It's simple! (to be or not to be revisited)

[dybmh]

Sorry, I missed that - where was that? thanks

Apologies. I wasn't clear.

OK, how about this?

I should have written: "I have an idea. How about this instead of what's in the document you posted? I'm curious what you think of it."

There's a legal definition which is determined by a range of hormone levels. It's objective. Measurable. It's simple. And that's the topic of the thread.

I should have written: "Hypothetically, what if there's a legal definition which is ... "

Sorry. I posted in haste.

 

[VoidCat]

@icehorse a thought occurred to me
Women's spaces need protecting? OK why? Fear of sexual assault? How do we prevent instead of responding after a crime has been committed? How do we make all spaces safe for women to the point the wouldn't have to fear any man? Sure they can have their own spaces but how do we make men not threatening?

Making the laws you propose doesn't solve the wider issue of sexual assualt

 

[icehorse]

Apologies. I wasn't clear.



I should have written: "I have an idea. How about this instead of what's in the document you posted? I'm curious what you think of it."



I should have written: "Hypothetically, what if there's a legal definition which is ... "

Sorry. I posted in haste.

No worries!

Perhaps, but using hormones might introduce a host of new problems. I don't know much about how prior use of hormones would affect new measurements?

 

[icehorse]

@icehorse a thought occurred to me
Women's spaces need protecting? OK why? Fear of sexual assault? How do we prevent instead of responding after a crime has been committed? How do we make all spaces safe for women to the point the wouldn't have to fear any man? Sure they can have their own spaces but how do we make men not threatening?

Making the laws you propose doesn't solve the wider issue of sexual assualt

Agreed that this single measure doesn't entirely solve the problem of assault. But we have many safeguarding laws in place that make things better, if not perfect.

 

[VoidCat]

Agreed that this single measure doesn't entirely solve the problem of assault. But we have many safeguarding laws in place that make things better, if not perfect.

But your measure harms other people and does nothing to address the bigger issue.

How does making a law preventing bio men from bathrooms help? Seems like a bandaid

 

[icehorse]

But your measure harms other people and does nothing to address the bigger issue.

How does making a law preventing bio men from bathrooms help? Seems like a bandaid

How does it harm anyone, these buildings all have unisex restrooms?

And zooming out, there are many recorded cases of men posing as women assaulting women in women-only spaces. This doesn't cure that, but it helps reduce it.

 

[VoidCat]

How does it harm anyone, these buildings all have unisex restrooms?

And zooming out, there are many recorded cases of men posing as women assaulting women in women-only spaces. This doesn't cure that, but it helps reduce it.

Imma put you back on ignore. Not cuz of this conversation. Not to show hostility. I only took you off to try and show you an inkling an idea to mull over. And maybe get some insight.

Its not you. I try to ignore a lot of users that post a lot lgbt stuff and look at their messages when I'm in a good mindset to as this forum allows for you to look at ignored content. It gets tiring to talk about trans stuff and sometimes I'm not in a good headspace.

Cheers.

 

[Revoltingest]

@icehorse I'm telling you it's frustrating bathrooms sometimes. Trans people are not the enemy. We just want to pee in peace. Most of us just go to what we look the most like.

Perhaps you don't understand their concern.
An unknown number of un-named trans women
are using women's lavatories at an unknown
frequency unknown to cis women, who are
"uncomfortable" knowing that this unknown
number of unknown un-named trans women
just might could possibly be in the contiguous
stall.
Such discomfort is of paramount concern,
more so than your right to peepee in peace.
Strong measures must be taken...perhaps
like those in the movie, Gattaca, to prevent
"in-valids" from entering areas reserved
for valids, eh.

 

[icehorse]

Imma put you back on ignore. Not cuz of this conversation. Not to show hostility. I only took you off to try and show you an inkling an idea to mull over. And maybe get some insight.

Its not you. I try to ignore a lot of users that post a lot lgbt stuff and look at their messages when I'm in a good mindset to as this forum allows for you to look at ignored content. It gets tiring to talk about trans stuff and sometimes I'm not in a good headspace.

Cheers.

I thought we were having a civil exchange of ideas, ah well.

 

[GoodAttention]

They can tell me "who they are" all they want to. But a new bill protecting women's spaces will be introduced in the next day or two. Below is an excerpt that includes proposed definitions for biological sex, female, and male.

I think these definitions are quite good, and when it comes to safeguarding laws the best I've seen:

Punitive and moronic.

Make unisex facilities legal, that’s it.

 

[icehorse]

Not where I live. Very few of those regarding bathrooms. If I go to go in public I usually just go to which bathroom looks most like how I'm dressed. Get weird looks in both bathrooms and been told in both bathrooms I'm in the wrong one.

I'd be kind to women. I usually am. In fact in most cases they'd probably think I'm in the wrong bathroom and point "the right one out". I'm just pointing out the definiations are flawed. The problem isn't women thinking I'm in the wrong bathroom it's the fear mongering that I'd cause problems in said bathroom just cuz I look different and got to pee. And fear mongering that men are going into women's bathrooms pretending to be women as if a sign and law is going to stop a predator dressed like
a guy or girl from raping someone so we must stop trans people from using bathrooms.

Somehow this post escaped me, my apologies.

Well this gets to the "punching up" vs. "punching down" idea. In general "punching up" is viewed as okay and "punching down" is viewed as bad. We love seeing youngsters compete well against adults, but we wouldn't stand for adults competing in little league, correct?

So from a purely phsyical perspective, men are typically stronger than women. And men have a lot more testosterone and that makes them typically more dangerous than women.

Why would we when we can't even use the bathroom without either breaking the law, scaring people due to fear mongering or putting our own safety at risk?

To me this is an excellent case in point. From what I'm gathering here, you feel that using a men's restroom could put your own safety at risk, am I getting that correct?

 

[VoidCat]

Somehow this post escaped me, my apologies.

Well this gets to the "punching up" vs. "punching down" idea. In general "punching up" is viewed as okay and "punching down" is viewed as bad. We love seeing youngsters compete well against adults, but we wouldn't stand for adults competing in little league, correct?

So from a purely phsyical perspective, men are typically stronger than women. And men have a lot more testosterone and that makes them typically more dangerous than women.


To me this is an excellent case in point. From what I'm gathering here, you feel that using a men's restroom could put your own safety at risk, am I getting that correct?

I see I put you on ignore too early. Back off of it now. No. Going to the men's or women's could put my safety at risk

A woman who is transphobic could just as much harm me as a man who is. I've seen videos and heard stories of women and men alike harassing transpeople in bathrooms tho how common that is in real life idk.

 

[icehorse]

I see I put you on ignore too early. Back off of it now. No. Going to the men's or women's could put my safety at risk

A woman who is transphobic could just as much harm me as a man who is. I've seen videos and heard stories of women and men alike harassing transpeople in bathrooms tho how common that is in real life idk.

Well statistically, a male attacker is more likely and more physically powerful, but i get your point.

And I also understand that transphobia exists. What I think will fail is zero-sum solutions. The issue here is that there are a LOT of male predators who will and are taking advantage of this situation. Isn't it the case that something like 90%+ of adult trans women have their male genitalia intact? So how are we to know whether a man in a dress is a predator or an innocent trans woman? How are my daughters to know?

It would be great if the world was equipped with more unisex public restrooms. But we are where we are. Asking ALL women and girls to not be afraid of men in dresses is just not likely to happen. And so I think anger towards trans people will increase if trans women make a big deal out of using women's restrooms. It's not fair, but I think it's reality.

 

[crossfire]

"Hatred >>> is becoming >>> Delusion"

How is it recognized? What are the signs?

Dukkha/suffering/unhappiness are what comes from it. You have to do some soul searching to find the cause and end it.

 

[dybmh]

Dukkha/suffering/unhappiness are what comes from it.

I'm looking for something a little more ... actionable.

You have to do some soul searching to find the cause and end it.

Because it's a systemic problem, I think it makes sense to look beyond the individual soul for a root cause.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From now on, please refer to me as Rabbi.

No, for two reasons:

1. I know what you are.
2. I respect the title.

 

[dybmh]

No, for two reasons:

1. I know what you are.
2. I respect the title.

Congratulations, you've adopted the reasoning of a transphobe.

 

[dybmh]

I know what you are

A trans-woman tried to enter a woman's rest room; she's prohibited from using it. Why?

"I know what you are. You're not a woman"

 

[dybmh]

I respect the title.

"I will not use your preferred pronouns. I respect the title."

 

[dybmh]

No...

... political progressives will not recover from their loss to Trump for a long long time, because they can't be consistent in what they say and do.