• 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.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
Aftonbladet is reporting about the man in custody, but say he is registered as a male, not trans.
www.aftonbladet.se

Vilma Andersson häktas misstänkt för styckmordet i Rönninge

Vilma Andersson, 26 häktas på sannolika skäl misstänkt för mordet i Salem under julhelgen. Tingsrätten beslutade även att inhämta en rättspsykiatrisk undersökn
www.aftonbladet.se www.aftonbladet.se
Click to expand...
Ahh... so you're pivoting from "this is fake it's not happening" to "it happened, but it's not really trans"
 
p0lka said:
Sorry, I haven't kept up with this thread for a while as it's very long, but what's the crack with transmen? They should use female private spaces yeah? Is that the current thing?
Click to expand...
Happy to be inconsistent on this. Females with transgender identities can use whatever spaces they want. They *are* female, so they shouldn't be barred from female spaces. They're no threat to males. If males object to having females in their intimate spaces, the males should win that argument.

But if you think that somehow saying "oh look, there are some females who try to pass as males" is some kind of gotcha, you're going to be out of luck.

If a hen wants to toss a fox-tail around their neck and go hang out in the den, well, the hen has put themself and only themself at risk by doing so - the hen is not a threat to the foxes. On the other hand, if a fox shoves feathers up their butt and tromps into the coop, that fox puts ALL OF THE HENS at risk.
 
Thermal said:
Since he is registered as a male in the reporting that was initially being dug up, it's fair to say he was not trans. There are a variety of reports now, all varying a little, although Google translate cannot be relied upon to get things clear.
Click to expand...
Grant Freeman is also registered as a male, so I suppose you think it's fair to say the "Alexis Black" is not trans, and you can now revise your prior position and acknowledge that Tish Hyman was confronted by a regular every day male in the showers at the gym, and therefore Tish's reaction was appropriate and within reason?

Or is it only "not real trans" when it suits you to take that tack and when "it's fake" fails?
 
Thermal said:
{Eta: ATTN POSTER ROLFE: this is an edit to the current post: please acknowledge this transmission:

Are you new here?

/ frantic edit}

Oh Jesus christ. I did not 'clearly know' that you ignore pings that you yourself use and are intended to call your attention till you told me later. Even though that is the lamest excuse in the world, I've accepted it. Yet here you are still pretending it was a vast conspiracy on my part. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud. You knew that my post (about your not understanding what the word "correlated" means) was made before you edited your post. You were aware that was an entirely appropriate response to your original tweet. Nevertheless you chose to castigate me for posting something that did not address the content of your edit. Pings are completely irrelevant to this level of dishonesty.

Thermal said:
Assuming a feminine name or attire does not make someone trans. Saying they are trans does. Surely you have caught up that far in this thread?
Click to expand...

I can't even.

Thermal said:
No, you're not, nor are you bring asked to. You're being asked to be reasonable. Your tweetys, with many already shown to be pure bull ◊◊◊◊, do not stand on their own say-so.
Click to expand...

Nothing has been shown to be "pure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊". You merely assert that things that run counter to your preferred narrative of the nice, harmless, sad trans-identifying man are not true. Like you did here.

Thermal said:
Your current claim is that you diligently fact checked an unsourced tweet, then intentionally decided not to cite that source. Then you want to go on for multiple posts bitching and meaning about it. Fine. Getting back to the original tweet then: what was your point, if not "lookit the violent perv! This is how they are!"
Click to expand...

It didn't take much fact-checking. Oh forgive me, if only I'd realised you really really wanted an article in Swedish, so you could then claim everything was still "completely unsourced" because you don't trust Google translate, I'd have posted all six of them.
 
Thermal said:
Well ya, of maybe the version that actually happened is more accurate?

"Story unsourced. With cross language difficulties, sourcing is at least largely established, and the poor translations are in some level of conflict. But story appears to be at least largely reported consistent with original unsourced tweety."
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? Because we can all see your posts, Thermal, and we can all see that what you actually wrote is miles and miles removed from your "having trouble finding it, but it appears to be consistent" reframing here.

Like, you literally started off accusing it of being fabricated bigotry out of the gate. That was your immediate reaction. You just straight up assumed it was completely made up. And when you were shown that it was NOT made up... you fell back to "oh they're not really trans" as if that somehow makes it all better. You did EXACTLY what Myriad illustrated. Except the last step, I suppose. We'll see how long it takes before you get to "Okay, they're trans but that doesn't matter you're just a bigot anyway".
 
Rolfe said:
These stats have been replicated over multiple jurisdictions. You simply dismiss them with vacuous assertions like "maybe trans-identifying men are really poor and disadvantaged, and that drives them to commit sex offences at four times the rate of other men," or "maybe trans-identifying men just get caught more often than other men."

Sure.

Meanwhile you seem content to rest on your manufactured doubt to continue to advocate for men to be legally permitted to access women's single-sex spaces. When in fact the point would still stand even if the rate of sex offending among trans-identified men was no greater than the rate among other men. Would you care to consider that aspect?
Click to expand...
Oh no, Rolfe, don't get it wrong. Thermal DOESN'T want males to have legal access to female single-sex spaces, Thermal has said that multiple times, don't misrepresent their views!

It's just that Thermal's reasons for opposing males in female spaces is a *good* reason, and all of our reasons are *bad* reasons. We're just "tranny bashing bigots" who apparently just hate males with transgender identities for no rational reason whatsoever, so much so that apparently we make up fake news reports in other countries over and over and over again. Clearly it's hysterical overreacting for us to want to bar all males from our spaces because we recognize that some males (including some males with transgender identities) are actually perverts and sexual predators. And we can't have that, it might hurt the feelings of the one very nice male with a transgender identity that Thermal personally knows.
 
Emily's Cat said:
We'll see how long it takes before you get to "Okay, they're trans but that doesn't matter you're just a bigot anyway".
Click to expand...

I think he already got there.

Thermal said:
Getting back to the original tweet then: what was your point, if not "lookit the violent perv! This is how they are!"
Click to expand...

To be fair, that was more or less my point. Look, another sex offender turned murderer turns out to be trans-identifying. Just like Andrew Millar here, and a whole host of others. How long before even Thermal has to recognise that there's something of a pattern here. (Don't answer that, we know, the tenth of never.)
 
I think we did that one earlier. It's over two and a half years old, so there will be many more that could be added.

Thermal found two or three examples that he didn't think perfectly fitted his notion of cases that should be included in such a list, and denounced the entire thing as propaganda.

Alternatively, so few examples from the entirety of time and space mean nothing. Clearly trans-identifying men are angels if that's all you can find.
 
Rolfe said:
I think he already got there.



To be fair, that was more or less my point. Look, another sex offender turned murderer turns out to be trans-identifying. Just like Andrew Millar here, and a whole host of others. How long before even Thermal has to recognise that there's something of a pattern here. (Don't answer that, we know, the tenth of never.)
Click to expand...
You're right, I missed that last step in Myriad's chain. It's a hat trick!
 
Actually, I think it was just a tweet with the names. If I recall correctly the tweeter had said they were all attacks in single-sex spaces, which was of course incorrect. Only some were in single-sex spaces. Thermal googled one or two, discovered that the attacks had taken place elsewhere, and triumphantly announced that there was therefore no argument for prohibiting such monsters from using women's facilities.
 
Thermal said:
Absolutely. On this english speaking forum, posters are expected to chase down and verify others claims in a foreign language while you sit on your thumbs. That is totally the expectation here .
Click to expand...
1. This forum is called the INTERNATIONAL SKEPTICS FORUM, not the NOTHING IS RELEVANT IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN AMERICA forum

2. It is a fact that sometimes a story is only ever reported in the the media and the language of the country in which it happened, and is often not reported at all in other countries. If you weren't so much of a navel-gazing America-centric in your thinking, you might realize there is an actual world beyond the borders of New York and New Jersey where stuff happens.

3. If you don't like having media links to articles in foreign languages for things that happen in foreign countries, well that's just tough - like it or lump it, but you WON'T get away with dismissing them just because their are not in English and you have to do some work translating them.

Thermal said:
Facetious comment was obvious, to everyone but you I suppose.
Click to expand...
You suppose wrong dude! You keep changing and flipping your position so bloody often it has really become literally impossible to tell what your position is from one post to the next, and it is also ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difficult to parse when and if you are being facetious or serious... for the record, I didn't think you were being facetious either.

The fact that EVERYONE in this thread has diffculty in coming to terms with your ever-changing position means that is a YOU problem not an US problem.... when a teacher can't make his class understand a simple concept, that does not mean the class is full of dummies, it means the teacher is crap at their job!!

Thermal said:
Like many, I can kinda sorta get the gist of a lot of it, but not enough for a critical reading. And you are still bobbing and weaving around the basic burden, which was yours from the start, since the tweety was factually unsourced and as such, immediately questionable.
Click to expand...
I don't consider social media posts containing detail to be questionable (especially if the poster has a history of reliable posting) unless I can prove there is no legit source. That takes some work on the part of the reader
 
[Some cross-posting. This was a reply to @smartcooky #14835.]

It was pretty obvious it was factual because several Swedish accounts were talking about it independently. I just asked Grok to source mainstream media articles about the case and it provided more than half a dozen from three different outlets.

I checked them all. The first was a broken link which made me wonder, but several of the others were paydirt. Grok apologised for the broken link, speculating that the page had been taken down (I speculate because it named the victim) and provided another link to the same outlet with the same story.

When I googled the victim's name, the pages listed didn't actually name her. I think a legal bar on naming her has been issued, and articles have had to be amended or deleted.

The criminal record and transgender status of the suspect (who has DNA evidence against him) was discussed in detail in two or three of the articles.

I have to admit that as well as thinking that links to Swedish-language articles weren't necessary, a wicked part of me wondered if Thermal was going to declare, yet again, that the story was a fabrication. He didn't disappoint. He seldom does.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
If a hen wants to toss a fox-tail around their neck and go hang out in the den, well, the hen has put themself and only themself at risk by doing so - the hen is not a threat to the foxes. On the other hand, if a fox shoves feathers up their butt and tromps into the coop, that fox puts ALL OF THE HENS at risk.
Click to expand...
Python02.gif


That has to be the funniest analogy for a serious issue that I have seen in long time!!
 
Maybe I should deal with the trans-identifying woman situation factually.

Men also desire privacy from the female gaze when performing intimate tasks. They feel embarrassment and discomfort when a woman walks in on them while they're changing, or urinating. They deserve to be respected in this.

Most trans-identifying women read female, whether they like it or not. They will not be unwelcome in the women's facilities and they should stay out of the men's.

The Supreme Court ruled that trans-identifying women who are highly masculinised may be excluded from the women's facilities if their presence is likely to alarm other women. The solution was that another facility should be provided - either a single-occupancy unisex facility or they can use the disabled toilet.

Obviously the Supreme Court couldn't say this, but in the real world such women will probably just use the men's and nobody will notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom