Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Politesse]

wish to restrict and oppress the population.

By "restrict and oppress" you're talking about a broad insistence that people use the facilities in the next room? The ones intended for them, that they're entitled to use?

If you mean something else, you'll need to be more clear. If you're insinuating that anyone here supports discrimination in housing or employment or something, you're wrong.
Tom

Different rules, for different people. That's the threat. Once you abandon the universal principles that govern civil society, the door opens to all manner of abuses, even if the issue that got you there seemed inconsequential at the time. They make things about wedding cakes and gym locker rooms and driver's licenses for immigrants etc because they know those are the kinds of issues that seem small but will, over time, allow them to erode the protections of the 14th amendment. There are no small issues, if to understand people's positions on the issue you have to explain why one person should be harassed by the law and others protected by it, not for their conduct but because of the color of their skin, their amount of body fat, the form of their genitals, or their psychological disposition.

If this is just about locker room policy, not about formal discriminations against trans people, why is Oleg spamming the thread with every anti-trans article he can find? What led him to believe that they were relevant? They are, of course. Because the fate of trans people is what's really at issue, and his is the side you're advancing.

 

[Politesse]

I truly believe that transwomen ARE women.

But you advocate for stripping them of their freedom to choose what bathroom to use? Do you, in general, feel that all women should not have this right? Under what circumstances do you feel strangers should be allowed to examine a woman's genitals and determine what rights she possesses based on their opinion of her body and whether or nor those genitals look "right" to them, whether or she consents?

What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?

 

[TomC]

What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?

It's the female women who are being silenced.
The male women dominate the conversation. Like males always have done.
Tom

ETA ~Also the guys who care about women as a group. We want female women to have a male-free place to pee or whatever. We just do.~

 

[Toni]

I truly believe that transwomen ARE women.

But you advocate for stripping them of their freedom to choose what bathroom to use? Do you, in general, feel that all women should not have this right? Under what circumstances do you feel strangers should be allowed to examine a woman's genitals and determine what rights she possesses based on their opinion of her body and whether or nor those genitals look "right" to them, whether or she consents?

What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?

No. I do not advocate for stripping rights of any women. I support the rights of all women to feel safe and to feel comfortable and to BE safe and comfortable.

I do not believe any one has the right to examine the genitals of any other person against their will.

I do not believe anyone has the right to expose their genitals to any other person without their permission.

Using the women’s locker room is NOT giving permission to see the penis of someone else.

 

[Toni]

I truly believe that transwomen ARE women.

But you advocate for stripping them of their freedom to choose what bathroom to use? Do you, in general, feel that all women should not have this right? Under what circumstances do you feel strangers should be allowed to examine a woman's genitals and determine what rights she possesses based on their opinion of her body and whether or nor those genitals look "right" to them, whether or she consents?

What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?

Do you understand that you are essentially telling XX people that they need to just shut up and let XY people tell then what is right and what is wrong?

 

[TomC]

Do you understand that you are essentially telling XX people that they need to just shut up and let XY people tell then what is right and what is wrong?

It's called mansplaining.
Trust me. It's not gonna get better.

Tom

 

[Toni]

Do you understand that you are essentially telling XX people that they need to just shut up and let XY people tell then what is right and what is wrong?

It's called mansplaining.
Trust me. It's not gonna get better.

Tom

Thanks for explaining that to me, Tom.

 

[TomC]

Do you understand that you are essentially telling XX people that they need to just shut up and let XY people tell then what is right and what is wrong?

It's called mansplaining.
Trust me. It's not gonna get better.

Tom

Thanks for explaining that to me, Tom.

It's a beautiful thing where a male explains stuff to the chicks.

Simple. Easy.
Ya know, the way God meant things to be.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

By "restrict and oppress" you're talking about a broad insistence that people use the facilities in the next room? The ones intended for them, that they're entitled to use?

If you mean something else, you'll need to be more clear. If you're insinuating that anyone here supports discrimination in housing or employment or something, you're wrong.
Tom

Different rules, for different people. That's the threat. Once you abandon the universal principles that govern civil society, the door opens to all manner of abuses, even if the issue that got you there seemed inconsequential at the time. They make things about wedding cakes and gym locker rooms and driver's licenses for immigrants etc because they know those are the kinds of issues that seem small but will, over time, allow them to erode the protections of the 14th amendment. There are no small issues, if to understand people's positions on the issue you have to explain why one person should be harassed by the law and others protected by it, not for their conduct but because of the color of their skin, their amount of body fat, the form of their genitals, or their psychological disposition.

Should we take this to mean, then, that you are also opposed to Affirmative Action*?

(* I.e., the racial etc. preference kind, not the outreach kind.)

If this is just about locker room policy, not about formal discriminations against trans people, why is Oleg spamming the thread with every anti-trans article he can find? What led him to believe that they were relevant? They are, of course. Because the fate of trans people is what's really at issue,

The fate of women is evidently at issue too; but apparently their fate isn't really at issue.

and his is the side you're advancing.

Yeah, this is all about which men's side is being advanced and which men's side is being opposed.[/sarcasm]

No, we are not advancing Oleg's side. We, Oleg included, are advancing Toni's side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whistleblower report on St. Louis transgender clinic triggers calls for federal, state probes

Whistleblower Jamie Reed, who worked at the transgender center between 2018 and 2022, said staff too freely prescribed medications and did not properly explain the side effects. “I was struck

www.stltoday.com

To begin transition, Reed wrote, all children needed a letter of support from a therapist, who was often one recommended by the center.

Which says nothing about what the requirements are to get that letter of support.

As usual with the trans-panic crap they are presenting a distorted picture. When I see a movement consistently present crap data for their position I'm left with the conclusion that they have no good data and reality is almost certainly the opposite from the side presenting all the crap.

 

[Bomb#20]

Keep in mind you don't get credit for any of your oppression categories if you dispute the party line. The very lowest of the low on the stack are always the heretics.

Yeah, people always talk about the great heroes who "champion civil rights", but no one ever acknowledges the great and noble social leaders who oppose them, and wish to restrict and oppress the population. Shouldn't they get some credit for happening to share a gender expression with many of their victims?

Remind me which women here are great and noble social leaders who oppose female civil rights and wish to restrict and oppress the female population? All the people on IIDB who I recall arguing to restrict and oppress women have been men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Time to Think by Hannah Barnes review – what went wrong at Gids?

The BBC Newsnight reporter’s investigation into the Tavistock’s gender identity clinic for children makes disturbing reading

www.theguardian.com

Clinicians at Gids insisted the effects of these drugs were reversible; that taking them would reduce the distress experienced by gender dysphoric children; and that there was no causality between starting hormone blockers and going on to take cross-sex hormones (the latter are taken by adults who want fully to transition). Unfortunately, none of these things were true. Such drugs do have severe side effects, and while the causality between blockers and cross-sex hormones cannot be proven – all the studies into them have been designed without a control group – 98% of children who take the first go on to take the latter. Most seriously of all, as Gids’ own research suggested, they do not appear to lead to any improvement in children’s psychological wellbeing.

And, once again a case of crap data.

Yes, 98% go on to hormones. And ice cream sales cause rape. (The classic example of a strong correlation that is really a case of both things being influenced by a third factor.)

 

[TomC]

When I see a movement consistently present crap data for their position I'm left with the conclusion that they have no good data and reality is almost certainly the

Yeah.
That's why I don't take BLM too seriously.
Oh well...
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

wish to restrict and oppress the population.

By "restrict and oppress" you're talking about a broad insistence that people use the facilities in the next room? The ones intended for them, that they're entitled to use?

If you mean something else, you'll need to be more clear. If you're insinuating that anyone here supports discrimination in housing or employment or something, you're wrong.
Tom

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

 

[TomC]

You still haven't presented any solution for the problem of the female-presenting person with a penis risking their life by going into a men's room in redneck territory.

Let me know when penis presenting humans are in more danger in the male restrooms than humans with vaginas are with males in the restroom.

Males are far more dangerous to females than females are to males.
Are you really unable to understand that?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see at least two significant differences: there is no history of black people attacking white people as there is a history of make people attacking female people. I truly believe that transwomen ARE women. I also know that it would be impossible for almost all women and girls to see an individual with a penis and not assume that person is male and quite possibly has an intention to do them harm.

No history? The crime data says otherwise. Sure, it's actually socioeconomic but you have no way to quickly determine that. Meanwhile, the notion that the person with the penis poses an increased risk has not been supported by the data.

 

[Bomb#20]

By "restrict and oppress" you're talking about a broad insistence that people use the facilities in the next room? The ones intended for them, that they're entitled to use?

If you mean something else, you'll need to be more clear. If you're insinuating that anyone here supports discrimination in housing or employment or something, you're wrong.
Tom

You could take your post, drop it right into a thread arguing for Jim Crow, and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference without specifically contextualizing it to gender as the thread here does.

I'm guessing the reason you wouldn't be able to tell the difference is because you don't want to, because as with most humans tribal loyalty is more important to you than truth. But in the event that you'd like to be able to tell the difference, the way for you to figure it out is for you to come over to the real world. You seem to be posting from some alternate universe where ladies' rooms are a custom that was established by the matriarchy who rule that universe, contrary to the wishes and against the best interests of the powerless male half of the population.

 

[TomC]

. Meanwhile, the notion that the person with the penis poses an increased risk has not been supported by the data.

Omg!
A person with a penis doesn't pose an increased risk to a person with a vagina?

That's the hill you want to die on?

Dayum!?!

Typical man...
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Different rules, for different people. That's the threat. Once you abandon the universal principles that govern civil society, the door opens to all manner of abuses, even if the issue that got you there seemed inconsequential at the time. They make things about wedding cakes and gym locker rooms and driver's licenses for immigrants etc because they know those are the kinds of issues that seem small but will, over time, allow them to erode the protections of the 14th amendment. There are no small issues, if to understand people's positions on the issue you have to explain why one person should be harassed by the law and others protected by it, not for their conduct but because of the color of their skin, their amount of body fat, the form of their genitals, or their psychological disposition.

If this is just about locker room policy, not about formal discriminations against trans people, why is Oleg spamming the thread with every anti-trans article he can find? What led him to believe that they were relevant? They are, of course. Because the fate of trans people is what's really at issue, and his is the side you're advancing.

It's only the unpopular positions that are actually under threat in democracies, anyway--thus protection means protection for those you very well might not like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I truly believe that transwomen ARE women.

But you advocate for stripping them of their freedom to choose what bathroom to use? Do you, in general, feel that all women should not have this right? Under what circumstances do you feel strangers should be allowed to examine a woman's genitals and determine what rights she possesses based on their opinion of her body and whether or nor those genitals look "right" to them, whether or she consents?

What women have a right to speak, and which should be silenced?

No. I do not advocate for stripping rights of any women. I support the rights of all women to feel safe and to feel comfortable and to BE safe and comfortable.

I do not believe any one has the right to examine the genitals of any other person against their will.

I do not believe anyone has the right to expose their genitals to any other person without their permission.

Using the women’s locker room is NOT giving permission to see the penis of someone else.

If by whiskey...