[Kaiserschmarrn]

Not quite. You seem to be misunderstanding both myself, and people who are gender fluid. When I sau everyone has a gender identity, that means that everyone has their own sense of what their gender is or is not. You seem to think I am saying that people feel male or female. Please note the difference between the two.

You also incorrectly think genderfluid people are saying they have no gender identity, when instead they are saying that they have a sense of what their gender is or is not, and it does not fit into the traditional binary. Again, please note the difference between the two.

No I'm not only talking about either male or female but anything on the supposed "gender spectrum". Please read again what I've written.

That does not mean you cannot also have a sense of your gender.

What I've described is all there is.

As far as I can tell, this part has no argument.

So that's a no then. I guess we are done with this part of our discussion.

Again, it only seems “removed from biological facts and reality” if you only selectively read specific phrases out of context.

As I said, I would encourage everybody to read it and make their own mind up. It's pretty obvious that this is pure ideology.

Since the last time we discussed this was over two weeks ago, I would have to reread our entire exchange to have any idea of what you are discussing here. You seem to be saying that the mere acknowledgment of trans people is somehow an affront to women’s rights somehow.

What I'm saying is quite straightforward, at least if you argued in good faith.

Again, your opinion of the evidence is irrelevant.

I've given you a good reason why these journals should be distrusted. And again, we cannot access the full text.

That is not what I asked.

Now, do you think it should be legal for trans people to be denied housing because they are trans? Should be they denied medical insurance? Should they be denied to participate in military service?

My response covers what you asked.

[Pants-of-dog]

No I'm not only talking about either male or female but anything on the supposed "gender spectrum". Please read again what I've written.

You need to clarify what you are saying then.

What I've described is all there is.

No, you have not.

So that's a no then. I guess we are done with this part of our discussion.

How can something be a no when you did not ask a question or say anything critical or verifiable?

As I said, I would encourage everybody to read it and make their own mind up. It's pretty obvious that this is pure ideology.

Only if you read excerpts out of context.

What I'm saying is quite straightforward, at least if you argued in good faith.

If you think I am a liar or a bad person or whatever, feel free to ignore me.

I still do not see what your argument is, if you are claiming that trans rights are somehow threatening women’s rights.

I've given you a good reason why these journals should be distrusted. And again, we cannot access the full text.

No, you just accused a whole academic field of bias without any evidence. That is not a good reason.

My response covers what you asked.

No. My questions deal specifically with issues facing trans people today that mentally ill people do not.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

We are clearly at a point where there's only an endless back and forth because you either feign misunderstanding or just reassert your previous statements without addressing any point I made during our discussion. Not really worth continuing.


---------------------------------------

I also discovered that the Equality Act that is proposed by the Dems redefines sex to include gender identity and defines gender identity as follows:

But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

"Mannerism" and "appearance", i.e. gender stereotypes.

The ideological zealotry is only trumped by the incoherence.

[Pants-of-dog]

You argued that allowing trans women into bathroooms would increase the risk of sexual assault to cis women.

You did not support this argument with evidence.

I found evidence that this argument of yours is wrong.

You accused the entire field of gender studies as biased.

That seems to be where we are with your argument.

[Hindsite]

We are clearly at a point where there's only an endless back and forth because you either feign misunderstanding or just reassert your previous statements without addressing any point I made during our discussion. Not really worth continuing.

Pants-of-dog has a habit of pretending he does not get it so he does not have to admit when he is wrong. Your conclusion is correct.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

According to progressives, women have no right to protect their safety and privacy from men. Men must have access to female bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, hospitals, prisons, etc. Female only events must be open to men if they "identify as women" too. There must not be any place where men can be prevented from entering. That's where we are with progressives: worship of men even if they are just dressed up as tacky women or display some female mannerism.

Pants-of-dog has a habit of pretending he is stupid so he does not have to admit when he is wrong. Your conclusion is correct.

Yeah, anybody who professes to not get that there is a fundamental clash between actual women and men who believe they are women (and apparently now also men who just want to express their female side) when it comes to sex-segregated spaces is really not worth engaging with. If people want to make the argument that sex segregation is not really necessary, then they should just come out and say it instead of hiding behind obfuscation. What will happen is that some men will exploit this and many women will avoid unisex places. I certainly would be much more careful and probably not use them in most situations.

[Godstud]

According to progressives, women have no right to protect their safety and privacy from men. Men must have access to female bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, hospitals, prisons, etc. Female only events must be open to men if they "identify as women" too. There must not be any place where men can be prevented from entering. That's where we are with progressives: worship of men even if they are just dressed up as tacky women or display some female mannerism.

What a load of complete shit! Do you actually believe this tripe or are you virtue signaling to your fellow right-wing fanatics?

You argued that allowing trans women into bathroooms would increase the risk of sexual assault to cis women.

Yes, because there isn't any. @Kaiserschmarrn does not want to address reality. It's just more of the above, in a bullshit attempt to pretend to care about women's safety and privacy.

@Hindsite just parrots, without understanding, because it's right-wing gender politics.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

:lol: What a load of complete shit! Do you actually believe this tripe or are you virtue signaling to your fellow right-wing fanatics?

We want to define sex as including men who have female mannerisms as being of the female sex, but that won't affect female protection of sex-segregated spaces.

[Godstud]

Yes, you over-simplify it to the point of absurdity. Typical.

[One Degree]

Yes, simply reality must be obfuscated to legitimize ideological nonsense. The bubble world is the real world. Lmao

[Pants-of-dog]

According to progressives, women have no right to protect their safety and privacy from men. Men must have access to female bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, hospitals, prisons, etc. Female only events must be open to men if they "identify as women" too. There must not be any place where men can be prevented from entering. That's where we are with progressives: worship of men even if they are just dressed up as tacky women or display some female mannerism.

This is all a strawman.

I simply pointed out that you have no evidence that trans women (or anyone else for that matter) are using bathroom policies as an excuse to sexually assault cis women.

And I also provided evidence that your argument is wrong.

Yeah, anybody who professes to not get that there is a fundamental clash between actual women and men who believe they are women (and apparently now also men who just want to express their female side) when it comes to sex-segregated spaces is really not worth engaging with. If people want to make the argument that sex segregation is not really necessary, then they should just come out and say it instead of hiding behind obfuscation. What will happen is that some men will exploit this and many women will avoid unisex places. I certainly would be much more careful and probably not use them in most situations.

I am not here to discuss unisex bathrooms.

I am here to discuss how Trump is trying to strip away discrimination protection in order to drum up support from bigots.

[Hindsite]

I am not here to discuss unisex bathrooms.

I am here to discuss how Trump is trying to strip away discrimination protection in order to drum up support from bigots.

There is nothing to discuss along that line, because it is not happening. It must be a figment of your imagination.

[blackjack21]

I am here to discuss how Trump is trying to strip away discrimination protection in order to drum up support from bigots.

Hmmm... Why on Earth would Trump do that? Are you suggesting bigots are a political majority in the United States?

[Drlee]

Hmmm... Why on Earth would Trump do that? Are you suggesting bigots are a political majority in the United States?

They are, without a doubt, the majority of Trump supporters. It goes without saying.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yes, you over-simplify it to the point of absurdity. Typical.

The complexity level of your posts is my guiding star, Godstud.

During last year's consultation in the UK they were pushing for the following among other things:

· We find Jay Stewart, Director of Gendered Intelligence, arguing for the removal of sex-separated facilities in schools. This clearly has an impact on female schoolchildren, which should have been considered.

· We find James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance, arguing that traumatised female rape victims and domestic abuse victims who feel, as he says ‘uncomfortable’ with transwomen in refuges or rape crisis centres, should be ‘educated’ so that the transwomen can stay. This again discounts the interests of females.

They also have no problem inviting extremists as a witness:

c) Did any advisors have backgrounds which undermine their credibility?

In my view, the most obvious counter-example here is Jess Bradley, called upon as the very first witness to the Inquiry. Even leaving aside Bradley’s suspension from the NUS since the Inquiry, there is already a strong suggestion of a lack of credibility here, when we consider that Bradley’s associated organisation, Action for Trans Health, publicly calls for, among other things:

· the immediate release and pardon of all trans prisoners;

· an end to all birth certificates; and

· hormones to be prescribed, free and upon request.

As for the bill proposed by the Dems:

The Equality Act also proposes to expand the concept of public accommodations to include “exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays”; it bars any religious exceptions invoked under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993; and it bans single-sex facilities like changing, dressing, or locker rooms, if sex is not redefined to include “gender identity.” This could put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal jeopardy.

The core disagreement, it seems to me, is whether a trans woman is right to say that she has always been a woman, was born female, and is indistinguishable from and interchangeable with biological women. That’s the current claim reflected in the Equality Act. But is it true that when Caitlyn Jenner was in the 1976 Olympics men’s decathlon, she was competing as a woman, indistinguishable from any other woman? Contemporary orthodoxy insists that she was indeed competing as a woman, and erases any distinction between a trans woman and a woman. Similarly, public high-school girls track or wrestling teams would have to include female-identifying biological males — even if they keep winning all the trophies, and even if the unfairness is staring you in the face.

I simply pointed out

This is not about you.

Also, since you expressed interest in the discord between trans activists and feminists/lesbians:

“YOU MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT THE GBTQ COMMISSION”— LONE LESBIAN PUSHED OFF BALTIMORE COMMITTEE

The Baltimore LGBTQ Commission’s Law and Policy Committee recently held an emergency meeting aimed at eliminating lesbian representation on the Commission. Several women who are longtime residents of the region attended on the evening of December 4, 2018, to support the woman targeted by the meeting, twenty-five year-old Julia Beck. Julia has stated that her reasons for seeking this advisory role are unequivocally and unapologetically woman-centered: “I joined Baltimore’s LGBTQ Commission to represent lesbians in local government,” and to “defend the rights of lesbians as homosexual women.” Julia is the only lesbian on the Law and Policy Committee, and possibly the only woman on the entire Commission willing to publicly state that lesbians are female homosexuals.

As the meeting progressed, however, it quickly became clear that anyone who expresses this view is explicitly unwelcome on Baltimore’s LGBTQ Commission. Although the question of Julia’s role on the Commission is not yet resolved, the writing is on the wall: women who love women might be entitled to representation on the Mayor’s LGBTQ Commission, but only if they pledge adherence to the belief that males have a right to define themselves as “lesbian” and as “women” for all legal and policy purposes.

The emergency meeting was scheduled in reaction to Julia’s views about policing and detention policies for women and trans-identified males. Julia had expressed the view that trans-identified males in correctional facilities deserve a safe separate space away from the general population, but that they should not have the right to be incarcerated in women’s facilities (where women may be forced to shower and sleep with them), or to force a guard who is a woman to handle their male genitals in a strip-search. In the meeting she reiterated this position, citing the horrific case of Karen White, an admitted rapist and trans-identified male who was allowed by UK prison authorities to be housed in a women’s prison based on his self-declared “gender identity,” then harassed, intimidated, and sexually assaulted several vulnerable women.

[...]

Of course, none of the stuff in this post is really happening and if it is actually happening it's certainly not a problem. If you think there might be a problem here, you must be a bigoted Trump supporter.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is not about you.

I never said it was about me.

Now you seem to be switching topics yet again.

Also, since you expressed interest in the discord between trans activists and feminists/lesbians:

Of course, none of the stuff in this post is really happening and if it is actually happening it's certainly not a problem. If you think there might be a problem here, you must be a bigoted Trump supporter.

Right, the Women’s Liberation Front who work in solidarity with the Heritage Foundation, who have openly expressed homophobic views.

If lesbians want to work with people who want to take away their rights, they are free to do so.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I never said it was about me.

I wasn't addressing you with the text you quoted but you made it about yourself nonetheless.

Right, the Women’s Liberation Front who work in solidarity with the Heritage Foundation, who have openly expressed homophobic views.

If lesbians want to work with people who want to take away their rights, they are free to do so.

"work in solidarity"

From what I can tell, in the US they seem to get no platformed or attacked by everybody else. The UK is a bit less polarised, so they have more opportunities to talk about their point of view in the mainstream.

[Pants-of-dog]

I wasn't addressing you with the text you quoted but you made it about yourself nonetheless.

And now you seem to be making it about me.

Can we agree that the discussion on unisex bathrooms is irrelevant to the discussion on how Trump is removing discrimination protection from trans people?

"work in solidarity"

From what I can tell, in the US they seem to get no platformed or attacked by everybody else. The UK is a bit less polarised, so they have more opportunities to talk about their point of view in the mainstream.

Who?

TERFs?

Feminists?

Trans people?

The Heritage Foundation?

WOLF?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

And now you seem to be making it about me.

You insisted. If you don't want to talk about yourself, I'd recommend you stop.

Can we agree that the discussion on unisex bathrooms is irrelevant to the discussion on how Trump is removing discrimination protection from trans people?

This cannot be separated from the larger context of what progressives are pushing for. See my previous posts on their proposals.

Who?

(Radical) feminists and lesbians mainly, but anybody who speaks up against extremist trans ideology.

[Pants-of-dog]

This cannot be separated from the larger context of what progressives are pushing for. See my previous posts on their proposals.

I addressed those all, and you have not shown how the two are related.

(Radical) feminists and lesbians mainly, but anybody who speaks up against extremist trans ideology.

Again, these people are working with the (homophobic) Heritage Foundation, who are giving then a platform paid for by wealthy conservatives.

I wish I was censored that much; i.e. had wealthy backers paying for me to disseminate my views.