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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If they aren't trans the whole basis of the case goes away--it was just a guy in the ladies, something you don't seem to understand the "women" sign doesn't actually prevent. The idea that he was given access isn't supported by the news about this, only by the crusaders--and social media crusaders are not credible sources, period.

 

[Toni]

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.

If they aren't trans the whole basis of the case goes away--it was just a guy in the ladies, something you don't seem to understand the "women" sign doesn't actually prevent. The idea that he was given access isn't supported by the news about this, only by the crusaders--and social media crusaders are not credible sources, period.

FFS Loren: I absolutely understand that a sign does not prevent someone who doesn’t belong from entering a woman’s only space.

Why the fuck do you think I’ve been saying that it’s a problem????

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is your evidence that stalls require 25% or more space?

<Hits laughing dog over the head with a stall door.>

What happens when you replace the urinals with stalls? Do you not realize a stall is bigger?

All I know that last year when this issue came up, I was also on vacation. In the Mn state park mens restrooms the width allocated to urinals without stalls was exactly the same as width for toilets with stalls. All were along the same wall So replacing urinals with toilets and stalls would not have reduced the number of units in the same space.

I realize restroom size, shape and layout may differ but the point is your unsubstantiated claim of needing at least 25% more space is not a universal constant.

Depth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We DO look at who might be a predator

You all look alike.

How do you not recognize the major discrimination here?

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

Yeah, I’m talking to you, you rape apologist. YOU are part of the problem.

I certainly don't defend rapists. I just object to you tarring all men with the rapist brush.

YOU think YOU have a right to tell us what we MUST accept.

Keep those colored people out of white schools!

Really, Loren. What utter and complete bullshit, even from you.

You're a misogynist so wrapped up in blonde/bluey eyed white male privilege that it's choking off the blood supply to your head.

After all, it is YOU who insists that it is 'too expensive' to have door stalls and that is more important than not traumatizing women--cis and trans btw.

How about addressing how discriminating against men is acceptable but exactly the same thing against blacks is not.

And it's not the expense of doors. It's the expense of the space of separate spaces. I'm saying it's not going to happen because of cost, not addressing whether that's the right decision.

 

[Toni]

We DO look at who might be a predator

You all look alike.

How do you not recognize the major discrimination here?

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

Yeah, I’m talking to you, you rape apologist. YOU are part of the problem.

I certainly don't defend rapists. I just object to you tarring all men with the rapist brush.

YOU think YOU have a right to tell us what we MUST accept.

Keep those colored people out of white schools!

Really, Loren. What utter and complete bullshit, even from you.

You're a misogynist so wrapped up in blonde/bluey eyed white male privilege that it's choking off the blood supply to your head.

After all, it is YOU who insists that it is 'too expensive' to have door stalls and that is more important than not traumatizing women--cis and trans btw.

How about addressing how discriminating against men is acceptable but exactly the same thing against blacks is not.

And it's not the expense of doors. It's the expense of the space of separate spaces. I'm saying it's not going to happen because of cost, not addressing whether that's the right decision.

Wait, what?

I thought that trans women are women?

Who is talking about out discrimination against men? Who are they? Are they in the room with you now?

Re: space for doors.

Remove urinals.

Loren, seriously take a nap or something. Your brain is not working.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Nope. "Truth" which is conveniently not reported even by those who would want to promote it (say, Faux Noise) is not truth.

 

[Elixir]

Lol, gender critical people aren't the ones who decided no debate is allowed.

WTF is a “gender critical”? Is that you? A dogmatic and counter-realistic notion that gender is strictly binary, immutable and anyone who observes anything contrary is necessarily deluded and dangerous. Sounds serious. No doubt cause for restrictive legal bounds!

But thank you for agreeing that the trans privilege brigade is extremely authoritarian.

Uh … seems to me that the ones you are critiquing as authoritarian, are in fact overly permissive, even by my fairly loose (lack of) standards. Sure looks like a bit of undisguised projection there, Ems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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".

Top surgery produces something reasonably realistic and functional. Bottom surgery is nowhere near as good an approximation.

 

[Jarhyn]

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".

Top surgery produces something reasonably realistic and functional. Bottom surgery is nowhere near as good an approximation.

When you're trying to build a pole, the results are messy. When you're trying to dig a hole, they're only messy if you go to a bad surgeon.

The kind of bottom surgery I'm discussing isn't either a hole or a pole, though, but *emptying a sack*.

The results of that are pretty straightforward.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is quite easy to tell when someone is trans

I mean, it's usually pretty easy to tell already.

 

[Emily Lake]

How about addressing how discriminating against men is acceptable but exactly the same thing against blacks is not.

I mean seriously, how dare those uppity bitches say no to strange men ogling them? How dare those snotty women object to strange men showing off their dicks? Women really ought to know their place, and let men do whatever they want, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

Who is talking about out discrimination against men? Who are they? Are they in the room with you now?

It's because despite all the complaints, Loren is completely aware that transwomen are not women, they are men. They may be men with an identity issue, but they're still males of the human species.

And everyone knows this.

 

[Emily Lake]

Lol, gender critical people aren't the ones who decided no debate is allowed.

WTF is a “gender critical”? Is that you? A dogmatic and counter-realistic notion that gender is strictly binary, immutable and anyone who observes anything contrary is necessarily deluded and dangerous. Sounds serious. No doubt cause for restrictive legal bounds!

SEX is binary and immutable, and GENDER is a belief that I don't subscribe to. Gender critical means I'm critical of gender having any value to society whatsoever... but that sex is both real and meaningful.

But thank you for agreeing that the trans privilege brigade is extremely authoritarian.

Uh … seems to me that the ones you are critiquing as authoritarian, are in fact overly permissive, even by my fairly loose (lack of) standards. Sure looks like a bit of undisguised projection there, Ems.

Or... you could just not trim my post disingenuously. Because the authoritarianism you're complaining about isn't coming from me - it's coming from the advocates that demand that anyone who says they're a woman must be accepted as a woman no matter what, and that it cannot be discussed or debated. I thought that was relatively clear in the context that you removed.

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.

These are the advocates, by the way, who get angry that lesbians won't have sex with people who have "ladydicks", because same-sex attracted people who limit their dating pool to only people of the same sex are bigots in their eyes.

We even have one of these right here in this thread.

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

Top surgery produces something reasonably realistic and functional. Bottom surgery is nowhere near as good an approximation.

When you're trying to build a pole, the results are messy. When you're trying to dig a hole, they're only messy if you go to a bad surgeon.

The kind of bottom surgery I'm discussing isn't either a hole or a pole, though, but *emptying a sack*.

The results of that are pretty straightforward.

Yes, pretty straightforward. Still doesn't make you non-male though.

 

[Jarhyn]

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".

Top surgery produces something reasonably realistic and functional. Bottom surgery is nowhere near as good an approximation.

When you're trying to build a pole, the results are messy. When you're trying to dig a hole, they're only messy if you go to a bad surgeon.

The kind of bottom surgery I'm discussing isn't either a hole or a pole, though, but *emptying a sack*.

The results of that are pretty straightforward.

Yes, pretty straightforward. Still doesn't make you non-male though.

Says the person who keeps claiming the opposite when it suits her: "ThErE's LitTeRaLlY No PoSsIbLe WaY to TeLl!!!111"

Pretty sure it takes a lot more than 'just not thinking about it at all' to go through all those hoops, seek out and get a doctor to sign off on a castration, scheduling a surgery, and then taking regular doses of estrogen.

Its not like we're having this discussion on a vacuum, even if you snip the relevant quote that contains you spouting stupid shit.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

From what I can tell, women’s fears about sexual assault arise from their personal experiences, not propaganda purveyors.

Your patronizing and dumb analogy actually strengthens Toni’s point about your apparent disrespect for women.

The problem is treating the risk of rape in general as an indication of the risk of rape in a restroom. Restrooms are a place where people walk in at any time--not exactly conductive to committing rape. Rape almost always happens in isolated situations.

There are all types of unwanted sexual contact besides rape. And “almost always “ is not reassuring.

 

[laughing dog]

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!

Which word in “unwanted sexual contact” do you not understand?

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.

We also have examples posted here of women accosted and assaulted in restrooms or locker rooms by self proclaimed trans women which you dismiss.

More importantly, Toni nor I are against the transgendered using their preferred facility. Stalls are a good compromise.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You seriously think whipping your dick out in a woman’s restroom is not lewd behavior?

 

[laughing dog]

What is your evidence that stalls require 25% or more space?

<Hits laughing dog over the head with a stall door.>

What happens when you replace the urinals with stalls? Do you not realize a stall is bigger?

All I know that last year when this issue came up, I was also on vacation. In the Mn state park mens restrooms the width allocated to urinals without stalls was exactly the same as width for toilets with stalls. All were along the same wall So replacing urinals with toilets and stalls would not have reduced the number of units in the same space.

I realize restroom size, shape and layout may differ but the point is your unsubstantiated claim of needing at least 25% more space is not a universal constant.

Depth.

I have no idea what you are referring to. In my example, if stalls had been placed and the replaced with toilets, there’d have been no reduction in receptacles in the same space.

 

[Jarhyn]

More importantly, Toni nor I are against the transgendered using their preferred facility. Stalls are a good compromise

Yes, secure stalls are a good compromise, as are secure single restrooms, and secure changing facilities.

You seriously think whipping your dick out in a woman’s restroom is not lewd behavior?

Personally, I think that anyone whipping their gonads out in a public space is almost certainly lewd behavior, and I will note that the first time she did it she should have been charged with indecent exposure.

Now, that said, if for some reason some trans person was challenged on whether they were a "woman" or "just playing dress-up" after having some stage of bottom surgery done, to include simply emptying the sack, I would laugh at whatever person called that "lewd" and say "you literally asked for it. It's not a metaphor or a victom-blame: you said the words 'prove it' and that's what they did."

That's like, one of the very few exceptions, and in some respects I would rather charge the challenger with a crime of disorderly conduct for wasting everyone's time with a spurious attack.

Someone will almost certainly, if they haven't already, challenged my niece over her beard. I would see whoever does that challenged with disorderly conduct or harassment.

We can expect people with PTSD to not inappropriately attack and victimize others with a trauma response, or to apologize when it happens.