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.
It's not a solution at all. It's a coping mechanism.
And is it a good solution in this case? You didn't answer me.
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.
Because self-policing permitted people to expel Cox. Self-ID does not. It punishes people who would try to expel Cox.
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.
No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock.
You perpetually misrepresent my reasoning.
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.
They are completely changed.
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.
It can be. It can also be a solution.
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?
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 I mean when I say your befuddlement act is annoying.
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.
The policy is impotent, Jackson.
A strawman substantially distorts the argument being presented. Mild hyperbole does not.
Not your earlier argument, although I can understand your realization that you better reword it:
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.
The former, but feel free to answer about the latter as well, since it's also relevant.
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?
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.
Under the old policy, whoever was in charge of a facility could eject a person from that facility, by force if necessary.
It doesn't have to be.
You consistently and substantially distort my position.
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.
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.
Do you actually disagree with this part?
Get those quotes out of there, sweetheart. I never said a goddamned thing about it being a "good" solution.
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.
The same people. The ones who have for generations been afforded rare access to facilities where they were not classically conforming.
Lol
The Illusury Truth Effect again. Keep repeating it, man.
No, I get annoyed when you and others lie. There's a difference.
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.
Balls.
Do tell. What are you proposing? Use of lethal force against the mentally ill and 'pretenders'?
Welcome to the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ club.
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?
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.
For certain contexts? Of course not. As a sweeping statement as you keep using it? Yes, I disagree.
Which is why I brought up misandry as you're clearly demonstrating it.
Well yeah, there's three different states. There's trust, then there's not trust, then there's active distrust.
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.
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?
Even now, you can't actually simply state who you're talking about, I still have to infer it.
Not true.
A property owner who calls upon law enforcement to exert force on their behalf isn't a criminal.
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.
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?
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.
In what contexts is it wrong?
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.
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.
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 are.
Which I have provided several options for, and repeatedly.
Of course it is.
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.
And the goalposts are on the move yet again.
Not in most of this country.
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.
No, it's that you move the goalposts and equivocate trans people with mentally ill trans people willy-nilly.
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 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.
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.
Again, I didn't move anything, you did. I followed.
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.
Bull ◊◊◊◊. That's just the excuse you use when you don't want to deal with the substance of my argument.
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:
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:
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.
In other words, you cannot provide any specific contexts in which it's not true. You just want it to be.
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.
That was really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rude. You quoted @Emily's Cat out context, and you did so intentionally, and not for the first tine
You give him too much credit. I think he honestly doesn't even know what the idiom "at the mercy of" means.
Some more clarity at last. Your position now seems to be:
Clearly this will not be what Thermal's position is. Despite the most careful parsing of his words, it never is. There is a word for his style of interaction, but I should check the member agreement before naming it.