What does politically correct mean?

I've never been able to understand the spectrum argument for gender. There are literally two sexes, male and female. Within the sexes, there is the subsets of either has a penis or feels like should have a penis and has a vagina or feels like should have a vagina. Both subsets are distinctly male or female depending on which anatomy the person has or feels like they should have.

Everything else doesn't dictate whether you are a male or female. If you are a male who likes feminine things, dresses and makup for example, that doesn't make you less male (male here is the same as above either has or feels like should have a penis).  It may be less masculine, but masculinity and femininity are largely social constructs with only a few things being more biologically hardwired, such as physical strength.  To me, it seems that by giving gender a spectrum, you are giving credence to the gender norms of masculinity and femininity, which seems to fly counter to the feminist movement's goal of largely removing those gender norms of girls play with dolls and boys play with cars.  Now it seems like it's arguing, yes girls play with dolls, so a girl who plays with cars is neither a boy nor girl.  The article SCG linked to puts it nicely, by saying there is a spectrum, there are now 7 billion genders, all of which are completely meaningless.  It overly complicates for no good reason.

I'm so glad I didn't grow up with all this gender stuff. I climbed trees, I played with cars, I built tree houses and forts - all things that are now considered "boy".  Back then (in the 70s) the toys weren't as badly gender segregated in the stores, either. All the girl stuff wasn't pink or some other pastel.  You could just play and it wouldn't be a reflection of some nonexistent innate gender identity.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on January 23, 2017, 07:55:28 AM

I've never been able to understand the spectrum argument for gender. There are literally two sexes, male and female. Within the sexes, there is the subsets of either has a penis or feels like should have a penis and has a vagina or feels like should have a vagina. Both subsets are distinctly male or female depending on which anatomy the person has or feels like they should have.

Everything else doesn't dictate whether you are a male or female. If you are a male who likes feminine things, dresses and makup for example, that doesn't make you less male (male here is the same as above either has or feels like should have a penis).  It may be less masculine, but masculinity and femininity are largely social constructs with only a few things being more biologically hardwired, such as physical strength.  To me, it seems that by giving gender a spectrum, you are giving credence to the gender norms of masculinity and femininity, which seems to fly counter to the feminist movement's goal of largely removing those gender norms of girls play with dolls and boys play with cars.  Now it seems like it's arguing, yes girls play with dolls, so a girl who plays with cars is neither a boy nor girl.  The article SCG linked to puts it nicely, by saying there is a spectrum, there are now 7 billion genders, all of which are completely meaningless.  It overly complicates for no good reason.

If only considering organs like breast, penis and vagina you are some what right. Except for intersexed or people born with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency a rarer condition.

You gender is the result because of enzymes, hormones,neurohormones, genes etc determining it.

People do not have the same amount of each. Little less of one and more of another you can have a person with a penis that looks feminine.  This also can affect behavior.

The truth is I behave and look stereotypically like a male not only because of society's expectations, but all that stuff running around in my body. 

If you want someone to change someones aggressiveness, how feminine or masculine they look and emotional state all you have to do is change the balance of hormones in the body.

Now just imagine  being born with sexual organs that are not quite matching your biological makeup on the inside.

That is why it is hard to define a transgender from a guy in a dress or "butch" woman.  Even amongst their selves they have trouble defining it.  Some saying only people who have had or will get sexual reassignment surgery are true transgenders.  Others saying it is when you live full time as a women even if they do not plan on getting surgery. Others say It is people who dress and present themselves in public part time.

It is simple if just looking at sexual organs.

I'm not questioning transgendered, as they either transition to or feel like they should be the opposite gender of their birth. This is still binary.  I'm saying I don't understand the gender fluid labeling, like  agender, genderqueer, bigender, etc.  These labels seem to be more about social norms associated to a gender than about actually feeling like your birth sex is wrong.

You gender is the result because of enzymes, hormones,neurohormones, genes etc determining it.

Do you have the science to back that up?  (I hate saying citations pls, but I would like to read them)


Master_Evar You disagree with GLAAD then http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Transgender (adj.)
    An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender. Some of those terms are defined below. Use the descriptive term preferred by the person. Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to bring their bodies into alignment with their gender identity. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon physical appearance or medical procedures.

You see how this includes anyone who describes themselves as trans?  They do not exclude the fetishists.

I'm not questioning transgendered, as they either transition to or feel like they should be the opposite gender of their birth. This is still binary.  I'm saying I don't understand the gender fluid labeling, like  agender, genderqueer, bigender, etc.  These labels seem to be more about social norms associated to a gender than about actually feeling like your birth sex is wrong.

The main difference is basically what they're going to do about it. They think their birth sex is wrong at least some of the time, but it doesn't automatically follow they'll be completely comfortable post-transition either.

Genderqueer and related: a constant discomfort that wouldn't be rectified by transitioning. A 'caught between' stage, if you want. You can clearly create a spectrum from the amount someone wants to transition, from someone who's perfectly comfortable in their body, through someone who might transition if the process was better, to someone who can cope with the discomfort, to someone who's uncomfortable and definitely wants to transition, to the more intense case of someone who desperately wants to transition and can't stand the dysphoria (and mirrors of all of those things for the cisgender side). Genderqueer would be somewhere in the middle; if they transitioned, they'd likely feel the same way. Not a perfect description, but a good enough visualization.
Bigender, genderfluid and related: their identity isn't fixed. If you accept people identifying as male, and identifying as female, it's not much of a stretch to acknowledge some people might lean more one way on some days, and another on other days.
Plus there's the colloquial genderfuck and related (with a slight overlap with agender etc) of people who genuinely do just reject the notion of gender and are relatively comfortable in their bodies, but want to make a statement against the concept of gender.

That sounds more like a trans spectrum vs a gender spectrum.  To be clear, I'm saying a trans person regardless of intent to transition or not is still the opposite sex. 

Regarding bigender, let's go with a locker room example since that's relatively easy. So a bigender person would be allowed into a women's locker room one day and a men's locker room the next?  I need to read up on this labeling more prior to accepting it as a valid gender (anatomical) issue vs a gender norm issue.

As for the genderfuck and other non genders, that's purely a stance against social norms vs anatomical gender. You can buck the male-female system we have all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those are the 2 genders which exist. Ironically, they are probably doing more to solidify social norms for genders by labeling themselves in such a way than if they would just go about their business without the label.

A lot of the genderqueer/bigender/pangender are females.  I do think it's a rejection of social norms, because society has normalized the abuse of women.

If anyone has traveled around Europe and ask around they will notice the transgender using restrooms is not a hot topic like it is in the US.

BHS keeps talking about experience in real life.  I have known 2 transgender people well in my life.  Have traveled to most countries in Europe.  The whole bathroom thing is not as big an issue in Europe as it is in the US.

Transgenders use the restrooms and there is not a increase of assault in the restrooms. Society did not collapse.  Europe is moving more and more to unisex restrooms.

The examples I have seen mainly given by people opposed to transgenders using the bathroom have been about crossdressers trying to work the system.  Not people living as full time as women.

SO my question is if things are going well in Europe and there were no increases in assaults of women in the restrooms what is different in the US?

I have no issue with a unisex bathroom, I have said that a few times. People know the risks in there, it is what it is. Male, female, unisex...Easy. As you said, this is done elsewhere without issue. I don't know why that is so difficult here?

Though what I have been arguing with Jane this thread is mental stability...what you have been presenting is how some women are more prone to men's behaviors and vice versa. That is all fine and dandy. Tom boys and feminine men have been around for centuries. There was still a male and female...Just a different choice of life decisions. That is much different than this ridiculous issue of being able to state your gender..Forcing people to accept it...Forcing laws and effecting others minding their own business and so forth.


When feelings and wishes become more important than reality and facts such as Jane's world I am always speaking about..That is when things start to fall apart.

Just random example, the military..You have all these detached idiotic liberals only focusing on gender and sexual preference. This over the military strength itself, or their safety. When you are a team, you are only as strong as the weakest link... I for damn sure would not want a weak link being let in just because of some P.C. crap. Wanna be stupid and get yourself killed, fine....But when your weakness can cause death to others on your team, that is where the line must be drawn. We all must live in reality...


And on a side note...Why are feminist so damn determined to get women in the front lines of the military? Do third wave feminist truly hate themselves and others that much? With few exceptions, men are built for combat more so than women, not to mention, despite being built with a genetic disadvantage, just having female Anatomy is a disadvantage.

Ever wonder what would happen to a female prisoner of war in the middle East?? Russia? Etc? Why would you fight to send women there? If you have "privileged" males willing to do it..Let them?

Women can absolutely help during war time...Just look at world war two even..Way before women's lib and everything else, they had a major impact on our war time efforts..All this while still being at the safety of the home front...

I just don't get it? To me this just seems another prime example of putting P.C. and "ideas" ahead of reality. As well as make me think modern feminist actually hate women...Along with about everything else.

That sounds more like a trans spectrum vs a gender spectrum.  To be clear, I'm saying a trans person regardless of intent to transition or not is still the opposite sex. 

You can mirror it easily enough. Assuming you're male, if you woke up tomorrow in a typically female body, how would you react? Measure yourself on the trans spectrum, and you get a cis spectrum. It's less exact, because it's hard to fully imagine situations like that, but it gives an idea of the spectrum.
It obviously joins with the trans spectrum at the perfectly genderqueer point; the people no more comfortable at one pole than they would be at the other.

Regarding bigender, let's go with a locker room example since that's relatively easy. So a bigender person would be allowed into a women's locker room one day and a men's locker room the next?  I need to read up on this labeling more prior to accepting it as a valid gender (anatomical) issue vs a gender norm issue.

Ideally, yeah, though there are obviously people who'd take issue with that. There's not too much to know about it beyond the fact gender identity usually fluctuates; it's similar to genderfluid, to the point that they're synonyms in some cases, though genderfluid people can also have a situational-based identity. That is, specific things trigger an association with one gender over another. (Eg, sex, for a common one).

As for the genderfuck and other non genders, that's purely a stance against social norms vs anatomical gender. You can buck the male-female system we have all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those are the 2 genders which exist. Ironically, they are probably doing more to solidify social norms for genders by labeling themselves in such a way than if they would just go about their business without the label.

They're the two poles of physical sex which exist, but an identity is an identity, independently.

A lot of the genderqueer/bigender/pangender are females.  I do think it's a rejection of social norms, because society has normalized the abuse of women.

That might be a factor, but there's also toxic masculinity; it's a lot harder for a guy to be openly androgynous than it is for a girl, because femininity gets demonized all too often.

Quote from: Woody on January 23, 2017, 09:38:40 AM

You gender is the result because of enzymes, hormones,neurohormones, genes etc determining it.

Do you have the science to back that up?  (I hate saying citations pls, but I would like to read them)

One example I can give is look at what happens to people receiving hormone treatment and seeing the changes in their appearance without surgery.

For male to female they grow breast, lose muscle density, become more emotional, loss of sex drive.

For female to male breast reduce in size, a gain in muscle density, become more aggressive and increased sex drive.

While that is an example of artificial interference the same can happen naturally just in the vast majority of cases not as dramatic.

Men can get a condition called  gynecomastia which happens when either their body does not  produce enough testosterone and/or produces too much estrogen. It means they grow boobs.

As I pointed out in previous post a male born with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency will not grow a penis or have a hybrid sexual organ until they hit puberty. When that happens enough testosterone is produced to finish the job.

The existance of intersexed people also supports the biological cause for gender identity. 

Here is a link:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

"In a study ...., psychologist.. and biologist...used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women.  ....found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of their experienced gender. The results were less clear with the prepubertal children."

There are species that change their sex when it is called for. That is accomplished by changing the balance of enzymes and hormones in their bodies.

Yes some men out there do put dresses on as a fetish. I gave an example in an early post of one I knew of personally.   There are also people who go through life never feeling comfortable as the gender their genitals and society say they are.  Which I have known two in my life rather well. 

Quote from: DuckDodgers on January 23, 2017, 10:44:19 AM

That sounds more like a trans spectrum vs a gender spectrum.  To be clear, I'm saying a trans person regardless of intent to transition or not is still the opposite sex. 

You can mirror it easily enough. Assuming you're male, if you woke up tomorrow in a typically female body, how would you react? Measure yourself on the trans spectrum, and you get a cis spectrum. It's less exact, because it's hard to fully imagine situations like that, but it gives an idea of the spectrum.
It obviously joins with the trans spectrum at the perfectly genderqueer point; the people no more comfortable at one pole than they would be at the other.

Quote

Regarding bigender, let's go with a locker room example since that's relatively easy. So a bigender person would be allowed into a women's locker room one day and a men's locker room the next?  I need to read up on this labeling more prior to accepting it as a valid gender (anatomical) issue vs a gender norm issue.

Ideally, yeah, though there are obviously people who'd take issue with that. There's not too much to know about it beyond the fact gender identity usually fluctuates; it's similar to genderfluid, to the point that they're synonyms in some cases, though genderfluid people can also have a situational-based identity. That is, specific things trigger an association with one gender over another. (Eg, sex, for a common one).

Quote

As for the genderfuck and other non genders, that's purely a stance against social norms vs anatomical gender. You can buck the male-female system we have all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those are the 2 genders which exist. Ironically, they are probably doing more to solidify social norms for genders by labeling themselves in such a way than if they would just go about their business without the label.

They're the two poles of physical sex which exist, but an identity is an identity, independently.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 23, 2017, 10:50:29 AM

A lot of the genderqueer/bigender/pangender are females.  I do think it's a rejection of social norms, because society has normalized the abuse of women.

That might be a factor, but there's also toxic masculinity; it's a lot harder for a guy to be openly androgynous than it is for a girl, because femininity gets demonized all too often.

It seems like you're talking about gender identition while I'm talking about anatomical gender. For the gender fluid people, is it like they identify as a female during sex, but as a male while working out? Something along those lines? I'm still struggling to understand how someone can have a fluctuating gender dysphoria where they legitimately feel they are male or female dependent on the situation. A case like that would seem much more likely to involve societies perception of how the person should act because of their expressed gender.

Master_Evar You disagree with GLAAD then http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Quote

Transgender (adj.)
    An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender. Some of those terms are defined below. Use the descriptive term preferred by the person. Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to bring their bodies into alignment with their gender identity. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon physical appearance or medical procedures.

You see how this includes anyone who describes themselves as trans?  They do not exclude the fetishists.

Except for wether it's an umbrella term or not, this is what I said. "people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth."
i.e. they cannot identify themselves with their biological sex.

As I said, it neither excludes nor includes fetishists in any specific way.

And it doesn't affect my other argument(s), which I see you're not answering to.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 23, 2017, 09:55:49 AM

Master_Evar You disagree with GLAAD then http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Quote

Transgender (adj.)
    An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms - including transgender. Some of those terms are defined below. Use the descriptive term preferred by the person. Many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to bring their bodies into alignment with their gender identity. Some undergo surgery as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and a transgender identity is not dependent upon physical appearance or medical procedures.

You see how this includes anyone who describes themselves as trans?  They do not exclude the fetishists.

Except for wether it's an umbrella term or not, this is what I said. "people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth."
i.e. they cannot identify themselves with their biological sex.

As I said, it neither excludes nor includes fetishists in any specific way.

And it doesn't affect my other argument(s), which I see you're not answering to.

What were your other arguments? This thread has gone on for awhile, instead of insinuating that I'm purposely not answering your arguments, you could just restate them.

The existance of intersexed people also supports the biological cause for gender identity. 

I haven't got time to look up the actual study that article is based on at this moment (I will, though). I do know that the whole male/female brain thing has been debunked and is considered neurosexism. 

I just wanted to say that the existence of intersex people does not support gender identity, and intersex people do not appreciate having their conditions used as an argument in trans debates. This is referred to as COINing (co-opting intersex narratives).

I can argue with Jane till the end of time (or until she gains actual real world wisdom)... However...That will accomplish nothing. She knows what I think of her and I know what she thinks of me.

Anyone have any options to actually fix things??

I say just stop talking about it....

In the US everything is equal at least in rights and freedoms...So go, do something with your life and shut up about the rest.

Stops racism...Just call each other by name and the individual you are, not by skin color.

Women are different than men...So be it..Accept it, everyone use their positive attributes to the best of their ability.

If a dude wants to be a woman or vice versa or an attack helicopter...So be it, it's their choice, let em go...Just shut up about it.

Long story short ...Just shut up about the useless stuff!!! It gets us no where and puts problems where their are none. Creates failure where there would not have been or gives people excuses( such as fake oppression) instead of making them focus on why they failed. A very valuable tool in success actually.

So in short...Shut up!! Let's talk about real things like curing viruses, cancer, energy issues, fiscal responsibility etc etc etc.


Otherwise we are gonna have Sweden's "gender oppressed snow plow Fiasco" (sorry master-evar lol)...Or I am gonna yell at the little old lady who asked me to get something off the top shelf for her, she is a bigot...She assumed since I am 6'4 I should get that item for her..

I have no issue with a unisex bathroom, I have said that a few times. People know the risks in there, it is what it is. Male, female, unisex...Easy. As you said, this is done elsewhere without issue. I don't know why that is so difficult here?

Though what I have been arguing with Jane this thread is mental stability...what you have been presenting is how some women are more prone to men's behaviors and vice versa. That is all fine and dandy. Tom boys and feminine men have been around for centuries. There was still a male and female...Just a different choice of life decisions. That is much different than this ridiculous issue of being able to state your gender..Forcing people to accept it...Forcing laws and effecting others minding their own business and so forth.


When feelings and wishes become more important than reality and facts such as Jane's world I am always speaking about..That is when things start to fall apart.

Just random example, the military..You have all these detached idiotic liberals only focusing on gender and sexual preference. This over the military strength itself, or their safety. When you are a team, you are only as strong as the weakest link... I for damn sure would not want a weak link being let in just because of some P.C. crap. Wanna be stupid and get yourself killed, fine....But when your weakness can cause death to others on your team, that is where the line must be drawn. We all must live in reality...


And on a side note...Why are feminist so damn determined to get women in the front lines of the military? Do third wave feminist truly hate themselves and others that much? With few exceptions, men are built for combat more so than women, not to mention, despite being built with a genetic disadvantage, just having female Anatomy is a disadvantage.

Ever wonder what would happen to a female prisoner of war in the middle East?? Russia? Etc? Why would you fight to send women there? If you have "privileged" males willing to do it..Let them?

Women can absolutely help during war time...Just look at world war two even..Way before women's lib and everything else, they had a major impact on our war time efforts..All this while still being at the safety of the home front...

I just don't get it? To me this just seems another prime example of putting P.C. and "ideas" ahead of reality. As well as make me think modern feminist actually hate women...Along with about everything else.

Unisex bathrooms are becoming more common there, but places where they are not available women are not being attacked more frequently than the places they do.

I am focusing on the biological part because Jane is focusing on the social part.

If you read my post above this one you will see a link mentioning a study done using an MRI and monitoring brain activity.  The subjects that reached puberty had brain activity matching with the gender they identified with when responding to olfactory stimulus.  The younger children who have not reached puberty results were inconclusive.

Thee argument seems to be do we force transgender women to use a restroom that will put them in the same danger you claim CIS women will face.

Actually statistically they will be in more danger.

Transwomen have a 1-12 chance of being murdered.  Everyone lumped together have a 1-18,989 chance.

Sexual assault is also much higher for transwomen.

I will acknowledge the skewed statistics are likely the result of transgender people having a more difficult time finding employment thus leading them to make a living via alternative means.

Looking at people that would also likely be making an alternative living they have around a 1-100 chance of being murdered.

So do we just say since they are a small % of the population, that there is no real evidence attacks will increase in women's restrooms(see Europe), but some guy will break laws regarding assault already made we will put these people in more danger than the people we are trying to protect?

Also having served most women in the military I have met agree if they can not meet the requirements of an infantry soldier they should not be able to be in the infantry.  Which is actually the only MOS that the average woman would have difficulty with.  They just want the ones that can do the job to be able to do if they choose.
That is actually what I find most women want.  Not being just allowed to do something because they are women, but having the same opportunity to do it if they could perform the job.

Quote from: Woody on January 23, 2017, 11:43:07 AM

The existance of intersexed people also supports the biological cause for gender identity. 

I haven't got time to look up the actual study that article is based on at this moment (I will, though). I do know that the whole male/female brain thing has been debunked and is considered neurosexism. 

I just wanted to say that the existence of intersex people does not support gender identity, and intersex people do not appreciate having their conditions used as an argument in trans debates. This is referred to as COINing (co-opting intersex narratives).

I said supports because people are born intersexed and they can appear either more masculine or more feminine depending on all the stuff flowing around the body that helps determine that.  It also shows gender or sex is not always just a binary thing.

Since if you have breast or not, be traditionally more feminine or masculine in appearance or behavior and who you are attracted to is not just the result of what is between your legs.

Your argument is it is a response to social factors which for some it just might be.  Mine is there is also a biological reason for people not identifying with their sex. Also that allowing them into the restroom women use will not increase the dangers women face.  It will actually put some people statistically more at risk of suffering the crimes you are are trying to prevent.

Transgender women have been using the women's restrooms already.  It is the ones that are less passable that  people are having the issues with.

It seems like you're talking about gender identition while I'm talking about anatomical gender. For the gender fluid people, is it like they identify as a female during sex, but as a male while working out? Something along those lines? I'm still struggling to understand how someone can have a fluctuating gender dysphoria where they legitimately feel they are male or female dependent on the situation. A case like that would seem much more likely to involve societies perception of how the person should act because of their expressed gender.

It seemed we were focusing on how someone identifies; that's relevant to the definitions of gender you've given. You can identify with one form of anatomy, in your description.
As far as being genderfluid goes, it's not necessarily going to be based on gender roles. One example I've heard; usually identifies as female, but is anatomically more comfortable as male during sex. You could visualize their identity is a patchwork; like someone who's bigender, they have aspects of each pole of the spectrum, it's just not universal. Maybe they prefer to relax as female, but when they talk would prefer a deeper, masculine voice.
It's not impossible for gender roles to be involved, to act as some kind of trigger, because we are shaped by the world we live in, but that wouldn't mean the identity didn't exist separately.

Unisex bathrooms are becoming more common there, but places where they are not available women are not being attacked more frequently than the places they do.

I am focusing on the biological part because Jane is focusing on the social part.

If you read my post above this one you will see a link mentioning a study done using an MRI and monitoring brain activity.  The subjects that reached puberty had brain activity matching with the gender they identified with when responding to olfactory stimulus.  The younger children who have not reached puberty results were inconclusive.

Thee argument seems to be do we force transgender women to use a restroom that will put them in the same danger you claim CIS women will face.

Actually statistically they will be in more danger.

Transwomen have a 1-12 chance of being murdered.  Everyone lumped together have a 1-18,989 chance.

Sexual assault is also much higher for transwomen.

I will acknowledge the skewed statistics are likely the result of transgender people having a more difficult time finding employment thus leading them to make a living via alternative means.

Looking at people that would also likely be making an alternative living they have around a 1-100 chance of being murdered.

So do we just say since they are a small % of the population, that there is no real evidence attacks will increase in women's restrooms(see Europe), but some guy will break laws regarding assault already made we will put these people in more danger than the people we are trying to protect?

Also having served most women in the military I have met agree if they can not meet the requirements of an infantry soldier they should not be able to be in the infantry.  Which is actually the only MOS that the average woman would have difficulty with.  They just want the ones that can do the job to be able to do if they choose.
That is actually what I find most women want.  Not being just allowed to do something because they are women, but having the same opportunity to do it if they could perform the job.

This is very reasonable and in a way what I have been attempting to say.

Level playing field...Everyone has their personal liberty, No made up oppression, no forcing your views on others and no excuses.

No getting mad if you are rejected for something such as the military for example.All the tests are the same, it would weed out the men not fit, as well as pick out the select women who are.

I would be fine with this existence...Wouldn't even yell at liberals lol

What were your other arguments? This thread has gone on for awhile, instead of insinuating that I'm purposely not answering your arguments, you could just restate them.

The arguments in the same post you answered to:

Trans is not an umbrella term, it is well-defined as a person who cannot identify with their own biological sex. Fetishists are not considered trans, although a fetishist can be trans (similar to the fact that a muslim isn't defined as being a terrorist, but a terrorist can be a muslim). And I do not agree that the world has to conform to their fetish. But far from all trans people are those type of fetishists, and it's wrong to imply that as it increases the danger for them and can cause GID.

And yes, it's hard to tell the difference between a real trans person and a fake, especially if you are a restroom. It's hard to tell the difference between anything if you are a restroom. If a fetishist wanted to enter the women's restroom, they don't need the trans card. As I already told you, far from all articles in your latter list reported that the criminal used the trans excuse.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 20, 2017, 02:02:45 PM

The study clearly shows transwomen retain male patterns of violence.  The transadvocate website is not a reliable source. If you can find another source that refutes the study, then I'd be happy to read it. I will automatically reject any source that refers to Sheila Jeffreys as a TERF.

Jane answered this pretty clearly.

Last one may not quite count as an argument, but middle one does. You kind of skipped answering one half of the post, and probably by choice. Maybe not because you couldn't but becasue you didn't find it worth your time or something.

It's nothing sinister. You know, sometimes when replying you focus on one bit. Or feel you've already addressed parts and don't need to hit all the points over again.

Saying that anyone who identifies as a women should have access to women only spaces makes it impossible for women to say to someone who doesn't belong to get the fuck out. Clearly there are people who shouldn't be using trans ideology to get into female spaces.  From your side of the argument I never see any suggestions on what we could do about that. It's always, well the perverts are gonna find a way in anyway, sorry for your luck.  It's like saying people commit murder anyway, why have a law against it. Do you have any suggestions that would protect women from the perverts while also allowing the true trans to pee where they want? 

Not sure why you bolded the last bit. I've argued back and forth with Jane over that study. I'm not going to pretend that the study doesn't have the exact quote that I posted. I will never considered the transadvocate as a reliable source, either. What more do you want me to say about it? If you want further conversation on the subject, add something new.

Do you have any suggestions that would protect women from the perverts while also allowing the true trans to pee where they want? 

As far as the bolded goes, do you? It's a whole lot easier for the perverts to get in when they no longer need to get made up and get a new wardrobe and go out in public that way. And on top of that, if they're willing to break the law to assault or perve, adding another broken law to the list likely won't be much of a deterrent.
The problem people have with the idea is that there isn't even a debate. Bathroom bills do not help. It's not just "They'd get in regardless," it's "They'd get in regardless and what you're proposing has no serious effect on the problem."

As far as suggestions go, punish the actions. Profiling is never the answer.

Bathroom bills are terrible, I agree. Throwing the doors open to anyone based on their identity is also terrible.  There has to be middle ground somewhere.

It's nothing sinister. You know, sometimes when replying you focus on one bit. Or feel you've already addressed parts and don't need to hit all the points over again.

I never said it was anything sinister. I just reminded you that you didn't answer my other arguments in that one post, and I felt that oy had not properly responded to them earlier.

Saying that anyone who identifies as a women should have access to women only spaces makes it impossible for women to say to someone who doesn't belong to get the fuck out. Clearly there are people who shouldn't be using trans ideology to get into female spaces.  From your side of the argument I never see any suggestions on what we could do about that. It's always, well the perverts are gonna find a way in anyway, sorry for your luck.  It's like saying people commit murder anyway, why have a law against it. Do you have any suggestions that would protect women from the perverts while also allowing the true trans to pee where they want?

The only thing that could be done is to somehow catch the perverts before they do anything, the same with crime. Ultimately we could try to stop any humans from becoming criminal, but that is unrealistic for now. My argument is that sex-segregated toilets does not stop criminals and they don't exist to "protect women from male violence".

Not sure why you bolded the last bit. I've argued back and forth with Jane over that study. I'm not going to pretend that the study doesn't have the exact quote that I posted. I will never considered the transadvocate as a reliable source, either. What more do you want me to say about it? If you want further conversation on the subject, add something new.

As I said, I was skeptical wether it's an argument or not. But in the end - the author of the study agrees with me and Jane, which means you are the one twisting it's results. You have not countered with any evidence that can stand up against it. So unless you can provide a proper source, I guess there is nothing more to say.

As I said, I was skeptical wether it's an argument or not. But in the end - the author of the study agrees with me and Jane, which means you are the one twisting it's results. You have not countered with any evidence that can stand up against it. So unless you can provide a proper source, I guess there is nothing more to say.

It's also worth pointing out that the bit SCG quotes isn't factually wrong, just the implication that's being drawn. We don't even have to go to quoting the person who ran the study: though that's certainly persuasive, we need no more source work than what the statistics themselves actually are. That's what I love about stats; the facts themselves are readily available.
Ultimately, two communities are analysed: trans women, and men. The trans community, by its nature as a marginalized group, is poorer and more prone to crime, by common sense and general knowledge. So we know that the crime rate in the trans community is higher than it might otherwise be.
The study itself could be perfectly correct, but if you want to apply the findings you need to acknowledge details like this.

Bathroom bills are terrible, I agree. Throwing the doors open to anyone based on their identity is also terrible.

Why?
At best, most of the 'middle ground' is redundant. There are already laws against the things that are actually a problem.

This is going nowhere.  We don't care about the same things!

Regarding the poorer and more prone to crime thing. Maybe that was true 15-20 years ago, it's not true anymore.  There are some interesting statistics starting on pg 23 http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf 

This is going nowhere.  We don't care about the same things!

Very little of what I've said has been focused on what I care about, it's just based on facts.

Regarding the poorer and more prone to crime thing. Maybe that was true 15-20 years ago, it's not true anymore.  There are some interesting statistics starting on pg 23 http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf

I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. I looked around both page 23 of the document and the one labelled page 23, and the best I could find was on the one labelled page 22 which mentions that only 16% of trans people engaged in underground activities for income, but aside from how the question "Have you done something illegal?" is always going to be skewed to give an answer below the result, 'underground activities' doesn't really apply to all crimes. Given the context of that question mentioned drugs and sex work, it pretty much exclusively refers to selling things (like fencing), rather than violent crime. Plus, they admit that the question was vague and working in strip clubs and even busking could have been interpreted as a positive answer. I couldn't find any clear accounts of criminal record, by ctrl-f ing 'criminal.'
Though page 6 gives accounts of police harassment, which could boost the number of convictions unfairly, and around page 163 you get a detailed account of treatment by police, where 7% of all respondents were held in jail on the basis of gender identity alone, for one example of how discrimination could be used to seriously affect rate of conviction. Sure, jail isn't prison and they wouldn't necessarily be marked by your study, but it does show that there are issues with how law enforcement interacts with the trans community. Page 164 mentions, also, that as is often observed the wealthier someone was, the less severe their prison sentence, which seems to support what I'm saying.

This is going nowhere.  We don't care about the same things!

Regarding the poorer and more prone to crime thing. Maybe that was true 15-20 years ago, it's not true anymore.  There are some interesting statistics starting on pg 23 http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf

The study was performed more than 15 years ago, so it's true for the study.

Another citation from the study:

By contrast, female-to-males were at a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls and did not differ from male controls, which suggests increased crime proneness in female-to-males after sex reassignment.

This further reinforces the argument that trans people were generally more probe to crime due to poverty - we'd expect a rise of crime on both gendera

Hey cowgirl....You know when I would go on with all the libs here and I am sure you sit back and shake your head knowing I am spinning my wheels...You are now in my situation and spinning your wheels.

You see from my arguments with Jane who only cares about echo chambers and hypothetical reasoning, yet completely rejects any real world experience in reality (unless it supports her world view), and completely out of touch with reality (either by accident or willfully) which is why I dropped out of this...You can't reason with people like that, not to mention they are extremely dangerous. Hand the keys to the devil with a smile on their face...Can destabilize counties, promote and create  demented mentalities, not to mention put people and an entire country's safety in jeopardy.

This is actually a fine example of the biggest issue with American (and other countries) governing...A bigger problem even over corruption surprisingly.

Anyways...You can't reason or talk sense into people like this on certain subjects. So I believe you are wasting your energy Madam cowgirl.


Also...Since I backed out a little while ago, I read through some and honestly, I have no idea what is being argued anymore

My argument is that cowgirl had bad and (to the trans community, and the debate overall) detrimental arguments based on stereotypes and misinterpretation of a study. And I'm pretty sure I've managed to show that it is indeed the case.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 26, 2017, 11:38:16 AM

This is going nowhere.  We don't care about the same things!

Very little of what I've said has been focused on what I care about....

Hogwash