Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

I don't think he is the poster boy for trannys behaving badly.

It's not like he's a poster boy for trannies behaving well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again with males are just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. You can't even give us any credit for wanting to not rape or murder women unless you convince us not to?

Oh FFS. Do you think there was some magical awakening of the male half of the species that occurred only in the western world in the early 20th century? Some unprecendented magical evolutionary step that somehow made males grow a special conscience that didn't previously exist? And somehow that evolutionary advance went backward in Afghanistan and Iran sometime in the late 20th century?

You can't possibly be serious with this BS, Thermal. Come on.

 

[Thermal]

Merager was cleared of charges because... hold on to your hat... it's legal for a male to be naked in front of non-consenting females as long as that male says out-loud-words about their unverifiable and subjective inner gendery soul.

Merager was A) not supposed to be afforded access by management, and no one has explained why, B) charged and tried for lewd and lascivious behavior,and the prosecution failed to convince the jury, and C) did nothing in front of non consenting females, at least in the sense that every one consented by default or stupidity to being in that situation which was known and legal and (at the time) supported in that state by a 3 to 1 majority and was likely to occur and D) transpeople frequented the WI Spa, and no one has clarified where they usually went. His presence there might well have been an everyday occurance, and holy roller Cubana Angel already knew it.

Hyman has gained following from a whole bunch of people who are absolutely fed the ◊◊◊◊ up with this gender ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, and who were outraged that the initial reaction - including by you - as to vilify Hyman as the one in the wrong, call them a transphobic bigot, threaten and harass them, tell them they should die or be raped or be killed or the ever-popular "chock on my giant lady cock"! Hyman gained following because they weren't cowed by abusive males and performatively inclusive females.

Do you realize you just agreed with me? Hyman has gained significant wealth and fame as a result of this.

When you look at actual incarceration, males with transgender identities have FOUR TIMES the rate of sex offending as normal males.

Ziggurat would like a word with you about the shortcomings of that data that he has been so adamant about bringing up. I expect him presently.

Of course, you've been shown those stats many times, and you always just hand-wave them away and make excuses for why you refuse to even consider them at all.

I have considered them. The data sucks, and is wildly generalized. In fairness, we are talking about such a small amount of offenders that their totals fall into rounding errors (like 76 total offenders in a country of 69 million), and we don't even know what those offenses were. How many were involving strangers in restrooms, and how many were intimate relationship offenses, which affect no one outside the intimate relationship?

 

[Thermal]

Males are going to rape females no matter what, so we should just go ahead and make it easier for them by removing some of the few barriers that get in the way of their raping?

I'm pretty strongly opposed to this approach, for reasons that I would think are glaringly obvious.

I don't see any barrier being proposed that would even slow down a rapist. Pretty sure criminals that violent don't care about the sign on the unlocked door. Might have mentioned that a few hundred times.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't see any barrier being proposed that would even slow down a rapist. Pretty sure criminals that violent don't care about the sign on the unlocked door. Might have mentioned that a few hundred times.

I don't think you actually understand rapists, or criminals in general. Silence of the Lambs has given a similar wrong impression about serial killers, this idea that they're smart, that they're master planners.

They aren't. Criminals are for the most part idiots. But not just any idiot, because there are lots of law abiding idiots. Criminals are for the most part idiots with very poor impulse control. A lot of rapes are not planned. A lot of rapes are spur of the moment impulses that the rapist acts upon. And because those acts are spur of the moment impulsive acts, if you remove the immediate temptation to commit those acts, that actually CAN prevent them from occurring.

 

[Thermal]

I don't think you actually understand rapists, or criminals in general. Silence of the Lambs has given a similar wrong impression about serial killers, this idea that they're smart, that they're master planners.

They aren't. Criminals are for the most part idiots. But not just any idiot, because there are lots of law abiding idiots. Criminals are for the most part idiots with very poor impulse control. A lot of rapes are not planned. A lot of rapes are spur of the moment impulses that the rapist acts upon. And because those acts are spur of the moment impulsive acts, if you remove the immediate temptation to commit those acts, that actually CAN prevent them from occurring.

I don't think you are being at all realistic about how these criminal idiots with poor impulse control regard signs on an unlocked door.

Perhaps you think putting a sign up that says "Don't Burglarize Here" is another effective crime deterrent? I mean, you took the "immediate temptation" away?

 

[theprestige]

I don't see any barrier being proposed that would even slow down a rapist. Pretty sure criminals that violent don't care about the sign on the unlocked door. Might have mentioned that a few hundred times.

On the other hand, we have had, and propose restoring, barriers that would slow down the exhibitionist, the voyeur, the harasser.

Barriers that were removed at Planet Fitness, resulting in exhibitionism, harassment, and the banning of the woman who complained. This has all been explained to you before, repeatedly and at length. Why is it not sticking in your mind?

 

[Emily's Cat]

What I find interesting about your response is that the split I mention isn't about being trans or not. A trans identifying male can be on either side of that split. So can a non-trans male. But you didn't seem to recognize that.

Good point - there's a lot of males with transgender identities who are pretty vocal about not using female spaces. Unfortunately they get harassed as "truscum" by the males with transgender identities who believe that their inner gendery soul is more important than anything else.

 

[Thermal]

On the other hand, we have had, and propose restoring, barriers that would slow down the exhibitionist, the voyeur, the harasser.

Likely, but not what we were talking about. EC said 'rapists'. See goalposts, moving the.

Barriers that were removed at Planet Fitness, resulting in exhibitionism, harassment, and the banning of the woman who complained. This has all been explained to you before, repeatedly and at length. Why is it not sticking in your mind?

See above. I'm arguing in a straight line, not changing the subject when things start going badly.

Planet Fitness is a private gym. You pay to go there, and if you don't like their policies, you go elsewhere. Another PF story was one where a transwoman was photographed shaving in the locker room. Super weird to do, but also not cool to publish pics of people without their consent in a private area, or take pictures of others in restrooms at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We keep returning to why you want trans people out of women's restrooms. Is it because they are violent/perverts in there? They dont appear to be. Is it because cis predators may impersonate them? Data suggests they don't.

It's because they are MALE.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Some of them are violent. Some of them are pervs. Some of them are perfectly pleasant. But ALL OF THEM ARE MALE.

Why do you think females should be required to allow males into female intimate spaces?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I totally get what you are saying, and im.glad you brought up firearms. You said you own a handgun and carry it while in the woods, in the event of unruly animals. Should I be considered to be under YOUR complete control and at your mercy simply because you have a handgun? I don't have one and can't beat off bullets with my biceps.

If we say I am, do you see how that is throwing shade on your character, to even suggest that people should consider themselves to be "almost constantly at your mercy"?

I swear you're going out of your way to misunderstand every single thing I type. I'm just plain tired of it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And as I've been explaining, I don't think that advantage puts you realistically "almost constantly at their mercy of being ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ raped or murdered". I think a lot more dots have to be connected first.

You're just outright determined to continue misunderstanding the point there, aren't you?

He said its "true" that women are under the complete power of men. Again, i disagree with that strongly.

Are you of the belief that females in Afghanistan have all decided amongst themselves that they want to be forbidden education, careers, and movement in public without direct male supervision? Or are the males of Afghanistan somehow an especially different evolutionary offshoot of humanity that only arose in the late 20th century?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think you are being at all realistic about how these criminal idiots with poor impulse control regard signs on an unlocked door.

You misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that they will obey the signs. But if sex segregation is enforced, they are less likely to be able to hang out in those spaces, because they can get ejected from them. And if they aren't hanging out there, they are less likely to encounter a female in a vulnerable state that becomes a temptation.

Perhaps you think putting a sign up that says "Don't Burglarize Here" is another effective crime deterrent?

I think not inviting strangers to tour your house and case your possessions is.

I mean, you took the "immediate temptation" away?

No, you didn't.

 

[Thermal]

It's because they are MALE.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Some of them are violent. Some of them are pervs. Some of them are perfectly pleasant. But ALL OF THEM ARE MALE.

Why do you think females should be required to allow males into female intimate spaces?

For the 10,000th time: I DONT.

Jesus Christ, EC, how many times do I have to repeat this to you? Self policing, with no force of law in either direction. No 'requirements', and for damn sure you have not 'misunderstood' that each of the 10,000 times it has been repeated to you.

Self policing allows my wife and kids, who are not bothered by this, to live and let live, as well as this Planet Fitness young woman who knew he was there but didn't have an issue with it (till the weird ◊◊◊◊). I hate to break it to you, but a lot of women are +/- okay with it.

If you feel upset or threatened, sound the alarm. Guys like the woman's boyfriend and yours truly are dime a dozen, and we are not shy. If you are worried about police, the courts, and society at large condemning you for objecting, well... you might want to take a long look in the mirror. Every facet of Western Civilization is not hypnotized by TRAs. They ain't MKUltra. We just agree with them, to different degrees.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let me stop you right there, because you ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up huge again. We were talking about imposter pervs. None have been shown, or even suspected that I recall. Instead, we get Misty Hill brought up for whatever reason, and this sad sack jerking it in Planet Fitness when he apparently thought he was alone. Bad behavior for sure, and unacceptable, but not remotely what we were talking about.

Lololol... So now your argument is that nobody has been able to show you any "imposter trans"? But you've also made the argument that nobody has been able to show you any "real trans" behaving inappropriately.

You'll just jump on any convenient argument-of-the-moment in order to avoid acknowledging that self-id based laws allow in ANY MALE WHO WANTS TO.

Stupid? Not at all. Evasive and playing dumb? We've got pages.

Look at your response here again. literally nothing to do with imposter pervs, and I'm pretty sure you knew that with every keystroke. You knew you were pretending we were talking about something else.

But wait, maybe I'm not being fair. So dead serious question: did you not understand what we were very specifically talking about, like the other hundred tomes you threw up these non sequitur replies? If not, would you like to revisit your last question?

Pick your argument.

Are we cherry picking the few bad apples in order to pretend like all males with transgender identities are pervs (something none of us has ever claimed)
Are we using people who aren't actually trans to make it seem like males with transgender identities do bad things sometimes?
Are we bringing up actual examples of real trans behaving poorly instead of imposter trans?
Are these things made up by hysterical females looking to grift on outrage?

Which excuse are you using this time in order to hand-wave away the issues that we're concerned about? I really can't keep track anymore, they change with every couple of posts.

 

[Thermal]

I swear you're going out of your way to misunderstand every single thing I type. I'm just plain tired of it.

I get your point. You clearly don't get mine, so that's the focus of my responses

And you didn't answer the question. Am I at your mercy and under your complete control because you happen to have a handgun and I dont?

 

[Thermal]

Lololol... So now your argument is that nobody has been able to show you any "imposter trans"?

That's specifically what we were talking about, yes. Do you know what 'specifically talking sbout' means? It means you don't move the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ goalposts or change the subject with another 'whataboutism'.

But you've also made the argument that nobody has been able to show you any "real trans" behaving inappropriately.

You'll just jump on any convenient argument-of-the-moment in order to avoid acknowledging that self-id based laws allow in ANY MALE WHO WANTS TO.

Pick your argument.

You really don't hear yourself, do you?

I answered Zigs specific comment directly, and you come out with "well this other time when we were talking about something else you had a different argument". You're making no sense at all.

Are we cherry picking the few bad apples in order to pretend like all males with transgender identities are pervs (something none of us has ever claimed)
Are we using people who aren't actually trans to make it seem like males with transgender identities do bad things sometimes?
Are we bringing up actual examples of real trans behaving poorly instead of imposter trans?
Are these things made up by hysterical females looking to grift on outrage?

Which excuse are you using this time in order to hand-wave away the issues that we're concerned about? I really can't keep track anymore, they change with every couple of posts.

Bull ◊◊◊◊, as I just showed you for the 10,001st time. I answered Zig directly and kept to the specific subject. You then complain that I answered differently when asked about a different subject entirely.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Every time I have to go to the bathroom at work. Seriously. All of the doors hang closed, the only way to tell if the stall is occupied or not is to observe feet and shadows under the edge.

#metoo, but in a split second without studying shadow plays. You just said you study the shadow movements. Why?

Your willingness to alter phrasing in order to produce an entirely different meaning never ceases to astonish me. Like right here - I said "observe feet and shadows under the edge" by which a reasonable person with a normally functioning brain would understand that some short people's feet aren't necessarily going to be visible depending on the angle of viewing, but that the shadow of a person in a stall will usually be visible.

But instead of the obvious and benign meaning that a normal person would read... you have decided to CHANGE THE WORDS and say "studying shadow movements" which is something entirely different.

Some people might be inclined to view this as a bad-faith interaction, and an attempt to produce malicious disinformation.

I've never looked for half a second.

I wonder how much of that has to do with males tending to use urinals far, far more often than stalls.

None at all. I want to know who is where, situationally, everywhere I am. Like, occupied stall or not in a quarter second assessment, never once studying the shadows, thinking about what they might be doing. If I saw four pairs of feet, I'd leave, assuming I was about to get jumped. But I can't even think of a reason to look at their shadows for that long.

I find it interesting that you never scan for feet or shadows, but you simultaneously want to know who is where and which stalls are occupied, and you scan enough to know that. "I never look, but I always know" is some next-level situational awareness there, bud.

Seriously, that particular shadow was blatantly obviously jacking off. It didn't take a long considered look, it was an immediate recognition that took barely moments. You pretending that somehow it's the female in the female restroom who is the sicko perv for noting that an obvious male walked into the female restroom and proceeded to start obviously jerking their meat while there is really mindblowing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Merager was A) not supposed to be afforded access by management, and no one has explained why,

Yet you yourself have previously pointed out at some great length that Merager was perfectly allowed by management to be in the female side of the spa as that was their policy. So they were absolutely supposed to be afforded access by management, and what you're saying here is pulled out of your backside.

B) charged and tried for lewd and lascivious behavior,and the prosecution failed to convince the jury, and

BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL IN CA FOR A MALE TO BE NUDE IN A FEMALE SPECIFIC SPACE IF THEY SAY MAGIC ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ WORDS

C) did nothing in front of non consenting females,

Because males showing off their dicks to female strangers doesn't require consent? Or do you just not give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about consider and think that exhibitionism is great since some males like doing it?

at least in the sense that every one consented by default or stupidity to being in that situation which was known and legal and (at the time) supported in that state by a 3 to 1 majority and was likely to occur and

Once again, do you have ANY support for your assertion that it was supported by the population of the state by a 3 to 1 majority that males could show off their dicks in female-specific intimate spaces?

D) transpeople frequented the WI Spa, and no one has clarified where they usually went. His presence there might well have been an everyday occurance, and holy roller Cubana Angel already knew it.

And again, you're blaming the female for being put out by a male getting their dick out in front of them without ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ consent!

Every single goddamned time you find a way to blame the female when a male who claims to have a female inner soul behaves inappropriately. Why the holy ◊◊◊◊ are you so damned determined to blame females every time one of your precious ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans does something that shouldn't have to be tolerated in the first place?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't see any barrier being proposed that would even slow down a rapist. Pretty sure criminals that violent don't care about the sign on the unlocked door. Might have mentioned that a few hundred times.

"You're gonna get raped anyway, just stop fighting it and accept your plight" is not the compelling argument you seem to think it is.