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

[Emily Lake]

Given how obsessed that Emily, and ONLY Emily has been about trans people, well, I don't think MOST women wish they had dicks, and I don't think most women think about women with dicks or being men, and I have NEVER had anyone else EVER go off on preemptively accusing trans people of thinking all women should become men or whatever the fuck that was a few years ago, or presenting some bullshit like the opinion that women are men with something missing (seriously WTF?!?)

You should really see about having your memory and cognitive abilities evaluated. Whatever the hell your imagination has coughed up here doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

What you are missing is that if there is nobody around none of your security is worth anything, and if there are others around the alarm will be sounded. The safety is an illusion.

You are practicing the art of letting perfection get in the way of the good, especially with that illusion of safety bs.

Calling it BS doesn't make it so.

A "women" sign isn't magical. If there's nobody else around it provides no protection. If there are others around a scream is going to bring help so attacks are effectively nonexistent.

You know, unless a woman screams and complains that there's a male exposing his dick in there... and then that male says he's "trans", in which cases the women who complained are painted as bigots and subjected to threats and harassment.

 

[Emily Lake]

The CAS review silenced no one.

FYI, it's Cass. As in the doctor who oversaw the study is named Dr. Hillary Cass.

 

[Toni]

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.

Bosom Buddies, Three’s Company and Some Like It Hot were all smash hits in their day for a reason.

 

[Emily Lake]

Jarhyn will not be able to produce any quotes of me equating gender and sex

So you will unequivocally state that you have never said man=male and woman=female nor never upvoted a post where this was stated?

I don't believe Bomb has ever made that claim. I have. I have done so because I reject the religion of gender in its entirety, and I refuse to relinquish the absolute most common use of the terms woman and man to appease the deep-seated need of some few people to force the entire world to take part in their fantasies.

A female horse is a mare. A female sheep is a ewe. A female bovine is a cow. A female pig is a sow. A female fox is a vixen.
What's the word for a female human?

(Not to mention, the fact that the gender being assigned to that which is "socially constructed", rather than "biologically formed" ignores the fact that gender IS first biologically formed, so as to present as a biologically biases preference for some later-presented role; denying the biologically formed component is part of the newspeak)

Oh if only your wishes were as powerful as you wish they were...

Sex is real, gender is the social expectation formed around sex, gender expression is the way in which you attempt to show other people what gender role you feel most affinity for.

Gender isn't biologically formed, but without that expression of your faith, you would have to consider that maybe objectively verifiable sex is actually important to some people... and that wanting to remove your own balls doesn't make you any less male than you were on the day your daddy's sperm breached your mommy's egg.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I'm not laying it on trans, Loren. I'm laying it on MALES.
Males who claim a transgender identity are still males, and will remain such until their dying day. And anthropologists a thousand years later will identify them as males.

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

You ignoring and hand-waving away cases doesn't make them nonexistent.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm not saying everyone holding the position is a reich winger. Rather, that it's the reich wingers stirring the fire.

You're wrong, but I doubt you'll ever acknowledge it. Left-leaning feminists were the first to object, and they've been objecting since the 70s. It's been pciked up within the last decade or so by predominantly left-leaning women and some men. But you don't notice it when it's only women and lesbians complaining, you (and a lot of men) are completely oblivious to it. It's only when the right picks it up as the easiest own-goal ever handed to them on a silver platter that you finally take note.

It was a big deal for all the years that Michfest operated, and it was a pretty constant issue that the lesbians and women who attended that festical did NOT want to allow males to attend - especially not crossdressing males who called themselves lesbians. FFS, one of the biggest reasons that Michfest doesn't happen anymore is because a transwoman murdered two lesbians and their child because they opposed his demand to be let in to the festival.

 

[Emily Lake]

That’s it. That’s the whole issue for me. Someone might be badly traumatized—and I’m including the trans people here-or physically hurt.

It’s not something silly or trivial for anyone to deal with. It can happen long after you are sure you are ok.

I know that you know this but if someone is reading this who never considered just how bad it can be: maybe this is a start of a wake up call.

Probably not. But not because I didn’t try.

Yes, it's possible for someone to be traumatized because they are scared of the wrong thing. Is that more important than somebody being killed?

The point you seem to be making is that the safety of everyone is entirely the responsibility of (cis)women. We must accept anything anyone with an XY chromosome complement demands of us and if we don't: We are the ones responsible for whatever violence men do.

Fuck that noise.

So, which is better: making doors on stalls universal?
Or someone being killed.

You seem to be arguing that someone being killed is a terrible thing----unless it involves YOU or men in general changing their expectations regarding privacy or spending a few dollars.

So your hierarchy = No change or monetary outlay for Loren > someone getting killed.

The world does not agree.

I think we need a bingo card for this discussion...

 

[Emily Lake]

Take your argument, substitute "black" for "male". Keep those coloreds in their own facilities!

This is a stupid argument, and it's frofoundly flawed.

Skin color is literally skin deep. It's also not binary, and children most often end up with skin that's in between the shades of their parents. The child of a black person and while person will almost always have lighter brown skin. My sister is a beautiful shade of mocha latte.

Sex, on the other hand, is present throughout the entire body. It's directly responsible for a different body plan, and it impacts multiple stages of development. It is strictly binary in mammals and birds, and is gonochoric in those species. The children of a male and a female will each be either male or female, but never something in between.

It's also misleading in formation as well. You choose black as your oppressed class, with the implication that white people spent a lot of time oppressing and discriminating against black people - that part is true. But then you attempt to analogize it to matters of sex, and in so doing, you end up having to pretend that female human beings are the ones who have historically and systematically oppressed male human beings... and that's just straight up bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

1: they have, unfortunately proven with the rule of large numbers that they can, in fact, present a handful of cases over the decades.

2: the mere handful of cases that can be held up across a population of 300m over all this time indicates that the problem is not in fact "big". In fact, they have almost certainly been scouring every source they can to find every last case to bolster their claims, and they're still coming up woefully short.

3: the cases themselves seem to be instigated by the repeated false claim that it is fruitful or easy to use claims of being trans to get away with molesting or access inappropriate custody settings following commission of sex crimes; the problem is caused by the claiming of there being a problem.

Look more carefully at the handful of cases. They have a handful of claimed cases, but there's always an issue.

Like the one where "wearing a skirt" becomes supposedly trans (even though the article says it probably wasn't), everything else seems to be manufactured and not trace to a credible source.

And we have a few rapes by people who currently are living as female--but never do we have both the date of the rape and when they transistioned.

When I see a group scour for data and not come up with anything ironclad I figure the problem isn't real.

Also, a while back I did a fair amount of digging with Google trying to find data on such rapes, I kept coming up empty-handed. Then I finally found why: there weren't any. The only case was a rape of the trans individual. Convicted, no question about iffy news reports.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

There's no requirement for someone to change their id in order to be trans. There are several hundred men currently housed in women's prisons who haven't changed their IDs. Many of them "discovered" their "true trans self" after having spent a few years incarcerated. More than a few were incarcerated for sex crimes committed against women and children.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I am! But only the male ones. Because there is literally no possible way to tell which males are males who think of themselves as women and which are males who just don't think about it at all. They're all male, and that's all I care about.

Perfectly happy to have the female-men use female facilities, given that they're female.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

None of your links support your statement detrans is "growing, and doing so rapidly."

 

[Emily Lake]

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!

Lol, gender critical people aren't the ones who decided no debate is allowed. But thank you for agreeing that the trans privilege brigade is extremely authoritarian.

 

[Rhea]

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

I am! But only the male ones. Because there is literally no possible way to tell which males are males who think of themselves as women and which are males who just don't think about it at all. They're all male, and that's all I care about.

Perfectly happy to have the female-men use female facilities, given that they're female.

How would you identify them as female, if they are presenting as males, then?

Confused….

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

There's a level of naive acceptance of anything the holy trans say that really boggles my skeptical mind.

Man has a history of multiple FELONY counts of indecent exposure offending against women. Man has previously been incarcerated for sexual offending against women, including exposure.

Man goes to the DMV and fills out a form.

Man goes to a female-only nude spa, and all his desires to expose himself to nonconsenting women just magically disappear because his license has an F on it.

In my book, it is lewd behavior for a male stranger to expose his dick to women without consent. That's lewd behavior.

Excusing such behavior because the man in question said magic words about their subjective and completely unverifiable internal gender identity is carrying water for sex offenders.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I am! But only the male ones. Because there is literally no possible way to tell which males are males who think of themselves as women and which are males who just don't think about it at all. They're all male, and that's all I care about.

Perfectly happy to have the female-men use female facilities, given that they're female.

How would you identify them as female, if they are presenting as males, then?

Confused….

Just like with males who identify as transwomen... most don't pass very well. Some few do, but the majority really, really don't. Especially when you see them in the presence of actual men or actual women.

And there's a very practical reality here: If a person actually passes, they won't be challenged. If they actually pass, nobody will know they're not the sex they're mimicking, because they pass.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

I am! But only the male ones. Because there is literally no possible way to tell which males are males who think of themselves as women and which are males who just don't think about it at all. They're all male, and that's all I care about.

Perfectly happy to have the female-men use female facilities, given that they're female.

How would you identify them as female, if they are presenting as males, then?

Confused….

In reading about the history of trans people being murdered over bathroom use not 4 minutes ago, there was a trans person murdered for doing exactly as Emily lake suggested.

I think it happened in the last year or two? Pretty recent.

Other victims have been verified as being murdered and outed specifically for using gender-neutral spaces instead.

Of course, Emily is simply wrong. It is quite easy to tell when someone is trans, because if it really comes down to it they can take a hormone assay, and if our nation actually wants to do something that would obviate the issue, they would require insurance to cover bottom surgery and HRT.

We would see, virtually overnight, a HUGE segment of the trans population become rather trivially easy to distinguish for cases like this.

The remainder, we can quite easily treat as "just playing dress-up".

 

[Toni]

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

I am! But only the male ones. Because there is literally no possible way to tell which males are males who think of themselves as women and which are males who just don't think about it at all. They're all male, and that's all I care about.

Perfectly happy to have the female-men use female facilities, given that they're female.

How would you identify them as female, if they are presenting as males, then?

Confused….

In reading about the history of trans people being murdered over bathroom use not 4 minutes ago, there was a trans person murdered for doing exactly as Emily lake suggested.

I think it happened in the last year or two? Pretty recent.

Other victims have been verified as being murdered and outed specifically for using gender-neutral spaces instead.

Of course, Emily is simply wrong. It is quite easy to tell when someone is trans, because if it really comes down to it they can take a hormone assay, and if our nation actually wants to do something that would obviate the issue, they would require insurance to cover bottom surgery and HRT.

We would see, virtually overnight, a HUGE segment of the trans population become rather trivially easy to distinguish for cases like this.

The remainder, we can quite easily treat as "just playing dress-up".

Well, in a women’s locker room it would be substantially more difficult to determine if someone is trans or not.

Not all trans people leap immediately into being certain they are ready for surgery. Or that is my understanding.

It’s also difficult for minors and their parents to know when and what is the right course and timing. The best informed, best intentioned parent may well be hesitant to get their kid surgery until they know that this is a permanent thing, not a phase. In the meantime, it’s a gray area for the kid and their parents and family and school. Or a kind of limbo. As I understand it.

These are not decisions or situations I have had to deal with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Agreed, it's just I don't see that this is relevant to the bathroom issue. It keeps being presented like all the sex problems are prevented by guarding bathrooms--yet clearly that is not reality as the problems exist anyway.

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.

It needs to be something that is actually affordable.

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 GOP doesn't want a solution to any problem. They are all about promising to solve problems, actually solve problems and they become worthless.