Breakdown In Civil Order

[Emily Lake]

"unproductive deflections" is just another way of telling women (bigots and TERFS) to STFU while the ex-men hoover up the women's prizes.

That's your opinion as a male, and I, as a male, disagree. This shows that men aren't monolithic. Am I telling you to stay quiet and taking all the benefits? No. Regarding sports, if that's what you're referring to, I've previously stated that, just as we have men's sports, women's sports, and disability sports, we should also have transgender male and female sports, provided there is enough demand from the community. I have transgender friends who strongly disagree with me on this and others who find it an interesting prospect. But you might not remember me saying that, as you're too busy forming your own assumptions about my opinions.

No, you're not telling TSwizzle to stay quiet. But you (and many others both male and female) are discounting and ignoring the effects of these policies on women. You less than others, granted... but you're still taking a general position that assumes that women who object are wrong-headed.

Throughout all of the various phases of public debate on this topic, there's been a concerted emphasis placed on hearing and respecting the views of transwomen... and a repeated tendency to leave women out of the conversation all together. And when women object to the proposed policies, we get called names, we get harassed and threatened. When we gather to discuss the impact that policy proposals will have on us, we are met with crowds of males who openly threaten women with violence and rape, who wear shirts and carry banners calling on "TERFs" to be punched, who show up with signs proudly calling to decapitate TERFs, who vandalize female-only rape shelters and threaten the women who run them.

This is a topic that affects a small number of males who identify as transgender, and also every single female out there. But the views and impacts on women and girls have been repeatedly and pointedly ignored and cast as bigoted and hysterical.

 

[Emily Lake]

To be fair, I think it would be more appropriate to have sports (at least on the "back end") restricted on lines of how much performance enhancing chemicals the athletes have consumed recently (or ever, depending on the context).

This might place trans people in the testosterone-heavy league for some or all of their career, and I'm fine with that.

Hormones do not change the skeleton, the overall size, the lung and heart capacity, and a number of other physical aspects that vary on the basis of sex. Hormones do not alter the angle at which the thigh joins the hip - something that affects gait and stride which has a fundamental impact on any sport that involves stance or running.

Testosterone is not the end-all--be-all of athletic performance.

 

[Emily Lake]

Before using the law to infringe on the rights of transgender women, there should be at least one documented case to justify such legislation. So I'll ask you too; find a case. I don't consider TheBeave's example valid either. By the way, I find it amusing that your question implies I don't care about women simply because I reject a fabricated narrative. For an appeal to emotion to be effective, it must be based on factual evidence. Right now, it appears you are exploiting women's issues to support unfounded claims.

What right do you think is at play here? Why do you think it should be a right for males who identify as women to supersede sex?

The rights of transgender women aren't being infringed upon at all - none of what is being demanded is actually a right, it's a demand for special privileges. And those privileges infringe on the rights of female humans by replacing the notion of sex (which is an observable material state) with the concept of gender identity (which is subjective and unverifiable).

You don't consider TheBeave's example of a transwoman getting transferred to a women's prison and raping a female inmate to be valid - why? I've forgotten which case TheBeave shared, so it might be duplicated among these cases where female inmates in female prisoners were raped or sexually assaulted by fully intact males who identified as transwomen:
Logan Correctional Center in Illinois
Rikers Island in NY
Central California Women's Facility
Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in NJ
Hamilton County Jail in Ohio
Women’s Correctional Center in Washington

 

[Emily Lake]

I do find it fairly hilarious that someone would rather put on a rubber suit and respirator and wade in a literal vault of shit rather than doing the much easier thing of just joining a scat fetish group and buying a glass table... Or just googling glass table porn.

I find it disturbing and quite funny that men are, in fact, more likely to do that (sit in a vat of shit) than to do as Derec suggests and dress up as women, but the reality is that cross dressing doesn't afford such access and requires actually being expected to understand and listen to women talking about their feelings... It's got all of the emotional costs and none of the sexual benefits that are presumed by people.

I think you're assuming that the attraction is the scat, rather than the voyeurism of an non-consenting victim.

If it wasn't the scat (or perhaps the pee) why in the world would they do something much more complex and to most people repulsive than necessary?

Because if it were the scat, there are a plethora of ways to get access to porn involving scat, as well as people out there perfectly willing to engage in such activities.

Why they would do something so repulsive... I couldn't tell you. There are a whole lot of things that I consider repulsive that people do, and it makes no sense to me. There are also a lot of things I consider pretty damned perverted that people do, that make no sense to me. But it's pretty well documented that men will go to some extraordinary lengths in order to peep on women without consent.

 

[Emily Lake]

Note that female attire as a disguise is not the same as being transgender.

How do you tell the difference? If you see a random person out in the world who is observably male based on the plethora of visual indicators of sex, and they are wearing a dress... what clues you in to whether they are transgender, or whether they're a man who likes a healthy breeze around his nethers, or whether they're in disguise?

I'm talking about female attire as a disguise rather than because the person wants to live as female.

Okay, again: How do you tell the difference?

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't believe a number can be selected in isolation.

Rather, it should be compared to other related threats. A good starting point would be what percent of attacks on women in women's spaces are due to trans individuals. Compare to those simply in drag (disguise, but with no intent to actually be female) and those who didn't hide.

Just to level set... your argument here is essentially that women get attacked by males in women's spaces already, so making it easier for males to attack women in women's spaces is just no big deal.

 

[Emily Lake]

I respect your opinion. I don't have personal experience with puberty blockers and tend to trust organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society on such matters. Personally, I would prefer to avoid giving my child medication unless absolutely necessary. This isn't a judgment on other parents' choices or on puberty blockers themselves. I'm just a old school nigga that believes in providing strong support for my children and relying on medical treatment as a last resort or in emergencies, following professional advice.

My son came forward at the age of 17 and expressed a desire to transition to female. His mother, who is a evangelical Christian (the looney type), is in complete denial but remains appropriately supportive. My son (future daughter according to him) hasn't expressed experiencing dysphoria, nor has such been identified by the professionals. I can't say exactly how well as a parent I'd handle a situation where puberty blockers were necessary, but if not using them became clearly problematic for my child's well-being, I know for certain I would give my approval. His mother? My wife? That's an entirely different story.

I understand this is personal, and there's no obligation for you to respond. How problematic would it need to be for you to approve your child's use of puberty blockers? What sort of situation is one in which you think blockers would be necessary? How long of a use of blockers are you considering, and are you aware of the health risks associated with them? At what age would you approve your male child begin use of blockers?

 

[Gospel]

Let's get serious about what I've said and avoid playing jeopardy. My point is clear: no individual who has raped a woman should be housed with women, regardless of their gender identity. This is a straightforward solution that doesn't require legislation targeting a specific group. Feel free to grind that axe of yours but that's my argument.

My opinion is that prisons should remain separated on the basis of SEX, full stop. If male prisoners with gender identity concerns are at higher risk, then male prisons should enact policies to provide extra protections or separate areas for those at-risk prisoners.

I do not think that any person's subjective, unverifiable, and self-declared mental identity should supersede the material realty of sex.

Keep Prisons Single Sex.

Many jurisdictions legally recognize gender changes, and medical guidelines support gender-affirming treatments and identities. While you can choose to disregard the dignity and rights of transgender women & can advocated for policies that violate their basic human rights, jurisdictions that legally recognize gender changes cannot do the same. Therefore, I asked you, as I asked Tswizzle: given that policies must be consistent across all sectors, including the prison system, is maintaining the rigid binary male/female classifications in the prison system not harmful to women?

I will disregard the subsequent remarks you've made, which consist of denials, ongoing accusations that I intend to harm women (whether intentional or not), claims I'm disregarding how the policies affect women (although that's precisely what I'm discussing) and a question related to my child without the courtesy of at least providing a reason for the inquiry and how it relates to civil disorder. It's not that I don't want to respond to everything; I either don't have the incentive to or don't have the time to.

The Gender Recognition Act & The Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act are both real legislation. I understand that you don't believe Transgender females are women (definition linked to prevent another diversion), but it's clear that the legislation does. Given that California has enacted the referenced legislation, this is now the legal stance.

The Gender Recognition Act: Provides a more inclusive and streamlined process for individuals in California to have their gender identity legally recognized on official documents.

The Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act: Mandates that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation handle transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals with respect and according to their gender identity.

The current prison system in California is divided into male and female facilities. According to the referenced legislation, transgender women are recognized as women and thus are being placed in female prisons.

I understand that advocates for transgender females, as well as many transgender females themselves, have rejected the proposal for separate facilities (while I still acknowledge that transgender females are not a monolithic group). They proposed similar measures to what you are suggesting, but instead of making safety accommodations in male prison facilities, they advocate for these accommodations within women's prisons. This seems to be the primary difference between your position and that of those advocates. But I'm not asking them, I'm asking you.

Given the current circumstances, how can we ensure the safety of women in California prisons moving forward? Simply insisting 'THEY ARE MEN' is not a viable solution, especially without the backing of evidence established by organizations such as the American Psychological Association and American Medical Association. Do you genuinely believe that insisting they are men is protecting women, or would it be more effective to engage with the transgender community, listen to their perspectives, build relationships, and work towards potential compromises at this stage?

 

[Gospel]

Please disregard my use of the words 'female and males' and consider it as 'women and men.' I understand there may be arguments about semantics, but I assure you I wasn't deliberately trying to cause confusion. I misspoke.

 

[TSwizzle]

Many jurisdictions legally recognize gender changes, and medical guidelines support gender-affirming treatments and identities. While you can choose to disregard the dignity and rights of transgender women & can advocated for policies that violate their basic human rights, jurisdictions that legally recognize gender changes cannot do the same.

What "rights" am I disregarding exactly? What rights do transgender folks not have? What rights do you suppose women are robbing transgender people of because it seems to me that it is the women that are the ones having to make sacrifices.

Therefore, I asked you, as I asked Tswizzle: given that policies must be consistent across all sectors, including the prison system, is maintaining the rigid binary male/female classifications in the prison system not harmful to women?

Sure, but it becomes a lot more (potentially) harmful when you put "transgender" men in there against the wishes of most of the women.

The Gender Recognition Act & The Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act are both real legislation. I understand that you don't believe Transgender females are women (definition linked to prevent another diversion), but it's clear that the legislation does. Given that California has enacted the referenced legislation, this is now the legal stance.

The laws are are political posturing and pandering to fringe groups and probably unnecessary.

 

[Gospel]

That was informative.

 

[repoman]

Can this even be real?

 

[bilby]

Can this even be real?

In our current post-truth world, if that question even vaguely begins to speculate about the possibility of thinking about crossing your mind, it is a safe bet that the answer is "no".

 

[Gospel]

Before using the law to infringe on the rights of transgender women, there should be at least one documented case to justify such legislation. So I'll ask you too; find a case. I don't consider TheBeave's example valid either. By the way, I find it amusing that your question implies I don't care about women simply because I reject a fabricated narrative. For an appeal to emotion to be effective, it must be based on factual evidence. Right now, it appears you are exploiting women's issues to support unfounded claims.

What right do you think is at play here? Why do you think it should be a right for males who identify as women to supersede sex?

The rights of transgender women aren't being infringed upon at all - none of what is being demanded is actually a right, it's a demand for special privileges. And those privileges infringe on the rights of female humans by replacing the notion of sex (which is an observable material state) with the concept of gender identity (which is subjective and unverifiable).

You don't consider TheBeave's example of a transwoman getting transferred to a women's prison and raping a female inmate to be valid - why? I've forgotten which case TheBeave shared, so it might be duplicated among these cases where female inmates in female prisoners were raped or sexually assaulted by fully intact males who identified as transwomen:
Logan Correctional Center in Illinois
Rikers Island in NY
Central California Women's Facility
Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in NJ
Hamilton County Jail in Ohio
Women’s Correctional Center in Washington

Let me guess, you’ve gathered a bunch of articles but lack any in-depth understanding of the cases. If I review all of them thoroughly, would you at least have the courtesy to honestly evaluate my work?

 

[Gospel]

My incentive is already low because it seems you think I believe transgender women should be housed in women's prisons. Actually, I don't think they should be, at least not without adequate hormone therapy (which, in many cases, these transgender women aren't receiving due to the prison system's failure).

 

[Jarhyn]

My incentive is already low because it seems you think I believe transgender women should be housed in women's prisons. Actually, I don't think they should be, at least not without adequate hormone therapy (which, in many cases, these transgender women aren't receiving due to the prison system's failure).

Indeed, I think that the solution here is to expect hormonal and spermatological intervention before transferring someone.

I imagine this is only opposed by certain parties because it would lead to a political loss, namely they are no longer "men's" and "women's" estates, and that the real reason for their opposition to the result has nothing to do on reality with the rapes. I expect the rapes, for some, are just a political prop: that they aren't really something the politicizers care to resolve but rather that they use as an excuse to attack something they have an emotional dislike of and so not actually addressed in practical ways -- not unlike Hamas being more a political prop to excuse commission of genocide for Israel.

This would require a compromise, because there is no one definition of "woman", and creating one would pander to some political interest or another, it would involve legislating belief, because "woman" is a cluster concept, and the weights and qualities assembled into any such category are arbitrarily selected.

In common usage, we use the term to truncate, avoid, or gloss over a lack of understanding about what is germane to the context. We say "woman" in some childbirth context because we don't want to have to understand, in the moment, "person with a uterus, vagina, ovaries, EGGS, and regular ovulation cycles". We say "woman" in discussions about period products, but this different discussion is ambivalent to eggs compared to the childbirth discussion.

The best compromise between those who would want legal recognition vs those who would want to deny legal recognition is to recognize neither position is to simply not define those concerns, and create an obligation to remove such vagaries from law entirely, and expect precision when discussing some concern "around" sex.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can this even be real?

In our current post-truth world, if that question even vaguely begins to speculate about the possibility of thinking about crossing your mind, it is a safe bet that the answer is "no".

It would seem incredibly stupid to put one at such risk over a box with unknown contents. Imagine getting a ceramic flower pot smashed over your head for a box with glow in the dark tape in it. They charged that thing like it was the latest iPad. Of course, criminals are often not burdened with having a great deal of intelligence.

 

[Jarhyn]

Can this even be real?

In our current post-truth world, if that question even vaguely begins to speculate about the possibility of thinking about crossing your mind, it is a safe bet that the answer is "no".

It would seem incredibly stupid to put one at such risk over a box with unknown contents. Imagine getting a ceramic flower pot smashed over your head for a box with glow in the dark tape in it. They charged that thing like it was the latest iPad. Of course, criminals are often not burdened with having a great deal of intelligence.

Nor are conservatives.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Before using the law to infringe on the rights of transgender women, there should be at least one documented case to justify such legislation. So I'll ask you too; find a case. I don't consider TheBeave's example valid either. By the way, I find it amusing that your question implies I don't care about women simply because I reject a fabricated narrative. For an appeal to emotion to be effective, it must be based on factual evidence. Right now, it appears you are exploiting women's issues to support unfounded claims.

What right do you think is at play here? Why do you think it should be a right for males who identify as women to supersede sex?

The rights of transgender women aren't being infringed upon at all - none of what is being demanded is actually a right, it's a demand for special privileges. And those privileges infringe on the rights of female humans by replacing the notion of sex (which is an observable material state) with the concept of gender identity (which is subjective and unverifiable).

You don't consider TheBeave's example of a transwoman getting transferred to a women's prison and raping a female inmate to be valid - why? I've forgotten which case TheBeave shared, so it might be duplicated among these cases where female inmates in female prisoners were raped or sexually assaulted by fully intact males who identified as transwomen:
Logan Correctional Center in Illinois
Rikers Island in NY
Central California Women's Facility
Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in NJ
Hamilton County Jail in Ohio
Women’s Correctional Center in Washington

To be fair, thebeave isn't listing a bunch of school massacres to show why allowing guns in the hands of citizens is unacceptable. So until someone can demonstrate that this isn't the exception to the rule, what is the significance?

Any violence against women in prison should be unacceptable. Is violence from transgenders in women prisons a certain source for harm of women? How many articles can you cite of transgenders in women's detainment not causing any problems? I'm assuming the number is zero, probably a reason for that.

Where a person is housed in these RARE circumstances should be based on the threat they pose to others and the threat the general population poses to them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can this even be real?

In our current post-truth world, if that question even vaguely begins to speculate about the possibility of thinking about crossing your mind, it is a safe bet that the answer is "no".

It would seem incredibly stupid to put one at such risk over a box with unknown contents. Imagine getting a ceramic flower pot smashed over your head for a box with glow in the dark tape in it. They charged that thing like it was the latest iPad. Of course, criminals are often not burdened with having a great deal of intelligence.

Nor are conservatives.

That isn't particularly relevant or accurate. The question is, was this performance art, or are some people following delivery trucks and actually stealing packages. With social media, who knows, it could be either.

In my adult life, I have never had a package stolen. The worst was misdelivered, but it has always found its way home.