Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Smoooooooth brain.... No wrinkles or lumps, no valleys or bumps...
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
Lol, no, I hadn't really considered an adult on a toilet whose feet are dangling six inches or more off the floor, so you have to scan for shadows from above to determine human occupancy.You got me there
Jesus motherr ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ christ. I literally said, in the post you quoted, that I DO SCAN FOR FEET, and you immediately say I say I don't.
That's it. I'm done. There is no possible way you got that or the other 10,000 times you have bald faced lied about the words in front of you BY ACCIDENT. You are doing this ◊◊◊◊ on purpose.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
And yet you consistently argue that somehow we're all bad people for apparently agreeing with you.
This no longer works. "Self policing" is ineffective when 1) the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ laws give males the right to use female spaces by law based on their professed feelings about their gendered soul and 2) females who try to evict males are subjected to harassment, eviction, and threats!
I guarantee the female wasn't okay with it - they said they were uncomfortable about it. What do you think they should have done? Do you think females should physically challenge a male in a female space? Are you going to pretend like males and females are physically equal, and that a male who intentionally and purposefully engages in boundary violations and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ whacking it in the female restroom is somehow going to be cowed by a female telling them to leave? FFS, what world do you live in?
They're a dime a dozen... except when it's a horde of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ telling the females at WiSpa that they're nasty transphobic bigots for being unhappy about a free-swinging naked dick on the female side of the spa.
Seriously, every single ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ time you find a way to blame the females when males violate our boundaries.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
You are at my mercy, yes. You are dependent on my goodwill, and my lack of a desire to harm you. Because if the fungus were to take over my brain and make me go all homicidal... I would be capable of shooting you and there's not really much you could do about it.
You seriously seem to have an issue with the idiom "at the mercy of". Like, you seem to be envisioning some power hungry caricature of a cartoon villain laughing maniacally while dangly you over an open pit of lava or something.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,567
Jimmy Carr had a joke along these lines:
You can end all rape. Just say "yes".
But the point of the joke isn't that it's a good idea. It's that it's a horrific idea.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I always do that when in that situation.
The only time I haven't done that takes some explaining which I will do later when I home on a real computer not a bloody phone.
ETA: Quite a few years ago, A friend of mine and I had just watched a late movie. We were walking toward Cathedral Square in Christchurch, when we saw a well dressed young woman crossing a pedestrian crossing ahead of us (Hereford St IIRC) going in the same direction as us. As she reached the other side, two young guys accosted her, deliberately blocking her way and any attempt she made to go around them. We decided to speed up and started closing in on the three of them. One of the men made the "fatal" mistake of standing with his legs and arms wide to make her go further to go around - and before we could take any action, this young woman dropped one of them with a swift, accurate kick in the nuts - and in what seemed like one single motion, she flipped her high-heeled shoe into her right hand and buried the pointy-end of the heel in the other man's left temple. Then she quietly put her shoe back on and swiftly left the scene, leaving both of them in her wake and on their knees; one doubled up and groaning with his hands in his crotch, the other screaming in pain and clutching his head. As we got closer, we could see the blood oozing through his fingers.
We did not render help,
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Do you get that you seem to be the only one insulted by what @Emily's Cat said? I have spent all of my adult life "being no threat whatsoever to women in any way, shape or form, and being their active allies and partners" and I didn't feel at all insulted - that maybe because I recognise the truth in what she said, but most likely it's because I'm better at comprehension and context.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Really? How much wealth has she gained? You must have a rough idea to know that it's "significant".
Rolfe
Adult human female
No they shouldn't.
Consider the situation if men who have "fully transitioned" (by which I assume you mean that they have been castrated and have had their penile skin inverted to line a surgically-created cavity in the pelvis after discarding the erectile tissue) were to be given the legal right to use women's toilets, changing rooms, sleeping accommodation and so on. The operation I just described is invisible when the man is clothed. He still looks the same way he always did, fully dressed.
A man enters a female-only space. Women feel uncomfortable. Do they assume he has had all the surgery? How can they possibly tell? Do they ask him? How embarrassing is this for both parties? Do they believe his answer? How can they possibly tell?
You can see where this is going. You have just created a world where any man who wants to can enter a female-only space and be pretty much 100% certain nobody will try to prevent him.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Fully transitioning is currently impossible. Short of a brain transplant, I see no way in which it will ever be possible.
Even surgery and hormones eliminate very few of the differences between males and females, and the consequences of those differences to the lives they lead.
Thermal
August Member
No, I mustn't, because I am not her ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ accountant. I ran across her yesterday while chasing down the Planet Fitness story, and she boasted a "1500% growth increase in her Spotify subscribers" since the Gold's Gym incident, which generates revenue for her and I took to be "significant". Following the links the claim is technically true, but not as dramatic as it sounds:
...as well as her youtube views being up by 62% and all her other money generating online jazz increasing.
Were you going somewhere with this hard hitting investigation, or is it back under the bridge with you?
Rolfe
Adult human female
That pretty much sums up Thermal's entire position.
Thermal
August Member
Your sociopathy is showing again. Even cops who shoot killers render first aid to the person they just shot. And you let a guy who had a head injury lie in the street unattended because he was what, talking trash and briefly blocking a woman's path? Kids do that on the schoolyard every day. Should they be left to die if they sustain a head wound, with blood oozing from their temples, too?
Thermal
August Member
Lying again. I have said I ask women how they actually feel about it in jurisdictions where it actually happens. They, surprisingly, say it's not a big deal and they have no objections, barring an actually menacing person, male or female. Further, I've said that if women do object, they should be allowed to do so with no legal penalties, because that's how self policing works.
But keep repeating the lies. It's a good look, and the repetition will surely convince the feeble minded that they must be true.
Thermal
August Member
Caveat to your 'right answer': that only works if the woman has not noticed you, or doesn't see you on the other side of the street. A lot of women know about the man following her from the other side of the street routine from simply watching tv shows. If she sees you following (guys know all about that subtle head turn over the shoulder), and you cross the street and keep moving in the same direction, that's actually a red flag that she is being stalked and the guy is trying to 'hide'.
Better idea in the cell phone age: the guy should take that time to call mom, or his wife/kids, and have a loud happy chit-chat. Or even fake a brief call, saying "hey, I'm over on Main street around the deli, heading your way, should be there in about 5 minutes. Need anything picked up while I'm near the deli?" I think that loud exhibit of normalcy and someone expecting you in 5 minutes, and offering to disrupt the 'following' will put a woman more at ease that it's just a normal guy.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,567
This is a fascinating exchange to me, because you seem to be reading the intent of his message completely differently than I read the intent of his message. You read it as "We did not render help to the men, because they deserved to suffer and possibly die". I read it as "We did not render help to the woman, because she didn't need it". I will let smartcooky weigh in on which (if either) he intended, but once again it appears your automatic sympathies are for the males, not the female.
I will also note that as smartcooky described it, neither man was likely at any risk of dying. Nut shots are incredibly painful, but I've never heard of one being fatal. As for head wounds, they're notorious for bleeding a lot compared to most cuts, but "a lot" is relative. If it didn't pierce the skull (and the fact that he was clearly conscious suggests it didn't, plus that's really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hard to do with a shoe), then "a lot" still doesn't actually put the person at risk of fatal blood loss. We aren't talking major arteries here. There ARE no major arteries on the surface of the skull. So no, they were not "left to die". They were left to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions. And I'm OK with that.
Lastly, given that the decision to not help the men was made in the heat of the moment, possibly in a state of confusion given the unexpected outcome of the encounter, it's odd for you to categorize it as sociopathy even given the premise that it was the wrong decision. I think you would consider it unfair of me to categorize your own advocacy for violence in this very thread as sociopathic. You say you regret such expressions now, but you did have time to consider it before you posted, and you still made what you consider to be an error. smartcooky would have had little time to consider the correct choice at that moment, so why aren't you extending to him the same grace you request for yourself?
Lastly, smartcooky, why the hell did you have to spell your handle with a 'y'? I had to go back and change all the 'ie's when I noticed!
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,567
<derail>"Mustn't" generally means that you have an obligation to not do, whereas I suspect you meant that you don't a have any obligation to do. This isn't a criticism of your word choice, though. Rather, I think it's a limitation of English that there isn't a concise way to express a lack of obligation. A "not must", if you will, rather than a "must not". Feels like there should be, though. Maybe olde English had one.</derail>
Carry on.
Lord Muck oGentry
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2003
- Messages
- 1,035
Wouldn't " you needn't" do the trick?