Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Something I heard recently that I tend to agree with, "I'm not worried about transwomen victimizing women in women's spaces as much as I worry about predatory men who are willing to pretend to be trans in order to get into women's spaces."

And that's a sound and persuasive argument, as long as you are not saying out of the other side of your mouth "you should see these tranny freaks, they're cross-dressing perverts". Tips the hand and reveals the bluff a bit.

 

[Thermal]

At the bottom of the page right now, there is a "Similar Treads' list. They are all split from this thread and currently in AAH. Poetry in the wild.

 

[Ziggurat]

*A* solution, of many? Of course it is. I happen to believe in elective association.

It's not a solution at all. It's a coping mechanism.

Could you kindly stop playing dumb? I offered an example of how it is entirely a good solution SOMETIMES

And is it a good solution in this case? You didn't answer me.

"It" is exactly what "it" appears to be in context: introducing strict sex segregation in private spaces.

Why is sex segregation not the right thing to do? You basically say in this very post that it IS the right thing to do. This is what we mean when we say that you show no consistency at all.

We got along ok for generations with self-policing, but I don't recall Cox and Merager situations coming up back then.

Because self-policing permitted people to expel Cox. Self-ID does not. It punishes people who would try to expel Cox.

Them violent perverted freaks in the restroom is not the threat (or rather, the threat is not mitigated one iota through a new sign on the door).

Of course it's not mitigated by a sign on the door. It's mitigated by a change in policy. The sign means nothing if the policy doesn't back it up.

The issue is that the policy has to be consistent, so if a transwoman shouldn't enter the girl's showers, she shouldn't enter the women's room either, on the same principle.

No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock.

And that's how I came into this debate, and when I leave it, I tend to return to it. It's only when i am here, reading the bigoted retweetys, that I push back, because your reasoning is wrong, not your conclusion.

You perpetually misrepresent my reasoning.

Playing dumb again? Mild hyperbole is not a strawman

It very much is a straw man. Straw men can be hyperbolic. And it's not really hyperbole at all, it's what you really think of us, as you demonstrate again in this very post.

, and your arguments are not substantially changed with the mild hyperbole.

They are completely changed.

You yourself has said transpeople are either mentally ill or 'pretending'.

No I haven't. See, this is what I mean: you do not actually understand the position you're arguing against. You can only put up straw men.

I've said that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. I am not aware that you have seriously contested this. I still have no idea what it means to be trans without gender dysphoria, but I accept that such people exist. I just see no reason to provide them any accommodations whatsoever, nor have you actually provided a reason to beyond "they want it", which isn't good enough. As for pretending, well, some of them are, and you yourself have agreed with that.

 

[Thermal]

It's not a solution at all. It's a coping mechanism.

It can be. It can also be a solution.

And is it a good solution in this case? You didn't answer me.

I did. But I see you changed your question in this post to 'is it a good solution?' from 'is it a solution?'. You are also not clear on which case 'this case' is. Did you mean thr one I was talking about (Hyman/Gold's Gym), or more generally in the case of trans access?

Why is sex segregation not the right thing to do? You basically say in this very post that it IS the right thing to do.

No, I didn't. I said it is a reluctant workaround, where those who are actually in the right have to endure mistreatment for the good of others. The 'right' thing to do would be to not mistreat anyone.

This is what we mean when we say that you show no consistency at all.

This is what I mean when I say your befuddlement act is annoying.

Because self-policing permitted people to expel Cox. Self-ID does not. It punishes people who would try to expel Cox.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. Under self policing, you better not lay a hand on him or you are guilty of assault. You could at most attempt to harass and humiliate him into self exclusion. I'm surprised you would object.

Of course it's not mitigated by a sign on the door. It's mitigated by a change in policy. The sign means nothing if the policy doesn't back it up.

The policy is impotent, Jackson.

It very much is a straw man. Straw men can be hyperbolic. And it's not really hyperbole at all, it's what you really think of us, as you demonstrate again in this very post.

A strawman substantially distorts the argument being presented. Mild hyperbole does not.

gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. I am not aware that you have seriously contested this. I still have no idea what it means to be trans without gender dysphoria, but I accept that such people exist. I just see no reason to provide them any accommodations whatsoever, nor have you actually provided a reason to beyond "they want it", which isn't good enough. As for pretending, well, some of them are, and you yourself have agreed with that.

Not your earlier argument, although I can understand your realization that you better reword it:

"I think at best, transgender identity is pretend. A trans identifying male might say, "I know I'm not a female, but I wish I was. So I'm going to pretend I am, and I want the people around me to pretend I am as well, even though everyone knows I'm not." That's a fantasy, but not a delusion.

And in certain contexts, such pretend play may be harmless when everyone is willing to play. But it's never true, and it very much can be harmful if you try to force others to play."

 

[Ziggurat]

I did. But I see you changed your question in this post to 'is it a good solution?' from 'is it a solution?'.

YOU introduced "good solution" in the post I quoted, not me. I'm asking you about your language. That's not me moving the goalpost, that's me asking you about where you planted it.

You are also not clear on which case 'this case' is. Did you mean thr one I was talking about (Hyman/Gold's Gym), or more generally in the case of trans access?

The former, but feel free to answer about the latter as well, since it's also relevant.

No, I didn't. I said it is a reluctant workaround, where those who are actually in the right have to endure mistreatment for the good of others. The 'right' thing to do would be to not mistreat anyone.

I keep having to ask you to explain exactly what you mean because you're ◊◊◊◊ at communicating and you have no consistency, so I cannot assume what you mean when there is ambiguity. Who exactly is "in the right" here, what are they in the right about, and what mistreatment are they enduring?

This is what I mean when I say your befuddlement act is annoying.

I'm not acting. I'm trying to avoid misinterpreting you because you're ◊◊◊◊ at communicating, and you really get upset when you think I misrepresent you.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. Under self policing, you better not lay a hand on him or you are guilty of assault. You could at most attempt to harass and humiliate him into self exclusion. I'm surprised you would object.

Under the old policy, whoever was in charge of a facility could eject a person from that facility, by force if necessary.

That's how things used to be.

The policy is impotent, Jackson.

It doesn't have to be.

A strawman substantially distorts the argument being presented. Mild hyperbole does not.

You consistently and substantially distort my position.

Not your earlier argument,

That has always been my argument. But even now, you still get it wrong. See below.

although I can understand your realization that you better reword it:

"I think at best, transgender identity is pretend.

Nope. Nothing pretend about having gender dysphoria. I don't even claim that non-dysphoric trans people are pretending to be trans.

A trans identifying male might say, "I know I'm not a female, but I wish I was. So I'm going to pretend I am, and I want the people around me to pretend I am as well, even though everyone knows I'm not." That's a fantasy, but not a delusion.

That's true, but it also does not match the claim that "transgender identity is pretend". This might be a bit hard for you to understand the distinction, but I'll try anyways. They can pretend to be women, but that doesn't mean that they're pretending to be trans.

And in certain contexts, such pretend play may be harmless when everyone is willing to play. But it's never true, and it very much can be harmful if you try to force others to play."

Do you actually disagree with this part?

 

[Thermal]

YOU introduced "good solution" in the post I quoted, not me. I'm asking you about your language. That's not me moving the goalpost, that's me asking you about where you planted it.

Get those quotes out of there, sweetheart. I never said a goddamned thing about it being a "good" solution.

{Eta: halfway through this exchange, I once said sometimes it can be a good solution. That wasn't the starting point, so don't try to weasel}

The former, but feel free to answer about the latter as well, since it's also relevant.

I already answeed the former, and the latter, for that matter. In Hyman's case, she lives in a state with open access, which 3 out of four Californians support. If you don't like it, by all means, lobby, demonstrate, boycott, whatever you see fit to do within the law. Harassing people and causing a public disorder screaming profanities does not fall neatly within legally protected behaviors.

Who exactly is "in the right" here, what are they in the right about, and what mistreatment are they enduring?

The same people. The ones who have for generations been afforded rare access to facilities where they were not classically conforming.

I'm not acting.

Lol

I'm trying to avoid misinterpreting you because you're ◊◊◊◊ at communicating,

The Illusury Truth Effect again. Keep repeating it, man.

and you really get upset when you think I misrepresent you.

No, I get annoyed when you and others lie. There's a difference.

Under the old policy, whoever was in charge of a facility could eject a person from that facility, by force if necessary.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. The old policy was a lack of any policy or legal consequence. You use force, even for any other milder flavor of garden variety trespassing, and ya ass is a stone criminal.

That's how things used to be.

Balls.

It doesn't have to be.

Do tell. What are you proposing? Use of lethal force against the mentally ill and 'pretenders'?

You consistently and substantially distort my position.

Welcome to the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ club.

That has always been my argument. But even now, you still get it wrong. See below.

Nope. Nothing pretend about having gender dysphoria. I don't even claim that non-dysphoric trans people are pretending to be trans.

For the hundredth time, we are not talking about dysphorics when we are talking about transpeople generally. What are you working on, Ziggurat's Goal Post Workout DVD?

That's true, but it also does not match the claim that "transgender identity is pretend". This might be a bit hard for you to understand the distinction, but I'll try anyways. They can pretend to be women, but that doesn't mean that they're pretending to be trans.

Thats a petty-assed pedantic cop out. If you are limiting your definition of transpeople to the mentally ill and fakers, you are negating the concept of a transperson as the humans use it.

Do you actually disagree with this part?

For certain contexts? Of course not. As a sweeping statement as you keep using it? Yes, I disagree.

 

[p0lka]

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.

Which is why I brought up misandry as you're clearly demonstrating it.

 

[p0lka]

I disagree with your characterization. Proper boundaries aren't about distrust. Proper boundaries are part of how you establish trust, for both men and women. Demonstrating respect for proper boundaries is part of how you establish that you are trustworthy.

Well yeah, there's three different states. There's trust, then there's not trust, then there's active distrust.

 

[Thermal]

"We're almost constantly at the mercy of males to not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill or rape us".

Jesus Christ, I missed that on the first reading.

@Emily's Cat, get help. Men don't decide not to gratuitously rape or kill out of 'mercy'. We don't do it because we are generally not the violent animals you seem to think we are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Get those quotes out of there, sweetheart. I never said a goddamned thing about it being a "good" solution.

I know that. Which is why I asked. But you were still the one who brought up good solutions, not me. Let me remind you of what the exchange was:

Could you kindly stop playing dumb? I offered an example of how it is entirely a good solution SOMETIMES, using an example we could all agree to (I hope).

And is it a good solution in this case?

See that there? YOU brought up good solutions. And so I asked if you thought it was a good solution in this case. That's not me moving the goalpost. That's me trying to figure out what your position is.

Which takes a lot of effort, because you're ◊◊◊◊ at communication.

I already answeed the former, and the latter, for that matter. In Hyman's case, she lives in a state with open access, which 3 out of four Californians support. If you don't like it, by all means, lobby, demonstrate, boycott, whatever you see fit to do within the law. Harassing people and causing a public disorder screaming profanities does not fall neatly within legally protected behaviors.

We aren't talking about what she did do. We're talking about what you claim she should have done. Do you think that self exclusion is a solution to her wanting to use the gym changing room without encountering males?

Because I don't. I think it's a cope. And the fact that the California legislature allowed Black to be there doesn't make it anything other than cope.

The same people. The ones who have for generations been afforded rare access to facilities where they were not classically conforming.

Even now, you can't actually simply state who you're talking about, I still have to infer it.

You're absolutely ◊◊◊◊ at communicating.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. The old policy was a lack of any policy or legal consequence.

Not true.

You use force, even for any other milder flavor of garden variety trespassing, and ya ass is a stone criminal.

A property owner who calls upon law enforcement to exert force on their behalf isn't a criminal.

Do tell. What are you proposing? Use of lethal force against the mentally ill and 'pretenders'?

I'm proposing that property owners are allowed to trespass people from their property when they use a sex segregated facility that does not conform to their sex. Trespassing rarely requires lethal force, and if the person cooperates, it requires no force at all. If the person in question wants to escalate it to lethal force levels, that's their choice. But there's nothing special about trespassing trans identifying people as opposed to trespassing anyone else.

For the hundredth time, we are not talking about dysphorics when we are talking about transpeople generally.

So what? They're part of the population, are they not? They are worth mentioning. And I was not limiting my discussion to dysphorics, so what's your complaint? That I mentioned them?

Thats a petty-assed pedantic cop out. If you are limiting your definition of transpeople to the mentally ill and fakers, you are negating the concept of a transperson as the humans use it.

I am explicitly not. Every time I've mentioned the dysphorics here, I have also explicitly mentioned the non-dysphorics. There's no cop-out, only your own pathetic attempt to latch on to something to complain about rather than actually address the contents of my argument.

For certain contexts? Of course not. As a sweeping statement as you keep using it? Yes, I disagree.

In what contexts is it wrong?

 

[Ziggurat]

"We're almost constantly at the mercy of males to not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill or rape us".

Jesus Christ, I missed that on the first reading.

@Emily's Cat, get help. Men don't decide not to gratuitously rape or kill out of 'mercy'. We don't do it because we are generally not the violent animals you seem to think we are.

God damn, but you're bad at communications. "At the mercy of" something DOES NOT mean the object of the phrase is literally motivated by mercy towards the subject of the phrase, or that they could only act a certain way out of mercy. It means that the object of the phrase has complete power over the subject that is "at their mercy". It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiom, and a common one at that. It has nothing to do with motivation, it is entirely and solely a description of a power dynamic.

And it's true. You haven't actually even disputed it.

 

[Thermal]

I know that. Which is why I asked. But you were still the one who brought up good solutions, not me. Let me remind you of what the exchange was:


See that there? YOU brought up good solutions. And so I asked if you thought it was a good solution in this case. That's not me moving the goalpost. That's me trying to figure out what your position is.

I just eta'ed the post in case you tried to do this, and here you were already doing it. You asked repeatedly if it was "a solution", and deep into the exchange I clarified once that it was SOMETIMES a good solution, then you changed your question.

Which takes a lot of effort, because you're ◊◊◊◊ at communication.

You just gave a great example of you moving the goalposts on the fly, so you can shove that blame-pushing about communicating effectively.

We aren't talking about what she did do.

We are.

We're talking about what you claim she should have done.

Which I have provided several options for, and repeatedly.

Do you think that self exclusion is a solution to her wanting to use the gym changing room without encountering males?

Of course it is.

Because I don't. I think it's a cope. And the fact that the California legislature allowed Black to be there doesn't make it anything other than cope.

I want to do a lot of things that the law does not support, yet I don't consider it a "cope" to conduct myself in compliance with law.

The property owner who calls upon law enforcement to exert force on their behalf isn't a criminal.

And the goalposts are on the move yet again.

I'm proposing that property owners are allowed to trespass people from their property when they use a sex segregated facility that does not conform to their sex.

Not in most of this country.

Trespassing rarely requires lethal force, and if the person cooperates, it requires no force at all. If the person in question wants to escalate it to lethal force levels, that's their choice. But there's nothing special about trespassing trans identifying people as opposed to trespassing anyone else.

You should read up on the trans issue. I hear there is indeed much 'special' about the sex and gender discrimination protections that has a lot of debate going on, worldwide.

So what? They're part of the population, are they not? They are worth mentioning. And I was not limiting my discussion to dysphorics, so what's your complaint? That I mentioned them?

No, it's that you move the goalposts and equivocate trans people with mentally ill trans people willy-nilly.

I am explicitly not. Every time I've mentioned the dysphorics here, I have also explicitly mentioned the non-dysphorics. There's no cop-out, only your own pathetic attempt to latch on to something to complain about rather than actually address the contents of my argument.

Oh bull ◊◊◊◊. We talk about transpeople generally, then you take the goalposts for yet another walk and say you were only talking about the mentally ill subset of them, not having mentioned that at all.

In what contexts is it wrong?

In the contexts where you start with "certain contexts" (agreed) then globalize it to "its never true" to take the general limited one and make a universal declaration.

 

[Ziggurat]

I just eta'ed the post in case you tried to do this, and here you were already doing it. You asked repeatedly if it was "a solution", and deep into the exchange I clarified once that it was SOMETIMES a good solution, then you changed your question.

Yes. I changed my question, in response to what you said, because you changed what you said. That is how communication works. But you're ◊◊◊◊ a communication.

You just gave a great example of you moving the goalposts on the fly,

Again, I didn't move anything, you did. I followed.

so you can shove that blame-pushing about communicating effectively.

Here's the thing: there wasn't even anything wrong with you moving on to "good solutions". I didn't blame you for doing so. The only problem was you blaming me for what you did.

No, it's that you move the goalposts and equivocate trans people with mentally ill trans people willy-nilly.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. That's just the excuse you use when you don't want to deal with the substance of my argument.

Oh bull ◊◊◊◊. We talk about transpeople generally, then you take the goalposts for yet another walk and say you were only talking about the mentally ill subset of them, not having mentioned that at all.

I did nothing of the sort. God damn, but you're bad at this. I made a distinction between dysphorics and non-dysphorics, but I have EXPLICITLY talked about both groups in this exchange. Do you really need me to provide receipts? Fine:

Post 15,003

I've said that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. I am not aware that you have seriously contested this. I still have no idea what it means to be trans without gender dysphoria, but I accept that such people exist.

See that? That's BOTH groups being mentioned. I covered BOTH groups. And I did so in my follow up as well, post 15,005:

Nope. Nothing pretend about having gender dysphoria. I don't even claim that non-dysphoric trans people are pretending to be trans.

I have NEVER confined my discussion to only dysphorics. Why would I? You say it's to smear trans people, but you're the one calling the dysphorics mentally ill (I have said it's a mental disorder, NOT a mental illness). My actual argument isn't made any weaker by including the non-dysphorics. Quite the reverse, something I've also pointed out repeatedly but you repeatedly ignore.

You're ◊◊◊◊ at communication. You can't express yourself coherently, and you can't actually comprehend or even keep track of what other people say.

In the contexts where you start with "certain contexts" (agreed) then globalize it to "its never true" to take the general limited one and make a universal declaration.

In other words, you cannot provide any specific contexts in which it's not true. You just want it to be.

 

[p0lka]

God damn, but you're bad at communications. "At the mercy of" something DOES NOT mean the object of the phrase is literally motivated by mercy towards the subject of the phrase, or that they could only act a certain way out of mercy. It means that the object of the phrase has complete power over the subject that is "at their mercy". It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiom, and a common one at that. It has nothing to do with motivation, it is entirely and solely a description of a power dynamic.

And it's true. You haven't actually even disputed it.

You might have looked at the definition, but I'm not sure you really understood what misandry means.

 

[Ziggurat]

You might have looked at the definition, but I'm not sure you really understood what misandry means.

Oh, I know perfectly well what it means. That's not the problem. The problem is that you don't understand what EC means.