University of Otago student association gives "sportswoman of the year" award to a man.

[laughing dog]

Finally, you got something right. It is a straw man because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the transgendered. Duh.

On the contrary, the parallel is quite striking. Rachel Dolezal was assigned white at birth, but had a sense of being black. This sense was so strong that she began to pass as black and claimed to be black. But instead of her 'racial identity' of 'black' being accepted, she was pilloried.

The parallel is not quite striking at all to thinking person. Laurel Hubbard is not simply asking to be viewed as a woman but actively working to transform her gender to the naked eye.

It is simply disingenuous to pretend Laurel Hubbard is basically stomping their foot and saying "I am woman" and expecting everyone to accept that identity.

But why shouldn't Rachel Dolezal be accepted as black based on her 'racial identity', when you accept Laurel Hubbard as a woman based on his 'gender identity'?

First, I have not accepted or denied Laurel Hubbard's gender identity. Second, whether or not I accept or reject a person's self-proclaimed identity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I expect or demand that others follow my decision.

 

[Metaphor]

The parallel is not quite striking at all to thinking person. Laurel Hubbard is not simply asking to be viewed as a woman but actively working to transform her gender to the naked eye.

First, the trans movement does not demand that people 'actively transform' the way they look for the gender identity of a trans person to supplant their sex.

Second, I accept without question that Laurel Hubbard's gender identity is 'woman', but he does not look like a woman. Nobody anywhere would look at Laurel Hubbard and think he was biologically female. He does not pass as a woman.

Third, Rachel Dolezal affected her appearance sufficiently well that she was accepted by the black community as a light-skinned black woman. She altered her hair and has even since changed her name. She was a chapter president of the NAACP. She went to large effort to maintain her persona as a black woman.

It is simply disingenuous to pretend Laurel Hubbard is basically stomping their foot and saying "I am woman" and expecting everyone to accept that identity.

That is the exact demand the trans ideologists make: accept gender identity as if it were somebody's sex without question, no matter what somebody looks like or what effort (if any) they go to to conceal their sex.

First, I have not accepted or denied Laurel Hubbard's gender identity. Second, whether or not I accept or reject a person's self-proclaimed identity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I expect or demand that others follow my decision.

You certainly have accepted Laurel Hubbard's gender identity and treated it as if it were his sex. The fact that you use female pronouns for him is certainly evidence of that.

EDIT: Anyway, you still haven't answered my question. Why do you accept that Laurel Hubbard should be treated as a woman, but you do not accept that Rachel Dolezal be treated as if she were black?

 

[laughing dog]

First, the trans movement does not demand that people 'actively transform' the way they look for the gender identity of a trans person to supplant their sex.

Shift that goal post.

Second, I accept without question that Laurel Hubbard's gender identity is 'woman', but he does not look like a woman. Nobody anywhere would look at Laurel Hubbard and think he was biologically female. He does not pass as a woman.

Your asthetic sensibilities are not convincing evidence.

That is the exact demand the trans ideologists make: accept gender identity as if it were somebody's sex without question, no matter what somebody looks like or what effort (if any) they go to to conceal their sex.

Shift that goal post

You certainly have accepted Laurel Hubbard's gender identity and treated it as if it were his sex. The fact that you use female pronouns for him is certainly evidence of that.

I don’t believe I have. I have tried hard to avoid that. If I have, it was inadvertent for either gender pronouns.

EDIT: Anyway, you still haven't answered my question. Why do you accept that Laurel Hubbard should be treated as a woman, but you do not accept that Rachel Dolezal be treated as if she were black?

Your question is a stupid straw man for at least two reasons. I reject the parallel argument and I have neither accepted or rejected how Ms Dolezal be treated.

 

[Metaphor]

Shift that goal post.

I haven't.

Your asthetic sensibilities are not convincing evidence.

Sure luv. Laurel Hubbard looks like a bio female and if he hadn't been public about being trans, nobody anywhere would know he wasn't one.

Shift that goal post

I haven't.

I don’t believe I have. I have tried hard to avoid that. If I have, it was inadvertent for either gender pronouns.

Why try hard to avoid it? Are you suggesting Laurel Hubbard is not a woman?

Your question is a stupid straw man for at least two reasons. I reject the parallel argument and I have neither accepted or rejected how Ms Dolezal be treated.

Do you think Rachel Dolezal should be accepted as a black woman?

 

[laughing dog]

Why try hard to avoid it? Are you suggesting Laurel Hubbard is not a woman?

Been trying to avoid setting off hissy fits from the small-minded crowd.

 

[Metaphor]

Why try hard to avoid it? Are you suggesting Laurel Hubbard is not a woman?

Been trying to avoid setting off hissy fits from the small-minded crowd.

Do you think Rachel Dolezal should be accepted as a black woman?

 

[none]

Why try hard to avoid it? Are you suggesting Laurel Hubbard is not a woman?

Been trying to avoid setting off hissy fits from the small-minded crowd.

Do you think Rachel Dolezal should be accepted as a black woman?

Who cares, wax your asshole then bleach it.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think Rachel Dolezal should be accepted as a black woman?

Who cares, wax your asshole then bleach it.

Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself, luv.

 

[none]

Do you think Rachel Dolezal should be accepted as a black woman?

Who cares, wax your asshole then bleach it.

Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself, luv.

Oddly, that is not one of my sexual fantasies.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why try hard to avoid it? Are you suggesting Laurel Hubbard is not a woman?

Been trying to avoid setting off hissy fits from the small-minded crowd.

What constitutes the small-minded crowd? I am genuinely curious about what your view is, so if you'd rather PM than post, I'm fine with that too

 

[Jarhyn]

Why try hard to avoid it? Are you suggesting Laurel Hubbard is not a woman?

Been trying to avoid setting off hissy fits from the small-minded crowd.

What constitutes the small-minded crowd? I am genuinely curious about what your view is, so if you'd rather PM than post, I'm fine with that too

To me, and again I can not speak for LD, the term "small minded" refers to overly simplistic takes on issues that have a great deal of real nuance to them.

Like "it's science, there are only penis and vagina, people are born with them" and then using that to non-sequitur straight into "so we are justified socially revealing that information, should we personally believe we are capable of discerning it, and it is justified and not awful to widely and publicly do so through our use of language, even and especially when it is the case that the person in consideration has made active attempts to keep such information private."

To the small mind, the world must be simple, and easy to both parse and navigate.

Open-minded people accept instead that the world is complicated in every respect and attempts to respect that complication. The open mind acknowledges that the parses they make on reality, even with their utmost skill, can be both or either of "wrong" and "inappropriate", as the case may be, in addition to "wrong, but less wrong than anything else" which is, to the open mind, usually as good as it gets.

Of course, most people are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between "open" and "small" minded.

 

[none]

The dyslexic don't care, the others... well I can't soak for them.! L0L.

 

[Emily Lake]

What constitutes the small-minded crowd? I am genuinely curious about what your view is, so if you'd rather PM than post, I'm fine with that too

To me, and again I can not speak for LD, the term "small minded" refers to overly simplistic takes on issues that have a great deal of real nuance to them.

Like "it's science, there are only penis and vagina, people are born with them" and then using that to non-sequitur straight into "so we are justified socially revealing that information, should we personally believe we are capable of discerning it, and it is justified and not awful to widely and publicly do so through our use of language, even and especially when it is the case that the person in consideration has made active attempts to keep such information private."

To the small mind, the world must be simple, and easy to both parse and navigate.

Open-minded people accept instead that the world is complicated in every respect and attempts to respect that complication. The open mind acknowledges that the parses they make on reality, even with their utmost skill, can be both or either of "wrong" and "inappropriate", as the case may be, in addition to "wrong, but less wrong than anything else" which is, to the open mind, usually as good as it gets.

Of course, most people are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between "open" and "small" minded.

So... is it the "Transwomen are Women, no debate" crowd that is small-minded, or is it the "Transwomen are males who wish to live their lives as women, and in most cases, especially in social interactions and in terms of employment and fair treatment under law, they should be treated as women and given respect and dignity, but there are still some cases where sex is a more salient element than gender identification, and it is detrimental to female women to force them into situations where penises are in their spaces without their consent, and we should really have more discussion about what is and is not appropriate in terms of policy, safety, and respect" crowd that is small minded?

 

[Jarhyn]

What constitutes the small-minded crowd? I am genuinely curious about what your view is, so if you'd rather PM than post, I'm fine with that too

To me, and again I can not speak for LD, the term "small minded" refers to overly simplistic takes on issues that have a great deal of real nuance to them.

Like "it's science, there are only penis and vagina, people are born with them" and then using that to non-sequitur straight into "so we are justified socially revealing that information, should we personally believe we are capable of discerning it, and it is justified and not awful to widely and publicly do so through our use of language, even and especially when it is the case that the person in consideration has made active attempts to keep such information private."

To the small mind, the world must be simple, and easy to both parse and navigate.

Open-minded people accept instead that the world is complicated in every respect and attempts to respect that complication. The open mind acknowledges that the parses they make on reality, even with their utmost skill, can be both or either of "wrong" and "inappropriate", as the case may be, in addition to "wrong, but less wrong than anything else" which is, to the open mind, usually as good as it gets.

Of course, most people are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between "open" and "small" minded.

So... is it the "Transwomen are Women, no debate" crowd that is small-minded, or is it the "Transwomen are males who wish to live their lives as women, and in most cases, especially in social interactions and in terms of employment and fair treatment under law, they should be treated as women and given respect and dignity, but there are still some cases where sex is a more salient element than gender identification, and it is detrimental to female women to force them into situations where penises are in their spaces without their consent, and we should really have more discussion about what is and is not appropriate in terms of policy, safety, and respect" crowd that is small minded?

So, first and foremost, most of us here are clever enough to see through sassy but hollow rhetoric.

But for those who can't, for whatever reason: the genitals are not what matters, which Emily seems to claim it does.

First, I will afford ZERO special rights to someone because they can, or fear gestating children. Period. Get over your baby factory. The whole fucking thing is caused because people can't see past the fucking baby factory. Well get this: I do it give a shit that you have one, and you need to get used to it.

Never in all the time I will live this earth will I think someone is or should be treated in ANY special way on account of having or operating one of those.

So no, sex will never be a more salient element than: body structure and aggression (in prison); hormone exposure (in sports); actual individual assessment (everywhere else except...).

And then there is the one place it matters: when considering a sexual relationship with that specific person.

It doesn't even matter when you want to have children that share your genetics for fuck sakes!

It matters that you have to suffer the side effects of having one. You get my empathy, and the reality of a tampon forever in my purse. You get the fact that I will not point out anything which stands not to be, and I will always be there to cry with and for someone over the things their body makes them go through, and I will absolutely support any medical imbursement for any such expenses as their body makes a reality for them.

But your uterus does not make you special for any of that.

It is not the least but important what ones genitals are, specifically, with regards to any of the above guarantees of policy (except the tampon in my purse) regarding safety, health, or respect.

And as for attacks, I wouldn't let a large person attack a smaller one. It does not matter who they are.

 

[Emily Lake]

So... is it the "Transwomen are Women, no debate" crowd that is small-minded, or is it the "Transwomen are males who wish to live their lives as women, and in most cases, especially in social interactions and in terms of employment and fair treatment under law, they should be treated as women and given respect and dignity, but there are still some cases where sex is a more salient element than gender identification, and it is detrimental to female women to force them into situations where penises are in their spaces without their consent, and we should really have more discussion about what is and is not appropriate in terms of policy, safety, and respect" crowd that is small minded?

So, first and foremost, most of us here are clever enough to see through sassy but hollow rhetoric.

But for those who can't, for whatever reason: the genitals are not what matters, which Emily seems to claim it does.

First, I will afford ZERO special rights to someone because they can, or fear gestating children. Period. Get over your baby factory. The whole fucking thing is caused because people can't see past the fucking baby factory. Well get this: I do it give a shit that you have one, and you need to get used to it.

Never in all the time I will live this earth will I think someone is or should be treated in ANY special way on account of having or operating one of those.

So no, sex will never be a more salient element than: body structure and aggression (in prison); hormone exposure (in sports); actual individual assessment (everywhere else except...).

And then there is the one place it matters: when considering a sexual relationship with that specific person.

It doesn't even matter when you want to have children that share your genetics for fuck sakes!

It matters that you have to suffer the side effects of having one. You get my empathy, and the reality of a tampon forever in my purse. You get the fact that I will not point out anything which stands not to be, and I will always be there to cry with and for someone over the things their body makes them go through, and I will absolutely support any medical imbursement for any such expenses as their body makes a reality for them.

But your uterus does not make you special for any of that.

It is not the least but important what ones genitals are, specifically, with regards to any of the above guarantees of policy (except the tampon in my purse) regarding safety, health, or respect.

And as for attacks, I wouldn't let a large person attack a smaller one. It does not matter who they are.

Got it. You support making it much, much, much easier for sexual predators to gain access to victims.

Now take a moment and think about this. Get it through your head that I am NOT saying that transgender people are predators. I'm not even saying that all males are predators. I am, however saying that most predators are males, and that there is no way to tell which male is a predator and which is not.

What you advocate for is essentially to eliminate sex-separated facilities completely. What you argue for would make everything either unisex or co-ed. What you overlook is that, regardless of your outright disdain for 'baby makers', it is women who will bear the risk and the harm that occurs.

The likelihood of a transman being a voyeur or an exhibitionist is extremely small - about the same as for any other female. The likelihood of a transman being a sexual predator or violent criminal is about the same as for any other female. A transman would be putting himself at serious risk of injury by spying on a naked man against that man's will, or by exposing their female genitals to a man against his will. That transman is the one who most likely would be at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted, raped, and potentially being made pregnant against their wishes. The transman is most likely to be smaller, weaker, and less able to defend himself against an aggressive male.

Turns out that the likelihood of a transwoman being a voyeur or an exhibitionist is about the same as for any other male, which is quite a bit higher than for a female. The likelihood of a transwoman being a sexual predator or violent criminal is about the same as for any other male, also quite a bit higher than for a female. A transwoman would not be putting herself at serious risk of injury by spying on a naked woman against that woman's will, or by exposing their male genitals to a woman against her will. That transwoman is unlikely to be at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted, or raped, and cannot be made pregnant against their wishes. The transwoman is most likely to be larger, stronger, and more aggressive than a female, and the female would be less able to defend herself.

Do you see the commonalities here? In interactions where one party is likely to be a sexual predator or be violent, and the other to be a victim... the predator is much more likely to be a male - either a cisgender man or a transwoman. The victim is much more likely to be female - either a cisgender woman or a transman. The risk is NOT distributed equally.

*If* there were to be an altercation involving a sexual predator in a locker room, changing room, hospital ward, prison, or any other space where people are vulnerable and exposed... your husband, as a transman is at a materially higher risk of harm than you would be.

This is why sex actually does matter for more than *voluntary* sexual relationships. And regardless of whether you believe it or not, it matters *more* for your transman husband than it does for you.

The luxury of saying that sex is irrelevant is a privilege held my males.

 

[Jarhyn]

So... is it the "Transwomen are Women, no debate" crowd that is small-minded, or is it the "Transwomen are males who wish to live their lives as women, and in most cases, especially in social interactions and in terms of employment and fair treatment under law, they should be treated as women and given respect and dignity, but there are still some cases where sex is a more salient element than gender identification, and it is detrimental to female women to force them into situations where penises are in their spaces without their consent, and we should really have more discussion about what is and is not appropriate in terms of policy, safety, and respect" crowd that is small minded?

So, first and foremost, most of us here are clever enough to see through sassy but hollow rhetoric.

But for those who can't, for whatever reason: the genitals are not what matters, which Emily seems to claim it does.

First, I will afford ZERO special rights to someone because they can, or fear gestating children. Period. Get over your baby factory. The whole fucking thing is caused because people can't see past the fucking baby factory. Well get this: I do it give a shit that you have one, and you need to get used to it.

Never in all the time I will live this earth will I think someone is or should be treated in ANY special way on account of having or operating one of those.

So no, sex will never be a more salient element than: body structure and aggression (in prison); hormone exposure (in sports); actual individual assessment (everywhere else except...).

And then there is the one place it matters: when considering a sexual relationship with that specific person.

It doesn't even matter when you want to have children that share your genetics for fuck sakes!

It matters that you have to suffer the side effects of having one. You get my empathy, and the reality of a tampon forever in my purse. You get the fact that I will not point out anything which stands not to be, and I will always be there to cry with and for someone over the things their body makes them go through, and I will absolutely support any medical imbursement for any such expenses as their body makes a reality for them.

But your uterus does not make you special for any of that.

It is not the least but important what ones genitals are, specifically, with regards to any of the above guarantees of policy (except the tampon in my purse) regarding safety, health, or respect.

And as for attacks, I wouldn't let a large person attack a smaller one. It does not matter who they are.

Got it. You support making it much, much, much easier for sexual predators to gain access to victims.

Plus 1 "trans people = rapists" claim. We can see right through it.

Now take a moment and think about this. Get it through your head that I am NOT saying that transgender people are predators.

"Transgender people are predators, but don't accuse me of saying trans people are predators because...

I'm not even saying that all males are predators. I am, however saying that most predators are males, and that there is no way to tell which male is a predator and which is not.

...because people with penis = probably predators." There it is.

What you advocate for is essentially to eliminate sex-separated facilities completely.

Possibly. If we separate by aggression levels and size and criminal ideation patterns, we can probably eliminate a lot more rapes than separating by literally anything else, including genitals.

What you argue for would make everything either unisex or co-ed.

Quite possibly. See above.

What you overlook is that, regardless of your outright disdain for 'baby makers', it is women who will bear the risk and the harm that occurs.

Not if you actually separate people as stated. It's like you didn't even read the post.

The likelihood of a transman being a voyeur or an exhibitionist is extremely small - about the same as for any other female. The likelihood of a transman being a sexual predator or violent criminal is about the same as for any other female. A transman would be putting himself at serious risk of injury by spying on a naked man against that man's will, or by exposing their female genitals to a man against his will. That transman is the one who most likely would be at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted, raped, and potentially being made pregnant against their wishes. The transman is most likely to be smaller, weaker, and less able to defend himself against an aggressive male.

All excellent reasons why the majority of transmen would in any sane model end up in prison with the population of prisoners that show however little sexual or other aggressive and criminal ideation as they themselves do.

Maybe that's mostly with women.

But that's going to include a good deal of men, and trans women.

Turns out that the likelihood of a transwoman being a voyeur or an exhibitionist is about the same as for any other male,

And there it is again, that "but trans-men are probably predators"

which is quite a bit higher than for a female.

No, each and every person, as an individual, is exactly as much or not of a predator as they are, or not.

The likelihood of a transwoman being a sexual predator or violent criminal is about the same as for any other male, also quite a bit higher than for a female. A transwoman would not be putting herself at serious risk of injury by spying on a naked woman against that woman's will, or by exposing their male genitals to a woman against her will.

That is a bold claim. See, that's the thing. "Body type and aggression". And if people want those with larger body types and higher aggression that they believe will not harm them to protect them from the ones that will, I'm sure you would find that, someone to keep peace.

That transwoman is unlikely to be at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted, or raped, and cannot be made pregnant against their wishes.

That's a really bold claim too. All trans women don't have to worry about that? That's your continuing usage of A, as the article for any given.

The transwoman is most likely to be larger, stronger, and more aggressive than a female, and the female would be less able to defend herself.

Bold claims, to make without looking at THE female and THE trans-woman.

Do you see the commonalities here?

Yes you pulling accusations that trans women are probably rapists directly from your ass.

In interactions where one party is likely to be a sexual predator or be violent, and the other to be a victim...

According to some pretty disgusting fucking prejudice

the predator is much more likely to be a male - either a cisgender man or a transwoman.

Ass-pulled

The victim is much more likely to be female - either a cisgender woman or a transman.

Asspulled

*If* there were to be an altercation involving a sexual predator in a locker room, changing room, hospital ward, prison, or any other space where people are vulnerable and exposed... your husband, as a transman is at a materially higher risk of harm than you would be.

Normally, he would be in the same changing room as me, and any of our other friends. And the fact is you're dead fucking wrong. I've been at risk in a changing room far more often than my husband.

This is why sex actually does matter for more than *voluntary* sexual relationships.

Nothing you have said is at all more predictive than the size of the people involved as to who is being an aggressor.

I have watched a number of attacks in progress. In the majority, people are being abused by women. I've seen one attempted attack on a woman.

And regardless of whether you believe it or not, it matters *more* for your transman husband than it does for you.

It's funny, that's not the reality, not in the past and not in the future.

The luxury of saying that sex is irrelevant is a privilege held my males.

Your post is a littany of sexism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Got it. You support making it much, much, much easier for sexual predators to gain access to victims.

And they don't have access elsewhere??

You aren't establishing that there's a realistic threat here.

If somebody wants to slip into female-only spaces for nefarious purposes wouldn't dressing up as a Muslim woman be a better approach? Someone who is open about the situation (female with a visible dick) is much less likely to be a problem than someone who is covert (man under a burqa.)

Now take a moment and think about this. Get it through your head that I am NOT saying that transgender people are predators. I'm not even saying that all males are predators. I am, however saying that most predators are males, and that there is no way to tell which male is a predator and which is not.

So, discriminate against everyone with a dick.

What you advocate for is essentially to eliminate sex-separated facilities completely. What you argue for would make everything either unisex or co-ed. What you overlook is that, regardless of your outright disdain for 'baby makers', it is women who will bear the risk and the harm that occurs.

*If* there were to be an altercation involving a sexual predator in a locker room, changing room, hospital ward, prison, or any other space where people are vulnerable and exposed... your husband, as a transman is at a materially higher risk of harm than you would be.

But why is the risk greater in places where someone is exposed than in other situations?

 

[Metaphor]

If somebody wants to slip into female-only spaces for nefarious purposes wouldn't dressing up as a Muslim woman be a better approach? Someone who is open about the situation (female with a visible dick)

There are zero females with dicks, visible or otherwise.

If you are going to participate in a conversation, you need to understand language.

So, discriminate against everyone with a dick.

Sex-segregation is discrimination society has accepted, for the benefit of each sex.

 

[Trausti]

Sex-segregation is discrimination society has accepted, for the benefit of each sex.

True. This movement by men in frocks to frolick where young girls undress is disturbing as fuck.

 

[Arctish]

If somebody wants to slip into female-only spaces for nefarious purposes wouldn't dressing up as a Muslim woman be a better approach? Someone who is open about the situation (female with a visible dick)

There are zero females with dicks, visible or otherwise.

Wrong.

Even if you are determining sex via chromosome pattern, there are female persons (XX) with penises, just as there are male persons (XY) with vaginas. Exposure to testosterone in utero changes the physical form of developing female fetuses, as does resistance to the effects of testosterone in males. And then there are the persons with rare chromosome patterns (XX/XY, XXXY, etc) who may be female but still have male attributes, including penises.

You keep dismissing gender as nothing more than the thoughts in a person's head and relying solely on physical attributes to enforce a strictly binary view of sex. Not only are you ignoring the existence of intersex persons, you're ignoring sexuality itself.

I would have thought that as a gay man who experiences female-type sexual desires for persons with male attributes while having a male body yourself, you would understand the problem with that.