• 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

I should probably put in a rider to that. It can't apply in employment situations where the employer and probably the staff know that this masculine-looking person is actually a woman. The women have the right to object to her presence in the women's facilities because she reads masculine, but she can't legally be permitted to use the men's facilities. Going "stealth" is not an option (as it would be in a public facility where she wasn't known) because everybody knows.

This is where it's particularly important to provide a single-occupancy lockable space she can use. It can be the "accessible" toilet. This definitely needs to be provided, and she definitely needs to use it and shut up about "discrimination".
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
I, for one, agree. I think it's also worth emphasizing the extreme discomfort boys and young men might feel in those circumstances, when their social skills are developing, they have little experience of life, and may be approaching or going through puberty.
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I acknowledge that the Supreme Court's clarification of the law has put some 'trans' people in a tricky situation, and culpability for that lies squarely with those who have been lying about it for years. I strongly advise men to welcome (perhaps just ignore) TIMs in their (correct) spaces too, although, men being men, there will probably be more bother there than for TIFs in the women's. I am more than just sympathetic to trans-identifying people, I am deeply saddened by what they've been led to believe and the consequences it's had on their lives.

I have to say, it's gratifying to see this conversation much more balanced here than the last time I tried discussing the issues on a forum. That will partly be because the conversation has moved on generally in the last year, but checking back there (Talk Ratshit) I see it's much the same. I was called a Nazi (and also apparently Maoist) immediately over there, and told to go away and die. Nice bunch.
 
There are disadvantages to such spaces, and the idea that every venue can just convert all their toilet provision to single-occupancy enclosed rooms is crazy for a number of reasons. It should be resisted on the grounds that men plant cameras in shared accommodation and harvest footage of the women who come later, that in some places the layout will allow the opportunity for a man to force a woman into the enclosed space and lock her in there with him, and that it removes from women the mutual support system that exists everywhere there is a women's toilet with a communal washing area. And probably more, like cost and space and so on, and that men often leave these facilities in a disgusting state.

Nevertheless, having one or two such facilities in addition to the normal single-sex facilities with cubicles and a communal washing area is a very good thing. People who feel discomfort using the correct facility for their sex should be directed there, and not allowed to over-ride the modesty of everyone else (and the law) just because they cry about it. It may be entirely reasonable to use the disabled loo for this purpose.

However, in a small venue it's a perfectly reasonable solution just to have one (or maybe two) single-occupancy rooms. It's clear reading the original legislation that this was the situation envisaged, and nobody even imagined these rooms being installed in serried ranks instead of the traditional arrangement.
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, none were found, but I admittedly didn't try to track down 200 some uncited/sourced names, as hundreds of unrelated people came up on search results.
Rolfe said:
Thermal googled one or two,
Click to expand...
Bull ◊◊◊◊. I hit over a dozen.
Rolfe said:
discovered that the attacks had taken place elsewhere,
Click to expand...
More often, i found no attacks had occured at all. The couple that had an assault associated with someone bybthat name were not trans, nor did they or anyone else claim they were.
Rolfe said:
and triumphantly announced that there was therefore no argument for prohibiting such monsters from using women's facilities.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. I merely observed it was another unsourced and unciited claim that failed a cursory fact check.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Do you comprehend that every time you respond to an actual documented case of a male with a transgender identity being a predator and harming females and children by decrying it as "fabricated" and "contemptible", you come across as if you do not care about women and children at all, and that you value the feelings of males to do whatever the ◊◊◊◊ they want more than you do the safety of females?
Click to expand...
That's your flawed and mind-reading bad interpretation. What I am arguing, clearly and consistently, I'd that the use of cheap fig leaf claims is beneath us on a skeptics forum. Can we not simply debate real things without pearl-clutching imaginary tales?
Emily's Cat said:
Seriously, Thermal. I've tried to have your back multiple times. I really have. But you seem to absolutely REFUSE to even admit that SOME males with transgender identities are actual predators and perverts.
Click to expand...
Untrue, and I don't know why you keep saying this. Of course there are. Boatloads of them, as there are with cis predators and perverts. You are flatly lying to say i denied this, evrn once. It never happened outside your evidently active imaginations.
Emily's Cat said:
And you have this remarkably offputting habit of dismissing every single case shown to you as being either fake or "not real trans". FFS, you decided without any evidence that Tish Hyman somehow orchestrated an interaction with a male-looking, male-bodied, male person in the female shower of the gym for the sole purpose of causing a stink! At no point did you even *pretend* to care about the situations that Hyman found themself in, being exposed to a male with a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ penis while Hyman was naked in the shower! All of your care and consideration when into defending Grant Freeman aka Alexis Black, even going so far as to try to hand-wave away their prior charges for domestic abuse,
Click to expand...
Bull ◊◊◊◊. Again, I'm arguing for truth over narrative, nothing more.
Emily's Cat said:
documented cases of breaking their spouse's jaw
Click to expand...
Great example! That is a bald faced lie. There is no such documentation. Half of us involved in that discussion googled the ◊◊◊◊ out of it trying to find something. There was nothing, except an alt-right tabliod's claim and others repeating it.
Emily's Cat said:
, and the sheer creepiness of taking their ex-spouse's name as their own when they decided to "transition". You went to great lengths to make sure we all knew that Merager hadn't done anything at all wrong, because it's LEGAL for a male to show their dick to a room full of non-consenting females and kids, merely because that male says the magic words that they "identify" as a "woman".
Click to expand...
Yes, I argued that if you intend to be naked among strangers, you might want to think about who those strangers might be. If you live in a state that allows transwomen in (and even all the way over on the other side of the country, it's common knowledge), you have no reason at all not to expect exactly that. I get that you guys like to conveniently abandon all your conservative principles ITT, but I don't. Individual responsibility is still high on my priority list.
 
Emily's Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not all males are an inherent threat. Same as not all females inherently want to steal your husband then ice pick you to death. Aren't you doing the misandry thing?
 
Rolfe said:
I should probably put in a rider to that. It can't apply in employment situations where the employer and probably the staff know that this masculine-looking person is actually a woman. The women have the right to object to her presence in the women's facilities because she reads masculine, but she can't legally be permitted to use the men's facilities. Going "stealth" is not an option (as it would be in a public facility where she wasn't known) because everybody knows.

This is where it's particularly important to provide a single-occupancy lockable space she can use. It can be the "accessible" toilet. This definitely needs to be provided, and she definitely needs to use it and shut up about "discrimination"
Click to expand...
Maybe instead of a single space for transpeople, make it like real spaces and have it separated between transmen and transwomen and let's see what happens?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
1. This forum is called the INTERNATIONAL SKEPTICS FORUM, not the NOTHING IS RELEVANT IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN AMERICA forum
Click to expand...
Weirdest non sequitur in a long time.
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Followed by another.
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is this asinine claim that you and others keep making? I have no objection to foreign language citations. I came right out and said that more than once. I object to *no* citations. Foreign language ones are weak, because translations are sometimes poor and nuances of the languages are easily lost. Hell, sometimes they don't make sense at all.
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I get you are doing the feigned befuddlement act too. It's getting old.
smartcooky said:
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!!
Click to expand...
Right. A self selected group in their private echo chamber thread couldnt possibly be feigning stupidity, thinking they can get away with it because they backslash each other. Ya got me there.
smartcooky said:
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
Click to expand...
Reposting someone elses tweety, no matter how much detail it has, is worthless if the source is not cited. The burden of proof is a one-way street, and doesn't get shifted to the reader out of a poster's laziness.
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I caught too late that it was a set-up, and you were posting in bad faith. You got me fair and square. And as I said earlier, you intend to use this as an excuse for never sourcing your tweetys in the future.

But you ultimately come clean (which I have to respect you for). Hey @Emily's Cat and the others who say "oh none of us EVER said that!":
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...
Rolfe said:
To be fair, that was more or less my point.
Click to expand...
The defense rests.
 
And didn't you just fall right into it, giving a perfect demonstration of your bias and prejudice.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, since the article linked is sourced, maybe you'd care to reprise your critique.
Click to expand...
Did you forget to read again? We were talking about the list you presented months ago. Not a citation in the whole thing, and it's author quickly deleted it. There was no article or link at all.

Maybe you'd care to revise your question to one that has meaning?
 
Thermal said:
Did you forget to read again? We were talking about the list you presented months ago. Not a citation in the whole thing, and it's author quickly deleted it. There was no article or link at all.

Maybe you'd care to revise your question to one that has meaning?
Click to expand...

Do keep up.

John Freestone said:
Here's a round-up of a few more not-really-trans offenders to not-really-look-at, @Thermal. Just a few (well, 236, to be correct, as of May 2022) ... It's in English.
This Never Happens
Click to expand...
 
Thermal said:
I did. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for posting in good faith, a mistake I will take care not to repeat.
Click to expand...

It's easy. Just ditch your bias and prejudice and look dispassionately at what has been presented to you. The "faith" of the person presenting it then becomes irrelevant.
 
Thermal said:
I did. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for posting in good faith, a mistake I will take care not to repeat.
Click to expand...

I was posting in good faith. I posted a link to a tweet detailing something that happened in Sweden, having had a quick check on the Swedish media to make sure it was as genuine as it appeared to be. I didn't post a link to the Swedish-language version, deeming it to be superfluous. I did post several of the links when you asked. But before you actually asked, you went off on one about how it was all a pack of lies made up out of thin air by "anti-trans bigots" who had carelessly used a journalist's surname when constructing their wholly fictitious trans perpetrator. Remember that part?
 
Thermal said:
I wasn't talking about his article. I was talking specifically about yours, and the mistruths you told about it.

What's that you were saying about keeping up?
Click to expand...

I think you're lying again. However, nice try to drag the thread back to something that happened months or years ago. Here you have been presented with a properly linked and sourced version of the same material, so how about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom