And the question you have always dodged is, "Who do you think is going to enforce that? Do you expect every public establishment with a restroom to have a guard at the door? Must they have one for each restroom?"
It can be enforced by the same assholes that seem dead set on chasing women who look "mannish" out.
Who is that? I don't doubt that a few exist, but I would bet a good deal that there are far more seriously traumatized women than "assholes that seem dead set on chasing women who look 'mannish' out.
That's true of anyone, male or female, in the restroom or the parking lot or woods. Whether a sexual assault or some other assault.
I have a bit of irrational hatred for rapists. I've never been traumatized that way myself, but enough people I know and care about have been to be...
Blah blah blah.
You don't need to go to that extreme, even.
There are lots and lots of people who have been robbed by black people.
, and all that.Accepting what a person is experiencing is an "extreme"?
The difference between your example and my example is we can explain why you have a color issue. We can't quite explain the exact reasons those with autism experience things as they do, much like we have no idea how our mind works when it comes to gender identity and sexuality. We have the general premise at the upper levels, but the neural levels, we simply do not.
Those on their white stallions are what I refer to when discussing the hypocrites that supported the contraction of women's reproductive rights, mock women's sports, mock women's rights in general, hated what they called "PC", trashed #MeToo. The absurd Venn Diagram of positions these people have makes their rescue for women rights in the locker room obnoxiously hard to swallow.
I agree in principle. Some of the challenge right now is that the medical profession isn't doing that. Right now, a fair bit of the medical profession in the US has embraced affirmation only approaches, and they simply don't evaluate the underlying problems at all, nor do they deny requests for medical intervention when they ought to. I don't want to have the law involved... but for all intents right now, the medical profession isn't doing their job, and that lack of appropriate care has very serious health risks that are being hand-waved away.
Curious. What makes you think that?
What criteria would you use to determine whether a male inmate should share a cell with a female inmate, or whether a set of male inmates and female inmates should use the same showering facilities together?
Sure, sure. I mean, if we don't see genitals, nobody can tell if this person is a male or a female, right?
This has nothing to do with my post.
I honestly have no idea what the hell you're talking about here.
Is it your belief that a person who declares themselves to be transgender actually perceives an opposite sexed body when they look in the mirror? That a male who identifies as a transwoman looks down in the shower and sees a vulval mound and does not see a penis?
I think there's plenty of doubt that it exists. Certainly there are people who have difficulty and even distress about their sexed bodies. And certainly there are people who have a belief about what their body should have been. We have about as much evidence of gender identity being a real actual thing as we do for souls being a real actual thing - there've been several studies over the years that weigh the soul, and documented how much it weighs.
Oh bull shit, Emily. I've been living this the past 10 years and NO, physicians, pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists are simply 'embracing affirmation approaches only and don't evaluate the underlying problems'. Gender affirming care (hormones) were actually one of the LAST things recommended. You have no clue what you're talking about.
I'm not asking too much for what gets considered a hard science as opposed to a soft science. I'd say economics is a medium-boiled science. It's more science than political science, that's for damned sure. But it's less science than physics.
Math isn't even a science at all. Depending on what level you're at, it's more akin to either a language (arithmetic and algebra, etc.) or to a philosophy (set theory, number theory, etc.). It's a well-defined language and a highly consistent philosophy... but it's not actually a science by itself.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you, Loren? Your position here seems to be that the only reason that we have intimate spaces separated on the basis of sex is because chicks are totally just prudes who don't want to let rando dudes check them out while they're naked.
Puberty blockers force the pituitary and the adrenal processes out of alignment. If used for a very, very short period of time (a few months) there are minimal side effects, but still significant risks. If used for longer than that, they increase the risk of many cancers as well as heart attack and stroke, they also reduce bone density and if used too long can result in permanent osteoporosis that can't be overcome. They also impede the cognitive development that occurs during puberty that develops romantic bonding. Depending on the specific time period during which those blockers are taken, they can result in the reproductive organs being locked into a child-size aspect, and produce anorgasmia.
Thank you. I've mentioned a couple of times that I think men should be more accepting of (and less hazardous to) other males who don't conform to the restrictive expectations of what makes a man a "real" man.
By pretty much everyone in this thread arguing that males who identify as transwomen should use female spaces, regardless of the fact that they are physically built like males and have entirely male anatomy.
That is a non-sequitur.
