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

[Bomb#20]

I agree about needing to establish or recognize some standard for transition.

There used to be an established standard: forty-odd years ago it appears to have been generally considered appropriate for a biological male to use women's single-sex spaces if (a) the male had had a sex-change operation, or if (b) he was on cross-sex hormones, and (c) he was planning to get a sex-change operation within a year, and (d) a psychiatrist had approved him for a sex-change operation provided he lived as a woman for a year and it went the way it was supposed to. As far as I can tell, this standard was discarded because trans-activists widely considered it unacceptable, not because it worked poorly or because women widely considered it unacceptable.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Reg: You want to use the safe man-free facilities?
Loretta: It's every man's right to use the safe man-free facilities.
Reg: But... you can't be in a safe man-free facility!
Loretta: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Loretta! We haven't got a Schroedinger's Bathroom in a quantum superposition state of man-free and man-containing!
Judith: Suppose you agree that Loretta can't actually use safe man-free facilities, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but he can have the right to use safe man-free facilities.

 

[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!

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.

So many urgent problems …
And they’d all go away if we’d just call a girl a girl and a boy a boy!
I hope these confused people don’t try to keep me awake at night, as seems to be the case for some around here.
I feel sorry for them, but oh, what to do??!

 

[Elixir]

I was using the men’s locker room to get out of my swim suit, dry off and don street clothes. Usually takes 90-120 seconds. But about 15 seconds into it there was a violent explosion in one of the three toilet stalls. I mean, not just a super-loud prolonged fart, but what had to be a literal shitstorm. I was so grossed out it made me consider using one of the private all-gender changing rooms next time.
I was out of there in under a minute, still gagging as I hit the parking lot. I think worse things have befallen people in those locker rooms, but not MUCH worse.

 

[Politesse]

This thread isn't even about trans issues, but look what it got stuck on anyway? The rhetoric is doing exactly what it was designed to do. "Women's Rights" have been successfully directed away from the question "What rights should a women be guaranteed by her government?" to the much more palatable "Which women are real and which are fake?" It's a brilliant, brilliant play by the far right. They know their answer to the latter question is infinitely more popular with the public than the former. You might imagine, given how popular the ruling and its implications had been, that the destruction of Roe would be the key political issue of the 2028 election. But it won't be. Because they won. He who chooses what gets airtime, chooses what people will care about in the next cycle.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok just caught this...

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.

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.

To quote someone to themselves:

you could just not trim my post disingenuously

 

[Playball40]

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.

You're kidding right? WOMEN'S restrooms have managed just fine with enclosed 'stalls'. Making men's RRs the same is NOT discriminating in any way shape or form.

 

[Elixir]

That's made up political BULLSHIT.

Yabut it’s highly compelling, super emotionally stimulating bullshit.

I read a trashy novel once, set in the old Wild West, where the bad guys found the good guy’s pregnant wife home alone so they cut her open, removed the fetus and raped and murdered her. Truly terrible - i worried about the author … but IRL I doubt that happens a lot, or EVER used to happen a lot. but just the story upset me enough that I’d vote against it.

 

[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.

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

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".
But we can still tell that they're male in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Because even having surgery to remove your genitals doesn't change your sex. You're still male, even if your balls are gone.

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.

All of that effort to remove your balls, and it still doesn't make you any less male. You can think of yourself, and dress and present however it pleases you - by all means feel free, I fully support that!

But I don't support males using female intimate spaces, competing against females in women's sports, or being placed in women's prisons. How those males think about their bespoke version of gender identity is irrelevant to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok just caught this...

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.

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.

To quote someone to themselves:

you could just not trim my post disingenuously

Oh good god, man. I can't see into your brain. Stop being obtuse.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Yes there is. This has been discussed. It's in the comment chain, in the part you trimmed disingenuously, and it this is also not what you actually said. You said we could not differentiate those, and I quote,

who think of themselves as women and ... who just don't think about it at all

Then I proved you wrong.

Just fucking own it for once.

Maybe, you yourself can, and I quote:

just not trim my post disingenuously

If you could manage that, there might be less grounds to believe you a massive fucking hypocrite.

And I will reiterate, an empty fucking sack is a very clear way to tell.

 

[Toni]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

Uh, Roe v Wade ALREADY restricted abortion to the first two trimesters. There is no such thing as an "abortion" in the ninth month or "late term abortion". That's made up political BULLSHIT.

Great. So what's your objection to... restricting abortion to the first two trimesters?

Sometimes, abortion is necessary or extremely desirable after the first two trimesters. A fatal fetal abnormality may not be discovered until late into the pregnancy. Death for the fetus is inevitable and likely painful. Continuing the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother’s health.

Yes, this is rare but not so rare as we might wish it to be. Third trimester abortions are also rare, but not so rare as we might wish.

It is absolutely not the job of you or me or any legislator or judge to decide the amount of danger or deleterious health effects are sufficient t to allow a girl or woman to choose abortion.

The legislature does not mandate any waiting period or other legal role in determining whether someone can receive this or that medical procedure—although they are attempting to weigh in on gender confirmation care.

Very few legislators have any sort of medical background and afaik, none are practicing physicians. Medical treatments and care are best determined by the medical practitioner and the patient, without interference from legislators, judges, or insurance companies, each of whom have their own agendas which do not include the needs or best interests of the patient t.

 

[Toni]

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Yes there is. This has been discussed. It's in the comment chain, in the part you trimmed disingenuously, and it this is also not what you actually said. You said we could not differentiate those, and I quote,

who think of themselves as women and ... who just don't think about it at all

Then I proved you wrong.

Just fucking own it for once.

Maybe, you yourself can, and I quote:

just not trim my post disingenuously

If you could manage that, there might be less grounds to believe you a massive fucking hypocrite.

And I will reiterate, an empty fucking sack is a very clear way to tell.

It is true that an empty scrotum would be one obvious way to determine if someone was trans. But in the moment, not everyone is going to notice that particular feature. I’ve rarely heard any woman mention someone’s scrotum. They notice penis much more readily. And some men who are not trans get testicular cancer and must have their testes removed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Yes there is. This has been discussed. It's in the comment chain, in the part you trimmed disingenuously, and it this is also not what you actually said. You said we could not differentiate those, and I quote,

who think of themselves as women and ... who just don't think about it at all

Then I proved you wrong.

Just fucking own it for once.

Maybe, you yourself can, and I quote:

just not trim my post disingenuously

If you could manage that, there might be less grounds to believe you a massive fucking hypocrite.

And I will reiterate, an empty fucking sack is a very clear way to tell.

It is true that an empty scrotum would be one obvious way to determine if someone was trans. But in the moment, not everyone is going to notice that particular feature. I’ve rarely heard any woman mention someone’s scrotum. They notice penis much more readily. And some men who are not trans get testicular cancer and must have their testes removed.

1: a large majority, as I understand it, who have had their testicles removed due to testicular cancer get prosthetics. Someone should probably look up whether this is generally included in the procedure.

2: it's not about "immediately noticing", but having "ready proof". See next about the event of something being in "easy notice".

3: seeing a dick whipped out is already indicative of indecent exposure, as would be seeing someone drop trow and put a cooch on display. Nobody wants to see your shit, metaphorical or literal, in a public restroom. Charge them with indecent exposure in a public restroom.

(Edit: 4: as pertains to 1: such people will not have had their marker changed on identification so 2: will be a moot point, and there will generally be an active prescription for testosterone in clear "normal male" dosages.)

 

[Toni]

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Yes there is. This has been discussed. It's in the comment chain, in the part you trimmed disingenuously, and it this is also not what you actually said. You said we could not differentiate those, and I quote,

who think of themselves as women and ... who just don't think about it at all

Then I proved you wrong.

Just fucking own it for once.

Maybe, you yourself can, and I quote:

just not trim my post disingenuously

If you could manage that, there might be less grounds to believe you a massive fucking hypocrite.

And I will reiterate, an empty fucking sack is a very clear way to tell.

It is true that an empty scrotum would be one obvious way to determine if someone was trans. But in the moment, not everyone is going to notice that particular feature. I’ve rarely heard any woman mention someone’s scrotum. They notice penis much more readily. And some men who are not trans get testicular cancer and must have their testes removed.

1: a large majority, as I understand it, who have had their testicles removed due to testicular cancer get prosthetics. Someone should probably look up whether this is generally included in the procedure.

2: it's not about "immediately noticing", but having "ready proof". See next about the event of something being in "easy notice".

3: seeing a dick whipped out is already indicative of indecent exposure, as would be seeing someone drop trow and put a cooch on display. Nobody wants to see your shit, metaphorical or literal, in a public restroom. Charge them with indecent exposure in a public restroom.

(Edit: 4: as pertains to 1: such people will not have had their marker changed on identification so 2: will be a moot point, and there will generally be an active prescription for testosterone in clear "normal male" dosages.)

Ah, Im sorry: I don’t think I was completely following. I agree that deliberately exposing genitals in the ladies room is generally indecent exposure, no matter who ( assuming over the age when one can be responsible for such).


I was only commenting from the perspective of myself and women we know: penis is what we notice. Not testicles, except during intimacy.

 

[Elixir]

Flashing really is less bad than farts, amirite?

I don’t really know, never having been “flashed” except a couple of times when I was being enticed by women. Just tits though - and far be it from me to object or try to stifle such behavior, even though such exposure reduces or eliminates the appeal of the “flasher”.
But those farts (more accurately shit explosions) definitely delivered FAR more unpleasantness. Give me the flasher every time! Of course YMMV.
In fact - the reason I mentioned it, was that it made me consider going to one of the all-gender “private” changing rooms, especially since they’re rarely both in use.

Oh, and btw, women OR men who prefer privacy enough to walk an extra 25-30 feet, are welcome to do so.

The only cases of people ever kicked out for indecent exposure afaik, happened right in the main pool area and I never suffered the trauma of having to witness any of it. But I haven’t lived a TOTALLY sheltered existence:
Once I was walking the beach in Kalihiwai - a small cove on Kauai - and a couple of Haoles, the only other two people in the beach, were walking naively close to the shore break and got caught by a wave that was about time and a half overhead. I saw it happen and rushed down the beach ready to drag someone out unconscious. (That beach has killed a few people because of the sand shelf just a few feet off shore).
But they both came up, coughing and gagging. She was missing her top, and he was butt naked. They were both freaking out but managed to scramble to their towel setup. I almost drowned myself, laughing. But I am learning that my experience would have traumatized some people around here.
I only remember that she had a fine set, which she could barely contain in her hands as she struggled up the beach.
Haoles!

 

[Toni]

Flashing really is less bad than farts, amirite?

I don’t really know, never having been “flashed” except a couple of times when I was being enticed by women. Just tits though - and far be it from me to object or try to stifle such behavior, even though such exposure reduces or eliminates the appeal of the “flasher”.
But those farts (more accurately shit explosions) definitely delivered FAR more unpleasantness. Give me the flasher every time! Of course YMMV.
In fact - the reason I mentioned it, was that it made me consider going to one of the all-gender “private” changing rooms, especially since they’re rarely both in use.

Oh, and btw, women OR men who prefer privacy enough to walk an extra 25-30 feet, are welcome to do so.

The only cases of people ever kicked out for indecent exposure afaik, happened right in the main pool area and I never suffered the trauma of having to witness any of it. But I haven’t lived a TOTALLY sheltered existence:
Once I was walking the beach in Kalihiwai - a small cove on Kauai - and a couple of Haoles, the only other two people in the beach, were walking naively close to the shore break and got caught by a wave that was about time and a half overhead. I saw it happen and rushed down the beach ready to drag someone out unconscious. (That beach has killed a few people because of the sand shelf just a few feet off shore).
But they both came up, coughing and gagging. She was missing her top, and he was butt naked. They were both freaking out but managed to scramble to their towel setup. I almost drowned myself, laughing. But I am learning that my experience would have traumatized some people around here.
I only remember that she had a fine set, which she could barely contain in her hands as she struggled up the beach.
Haoles!

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

You are mixing up separate categories.

Flashers are about shocking their victims. It's not a prelude to rape.

While it would be possible for a rapist to enter already naked it would only be as part of an attack. They're not going to stand around and put you on your guard. Thus a penis not moving towards you is almost certainly not intending to rape you.

 

[Toni]

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

You are mixing up separate categories.

Flashers are about shocking their victims. It's not a prelude to rape.

While it would be possible for a rapist to enter already naked it would only be as part of an attack. They're not going to stand around and put you on your guard. Thus a penis not moving towards you is almost certainly not intending to rape you.

Indeed, flashers do sometimes escalate to actual assault.

Regardless of what men like to think, penises do not think or move of their own volition. Yes, I’m aware that erections/loss of erections is somewhat involuntary but penises do not advance on victims without the cooperation of the brain, body, limbs of the possessor.

Regardless of how you feel, or what you believe, some people do indeed expose their erections in an attempt to cause emotional distress in victims.

You are not female. You are not, as far as I know, a victim of sexual abuse by anyone, male or female. You seem to have a very difficult time imagining how someone else might feel. Just because an experience or feeling is foreign to you, it does not mean those experiences and feelings do not exist, even if you do not share or understand them.

I personally do not understand how anybody can care a lick about football or whiskey but I respect that they do.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's no way to tell whether a male is "sincerely trans" or "exploiting a giant gaping loophole".

Yes there is. This has been discussed. It's in the comment chain, in the part you trimmed disingenuously, and it this is also not what you actually said. You said we could not differentiate those, and I quote,

who think of themselves as women and ... who just don't think about it at all

Then I proved you wrong.

Just fucking own it for once.

Maybe, you yourself can, and I quote:

just not trim my post disingenuously

If you could manage that, there might be less grounds to believe you a massive fucking hypocrite.

To an outside observer, there is no way to tell whether the man in lipstick genuinely thinks of himself as a woman, or whether he's a predator taking advantage of laws that give men the privilege to override women's boundaries whenever the hell they want to.

And I will reiterate, an empty fucking sack is a very clear way to tell.

If you show a woman your empty sack without consent, you're committing a sex crime.