[Unthinking Majority]

Can't we all just shit in large holes in the ground like the good ol days. Can't we all just piss in the river?

[Godstud]

@Oxymoron Only the first picture was a transgender woman. The other was a biological woman. They were indistinguishable, of course. That was the point.

So you make up a stupid law, as Trump the Moron, did. How are you going to enforce said law? Many crimes exist, including Sodomy Crimes(sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation... yeah that BJ is illegal, Oxy!) still exist in most places. They are MORE than stupid, and were never enforceable.

Making laws that are unenforceable is a waste of time, money, and resources. Having to show an ID to go to a respective toilet, is as absurd as expecting a person who looks more like a woman, to go to the Men's toilet. It's as ridiculous as having a police officer guarding toilets to enforce said law. It's as dumb as police insulting people by insinuating they might not be the right sex.

Can you imagine all the ugly women that have to show ID or get refused entry to a toilet because they aren't feminine enough, based on a police officer's discretion? Police would be accused of targeting fat and ugly women. Discrimination cases abound! Lawyers would love this!

Transgender people want to use the toilet that makes them feel the most comfortable, and most suited to their sexual identity. This harms no one.

Saying all transgender people are criminal, and refuse them this, because of isolated incidents, is just plain discrimination.

The point is silly, of course. Most people who have been to public toilets have never seen another person's genitalia in all the years they've been going there.

[Oxymoron]

@Oxymoron Only the first picture was a transgender woman. The other was a biological woman. They were indistinguishable, of course. That was the point.

So you make up a stupid law, as Trump the Moron, did. How are you going to enforce said law? Many crimes exist, including Sodomy Crimes(sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation... yeah that BJ is illegal, Oxy!) still exist in most places. They are MORE than stupid, and were never enforceable.

Making laws that are unenforceable is a waste of time, money, and resources. Having to show an ID to go to a respective toilet, is as absurd as expecting a person who looks more like a woman, to go to the Men's toilet. It's as ridiculous as having a police officer guarding toilets to enforce said law. It's as dumb as police insulting people by insinuating they might not be the right sex.

Can you imagine all the ugly women that have to show ID or get refused entry to a toilet because they aren't feminine enough, based on a police officer's discretion? Police would be accused of targeting fat and ugly women. Discrimination cases abound! Lawyers would love this!

Transgender people want to use the toilet that makes them feel the most comfortable, and most suited to their sexual identity. This harms no one.

Saying all transgender people are criminal, and refuse them this, because of isolated incidents, is just plain discrimination.

The point is silly, of course. Most people who have been to public toilets have never seen another person's genitalia in all the years they've been going there.

I never advocated for check points.... but if a man goes into a women's bathroom and somehow identified as such, the police can be called and an arrest or citation made. If that man was taking pictures for example or making comments to women in the bathroom, then the punishment should be higher.

As far as some Trannies being somewhat feminine and using a ton of product, yes especially in Asian countries that could be hard to tell at first look. This is not really the case in the west.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Oxymoron

I am still waiting for your evidence that trans women are not sexually assaulted.

[skinster]

Okay.

Do you think trans women also have to deal with this?

I think they might deal with it but why should women have to give up their spaces to appease them? Why not create a third space? There is QUITE CLEARLY push-back to that which you defend so why not listen to women when they assert their boundaries? Boundaries that didn't fall from the sky but were fought for by women for many years. If you're okay with ignoring female boundaries then there's no other way to describe you but as a misogynist.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think they might deal with it

And we should address that, should we not?

[skinster]

Why are you ok with this invasion into female spaces/sports etc. which tons of women are objecting to?

On a related note, looks like British women have won this battle re: sex vs gender identity on the census in court today.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why are you ok with this invasion into female spaces/sports etc. which tons of women are objecting to?

On a related note, looks like British women have won this battle re: sex vs gender identity on the census in court today.

Are women being assaulted in census forms?

[skinster]

You think I'm going to answer your question while you ignore mine.

[Pants-of-dog]

@skinster

My questions are about the topic, Your questions are about how awful I am as a person. It seems obvious and logical why I ignore them.

The census thing seems odd, since it is entirely about self identification on paperwork. How does it affect anyone else if you self identify as a different gender from your birth sex on this paper?

[Wellsy]

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/06/27/ideology-transgender-movement-open-debate/

“Transgenderism is a liberal, individualist, medicalized response to the problem of patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms. Radical feminism is a radical, structural, politicized response. On the surface, transgenderism may seem to be a more revolutionary approach, but radical feminism offers a deeper critique of the domination/subordination dynamic at the heart of patriarchy and a more promising path to liberation.”

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/the-individual.htm

Nature and Nurture

As an artefact, the person’s body mediates between the psyche and a person’s activity in the world. The person’s social activity gives reality to their ideas while being the only real basis for the formation of their knowledge of the world, the only means a person has for exercise of their agency, and the only real basis for the formation of an identity. The self-relation is of course mediated through the mirror of relations to other people, both person-to-person relations and their net result in terms of participation in all kinds of institutions and social activity.

I have mentioned in passing that the human body is a cultural product, an “artefact” in a sense broadened appropriately. A word or two of clarification may be in order. Of course I do not mean that the human body is from beginning to end solely a product of human culture with no remainder which can be ascribed to Nature. All artefacts are fashioned by use in social activity out of the material provided by Nature. A hammer is a cultural product, but the hardness of steel is possible only because of the properties of iron and the other materials of which a hammer is fashioned. Artefacts are cultural products in multiple ways: they serve a socially-produced purpose with socially produced components and materials to be used in conjunction with other cultural products. But they are also natural objects, materially connected with all other natural objects.

The human body is a cultural product in more than one sense. As will be suggested in Chapter 14 below, the biological genotype of homo sapiens sapiens is the outcome of culture accumulated by hominid activity over a period of 4 million years, beginning with the genetic material inherited from our simian forebears. As demonstrated by Pierre Bourdieu, the size, shape, disposition and capabilities of the human body are formed within a habitus associated with one of the various class fractions eking out a living in some niche in the social division of labour. The social expectations imposed on women and men, youths and elderly people, people of the various nationalities and ethnicities within a given society, are known to strongly determine the shape, size, disposition and capabilities of the human body.

So the proposition that the human body is a cultural product is strongly substantiated in the positive sense of this claim. But the human body is also a biological entity existing only by means of an intricate system of biological processes which are universal and inseparable from Nature as a whole.

The age-old question of division of labour between nature and nurture cannot be solved by philosophy or social theory, whether deconstructionist or humanist: only empirical, scientific investigation can resolve this question.


The Individual and Society

The issue of the human body as a cultural product raises the more general issue of culturalism versus constructivism (See Holland et al, 2001, p. 14) That is, on one hand, theories which see the individual as a passive carrier of dominant cultural values and ideology, and on the other hand, theories which see the individual as capable of freely choosing subject positions and theoretical paradigms from the myriad of narratives made available in a modern society, constructing for themselves their own biography. As suggested by Dorothy Holland et al, what is needed is a “third position” which avoids the one-sided extremes expressed on each side of these contradictions. The key to such a “third position” is a concrete investigation of the real capacity of an individual to modify the social structures and discourses constraining the development of their own practice and identity-formation. This concept is well captured in Amartya Sen’s concept of “critical voice.”

I think the last paragraph here fits nicely with the earlier emphasis that a lot of thinking about transgender rights is liberal and not radical. Also how some seem to wish to reject the distinction between sex and gender rather than simply argue against the sense that they’re related but distinct based on the same sense of natural vs social.
I find the reliance on exceptions to categories to not be all that compelling in this endeavor. That while not all women may have children or be able to have children, sexual difference and dimorphism doesn’t become an untenable concept due to such exceptions. The concern of which such nonsense gets air time and makes for controversy and such because it is ridiculous and further undermines a meaningful project for Transgender people in a society.

And the concern about how immeasurable gender identity is which makes it quite difficult to discern other than honest disclosure of things such as dysphoria does raise issues of males being able to identify as women and pretty much erase the rights which are legally defined for women.
https://culturico.com/2020/08/03/the-transgender-debate-needs-clear-thinking-not-muddled-language/

Furthermore, there can never be an objective test for being transgender. We are transgender because we say we are transgender. No qualifying criterion is necessary, or even possible. Naïvely, this may be liberating – if we are who we say we are, how can anyone stop us? – but we do not live in isolation, we live in society. With no basis in material reality, identity-based rights are vulnerable when they collide with the rights of others, and they have surely collided in this debate.

I think there can be positions which don’t uncritically capulate to a liberal sense of how to advance the quality of life and protection for trans individuals.

Someone going through dysphoria is often in great need to help manage their war with their own body and sense of self. But I don’t think liberalism at times offers a clear path so far. And I don’t think transgender politics is inherently radical such that its truly undermining sexism by offending peoples sense of gender appropriate behavior. Not that it has to but it needs to be clear what is at stake.

[noemon]

My questions are about the topic, Your questions are about how awful I am as a person. It seems obvious and logical why I ignore them.

Not really, while her question is loaded, it's a fair on-topic question. Why do you support the invasion of female spaces? Obviously you support it enough to be posturing in its favour in this topic, so the question does not get any more fair.

However, it does indeed seem obvious why you would ignore it.

[Pants-of-dog]

I enjoy watching roller derby.

For a while, I assumed that no men played it at all, since the vast majority of the games I have seen have been exclusively women. It turns out there is a whole history here that is quite interesting. And one of the outcomes of this feminist history is the Women’s Flat Track Derby Association, which is basically the international governing body for the sport.

WFTDA allows trans women to play. This is a verifiable example of a women’s only space that has opened itself to trans women. This can, of course, be described as “invasion into female spaces/sports etc.”.

Are these women wrong to do so?

[skinster]

Its absurd... feminist should be in an uproar with these psychologically sick people trying to undermine everything they worked for.

Women are in uproar. I do have to thank trans ideology going to such absurd and abusive lengths that it's finally getting the push-back it deserves. It's been here in the UK (aka "terf island" ) for some time. I expected more of a delay on your side too but since Biden has opened up girls sports for boys who identify as girls, I suspect there'll be a greater backlash in the coming years. Or maybe sooner by the look of the comments responding to AOC.

So what's the big deal?

1) Female spaces are being invaded; bathrooms, prisons, rape and domestic violence shelters etc. The latter places are being defunded for not including men, despite these being extremely vulnerable spaces for women who've experienced male violence. Women are also being raped and sexually assaulted in these spaces by trans identifying men. Here is an update on the prison situation here which men identifying as women have invaded and raped women.

2) Childhood adolescence is being medicalised with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and mutilation or castration. What some of us refer to as "child abuse".

3) Women are being erased in language - e.g. where delusional men think they can breastfeed, menstruate and get pregnant - and within the law.

4) Lesbians and gays are being told they're transphobic if they want to date their own sex only, sans the trans. Lesbians have been targeted for years on this front, for stuff like not taking "girl dick" and whatever. Gays have been experiencing it only a bit more, more recently, and they're fighting against it too. To the point where a bunch of LGB orgs have began to take the T out because of the demands being made on the Ls and Gs to date Ts when they're not into it.

5) This is unrelated to the above but a new identity came out last week called Super Straight and it's basically heteros who are heteros who won't date trans people because you know, "super straight". A lot of trans activists are being bigoted towards this group, they are refusing to be inclusive with the Super Straights or accepting their realities.

Transgender people want to use the toilet that makes them feel the most comfortable, and most suited to their sexual identity. This harms no one.

Actually it violates female rights in the form of their separate spaces, something women fought over a century for. But yeah I got it, it's only women's rights here, nothing to see because misogynists care more about the feelings of a delusional minority rather than the safety of a majority.

My questions are about the topic, Your questions are about how awful I am as a person. It seems obvious and logical why I ignore them.

Actually your question was about the census, which isn't the topic. My question isn't about how awful you are - since that's already evident by your MRA position on this topic - but about the invasion of female spaces and the trampling of their rights, which you have ignored over and over again, even when it's been pointed out to you by someone else besides me. And even then, you deflect.

The census thing seems odd, since it is entirely about self identification on paperwork. How does it affect anyone else if you self identify as a different gender from your birth sex on this paper?

Here you go.

I think the last paragraph here fits nicely with the earlier emphasis that a lot of thinking about transgender rights is liberal and not radical.

There's nothing radical about it. Unless perpetuating sexist gender stereotypes and denying material reality is a radical position today.

That while not all women may have children or be able to have children, sexual difference and dimorphism doesn’t become an untenable concept due to such exceptions.

This is some of the denial of reality I'm talking about. We have adults in the room saying trans women are women but a child in the room could tell you the difference between a man and a woman. Or at least point out which is which.

I think there can be positions which don’t uncritically capulate to a liberal sense of how to advance the quality of life and protection for trans individuals.

The TRAs are all about "trans rights are human rights" and I agree that trans people have the right to self-determination in their delusions and should not be discriminated because of them, but it's where they extend themselves to violate female rights/spaces/language where the problem lies. They can fuck off with that shit.

And I don’t think transgender politics is inherently radical such that its truly undermining sexism by offending peoples sense of gender appropriate behavior.

Undermining sexism? The whole ideology perpetuates sexist stereotypes like wearing a dress and make-up suddenly makes a man a woman.

[B0ycey]

I thought this thread was about toilets @skinster? A solution would be to make them communal. But being that you like your self space perhaps you can explain what you will be happy to go through for this to be enforced.

You cannot stop a man going into a toliet to rape if they wanted to. They will obviously observe and act accordingly. This hwppening is rare in any case. I cannot say I have heard it happen often but I am sure it does. Perhaps men acting as women to rape might happen also, but I suspect it is rarer in any case. So the issue then moves to enforcement rather than policing. If you can act like a woman, dress like a woman and look like a woman, what is between ones legs doesn't mean much if you go to the toilet because checking that cannot be enforced. 99.9% of trans women are just that. Women in culture. They don't mean to rape and if they do, the law of rape is still able to be policed due to rape laws. So playing pissing gender wars doesn't mean much. And really only a few people give a shit and the ones who do just complain on Twitter rather than standing in front of the kings horse I have noticed.

[Pants-of-dog]

Here you go.

How does this answer my question?

[wat0n]

As things stand now, the current postmodern form of feminism (aka "queer feminism") will eventually lead to the erasure of something as inane as "legal sex". I used to think this was insane from their position (after all, how can all these government subsidies and other forms of compensation for women be given without fraud? Or more generally, how can their identity politics be put to practice at all?), but recently I've changed my mind since making their identity politics impracticable would be pretty nice, actually.

Plus, honestly, some of the higher profile complaints about it can be dealt with through other means. Some male rapist falsely claims to be a woman to be sent to a woman's jail? Then treat this person as you would treat a lesbian rapist, or a homosexual rapist, which one would guess does not involve having this person hanging out with other people from the rapist's claimed gender. I also don't care if a kid identifies as being of a different gender as long as no surgical or hormonal intervention is carried out.

Others are of course on point, such as having people committing fraud to have access to government subsidies directed to women, but dismantling that would not be a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Having minors transition when they may not be mature enough to actually make that call is most definitely a bad thing too, and I would not be surprised if that had already happened.

For others I am not knowledgeable enough to have a position, such as whether trans women would have an unfair advantage when competing in female sports - my understanding is that the current approach is to test serum testosterone levels of trans athletes but even if it is enough to eliminate any biological advantage trans female athletes could have, then would cis females also be forced to be tested for their testosterone and be sent to the male category if they were naturally above the threshold? Or if only trans female athletes would be tested, wouldn't this serve as a constant reminder of the fact that they are not biologically female? Either way, I honestly don't care that much about female sports in general.

At last, and in this case the TERF are correct, trans activists do go too far in policing speech with regards to the implication that words like "male" and "female" are offensive since it implies binarism. But it's odd, because it's not like the other feminists don't do policing of their own when it comes to speech either - and it's amusing to watch them fight it out.

I can't wait until feminism ends up being permanently crippled as a political movement as a result of the permanent infighting and extremism. If the TERF win it out, then I hope that feminism begins to be regarded as an ideology based on the exclusion practiced based on gender as opposed to "equality" (it is what they are effectively advocating for), if the queer win, that this serves to begin a broader pushback against postmodernist nonsense or, if no one wins, that feminism becomes permanently fractured as a result. To me, at least, these all point to a lose-lose situation for feminism as things stand now. The irony is that there are clearly some trends that point towards the fulfillment of some of the shared goals by the feminists, yet not as a result of their political activity but as a result of the current technological changes and their foreseeable economic consequences.

[Godstud]

This thread is now the, "Agree with @skinster or you are a misogynist". Thread. That's all her argument actually is. It doesn't matter if the reality doesn't match the fears(unwarranted, incidentally, despite a very few instances of criminal attacks). Are we going to remove rights based on isolated incidents involving criminals?

This is arguing against rights based on 'fear' and 'comfort'. You "feel" these emotions and are going to invalidate a person's rights because of it?

Some of these "incidents", were not actually factual, either:
Was a Transgender Woman Convicted of Sexually Assaulting a Young Girl in a Bathroom?
What's False
The incident did not occur in a bathroom Martinez was using because of transgender bathroom bills.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/migue ... ntroversy/


Existing bathrooms have no laws enforcing who uses them, or rather, there is no possible way to enforce said laws without bordering taking away privacy of individuals and making "gender police". Recognizing that transgender people can use the same bathrooms as the sex they identify with, changes nothing. Perceptions are all that are in play, here.

If the behavior’s there, then sexual predators are going to behave as they’re going to behave, no matter what the laws are. That's the reality.

[Drlee]

@skinster

I offer you Montana.

For many years I had the privilege to live in Montana. Pronounced by those who live there Maaawntana. Or sometimes just "thank God I don' live in North Dakota". It is truly the Big Sky country. It is the land of the four "f"s. Fuck, fight, fish and freeze. It is cowboy country. One drinks hard and country dances on Friday and Saturday night then fishes on Sunday. If you are deeply religious you drink hard and dance to country music on Friday and Saturday, go to church on Sunday morning as soon as you sober up then fish on Sunday afternoon.

Men in Montana are men. They have dicks. Many are dicks. There are gay people in Montana I am sure but they keep it the fuck to themselves. Gay people in Montana are wise. There are lesbians in Montana but they also keep it to themselves unless they are bull lesbians in which place they will at a minimum cut and probably shoot anyone who fucks with them. They can field dress an unwary cowboy in about a second.

There are feminists in Montana. They are the ones who drink at the bar and are allowed do drive their boyfriend's pickup. Some of them have their own pickups which they drive to work. They hate lipstick lesbians and school girls. They will do a man so hard that he has to see the chiropractor before he can drive his snow mobile again. Yes. Sex with what passes for a feminist in Montana is a blood sport.

In Montana everyone drinks beer. I am an old Arizona cowboy at heart. I was raised riding horses and participating in rodeo. That is what we did. When I first got to Montana I walked into a cowboy bar in a place called Lewistown, sat down at the bar, knew enough not to take my hat off, and ordered a glass of Cabernet. The Bartender (a beautiful woman of the blonde persuasion) looked me in the eye and said, "are you fucking with me? What the fuck is that?" Realizing that I might be teetering on the edge of culpable gayness I said, "what? Oh. Just give me a Rainier (spying the first beer sign I could read without looking away. She smiled and said, "one vitamin R coming up". She pulled the pop top off of it and set it in front of me. Gave me some beer nuts and silently defied me to ask for a glass. I did not do that because my inner cowboy was kicking in.

I will pause for a moment and offer some Montana advice. (Or Arizona cowboy bar advice too.) If you are going to the bars get a cowboy hat. Get a good one. Do not get a gay Australian Crocodile Dundee hat. Get a Resistol, a vintage Bailey or a Stetson. If you are old like me you can wear a white Stetson Straw also. In the summer wear a straw cowboy hat but before you buy one go to a real western wear store and plead with an older woman to dress you properly. And in the name of all that is Holy do not tuck your pants into your boots. And God forbid that those jeans are Ralph Lauren. You can by any brand of jeans you like as long as they are cowboy cut Wranglers. NO FUCKING FRINGES.

So Skinster.

In Montana one goes to bars and one drinks. One drinks because a) it tastes good and b) it helps you have the courage to flirt and dance. (Not necessarily in that order.) Drinking also makes an average man good in bed because without the beer-goggles he is unlikely to get there in the first place. So. With all those people drinking we quickly have a problem. The ladies room has a line that rivals people waiting for Taylor Swift tickets. The men's room, on the other hand, has no line. It has no line for three reasons. First is that men can stand throughout the whole performance. This is fast. The second is that men never use the sit down toilets away from home. (Enough said on that for now.) And the third is that we men do not have to preen before we go back to drinking. We have a fucking cowboy hat one FGS. (I could say parenthetically that as the evening goes on women do not need to do this either but they are stuck in a habit and there is always one stud at the bar with, as the song goes, Clint Eastwood's smile and Robert Redford's hair and who is not drunk yet.

So what happens? Remember my discussing Montana women earlier in this long post? Some of those 'feminist' Montana girls just go in the men's room and use the stalls. (I have even seen one use a urinal but I will spare you the details. I would have married her if she was drunk enough to have me but then I digress. ) So I did not see this sometimes. I saw women using the men's room all the fucking time. Aside from the odd "well hello" when a particularly pretty one walked into the restroom I never once, not not ever, saw a woman bothered in the men's room. They were not insulted. They were not gaped at. They were not annoyed in any way. They were probably safer in the men's room than they were on the dance floor. If someone had tried to assault one of these girls in the men's room it would have been the worst decision of their live. Cowboys like to fight and go from semi-nice guy at the urinal to full on bad motherfucker in about two seconds. We are talking guys who wrestle steers, ride bulls and fight for a grade starting in kindergarten.

So you see Missy, I am just not buying what you are selling. There is no doubt that you can find an example of some girl attacked by a pseudo-tranny if you scour google. You can find spontaneous human combustion too but I am not giving up my recliner. I simply do not believe there is the problem you are worried about. And if it is a space all for women you want then fine. Let's go back to the days when men had their clubs and woman couldn't go in. Lots of business done in those clubs.

You seem to be articulating a solution in search of a problem. Get over it. Go to Montana and pee in the men's room. Then pick a cowboy and take him for a test drive. I think you will find that men still look out for women and if you ever feel afraid and call on those guys for help you will see an ass whipping of Biblical proportions.

[B0ycey]

The ladies room has a line that rivals people waiting for Taylor Swift tickets. The men's room, on the other hand, has no line.

This happens at the Cheltenham Festival too. Women who cannot be arsed to wait in a one hour queue just walk straight into the men's bathroom without asking anyone if it's ok. In an age of equality should men protest this on Twitter? But nobody gives a shit because everyone knows why they do it. We also have restaurants with communal toilets that women are happy to use. I am not saying that women shouldn't have their own toilets, but I suspect most women, like men in Cheltenham, don't really care who uses the toilet as long as it caters to their needs. If someone acts, looks and dresses like a women, who is going to know anyway right? So this just seems like a storm in a teacup. It cannot be enforced, takes no one's rights away anyway when you think about it (including all women), simple, easy and offends no one but the easily offended.