Thermal
August Member
I was answering a specific question about violent predators with a clear and direct answer. Are you sure you know what a red herring is?
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
Exactly my point. When I start to type "d4m10n" on my mobile, it autocompletes his name after typing d and 4, so it's those two key strokes and the space bar to enter his name (because I've typed it a few times earlier). Your way, I'd have to shift the screen to get to the "@", then type in d, then scroll down to select his name, and click on it. It's actually a couple more keystrokes and more time to do it your way.
{Eta: Also, typing in "d4m10n" is like typing in any other name on my mobile interface, as the numbers display right over my qwerty board. My device also thinks I'm serious sbout frequent typos and doesn't bother trying to correct them after a while. Typing "thd" instead of "the" is my most frequent typo, and the phone let's it slide- doubly so if there are two or more typos, so it doesn't even try to make me change "d4m10n" to something comprehensible}
My interfaces don't pop anything up. it's an unobtrusive tiny red notification up by the bell?
No sound accompanying it I've ever heard, on any device?
It's one click to open the list, skim it, and one to close it. Doesn't seem a cumbersome feature?
#MeToo, but it sounds like you are talking about push notifications. I'm just talking about that little red square hanging on to the bell on this site only.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Which would be a compelling criticism if i had actually done so. I didnt say anythjng about Senator Mounds making up anything. For all i know, he was repeating something he was told in good faith.
i found the entire story fictitious (read: false) because it described events that couldn't happen, and it contradicted itself.
They did accept them. They still had to go through the military process for getting the DEERS marker changed, which took longer than basic training, when they were still assigned to their birth sex segregated company.
We are arguing about this because you challenged and questioned my criticism of the story, and I addressed you clearly and directly. Pretty straightforward.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
This is an assertion given here without any supporting evidence. I'd've assumed that the marker would match their acquired gender from the get-go since they joined up during a trans-inclusive administration. You have evidently assumed otherwise, but who knows which assumption is correct.
Another assertion without supporting evidence.
Last edited:
Alternatively, campaigning organisations needed to find something new to campaign on. From July 2014:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/28/stonewall-ruth-hunt-promote-transgender-rights
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I do not have preductive text enabled on any device.
Thermal
August Member
...common knowledge, I thought? No?
"Hey google..."
"In 2023, U.S. military policy required all service members, including transgender individuals, to adhere to the standards (including for berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities) associated with their
biological sex. This means that transgender women did basic training with men, based on their sex assigned at birth."
Thermal
August Member
Addressing only one of half dozen quirks, but ok..
I don't have predictive text enabled either. My interface gives suggestions between the keyboard and screen that I can use or not.
As an aside, my device will sometimes autocorrect and sometimes not, but that's not predictive text, if I recall the feature correctly.
Thermal
August Member
Ok, but that doesn't clarify anything. Why would they be at a 'tipping point' unless some force was causing them to tip? The alt-right was on the rise about then too.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I don't have this.
What will it take for you to understand that not everyone is like you. We have our own way of doing things. I have my phone and the forum set up the way I like it
NO notifications
NO alerts
NO popups
NO sounds
NO predictive text
NO suggestion line
I use GBoard with bare bones settings - all enhancements are turned off. My keyboard is nothing more than a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ typewriter.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed. You are supposed to say when you're using AI generated content.
Thermal
August Member
Yes, scooter, that's why I am asking you about it. You were describing manually disabling features the forum does not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ have, which is why I have come to believe you have your head shoved deeply up your ass.
We were talking, if you recall, about the "@" and ping alerts on this forum. You started going on about pop-ups and audible sounds, which has nothing to do with anything. Indeed, you made the same goof you now accuse me of: you told me to try to type in 'd4m10n' on a smartphone. I did so, and reported results... which apparently didn't occur to you might be different than yours.
Thermal
August Member
A person of middling intellect could probably figure out what the preceding 'Hey, google..." meant without a brief dissertation.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
It is possible that the Biden Administration required "transgender individuals to adhere to the standards (including for berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities) associated with their biological sex" but I remain skeptical and have yet to see a solid source for that claim; my best guess is that the AI is confused about the timeframe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I just took a break from packing to highlight this. The references are in the replies.
Thermal
August Member
LOL, I've been half-assed searching as time allows, and it's actually tough to authoritatively determine what the standards were. There is a lot of referencing to DEERS gender marker, but only oblique references to how that is determined. All seem consistent in 2023 being consistent with biological sex, until full transition after review, when it can be changed. Even SPARTA acknowledges that transgender recruits will be 'asked' to undergo basic training with their biological sex till transition is complete.
However, I believe that if transwomen were in the female barracks, we'd have heard about it very loudly, and the outrage that would accompany such a situation. We have not, save for Senator Pound's invisible friend. I believe that unevidenced situations of such dramatic proportions among tens of thousands of recruits would have caused a stir. You believe they would all be silent for years. Okey doke.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Which features do you claim the forum does not have?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
A person of middling intellect could probably figure out that Googling stuff and researching linked results, then linking to them on the forum, with possible copying and pasting the relevant parts from the linked article, and Googling stuff and then copying and pasting the "AI Overview" are NOT THE SAME ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ THING
The former is allowed, that latter is a breach of the forum rules unless you explicitly specify the content you pasted is AI
John Freestone
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 999
What? Those seem pretty well the same thing - reaction to being "exclude[d]" or "marginalized" is just "effect." You weren't clear if it's the cause or effect, then presented them as pushing back in two slightly different ways. And...it's THE CAUSE. People are not of the opposite sex to their sex, even if you call it 'gender' - the whole philosophy is based on a mad idea, essentially a religious idea that people have some gendered essence that's independent of their sex. And they got together to demand we all join the cult. The history of it is quite clear.
Push back against the pushing back from both ends? No, either I didn't make myself clear or you're choosing to misrepresent what I explained. Transgender theory was deliberately inserted into Western culture, so the old social conventions and people knowing what sex they are went out the window. We're awash with pseudoscientific garbage and woke identity politics, and the TRAs will legislate to have their way if not stopped by law, so just saying "everyone go back to being nice and sort it out kindly" without legal clarification isn't sensible.
Consent can't be granted on behalf of others. Women who say they don't mind men in their spaces can't ignore the needs of other women who are endangered or threatened by that.
No formal data you're aware of, and social media isn't "ablaze". Hmm. It's not taken me long to discover your level of tenacity in research.
Seems to be the same. Could you provide some evidence beyond this vague speculation that all is well despite letting any man into women's spaces?
You're still missing the bigger issue here. You nor I have the right to say men should have the right to enter women's spaces. Whatever your sex. Women as a group should make that call - wouldn't you agree? And here I'll speculate: a large majority don't want them there. They have daughters. Do they want men in the changing room with their daughters? Do you have a daughter? Don't talk to me about what I'd intuitively think and pretend it's wrong before you've considered that.
Oh yeah, predators in the women's will be terrified there might be a man walking past outside. The risk doesn't give them a thrill at all. That must be why no woman has ever been hassled, assaulted or raped in the women's toilets. Police might be somewhere. I'm astounded at what you come out with.
No, I don't mean, "keep it closed" as in change the law to making it closed, I mean simply making a law that keeps it closed, even if it's never been done before. Because we're in 2026, and the TRAs are here, and they take a mile given an inch. They are utterly determined to force transgender ideology as far as it is possible to go. They've shown that time and time again.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Apologies if I've raved about this before, but I make a point of following the links in any AI summary, offered by Google, because I've tripped over cases where the summary is opposite to the linked source.
Thermal
August Member
Not sure where you are getting that. They can act to gain more recognition, or REact to having recognition taken away from them. Those are not the same things.
You seem to be basing your feelings about this on web pages (and like many here, based on the worst of the worst of them). I base mine on the limited experience I have with real ones. The transwoman I have seen go from a troubled teenage boy to a well-adjusted medically transitioned transwoman is worth more to me than wailing about some tweet from 20 years ago. I believe she is sincere in her belief that she was 'born in the wrong body', which I usually describe as having a crossed wire upstairs somewhere.
You may well believe so. I think it will eventually be worked out between those with cool heads.
I didnt say anything about that. You are knee jerk responding to keywords.
Yes, and this thread has discussed this at length. Surprised? There's not much formal data out there (and dont think it got by me that you ignored the UCLA data entirely in this part of your response), and what meager data there is supports my position. Absolute zero supports yours.
About the same as your speculation that the Hounds of Hell shall be unloosed if we let transwomen in. And again, they've been let in informally for generations. With formalizing their access rights, absolute zero increases in bad behaviors are noticed. Do you have some new data that says otherwise? Ive been asking for it for a year now and treated to absolutely nothing.
Mostly, yes, with the caveat that bigotry not be fueling that choice, lest it rise to the level of hate crime, like denying black people the right to use white's restrooms.
Way ahead of you. In fact I do have daughters, and a wife and even a mother. They have opinions ranging from "whatever, it's not that big a deal" to active support from one of my girls. And that's why I tend to support what THEY have to bear the burden of. In fairness, we live in the northeastern United States, where there has never been much animosity against trans people.
People of all stripes have been assaulted everywhere. You have something more than your personal speculation that wearing a wig and assaulting women in their rest rooms stands out statistically? I don't find that at all.
*double checks calender and narrows eyes at John Freestone*
Maybe you see this. I see transwomen that behave pretty much like everyone else, just going about their days. The "they" you refer to seem to be tweets of the worst of the worst.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Exactly!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed. This is something members of the "be-kind brigade" seem to entirely miss. Any woman's individual willingness to share a private space where they feel vulnerable (such as a changing room or toilet) with a male places no onus on other women to accept that male.
It can be summed up in four words...
Consent Is NOT Transferable
The MOMENT society makes an exception for transgender identified males, that opens the door for ALL males to take advantage of that exception.
Correct.
It is not a both-ways democratic issue in which the majority rules. You can have 10 women and one man in a women's changing room. Nine are OK with the man being in there, and one is not. The man leaves... no negotiation, no arguing, no debate! The man leaves... immediately
Indeed they don't. I have daughters and grand-daughters. I do not want biological male strangers going into women's spaces when they are there... THEY don't want male strangers in there either.
Its never ending with him unfortunately. He simply will not accept that the need for women's spaces isn't just about the risk. Its about privacy and dignity..
Its pretty clear that we have fortunately, reached and passed "peak trans" - the tide has turned and is on its way out.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It's also about the hypocrisy of males insisting that females must be forced to share intimate spaces with males because they don't want to share intimate spaces with other males. No evidence is apparently required for that preference to be taken as perfectly reasonable and understandable. "I'm male, but I'm a woman in my head, and women don't have to share intimate facilities with males, therefore actual women must be forced to share their intimate spaces with males". It's utterly nonsensical.
John Freestone
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 999
OMG yes, I've actually had people quote their AI responses on this, which amount to: if you don't let transwomen into women's spaces, even more women's interests and feelings are being discounted, and even more women are being put at risk from men. Once someone swallows, "Transwomen are women," the poison spreads to every other part of the brain!
I tried responding to one friend, who loves his philosophical arguments and often uses the "square circle" disproof: There was a time when circles and squares had their own clubs where they'd meet up. One day, some of the squares wanted to get in on what the circles were talking about, and the circles objected, because they kept getting hurt by the squares' sharp corners. After long argument, the squares declared that those squares were actually square circles, and now they'd be hurt by the square squares' sharp corners, but they'd get along fine with the other circles. My friend decided his blood pressure couldn't cope and cut the discussion off.
John Freestone
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 999
OK, well I found that a very odd way to put what you were trying to say, since "act to gain more recognition" was described as being excluded. Being excluded strongly suggested to me an act by the included.
OK, I think we might be getting somewhere. I'm not basing my "feelings about this on web pages," (except in the sense that virtually everything is a web page now if it's not a printed book, and I rarely read those). I base my opinions on long, careful, detailed consideration of research by experts in the field. This detailed, consistent examination of every aspect of the whole field, I contend, gives a much more accurate picture than knowing a few "transwomen".
For one thing, this is because those are likely to be a source of bias. Do you know any detransitioners, who regret their transition and now recognise that they were duped by the trans ideology? Do you follow the work of serious researchers in the field? Have you read even summaries of, say, the Cass Review or the HHS Report? I have immersed myself as much as I can stomach in the publications of transgender activists, and seriously considered the merits of pro-trans scientific research (which entirely fail to come up to reasonable standards, as all the systematic reviews everywhere attest).
Secondly, as you put it, the sources you rely on to establish your "feelings" have "a crossed wire upstairs somewhere." That is both an counterindication of its reliability (there is, for example, the sunk-cost fallacy at play - people defend their mistakes with passion and self-deceit) and the very source of the whole problem. Last year, Genspect acted on this increasingly obvious cause of the trans phenomenon, by launching their re-psychopathologisation campaign, intending to undo the causal action of WPATH, etc., when they depathologised gender dysphoria. That defined the latter medically as no longer "a crossed wire," a difficulty in coming to terms with the reality of one's sex, and left little recourse for sufferers and clinicians to do anything other than affirm the crossed wire's output (this is now a "trans person") and/or begin destructive interventions on the body.
To be fair, I haven't yet checked that out, but it's not long since you gave the source (and I'll still have to search to find the study, you just gave the "UCLA"). UCLA, by the way, is a name that keeps coming up in sex-realist discussions as deeply biased, although I haven't necessarily gone to all of those sources myself to check. Rolfe also posted a whole raft of data on the high correlation between sex crime and paraphilia, which I also haven't had time to look into.
After a while doing this, the balance of probability grows stronger. Intuition is useful, if not a last arbiter. For example, there are interesting links between paraphilia and the establishment of WPATH. The sharp end of the movement seems clearly to have been driven (cause) by men with fantasies of being, or forcing boys to become, eunuchs. The MtF contingency of 'trans' seems to involve a large number of autogynophiles, and a large contingency of 'trans' of either sex are quite obviously naturally homosexual, but appear to be reacting to social homophobia by pretending to have heterosexual relationships in queer bodies. This is where accepting crossed wires leads. Confused, more and more distressed, physically harmed, life-long medical patients.
Yes, many will report they are happier ... for a while. The research shows these honeymoon periods often end with the distress returning, leading to further, more intrusive, even more dangerous, interventions. And a lot of those pro-trans outcome measures just measure the honeymoon self-reports. Those, I have read. A great many. They're ridiculous.
I've not focused on this aspect until now. But see above: Rolfe's contribution.
So if research showed women were at significantly higher risk, would that establish that it wasn't "bigotry," enough to accept legal exclusion? I confess the last part of your reply is a serious challenge, because there may be areas where one race is statistically more at risk from another, and it would take a lot for me to back race segregation (although, as a white man, if a lot of black men were getting beaten up by white supremacists, I'd want to do something about it - it's very hard, as a progressive, to countenance the opposite, but in principle, if the risk was high enough, it's probably required).
As I already said, I accept that some amelioration of male violence could come from education of boys, but I don't think it's enough (and this is another reason the race analogy is different): we have millions of years of evolution in which males and females developed very different strengths and motivations. Men are to some extent naturally predatory, so it is an uphill struggle to educate us out of it, and we are, generally, much bigger and stronger than women, with much greater muscle mass and larger lungs. There is much less physiological difference between the same sex groups of different races.
Then I can only appeal to the wider picture - most women know the dangers, and probably most mothers and fathers. I am also very aware of the social pressure these days to shrug and say it's fine. If you don't, you're a transphobe. So I take such opinions with a pinch of salt.
Rolfe
Adult human female
* autogynaephiles
or autogynephiles if you're American
or autogynephiles if you're American
p0lka
Illuminator
Never use the present day ai summaries, they're scraping the bottom of the barrel of the internet as the expression goes. Treat it like Wikipedia and always go down to the sources to check whether you're correct.
Thermal
August Member
《Respectful slippage for focus》
Agreed, being up on the studies is essential, but what I am more interested in is how we interact and think of transpeople socially, when the boots hit the ground. I think that informs how we shape policy, and indeed which 'facts' we accept and dismiss. That's been a recurring theme in the discussion for the last year.
Nope. Just well adjusted adults with years living comfortably in their identified gender.
Only to read it as it comes up. This stuff isn't my raison d'etre.
As I said earlier, medical interference with minors is not something I support, so I haven't bothered with reading it in detail (I assume you mean the pediatric gender care stuff when you say the H&HS report; they write a lot).
If they had not come to terms with the reality of their sex, they wouldn't know they are trans, and would wonder what the fuss was about. They are fully aware of the reality, that their internal sense is not jibing with their plumbing.
There are in fact many options beyond ye Olde slice and dice. Most transpeople elect not to undergo it, and just live in the carcass they were born with.
To be fair, I didn't "just give the UCLA". I specified the Williams Institute, which is planet Earth's largest academic organization studying transgender issues. You have said that you've "immersed yourself in the literature", including pro-trans works. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but if you did not even recognize the Williams Institute, you have not even begun to look at at the relevant literature.
And that's been another recurring theme ITT: confirmation bias writ large. You're looking at the information you want to see.
"They are deeply biased" is another way to say "I really don't want to accept their findings, as they conflict with my bias".
...which is highly problematic, considering how heavily you are relying on the acceptance of the assumed threat.
Sure. Facts be facts, and data be data. But we don't see it, anywhere. Or rather, we don't see an increase. The perverts that perved under no policy just continue perking at about the same rate. That's the thing about adoption of the open gender policies: there is no noticeable change after they've been adopted. In my most humble of opinions, it's because nothing is actually changed. The transwomen (and even imposters) were in no way barred in previous generations. The difference now is that efforts are being made to prevent them from doing what they've done for decades, using the thread of increased risk to women as the justification. But we don't see that increase.
And again, don't talk this the wrong way, but you ask if I have a daughter, and when I respond with my girls' very common opinions, you dismiss them as insincere. I mean, they really don't care all that much. They've been in restrooms with the opposite sex (much as I have), and it simply wasn't that big a deal. A little weird, but we all find ourselves in odd company all the time.
So that needs to be the focus: transpeople have been using the opposite-sexed bathrooms for generations, yet we don't have a single set of data that suggestsp restrooms are any more dangerous than any other place on earth. We have no data presented that transpeople attack in restrooms any more than cis people do (I mean, it's an unlocked and unguarded door). The current battleground is introducing legal force to exclude them, with no evidentiary support that there even *is* a threat, or that hanging a "No Trannys" sign on the door would mitigate it.
My bottom line, again, is return to the old status quo and let us sort it as we see fit on the case-by-case basis. Several posters here insist we have passed "peak trans", and the tide is turning against the TRAs. Maybe so. If so, wouldn't this be a golden opportunity to advocate returning to the old status quo, as you yourself agreed would be the ideal?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Any policy that rejects facts is not a policy at all, its an authoritarian directive.
The core facts in this are simple. There are two, and only two sexes. A person born as one sex, can never change, or be changed to the other sex. There are no exceptions to this! There is no valid debate about this! There is no nuance regarding this! Every one of the eight billion plus humans on the planet is either a biological male or a biological female. Even the tiny fraction of those with DSD are still either one sex or the other.
Any public policy around access to women's safe spaces and women's sports MUST incorporate these irrefutable facts. That will be hard for a minuscule minority, it sucks to be them, but taking away the safe space rights of 50% of the population for the benefit of a few delusional men is NOT the solution. The correct solution is psychiatric treatment for those with such delusions.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh look.
John Freestone
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 999
Sure, but if you limit your view to the positive results of trans ideology, you're view is biased. When you say, "how we interact and think of transpeople," the 'we' has to refer to others. Lesbians who can't run a social group without men-who-identify-as-lesbians trying to join, for example.
So, likewise, you ignore the damage trans ideology does, because you only consider the self-reports of "well adjusted adults". Interestingly, you have overlapping Venn areas around "well adjusted" and "a crossed wire upstairs". Regret can be bitter if the person gets their wires untangled again.
These terms are the central problem, imo. By the first, I am referring to anyone worried or confused about any aspect of their sex; this could be a minor, passing distress right up to chronic "gender dysphoria". I do not equate any part of that continuum with someone being "trans". The word commonly indicates a particular essential human condition, a permanent cross-sex or unsexed or indefinitely sexed ontological state, which is an error. If it simply referred to having confusion about one's sex, that is a mental condition, thoughts-about-body rather than body-failing-to-match-thoughts. My internal sense of my age doesn't jibe with my plumbing. I don't expect to play on the under-18's rugby team.
Most people who speed don't die in road traffic incidents.
My bad, I missed that. I have, indeed, heard of the Williams Institute. TRA-la-la. Their brief - "planet Earth's largest academic organisation studying transgender issues" (they 'study' all the alphabet soup, actually) - their brief on 'Transgender People' says, "We study discrimination and bias against transgender people and other gender minorities and examine how these experiences affect their health and socioeconomic well-being." If that's not a pro-trans bias, I'm Gloria Estefan.
Look, you brought up this - what shall we call it? - evidence of no increase. I searched on their site, but didn't find it. Perhaps you can link to it.
I'm sure I'm biased. We all are.
You've just (indirectly) called me biased.
No, I've not been focused on this aspect till now because I'm not relying on it at all.
Rolfe posted something with a lot of references (via a tweet). Maybe we should look at them. Or maybe we should just keep reiterating that there's no increase. And there is the British study Rolfe referred to as well. There are the basic statistics about male violence against women, and logic and reason.
Sure, and one day one of you might meet - or even google and notice!!!! - people who've been badly damaged by trans ideology.
Even if there was X amount of predation under the relaxed lack of any particular law that you'd prefer to go back to, and it hasn't gone up since, there is still some value in considering introducing law that might reduce the predation that you accept took place. If X chickens were killed by foxes getting in to chicken coops with weak-ass chicken wire on them, and X chickens are still getting killed by foxes when we leave the coop door open, it still might save chickens to use stronger chicken wire.
Yeah, we've been erecting more and more guard-rails and barbed-wire fences to keep the nutjobs from invading civilzation. Now that we've finally begun to beat them back is a good time to invite them to return to the old status quo, LOL. I don't know about your country, but in mine, that was a long haul for anyone seeking help (ETA: anyone, that is, over the age of 18, or was it 21?). It began with psychotherapy, and continued with that while the person jumped through all manner of hoops to show they were willing and able to "live as" the opposite sex (no non-binaries or demi-pumpkins) for years and have full "transition" surgery. And a general understanding that if you don't do all of that, you'll stay in the restroom fitting for the sex marker on your passport, that you were "assigned at birth". The troons'll be delighted to accept. You should work on mediation between Russia and Ukraine next.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
He would have you "do the Conga" if he could!
It would not be any use. He has decided there is no evidence - and no amount of presentation of ANY evidence from ANY source will change that decision. He has a self-imposed limitation on the range of sources he will accept - but the problem is, he either does not understand (or does understand, but refuses to accept) the level to which the sources he accepts stories and data from are captured by the the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology, for example, If there is any instance of a woman being accosted by a transgender identified male, the mainstream media, such as the Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc will either not report it at all, or if they do, they will report it as a 'woman attacked by another woman' - they will not even mention the transgender aspect. All of the captured media reports transgender identified males committing crimes as women committing crimes. Infrequently, they may mention that the offender identifies as a woman, but they will hardly ever mention his deadname.
If the incident in question is reported by, for example, the Telegraph, or the New York Post, Thermal deems these sources and right wing tranny-bashing bigots, he will (and has done) dismiss such reports out of hand.
It really doesn't matter though - ANY and ALL data that does not comport with his pre-determined narrative is summarily dismissed.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't suppose Thermal will listen to this guy's "lived experience".
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
"Its on Twitter and hasn't been reported on an "approvedTM" news source, so its a fake story told by a paid vicsim and all the surrounding characters are crisis actors."
- You Know Who
Thermal
August Member
...which is why i said pretty clearly that we shouldn't do so?
Agreed.
Not true. What i was saying is that my basic feelings about trans people are influenced by real ones, not the worst examples that can be dredged up from the internet. See picking, cherry for more detail.
We discussed that very recently. A crossed wire can be little more than a quirk, and the person can remain completely well adjusted.
It can. Or not.
Is that internal sense what you believe yourself to be, or not? My internal sense is that I am about 5'9" and 160lbs. But I'm 6' and 225. That vague sense of being smaller is not "real" to me, as in me buying clothes made for someone shorter and skinnier and not understanding why they don't fit.
True. And?
They are part of UCLA's School of Law. What would you expect them to study, issues where the subjects have no legal issues?
I've linked to it at least twice in this discussion earlier, and am growing bored with repeating myself and doing busy work for others. You claim to have "immersed yourself" in the literature, but you are unfamiliar with the rather well-known Massachusetts data?
As you said, we all are. To what extreme remains on the table for all of us.I'm sure I'm biased. We all are.
You've just (indirectly) called me biased.
Your first volleys since your re-engagement directed at me were about the threat of men assaulting women in restrooms. What convinced you that threat was real, if not evidence?
Rolfe has posted a lot of tweetys, and a lot of data that often has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and by her own admittance, is intended to convey the message "lookit the violent perverts! This is how them trannies are!"
Do you have something specific in mind? A vague gesture towards Rolfe's account isn't real slamming precise.
I might. Or not. I think data would be more illustrative than a few heart tugging anecdotes from a planet with millions of transpeople. You disagree?
Ok, I hear this. Let's run with it:
First, let's solve for X. We really do need to stop sidestepping that one.
Then, we want to do a chicken wire assessment. Is the proposed wire any better than what was there? Is is going to reduce the instance of X? Or is it some half assed security theatre measure more suited to being able to harass and humiliate the non-predatory animals in the barnyard because we really dont like them?
That has to be the bottom line consideration: will these measures do anything? Are the pervs deterred by someone saying "no pervng in this room", or as you suggested earlier, does that just add to the thrill and even possibly increase instances of X?
Really? And what are they?
As you very recently agreed would be the ideal. Did you have a sudden change of heart or epiphany?
Um..."troons"? What exactly is a Troon, and does it pack any wallop, or just somebody with a website or Twitter account?
I don't care what a subsection of semi-random people say or think. You can find NAMBLA supporters and any other whack jobs you can conceive of out there in the wild web. Which "troons" are influential, and to whom?
Last edited:
John Freestone
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 999
Yeah, I gathered that a while back. It's fun/interesting to see where we get to for a while, but I don't expect to change any minds on any of this - I've been at it too long. It's often because they have friends who identify as trans, and the cost is too great. Some are such dedicated trans allies that they call me names and are all-out TRAs, others...
...seem to want to find a middle ground and please both sides. I began trying to find some middle ground, but over months and years realised there really isn't any to be had, at least as far as I can see.Thermal
August Member
Wrong again, as usual. Even listened to the interview, where he says that homosexuality is not innate, but almost all environmentally caused by childhood sexual assault (I'm serious- he actually says that) and goes on about AGP, which as we all know, isn't a thing. Obviously some top quality care the hommes has been getting. That is indeed very sad.
As for the year old part of the text where this person believes they "exploded" in popularity, I have no recollection nor do I even know who this person is, nor do the vague handwavings at "antifa" attacking them mean much, objectively. I mean, were the antifa boogeymen real or delusional? Can't say. A viewer could well conclude that this person suffers from multiple delusions and extremely poor mental/medical health advice, past and present though, conceded.
Eta: I stand corrected. The tweety is not from a year ago, as it seems the current year is not 2027, as I quite sincerely have believed it to be for the last few days. I quite literally googled "what year is it?" and I can only hope and pray that the AI response was reasonably accurate
Last edited:
John Freestone
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 999
General point first: we seem increasingly to be talking past each other, and I am experiencing that as due to your inability to engage with the meaning of my communications. That seems to indicate to me a reluctance to follow reasoning. I am doing my best to understand exactly what you think, but it doesn't seem to be going both ways. That can't last, but I'll stick with it for a while and hope you up your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ game.
In response to the above, my point is simple: the condition of "being a trans person" is a cognitive error. The body is what it is. Sex is binary and immutable. So difficulties around it are mental problems, and defining such as "being a trans person" is a moral and rational failure, because of the damage it does to people when they take that status seriously as a physiological problem (HOWEVER MANY ARE HARMED). Nobody should have physical interventions to fix mental problems. You are sane if you realise that your slim-fit clothes don't fit because your internal image is faulty. If you demand that you're slim and try to sue the clothing manufacturers, you're beginning to show signs of mental illness.
There needs to be a law against speeding, despite the fact that the dangers only result in a minority of those who speed dying in car crashes or killing others. There needs to be a law against ingress of males into female spaces, despite most of them being harmless. There needs to be a law against so-called 'trans health care' as it now stands, despite (if you insist) most people coming out the other side healthy or having no physical interventions. NOBODY gains from it, so it's not even a cost-benefit analysis.
Which reminds me to say I was pleased you're against paediatric gender medicine, but if you analyse that issue dispassionately you'd discover serious problems with that stance (i.e. with being in favour of adult 'gender medicine'). One is that the trans lobby won't stop at adults - the whole issue got insane precisely because it was thought that transing children would save them from the awful discomfort of not passing as the opposite sex - and there are others to do with how we decide who is fit to give consent and who is denied treatments. There are vulnerable adults, adults with learning difficulties, precocious children. It all gets so messy. But once you recognise that nobody benefits from acting on the belief that they're a special kind of human called a 'trans person', it's much simpler, and, AFAICS, perfectly moral.
Really? You have no idea of all the suits taking place against medical practitioners, or the legal issues around males in women's sports, or the issues around males in female changing rooms, or in online women's groups, or offline ones? Is there nothing else of a legal nature to study around LGBTQ+ than how terribly that irrationally lumped-together group of people are treated by fascist normies?
◊◊◊◊ me, ok, I'll spend time trying to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ find it! Talk about dragging your feet!
Women's lived experience, telling me about it. But it's not just assault - as you keep being told and keep ignoring - it's about women's privacy, their rights, their feelings. You keep going on about wanting to go back to the good old days, but then there were labels above two doors: MEN and WOMEN, and they were there for a reason. But again you deliberately switched away from my actual reply to whine about something else and try to pin me with it. My answer was that I haven't been deeply engaged in looking at the women's spaces issue. So I began doing that more here than elsewhere? Who gives a ◊◊◊◊. My point was that my sex-realist position DOES NOT DEPEND ON MALES IN FEMALE SPACES BEING A PROBLEM EVEN THOUGH IT IS.
See how you constantly fail to follow the thread of our conversation, ducking and weaving?
Duck and weave.
What I had in mind was what I said, maybe we should follow those links and see what the ◊◊◊◊ they say! It was a little hint that, while I haven't yet had time, I have no concern about dealing with it in good faith, while I'm pretty damned sure you will NEVER do so.
Badly damaged by trans ideology, said I. "A few heart tugging anecdotes," you reply. Yes, I disagree. As I'm making perfectly clear now. Nobody should be damaged by this, because it is utter nonsense, as you yourself agree (while also talking about 'trans people'). Medicine generally works that way. Even a very small number of bad outcomes usually precludes an intervention, depending on the severity of the condition if nothing is done. When it comes to trans, you must realise, depending on location, someone turns up at a clinic and walks out with megadoses of steroids.
Immediately, you prove you didn't hear it.
That says it all. That's what you think. I'm just a transphobe trying to find ways to make "trans people's" lives as difficult as possible, to "harass and humiliate them". Not much point in going on with this is there?
Ah, again you betray your bias. You accept there might be a thrill for a male imposing his presence in women's spaces when you can turn it round. And of course denying trans activists their every desire amounts to signs saying "no perving in this room". You want to go back to a time when men used the men's and women used the women's; TRAs are doing their best to remove that norm; but you want to support them until someone has proven beyond reasonable doubt that it does more harm than good. Weird.
This deliberate, repeated misrepresenting me is preposterous. You know perfectly well what I meant the first time, and the second time when I corrected you. My last paragraph repeats my position, and the history around it. We had sex segregation; TRAs smashed that. We only differ in that I believe the only way to counter that and return to sex segregation is to make it clear, legally (because TRAs won't care about appeals to go back to the good old days - they are insanely progressive!), and you think we can. You also agree with them that the attempt to keep them in their place is to "harass and humiliate" them. Weird.
It's a 'trans-loon'. (Graham Linehan, I think).
Yes, you do. Too much.