I was, because you stated later that you had assumed it was about Jews!
how does that make it rhetorical? is everything about jews rhetorical? what’s the logical leap you’re doing there?
Let me spell out the train of thought for you:
You said something vague and sarcastic about celebrities. I think, “is this like some weird hollywood jew conspiracy? no, it can’t be, I’ll just ask, surely she’s a nice philosophical person who’s down to clearly communicate, i can just ask her what she means.”
So then I ask instead of assuming. That’s what you’re supposed to do.
If you aren’t down to clearly communicate when someone asks you to, tell me now. It seems like maybe you aren’t.
This is ridiculous. If you had already made your assumption then yes, it would be rhetorical.
And I’ve never once seen you arguing with the likes of Satyr or MrA when they spew their ‘Jewish conspiracy’ blood libels on a daily basis. How are ‘they’ being 'philosophical? Yet you take exception to one sarcastic comment?
No, i ask to correct an assumption. That’s one of the great uses of questions.
Satyr spends 90% of his time on this forum banned. By me. Because he just posts racist memes half the time instead of engaging in discussion. Mr A is illiterate.
I take exception to you refusing to clarify when asked. Funnily enough, if you had clarified and it turned out it WAS about jews, that would be.. distasteful, but a million times less distasteful than just refusing to clarify at all. At least when you clarify what you’re actually saying there’s a discussion to be had.
I suppose I was just caught off guard that someone would actually not know what it meant. I would have thought that explaining it in detail was a tad insulting, like a comedian explaining each joke to his audience.
You keep saying this. You don’t need to say it anymore. Next time you’re sarcastic and someone asks you to unwrap your sarcasm, don’t be shitty about it, just do it.
Of course.
That transwomen do not pose a particular threat. Sexual assault in women’s prison is a problem with prison.
This is incorrect, partially because you took an LLM at its word without reading its sources, and partially because you misread what the LLM said.
This article appears to be the source of the 97 sexual assaults number. That Guardian article states that “in 2019 there were 163 transgender prisoners in England and Wales”, and that “of the 163, 34 were held in women’s prisons.” This appears to be drawn from the same source as the 129 number, which I take to be this report on sexual assault by transwomen, which cites it as the total number of transwomen in prison, not the total number of transwomen in women’s prison. That fact is clearer if you look at the source the report cites for its figure, page 14. But it isn’t clear what that report (co-written by anti-trans activist Kathleen Stock) means by “transwomen”, because the 129 number seems to be the number of transgender prisoners in male prisons, most of whom identify as male (id., page 15).
That report cites to UK Ministry of Justice ‘Safety in Custody’ data, which does not appear to differentiate by trans status in its published data. The Guardian article cited above points to a court case which also notes the 97 number, but further finds that “of these, it seems that 7 were committed by transgender prisoners without a [gender recognition certificate].” While the court notes that," it is not known whether any were committed by transgender women with a GRC", the Guardian article helpfully adds that “the number of transgender prisoners with a GRC across all jails is thought to be in single figures”.
Naturally. The laws we’re talking about make it illegal for him to use the men’s locker room. So he either breaks the law and uses the one he “naturally” should use, or complies with the law and uses the one where he clearly doesn’t belong and will upset people and get the cops called and have to prove to the government the shape of his genitals at birth.
These thoughts should go together.
How people “look and act” is the de facto standard that will be applied to determining whether they belong in a particular space (because people who don’t look and act like women will “naturally” look like they don’t belong). i.e., how a person looks and acts is what we generally accept as proof of being an avid practitioner of a particular gender.
I’m torturing the metaphor, but it gets at a truth worth noticing. I understand that you want to make it possible to kick out and punish boys doing an Animal House-style panty raid in the ladies room, but there’s nothing about letting Vivian Wilson use the women’s bathroom that would prevent that. With a person like Vivian Wilson, you have every reason to believe that they are sincere and not pretending to be transgender as a pretext for some ulterior motive. That’s the same standard you point to favorably in the case of religious exemptions.
A point that is going to keep coming up is that we disagree on what the status quo ante was. I contend that before the right started making trans bathroom use a wedge issue, trans people used whatever bathroom they were comfortable using and it was not a problem.
Transwomen weren’t invented in the last decade, and there weren’t transwomen in the men’s room before that, so it seems like that they’ve been using the women’s room the whole time.
I think you’re wrong about that too. If you know otherwise, share the law you have in mind, but I would guess that it was mostly silent on men in the women’s room, and instead relied on general laws against harassment and assault.
Looks like it’s starting 13-15, when kids are going through puberty; most common 16-17, as kids start to assert independence and self-identity; and continuing 18-29 as people actually gain financial and social independence. And we don’t see a lot of transitioning in older people because they’ve already mostly settled into a social identity. Seems … expected?
I don’t know if it matters, because I know it’s just words, but as all we have between us in this context is words: I’m neither a woman nor trans, but I care about the rights of both, and trans rights do not supersede women’s rights. I take that seriously, and it’s my intention that nothing I’m arguing for in this thread entails otherwise.
I do understand the gender critical perspective on gender, and I agree with a lot of it. But many of the most outspoken representatives of that camp really do hate men for being men, and that hatred leads them astray on human rights more generally.
Rape already happens between the same sex in prison. You don’t think that would increase if you allow this? Until they solve the problem of rape happening in prison, they should not be mixing the sexes. This is asinine.
Any evidence for that? As far as I am aware the entire movement is about keeping women’s spaces for women. That’s it. Why would you be against that?
I can’t believe you guys are still arguing about this when this was the perfect reply and it should’ve been left at that:
1 Like
You seem confused
That was a rather humorous deduction. So you relegate the responsibility to the institution itself instead of the nature of the individuals?
You mean just like the people who want safe and secure bathrooms?
Also: I dont buy it. Every rape and assault committed by a “transwoman” inside women’s prisons has happened because they have been allowed into said space. Every. Each. One.
You can easily deduce this by the simple fact that they would not have had an option to do this, had they been not moved there.
Seems to be the case. I spent the better part of an hour trying to find related numbers but have only encountered categorical refusal on the system’s part to even collect statistical data on trans perpetrators.
There are statistics of course on trans victims inside prisons but for some rather curious reason nobody wishes to touch the subject of trans women committing crimes.
The only statistic which was thrown up over and over again was the disproportionate amount of sexual violence related sentences in regards trans individuals. Supposed over 70% of them are in there for sexual crimes.
Though its a moot point either way.
Especially after you articulated that you think its a prison issue in your opinion.
Apparently for a prison it works just fine when trans individuals are given separated cells?
If a law acts on looks, that law is simply bad.
No. This is absolutely incorrect.
The direct translation of this into the religious example would be that its enough for you to show up somewhere in traditional buddhist wear to get passed off as a buddhist for your exception.
That is nonsense. Proof and evidence of higher standard would be demanded cause nobody cares what it “looks like”. Do they apply their faith, do the practice their faith, do they partake in their faith.
In case of a trans person, the most obvious choice and example of this would be transitioning.
I.e. Nobody can question the trans nature of the individual if they had decided to have their genitals changed.
Society and laws do not function based on impressions and sincerity.
If it did, we’d have no laws because we’d be all believing in human kindness and goodness and how we shouldnt expect our fellow humans of having bad intentions. That scenario would be probably a rather spectacular blood bath.
There is a LOT to say about that topic as well.
And no, this is not a question of status quo. There is a clear demand for change. Who is the party demanding the changes and who is the party which would need to accommodate said changes?
In the usa Chapter 149, Section 133 of the Massachusetts General Laws was about the first law that prescribed gender segregation in bathrooms. This was in 1887 and it was based solely on sex.
In the following years the remaining states adopted this as a standard till 1920 when the uniform building code was accepted.
Other countries have similar laws.
What exactly seems expected about a chart that encapsulates trans identity as a social contaminant perpetuated via infecting children?
Again there is a hard distinction coming off of this chart and that distinction is between gender dysphoria and the utter disease that is “trans”.
One is a state. The other is something (mostly) children are groomed into.
People have huge contempt for you when you say there are no women in religion or partisan American politics.I encourage you to keep posting so people can see hate and gay conservatism up close.
I have no clue what you are on about. Are you suggesting I’m religious and American? A 'gay conservative? Oh never mind. If that’s what you are saying then you can neither read nor write so there’s probably not much point.
Perhaps a visit to Specsavers would be in order for those who ‘can’t tell’.
And those are only photos. Imagine what these beasts are like in real life, thundering into women’s toilets and changing rooms where there are women and children at their most vulnerable.