Yeah, where are they, man? I’ve never seen one in the wild. Maybe because I never use the bathroom where people would feel comfortable messing with women in bathrooms. The sort of women that use the sort of bathrooms I use.
I am rage muting this thread.
Maybe open your eyes. They are everywhere. Why are Americans so coy about the word ‘toilet’? It’s pathetic. There are no baths in public toilets.
And there’s really no need to keep announcing that you are ‘muting’ threads. No one cares. Honestly.
‘‘The people who propose “genital inspections” are the men who desperately want one.’’
No, though I don’t think it’s a hard case to make. There is a strain of radical feminism that casts all men as rapists-in-waiting, and as inherently a threat to women, and that perspective is closely connected to the anti-trans movement.
Point of fact: none of her children are trans:
My eldest child is nonbinary. My son is gay. My youngest is fluid.
From Advocate, May 2023.
Anyway, if there’s a genetic component to sexuality (and there does seem to be), it shouldn’t be that surprising to find it clustering in families.
And sure there’s clearly a cultural dimension: you should expect to find more gender non-conformity in cultures that are welcoming of gender non-conformity.
I dunno, I understand why FlannelJesus is wondering what’s being implied. What’s the alternative? These are some of the most entitled kids the world has ever produced, you think their parents are forcing them to be trans? ‘Making them’ gay? Why do conservatives need ‘conversion therapy’ if its parents that make their kids gay?
Sure, that’s just a tautology. Every sexual assault committed by a cis woman inside a woman’s prison has happened because those women were in women’s prison. People who commit sexual assault do it where they are.
My point was: transwomen do no pose a particular threat.
Also, while I have not looked at the numbers, I would guess that the rate of sexual assaults committed against transwomen in men’s prison is much higher than the rate at which transwomen in women’s prison commit sexual assault, so that putting transwomen in women’s prison would decrease the rate of prison sexual assault overall.
There’s a tension here. We do accept something as sufficient evidence to grant religious exemptions. And while in that context it may be more than what someone is wearing, it still seems to be a test of sincerity.
There are two reasons why ‘look and act’ would make sense in the bathroom context when it doesn’t in the religious context:
First, looks often aren’t a good signal of sincere practice for religion, because a lot of religions don’t have religious dress at all; Jehova’s witnesses aren’t distinguishable by sight from atheists.
Gender conformity is more apparent, especially in adults. Hair styles, clothing, makeup, accessories are all heavily gendered in appearance.
Second, someone asking for a religious exemption to military service is already part of an onerous and invasive process, so adding an inquiry into the sincerity of their religious beliefs doesn’t significantly change the burden on the individual.
By contrast, going to the bathroom is quick and impersonal. ‘Look and act’ is about the level of bureaucracy that can realistically be applied, and it’s sufficient for the context. It’s not practicable to ask about bottom surgery at the door.
I stand corrected, because I admit I didn’t expect even this much. But I would point out that an individual using the opposite gender’s bathroom would not be breaking that law: the law regulates buildings and their owners, not people.
It seems expected that as alternative gender identities become more socially acceptable, people that would otherwise have been forced into male or female by dint of their genitals feel less constrained by that. And it seems expected that we would see the impact of that change in the period in life when a persons social and sexual identity is crystallizing.
It also seems expected that this change is very, very small – 80 per 100,000, or 0.8%.
Bet you have!
Shot? Is that what you do in Holland?
So in other words you don’t think women should have their own spaces. Got it. It really doesn’t matter what you think, man. Women are fighting for women’s rights, not men’s.
Use the non-word ‘gender’ all you like to plump out your nonexistent ‘argument’. It has nothing to do with women’s rights. Very ‘progressive’ of you by the way, telling women that they shouldn’t be standing up for their own rights.
Sex is not a naughty word. Try using it. It won’t bite you.
“The Jews.”
Well, Judaism is the only religion to believe in multiple genders and it was a Jewish man that created gender theory.
A majority of early feminist or trans writers were dominantly Jewish.
But of course you’re probably one of those liberals where Jews can do no wrong and where 76,000 dead Palestinians are inconsequential along with two hundred Iranian school girls bombed by Zionists.
The Jews are just the one group of people on earth historically immune to all criticism it would seem. The unquestionable sacred cow of western taboo.
According to you there’s no such thing as ‘Jews’, so what do you mean when you say a ‘Jewish man’ invented ‘gender theory’?
Per Wikipedia it was invented by someone called John Money.
‘‘Money was born in Morrinsville, New Zealand, to a Christian fundamentalist[11] family of English and Welsh descent.[12] His parents were members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church’’.
Are you now going to say that ‘The Christians’ did it?
Fascinating, so all other religions believe in just a single gender?
And again let me ask of you, why are you forcing a binary outcome?
Its bad in men’s prisons, its also bad in women’s prisons. For anyone who approaches this with common sense, the answer would be separation.
I reiterate: “Look and act” is basically a free pass into any sex segregated private area that exists, including changing rooms and bathrooms.
I am sorry. Just like with the prison issue where instead of putting them in their own segregated area, you prefer to cause damages because ideology has more priority to you (at least it seems like it) that actual human lives and damage does.
And you know, i really would like to know at this point where the line is.
Equal opportunity is not enough.
A safe third option is not enough either.
It HAS TO BE that the world submits to me wanting to “look and act” a certain way, even if it potentially gets people killed.
What the actual f do you think this is? This attitude.
Who do you think you are?
No, seriously.
Take your time.
Go on.
Break it down for me.
Who the fuck do you think you are that something as little as your fucking day dreams and fetish fantasies, should take precedence over people’s safety, over ensuring that we can live stably side by side?
Where does this come from?
Where is the starting point for this?
Is it self evident that you get your way with other people?
Is there no special reason or reasoning behind it?
Cause you look out your window there are over 500 hundred different fetishes and even more if you account for other paraphilias, these includ everything from getting off to rape, crying, eating diapers, lust murder, animals, elderly, blood and a plethora of other insane things and you know what?
You know what is funny?
That for some magical reason people with the most of the utterly demented, sick and mentally ill sexual outlets, somehow still manage to figure out on their own that the rest of humanity are not their fucking playthings, and they do not make groups about rapist or blood fucker rights, petitioning the state for special privileges.
Not the LGTV community though.
We started off with the attention whore gays who felt that the entire world needed to know where they like to put their dicks and held “coming out” announcements to the public, and now we are down to “well i like to think of myself as a woman so you WILL allow me into your dressing room”.
How about getting shot in the face?
Would that be a preferred alternative? Because its starting to become pretty clear that thats where this train is headed to.
And i cant figure out for the life of me why.
I dont understand it.
Sincerely.
Why any of this is needed or required. Why forcing the issue is for the benefit of anyone.
Or in the first place where people like these come from when they think that they get to FUCK the rest of society in any shape or form they please because somehow its self evident for them.
I dont get it.
Not one part of it.
And again: I apologize for the use of “you”, it is not directed at you personally.
It’s a pleasure watching you learn to express yourself.
Have you read much about what those Jewish alternate genders were? Most of them weren’t even necessarily “gender identities”, more just acknowledging the actual existence of people with unusual sex characteristics. Are you mad at Jews for simply documenting the existence of people who were, say, born with what looks like a vagina but who have hidden internal testicles? We can’t be mad at Jews for just observing reality, can we?
Welcome to
Deflection: The thread
Eight different genders in the Talmud, some of them having nothing to do with hermaphrodites at all. Nice try though.
What exactly is it you stand for politically or philosophically again?
Oh, that’s right, you’re Mr. Neutrality on everything acting always so profoundly contrarian that one wonders what you stand for at all. Although it’s clear that you believe criticism of Zionism or Judaism is a no,no.
At least you believe in something.
Is that clear? What makes you think that’s clear? This isn’t exactly the thread for it, but if you open up a thread and provide your evidence that I think criticism of zionism is a no no, I’ll look at your evidence and possibly even do some introspection. However, I don’t think anything along those lines has happened.
There is no such thing as gender. Do you seriously believe that people in ancient times went around talking about ‘gender identities’? They knew abnormal genitalia when they saw it though. You are being pointlessly ridiculous.
There are many things that the average person before 1930 and before had, that some people lack today, stemming from the lack of day-to-day experience with animals (be it seeing them, hunting them or caring for them), that apply to humans too:
Weirdly enough, there are many people that have quite a skewed view of antiquity, supposing the contrary was true, not stopping to notice that watching animals and nature for just a bit of time gives you that insight no matter what. A lack of curiosity in regards of animals and such is detrimental for that topics. If most people get more experience with social experiences (screens, in particular) rather than exposure to nature, it’s no wonder that their understanding of things will mostly be favored by social concepts, since that’s what they are exposed to mostly - people tend to make up an idea of the world using the ideas most common to them. Being in front of a screen gives a way different view of stuff than seeing nature and caring for it.
I see many problems of today’s society as stemming from lacking that knowledge, applied to humans, and most ‘liberal vs not liberal’ problems that are talked about stem from that lack - it doesn’t seem to be about ‘liberal’ stuff but about curiosity for nature vs curiosity for social issues (which include figments of imagination)
No, and you’ll note that I have never said anything like that. Rather, I oppose laws that criminalize people using a bathroom according to their self-professed sexual identity.
If I meant ‘sex’, I would use ‘sex’. I mean ‘gender’.
We do in fact have a binary of men’s and women’s prisons. Having a third alternative may be a solution, but creating a third prison system for less than a percent of the population is unlikely.
And putting transwomen in women’s prison seems to decrease prison rape on net relative to putting transwomen in men’s prison.
I’ll repeat, for emphasis: I believe that the policies I’m advocating minimize the damage, and that that conclusion is supported by the best empirical evidence.
You appeal to “damage” and “safety” and “get[ting] people killed”, but I do not think the evidence supports your beliefs about how the competing policies affect those outcomes.
This is contingent though, right? There’s no reason in principle why genetic science could not advance sufficiently to modify genes in vivo to alter primary sexual characteristics.
And many Gender Critical scholars would still want to exclude those people from the bathroom that aligns with their modified chromosomal sex.
The sex chromosomes are primary sexual characteristics. If you can change all your DNA and be the same person is a very ship-of-Theseus problem. It’d be easier to have a head double transplant than that.
You’d only need to change one chromosome of 46, and the genes affected are probably not expressed in every cell. And it wouldn’t change any structures built by the original genetic code, it would only affect future development.
Don’t get me wrong, it would be a big change with complex effects, and it may not be possible. But we can already do some gene editing in vivo with CRISPR, so it doesn’t seem impossible in principle.