Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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?

Actually, I remember the truth. I questioned the validity of thr story, considering that it was united and didn't appear on a search, specifying the keywords I used. If you recall, around Halloween you presented a story that was fairly wildly embellished by one of your kindred spirits. You, not surprisingly, didn't have a bunch of links kept hidden for that one. You likely knew the story was not true when you posted it, since you claim to habitually do a rigorous fact check prior to posting.

You didn't respond to my repeated challenging of that embellished tweety, as you didn't respond to so many others that I've lost count. So yes, you posted in bad faith on this one. You knew your posts are not credible other face, and would be assumed to be more of the same bull ◊◊◊◊. You got me fair and square.

Oh, and you keep saying that I said they used the journalists name 'carelessly'. That's another Rolfe lie. I said maybe a coincidence, maybe not, and never once went any further than that.

 

[Thermal]

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?

Jesus christ, YOU WERE LITERALLY THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT BACK UP AND BEGAN REWRITING ITS HISTORY.

I mean goddamn, Rolfe.

Eta: and I did start looking it over. A bunch were jailhouse conversions (which we don't always take as sincere), and some were not claimed to be trans at all. Just guys, some using feminine sounding names (like Rose), likely to duck detection.

But yet again (you guys are falling in to your Rinse and Repeat mode again), what are the actual stats? The list John linked has 236 names, IIRC? And it goes back to crimes from over a decade ago. So out of many millions of transpeople in that time and world wide, that's what you came up with? Random cis killers and crimes would eclipse that volume handily.

I'd be expecting a couple hundred of such instances being credibly reported weekly if the criminal representation was as disproportionate as you try to imply. Considering how many years you are spanning with that list and scouring the entire planet, transpeople seem more like they'd be underrepresented.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, I remember the truth. I questioned the validity of thr story, considering that it was united and didn't appear on a search, specifying the keywords I used. If you recall, around Halloween you presented a story that was fairly wildly embellished by one of your kindred spirits. You, not surprisingly, didn't have a bunch of links kept hidden for that one. You likely knew the story was not true when you posted it, since you claim to habitually do a rigorous fact check prior to posting.

You didn't respond to my repeated challenging of that embellished tweety, as you didn't respond to so many others that I've lost count. So yes, you posted in bad faith on this one. You knew your posts are not credible other face, and would be assumed to be more of the same bull ◊◊◊◊. You got me fair and square.

Oh, and you keep saying that I said they used the journalists name 'carelessly'. That's another Rolfe lie. I said maybe a coincidence, maybe not, and never once went any further than that.

You're going back to something that I don't even remember. I'm not sitting on this thread 24/7 ready to jump to your bidding.

You're now using that imagined/embellished/misrepresented incident to avoid taking responsibility for your absolutely outrageous behaviour in relation to the incident currently under discussion. Your face is still dripping with egg. Deal with it.

 

[Thermal]

You're going back to something that I don't even remember. I'm not sitting on this thread 24/7 ready to jump to your bidding.

It was last month, and I challenged you repeatedly on it. You were wrong, and evidently knew it, so refused to answer the factual challenge. Funny how selectively you respond to challenges. Only when you set one up (as you acknowledge you did here) do you show some integrity and defend your uncited tweety tales.

You're now using that imagined/embellished/misrepresented incident to avoid taking responsibility for your absolutely outrageous behaviour in relation to the incident currently under discussion. Your face is still dripping with egg. Deal with it.

Why do you think you can lie your way through this and rewrite history? I've copped to accepting your sources (although you should have included them in your original.posting, but you admitted that was a deliberate bad faith move).

You got me fair and square. Must you now try to gaslight a new version? You are just beginning to do so well in showing some character and actually defending your tweetys, even in bad faith.

 

[Rolfe]

You're the one with form in lying your way through a conversation and rewriting history, as anyone reading your posts can easily see. I omitted the source links for the reason stated, because they were in Swedish, and the tweet had all the details and more anyway. But knowing your habit of going off on one insisting that everything that goes against your narrative is a pack of made-up lies, I did have a small thought as I did it, I wonder if Thermal will declare this is a lie too? Surely not! But you went there, immediately, in spades.

Your dishonesty, for example in editing a tweet after I had replied to it then taking me to task for not addressing your edit, is legendary.

 

[Thermal]

You're the one with form in lying your way through a conversation and rewriting history, as anyone reading your posts can easily see. I omitted the source links for the reason stated, because they were in Swedish, and the tweet had all the details and more anyway. But knowing your habit of going off on one insisting that everything that goes against your narrative is a pack of made-up lies, I did have a small thought as I did it, I wonder if Thermal will declare this is a lie too? Surely not! But you went there, immediately, in spades.

Your dishonesty, for example in editing a tweet after I had replied to it then taking me to task for not addressing your edit, is legendary.

Absolutely! Remember that one forever: I used the "@" feature (which you use yourself in postings) to ping your alerts and specifically call your attention to it.

Your response was "oh no, I don't use the alerts, I just use the "@" feature to autocomplete names".

I notice you have not been doing so, typing out names like a big girl. Protip: to make your gaslighting version credible, you really needed to be "@"ing consistently since then.

 

[Rolfe]

I use the feature occasionally, as I said. Your name is easy to type, and is capitalised, so I probably won't, usually. Never mind the bloody ping. You knew that my reply was posted before your edit, and that I had not edited the post since then. You knew the reply was to the unedited post, but you still criticised me for not addressing your edit. Mindblowingly dishonest.

(Anyway, it seems to me that the utility of the facility is to alert members to the fact that they have been mentioned in a thread they might not be actively participating in. To expect that people will jump to address an edit you made on that basis is optimistic, to put it mildly.)

 

[John Freestone]

Eta: and I did start looking it over. A bunch were jailhouse conversions (which we don't always take as sincere), and some were not claimed to be trans at all. Just guys, some using feminine sounding names (like Rose), likely to duck detection.

But yet again (you guys are falling in to your Rinse and Repeat mode again), what are the actual stats? The list John linked has 236 names, IIRC? And it goes back to crimes from over a decade ago. So out of many millions of transpeople in that time and world wide, that's what you came up with? Random cis killers and crimes would eclipse that volume handily.

Hi Thermal, I've not been following very closely - just rejoined the forum after a long time. I'd like to understand what your position is on these issues. Do you accept that males are vastly over-represented in stats as perpetrators of violence (in general, and against women)? Do you accept that women are vastly over-represented in the stats as victims of male violence? Do you therefore agree that access to women's spaces for TIMs (trans-identifying males) is dangerous for women?

I didn't post the list to give any 'stats.' I was responding (perhaps prematurely) to suggestions that you did not recognise the danger of TIMs in women's spaces. I since found a post of yours clearly indicating that you accepted that there were examples of predatory 'transwomen' (I think you may have even said 'many'), so I don't wish to continue making assumptions until I understand more what your position actually is on these matters. I am, however, disappointed to see concerns like mine dismissed as 'tranny bashing,' when I am as much concerned about TI people as I am those whose rights are being eroded by the expansion of 'trans rights' beyond 'human rights', which AFAICS we all had already.

In response to this: "Just guys, some using feminine sounding names (like Rose), likely to duck detection," I'm not sure if you're implying merely using a disguise to hide from authorities, but a very likely reason (since we're talking about sexual predators) is precisely to gain access to female spaces (and you may be surprised to learn just how much 'transwomen' overestimate their ability to pass).

 

[Thermal]

I use the feature occasionally, as I said. Your name is easy to type, and is capitalised, so I probably won't, usually. Never mind the bloody ping. You knew that my reply was posted before your edit, and that I had not edited the post since then. You knew the reply was to the unedited post, but you still criticised me for not addressing your edit. Mindblowingly dishonest.

No I damn well didn't "know you replied to the unedited post". Since you ate generally not bright enough to figure out how to direct your postings, I didn't even see that you responded till long after I edited and I was backtracking the thread (I have pings turned off for New Posts because it causes too much clutter with dozens of new alerts constantly).

You've got this whole little neat conspiracy theory cooked up in your head, yet you can't see that it makes no sense.

(Anyway, it seems to me that the utility of the facility is to alert members to the fact that they have been mentioned in a thread they might not be actively participating in. To expect that people will jump to address an edit you made on that basis is optimistic, to put it mildly.)

Nothing to do with jumping. Try real hard to think it through:

Editing with an "eta" does not let the readers know a change was made to an earlier post (which is what you were originally complaining about). You would only know it was edited if you backtracked the thread for whatever reason. "@"ing puts the alert right on your screen. That's why it's called an alert. ETAing can be done without the poster knowing. It's far better to call attention with an "@" when the thread is fast moving.

 

[smartcooky]

I 4jm

"@"ing puts the alert right on your screen. That's why it's called an alert. ETAing can be done without the poster knowing. It's far better to call attention with an "@" when the thread is fast moving.

I have all notifications turned off in my forum preferences, so that wont work for me.

 

[Thermal]

Hi Thermal, I've not been following very closely - just rejoined the forum after a long time. I'd like to understand what your position is on these issues. Do you accept that males are vastly over-represented in stats as perpetrators of violence (in general, and against women)? Do you accept that women are vastly over-represented in the stats as victims of male violence? Do you therefore agree that access to women's spaces for TIMs (trans-identifying males) is dangerous for women?

I didn't post the list to give any 'stats.' I was responding (perhaps prematurely) to suggestions that you did not recognise the danger of TIMs in women's spaces. I since found a post of yours clearly indicating that you accepted that there were examples of predatory 'transwomen' (I think you may have even said 'many'), so I don't wish to continue making assumptions until I understand more what your position actually is on these matters. I am, however, disappointed to see concerns like mine dismissed as 'tranny bashing,' when I am as much concerned about TI people as I am those whose rights are being eroded by the expansion of 'trans rights' beyond 'human rights', which AFAICS we all had already.

In response to this: "Just guys, some using feminine sounding names (like Rose), likely to duck detection," I'm not sure if you're implying merely using a disguise to hide from authorities, but a very likely reason (since we're talking about sexual predators) is precisely to gain access to female spaces (and you may be surprised to learn just how much 'transwomen' overestimate their ability to pass).

Hi John Freestone, I meant to greet you and respond to your earlier post, but as you can see, we got tied up in a pissing match and it slipped my mind.

I get it would take a lot to catch up on my positions, so I'll give you the short version: I'm like 90% in agreement with most of the gender critical positions here. Strict sex segregation where nudity would be expected, no elective gender related body modifications to minors, and all that. Where I am conflicted is mostly on public restroom access. I think it should be pretty much like it has been for generations, men here and women there, and y'all sort yourselves out without force of law in either groups favor. I came to this thread a while back to discuss it more in depth with skeptics.

But the majority of the forum avoids this thread like the plague, so the crew here is starved for a TRA to battle against, so they declare yours truly to be a TRA and back me into battling positions far more on the pro trans side than I really am.

Basically, I'm 'live and let live'. If women don't object to the occasional non-conformist in their rest room (as I don't object when a woman comes in ours once in a blue moon), then shrug it off. If a woman does object, she should not be penalized for harassment/discrimination. She has every right to object, just like she would for a woman behaving in a menacing manner.

As far as the dangers of predatory males, we've considered data from Massachusetts which indicates no increase at all in any kind of assaults, and in my own state of NJ USA, I don't see any either. Literally dead zero. My belief is that most predators don't actually gain advantage by throwing on a wig; all eyes are on them and you never know of a cop or boyfriend/husband is right outside the door, so they don't take advantage of the 'trans loophole', because they don't really gain any.

Hope that clears things up as a starting point. Welcome aboard!

 

[Thermal]

I 4jm

I have all notifications turned off in my forum preferences, so that wont work for me.

Interesting, because you use them too. I've had a bunch of 'smartcooky mentioned you' pings on my alerts.
Why do you use them if you don't use them yourself?

 

[Rolfe]

No I damn well didn't "know you replied to the unedited post". Since you ate generally not bright enough to figure out how to direct your postings, I didn't even see that you responded till long after I edited and I was backtracking the thread (I have pings turned off for New Posts because it causes too much clutter with dozens of new alerts constantly).

You've got this whole little neat conspiracy theory cooked up in your head, yet you can't see that it makes no sense.

Nothing to do with jumping. Try real hard to think it through:

Editing with an "eta" does not let the readers know a change was made to an earlier post (which is what you were originally complaining about). You would only know it was edited if you backtracked the thread for whatever reason. "@"ing puts the alert right on your screen. That's why it's called an alert. ETAing can be done without the poster knowing. It's far better to call attention with an "@" when the thread is fast moving.

This is now all something that's just happening in your head. It's developing into a slanging match. It's Hogmanay here and I'm getting ready to go on holiday in the New Year. I'll leave you to it.

 

[John Freestone]

Hi John Freestone, I meant to greet you and respond to your earlier post, but as you can see, we got tied up in a pissing match and it slipped my mind.

I get it would take a lot to catch up on my positions, so I'll give you the short version: I'm like 90% in agreement with most of the gender critical positions here. Strict sex segregation where nudity would be expected, no elective gender related body modifications to minors, and all that. Where I am conflicted is mostly on public restroom access. I think it should be pretty much like it has been for generations, men here and women there, and y'all sort yourselves out without force of law in either groups favor. I came to this thread a while back to discuss it more in depth with skeptics.

But the majority of the forum avoids this thread like the plague, so the crew here is starved for a TRA to battle against, so they declare yours truly to be a TRA and back me into battling positions far more on the pro trans side than I really am.

Basically, I'm 'live and let live'. If women don't object to the occasional non-conformist in their rest room (as I don't object when a woman comes in ours once in a blue moon), then shrug it off. If a woman does object, she should not be penalized for harassment/discrimination. She has every right to object, just like she would for a woman behaving in a menacing manner.

As far as the dangers of predatory males, we've considered data from Massachusetts which indicates no increase at all in any kind of assaults, and in my own state of NJ USA, I don't see any either. Literally dead zero. My belief is that most predators don't actually gain advantage by throwing on a wig; all eyes are on them and you never know of a cop or boyfriend/husband is right outside the door, so they don't take advantage of the 'trans loophole', because they don't really gain any.

Hope that clears things up as a starting point. Welcome aboard!

That does clear a lot up, thanks. I certainly get the moderate position being seen as radical by anyone further removed - in either direction, of course.

I would ideally agree that, 'it should be pretty much like it has been for generations,' but the TRAs broke that unwritten contract, actually declaring their special status as the opposite sex and thus eligible to enter the spaces that they eschewed before. The understanding that made the contract work was that men were men and women were women, and transgressors knew they were transgressing. And the legal push was from the activists, to scrap that convention.

I'm in the UK, and only saw the stats that Rolfe has shared here. I checked the methodology at the time, and it seemed very solid. I'll see if I can check the data on MA, NJ or others. Obviously we should follow the science as and when it comes in, but there's also reasoning. If men perpetrate most violence - and the stats on that seem pretty clear - and violence against women is a significant part of that, including rape, then, given the movement's designs on women's spaces, is it reasonable to assume everything is going to be fine letting people work it out individually? Saying this, I am well aware that most violence against women almost certainly takes place in domestic circumstances, but that shouldn't tempt us into whataboutery - each moral issue can be considered independently.

It seems untenable to assume a woman can object to a transwoman in the women's changing room, because they now have both the weight of woke society tut-tutting at them for transphobia, and they risk a possible law suit. It also seems overoptimistic to assume that she's safe because no predatory man will dare enter in case there's a police officer around. Why a cop or boyfriend would be 'behind the door', I've no idea (the boyfriend shouldn't be in there, and I don't know where female police officers are stationed in women's toilets). You seem to be finding implausible reasons nobody needs to worry about a legal loophole instead of just backing the idea of keeping it closed.

Thanks for the welcome - I was here many years ago and have very occasionally dropped by since. Cheers.

 

[d4m10n]

Something something dismissed without evidence.

It's just fine to say that you don't accept Sen. Rounds story without more evidence than his mere say-so (i.e. without any supporting firsthand testimony) but to affirmatively claim that Rounds made the story up shifts the burden of proof to you; you have to show that the "entire story is fictitious" as you have affirmed. I find the story entirely plausible, since the DoD was indeed accepting transgender recruits at the time. Not sure why we are arguing about this, though, if we already agree that the military ought to preserve single-sex spaces during basic training.

 

[smartcooky]

Interesting, because you use them too. I've had a bunch of 'smartcooky mentioned you' pings on my alerts.
Why do you use them if you don't use them yourself?

For the same reason as Rolfe, it brings up the username easier... try typing d4m10n's name on a smartphone! Or Guybrush Threepwood

I have them turned off because

1. Sick of the incessant popups
2, Sick of the dings in my earbuds
3 Sick of the continual filling up of the swipe-down notification list.

I have this type of notification turned off on every social media platform I use - several forums, Facebook, Reddit, BlueSky etc The only one I keep on is Messenger because that is how I communicate with most of my friends.

 

[smartcooky]

It's just fine to say that you don't accept Sen. Rounds story without more evidence than his mere say-so (i.e. without any supporting firsthand testimony) but to affirmatively claim that Rounds made the story up shifts the burden of proof to you; you have to show that the "entire story is fictitious" as you have affirmed. I find the story entirely plausible, since the DoD was indeed accepting transgender recruits at the time. Not sure why we are arguing about this, though, if we already agree that the military ought to preserve single-sex spaces during basic training.

Yup, that is how burden of proof works

"B" is telling a story - "B" is making the positive claim, so "B" has the burden of proof.

"A" says he doesn't believe the story "B" is telling - "B" is still making the positive claim, so "B" has the burden of proof.

"A" says "B" is making up the whole story - Now "A" is making a positive claim, so "A" has the burden of proof to show "B" made up the story

 

[smartcooky]

It's Hogmanay here

Say hi to General Melchett for me!

 

[Aber]

As far as the dangers of predatory males, we've considered data from Massachusetts which indicates no increase at all in any kind of assaults, and in my own state of NJ USA, I don't see any either.

Red Herring.

Safety is not the only grounds for sex segregation - privacy and dignity count too.

 

[Thermal]

That does clear a lot up, thanks. I certainly get the moderate position being seen as radical by anyone further removed - in either direction, of course.

I would ideally agree that, 'it should be pretty much like it has been for generations,' but the TRAs broke that unwritten contract, actually declaring their special status as the opposite sex and thus eligible to enter the spaces that they eschewed before. The understanding that made the contract work was that men were men and women were women, and transgressors knew they were transgressing. And the legal push was from the activists, to scrap that convention.

Agreed that the TRAs are the primary pushers for formalizing legislation on the matter. What I'm not clear on is whether that is the cause or effect. Like, I'm not sure if they were pushing back against a movement to exclude them (starting around the time that conservatives started pushing against Drag Queens and the like), or if they were motivated by being tired of being marginalized. Either way, I think the best solution remains to push back against legislation in either direction. Lobby to maintain the older status quo, as you say seems like the ideal.

And just to clarify where my head is at, I very viscerally want the boys in the boys room. But as I talk to women, more seem to say it's not that big a deal to them as I would have thought. They view it largely the way I view a woman using the men's room (in some bars I used to hang out in, it was pretty common). It's a little weird and my guard is up while they are in there, but we tolerate that kind of stuff sometimes.

I'm in the UK, and only saw the stats that Rolfe has shared here. I checked the methodology at the time, and it seemed very solid. I'll see if I can check the data on MA, NJ or others.

The Mass data is provided by the Williams Institute from UCLA in the states. In Jersey, our gender policy is lunatic wide open, but there is no formal data that I'm aware of. What's weird is that the state is almost evenly split politically left to right, but we don't see any reports of men in women's rooms behaving badly. If there were such instances occurring, I think social media would be ablaze with reports complaining about it and citing instances. But there's nothing.

Obviously we should follow the science as and when it comes in, but there's also reasoning. If men perpetrate most violence - and the stats on that seem pretty clear - and violence against women is a significant part of that, including rape, then, given the movement's designs on women's spaces, is it reasonable to assume everything is going to be fine letting people work it out individually? Saying this, I am well aware that most violence against women almost certainly takes place in domestic circumstances, but that shouldn't tempt us into whataboutery - each moral issue can be considered independently.

Largely agreed. So maybe we should look into transwomen (or predatory imposters) that assaulted/harassed before the gender wars? What did they do? The answer seems to be the same: nothing different than after open gender policies.

We've discussed this at length ITT. You would intuitively think that every perv in the world would throw on a wig and charge the women's room if policy allowed it. But in the flesh and blood world, we don't see it happening. The perverts that perved before still do so at about the same rate. We never see an increase.

It seems untenable to assume a woman can object to a transwoman in the women's changing room, because they now have both the weight of woke society tut-tutting at them for transphobia, and they risk a possible law suit. It also seems overoptimistic to assume that she's safe because no predatory man will dare enter in case there's a police officer around. Why a cop or boyfriend would be 'behind the door', I've no idea (the boyfriend shouldn't be in there, and I don't know where female police officers are stationed in women's toilets).

Ok, but i didnt say 'behind the door'. I said on the other side of the door, meaning that if a predator was in the womens room, 'the other side of the door' is where the guys are walking around outside.

You seem to be finding implausible reasons nobody needs to worry about a legal loophole instead of just backing the idea of keeping it closed.

That's the thing: it was never kept closed over here. There was never (till very recently in a few US states) any actual laws or penalties for being in the wrong rest room. We just sorted it out ourselves on the fly.

Thanks for the welcome - I was here many years ago and have very occasionally dropped by since. Cheers.

Back atcha, man.