• 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:
I don't think he's a bigot at all. From the extremely limited information he has self disclosed, he has had a horrifically rough time of his life thus far, so I don't think he is presently the most objective arbiter of his psychological diagnoses. Further, his treatment is woefully still lacking if he's got some quack spouting the Eugenics Boys' ◊◊◊◊. Seems listening to the wrong people has been a theme in his life.
Click to expand...
:oops::cautious: Yep, how dare they listen to doctors telling them what doctors have been telling most kids who show up with even a tiny bit of gendery-discomfort these days.

BTW, they were listening to the people that you keep appealing to as authorities. So... I dunno where that leaves you.
 
Thermal said:
Lawrence, dude? Really? She's the third of the Three Musketeers, after Blanchard and Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw. Coming in late to the discussion has you Rinse and Repeating stuff we've long covered as if it was new (not a criticism, just an observation).
Click to expand...
It's fun how any respected professional who disagrees with your biases is a crank of some sort, and an organization specifically dedicated to protecting and uplifting people with transgender identities is "unbiased".
 
d4m10n said:
In the U.S. it was the political party favored by females which actually made most of the policy changes in question, so it's a bit of a cop out to say females are off the hook here.
Click to expand...
Let's apply some logic to this. Let's take the illustrative item "Onions" and two mutually exclusive cohorts "Cats" and "Dogs". Cats can never be dogs, and dogs can never be cats.

I can make the true statement: More dogs like onions than cats like onions.
I can also make the true statement: Most dogs dislike onions.

It's true that more females support Democrats than support Republicans. 51% of females lean Dem versus 44% who lean Rep. It's also true that most females do NOT support males with transgender identities having access to female-specific intimate spaces or sports.

Even more to the point... both of the presidents who issued EOs requiring that males be included in female sports and spaces in order to get federal funding were males.
 
Ziggurat said:
Pronoun usage falls under social interactions. But that's about the only thing we've objected to on that front, and even there, as you said, it's the compulsion that's really at issue. I don't think any of us objects to completely voluntary, uncoerced use of preferred pronouns, except perhaps when used to describe sexual predators to hide their actual sex.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I have no desire to force other people to refer to Elliot Page as "she". If it pleases them to do so, go for it. I simply object to me being forced to refer to Page as "he".

And like you say, I really only have an issue when the use of preferred pronouns obfuscates pertinent information or is used to punish the victim (eg requiring a female victim of a sexual assault to refer to their male assaulter as "she").
 
Emily's Cat said:
It's also true that most females do NOT support males with transgender identities having access to female-specific intimate spaces or sports.
Click to expand...
Unsure where you are getting this claim from (could be any number of relevant public opinion surveys) but I'd be willing to wager that regardless of which specific source you are looking at, you will find that the men surveyed were even more strongly against males in female spaces than were the women surveyed.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It turns out that the small subset of males who demand access to women's spaces whether women like it or not are exactly the small subset of males that is more likely to pose a threat if their demands are met.
Click to expand...
Not exactly a subset, there's always an overlap because some people just don't like rules on general principle and you have to include them.
 
p0lka said:
No not at all. Treating all males in a distrustful manner is though.
Click to expand...
The only males being distrusted are the ones making suspicious demands of females. The vast majority of us don't feel distrusted at all, because the vast majority of us want nothing to do with overriding sex segregation whenever we want.

What would you suggest? A system where we welcome the presence of any male who doesn't want to be there, and refuse access to any male that does?
 
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem with your argument isn't really about what to expect in a place with self-ID policies. It's that you think it's actually a solution for women to self-exclude.
 
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...
theprestige said:
The only males being distrusted are the ones making suspicious demands of females. The vast majority of us don't feel distrusted at all, because the vast majority of us want nothing to do with overriding sex segregation whenever we want.

What would you suggest? A system where we welcome the presence of any male who doesn't want to be there, and refuse access to any male that does?
Click to expand...
It looks to me that Emily's Cat is labeling all males as foxes? Which is why I brought up misandry.
 
p0lka said:
You could look up the definition of misandry if you want.
Click to expand...
I just did, in order to satisfy your request, and it means exactly what I thought it means. And EC has not displayed any misandry.

You could address my point if you want. But you chose not to.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:oops::cautious: Yep, how dare they listen to doctors telling them what doctors have been telling most kids who show up with even a tiny bit of gendery-discomfort these days.

BTW, they were listening to the people that you keep appealing to as authorities. So... I dunno where that leaves you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I keep coming back to Thermal's response to Ari. "Seems listening to the wrong people has been a theme in his life." :mad:
 
p0lka said:
No not at all. Treating all males in a distrustful manner is though.
Click to expand...
This seems silly. I don't treat all males as distrustful in the overwhelming majority of interactions. But I absolutely treat ALL MALES as distrustful when they're in a female single-sex space, or when they campaign to be housed in a female prison because of their inner essence of genderiness. Shockingly, I also treat all unknown males as distrustful when I'm walking alone through a dark parking garage when I have to work late.
 
d4m10n said:
Unsure where you are getting this claim from (could be any number of relevant public opinion surveys) but I'd be willing to wager that regardless of which specific source you are looking at, you will find that the men surveyed were even more strongly against males in female spaces than were the women surveyed.
Click to expand...
Again, you're missing the point.

Females are more supportive of males in female spaces than males are - true statement.
10% of females support males in female spaces compared to only 5% of males can also be a true statement (numbers made up for illustration).

It might be true that the relatively more females support it than males do, while ALSO being a significant minority of both.

My current working hypothesis is that males are more strongly opposed because males have a much better and more instinctive understand of exactly how much of a threat males are, and how many will opportunistically perv if given the chance.
 
Risk assessment isn't just about assessing the likelihood of the risk. It's also about assessing the degree of harm if the risk occurs. Rational risk mitigation must take both factors into account. I think p0lka must be ignorant of this principle. Or else is ignoring it for polemical advantage.
 
p0lka said:
It looks to me that Emily's Cat is labeling all males as foxes? Which is why I brought up misandry.
Click to expand...
Silly goose, of course all males are foxes in that analogy.

At the end of the day, males are larger, stronger, and more sexually-motivated than females are, full stop. 95% of sex offenses are committed by males, and 99% of their victims are females. Male athletic records clearly demonstrate higher physical capabilities than females have.

While there might technically be some extreme low-end outliers for males and some extreme high-end outliers for females... the reality is that the overwhelming majority of females on the planet can be physically dominated by a randomly selected male, to a point where we're almost constantly at the mercy of males to not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill or rape us. It's social convention and the protection of other males that makes any of it possible.

So yeah - males are foxes. Males are not hens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom