Split Trans Issues, Split from Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

How many times is there actually a man hunting for victims in a women's facility??

Every single time some asshole ex-husband or ex-boyfriend is hunting their former wife/girlfriend. And sometimes when someone is stalking a girl or woman they want to be in a relationship with and won't take "no" for an answer. And occasionally when a creeper wants to be creepy. I don't know the dimensions of the incel problem but women are routinely targeted for harassment and coercion by men in our society.

Any time a man shows up in a women-only space like a locker room or restroom there's a good change he's a stalker looking for his soon-to-be victim. Women don't want to be constantly aware of potential peril in their everyday lives, they have to be.

And he's going to be able to that without promptly getting arrested how? ID will say M, he'll be busted, same as would currently happen. Nothing changes.

Yes Loren. Every female must carry a cell phone, fully charged, with 911 on speed dial so that she can call the police anytime she sees someone she's concerned about in the bathroom.

1. How do you think that would go for a trans individual? I think they'd likely end up dead or in jail.
2. How do you think that would go for a rapist/would be rapist or other sex pest? I think that they'd escape, either before or after assaulting the person of interest. And they were gone when police arrived, the chances that police would believe the victim hover around nil.
3. If it is an abusive boyfriend/spouse/other significant male/stalker, the chances that the police would arrest them, even with an order of protection hover close to nil

What is your huge hang up about stalls on doors? Maybe get some help with your voyeurism and total lack of empathy.

 

[Jarhyn]

I’m not killing anybody.

The trans that weren't hurting you are getting killed in the men's because you're throwing them out.

Men like you who refuse to hold yourselves and other men accountable for misogyny, anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment and violence, violence against women and children, sexual violence: YOU are the one killing oeople Loren.

I don't support such violence.

I'm looking at the effects of the position I propose in the context of reality that is very often unpleasant.

YOU are the one who cried that installing individual stalls to add to women’s sense of security was ‘too expensive .’

Because I'm willing to look at unpleasant reality.

WTAF is it about ‘one questionable case?? ‘ are you talking about the kid who raped two different girls in the girls’ restroom at two different t schools??

You still think that there are two sides to rape? The judge did not.

The sole evidence for being trans is "wearing a skirt". Even the article says it didn't look like it was.

I'm not disputing the rape, I'm questioning laying it on trans.

Why should we believe there is a big problem when those who claim there is can't provide a single solid case of it?

I don’t think it matters whether the rapist was actually trans. What matters is that merely claiming to be trans allowed him/her ( honestly I don’t know this persons life or medical history) to access his victims in two different schools. The first instance could perhaps not been predicted but the second one could have been. And should have been. Sexual violence against another student no matter the genders or sexes involved should have precluded the perpetrator from access to other victims.

You claimed there was no danger. A couple of high school girls beg to differ.

No one here wants to see anyone harmed, physically, sexually, psychologically.

You just don’t care very much when it is a teenaged girl.

I guess my biggest objection is largely to your framing: this is a problem with failure to take sex pestering seriously in an educational setting.

I have been saying for the last decade and change that the simplest way to address this issue is going to be to create an actual standard for recognizing transition.

The problem with this is that the GOP has not only failed to pick this up and run with it, but they have fought tooth and nail against any such standard, so as to exacerbate the gray areas that cause these kinds of idiotic judgement calls.

The GOP plainly doesn't WANT a solution to work other than their false solution of "pretend that gonads are the beginning and ending of all sex differentiation".

The answer is to present a solution and do our level best to move forward with it over their objections that a problem they claim to care about might be solved, same way as it happened in NY over the custody laws.

I absolutely do believe that comprehensive, age appropriate sex education needs to happen. Starting with not forcing toddlers to give or accept affection, hugs, kisses. Up thread I believe that I specifically advocated strongly for comprehensive age appropriate sex education.

There is some room for debate about exactly what is age appropriate.

In general. I advocate for a very comprehensive education of self acceptance. We all are individuals with different abilities, talents, preferences, sensitivities. And also acceptance of others for both their individuality and for the shared.

I agree about needing to establish or recognize some standard for transition. Also that individuals do not always fit into neat categories.

I’m pretty much in favor of abolishing assigning traits to sex or gender. Physicality, sensitivity, strength, determination, preferences for ( insert interest).


Yes, I agree that conservatives ( not just the GOP) have taken the issue of trans people as a red meat issue much as abortion has been. And race, nativity, etc. They are losing on the abortion front— basically all they’ve got is a bunch of prohibitions.

But my point is that THESE are what one should put their fear behind accomplishing.

 

[Toni]

Sure but in the moment,

I’m not killing anybody.

The trans that weren't hurting you are getting killed in the men's because you're throwing them out.

Men like you who refuse to hold yourselves and other men accountable for misogyny, anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment and violence, violence against women and children, sexual violence: YOU are the one killing oeople Loren.

I don't support such violence.

I'm looking at the effects of the position I propose in the context of reality that is very often unpleasant.

YOU are the one who cried that installing individual stalls to add to women’s sense of security was ‘too expensive .’

Because I'm willing to look at unpleasant reality.

WTAF is it about ‘one questionable case?? ‘ are you talking about the kid who raped two different girls in the girls’ restroom at two different t schools??

You still think that there are two sides to rape? The judge did not.

The sole evidence for being trans is "wearing a skirt". Even the article says it didn't look like it was.

I'm not disputing the rape, I'm questioning laying it on trans.

Why should we believe there is a big problem when those who claim there is can't provide a single solid case of it?

I don’t think it matters whether the rapist was actually trans. What matters is that merely claiming to be trans allowed him/her ( honestly I don’t know this persons life or medical history) to access his victims in two different schools. The first instance could perhaps not been predicted but the second one could have been. And should have been. Sexual violence against another student no matter the genders or sexes involved should have precluded the perpetrator from access to other victims.

You claimed there was no danger. A couple of high school girls beg to differ.

No one here wants to see anyone harmed, physically, sexually, psychologically.

You just don’t care very much when it is a teenaged girl.

I guess my biggest objection is largely to your framing: this is a problem with failure to take sex pestering seriously in an educational setting.

I have been saying for the last decade and change that the simplest way to address this issue is going to be to create an actual standard for recognizing transition.

The problem with this is that the GOP has not only failed to pick this up and run with it, but they have fought tooth and nail against any such standard, so as to exacerbate the gray areas that cause these kinds of idiotic judgement calls.

The GOP plainly doesn't WANT a solution to work other than their false solution of "pretend that gonads are the beginning and ending of all sex differentiation".

The answer is to present a solution and do our level best to move forward with it over their objections that a problem they claim to care about might be solved, same way as it happened in NY over the custody laws.

I absolutely do believe that comprehensive, age appropriate sex education needs to happen. Starting with not forcing toddlers to give or accept affection, hugs, kisses. Up thread I believe that I specifically advocated strongly for comprehensive age appropriate sex education.

There is some room for debate about exactly what is age appropriate.

In general. I advocate for a very comprehensive education of self acceptance. We all are individuals with different abilities, talents, preferences, sensitivities. And also acceptance of others for both their individuality and for the shared.

I agree about needing to establish or recognize some standard for transition. Also that individuals do not always fit into neat categories.

I’m pretty much in favor of abolishing assigning traits to sex or gender. Physicality, sensitivity, strength, determination, preferences for ( insert interest).


Yes, I agree that conservatives ( not just the GOP) have taken the issue of trans people as a red meat issue much as abortion has been. And race, nativity, etc. They are losing on the abortion front— basically all they’ve got is a bunch of prohibitions.

But my point is that THESE are what one should put their fear behind accomplishing.

It is not one or the other. It’s both.

PTSD is very real and not very predictable.

Some people are more private/shy/modest than others.

Sometimes around specific things such as menstruation, scars, amputations,, weight/size. And more I’m sure

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason that it can be traumatizing is because of sexual assault by men. Not because someone is trans. Not because someone is a prude. But because, if you grew up as a female, you'd know that we are conditioned from an early age to be very wary of naked penises in inappropriate contexts. Which has included until very very recently the understanding that means a naked penis in a women's only space would reasonably be considered inappropriate and a threat.

And your fears are automatically correct??

According to the World Health Organization, 44% of US women experience some form of unwanted sexual contact during their life. So Toni’s fears are warranted.

You are ignoring the important part. What sort of contact where?? The risk is not uniform!

Please stop with that “people dying” nonsense. Not only is it unsubstantiated, but you don’t have much (if any) issue with unarmed civilians being killed by the police or the IDF.

We've already had examples posted in here. Trans being killed for using the bathroom that matches their anatomy rather than their presentation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree that what matters most is that this individual raped other students. At two different schools. Apparently under the guise of being trans which gave them more access to girls in restrooms. And probably greater latitude and ‘understanding.’

The problem here is that we have had a long time for the anti-trans crowd to establish better evidence--but none has been presented. We have one news report saying "in a skirt" and even that said it probably wasn't a trans issue.

You are mistaken.

It does not matter to you because your safety is not at risk.

Everyone's safety is at risk--when there's an outgroup that isn't protected then anyone accused of being that outgroup is also not protected.

The issue—and there were multiple news reports—is that the assailant identified themselves as trans in order to access the girls’ bathrooms/dressing rooms where they assaulted multiple victims at different schools.

We have the trans-bashers claiming this. We have one news article that doesn't remotely establish it.

 

[Emily Lake]

I find it... interesting I guess... that the many proponents of trans rights, who insist that there is no risk at all to women by allowing men into female spaces if those men say they're women... have nothing at all to say about these two cases.

Mr Merager was found not guilty by a jury according to your link because intent to sexually arouse was not established. Sounds to me that the law is poorly written.

It's not poorly written, it's poorly interpreted by a jury who was told that he's a "woman" and that it's perfectly normal for women to be naked in the nude spa. There's some willful revisionism involved in concluding that he had the intent to arouse or intimidate in all the prior situations, but somehow his motivations were wiped away as soon as he claimed he was a "woman", despite doing absolutely nothing other than saying so.

Mr Cox should be in prison. But charges were dropped because of a vague law.

I don't think the law against loitering in the vicinity of a school is particularly vague - it's the same law and language used pretty much everywhere. This is again a poor interpretation that basically said "oh gee, we don't really know what loitering means so it's okay if he's there". So hooray, they just made it legal for convicted pedophiles to hang out around schools because they can't figure out whether they're loitering or not.

It seems to me that once someone is convicted of a sex crime, gender identity should not be a defense in subsequent sex crime charges.

I agree that it shouldn't be a defense... and yet it is.

And it all comes right back around to... how exactly is anyone supposed to determine whether the man showing off his dick in a female intimate space is a sex offender or not? In my view, they're ALL sex offenders for showing off their genitals to women and girls who didn't consent to it. Allowing males to go into female-only intimate spaces and either watch women undress or expose their dicks to women is legalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism as long as the offender says the magic phrase.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sexual orientation or gender identity should not be used to make it easier for someone who has raped or assaulted someone else to have access to potential victims, no matter the setting, nor should laws intended to support LGBTQIA+ be used to facilitate access to preferred or potential victims.

No one deserves to be sexually assaulted. Everyone deserves to feel and be safe, especially in areas accessible to or funded by the public.

I would prefer to see all sex pests treated uniformly as "sex pests" and told to use single-user stalls regardless of what they want to do, and if there aren't any to go the fuck without.

Nobody should be housed with their preferred victims regardless of their gender or sex or identity or the identity of their victims.

Rapists of X should not be housed or watered or share facilities with X.

I don't think rapists or molesters should be allowed to be free in our communities without assurances of rehabilitation that simply cannot be presented today.

Going into a space specific to their victim pool so to access their victim pool to create a new victim is something I would treat as an aggravating circumstance to the crime, and I think anyone voting blue would pretty instantly agree with this.

There are solutions to that problem that don't involve throwing trans people under the bus.

What's your suggestion to women on how to tell whether or not the male with the exposed dick in the female-only space is a sex offender or not?

 

[Toni]

Sure but in the moment,

I’m not killing anybody.

The trans that weren't hurting you are getting killed in the men's because you're throwing them out.

Men like you who refuse to hold yourselves and other men accountable for misogyny, anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment and violence, violence against women and children, sexual violence: YOU are the one killing oeople Loren.

I don't support such violence.

I'm looking at the effects of the position I propose in the context of reality that is very often unpleasant.

YOU are the one who cried that installing individual stalls to add to women’s sense of security was ‘too expensive .’

Because I'm willing to look at unpleasant reality.

WTAF is it about ‘one questionable case?? ‘ are you talking about the kid who raped two different girls in the girls’ restroom at two different t schools??

You still think that there are two sides to rape? The judge did not.

The sole evidence for being trans is "wearing a skirt". Even the article says it didn't look like it was.

I'm not disputing the rape, I'm questioning laying it on trans.

Why should we believe there is a big problem when those who claim there is can't provide a single solid case of it?

I don’t think it matters whether the rapist was actually trans. What matters is that merely claiming to be trans allowed him/her ( honestly I don’t know this persons life or medical history) to access his victims in two different schools. The first instance could perhaps not been predicted but the second one could have been. And should have been. Sexual violence against another student no matter the genders or sexes involved should have precluded the perpetrator from access to other victims.

You claimed there was no danger. A couple of high school girls beg to differ.

No one here wants to see anyone harmed, physically, sexually, psychologically.

You just don’t care very much when it is a teenaged girl.

I guess my biggest objection is largely to your framing: this is a problem with failure to take sex pestering seriously in an educational setting.

I have been saying for the last decade and change that the simplest way to address this issue is going to be to create an actual standard for recognizing transition.

The problem with this is that the GOP has not only failed to pick this up and run with it, but they have fought tooth and nail against any such standard, so as to exacerbate the gray areas that cause these kinds of idiotic judgement calls.

The GOP plainly doesn't WANT a solution to work other than their false solution of "pretend that gonads are the beginning and ending of all sex differentiation".

The answer is to present a solution and do our level best to move forward with it over their objections that a problem they claim to care about might be solved, same way as it happened in NY over the custody laws.

I absolutely do believe that comprehensive, age appropriate sex education needs to happen. Starting with not forcing toddlers to give or accept affection, hugs, kisses. Up thread I believe that I specifically advocated strongly for comprehensive age appropriate sex education.

There is some room for debate about exactly what is age appropriate.

In general. I advocate for a very comprehensive education of self acceptance. We all are individuals with different abilities, talents, preferences, sensitivities. And also acceptance of others for both their individuality and for the shared.

I agree about needing to establish or recognize some standard for transition. Also that individuals do not always fit into neat categories.

I’m pretty much in favor of abolishing assigning traits to sex or gender. Physicality, sensitivity, strength, determination, preferences for ( insert interest).


Yes, I agree that conservatives ( not just the GOP) have taken the issue of trans people as a red meat issue much as abortion has been. And race, nativity, etc. They are losing on the abortion front— basically all they’ve got is a bunch of prohibitions.

But my point is that THESE are what one should put their fear behind accomplishing.

PTSD is very real and not very predictable

The reason that it can be traumatizing is because of sexual assault by men. Not because someone is trans. Not because someone is a prude. But because, if you grew up as a female, you'd know that we are conditioned from an early age to be very wary of naked penises in inappropriate contexts. Which has included until very very recently the understanding that means a naked penis in a women's only space would reasonably be considered inappropriate and a threat.

And your fears are automatically correct??

According to the World Health Organization, 44% of US women experience some form of unwanted sexual contact during their life. So Toni’s fears are warranted.

You are ignoring the important part. What sort of contact where?? The risk is not uniform!

Please stop with that “people dying” nonsense. Not only is it unsubstantiated, but you don’t have much (if any) issue with unarmed civilians being killed by the police or the IDF.

We've already had examples posted in here. Trans being killed for using the bathroom that matches their anatomy rather than their presentation.

afaik, in this thread, no one is suggesting that trans individuals be barred from using women’s facilities.

Yet here you are yammering about it without a concern in the world for cis women. Or female presenting trans women.

Maybe men should stop being so violent.

 

[Toni]

There have been multiple links to news s

I agree that what matters most is that this individual raped other students. At two different schools. Apparently under the guise of being trans which gave them more access to girls in restrooms. And probably greater latitude and ‘understanding.’

The problem here is that we have had a long time for the anti-trans crowd to establish better evidence--but none has been presented. We have one news report saying "in a skirt" and even that said it probably wasn't a trans issue.

You are mistaken.

It does not matter to you because your safety is not at risk.

Everyone's safety is at risk--when there's an outgroup that isn't protected then anyone accused of being that outgroup is also not protected.

The issue—and there were multiple news reports—is that the assailant identified themselves as trans in order to access the girls’ bathrooms/dressing rooms where they assaulted multiple victims at different schools.

We have the trans-bashers claiming this. We have one news article that doesn't remotely establish it.

There have been multiple links to news stories about people assaulting women in women’s only facilities.

Your poor or selective memory does not mitigate facts.

 

[Emily Lake]

Until Emily brought instances of persons physically attacking others, I had not heard of such.

You don't hear about it, because it doesn't get reported by most media. On the rare occassions that it does, they avoid showing pictures of the offender, and report it as "a woman" and "she", which intentionally obscures the fact that these are full grown males of the human species, offending against females of the human species in pretty much the same way males have always offended against females except with the added benefit of it now being tacitly allowable. Most of the reporting tends to focus on what nasty anti-trans bigots the victims are.

It's not actually all that rare. Not common at all, definitely - but neither are other sexual assaults. But it happens far more often than you will ever hear about if the only news you get is from mainstream reporting.

There are more men claiming a transgender identity* that are perpetrators of sexual offenses than are victims of them. Nearly all of the stats you'll see about the victimization of transwomen include prostitutes in Brazil, and they don't control for the escalated rate of victimization among prostitutes at all. It has the very handy (but entirely false) effect of making it seem as if poor transwomen are being attacked and victimized at crazy high rates. But it's a false narrative. By all estimates, the number of people killed by someone who identifies as trans is larger than the number of trans people killed - and that includes trans people killed by their trans partners.


*I intentionally say claiming a transgender identity, because there are a whole lot of them that I don't think are transgender in any rationally meaningful way. A lot of them are opportunistically claiming an identity because it gains them privileges that would otherwise not be available to them as men. It lets incarcerated men con their way into female prisons where they've got it easy and also have access to women to intimidate, rape, and abuse. It lets garden variety flashers and peepers gain access to female-only intimate spaces where they can offend with impunity.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your indoctrination is wrong. You should be looking at the same thing we look at--signs of being a predator.

I'm of the opinion that a man showing off his dick to nonconsenting women is being a predator. In fact, I'm of the opinion that a man imposing himself into female-only intimate spaces where he knows full well that he's going to make women feel intimidated and uncomfortable is a predator.

 

[Emily Lake]

There wasn't a problem with trans people in women's rooms until the reich wing decided to use it to scare people.

I'm going to ignore your hyperbolic well poisoning here.

There wasn't a problem with transsexual people in women's rooms when those transsexuals were 1) clinically diagnosed and actively in treatement with 2) the full understanding that ANY questionable behavior on their part would revoke their ability to use those spaces and 3) they never showed off their dicks to nonconsenting women.

It's also worth pointing out - again - that in that prior world where everything worked out, the authority and the power was in the hands of the women. If we saw a man who didn't come anywhere near passing, and who got our instincts up, we were entirely within our rights to report them to the facility management or the police, to scream and yell and make a stink... and the male in question would be removed. Because it was an accommodation made at the discretion of women that allowed them in there in the first place.

Then the rules changed on us, and any man who says they're trans is considered to be trans. It doesn't matter if they have a diagnosis - a diagnosis is no longer required. It doesn't matter if they're in any sort of psychological treatment - it's not required or expected. It doesn't even matter if they don't bother trying to pass - it's entirely a matter of how they say they feel.

It has become a problem with transwomen in women's rooms, because the entire notion of what constitutes "trans" was massively changed without discussion... and women began being harassed and threatened for recognizing that males are males.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why is it the responsibility of women to ignore our fears? Which are well founded?

Why is it the responsibility of Faux Noise viewers to ignore their fears of people of color? Which, according to Faux, are well founded.

Why is it not the responsibility of men to quit attacking others?

Of course it is, but that doesn't change the situation.

If you are looking to me to find a solution, I’ve offered the best I can.

There isn't a problem that needs solving.

I have never suggested that trans women and girls do not belong in women only spaces. I’ve pointed out that some women might have an experience based PTSD reaction to being confronted with some naked stranger with a penis in a women’s only space. They might experience panic, fear, that’s just a fact.

I’ve stated repeatedly that all people deserve to feel safe and secure especially in locker rooms, dressing rooms, restrooms, etc.

That means all persons

And the real world effect of your position is to kill people.

Actually, I've very carefully illustrated that I know from deep personal experience that being startled or re-triggered by a past trauma can be very dangerous for other people. Which is why I have advocated for universal stalls with doors.

Which you, without any data or cost analysis, insists is too expensive or takes up too much space.

Doors on stalls do not kill anyone.

I understand that this is not a problem that affects you, personally so please feel free to fuck all the way off in this discussion. You are not going to be traumatized in a woman's dressing room by a pre/non-surgical trans woman nor are you a transwoman who will be traumatized by another woman freaking out because they have PTSD from prior assaults.

It's not going to hurt you a little bit if women have doors on stalls in their dressing room. It's not going to hurt anyone one little bit if women have doors on stalls in dressing rooms.

No one is getting killed by doors on dressing rooms.

Men, however, are making the world more dangerous by being so dangerous for women, cis and trans and other men and children to be around.

Let's be honest here: It won't hurt Loren even one tiny little bit to be accepting and welcoming to males with transgender identities in the men's room either.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your suggestion is that cis females just get over it and to accept the lack of privacy …because it botany bother you personally. Or most men.

I said nothing of the sort. The world is not safe. But persecuting innocent people does not make it safer.

Yup, it's the same formula as always:

1) Identify situation

2) Declare situation a problem.

3) Present "solution", extensive propaganda to avoid people actually understanding.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

1) Situation: Transwomen don't like using men's facilities because it doesn't affirm their internal sense of their gender identity

2) Problem: Transwomen don't like it, it doesn't make them feel accepted as being actually female

3) Solution: Transwomen are WOMEN and no discussion or debate is allowed, and if women don't want males with gender identity issues in their female-only intimate spaces, then those female-women are totally bigots and nasty TERFs who are no different than nazis - those female-women should be vilified and everyone subjected to extensive propaganda to ensure that male-women get whatever the fuck they want regardless of the impact it has on actual women.

 

[Elixir]

There wasn't a problem with transsexual people in women's rooms when those transsexuals were 1) clinically diagnosed and actively in treatement with 2) the full understanding that ANY questionable behavior on their part would revoke their ability to use those spaces and 3) they never showed off their dicks to nonconsenting women.

There was a problem when the RW realized they could terrorize people with claims of wayward dicks. There would still be that problem no matter what the reality, as long as the threats described still terrified and angered people.
The possible solutions are many, most are easily applied, and NONE will never happen on a large scale because that would negate the terror that is so valuable to the RW.

no discussion or debate is allowed

No authoritarianism here, nosiree!

 

[Emily Lake]

The reason that it can be traumatizing is because of sexual assault by men. Not because someone is trans. Not because someone is a prude. But because, if you grew up as a female, you'd know that we are conditioned from an early age to be very wary of naked penises in inappropriate contexts. Which has included until very very recently the understanding that means a naked penis in a women's only space would reasonably be considered inappropriate and a threat.

And your fears are automatically correct??

This says absolutely nothing about trans girls or women. It says a lot about rape culture in the US. And the fact that women, cis or trans, are pretty much left to defend ourselves against it.

So it should be no surprise if cis girls and women do exactly that: scream to raise the alarm. As we are conditioned to do.

Your solution is for us to give up all semblance of pretenses of privacy and have everything be universal for everyone. It sure isn't to give us any way to discern IN THE MOMENT that seems like an emergency that that person is just another woman.

Because that seems good to you. Inclusive.

It's not inclusive to women who require, for whatever reasons, more privacy. It's exclusive of such women and girls.

And you're ok with that. Because women who are religious or modest or who have been raped are all just anti-trans bigots.

The problem is you seem to be ok with people dying to save you from a bit of fear that is in reality baseless.

How many transwomen have died in male single-sex facilities, Loren? You seem to think it's such a massive problem, that the only viable solution is to let ANY MALE AT ALL who says magic words have access to female spaces, with absolutely no consideration for the safety and dignity of women at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

A rather large portion of them ARE cis men. That's part of the problem . Due to policy and law changes that the trans lobby have pushed through - often without the public even being aware of it - what constitutes "trans" has become an ever-expanding umbrella. At this point, a rather large portion of the self-proclaimed transwomen out there are heterosexual men with a cross-dressing fetish. Many of them get sexual arousal out of fantasizing of themselves as women, being treated the way they think women should be treated - and the way they think women should be treated is degrading, because they view women as inherently degrading. They get off on invading women's spaces and making women uncomfortable, they get arousal from overriding women's boundaries.

Not all by any means, but a whole, whole, whole lot more than I'm comfortable letting into spaces where women are vulnerable or naked. I don't think women should be forced to become supporting actors in a man's sexual fantasy live action role play.

And since there's no way to tell which are which... the only reasonable course of action for the safety of women and girls is to exclude ALL males from female spaces, sports, and services, and to support separate unisex facilities that they can use instead.

That's what the witch hunters would have you believe. Doesn't make it true.

Self-identify means you can go to the DMV without a psychiatrist's sign-off, it doesn't mean you can just say "I'm female" with a M license.

You LITERALLY can. Merager changed his license just by literally going to the DMV and filling out a form. That's all - not a single thing more, despite several felony sex offenses on his record. Cox didn't even do that, he just said words. The boy who raped two girls in two different schools did nothing more than say he "feels like a girl".

It's LITERALLY magic words. There is absolutely no objective or verifiable way to determine whether those words are true in any rational sense.

 

[Emily Lake]

At the end of the day, males are males Jimmy. Males aren't females, nor can they become females. Gender identity is completely, 100%, unequivally an internal subjective thing. There is absolutely no possible way to determine whether a person's actual gender identity is what they say it is, or if they even have one. It's taken entirely on faith, and faith alone. There is no way to verify it.

Sexuality is 100% in the head, also, with no external way to verify it. Do we conclude homosexuality doesn't exist?

Homosexuality can be objectively verified. First, there's the simply matter of you know, getting physically aroused by people of the same sex. There's the actual having sex with people of the same sex. And there's a rather substantial amount of neurological research that demonstrates arousal activity in the brain when viewing imagery of people of the same sex. It's observable.

And the bad results from attempting to surgically correct intersex babies very strongly suggests there's something that's set before birth that determines gender.

No it doesn't, it suggests that sex is real and exists throughout the entire body. There's never yet been a case of a surgically corrected to the appropriate sex person with a DSD identifying as the other sex. It's almost entirely cases of male infants who were surgically altered to superficially look female, and who grow up feeling wrong because they're in actual reality male. And in the vast majority of those cases, their male puberty introduces male hormones, paired with the lack of actually female reproductive organs that is the source of the issue.

And the idea that men would go so far as to live as women to get a look at naked women makes no sense.

What do you think "live as a woman" means, Loren?

There are a whole, whole, whole lot of guys who would not hesitate to toss on a skirt and some lipstick in order to look at naked women. And even that's not required - literally all that's required is that they *say* they feel like women.

 

[Emily Lake]

I've already posted the facts that very few people once they've committed to their trans nature go back. Apparently she is also unaware of the stigma attached to coming out as trans in middle aged people and what it could do to their families.

And note that most of the ones that go back do so because of pressure, not because they decided it was personally wrong.

That is no longer true. The number of detransitioners is growing, and doing so rapidly. There are enough of them that there are support networks set up for them.

What is Detransition? - Detrans Support

Detransition, retransition, identity evolution, discontinuation, gender affirming care, detrans, transgender, non-binary, LGBTQ+, Kinnon MacKinnon, retrans

detransinfo.com

Support for Those Navigating Detransition, Gender Dysphoria, or Medical Transition | Beyond Trans

Support for Those Navigating Detransition, Gender Dysphoria, or Medical Transition

beyondtrans.org

A Clinician’s Journey: Why I Support Detransitioners (And You Should, Too) — Genspect

Like most, if not all, therapists educated in the last ten or so years, I learned two things in graduate school: 1) gender is a spectrum that has nothing to do with biology and 2) trans people are marginalized; we support them by affirming their identity and advocating for them to receive any...

genspect.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

California Nudity Law, Southern California Naturist Association

This page summarizes the law in California regarding public nudity. The Southern California Naturist Association is a nudist travel club. Our activities include meetings with potential members and the public to educate about the joy of social nudism; parties in backyards and at regional clubs...

socalnaturist.org

Key words "..and lewdly..." This isn't vague, this is by intent. The law is not meant to ban simple nudity.

Try to pay attention. If the intent was to stop lewd behaviour, it clearly failed because of its wording. So it is vague.

Except we have no evidence of lewd behavior.