multi-billionaire donated a generous lump sum to be split among the low-income trans population. I'd hope trans-rights advocates would be concerned about scammers stealing money from vulnerable people.

The perfect "litmus test"

 

[Paul2]

Given that the law can treat men as women and vice versa, I would say no.

My point here is only about necessity (whereas you say the law *can*). The law doesn't have to treat biological males and females in a way that has to do with gender. For instance, it can say that biological women are the only ones allowed in certain facilities, and biological men in different facilities. Nothing about gender as a social construction need be included. ETA: So that would be a sex norm, not a gender norm.

 

[d4m10n]

The law doesn't have to treat biological males and females in a way that has to do with gender. For instance, it can say that biological women are the only ones allowed in certain facilities, and biological men in different facilities.

Society telling males to behave in one way (this facility) and females to behave in another way (that facility) *is* gender^WP, though, at least in the wiki sense of the term. One of the hardest parts of this discussion is that "gender" has at least three or four distinct meanings and it's pretty easy to slip between them without noticing.

 

[Brainster]

Former first trangender state representative in New Hampshire is busted for distributing child pornography. But I'm actually more interested in how this clown got elected. Get this background:

2008: Convicted of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud, a felony.
2012: Elected to New Hampshire legislature, but resigned before taking office when the felony conviction was reported.
Sometime around 2015: Sentenced to a six-month suspended sentence after reporting a bomb threat at a local hospital.
2020: Elected again to the New Hampshire state legislature.
2021: Arrested for sending false emergency texts to NH's E-911 center.
2022: Resigns from legislature after being arrested and accused of stalking and harassment.

I mean, seriously, how can you explain "her" election in 2020? Yes, it was probably a safe Democratic seat, but that begs the question, didn't the Democrats have anybody else they could run? Or was she the obvious candidate because of her position on the liberal stack?

 

[Paul2]

Society telling males to behave in one way (this facility) and females to behave in another way (that facility) *is* gender^WP, though, at least in the wiki sense of the term. One of the hardest parts of this discussion is that "gender" has at least three or four distinct meanings and it's pretty easy to slip between them without noticing.

Given that the law can treat men as women and vice versa, I would say no.

I went threw about 2 dozen previous posts between Mumble and I to try to disentangle this issue, and there's too much there for the time I have, so I'm going to try this:

Mumble, when EC said

This is muddling of meanings for "gender" versus "sex".

In legal parlance, "gender" is used as a euphemism for sex. It has never been intended to represent either 1) a person's internal feeling about themself or 2) the set of roles and behaviors that they're expected to perform in society. Neither of the recent meanings of the term "gender" is applicable to how the term has been used judicially and legally in the past. . . .

and you replied,

Sex is a matter biological. Gender is all of the social, cultural, psychological attachments to sex.

Which side of that razor do you think "the law" falls on?
[snip]

(which is the comment by you that started my conversation with you), what is the final significance of your point about where the razor makes law fall, in relation to what EC said? If we accept that the razor puts the law on the side of gender, what does that ultimately lead to?

 

[d4m10n]

Sorting people by sex is a social layer put upon one's sex, and is thus doing "gender" in the wiki sense.

Sorting people by gender identity isn't one of the "social, cultural, [or] psychological attachments to sex," unless you affirm (as the ACLU does) that gender identity *is* the prime determinant of sex.

There is much potential for a viciously circular definition here, since gender is defined using the concept of sex but also sex is being redefined based on gender identity.

I think it is easier just to say what you think the sorting mechanism should be while avoiding these loaded terms.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sex segregation does not equal discrimination. Such abuse of the term does great disservice to the long battle against real discrimination suffered by women and racial minorities.

Of course it's discrimination. What do you think discrimination means? It means making distinctions and treating people differently based on those distinctions. All forms of segregation are discrimination. Not all forms of discrimination are wrong or unjustified. Some are so obvious we don't even think about them as discrimination, but they still are. We don't give drivers' licenses to blind people, for example. That's discrimination: we treat blind people differently than we treat people who can see. It's totally justified, but it's still discrimination.