What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

possibly i linked the wrong SCG post.
i remembered you had mentioned something about "the sicence isn't determined yet" and a link.

yes i trust my peoples that they vetted the news
but am open to rebuttal because otherwise that owuld be echo-y-nonsense

she's married to a trans person.
good for her.
and at same time we have resident gender-fluid Bulmba who is all for cancelling wokeness.
And we got this lady jessica watkins asking MGT to save her from men's jail.

then we got black guys like clarence thomas and candace owens who sell out their peoples.


point, one person doesn't speak for the rest of the group.




BUUUUT
caveat that i do think pumping out drugs without indepth psychyairtrical care and multiple 3rd party recommendations should be necessary before entering into life altering care.
there are those who impose or imprint their desire to "find the diamond" or "white saviour" they create a problem that isn't there.




SOOO
have any of her claims been validated?




https://www.breakpoint.org/from-gender-clinic-caseworker-to-whistleblower-jamie-reeds-story/

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/08/trans-jan-6-rioter-is-begging-marjorie-taylor-greene-to-get-her-into-a-womens-prison/

I just linked an article that validated many of her claims.

Also, Sam Seder has agreed to correct the record on that video. lol Your people did not vet the news. They don't do that. They just regurgitate whatever the socially acceptable line is. They're not journalists.

Who are your peoples? And who do they think is a liar? Emma Vigeland is reading an email from a viewer. Which has about as much weight as a post on the FES.

I will assume your peoples are "The Majority Report" and "this lady" is Jamie Reed.

The person they are referring to with OCD didn't have gender dysphoria. He threatened to "self-harm" his genitals after he masturbated. He was sent to the gender clinic and prescribed hormones to reduce his libido and sexual arousal. You'd think Emma would have read the affidavit before calling Jesse Singal a transphobe for having the opinion that maybe this person shouldn't be treated at a gender clinic. ALSO, the person who sent the email hasn't got a clue how OCD is treated. The patient should never be encouraged to focus on their obsession. (yes, I saw clips of the video a few days ago on Twitter).

Perhaps the NYT are also your peoples?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/transgender-youth-st-louis-jamie-reed.html

https://archive.li/2023.08.23-101453/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/transgender-youth-st-louis-jamie-reed.html

Quote

The reality was more complex than what was portrayed by either side of the political battle, according to interviews with dozens of patients, parents, former employees and local health providers, as well as more than 300 pages of documents shared by Ms. Reed.

Some of Ms. Reed’s claims could not be confirmed, and at least one included factual inaccuracies. But others were corroborated, offering a rare glimpse into one of the 100 or so clinics in the United States that have been at the center of an intensifying fight over transgender rights.

They investigated her claims.

I find the effort to smear Jamie Reed as a transphobe terribly funny. She identifies as "queer" and is married to a transman. I will never understand why people who pretend to be trans allies aren't upset that trans people (especially teenagers) are not receiving proper care. Anyone who doubts affirmation only treatment is immediately called a far right fascist. It's the weirdest thing since the Satanic Panic.

Unless it promotes the gender agenda, it is anti-lgbqtlmnop...

Here's one of kabool's peoples on Twitter acknowledging she didn't read anything, while still being terrible about it https://twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1696236944869462206?s=20

It's all upper middle class virtue signaling. They have all these luxury beliefs because they can't imagine how much it harms the people beneath them.

I just linked an article that validated many of her claims.

Also, Sam Seder has agreed to correct the record on that video. lol Your people did not vet the news. They don't do that. They just regurgitate whatever the socially acceptable line is. They're not journalists.

correct.
they are NOT journalists
they are OP.
much like all of MSM "news".

just a bunch of "in todays paper" trying to have sex [fk] with us.

just like TYT i don't really listen to much of their commentary.
but i just like them to feed me the news that wouldn't otherwise get to me.





i didn't see Sam say he'd update the video.
YT didn't tell me what to think/ shake fist at yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/transgender-youth-st-louis-jamie-reed.html

https://archive.li/2023.08.23-101453/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/transgender-youth-st-louis-jamie-reed.html

Quote

The reality was more complex than what was portrayed by either side of the political battle, according to interviews with dozens of patients, parents, former employees and local health providers, as well as more than 300 pages of documents shared by Ms. Reed.

Some of Ms. Reed’s claims could not be confirmed, and at least one included factual inaccuracies. But others were corroborated, offering a rare glimpse into one of the 100 or so clinics in the United States that have been at the center of an intensifying fight over transgender rights.

i can't open NYT

but i can on face value agree with the quoted statement.
EXCEPT
MR says otherwise.


so i will accept it as neutral that no one is right, and won't someone think of the children.



[edit EmmaV says she didn't read it?   gaaaaaaah]

I understand following people to hear about news you wouldn't otherwise, but there's no way I would ever judge something "neutral" just because some podcasters disagree. Someone is right, and it's not Emma.

neutral as in i need to hear someone else say more info to know who's right

vague "some and some" is not really definitive of malice.

and i agree if the MR discredits her as serial liar then it is also not definitive given the above vagueness.

so neutral.
i neither believe nor not believe.


reed is only right if she's right which is TBD.
and i'm already leaning toward 'agree' as per my earlier caveat.

i mentioned this because you mentioned it.
just a discussion and i appreciate your providing additional info (that i couldn't read beacuse i'm cheap)

I notice you yet again entirely ignored the simple questions about exclusion.

Again, do you accept it is exclusion?
If not, do you then claim that a school for white people is not exclusion because other people can go to other schools?

If not, WHY?

yes we were discussing chess.

Yes, including you objecting to the idea of it being segregated based upon sex.
Even though the elite males will likely be better than the elite females.
While the average female is better than the average male, and the low ranking female is better than the low ranking male.

But because this can have the implication that women are dumb or aren't smart enough to play chess at an elite level, you seem to not like it.

I don't think it should be segregated.
They already have an ELO system to determine ratings and can use that to divide categories.

so i bring it back to why, if women are better in the middle, are more men in middle?

Because more men play chess.

and if the same reasons for more men in middle, does that mean there're similar reasons why more men at top?

No. The distribution is different.

equity vs equalty

vs sexism.
You keep leaving that one out. I wonder why?
Again, what you are promoting is not equity. It is sexism pretending to be equity.
If you want to promote equity you do it based upon the individual merits of the people, not their sex.

dissonance on 1 vs 3?

Yes, you do appear to show dissonance there.
Opposed to sexism segregating chess, but happy for it in sports.
Conversely, I oppose sexism in both.

you just pointing out you believe men are naturally better.

No, I don't.
I accept the data which indicates the highest ranked are males. But that if you were to take a random female and a random male, either could be better.

But again, we aren't focusing on this elite bracket.
We are focusing more on the lower bracket. A bracket which will naturally include men and women, based upon their individual ability. But you want to exclude the men.
And yes, it is exclusion, as they are being excluded.

understanding that men have an inherent +15% advantage?

No, they don't.
Again, you are being sexist and treating a much lower ability male the same as an elite male.

repeptive nonsense if you can't figure out how to say something new.

I will keep saying the same things until you can come up with a rational argument against it.

Apparently one simple aspect is so damaging for your position you feel the need to entirely ignore it.
Again, if it isn't exclusion to keep people other than women out of that division, would it be exclusion to keep people other than white people out of a division, or out of a school, etc?
If your justification is that there are other divisions for them to compete in, then the same applies.

i remembered you had mentioned something about "the sicence isn't determined yet" and a link.

The science on gender dysphoria in general, and especially on treatment, isn't determined yet.
Primarily because so much of it is based upon emotion rather than logic and evidence.

e.g. One article I read studied the brains of heterosexual males, heterosexual females, male to female trans people regardless of sexual preference and female to male trans people regardless of sexual preference.
Their finding was that for several of the studied measurements of the brains it was a spectrum with males on one end, females on the other, and trans in between. But what they don't both emphasising is that male to female trans people are on the male side while female to male trans people are on the female side. Instead, they just say that it indicates trans people have brains more aligned with their gender identity.
They also skipped over one result which would indicate male to female trans people are more male than heterosexual males.

neutral as in i need to hear someone else say more info to know who's right

vague "some and some" is not really definitive of malice.

and i agree if the MR discredits her as serial liar then it is also not definitive given the above vagueness.

so neutral.
i neither believe nor not believe.


reed is only right if she's right which is TBD.
and i'm already leaning toward 'agree' as per my earlier caveat.

i mentioned this because you mentioned it.
just a discussion and i appreciate your providing additional info (that i couldn't read beacuse i'm cheap)

I wonder why you can't open the archive link. Is it because of your phone?

Im home now


Archive worked.


Looks like my office wifi security was blocking it


Itbalso blcoks twitter
So i now get to read emmas thing.

From unherd:

"Last week, the New York Times reported that gender surgeries almost tripled between 2016 and 2019. That includes over 27,000 operations to amputate or simulate breasts, over 16,000 genital surgeries, and over 6,000 facial surgeries. Almost 8% of patients undergoing gender surgeries were 18 or under.

These numbers, researchers point out, are almost certainly an undercount.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s latest standards of care lists 54 potentially “gender-affirming” operations patients might undergo — from hairline advancement to upper lip shortening to calf implants. Brow lines and jaw lines can be reduced or augmented. Nipples can be kept or removed. The penis can stay but a neovagina, lined with colon tissue, can be added. Patients can even opt to cut everything off and be as smooth and unreal as a Ken doll.

Since such cosmetic interventions can only imitate the appearance of the opposite sex, that means there’s no end to the procedures patients and their unscrupulous surgeons can pursue. Sure, you’ll never become, but you can always keep trying!

This is where gender dysphoria starts to look a lot like body dysmorphia. Address one “problem area”, and the dysphoria doesn’t resolve: it migrates. Patients and surgeons end up playing a macabre game of whack-a-mole. As dysphoria migrates across the body, new markets for surgical intervention open up. And because surgery will never turn a male into a female or a female into a male, the market for body modification is bottomless.

Plastic surgeons are meant to screen out patients who have impossible expectations for cosmetic interventions. But take away the impossible expectations and transition falls apart.

Some of these surgeries have horrifying complication rates, like phalloplasties. But medical complications can be reframed as opportunities, too. When Vanderbilt University’s Clinic for Transgender Health opened its doors in 2018, one physician pointed out: “Female-to-male bottom surgeries… these are huge money-makers.”

As the number of detransitioners and regretters rise, “gender-affirming” clinicians must improvise to protect their revenue streams. They wax lyrical about “gender journeys” and shift to the slippery language of “embodiment goals”, which can always change. The target of surgical and hormonal interventions becomes whatever a patient desires today. The possibility that a patient’s desires may shift tomorrow — or curdle into regret — is no cause for concern.

Last year two of the US’s leading gender clinicians, Johanna Olson-Kennedy and Jack Turban, contributed “dynamic desires for gender-affirming medical interventions” to the Newspeak dictionary. “Dynamic desires” means medical harm and regret. For Olson-Kennedy, the answer to surgical regret is more surgery. When asked about the possibility of regret and detransition, she mused: “What does that actually mean? Does that mean that someone has additional breast tissue that they would not want at a later point? But they could get that breast tissue removed if they absolutely need to.” Or maybe a patient had her breasts removed but “if you want breasts at a later point in your life, you can go and get them”.

This is an alarmingly casual attitude toward major elective surgeries. But it’s also a sign of the times. Everything is loosening and rolling downhill in one direction: toward ever more cosmetic interventions on healthy human bodies in the name of making the outside match the inside — whatever that means.

Nonbinary patients — who might have avoided surgical interventions in favour of blue hair dye, personal “flair”, and interpersonal tediousness — chase an androgynous form that never existed in nature. There are even young people who shed their trans identities but insist on going through with “top surgery” or hysterectomies.

In other words: it’s customise-your-meatsuit-o’clock. We’re normalising extreme body modification and the justifications (extreme distress, suicide prevention) are starting to fall away, replaced by a fatuous language of self-actualisation that hides its contempt for human limits under the whimsical dressings of gender play."

eek!  Just been reading up on Johanna Olson-Kennedy - the doctor who thinks you can pop your breasts on and off, no problem.  She's fucking nuts.  Her youngest patient is 3! And she reckons 18 month olds know their gender identity

The youngest patients receive no medical interventions, just counseling. Olson-Kennedy describes one 18-month-old, born a girl, who understood her gender before her grammar. “I a boy,” she repeatedly told her parents.

Yeah, or maybe she didn't understand and just liked saying shit that made her parents react.

I'm trying to remember if Olson-Kennedy is the one who said if a baby boy unsnaps his onesie that means he might be a girl, and if a girl baby pulls out her barrettes that means she might be a boy. Like a baby knows what a skirt is, and like barrettes aren't uncomfortable.

There are a bunch of loons driving this ideology, and there are a bunch of predatory plastic surgeons taking advantage. There used to be a TV show called "Botched" which was about botched plastic surgeries, I wonder if there will be a new one in 5 or 10 years where plastic surgeons try to fix the mess some incompetent surgeon made.

Essentially, all of it boils to down a relatively small segment of the worldwide populace trying to cram some goddamn bullshit down some throats. JB, shifter, and some of the mods here.

It wasn't Olson-Kennedy involved with the Satanic Panic, it was Diane Ehrensaft. She also believes in "gender angels". Total quack, and she is the mental health director at UCSF Child and Adolescent Gender Center.

Also, this article is about the NYT article. It's a good read https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-times-downplays-st-louis-gender-medicine-scandal

I'm trying to remember if Olson-Kennedy is the one who said if a baby boy unsnaps his onesie that means he might be a girl, and if a girl baby pulls out her barrettes that means she might be a boy. Like a baby knows what a skirt is, and like barrettes aren't uncomfortable.

Though of course there is nothing inherently feminine about skirts or hair clips - it is completely cultural.  I wonder what she'd make of a super macho viking warrior with his braids, makeup and hair clips?  Or a legionnaire in his skirt?

   

She'd probably the claim  "A ha!  This shows how prevalent transgenderism was historically."    As she is clearly an idiot.

I notice you yet again entirely ignored the simple questions about exclusion.

Again, do you accept it is exclusion?
If not, do you then claim that a school for white people is not exclusion because other people can go to other schools?

If not, WHY?

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

yes we were discussing chess.

Yes, including you objecting to the idea of it being segregated based upon sex.
Even though the elite males will likely be better than the elite females.
While the average female is better than the average male, and the low ranking female is better than the low ranking male.

But because this can have the implication that women are dumb or aren't smart enough to play chess at an elite level, you seem to not like it.

I don't think it should be segregated.
They already have an ELO system to determine ratings and can use that to divide categories.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

so i bring it back to why, if women are better in the middle, are more men in middle?

Because more men play chess.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

and if the same reasons for more men in middle, does that mean there're similar reasons why more men at top?

No. The distribution is different.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

equity vs equalty

vs sexism.
You keep leaving that one out. I wonder why?
Again, what you are promoting is not equity. It is sexism pretending to be equity.
If you want to promote equity you do it based upon the individual merits of the people, not their sex.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

dissonance on 1 vs 3?

Yes, you do appear to show dissonance there.
Opposed to sexism segregating chess, but happy for it in sports.
Conversely, I oppose sexism in both.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

you just pointing out you believe men are naturally better.

No, I don't.
I accept the data which indicates the highest ranked are males. But that if you were to take a random female and a random male, either could be better.

But again, we aren't focusing on this elite bracket.
We are focusing more on the lower bracket. A bracket which will naturally include men and women, based upon their individual ability. But you want to exclude the men.
And yes, it is exclusion, as they are being excluded.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

understanding that men have an inherent +15% advantage?

No, they don't.
Again, you are being sexist and treating a much lower ability male the same as an elite male.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 08:11:24 AM

repeptive nonsense if you can't figure out how to say something new.

I will keep saying the same things until you can come up with a rational argument against it.

Apparently one simple aspect is so damaging for your position you feel the need to entirely ignore it.
Again, if it isn't exclusion to keep people other than women out of that division, would it be exclusion to keep people other than white people out of a division, or out of a school, etc?
If your justification is that there are other divisions for them to compete in, then the same applies.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 11:49:12 AM

i remembered you had mentioned something about "the sicence isn't determined yet" and a link.

The science on gender dysphoria in general, and especially on treatment, isn't determined yet.
Primarily because so much of it is based upon emotion rather than logic and evidence.

e.g. One article I read studied the brains of heterosexual males, heterosexual females, male to female trans people regardless of sexual preference and female to male trans people regardless of sexual preference.
Their finding was that for several of the studied measurements of the brains it was a spectrum with males on one end, females on the other, and trans in between. But what they don't both emphasising is that male to female trans people are on the male side while female to male trans people are on the female side. Instead, they just say that it indicates trans people have brains more aligned with their gender identity.
They also skipped over one result which would indicate male to female trans people are more male than heterosexual males.

too much repetitive nonsense


exclusion
black excluded from participating in elite schools was not because they had an inherent advantage over the white students.
are you of the opinion that the reason for the exclusion was because of an unfair +15point advantage over the white students?
is that the argument you're making?

F1s barred from competing against nascars must also be unfair.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 29, 2023, 06:26:10 AM

I'm trying to remember if Olson-Kennedy is the one who said if a baby boy unsnaps his onesie that means he might be a girl, and if a girl baby pulls out her barrettes that means she might be a boy. Like a baby knows what a skirt is, and like barrettes aren't uncomfortable.

Though of course there is nothing inherently feminine about skirts or hair clips - it is completely cultural.  I wonder what she'd make of a super macho viking warrior with his braids, makeup and hair clips?  Or a legionnaire in his skirt?

   

She'd probably the claim  "A ha!  This shows how prevalent transgenderism was historically."    As she is clearly an idiot.

It wasn't Olson-Kennedy involved with the Satanic Panic, it was Diane Ehrensaft. She also believes in "gender angels". Total quack, and she is the mental health director at UCSF Child and Adolescent Gender Center.

Also, this article is about the NYT article. It's a good read https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-times-downplays-st-louis-gender-medicine-scandal

I meant to say that Ehrensaft is the onesie and barrette lady, but she pushed the Satanic Panic and repressed memory bullshit back in the 80s, too.

I don't know if she's an idiot, or insane. Maybe both! I don't understand how she has any credibility in treating anyone for anything, but especially children.

too much repetitive nonsense

Then stop repeating the same nonsense so I can stop with the repetitive calling you out on it.

exclusion
black excluded from participating in elite schools was not because they had an inherent advantage over the white students.

Notice how you accept it is exclusion.

Again, as you claim it isn't exclusion, I want you to focus on that rather than attempt to justify it.
See if you can bring yourself to accept that it is exclusion to have a category of sports for females only.

Once you do that you can start trying to justify it.
As if it isn't exclusion, why should it need to be justified?
And if that isn't exclusion because men can compete in a different division, why should segregating schools based upon race count as exclusion, when they still had schools?

Why are grown ups excluded from childrens tournaments?
Why are professionals excluded from amatuer teams?
Why are men excluded from womens washrooms?

You want me to answer why exclusion yet you DONT want to answer why exclusion exists.

Keep strawmanning your black-qhite nonesese because as-alrsady-discsussed and as evident of you kneecapping my counter question -> context matters.

Why are grown ups excluded from childrens tournaments?
Why are professionals excluded from amatuer teams?
Why are men excluded from womens washrooms?

You want me to answer why exclusion yet you DONT want to answer why exclusion exists.

Keep strawmanning your black-qhite nonesese because as-alrsady-discsussed and as evident of you kneecapping my counter question -> context matters.

I want you to start by accepting that it is exclusion.
I want you to answer if it IS exclusion, not why.
Once you can bring yourself to admit that, you can try with the justification.

Do you accept that prohibiting men from competing in a tournament by having a female only division is exclusion? Yes or no?

Correct
Un the strictest definition of the word men are excluded from womens sports.

But as a human who understands context, the 'why' IS important.



So
How does this help your argument?

Why are men excluded from little league tournmanets?

Correct
Un the strictest definition of the word men are excluded from womens sports.

Good, so you accept they are excluded, and were wrong to say they weren't, and wrong to say that because they have their own league they weren't.

Now comes the question of why? Why are they excluded, and is it justified.

You appeal to men being better.
But that is focusing purely on the elite.
There are plenty of men that are comparable to women in terms of performance.
Why should these men not be allowed to compete with other women?
It isn't because they are better or faster or stronger, and so on. They are just more male.

God you're dumb!

God you're dumb!

Better to be dumb than a sexist pig like you that feels the need to insult others to defend their sexism.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on September 05, 2023, 02:39:28 AM

God you're dumb!

Better to be dumb than a sexist pig like you that feels the need to insult others to defend their sexism.

Well, I’m happy that you are happy in your dumbness, it suits you.
28 pages of absolutely no one stepping forward and saying, hey Jacky’s got a point, why do you think that is? is everyone here a sexist pig, or is it obvious that your brand of “men’s rights” is just a thinly veiled attack on women and no one wants a part of that?

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 04, 2023, 05:23:02 PM

Correct
Un the strictest definition of the word men are excluded from womens sports.

Good, so you accept they are excluded, and were wrong to say they weren't, and wrong to say that because they have their own league they weren't.

Now comes the question of why? Why are they excluded, and is it justified.

You appeal to men being better.
But that is focusing purely on the elite.
There are plenty of men that are comparable to women in terms of performance.
Why should these men not be allowed to compete with other women?
It isn't because they are better or faster or stronger, and so on. They are just more male.

Right
There are plenty of men.
Lets bell curve and compare.



Or answer why f1s dont compete against bascars

Or why these meb dont compete at the junior level

Or why women should get mat leave

Or why womens washrooms exist

Exclusivity doesn't mean discrimination.

28 pages of absolutely no one stepping forward and saying, hey Jacky’s got a point, why do you think that is?

This is Jacky's "denpressure", except he hasn't got scepti's sense of humour.

28 pages of absolutely no one stepping forward and saying, hey Jacky’s got a point, why do you think that is?

And how long did it take for people to step forwards and say homosexuals shouldn't be murdered?
How long did it take for people to step forwards and say that black people shouldn't be treated as property?

When you are going against the status quo, most people will not support you, especially when they have been brought up in a society which normalises what is being opposed.
Modern society has been raised in a way where blatant sex based discrimination is perfectly acceptable, as long as it isn't perceived to disadvantage females.
When someone opposes such blatant discrimination, they are typically labelled sexist by actual sexists.

is everyone here a sexist pig, or is it obvious that your brand of “men’s rights” is just a thinly veiled attack on women and no one wants a part of that?

The fact you need to put men's rights in quote like that, as if men shouldn't have rights, just further demonstrates your sexism.

If it was actually due to my sexism, you would be able to present a rational argument, which didn't involve fleeing from the issues raised, and you wouldn't need to resort to your pathetic insults and continued attempts to vilify.

If you need to try to defend removing sex based discrimination by calling those who oppose such discrimination sexist, it shows who the real sexist is.

There are plenty of men.
Lets bell curve and compare.

Again, if you want to have the argument that men are better so can't compete with women, then you need negligible overlap. i.e. you need the vast majority or all men to be better than the vast majority or all women.
If instead, the men just poke out a tiny bit ahead, that is not grounds for discrimination.

Especially when you know about bell curves related to intelligence/scores and don't want that to have anything which could potentially negatively impact women.

Or answer why f1s dont compete against bascars

Cars are not people. They don't have rights.

Or why these meb dont compete at the junior level

Why men? Why not just leave it as people?

But this is primarily to give little kids a chance to compete with other little kids.
But age is an incredibly poor indicator because different children develop at different ages.
So an early developing child can be a quite poor fit among their peers.

Or why women should get mat leave

I assume you mean why men shouldn't?
Because other than the name, that is a very serious question.
Especially for all the feminists complaining about all the damage a woman does to her career by having a child, and when a couple have a child typically the woman's pay goes down while the man's goes up.

In a decent society both parents would get parental leave, so both parents could look after and spend time with their child.
In a still reasonable but decent society, then either parent would be able to have parental leave, with 1 of them being able to look after and spend time with their child, while the other continues to work; with at least a short period where both have leave.

In a complete sexist society, trying to keep this sexism in force, only the woman is allowed, and typically done under the excuse that they give birth. Noting that it isn't merely women can get it, instead it is that people who give birth can. So in a lesbian relationship, only the woman giving birth is entitled to it, while the other cannot.

But what this damaging sexism does is mean that the woman is vastly more likely to take time off than the man; with this leave of absence having follow on career impacts; while the man, who is basically required to keep working or take leave without pay, will likely try to earn more money to support the family. This also results in the child typically having a stronger bond with their mother, causing more sexist damage, including having the woman more likely to take time off to take care of the child, further damaging their career.

If instead, it was available to both parents, or to either parent, a lot of that sexist damage can disappear.

So why should only women get paid parental leave?
Why shouldn't it be equally available to men and women?

Or why womens washrooms exist

Already addressed. It wasn't that separate female washrooms existed for them to keep them special. It was that original only male ones existed, because why would women need them when they were at home?
Then some were made to appease them, but kept separated so they could be at a lower standard to discourage them.
But the real question is why should they be needed?

I don't want a random man watching me pee or taking a dump next to me any more than I want a random woman to.
And I wouldn't want a random [insert sex of child] adult watching a [insert sex of child] child in a bathroom anymore than I want a [insert opposite sex of child] adult watching them.

And it leads to things like trans people being bashed regardless of what they do.

You accept them because you have been conditioned to accept this blatant sexism.
But there really is no need, and plenty of places are going to unisex washrooms.

So why should bathrooms be segregated on the basis of sex?

Exclusivity doesn't mean discrimination.

By definition, it does.
As you are discriminating between the people/groups to determine who is eligible.
The question is if you can justify it.
For example, it is discriminatory to say paedophiles cannot be babysitters, but that is justified.

This is Jacky's "denpressure", except he hasn't got scepti's sense of humour.

Instead, he has rational arguments people can't refute; with others needing to resort to insults and avoiding simple questions.
So I would say it is more all of your denpressure.