• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems rather disingenuous to point at "But the medical journals say this!" now when the same trans people would have been sanctioned under those same medical journals as delusional within the lifetimes of most everyone involved in this thread.

We should be able to talk about whether something is simply correct or not in our own words.
 
Yeah, yeah, let’s make this thread about the three nastiest trans people on the internet, that’ll help. Proving that the three nastiest trans people on the internet are nastier than the three nastiest natal women on the internet will surely convince the fence sitters that self ID means the ladies’ trash bins will never be safe again.
 
*Shrugs* If we were talking about putting cis-men in the rest rooms you can be sure all we'd be hearing about where the rapists and murders.

Again either we pay for the sins of or demographic or we don't.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't know about that. I keep bringing up those girls from Palatine, the ones who didn't want the transgirl to see them naked. That was the case where the judge ruled that they had no right to visual bodily privacy.

They seemed like real people, and they seemed to have a real concern, and they weren't talking about some hypothetical future, and there was no slippery slope involved. It all seemed very much real, here, and now.
Click to expand...

I support the trans girl in this case who was being discriminated against and excluded by the other girls. I fully agree with the outcome.
 
Boudicca90 said:
I support the trans girl in this case who was being discriminated against and excluded by the other girls. I fully agree with the outcome.
Click to expand...
We get that but how is it that you can say the other girls have no concerns worth talking about? Why not say everyone in the room has feelings which ought to be taken into account?
 
Boudicca90 said:
I support the trans girl in this case who was being discriminated against and excluded by the other girls. I fully agree with the outcome.
Click to expand...

So...the trans girl has the right to be around the sex of others she prefers, but the other girls literally do not have that same right?

Oh yeah. Clear now.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The unstated argument here is that transwomen should be thrown into men's prison, which by all characterization by those attempting to deny trans people their rights, is practically sentencing them to serial rape at the hands of men overseen by indifferent authority figures.
Click to expand...

And the stated argument, at least by anyone I've seen posting here about it, is that transwomen should have their own wing. It's always better to go with stated arguments rather than filling a strawman with your own imagined unstated arguments.
 
Boudicca90 said:
I support the trans girl in this case who was being discriminated against and excluded by the other girls. I fully agree with the outcome.
Click to expand...

I get that.

I was pointing out that you said there were "no real concerns", and that it was all what ifs and slippery slopes.

No, it isn't. It's real people right now. You don't care about their concerns? I get that, too.
 
d4m10n said:
We get that but how is it that you can say the other girls have no concerns worth talking about? Why not say everyone in the room has feelings which ought to be taken into account?
Click to expand...

Because the other girls' concerns were prejudicial and discriminatory in origin. First they wanted to exclude her entirely, then they wanted an unfair burden placed on her and her alone. It would be the same if they wanted to exclude another girl for her race or ethnicity, their concerns wouldn't be taken into account in that situation either.

Feeling uncomfortable is not an excuse for discrimination. And it looks like any girls who have an issue with privacy have the option to request it, so their 'concerns' have been addressed as well.
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
Because the other girls' concerns were prejudicial and discriminatory in origin. First they wanted to exclude her entirely, then they wanted an unfair burden placed on her and her alone. It would be the same if they wanted to exclude another girl for her race or ethnicity, their concerns wouldn't be taken into account in that situation either.
Click to expand...

Race and ethnicity are not the same as sex and gender. Most significantly, the male-female divide is real and meaningful, but the black-white divide is not.

Also, the girls' concerns were no more prejudicial and discriminatory than your own concerns about harassment in male locker rooms.
 
Boudicca90 said:
Ermahgerd, the sky is falling!

Once again, these paranoid and delusional fantasies of a dystopian future for cisgender women are completely unfounded.

I can imagine a TERF writer coming up with a sci-fi story with that premise, however. Unfortunately for her, she would get swiftly cancelled. Oh well.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Paranoid and delusional fantasies, eh?

females don't have the right to prevent males from looking at them when they're naked
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/SPP_OrderMotiontoDismiss.pdf
Judge Alonso concludes that young girls have no right to visual privacy - they have no right to prevent males from looking at them naked without their consent. That is pretty much equivalent to legalizing peeing toms and voyeurism.

nor will females have any right to object if a male exposes their penis to a female
The law came down on the side of Colleen Brenna, and sided with that person's right to have her penis viewable by minor females in the changing room, regardless of whether those girls wanted to see it. Pretty much legalizing flashing and exhibitionism.

Females will certainly not have a right to compete in sports fairly.
Well, Biden just took care of that, didn't he?

they won't have the right to fair representation in politics or to fully participate in the economy on equal footing.
NY has a completely untransitioned transwoman as the "female" representative, supposedly to uphold the needs and interests of female constituents. A few female seats in the UK have been taken by transwomen, which reduces the representation of females in politics. A transwoman was named the most successful female CEO. Eddie Izzard was named the funniest female comedian.

They won't even have the right to be reasonably protected from sexual assault in prison, because the won't have the right to expect that penises won't be present.
California has led the way with that one, allowing transwomen to be placed in female prisons on the basis of their self-identification. Canada has done the same, and also the UK. There've already been several cases of female prisoners' being raped by testicle-having prostate bearer's penises as a result.

So... tell me again how my view of things that have already happened and are continuing to happen are "paranoid and delusional"? :rolleyes:
 
d4m10n said:
Suppose these girls want to keep their cisgender male classmates out of the same room, for the same reasons. Should that also be termed prejudicial?
Click to expand...

This kind of argument has been used many times before in this thread and no, it wouldn't be. I have never argued for males (either cisgender or transgender) to be given access to the same facilities as females, only that transgender females aren't excluded by cisgender females.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom