Trans vs feminists: Are Trans women women?

Yeah, I believe that...

You're really starting to irritate me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I don't mean women fear being sexual. I would like you to point out one instance where a woman is naked in front a male that isn't sexualized? Its the reason why a man can walk the street on a hot day without a shirt but a woman cannot without inviting unwanted attention. A woman's sexuality has a potency to it that almost limits what a woman can and cannot do without running into trouble.

You question instinct. In who's interest is it that this change? Who benefits? Women? How are women improved or better protected by changing such an instinct? What day and age is this exactly? The age where young women on campus are constantly complaining of rape incidents with male friends they trusted? The age where the destruction of abortion and reproductive rights is happening all over the US? The age where frat boys sing publicly "No means yes!" What 'age' are you talking about? Perhaps you mean that since a woman can be independent and work as well as a man she should now somehow disregard this instinct to protect her physical person because its no longer necessary? Why should women have to give up their privacy for a man? It doesn't follow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not according to experts, read the article. Pedophilia is a misunderstood sexual orientation group the same as homosexuality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't give a shit if you're irritated. That's what the is being forwarded, that's the argument. I am not the one making the argument. I am not the one forwarding the position but all things being 'equal' means that all things are 'equal'.

Read on

The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the amendment was defeated by Democrats in Congress shortly after President Obama took office.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law.

“This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

So maybe you should be irritated with Democrats? Its a faulty narrative at best but this is what people are forwarding when they make these false equivalencies. Everyone has rights and if you are 'put out' then you can suck it up right? So why are you irritated? Pedophiles are people too.

What right does a homosexual have to be upset that he's being lumped in with pedophiles in the sexual construct game? They must be bigots. They should shut up and accept it after all pedophiles carry more stigma and therefore have less power and these homosexuals are simply using their 'power' to disenfranchise a vulnerable group. I mean men dressed as women are a vulnerable group and men who are actually mean are allowed in women's spaces because they're a vulnerable group and so Homosexuals should accept being lumped with pedophiles since they're a vulnerable group.

 

So, you're now promoting pedophilia?

 

Nudist colony?

You know there are countries where women can walk around topless, without a problem?

Well that sounds like a cultural problem.

Muslim women in Saudi Arabia claim they are happy and protected, so why don't we lock women in their homes, cover them from head to toe so no one can see their curvy sexy parts that cause trouble, always have a male family member chaperons to protect them?

How about freedom is more important then feeling protected?

Oh no protect the women! Again the Saudi's got that covered, why not do as they do?

Tell me would you have signed the Equal Right Amendment? Ask your self a simple question: do men have that right to privacy? If you want to protect your physical person here is my advice:

 

It also seems to being feminine is crime to you:; so being raped is my own fault?

 

A nudist colony is made up of men and women who are freely choosing to engage in public nudity together, most people are not going to nudist colonies. Yes I know there are indigenous cultures where women go out topless, they also can legally do so in the town of Woodstock but that doesn't change the point. The latter is an exception that is rarely carried out and the former is culturally based even though those same cultures are now provoked by modernity to change those practices. We are discussing western culture because note the trans issue, the bathroom issue is not being forwarded outside of the west.

Whether its a cultural problem or not it persists and that's why I asked you who would it serve to abolish these instincts around nudity, especially when it comes to children.

How do you know women in Saudi are happy? Women in Saudi are challenging patriarchal laws all the time now and coming across the Mufti's who try to keep them in their place. No one can tell who and who is happy and unhappy in a repressive state. But let's go with your assessment that they are happy. The fact that Saudi women or some Saudi women are culturally entrenched in a tradition that purports that women being locked in their homes makes them happy doesn't naturally follow that all women everywhere regardless of culture and religious affiliation believe a woman should be locked in her home. Why is a woman protecting her nudity from men being considered as exactly the same as a woman being locked in her home? I find the example confusing except for the fact that she isn't seen. Do men have a right to see any woman's naked body in the same way he can look at any clothed woman walking down the street? Is that what you're getting at?

Women are asking for legal protection in many circumstances yes but I don't see how that translates in her being locked in her home. Legal protection is not the same as social or cultural protection.

Face Off! Love that film! Well yes a woman can do that and then this happens

"I got five baby mammas, and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one," Rico Gray confessed during a November 2010 deposition. "The way I was with women…they had to walk on eggshells around me." He recalled punching women in the face, shoving them, choking them, and tossing them out the door.

Yet somehow, after one of those women fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her Jacksonville, Florida, home to scare him away during yet another violent outburst, prosecutors managed to convince a jury that Gray was the victim. As a result, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, faces 20 years in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband.

In his deposition Gray admitted he "had told her if she ever cheated on me I would kill her" and during the fight said, "If I can't have you, nobody can." He conceded he "was going towards her" when Alexander fired a single shot, high and to his right, that went through the kitchen wall and lodged in the ceiling of the living room. Finally he left, along with his two sons.

"The gun was never pointed at me," Gray said. "She just didn't want me to put my hands on her anymore, so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn't get hurt." If his sons hadn't been in the house, Gray said, "I probably would have tried to take the gun from her," and "I probably would have put my hand on her."

On March 16, after deliberating for 12 minutes, a jury convicted Alexander on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although she injured no one, she faces a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence unless she can win a new trial.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/02/20-years-for-standing-her-ground


Yes I would have signed the ERA.

 

Who are you and what are you going on about. Either read my posts ACCURATELY or I won't respond to you at all and ignore you. Fuck it.

I'm just going to ignore you.

 

Coward.

 

Mrs.Lucysnow,

I am still curious how you would feel about sharing a ladies room with a trans man. I asked you about it in post #97 but you have not replied.

Since this issue seems to be pretty important to you, I think it is pretty important that you explain just what you would do/say/feel if you saw a trans man in the ladies room. Thanks.

 

I was thinking of Europe about the bare breasted women, is that not western enough?

Oh no not the children too! Won't someone think of the children!?!?

Everyone? It would free people, children would no longer be told to be ashamed of their bodies, people would learn to live with seeing boobs and dicks without even thinking it a problem, like the enlighten nudists.

Happy, no that is just assumed, they are protected, is not protection happiness? If you want to protect women maybe you should as what the consequences would be.

You want to protect women, I rather just free women. If she wants to protect her nudity she can just change in a private stall.

If a women wants to walk around naked, sure, if not she can wear cloths, she can not undress in front of a man, her choice. I think the issue here is you want women to be able to undress in front of other women, but not men, what is the difference?

Well over there it is "legal protection", she being protected from the evil world, but don't worry she can still go to women segregated places, women only malls, women only schools, and she gets driven around by a protecting male family member, and any transexuals are simply lynched from the streetsigns, see she protected.

Oh so that happens always, or is that just one case? Statistically if a women attacks a man, verse a man attacking a women, who do you think will be consider in the right, mind you here, in western civilization?

Excellent so you don't have a problem with unisex showers and bathrooms then.

 

The trans man who's two videos I posted is a woman and I'm not sure if she uses the men's room because of her seven years of transitional changes or a woman's bathroom because she's transitioned. My point is that the whole bathroom issue is irrelevant in terms of trans women who appear or present as women whether they've been transitioned or not and trans men who appear and present male to other men, the whole bathroom issue was put forth to protect men and women who have not transitioned, who do not appear to be the opposite sex they claim to be. That's why there's a law.

This trans woman never needed the bathroom bill

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It was meant for a trans woman who looks like this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My answer is that a trans man who looks like the picture above can use the men's bathroom but if there has not been a transition then she belongs in the ladies room. The man in that picture is married and he's transitioned and still with his wife. They seem very happy in what she calls their new 'lesbian relationship'.

 

I don't even think she knows what she means herself. Why ask...

 

How do I make upload pictures smaller? Can it be done?

 

Mrs.Lucy,

Just for reference, a "trans man" is a a female-to-male, and a "trans woman" is a a male-to-female.

But let's say you saw someone with a beard and mustache in the ladies room. I would think that would be something you would not want. Yet, that person might be biologically female, if they are a trans man. Do you see the problem in forcing them to use the ladies room based on their biological sex?

 

European women are bare breasted at the beach and that's a choice. Women in France as a rule are not walking down the street bare breasted.

I think you're naive if you think that's how people get over body shaming. Its like saying if a woman has a fear of sex the right tack is to force it on her. You're idea of 'freedom' isn't shared by many so no, all you do is create a push back as is happening now with women around the country. You cannot force conformity to some idea of freedom you find acceptable to you and then say you want to force that on other women, especially not being a woman yourself. Its the same kind of argument behind 'the cotton ceiling' if lesbians would just give up their narrow preferences they would be open to sleeping a man with a penis who says he's a woman. That's the same kind of nonsense. You find nudity liberating and so people should be coerced into accepting new rules because its 'good for them' and its good for them because this guy says so.

I have already mentioned protection via the law, not protection via social and cultural controls, they are not the same. What can't you understand about that?

Women have always felt it easier to undress around other women because the 'gaze' isn't there, it isn't sexualized, we've crossed this ground before and my answer is the same. You are saying that people can rid themselves of this by forced exposure therapy but you ignore or dismiss the calls that come from women saying they are not choosing to change around men and that they don't want to nor do they wish to stand on line for a stall holding their belongings so they can change in privacy. Why should women have to submit themselves to something they don't wish to encounter because it benefits some guy? Why should women and children feel uncomfortable because a man wants to undress in front of them? They have less rights?

Protection of her person by the law? Yes but that doesn't warrant separate malls or trains. If a woman cannot stand her ground against an attack by her abusive husband without facing grave punishment then you're wrong about how resistance is perceived by the law.

A woman shoots her abusive husband who tortured her in self-defense but the way the law is defined she had to plead guilty to manslaughter.

Mitchell instead pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, and like many women who kill an intimate partner, she received the maximum sentence—in her case, 15 years. Lorenz-Moser says that generally, men who kill their wives receive less jail time than women who kill their husbands—even when those husbands were abusive. One problem, she says, is that female abuse victims often don't have access to proper legal representation—they may be unemployed, as well as alienated from friends and loved ones who could help. "I also think plain old gender discrimination is a factor," says Lorenz-Moser. "There's a huge disparity between the sentences of men and women get for killing intimate partners, and I think part of this is as a society, it's more shocking when a woman kills than when a man kills." http://www.makers.com/blog/woman-killed-her-abusive-husband-save-herself-did-she-deserve-go-prison

So what's the point of discussing the benefits of nudity and some perceived equality when a man receives less jail time for killing his wife than a woman does if she kills her husband? Its the only area of crime where men get a better deal than women. What does that say of how society sees a wife in relation to her husband? Yet you are talking about contemporary society as if these situations no longer exist when they do. A woman being a badass works great in movies and Game of Thrones and its completely looked down upon in action.

I don't have a problem with it being a choice but I'm not saying it would be my choice. If there are three changing rooms then fine, I would choose to change in the woman's dressing room. I wonder how many women would use a co-ed changing room if she can change in a women's only changing room. Not too many I'm guessing.

Remember the film 'Accused' based on a true story starring Jodie Foster? Is she asking for it? Setting herself up? Sending wrong signals? She's a liberated woman in a liberated society right? But her little dance sent what signals? None really, she was just being herself and telling them what she wants and doesn't want but that's not how sexual signals are understood. In the film she's not protected by law but blamed for sending the wrong signals.

The clip doesn't contain the rape scene.

 

In any number of human societies past and present both of those situations would be common.

Or I could direct you to various nude beaches and the like, where even in Western society the additional sexualization of nudity per se famously dissipates to baseline in a surprisingly short time for most people (to their surprise, even disappointment, in many cases) - demonstrating its origin in non-biological factors.

The same as? No. There are several biological and sociological differences, among them matters of injury and assault - unless you think the "consenting adult" factor is irrelevant in this thread?

According to experts all sexual orientation is misunderstood, poorly understood, etc, at the present time. That is not a distinguishing feature. That does not make all behaviors equivalently tolerable.

I can't find any such quote. In what you have posted she clearly and repeatedly objects to other people socially classifying her in a "binary" fashion - sociologically male or female distinctly, as she has made clear ("masculine" vs "feminine" in her terms) - and that definitely suggests she would not "call herself binary", or even use the word in that sense.

Nonsense. I may simply disagree with you on both the nature and the "consequences" of the biology - there's plenty of room there, given your extrapolation of sociological features of this situation.

As well it should. So?

Ok. Let's say all gender differences other than direct and unmediated somatic expression of the Y chromosome develop in response to social circumstances impinging after birth. So?

Does that mean, say, that "trans women" - defined as Y chromosome possessors whose mental development after birth has followed the standard female path in their society, so that they now habitually and reflexively think and perceive in the manners characteristic of those who do not possess a Y chromosome, perhaps even feature the societally characteristic female brain morphology and activity patterns, so that in their society they are distinctively female in all but genitalia - do not exist?

Because aside from that possibility - that trans women do not exist - your objections seem to boil down to technicalities of wording in specific laws, that you feel allow too much opportunity for predatory male behavior.

 

I'm not forcing anyone: if you don't want to undress in front of a man use a private stall.

No, this is a straw-man you constructed. Again if you don't want to be naked in front of men, don't be.

It is the law there, so what is the difference. If you want to protect women, just make a new law, or copy their laws.

So lesbians don't have the 'gaze'?

Question: If a women went into a guys changing room, would our privacy be violated?

One case interpreted by a tabloid does not mean women cannot stand their ground against attack without punishment. Again how often do you think that happens?

1. Bullshit: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SPMUREX.PDF
2. What does problem B have to do with problem A? For example: why are you talking about transsexuals in bathrooms if man receives less jail time for killing his wife than a woman does if she kills her husband?

Then have more more private stalls.

 

Nude beaches etc. Check my posts between myself and Electricfetus its all been covered there. I don't feel the need to answer the same questions over again.

I agree everything should be made equivalent or tolerable. I agree. Experts say pedophilia is not aberrant but just another sexual orientation same as homosexuality, that's what they say. I can completely understand how this is disturbing to homosexuals who do not wish to be lumped in with that group. I also do not believe women should be lumped with other groups.

How can you not find Soloway's quote when I posted it for you AND added the link? Its right there for you to read.

As well it should? Let me know if I understand you correctly. Patriarchal norms should dictate that women should be treated less than human because that's what you are comment "well it should" concerns.

You asked "Let's say all gender differences other than direct and unmediated somatic expression of the Y chromosome develop in response to social circumstances impinging after birth. So?"

Well if that's the case then trans theory falls apart.

Does that mean, say, that "trans women" - defined as Y chromosome possessors whose mental development after birth has followed the standard female path in their society, so that they now habitually and reflexively think and perceive in the manners characteristic of those who do not possess a Y chromosome, perhaps even feature the societally characteristic female brain morphology and activity patterns, so that in their society they are distinctively female in all but genitalia - do not exist?

I have never said transgenderism doesn't exist. I was asked that point blank and never once said it doesn't exist. I say that trans theory is based on fallacy not that transgenderism doesn't exist. What it exists as is what's being discussed.