Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[John Freestone]

You're right! Had to listen again to catch that difference

It's a good job someone keeps getting you to listen again, isn't it?

Actually it was because "homosexual transition" is not a thing to the medical community. It's a Bailey and Blanchard buzzers that the community doesn't use or acknowledge, so my ears autocorrected the nonsense phrase to one that was goofy yet made sense.

<<Edited to remove the diamonds: BULL!>> It's because you set out to discount everything this transphobic bigot was spouting, so your "ears autocorrected the nonsense phrase" to one you could rant incorrectly about.

Most people "have it", if they respond to the exact questions Blanchard composed. Dr. Chaz Moser noted that something like 93% of cis women he posed the same question to self reported sexual arousal. This was one of the many many many criticisms lobbed against the whole posit, which he evidently abandoned further research on, except to talk about how no one was researching it.

More trans propaganda. See, for example, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-00746-001

although Moser may have found something superficially resembling autogynephilia in women, there is little reason to think that he documented genuine autogynephilic arousal in women. Perhaps because of Moser’s evident unfamiliarity with Blanchard’s scales, many of Moser’s items are not genuinely analogous to any of Blanchard’s items.

 

[Rolfe]

Not good at aural comprehension, is he?

 

[John Freestone]

You listened so badly you reminded Rolfe she's wrong with an actual timestamp in the video, where Ari just sums up that we need to stop it with legislation, and that's the end of the video?

I'm concerned about you, seriously Thermal. You took four days to realise what year it was, even squinting at me and saying you were checking your calendar (which presumably you didn't do) when I said in passing what freaking year it is. Are you ok?

 

[John Freestone]

Not good at aural comprehension, is he?

Or reading comprehension.

You going anywhere nice? Or have you been and come back already? Or was it heat you were packing?

 

[Thermal]

It's a good job someone keeps getting you to listen again, isn't it?

Absolutely, and I mean that sincerely. We all get things wrong once in a while and can stand the rightful correction.

<<Edited to remove the diamonds: BULL!>> It's because you set out to discount everything this transphobic bigot was spouting, so your "ears autocorrected the nonsense phrase" to one you could rant incorrectly about.

Great example! You are painfully wrong in your attempt at mind reading here, so allow me to correct you:

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.

More trans propaganda. See, for example, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-00746-001

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).

BTW, I still owe you a reply for the last long post you directed to me. Still on mobile now and would rather be on more comfortable device for long replies.

 

[Thermal]

You listened so badly you reminded Rolfe she's wrong with an actual timestamp in the video, where Ari just sums up that we need to stop it with legislation, and that's the end of the video?

Correct.

Sidebar: Many of us dislike listening to interviews. Some people, and many dogs, prefer to listen. I don't. Between my tinnitus, loud jobsites, and mobile phone speaker, having to listen to mindless videos is annoying in the extreme. Invariably, the content comes across faster and more clearly when written, and I rarely have the patience to rewind and catch what wasn't clear on the first hearing.

I'm concerned about you, seriously Thermal.

I'm touched.

You took four days to realise what year it was, even squinting at me and saying you were checking your calendar (which presumably you didn't do) when I said in passing what freaking year it is. Are you ok?

Never better. Not knowing the current day, date, month, or year, however, is a lifestyle byproduct that is somewhat embarrassing but I got over it a long time ago.

Eta: I'd be proud to say that was the first time I googled "what year is it?", but the autocomplete brought it up awfully quickly.

 

[Rolfe]

Or reading comprehension.

You going anywhere nice? Or have you been and come back already? Or was it heat you were packing?

Going to Bali, then the Maldives, later today. My friend chose the holiday, I'm still a bit hazy about the details. I'll only have my phone with me, and I may not check in very often. Back at the beginning of February.

 

[Rolfe]

Your double standards are showing, Thermal. You were all over me with nitpicking criticism because I don't use the auto-complete the way you do, and use it inconsistently. You thought that I should have seen your edit posted after my reply was posted, and edited my reply, and because I didn't you felt entirely justified in criticising my reply for not addressing your edit.

But now you completely misinterpret a short video, apparently "unconsciously editing" what you heard to conform to your personal biasses. OK, that happens. But when challenged, honest people go back and check.

You didn't check. You went back and posted a time stamp you claimed supported your interpretation, even though I'd already said I wasn't in a position to listen again. Turns out my memory of what was said was correct all along.

Do better. Live up to your own exacting standards.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Myriad?

What is it that is causing you confusion?

It's remarkably similar to Trump apologetics. Instead of "Trump never said that" it's "that (crime) didn't really happen." Instead of "Okay he said it but didn't mean it" it's "Okay it happened but the perp wasn't really trans." Instead of "okay he meant it but you only care because TDS" it's "okay a trans person did it but you only care because bigotry." No amount of evidence suffices to overcome the layers of invincible denial.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That has to be the funniest analogy for a serious issue that I have seen in long time!!

All hail Tyler Durden...

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

You have been quite insistent in the past that this is NOT correct. For example, when I point out that under self ID, nobody can lie about being trans because saying you are trans makes you trans, you claimed that this was wrong, that a person could lie about that, because it was their internal sense of self that made them trans, not what they said.

Are you finally acknowledging that self ID only relies on your declaration and not on any internal sense of self?

 

[theprestige]

You have been quite insistent in the past that this is NOT correct. For example, when I point out that under self ID, nobody can lie about being trans because saying you are trans makes you trans, you claimed that this was wrong, that a person could lie about that, because it was their internal sense of self that made them trans, not what they said.

Are you finally acknowledging that self ID only relies on your declaration and not on any internal sense of self?

I suspect he's trying to square the circle of trans being an internal sense of self, and that sense of self being identifiable via self-declaration that cannot be tested and can be a lie.

My preferred solution is to challenge the premise. I simply do not believe it is possible for a male to have an internal sense of a female self. Their bodies and experiences are simply incapable of providing the necessary data for such a sense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

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.

Alright. So you totally admit that a boatload of males with transgender identities are predators and perverts... but somehow not a single one of the many cases you've been shown fits that description, and we're all just lying meanies who make things up because we're evil bigots. Makes total sense.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. Again, I'm arguing for truth over narrative, nothing more.

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.

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.

Alright. So you personally think that males shouldn't be given legal right to use female intimate spaces just because they declare themselves to have a womanly gendery soul... BUT... if it's legal for them to do so, then females should just opt out of ever using those spaces, or females should be happy and accepting of males in their spaces.

And of course, we're all somehow conservatives when it suits you to cast us as evil devils. Yep. Gotcha.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Are you of the opinion that females not wanting males to have the legal right to override our consent when it comes to exposure and voyeurism is "misandry"?

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

The old status quo is dead. The TRAs killed it, and there's no going back. At this point, sex segregation requires laws to, at minimum, enable it.

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.

Others have already touched on the idea of transferred consent. But there's another aspect of what you said here that I want to touch on. Namely, if you're in a bar, there's a reasonable expectation that everyone is an adult. So if you're in a bathroom in a bar, you can also expect that everyone in there is an adult. If someone of the wrong sex is in that bathroom, you can expect that they will only encounter other adults, not children. That is not the case in general. Which is another reason what might be tolerable at a bar should not be considered tolerable in general.

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.

Time and time again, we have pointed out all the problems that this data doesn't even touch upon.

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.

Why would you think that? That's silly. We should only expect a subset of pervs are going to do that.

And we DO see that happening. Have you forgotten Richard Cox already? I mean, I guess he didn't even have to throw on a wig, but I'd still say he qualifies.

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.

You don't need to impose legal penalties for merely being in the wrong restroom. It suffices enough to let authorities just trespass people, rather than punishing the people who complain (which we've seen plenty of).