Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

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]

This is the reply to Thermal's trans-supporting female relatives who think they can give away the rights of all women to male-free spaces, because they don't mind.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2006208789578391667

 

[John Freestone]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[John Freestone]

provide a single-occupancy lockable space

Just to clarify, this means 'lockable from the inside'.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

 

[Thermal]

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.

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.

Thermal googled one or two,

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I hit over a dozen.

discovered that the attacks had taken place elsewhere,

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.

and triumphantly announced that there was therefore no argument for prohibiting such monsters from using women's facilities.

Wrong again. I merely observed it was another unsourced and unciited claim that failed a cursory fact check.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, since the article linked is sourced, maybe you'd care to reprise your critique.

 

[Thermal]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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,

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

documented cases of breaking their spouse's jaw

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.

, 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".

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.

 

[p0lka]

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.

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?

 

[p0lka]

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"

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?

 

[Thermal]

1. This forum is called the INTERNATIONAL SKEPTICS FORUM, not the NOTHING IS RELEVANT IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN AMERICA forum

Weirdest non sequitur in a long time.

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.

Followed by another.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I get you are doing the feigned befuddlement act too. It's getting old.

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!!

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.

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

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.

 

[Thermal]

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.

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!":

Getting back to the original tweet then: what was your point, if not "lookit the violent perv! This is how they are!"

To be fair, that was more or less my point.

The defense rests.

 

[Rolfe]

And didn't you just fall right into it, giving a perfect demonstration of your bias and prejudice.

 

[Thermal]

Well, since the article linked is sourced, maybe you'd care to reprise your critique.

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]

And didn't you just fall right into it, giving a perfect demonstration of your bias and prejudice.

I did. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for posting in good faith, a mistake I will take care not to repeat.

 

[Rolfe]

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?

Do keep up.

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

 

[Rolfe]

I did. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for posting in good faith, a mistake I will take care not to repeat.

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]

Do keep up.

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?

 

[Rolfe]

I did. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for posting in good faith, a mistake I will take care not to repeat.

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?

 

[Rolfe]

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?

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?

 

[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.