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

[laughing dog]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

 

[Emily Lake]

And, since those who are over 13, who identify as trans is about 1%, I doubt many of us will even meet a trans person. AfaIk, I've only met one.

1% is 1 in 100 people. I'm guessing you know far more than 100 people, and that you interact with more than that every week. Perhaps not any more - I expect that when I finally eventually retire I'll be able to avoid humans to the greatest extent feasible. But I still run into probably 50 people each time I go to the grocery store.

I know a couple dozen. Some are great, some are not at all great. Some are merely awkward, some very few pass arguably well, and some are straight-up creepy. There are five transwomen and at least one transman at my company. Most of them are just fine, but one of the transwomen gives off a very, very, very creepy vibe.

But despite the claim that it's innate and genetically-prompted... it's not evenly spread. It clusters... and transgendered identification just happens to cluster in areas that are invested in really leaning in and celebrating trans. It's extraordinarily unlikely that one third of the girls in my goddaughter's class all found their true innate identity as transboys in the same 2 year period.

 

[Toni]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Well, ld is the mildest of those telling women to just shut up and take it or else you’re a bigot.

I’d like to point out that expressing some concerns and asking how to avoid bad situations for ALL while absolutely recognizing the needs and rights of trans people to be able to just exist in places where they feel comfortable is not bigotry.

Expecting only cis women to make changes in their expectations—including fears for personal safety while refusing to acknowledge, much less seek solutions to the fact that for most women, the fear is based on actual experiences with male violence directed towards women because they are women.

Yes, there are some women who don’t believe in trans anything, who think LGBTQIA+ individuals are just mentally ill (they’re not—and mental illness is not a choice anymore than heart failure is a choice) or are going to hell or whatever—yeah, that’s bigotry.

It’s also bigotry when men do it. It’s bigotry when anyone decides to assault someone because they are in the LGBTQIA + community.

Assault is a criminal offense as well.

If men were not violent towards women and girls, women would be less inclined to freak out about trans women in women’s showers. Yes, absolutely some would. Judy like some men get off on beating up women and anyone they deem insufficiently masculine or raping them. But certainly not all women would find it concerning. Or, I think, most. Just as not all men are violent or rapists. Probably not most.

 

[Emily Lake]

However it is, it can't involve "policing women for not looking enough like 'Women'", because... Well, that's just as bad as how Men act, 'policing' each other for not being "Men".

Right now? Be extremely critical of the people who construct and utilize "women's locker rooms" which force the users to be openly nude in front of one another. If you are worried about being in a compromised position because of some manner of the structure, that won't be helped by... Making other people feel less safe in that same structure.

Either demand what I have described of "controlled space" (vetting, in other words), or that the space not require that level of compromise.

It. Is. Not. Acceptable. To. Police. Femininity. With. Essentialism.

It's just not.

Nobody is policing femininity. But sex is a real thing, and it has very real impacts on our lives. It has impacts on the lives of female-women that I think you're either unware or you simply don't care about at all.

Women in Afghanistan aren't denied education on the basis of them being "feminine", it's done on the basis of them being female. They cannot identify out of it. Girls in Iran aren't required to wear hijab on the basis of them behaving in a "girly" fashion, it's because they're of the female sex. One in five women in the US isn't the victim of attempted or completed rape because they were wearing lipstick and heels, it's because they're females of the human species.

It's not "policing" the reality of objective sex to retain and enforce single-sex spaces. It's a safeguard that protects female-women from predation by males.

 

[Toni]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

You have suggested talking to the person who concerns you to alleviate concerns.

It’s been pointed out that in a women’s shower it locker room is not the place to do that when the concerning individual has a male body that is naked.

More than once.

Response from you: crickets.

 

[Emily Lake]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

That's certainly how it has come across. Have you considered that you've been extremely unclear if your intention is otherwise?

 

[laughing dog]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

That's certainly how it has come across. Have you considered that you've been extremely unclear if your intention is otherwise?

No, I have not considered I have been extremely unclear even adjusting for the miscommunication and jumping to the wrong conclusion propensities present in these forums about the concerns of women. The content of my posts #239, #244, #316, #318 and #344 make it abundantly clear that I don't dismiss the concerns of women casually or otherwise.

 

[laughing dog]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

You have suggested talking to the person who concerns you to alleviate concerns.

It’s been pointed out that in a women’s shower it locker room is not the place to do that when the concerning individual has a male body that is naked.

More than once.

Response from you: crickets.

That does not mean I dismissed women's concerns. My observation that got this going was in post 486 and it was in response to a general question. And I never claimed it was foolproof.

As for lockerroom/shower facilities, I would think that a sincere emotionally transwoman would be aware and sensitive about this issue, and would avoid such confrontations. Insincere or emotionally immature transwoman should be removed as quickly as possible.

Frankly, it seems to me that this issue generates lots of kneejerk froth from posters, including me. As you have said, no one should be put in danger or made to feel fearful. People can disagree about how to arrive at a good solution. but that does not necessarily mean a dismissal of any particular group's concerns.

 

[Emily Lake]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

That's certainly how it has come across. Have you considered that you've been extremely unclear if your intention is otherwise?

No, I have not considered I have been extremely unclear even adjusting for the miscommunication and jumping to the wrong conclusion propensities present in these forums about the concerns of women. The content of my posts #239, #244, #316, #318 and #344 make it abundantly clear that I don't dismiss the concerns of women casually or otherwise.

Your response on this particular bit of back and forth comes across as if you're dismissing women's concerns - it's part of why I asked you to elaborate, because it didn't jive with your prior posts. Your responses didn't provide elucidation

It comes across as if you're telling us we should engage in a heart-felt conversation with the random strange male in a space where we're vulnerable so we can determine whether they're safe or not... and if we don't, we're bigots. If that's not what you intended, by all means give another shot.

 

[laughing dog]

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

That's certainly how it has come across. Have you considered that you've been extremely unclear if your intention is otherwise?

No, I have not considered I have been extremely unclear even adjusting for the miscommunication and jumping to the wrong conclusion propensities present in these forums about the concerns of women. The content of my posts #239, #244, #316, #318 and #344 make it abundantly clear that I don't dismiss the concerns of women casually or otherwise.

Your response on this particular bit of back and forth comes across as if you're dismissing women's concerns - it's part of why I asked you to elaborate, because it didn't jive with your prior posts. Your responses didn't provide elucidation

It comes across as if you're telling us we should engage in a heart-felt conversation with the random strange male in a space where we're vulnerable so we can determine whether they're safe or not... and if we don't, we're bigots. If that's not what you intended, by all means give another shot.

I didn't say that. I am not saying that. I made a specific comment about your straw man of dark parking lots and nothing else.

 

[Emily Lake]

I didn't say that. I am not saying that. I made a specific comment about your straw man of dark parking lots and nothing else.

LD, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I would LOVE for you to give this another go.

It started from here:

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.

Bear in mind that this whole discussion is around males in female intimate spaces, with the added context of the risk that males present to females in general, and more specifically when we're vulnerable.

Your response to this was:

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

The net result of all of this is that both Toni and I have expressed concern that when we're in a bathroom or a shower or a changing room or similar, and a male human being comes in when we expected it to be a female-only space, we can't tell whether that male human being is a "safe" male or a "pervy danger" male.

Your response seems to suggest that we should start up a deep conversation so we can get to know them.

Which seems rather dismissive of the consequences and risks invoved.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't say that. I am not saying that. I made a specific comment about your straw man of dark parking lots and nothing else.

LD, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I would LOVE for you to give this another go.

It started from here:

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.

Bear in mind that this whole discussion is around males in female intimate spaces, with the added context of the risk that males present to females in general, and more specifically when we're vulnerable.

Your response to this was:

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

The net result of all of this is that both Toni and I have expressed concern that when we're in a bathroom or a shower or a changing room or similar, and a male human being comes in when we expected it to be a female-only space, we can't tell whether that male human being is a "safe" male or a "pervy danger" male.

Your response seems to suggest that we should start up a deep conversation so we can get to know them.

Which seems rather dismissive of the consequences and risks invoved.

Why does talking seem “dismissive “? And what are the alternatives in your view if transwomen are permitted in those spaces?

 

[Toni]

Why should women have to put up with this in their locker rooms etc.

A transgender woman who masturbated in front of shocked staff at a hospital has been locked up.
Former soldier Paula Stanton, aged 62, of Severn Avenue, Barry committed the sex act at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. The Falklands War veteran had been taken there by ambulance for a mental health assessment over concerns over a threat to self-harm.
Lewis Ball, prosecuting, said: “The defendant put her hands down her leggings to the groin area. Staff could see that she had her penis in her hand and that her hand was moving up and down. This was happening on and off."

News

"she had her penis in her hand"

A lot of people who are seriously mentally ill or in a mental health crisis masturbate in front of others. This makes her no different than many other people who are suffering from severe mental illness/crisis.

 

[Toni]

Why should women have to put up with this in their locker rooms etc.

A transgender woman who masturbated in front of shocked staff at a hospital has been locked up.
Former soldier Paula Stanton, aged 62, of Severn Avenue, Barry committed the sex act at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. The Falklands War veteran had been taken there by ambulance for a mental health assessment over concerns over a threat to self-harm.
Lewis Ball, prosecuting, said: “The defendant put her hands down her leggings to the groin area. Staff could see that she had her penis in her hand and that her hand was moving up and down. This was happening on and off."

News

"she had her penis in her hand"

A lot of people who are seriously mentally ill or in a mental health crisis masturbate in front of others. This makes her no different than many other people who are suffering from severe mental illness/crisis.

Frankly, that's what a lot of this thread is about: How can women tell when someone in the shower next to them is safe or intends to do them or someone else harm when they have visible penis, keeping in mind that one of the ways that people determine if someone is a danger is if they violate social norms.

The first person who ever assaulted me was someone I knew very well. Our families were very close so we saw each other often, talked often, etc. The truth is that I never knew when he was the nice version or the creepy would be rapist version until he grabbed me from behind, by the breast, by the crotch. It was very very disorienting as there was never anything the least bit sexual in the context. At the point it started, I had never even thought about having a boyfriend or kissing a boy, much less having someone knock me to the ground and tell me that he was going to fuck me. At that point in my life, I thought using the word 'fuck' was the real issue--partly shock and partly--I had zero context. It was as bizarre to me as if aliens descended and told me they wanted me to be their queen. Or pirate, at that point in my life. I truly only thought that fuck was something written inside bathroom stalls and that he was too dumb to know that.

So no, chatting someone up does not help.

Every single person who ever grabbed me inappropriately, tired to stick their hand down my shirt or pants or worse had moments before been talking to me, like a normal person. Well, there was the coworker who was older than my dad who tried to pull a very pregnant me into his lap and kiss me but honestly, except for that he was just a normal coworker. Turns out he did that with all of us younger women.

Sure, like most women, there have been guys I did a lot to avoid in general and absolutely refused to be in a position where I was within arms reach or alone with them. That really helps. And yep,, I definitely stayed away from guys who seemed controlling or who commented on my looks or my size.

But sincerely it came out of nowhere, those assaults. Shit, when that guy tried to kill me, it was shocking because there had been zero hint of anger, or mild irritation up until that moment. But it was illuminating: he had the same look on his face as the time he knocked me down and said he was going to fuck me.

I don't think I am or was that clueless. At the first, sure because I was pretty young, years from being able to drive a car. But I became extremely sensitive about making sure not to leave friends alone with guys they weren't sure about--or that I was not sure about. More than one friend specifically asked me to stick around because some guy kept trying to get her alone. One was a friend and was working on a project in college with this guy who obviously had a big crush on her and she did not know how to turn that off and still finish the project. At one point, he was so angry with me for 'interfering' in his 'relationship' with my friend that he wrapped a bicycle chain around my neck and pulled it tight. Fortunately there were others around. Me? I laughed in his face because he was just an asshole.

In the context of a bathroom, there really are not usually any sort of conversations there unless someone is crying or talking about how their date is going or something like that.

 

[Toni]

I didn't say that. I am not saying that. I made a specific comment about your straw man of dark parking lots and nothing else.

LD, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I would LOVE for you to give this another go.

It started from here:

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.

Bear in mind that this whole discussion is around males in female intimate spaces, with the added context of the risk that males present to females in general, and more specifically when we're vulnerable.

Your response to this was:

Talking to the person in depth is a possible way to tell.

In my experience, most women have a well-developed “creepdar”.

The net result of all of this is that both Toni and I have expressed concern that when we're in a bathroom or a shower or a changing room or similar, and a male human being comes in when we expected it to be a female-only space, we can't tell whether that male human being is a "safe" male or a "pervy danger" male.

Your response seems to suggest that we should start up a deep conversation so we can get to know them.

Which seems rather dismissive of the consequences and risks invoved.

Why does talking seem “dismissive “? And what are the alternatives in your view if transwomen are permitted in those spaces?

We're ASKING.

I have zero interest in offending or upsetting anyone in the ladies. Because why? If there's any woman in the ladies, chances are she's already had enough shit in her life without me piling. That x 1000 if she's trans/gender non-conforming.

I don't think the men really understand what an impossible situation women might find themselves in. Sure, there are some bigots among us and some psychopaths but most of us really just want to get along. And not be hurt.

 

[Tigers!]

From Canada
This is why many women are upset about 'men' in female change rooms.
Having your privacy invaded like that and being told basically 'tough princess' is not going to improve male-female relationships.

 

[Bomb#20]

So we go from the Loren side of antiseptic moral argument that people that don't do wrong shouldn't have to be excluded to the Jarhyn side that is more laissez faire side of people should be allowed to be where they belong and we flip to the other side who are trying to wedge as much politics, jumbled up history, and denial into the argument they possibly can.

Not seeing how what I wrote has anything to do with those "sides". You appear to be trying to guilt-by-association your way out of addressing an argument you don't care for but can't refute.

Yeah you apparently aren't self aware enough about your own posts.

You know that's ad hominem, right? No criticism of me can identify any error in my argument.

Actually I criticized your argument, on both occassions.

I take it then you mean "trying to wedge as much politics, jumbled up history, and denial into the argument they possibly can" was supposed to be a description of my argument, as opposed to a description of somebody else's argument you felt like lumping mine with. So show your work. What did I say that was politics? What did I say that was jumbled up history? What did I say that denied anything real? Nothing wrong with denying mythology.

Toni's posts have been very compelling. Loren's, your's, Emily's, Jarhyn's, etc... have sucked.

Well then, what are you on my case for?

Because I think your position is founded on immoral grounds, stuffing politics and old school nonsense into a position.

It became an issue when activists agreed among themselves that non-ops were entitled by right to all the privileges women collectively had customarily been allowing to pre-ops and post-ops, and then convinced progressives collectively to leapfrog non-op transgendered men above women on the progressive stack, with the unintended consequence of de facto leapfrogging cis-male predators above women too.

Hey man, I think your position is the one founded on immoral grounds, and you and I are probably doomed to go on disapproving of each other's morals till the cows come home. But what is it you think the moral or immoral grounds of either of us have to do with the present case? In that passage you quoted and bolded up, do you see a moral claim? I recounted events that conflict with LP's narrative. We are having a dispute about what happened, not about what ought to have happened. So unless you can show how to get an "ought" from an "is", what the bejesus "immoral grounds" can my version of events possibly imply? Or do you mean you think morality requires people to pretend what happened didn't happen?

Morality aside, if you think LP is right about the facts and I'm wrong, then show me a case of a court ordering a woman to pay $625 for having complained about a facility allowing a man into a women's changing room wearing just a thong outlining his penis, because he self-identified as a woman, from forty years ago. Self-ID being treated as grounds for men to use women's spaces is clearly a new issue, and LP's claim that it isn't new appears to be based on an equivocation fallacy.

The point of my posts was that Loren's and Playball's argument to the effect that women-only bathrooms are just like white-only bathrooms is a steaming pile of dingos' kidneys.

It definitely is.

 

[southernhybrid]

And, since those who are over 13, who identify as trans is about 1%, I doubt many of us will even meet a trans person. AfaIk, I've only met one.

1% is 1 in 100 people. I'm guessing you know far more than 100 people, and that you interact with more than that every week. Perhaps not any more - I expect that when I finally eventually retire I'll be able to avoid humans to the greatest extent feasible. But I still run into probably 50 people each time I go to the grocery store.

I know a couple dozen. Some are great, some are not at all great. Some are merely awkward, some very few pass arguably well, and some are straight-up creepy. There are five transwomen and at least one transman at my company. Most of them are just fine, but one of the transwomen gives off a very, very, very creepy vibe.

But despite the claim that it's innate and genetically-prompted... it's not evenly spread. It clusters... and transgendered identification just happens to cluster in areas that are invested in really leaning in and celebrating trans. It's extraordinarily unlikely that one third of the girls in my goddaughter's class all found their true innate ideI'

Shit. My post suddenly disappeared. Am I the only one that happens to, fairly frequently lately? Anyway.....all kinds of people put off "creepy vibes" whatever you mean by that. In my experience, straight white men win for putting off creepy vibes, not all, but compared to any other group, statistically speaking of course. Too many of them think they can say inappropriate things to women or give us the creepy stare. I'm soon to be 77 and every now and then some white man will make inappropriate remarks to me. I find that to be a bit creepy but as long as they are otherwise harmless, I don't let it bother me. Men will be men.

Perhaps trans and gay people for that matter, feel more comfortable coming out if they live in large liberal urban areas, compared to small conservative towns or rural areas. I only have a couple of gay friends in my small conservative city and since Trump returned to office, they feel very uncomfortable. So, I doubt the clusters that you've mention are likely based on whether or not these minority groups will be accepted or condemned by the areas where they live.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I...

...have been trying to explain is that IN THAT MOMENT women [do not] need something to indicate that the person before them with an exposed naked penis [genitals] is...

..Anything other than someone exposing their genitals inappropriately so as to know that they are a pervert and sex offender.

Let me get this straight, just so we're crystal fucking clear.

You believe that a full grown adult male of the human species, with a sex offender record for serious offenses, should be allowed by law to go into the female showers and changing rooms at the local community pool and watch little girls change. And the girls and their parents should have no say about that at all... as long as he doesn't actually get his dick out.

Do you not see any potential problems with that?

If... as a justification for why adult males with fully intact genitals should be allowed by law to look at naked girls if those males say they're trans.

Bless your heart, it most certainly does.
IDo you have a relevant point or are you just virtue signaling?

Yes.
I'm pointing out that your casual dismissal of women's concerns is the bigotry going on here.
Tom

Which concerns of women do you think I dismissed? I ask, because to my knowledge, you are vastly mistaken.

You have suggested talking to the person who concerns you to alleviate concerns.

It’s been pointed out that in a women’s shower it locker room is not the place to do that when the concerning individual has a male body that is naked.

More than once.

Response from you: crickets.

That does not mean I dismissed women's concerns. My observation that got this going was in post 486 and it was in response to a general question. And I never claimed it was foolproof.

As for lockerroom/shower facilities, I would think that a sincere emotionally transwoman would be aware and sensitive about this issue, and would avoid such confrontations. Insincere or emotionally immature transwoman should be removed as quickly as possible.

This sounds like an idea that is better in theory than application. I think there are a couple flaws to this:

1) Firstly, the trouble is the threshold to the immature. That it has to be managed at all is going to raise a problem, because once someone is up to no good, then that would require intervention, at which point, hasn't the system already failed? Currently, nothing stops this from occurring now, but the propensity for it to be possible will likely increase. Zero tolerance won't work because when males do something "it was just a joke, why does he have to sign up as a sex offender now" will push against it... oddly by some of the same people that insist transgenders not be allowed in the women's locker room.

2) Women in the locker room should be going about doing locker room things, not self-policing, right? There is no viable threshold for a woman to make a on the fly call on whether that person should be in there. In a perfect world, it should be as simple as 'if they are here, they should be here'. But a woman isn't going to know. This means how do you manage the doubt? The uncertainty, the uncomfortableness? This isn't a sort of 'get over it' thing. It is instinctual. I know with my daughter, one day she didn't care, then one day she cared... she cared a lot! Personally, I don't think a woman needs to have suffered trauma to be allowed a right to feel secure in such a space.

Hopefully we can move past this, but we aren't even to the stage of people accepting transgenders exist.

 

[Toni]

Why should women have to put up with this in their locker rooms etc.

A transgender woman who masturbated in front of shocked staff at a hospital has been locked up.
Former soldier Paula Stanton, aged 62, of Severn Avenue, Barry committed the sex act at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. The Falklands War veteran had been taken there by ambulance for a mental health assessment over concerns over a threat to self-harm.
Lewis Ball, prosecuting, said: “The defendant put her hands down her leggings to the groin area. Staff could see that she had her penis in her hand and that her hand was moving up and down. This was happening on and off."

News

"she had her penis in her hand"

A lot of people who are seriously mentally ill or in a mental health crisis masturbate in front of others. This makes her no different than many other people who are suffering from severe mental illness/crisis.

Hilarious. You are as delusional as the reporter. It's a he, not a her.

And your opinion of me is worth…not a thing.