Trans vs feminists: Are Trans women women?

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

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.

No. Let them use a stall in the men's room. If a woman went into a men's room would men feel violated? Go and ask them. I'm not here to say what men feel violated by but I would say that the bathroom bill is being challenged almost exclusively by women and young girls (HS), not men or young boys that I presently know of. Men don't complain about trans men and trans men have not come across any resistance.

That's right Lesbians don't have a gaze which is why so many straight women occasionally enjoy going to a Lesbian or gay club its a way of being away from men and not being hit upon and its a way to enjoy being around men without being hit upon. I used to do so myself.

Again go back and read my post its not just one case

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


Correct me if I'm wrong but the stats you list there shows women getting those sentences due to 'victim provocation' which is 44% for women as opposed to men (10%) but Lorenz-Moser is saying that its tricky to prove self-defense even when there's abuse because there needs to be an 'imminent threat' and even a verbal threat or a man coming towards you can fall short of the definition. My point in showing these stats is to show that putting forward the idea of women walking around armed ready to defend their person doesn't always work in her favor, not to mention that she doesn't always have the agency. How did it come up? Bathroom issues and the notion of a woman's safety.

No and you cannot force establishments to totally refurbish their entire dressing rooms to incorporate more stalls. A man can go use the men's room. Trans women are not women but until they transition they can also use the men's room.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Why do parents allow male and female children to run around naked together but separate them the moment its obvious to the children that they are different? This continues even now. Why do mothers of male and female children feel the need to do this if its not important at all?

 

[iceaura]

I agree everything should be made equivalent or tolerable. I agree.

Which means disagreeing with my posting, of course. But you presented the sentiment oddly.

Experts say pedophilia is not aberrant but just another sexual orientation same as homosexuality, that's what they say

No, "they" don't.

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.

There is no quote of Soloway "calling herself binary" on this thread. The opposite, in fact - all the quotes here are of Soloway objecting to binary classification of anyone, much less herself, by other people.

Nude beaches etc. Check my posts between myself and Electricfetus its all been covered there.

Nah, you just went on some tangent about body shaming and French topless beaches.

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

How so? If people become trans the same way they become anything else, in the same core identity sense, how does trans theory fall apart?

 

[iceaura]

Men don't complain about trans men and trans men have not come across any resistance.

Trans "women" get beat up and raped and bullied and so forth, often in men's restrooms.

Why do parents allow male and female children to run around naked together but separate them the moment its obvious to the children that they are different? This continues even now. Why do mothers of male and female children feel the need to do this if its not important at all?

In Western culture, you mean. Good question. It obviously is important, in Western culture.

 

[Bells]

I don’t know if its deliberate or not but you didn’t understand my argument. Here is how that same diagram would look in a feminist utopia

Why don't you provide a link to the blog you pulled that diagram, the other diagram and the quote you pulled about buzz cuts in a previous post? All are from the same blog and the same page.

I notice you later ask me to provide the link to this blog that you have been quoting from and posting tables from, under any circumstance, it's plagiarism. So provide a link please.

You see we agree that gender is made up of social and cultural stereotypes BUT SEX IS NOT! It is a scientific biological fact!

But sex does not determine gender identity.

I notice that you repeatedly ignore the biological differences in the brains of transgender men and women, even from before they start any hormone treatments, that sees their reactions mirror that of the gender they identify with.

I mean, I notice that you are referring to blogs of feminists who are literally whining that gender should not exist, but in the next breath, whining that men are apparently stealing their gender because they are transgender, not to mention your quoting from Life Site News which would otherwise induce fits of laughter, alas.. (no, really, I'd have laughed if I was physically capable of laughing, but after suffering a massive asthma attack yesterday and am now finally home from the hospital jacked up on cortisone and enough ventolin in my system to induce a heart attack in a non-asthmatic, I literally am incapable of physically laughing)..

What the hell were you thinking?

What's going to be next? You are going to start quoting from Alex Jones' Info Wars?

Anywho, how about we look at actual science behind transgenderism. You wish to argue biology? Sure, let's do that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562024

Yes Bells its a stereotype which is why I posted it. The biological differences between men and women led to gender stereotypes. It wasn’t my answer to the question ‘what is a woman’, you would have had to read all of my post to know that. In short male and female are biological realities and gender is a construct. So yes a male has specific biological qualities but that doesn’t necessarily mean he will express his gender in those stereotypical ways.

Then can you explain why in the bleeding hell you are reverting back to the same gender stereotypes to argue against transgender women?

For example:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/trans-vs-feminists-are-trans-women-women.159780/page-6#post-3471348

What you and your brand of feminism fails to acknowledge is that you are applying the very paternalistic ideal of "real women" that our feminist ancestors railed against in the past.

You are complaining about the biological differences that led to gender stereotypes, but you are also arguing that biological differences determine gender, and that this means that transgender women are not women. In other words, you are running around in circles and you are literally contradicting yourself in just about each paragraph.

To wit, if gender did not matter to feminists like yourself and Greer, then transgender women would not be garnering the responses they are getting from people like you and Greer. If gender did not actually matter, then transgenderism would not be an issue at all and you and repulsive individuals like Greer would be supporting them wholeheartedly. But they and you do not? Why is that, I wonder? When gender is not supposed to matter, why in the hell are you reiterating gender stereotypes and arguing for the biological aspect of "sex" while ignoring the biology of gender in the brain (which shows up in MRI scans, by the way)? Your stance is hypocritical. Frankly, it is barely coherent. You have obviously just grabbed bits and pieces from here and there and you are trying to push this as an argument, but you fail to actually explain why in an era where gender is not meant to matter, why feminists such as yourself are trotting out every single negative stereotype about women to argue against transgenderism.

You should be embarrassed at yourself.

Transgenderism doesn’t diminish nor change biology, that’s my point. I am offended by the notion that the only thing a man has to do to gain access to women’s spaces and resources is by simply declaring himself a female which isn’t possible. You can change the way you show gender but you cannot change whether you are male or female which is why a man even after gender reassignment surgery are still of the same sex as they were before surgery because its impossible to change ones sex.

I take it Life Site News fails to show or provide actual scientific studies (of which there have been numerous ones performed) on the brain biology of transgender men and women? Well given that Life Site News that you quoted from and the blog you have been quoting from and posting tables and images from is only looking at twitter and religious ideology (in the case of Life Site News), I should not be surprised that the actual science has passed you by. You simply weren't interested in reading the findings of those studies, that for example, show that even prior to starting hormone treatments, transgender women (that is MtF) show a brain biology that matches that of females than that of males. Read the links I provided above. Go on, I dare you. Because they blast your bigoted shit right out of the water. They literally show that gender stems from the brain and which gender we identify with or as is biological and stems from the brain more than what's between your legs.

You keep arguing about biology, the physicality of a woman's sexual organs, experiences of women who have vaginas, periods, etc.. What of women who are born without vaginas? If we were to take your frankly ridiculous argument at face value, then those women would not be classified as 'women', because they lack not only the physicality of what makes you a woman (you know, just look at your screeching about biology and vaginas for a case in point), but they also lack the experiences that women experience and endure. Which is why arguments posited by you and the likes of Greer is met with sneering disdain because it is downright ignorant and ignores actual science and instead applies this quasi emotional 'it's my vagina' monologue because you think men are coming to steal your vagina.

If we were to take you seriously, then women like Kaylee Moats would not be allowed to use the women's room because not only does she not have a vagina, but she also missed out on all the experiences that apparently makes us "women"..

It doesn’t matter how the child identifies. Being male or female is an objective reality not a choice. Wearing a dress is a choice, wearing mens clothing is a choice, wearing make up or not or heels is a choice. I can have my breasts removed but that doesn’t make me any less female which is true down to the DNA.

You think transgenderism is a choice?

You identifying as a male or female is not by choice, Lucysnow. How you identify yourself as is actually from your brain and not from what is between your legs.

It's not about wearing a dress. It is how the brain identifies the person as. What? You think identifying as a woman is really just about hair, make up, clothes and high heels? And you actually have the temerity to try to argue that it's not about gender stereotypes? Your gender is not a choice, just as transgenderism is not a choice. It's actually in your brain. That would entail leaving behind religious sites and feminists who rely on twitter and youtube for supporting evidence and actually relying on science and the many many studies that have been performed on transgender people that show a clear distinction in their brain and clear difference in their brain that matches that of the gender they actually identify with..

 

[Bells]

You keep asking me questions that makes me think you didn’t read my post. Feminism is absolutely against gender stereotypes, I spent an entire post claiming this.

You have been arguing on both sides of the fence. You demand that gender stereotypes should not exist, then you rely on gender stereotypes to whine against transgender women. To wit, your posts make little sense and instead come across as the rantings of a bigot. The reason I and others are asking you questions is because we would all be really happy if you stopped coming across like a ranting bigot and more like a rational human being who made sense. Sadly, we are all still waiting.

You write this an then accuse me of having a jumbled argument “The very idea of denying women their sexuality because they do not fit into the mold set for women by men, is astonishing to me.” Who is denying a woman her sexuality? How could you even deny someone their sexuality? We’re not discussing gays and straights. We’re discussing whether it is actually possible to change one’s sex from male to female and the answer is no. Its not possible, the only thing possible is to change the appearance of being male or female without any underlying biological reality behind it.

You don't have to change their sex Lucysnow. What I and pretty much everyone with an understanding of science have been trying to point out to you is that gender is not so much about what's between your legs but more about one's brain. Transgender men and women have brains (from structure to responses) that literally align with that of the "gender" they identify with. You think it's about changing sex? You can imprison them and force them to remain 'male', but their brain will continue to respond and develop like that of a female. It's not about changing their sex or gender. It is about recognising that they are what their brain identifies them as. So in a way you are correct, you are not changing them from male to female, because they were never actually biologically male to begin with when it comes to their physical and emotional and rational brain. Sure, they may be born with a penis, but their brain is actually that of one who was born with a vagina.

Understand now?

I leave out gender identity because its irrelevant. When Amelia Earhart donned short hair and got into an airplane she was asserting an alternative gender identity at that time. So what? That is besides the point. Gender is different from sex and we are discussing sex, not sexual orientation but male female sex. Sex is a biological reality like black skin on a black person, it cannot be changed. A black person could start using hair straightener and bleach the skin and it still doesn’t make them caucasian. Just saying. Shoot the messenger if you like. Identity is what drove Dolezal to declare herself black. So my question is is she black just because she identifies herself as such?

Again, you are relying on gender stereotyping and think it's really about looks.

And really, relying on ethnicity actually works against you. Gender identity and gender itself is in the brain. Physically and tests and studies identify those changes with various scans. That is regardless of what they were born with between their legs. One of the links I posted above even shows that this could very well also be genetic. Understand now?

What’s between your legs is not a stereotype Bells its the reality which allowed you to carry and bear children. Like I said I can choose to be identified as a pony and people might even humor me out of courtesy but that wouldn’t make me one. I could identify as a Russian princess but yet again it doesn’t make it true. I can identify myself as ‘non-binary’ and walk down the street and everyone will still see me as a female because I am a female. That’ was my point concerning Jill Soloway, she can say she’s non-binary but that doesn’t mean anything, people will still see her as a woman a female even with her buzz cut and men’s clothing.

How about you actually read the science behind it, Lucysnow. And explain to me how and why transgender men and women show genetic and biological differences that closely align with that of the gender they identify with and as instead of what they had between their legs when they were born. Now explain to me how that stops mattering because you are all about the 'tits, hair and vagina' when it comes to women, while ignoring that some women are born without those very physical traits you demand makes one a woman and if we were to take you seriously, then those women would also be denied the chance to identify as a woman or use the women's rest room..

You are literally stereotyping women and then whining about gender stereotyping not mattering. It's downright embarrassing.

Is it a stereotype that a woman can carry a baby?

Is it a stereotype that a woman menstruates?

Is a male with a penis and scrotum a stereotype?

Is XY and XX a stereotype? How about DNA?

I hope one day when you hit menopause and start to complain about hot flashes someone comes along and mocks you by saying "That's just a stereotype Bells, women don't have go through menopause, its all in your head" and then you can think of being male and it will all go away. Ha!

My dear woman, I hit menopause several years ago when my ovaries had to be removed due to cancer. And there are many stereotypes about menopause. Want me to list some? From the hot flashes, to the stereotypes about vaginal dryness, to stereotypes about orgasms, sex in general, desire for sex, body hair, etc.. The issue is that some women experience some things and stupid people seem to think that it applies to all in the same way. Each and every single woman is different, we have different experiences, some women never menstruate, some are both without a vagina or anything that would even identify them as a woman or female, but they are still women, regardless of the fact that they did not share the same experience as Germaine Greer and her 'hairy smelly vagina' that she uses to identify her fellow females apparently.. Ergo you rely on stereotypes when you stupidly think it is beneficial, but you are literally setting the women's movement back a few centuries in doing so and all because you think men are somehow or other appropriating vaginas or boobs or your gender.

And again, you seem to think that transgenderism is a choice or something one just does or is on a whim...

 

[Bells]

LOL! Yes Bells, the author of The Female Eunuch is a misogynist, she stereotypes women (eye rolls). I’ll tick you under those who’ve never read her work. Which is why Helen Lewis, editor of the New Statesman describes Greer’s feminist legacy as follows “Germaine Greer’s value to feminism is as a destructive force, tearing down stereotypes and smashing taboos. She is living testament to the idea that women don't have to do what has always been expected of them: be good girls, get married, have kids, be nice and shut up. As a public intellectual, she had self-confidence you could bounce rocks off. She was never ashamed of being clever. She demanded to be heard.”

I've actually met her several times. She is not only a misogynist, but she is opportunistic and a coward. When challenged without an audience, she runs away.

That author of "The Female Eunuch" also defending the right of men to sexually harass young girls and children on the street because she has admitted she personally gets her rocks off at the sight of pre-pubescent boys and their "semen that runs like water".

Germaine Greer: (CHUCKLES) Well, you can't stop the old man staring at the young girl and lusting. What are you going to do — tell old men that they must be blindfold or something? I don't think that's particularly creepy as long as they understand that they're not…they have no right to lay hands on that person. But you can't stop them. How could you? I mean, the luminous figure of a beautiful young girl walking down the street and the old men sitting on the wall, leaning on their sticks. What are you going to say? "Look the other way, you dreadful old bastards"? What are you going to say? It's part of the joy of life is admiring the beauty of things that are beautiful. What is important to me about the Boy is that once upon a time his beauty was understood and celebrated by people of both sexes. A boy was allowed to dress in very bright colours, he was allowed to show himself off in the street, he dyed his hair, he wore make-up, he wore a little cap tipped over his eye with a big feather in, he wore tight pants and cropped jackets and so on. And the girls looked down from behind their jalousie and talked about the best-looking boys.​

*Sneer*

I've met her several times, spoken to her several times. Now I won't attend any event where she will go, because I don't even want to be in the same room as her. She is a repulsive individual.

She is the Anne Coulter of the feminist movement. She's all about publicity. That's all she cares about. And you think she is a great figure of feminism? Go back and read how many times she has changed her mind about feminism and women in particular, because what she said previously did not garner the response she wanted from the public and the media.

So don't try and prattle on about the person you do not know. She might have been touted as being great once, but now she is this angry and hateful, well, hag.

She is after all the one who is quoted as saying “Yet if a woman never lets herself go, how will she ever know how far she might have got? If she never takes off her high-heeled shoes, how will she ever know how far she could walk or how fast she could run?” But Greer is anti-woman because she doesn’t accept transwomen as women. Its almost too hysterical and ridiculous to have to respond to.

No. She is "anti-woman" because she openly defends sexual harassment of young girls and women and defends things like child marriage..

Again you mistake gender for sex. The vagina is sex and gender is mostly a construct. The vagina is not a construct it is a biological reality for any female. I mean when your children were born did you wait until they were of speaking age before you named them? Before you decided they were whatever sex they are? Or did you take a look at the adorable little penis and ignore it and start calling it it or maybe ‘non-binary’ because who knows? Did your little girl (if you have one) have to wait for her ‘identity’ to kick in or did you just look at the bottom bit and declare her female? Did you chastise the midwife or doctor for stereotyping your son because he or she said “Its a boy!”? Is that what happened Bells?

I have two sons. Both of whom identify as males and have never displayed or suggested any differently. I can assure you, Lucysnow, that had either of them come to me and told me that they felt like they were 'girls' or identified more with girls, I would not go on the screeching rant you have been on in this thread and admonished them for somehow or other stealing my gender and making gender an issue, and whatever other fence you are straddling trying to defend your position. You know, I'd respond like a human being who actually cares about her offspring. And not like you, who has attitudes that literally are so destructive, that they drive children who are transgender to suicide.

Instead, Lucysnow, my kids are whoever they are and how they identify themselves means diddly squat to me. Do you know what matters to me and to their father? Their health and happiness. If either or both informed us they felt like they were girls and did not identify as boys, then so be it, that is who they are and how they were born and I would have no problem whatsoever with them identifying as girls or females. In fact, I'd only be concerned that they were kept away from the likes of you and others who think like you, regardless of whether they are transgender or not, because of the manner in which those like you spout so much bigotry and hatred, it is harmful to not just transgender, but any child really and it sets the tone that causing harm to others is acceptable because of one's bigotry.

I don’t know which blogger you’re referring to so please link or give more info. Transexual men are women, they have every right to use the women’s room, especially if they haven’t had reassignment surgery. Are you discussing the de-transitioned woman? Yeah well she’s a poster child for how crazy it all is. She was convinced she was trans when she was just a butch lesbian and now that she has de-transitioned she is stuck with some major male features but she’s still a woman!!!! And she refers to herself as a woman.

You have pulled two tables/images and quotes from this blogger. Perhaps you should link your sources.

And no, I clearly was not talking about "de-transiotioned women", but actually about transexual men who are now legally required to use the women's change rooms and bathrooms, despite the fact that they are male. You're alright with that? Because they were born with a vagina? Heh.. The irrationality abounds..

As for the "de-transitioned woman".. Do you know what one of the biggest issues with transgenderism is? Bigotry. Bigotry and people like you, spouting utter shit to be honest, that prevents children who feel different or who are transgender from speaking to their parents or seeking help or who are rejected by their loved ones or forced to be someone they are not or do not identify with. With early intervention, that woman could have been able to be helped to understand that whoever or whatever she identified as was fine and normal and she would have had support to help her.. Instead, she was in foster care (let me guess, she was rejected by her family for being 'different'? Her parents have your kind of reaction and response to the mere hint of transgenderism?) and went through the issue of rejection and failed to get the help and support she should have gotten. In short, Lucysnow, if your child ever came out as transgender to you or gender confused, your response (if what you are screeching about in this thread is anything to go by) could result in suicide or that poor girl who was gender confused and failed to get any support or help.

The trajectory from little girl to woman is a biological reality, sorry if that upsets you. Social upbringing is a separate subject all together and I have been quite straight on this point.

Every woman has a different experience. Some will never experience what you or I may have experienced. Some do not even have female sexual organs or vaginas or even a clitoris, but they are female.

If you are going to push the Greer line of argument that things like sexual harassment, rape, etc is part of that trajectory that makes girls into women, then frankly, you are all warped and twisted. Then again, Greer supports the rights of men to sexually harass young girls, just as she has sexual fantasies about pre-pubescent boys, so no surprise there really.. And once again, you ignore the fact that transexual girls also suffer from the same type of bullying and harassment that sets girls on the trajectory from girl to woman, etc, their responses and how they react and identify, is like that of 'girls' instead of boys and they have no control over that as that is biological and is how their brain developed in utero and after birth.

You know, since you want to discuss biology and all that.

 

[Bells]

Why would a little girl be forced to live the life of a little boy? Are you stereotyping a little girl because she likes to play boy games and wear boy clothes? Can’t a little girl wear boy clothes and play boy games? Why would a little girl ‘come out’ as a woman at adulthood? Its a natural trajectory. I’ll answer the question like this. A little girl who plays boys games and wears boy clothes is still a little girl. A man who likes to wear women’s dresses and heels, calls himself Jane is still a man he’s just a man who wear’s women’s dresses and heels and calls himself Jane.

You are still clinging to the stereotype that what makes one a girl or a woman is clothes, shoes and hair?

Really?

And you have never heard of the "Bacha Posh" practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Clothing and hair and toys does not make one choose to be a different gender. It's not about what one wears or does. It's actually about what's in the brain.

The 'Bacha Posh' practice sees families without sons bringing up one or more of their daughters as boys. Literally and in every sense of the word. But if we were to apply your logic, those girls would not be classified as 'women' or 'female' because they did not experience or have the "trajectory from little girl to women" that you keep prattling on about. So can the Bacha Posh children use the girl's bathroom or women's change rooms even though they had a male upbringing and did not share anything at all their their fellow females? Because this is how stupid your argument actually is.

Well that’s just it a little girl cannot experience being a boy. She will never have her balls drop, she will never have her voice change, she will never experience wet dreams nor what it feels like to have your penis miraculously rise from the slightest touch or thought when the testosterone starts to kick in at puberty. She will though grow breasts, and vagina hair and have her period, that she can expect. Unless of course Bells you believe in the ‘female brain’. Do you oh feminist Bells believe in the nonexistent female brain? Are you a woman Bells because you think you are? I am not a female because I have female thoughts I am female because I have a female body and chemistry, its fundamental. Material reality is fundamental.

But his brain will identify with other boys his age. Not with that of 'little girls' his age.

Get it yet?

He may not grow up and experience a woody as a child, but his brain will align with that of other boys instead of that of girls. Even the physical aspect of his brain will be aligned with that of other boys instead of girls. So you want to go on about the "female brain"? Read the links I provided above, which also have many many links to studies that look at the physiological and psychological aspect of the brain of transgender men and women. Not to mention their genes. That doesn't come by choice.

You don’t have to explain trans theory to me I understand it quite well and I’m saying its wrong. You are not a male or female simply by identifying as such, you can see yourself as having masculine or feminine qualities or a mixture of both but you’re still only male, female or intersex.

You know, gender is not something that can be controlled in the sense that the physiology of the brain cannot really be controlled. That's up to the brain and transgender people will identify with how their brain identifies them as. Ignorance, hatred and bigotry, on the other hand, can be controlled and your lack of said control, your utter cruelty, bitchiness, hypocrisy, pretzel twisting argument, is not excusable.

No one is claiming tans people should have no rights. The question in is are trans women women, not do trans people deserve human or civil rights.

By refusing to acknowledge them as women, you are literally denying them their human and civil rights.


And sorry for the multiple replies, word limit issue was causing issues. Apparently some links are counting as multiple characters and spaces as well.

 

[ElectricFetus]

No. Let them use a stall in the men's room. If a woman went into a men's room would men feel violated? Go and ask them. I'm not here to say what men feel violated by but I would say that the bathroom bill is being challenged almost exclusively by women and young girls (HS), not men or young boys that I presently know of. Men don't complain about trans men and trans men have not come across any resistance.

I'm confused, you said you would sign the ERA, but it appears you want different rules based on sex. No one gives a shit about who is in the men's bathroom, but oh no think of the women!

That's right Lesbians don't have a gaze which is why so many straight women occasionally enjoy going to a Lesbian or gay club its a way of being away from men and not being hit upon and its a way to enjoy being around men without being hit upon. I used to do so myself.

Fascinating, so what is the gaze exactly? Only men can emanate this gaze? Does it a derive from a fear of being raped, lesbians can do that, may it derives from a fear of being inseminate against your will, ok this is some deep psychological stuff.

Again go back and read my post its not just one case

Give me a STATISTIC, how many women are punished for defending themselves from spousal abuse?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the stats you list there shows women getting those sentences due to 'victim provocation' which is 44% for women as opposed to men (10%) but Lorenz-Moser is saying that its tricky to prove self-defense even when there's abuse because there needs to be an 'imminent threat' and even a verbal threat or a man coming towards you can fall short of the definition. My point in showing these stats is to show that putting forward the idea of women walking around armed ready to defend their person doesn't always work in her favor, not to mention that she doesn't always have the agency. How did it come up? Bathroom issues and the notion of a woman's safety.

Well of course it does not always work in ones favor, what do you think men deal with when assaulted? Do you think ever man that defends himself is judged to do so correctly? STATISTICALLY one is usually in the right, and the odds are very good if your a women and he is a man.

No and you cannot force establishments to totally refurbish their entire dressing rooms to incorporate more stalls. A man can go use the men's room. Trans women are not women but until they transition they can also use the men's room.

Why not? A few decades ago there was no such thing as handcap ramps. And again what about trans-men, can they use the men's room?

 

[ElectricFetus]

I've actually met her several times. She is not only a misogynist, but she is opportunistic and a coward. When challenged without an audience, she runs away.

That author of "The Female Eunuch" also defending the right of men to sexually harass young girls and children on the street because she has admitted she personally gets her rocks off at the sight of pre-pubescent boys and their "semen that runs like water".

Germaine Greer: (CHUCKLES) Well, you can't stop the old man staring at the young girl and lusting. What are you going to do — tell old men that they must be blindfold or something? I don't think that's particularly creepy as long as they understand that they're not…they have no right to lay hands on that person. But you can't stop them. How could you? I mean, the luminous figure of a beautiful young girl walking down the street and the old men sitting on the wall, leaning on their sticks. What are you going to say? "Look the other way, you dreadful old bastards"? What are you going to say? It's part of the joy of life is admiring the beauty of things that are beautiful. What is important to me about the Boy is that once upon a time his beauty was understood and celebrated by people of both sexes. A boy was allowed to dress in very bright colours, he was allowed to show himself off in the street, he dyed his hair, he wore make-up, he wore a little cap tipped over his eye with a big feather in, he wore tight pants and cropped jackets and so on. And the girls looked down from behind their jalousie and talked about the best-looking boys.​

*Sneer*

I've met her several times, spoken to her several times. Now I won't attend any event where she will go, because I don't even want to be in the same room as her. She is a repulsive individual.

She is the Anne Coulter of the feminist movement. She's all about publicity. That's all she cares about. And you think she is a great figure of feminism? Go back and read how many times she has changed her mind about feminism and women in particular, because what she said previously did not garner the response she wanted from the public and the media.

So don't try and prattle on about the person you do not know. She might have been touted as being great once, but now she is this angry and hateful, well, hag.

Oh god I just had this image of this wrinkled old babuska, Gernaine Greer, in a men's pool changing room, perving on little boys, asking them to play salty cracker in front of her. I almost black-out in laughter!

Anyways what you quoted is a sound argument: you can't cover someones eyes, If they try to touch or even vocally harass, ok then you might be able to stop that legally, but you can't stop them from looking. If she wants to look at little boys in tight shorts as they walk by and get on the school bus, I don't think there is any way to legally stop her, just like there is no way to legally stop old men waiting at a bus stop, see little girls walk by in their short skirts or catholic school girl outfits, or nothing at all if they are nudists, heck everyone can watch the naked biker festival in Briton.

Oh no look at that a mother came to watch and record with her phone and brought her children, oh no they are going to see peepees and boobees, their little minds will be destroyed forever, they will grow up to become depraved sex perverts!

 

[billvon]

No Billvon I was a young kid, there was no agenda involved

Sounds like you are just like all the trans people who want to use the bathroom they identify with. I work with a trans woman, and she does not "have an agenda." She just wants to use the women's bathroom.

If a man gets naked in a park should he be asked to leave? YES!

Agreed! As should a woman who gets naked.

No billvon, these are not instances of women with a big clitoris, it was an actual man a male with normal male genitalia.

Did you feel them up to verify that? Would you be OK with a bathroom inspector feeling you up to make sure your genitals are normal, and you aren't just hiding them or something?

So if a mother doesn't want to expose her child to a naked man in the locker room its the same as saying black women don't belong in the same space in a woman's locker room?

If a mother doesn't want to expose her child to a trans woman in a locker room, it is very much the same as a mother who doesn't want to expose her child to a black woman in a locker room.

Men who identify as men, and who live as men, use the men's room. Women who identify as women and who live as women should use the women's room. Pretty simple. And they, not you, get to decide what sex they live as.

As legislators and other government officials promote “gay” friendly laws, they are unwittingly laying the foundation for special protections for pedophiles, including the right to work with children, family advocates warn.In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.

Yep. We heard exactly the same thing during Prop 8. "Gay marriage means that schools will be forced to teach gay sex techniques to your children!" one ad read. And what do you know? Now gay marriage is legal in California, and schools are not forced to teach gay sex techniques. It's almost as if they were lying to achieve their political agenda!

Ergo, based on the argument you put forward a pedophile is entitled to be around playgrounds and preschools whether their parents approve or not because, well, its discrimination not to allow it.

Yes, it is. It's also discrimination to keep sex offenders out of schools, and to not allow felons to own guns. Those sorts of discrimination are expressly legal.

We wouldn't say no to a black woman being employed to work with children

But what if (to use your phrasing) a mother doesn't want to expose her young daughter to a lazy, shiftless, potentially criminal black at school? Should we ignore her desire to protect her daughter, and force her to put her daughter "at risk?"

Just saying mate. I mean your argument pretends that there are no male sexual predators so of course a man can go into a woman's locker room and gaze at naked women and children ITS THEIR RIGHT!

There are male sexual predators. There are female sexual predators. Keeping trans people out of bathrooms won't change that, nor will it make you any safer.

And you wonder why feminists are up in arms over this? Your comparisons of equivalency extends itself far enough to reach the point that there can be no protection for women and children because all a man has to do to terrorize his partner in a women's shelter is claim he's a woman and demand entry as legally there is no way to "ask him to leave"

Of course there is. If you were a gay woman and showed up at a women's shelter due to abuse, and your partner showed up and demanded to see you, then they would keep her out as well. And if that didn't work they would call the cops. Because abuse actually is a crime, unlike being transsexual.

Your argument disempowers one group in favor of another

You are absolutely correct. It disempowers bigots.

You wrote "That's OK - women are supposed to follow; men lead. They submit to their betters, and are "other-oriented," suppressing their selfish desires for the needs of others. Right? You told us that. That's how you define a woman."

I find that slanderous and demand an apology because everything I have written so far EVERYTHING points to the exact opposite. I don't define women as weak or unequal from men

Here's what you yourself posted:

Feminine - emotional, submissive, other oriented. Create and caretake life, serve others, be attractive to others.

Masculine - logical, dominant, independent. Lead/build/conquer, protect/provide.

Sorry if that's who you are but its not who I am and I don't appreciate you describing me as such. It is you who are using the old misogynistic trope that women have to defer to the needs of others specifically men and I think that makes you well...it begins with a 'c'. I challenge you to go back and find where I say that women should submit to their betters? Where?

See above. Bells asked you "what does it mean to be a woman?" You replied with that table, stating that women were defined as "emotional, submissive, other oriented. Create and caretake life, serve others, be attractive to others." You then posted another table for what a "feminist utopia" would mean in which both sexes were equal. You clearly posted that to mock it.

So if that's your definition then I will hold you to it. Now submit to the more logical sex, because right now you're being overly emotional - and that's not very attractive.

 

[Bells]

Anyways what you quoted is a sound argument: you can't cover someones eyes, If they try to touch or even vocally harass, ok then you might be able to stop that legally, but you can't stop them from looking. If she wants to look at little boys in tight shorts as they walk by and get on the school bus, I don't think there is any way to legally stop her, just like there is no way to legally stop old men waiting at a bus stop, see little girls walk by in their short skirts or catholic school girl outfits, or nothing at all if they are nudists, heck everyone can watch the naked biker festival in Briton.

She is not looking or wanting to look at them in tight shorts.

Nor is that what she discussed about her book on the subject.

She feels sexually attracted to young boys and she even openly declared it is because their "semen runs like water".. I want you to consider that statement for a while.

In the book itself, she portrays young boys in various forms of undress. The cover of the book is the image of a boy, taken a few decades ago on a film set, and which she used without getting the man's permission.

That boy is now a 45 year old man, a victim of what was pretty much possible child abuse and child exploitation when he was a young actor. Germaine Greer knowingly used his image that was taken from the set and put it on the cover of a book that celebrates lusting after young boys.

Put bluntly and simply, she isn't thinking about them in tight shorts. She is discussing them naked. Her comments about lusting after them.. It's about them being naked. Not dressed.

And I think anyone who defends the sexual objectification of children or defends seeing children as sexually appealing or defends lusting after little kids, deserves all the scorn any sane person can muster.

Oh no look at that a mother came to watch and record with her phone and brought her children, oh no they are going to see peepees and boobees, their little minds will be destroyed forever, they will grow up to become depraved sex perverts!

Sure. Now consider how you'd feel if a woman in her 70's told you that your little boys turned her on because all she can think about is how their "semen runs like water".

Or consider how you'd feel about an old man seeing your 10 year old girl and starts dreaming about having sex with her or sexualising her.

You think this is about nudity? You think this is about kids seeing naked people?

The irony is that Lucysnow brings up the bathroom debate and mentions Germaine Greer of all people against transgender women, when Greer is probably a bigger danger to young children, particularly young boys, than a transgender woman could ever be to a little girl in a public restroom or change room.

 

[ElectricFetus]

She is not looking or wanting to look at them in tight shorts.

Nor is that what she discussed about her book on the subject.

She feels sexually attracted to young boys and she even openly declared it is because their "semen runs like water".. I want you to consider that statement for a while.

I did, and as I said I have this mental image of her in a boys changing room asking the boys to play salty cracker... Yes gross things I find hilarious.

In the book itself, she portrays young boys in various forms of undress. The cover of the book is the image of a boy, taken a few decades ago on a film set, and which she used without getting the man's permission.

That boy is now a 45 year old man, a victim of what was pretty much possible child abuse and child exploitation when he was a young actor. Germaine Greer knowingly used his image that was taken from the set and put it on the cover of a book that celebrates lusting after young boys.

Put bluntly and simply, she isn't thinking about them in tight shorts. She is discussing them naked. Her comments about lusting after them.. It's about them being naked. Not dressed.

and playing salty crack, yes I get it. She can say what ever she wants, the NAMBLA people can say what ever they want, unfortunately the law can't touch them until they actually do something that violates the law. Yes it is weird and gross, but it does not mean she is a bad person for it, as long as she does not actually harm little boys or others by acting out on her sick desires. Didn't Gandhi have some weird sexual fetishes? Look there are ablot of opinions and arguments from Germaine Greer I disagree with, even find hateful and detestable, but I don't hate her.

And I think anyone who defends the sexual objectification of children or defends seeing children as sexually appealing or defends lusting after little kids, deserves all the scorn any sane person can muster.

Go ahead and scorn her, within the bounds of the law.

Sure. Now consider how you'd feel if a woman in her 70's told you that your little boys turned her on because all she can think about is how their "semen runs like water".

Well:
1. I have no children, because I have not had sex without spermicide or condoms
2. I never will have children because my sexual desires have migrated beyond human women.
3. Regardless that the children are not mine I would merely recommend that everyone keep their little boys away from her, solution identified and implemented.

Or consider how you'd feel about an old man seeing your 10 year old girl and starts dreaming about having sex with her or sexualising her.

4. Again so long as they keep their hands off her, what can legally be done?

You think this is about nudity? You think this is about kids seeing naked people?

I thought from Mrs.Lucysnow argument that she is fearful of transwomen coming into girls changing rooms and revealing their non-surgically altered genitals. My argument was seeing genitals is harmless, even for children. Now if that transexual/gender starts trying to do something with the children, breaks out a box of crackers, then a line has been stepped over and now that is very criminal.

The irony is that Lucysnow brings up the bathroom debate and mentions Germaine Greer of all people against transgender women, when Greer is probably a bigger danger to young children, particularly young boys, than a transgender woman could ever be to a little girl in a public restroom or change room.

Or or, just imagine as I image: Germaine in a boy's locker room, a dad comes in "what are you doing in here?" Germaine responds "I identify as a man I can be in her", the dad is taken aback, then he ask "Ok, so why are you here?" and Germain responds in her no-nonsense tone "I'm her to get these fine lads to play a game of salty cracker", the dad thinks about what he just heard for a moment then replies "I'm going to fight you now Sir" and repeatedly punches Germain in his face.

 

[billvon]

Some good news today! From the Texas Tribune:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After months of controversy, Texas bathroom bill dies quietly
After generating a heated statewide debate earlier this year, the Texas bathroom bill died in the special legislative session with little drama or fanfare.

by Alexa Ura Aug. 16, 2017 6

In the end, the controversial bathroom bill went quietly.

For more than a year, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick led the crusade for a state law to regulate bathroom use for transgender Texans — an initiative that resonated with social conservatives, including many pastors, who backed him up. Patrick for months stood firm in his pursuit for a bathroom bill even while similar campaigns in other states fizzled out.

He was met by loud opposition that only grew with time and eventually proved to be a considerable political force.

Transgender women, men and children from across Texas descended on the Capitol to testify about how the proposal — which would ban local policies that ensured transgender individuals’ right to use public and school restrooms that match their gender identity — could endanger their lives. The business community rallied against the legislation too, giving House Speaker Joe Straus cover as he refused to negotiate with Patrick on bathroom restrictions.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.


That led to a stalemate over the issue during the regular legislative session that played out in dueling press conferences featuring legislative leaders slamming each other over the issue, threats by Patrick to force lawmakers to return to Austin by holding must-pass bills hostage and last-ditch efforts to attach bathroom restrictions to other pieces of legislation considered in the middle of the night.

Gov. Greg Abbott was eventually forced to call a 30-day special session that revived the bathroom bill. But for all the bathroom-related commotion and cajoling that dominated the regular legislative session, when lawmakers wrapped up the special session on Tuesday, Patrick eulogized the bathroom bill as just one of several proposals that didn’t make it to Abbott's desk because of Straus.

And in the end, it wasn’t all that hard to see it coming.

“We hope that this time, this issue remains settled: Texans don’t want harmful, anti-transgender legislation,” JoDee Winterhof, senior vice president for policy and political affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, said as opponents of the bathroom bill seemed to release a collective sigh of relief when the House abruptly adjourned to end the special session Tuesday evening.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[birch]

Men who identify as men, and who live as men, use the men's room. Women who identify as women and who live as women should use the women's room. Pretty simple. And they, not you, get to decide what sex they live as.

Um no, that's too irresponsible/extreme in the other direction. People can identify however they want but people should use facilities of physical gender or what gender they are after re-assignment. This is from a completely from a practical point of view, otherwise with no boundaries, there is no point of having gender based facilities and there is, mostly the fact grown men are more inclined to be dangerous.

Also, there is no need to check physical gender. The very fact facilities are marked for gender advocates for any funny business to be exposed if someone is out of line mostly. Such as obviously if you are of the opposite physical gender and expose yourself, you dont belong there. No matter what, helps nip most cray cray events or motives from jumpstreet.

 

[birch]

I thought from Mrs.Lucysnow argument that she is fearful of transwomen coming into girls changing rooms and revealing their non-surgically altered genitals. My argument was seeing genitals is harmless, even for children. Now if that transexual/gender starts trying to do something with the children, breaks out a box of crackers, then a line has been stepped over and now that is very criminal.

It is not harmless. Its rude and pushy. Sexual deviants and pedophiles do this as first course exposing themselves to their targets, then they are trying to blur or traverse boundaries and then the predation is attempted/starts.

 

[ElectricFetus]

It is not harmless. Its rude and pushy. Sexual deviants and pedophiles do this as first course exposing themselves to their targets, then they are trying to blur or traverse boundaries and then the predation is attempted/starts.

Oooh pushy and rude you say, that sounds like a purely cultural opinion. As for your sexual deviant slippery slope theory, what separate that from conservative slippery slope about gays?

 

[spidergoat]

mostly the fact grown men are more inclined to be dangerous.

That's a nonsense argument.

 

[billvon]

Um no, that's too irresponsible/extreme in the other direction. People can identify however they want but people should use facilities of physical gender or what gender they are after re-assignment. This is from a completely from a practical point of view, otherwise with no boundaries, there is no point of having gender based facilities and there is, mostly the fact grown men are more inclined to be dangerous.

OK, so here's a practical question.

You see a woman go into a woman's room. She goes into a stall. A little while later she flushes and comes out. At what point do you bust her for being pre-surgery, and how do you check?

Same thing, but opposite sex. Guy goes into a men's room. He has a beard and a muscle shirt. At what point are you going to confront him and demand he go into the women's room?

That's the problem. Because everyone talks about "what happens if my daughter is in there when a guy goes in to look at her?" But laws that require physical genitalia to match the sex on the door REQUIRE that guy with the beard and the muscle shirt to follow that little girl into the bathroom.

Also, there is no need to check physical gender. The very fact facilities are marked for gender advocates for any funny business to be exposed if someone is out of line mostly. Such as obviously if you are of the opposite physical gender and expose yourself, you dont belong there. No matter what, helps nip most cray cray events or motives from jumpstreet.

Now that I agree with. A little common sense goes a long way.

 

[Bells]

I'm not here to say what men feel violated by but I would say that the bathroom bill is being challenged almost exclusively by women and young girls (HS), not men or young boys that I presently know of. Men don't complain about trans men and trans men have not come across any resistance.

Then you would be wrong. How strange and unusual for you to be wrong about this topic....

Men are significantly more likely to be concerned than women about transgender people using the bathroom of their choice.

The study by Rebecca Stones analysed 1,035 comments posted by readers on 190 online news articles relating to assigned-male-at-birth (AMAB) transgender individuals using female bathrooms.

While cisgender (those who identify with the same gender they were assigned at birth) males are more concerned than cisgender females about the issue overall, Stone's data, published in December's issue of Gender Issues, showed that men were particularly vocal about who should be allowed use women's bathrooms.

Men were 1.5 times more likely than women to have concerns about transgender women using women's bathrooms.

Given men do not usually need to concern themselves about female loos, Stones says men's heightened worries around female bathrooms are "particularly curious".

Cisgender males were around 1.55 times more likely than females to pin their concerns on safety and privacy, the study found. Inversely, women were four times more likely than men to "assert that transgender women do not directly cause their safety and privacy concerns".

"It's possible," writes Stones, "that males believe they are voicing female concerns. However, many females do not share these concerns."​

It isn't women driving banning transgender women from using the women's public bathroom. It is men, in a further attempt to control our bodies.

The result of this ridiculous uproar created by conservative men, women are being harassed when they use public bathrooms if they do not fit into a particular stereotype of what a woman should look like. Kind of like the stupid stereotype you posted earlier about what transgender women should look like.

At least one story of a transgender woman who used the men's room:

"I was 19 when I had my ribs broken. They stomped on me and they beat me so bad they tore my dress off, they tore my panties off [and] they ripped my brand new wig.… They chased me and my two friends. They caught me because I had heels. They were strappy. I would have thrown them away. I wouldn't have cared. They were probably in their mid-20s. Three men, drunk, very large. They kicked me so many times in the ribs. I tried to cover my face to protect my face. As I'm laying there, pretty much lifeless, a guy whips out his penis about to urinate on me. That's disgusting.

"People did come to my aid. The police came. The EMTs came. They put a tube in my throat. The police officer says, as I'm sitting in the gurney, 'This never would have happened to you if you weren't wearing a dress and trying to fool men.'"​

This is the sort of thing that happens to transgender women when they are forced to use the men's room. Is this acceptable to you?

Sexual assault organisations who have debunked the transgender bathroom idiocy that you have kept flouting in this thread: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-ass...ns-debunk-bathroom-predator/story?id=38604019

What it's like for transgender men and women to use public restrooms.. https://news.vice.com/story/trans-a...lic-restrooms-that-8-have-had-kidney-problems

For example, are you aware that many of them are actually making themselves sick instead of risking using a public bathroom out of fear of being harassed and physically assaulted?

Among the transgender people who responded to Herman’s study about restroom access, 54 percent reported adverse health effects from trying to avoid using public restrooms, such as dehydration, kidney infections, and urinary tract infections; 10 percent of respondents who attended school in D.C. reported a negative impact on their education, including having excessive absences and dropping out of school due to issues related to restroom access; and 58 percent reported that they have avoided going out in public due to a lack of safe public restroom facilities.​

Is this acceptable to you?

How about this:

Some new statistics out Monday from the National Center for Transgender Equality show how bathroom access—or lack of access—can affect the health and safety of transgender adults. In the largest-ever survey of transgender people in the United States, the NCTE, an advocacy group, heard from more than 27,000 transgender adults in August and September 2015.

• Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said they’d avoided public bathroomsover the past year because they worried about potential confrontations.
• Twelve percent said they’d been harassed, attacked, or sexually assaulted in a bathroom over the past year.
• Thirty-one percent reported that they’d avoided drinking or eating over the past year so they wouldn’t need to use the bathroom.
• Eight percent said they’d had a kidney or urinary tract infection or another kidney-related problem because they’d avoided using bathrooms.

Is this acceptable to you?

On bathroom sexual assaults by transgender women:

Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union told Mic that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation. Vincent Villano, the director of communications for the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Mic in an email that there isn't any firm data to corroborate these lawmakers' claims, and that NCTE has "not heard of a single instance of a transgender person harassing a non-transgender person in a public restroom. Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that this is true and use this notion to prey on the public's stereotypes and fears about transgender people."

The Advocate noted the same glaring fact last month regarding Texas' bathroom legislation: "There has never been a verifiable reported instance of a trans person harassing a cisgender person, nor have there been any confirmed reports of male predators 'pretending' to be transgender to gain access to women's spaces and commit crimes against them."

Alachua County Crisis Center victims advocate Ashley Flattery told the Miami Herald, "This kind of idea that somebody is going to be assaulted in the bathroom by someone, and claim they have the right to be there because they are trans, is imaginary."​

But hey, why actually address facts when you can simply rely on male conservative talking points...