The costs of trans visibility

jfc man...

semantics aside, are you wholly unaware that the murder rate of sex workers is astronomically high?

these incidents have been posted ad nauseum in the other deleted threads

this is the smoking gun though, girl was sexually assaulted by a cisgender male student in a skirt in the female bathroom (school had choose your own bathrooms policy and he was convicted) and the school attempted to cover it up because they were worried about the optics it would give the open bathroom policy so her family sued the school for 30 million and won

school was more concerned about how this would look for bathroom policies than the fact that one of their students was raped in her female bathroom by a male student

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education...

You aren't reporting this accurately.

Nobody is claiming that straight cis males won't commit sexual assaults - they will. However, sexual assaults are illegal and proper legal procedures must be followed. We have laws for that purpose. Innocent trans people not committing sexual assaults don't need to be made additional victims.

Hmmm, that 30 mil lawsuit was only filed in October of 2023, how was it already won?

I guess rickroll still doesn’t let the facts get in way of a good argument.

you're hung up on red herrings, whether or not he was trans or wearing a skirt, he was perfectly within his rights to be in that bathroom based on school policies

i just re-read it, this is the only instance in which skirt shows up in the article so i have no idea where your refutation of it came from and furthermore, having found no evidence of it doesn't mean it didn't happen and frankly, that's what the victim claimed and the assailant was convicted

so i guess you're calling her a liar, that she made it up to own the libs? got traumatically raped and just decided to lie and include that he had a skirt on for the lols?

but most importantly, again, this could have probably been prevented if that male wasn't so comfortable being in the women's bathroom in the first place, that was assuredly not his first time in the bathroom, likely been using them for an extended period, grew comfortable in it, and grew more adventurous

Isla Bryson springs to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryso....

Also a predator posing as a transgender woman raped a female inmate in Rikers
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigation...

It's not rocket science. If you allow anyone to use female spaces (either by making them unisex or opening them up to males who claim "trans" identity), then that is going to be abused by bad actors. That's why it needs to be restricted.

Even accepting that the vast majority of "transwomen" are completely ethical and pose no risk to anyone, they should still use the bathroom or changeroom corresponding to their biological sex, for the simple reason that it is an EXTREMELY MINOR INCONVENIENCE compared to the cost of exposing females to an elevated risk of sexual abuse.

yeah it's pretty apparent that quite a few people have lost all objectivity that they are so zealous and intransigent that they'd prefer collateral damage of women being sexually assaulted

and remember, we're all disgusting hateful people here in their eyes and they are paragons of virtue, don't forget that

You need to realize trans rights trump women's rights

Its like not realizing in a American Medical system some doctors are going to see this as cash cow

I directly quoted rickroll who initially wrote "history" and then in a subsequent post "long list." When I asked after his post saying "history," I said "history." When I asked after his post saying "long list," I said "long list." If you are upset at any goalpost shifting, complain to rickroll instead of attributing bad faith posting to me. For the record, I don't believe there is any goalpost shifting going on, just him using different phrases in different posts in a rather benign manner.

Okay. We can both agree that examples for lack of a better term were asked for and examples have been provided. You're a shrink. I'm sure you've known of cases of opportunistic offenders hoping for a psyche ruling so they can go to a mental hospital instead of prison, even if you're not a forensic shrink. Such opportunists aren't indicative of those suffering from mental health issues as a whole. Same principle applies here re opportunistic predators not being indicative of the transgender community as a whole.

Rick made a claim, you asked him to share some of the history (verbatim) and I provided some history. It is a valid claim even if within the grand scheme of things isn't the be all/end all of trans related issues.

gangsta, i genuinely thought you were trolling the first time you asked for it because many posters have shared those things in the past in this and other threads

fact you're clinging to semantics of the initial post here instead of moving forward with the conversation again makes me think you're once again trolling and were never genuinely looking for said "list"

This is quite ridiculous. I don't even know what "clinging to semantics of the initial post" means. I asked questions in response to posts. Answers were provided. I have now skimmed through this thread to see if there's anything interesting or anything I have to mod. I saw a post that very much misinterpreted what I said, so that was easy to respond to. Reading these other posts will take some more thinking so I haven't responded yet.

Why do you have to assume that I'm trolling instead of that I have a life and don't remember every post made in the past? It's seriously not that hard to just start from a place of assuming that we're mostly reasonable adults.

I guess you missed the part of my post where I said I agreed with your statement when you include one night stands. I never referenced anything about murder rates of sex workers, so I dont know why you asked me that. You keep saying "semantics aside" but it makes the discussion flow a little smoother when you respond to the comments people actually write rather than things they didnt say.

there's been several posts answering your rhetorical question, you still haven't responded to any but are still just refining the question

if that's not trolling, dishonest posting, then what is

what was the genuine intent of asking that question if you suddenly ghost when you get an answer?

You still havent addressed how the new laws would have prevented this in any way. What loophole was closed. Under the new law, trans men, who outwardly appear the same as cis men, ie mens clothes, mens haircuts, etc, are required by the new laws to use the womens restroom or else they are committing a crime.

So under the new rules, cis women would be told to expect to see people who appear to be men in their restrooms, but not to worry because they are actually females. So now the cis male predator doesnt even have to put on the skirt as a disguise. He can simply stroll in wearing mens clothes because now the law requires some people who wear mens clothes to use the womens bathroom.

Seems to me that rather than closing a loophole it is creating a huge loophole.

I get busy for 1 day and you consider that ghosting? Should we all agree to not ask questions unless we can guarantee we have sufficient time to read answers in the 24 hours that follow, instead of maybe a day or 2 later?

this is basic common sense

if men can freely go into women's bathrooms without consequence they'll start feeling an ease and comfort with that over time

things develop gradually, if the initial exploratory journies into the women's bathroom had genuine consequences then they may not have been taken in the first place and/or the assailant would have been caught and disciplined to prevent that from developing

research any pedophile, serial killer, rapist, etc they always start gradually - before killing people they perhaps shot the neighborhood dogs, before raping they'd grope women on a subway, etc etc

it genuinely feels like willful ignorance to pretend like this isn't a thing and you can't open up bathrooms as playgrounds for predators

this is a bs answer, you've made several posts since people answered your questions, such as this, not one has responded to the answers

you are being extremely biased and delusional if you can't see your own behavior for what it is

So pre bathroom laws, a predator can enter a womens bathroom, dressed as a man or a woman, supposedly not raising suspicion because it's an "open" bathroom policy After the law, a predator can still enter a womens bathroom without raising suspicion because the law dictates trans men use the womens bathroom, so a cis predator need not even bother trying to disguise himself as a trans women.

IOW the new laws do nothing to keep a predator out of the womens bathroom. No loophole was closed.

again, more posting that's not done in good faith

we by and large didn't have open bathrooms in the past, this is a brand new development while you're treating it like it's been around forever

the new laws are specifically to combat the new policies - had those policies never arisen then the laws would have never been created

just like there's no laws saying men can't go to the sun, perhaps the sun may need protection at some point from men raping it, but until that becomes possible, no laws are needed to protect the sun from me forcibly sticking my dick in it

you're from the military where nearly 50% of women have reported being sexually assaulted, you know first hand what it can be like in certain environments

If you want to stop rapists in public bathrooms you could make the location of the sexual assaults a aggravating factor, like selling drugs near schools and churches or crimes using a gun.

That seems pretty straight forward compared to the suggestion that to stop cis-rapists you need to limit transgender access to certain bathrooms so cis rapists don't feel too comfortable going into female bathrooms for the purposes of raping.

Just writing this foolish notion makes me lose brain cells.

It's not just rape. Just going into a woman's changeroom as a man for sexual gratification (voyeurism) is also a crime and would be highly traumatic to many women.

Also who's talking about limiting access to bathrooms? Bathrooms and changerooms have always been segregated into male/ female, the change people are arguing for is to open women's spaces up to men who claim trans identity. The advantage of this change is that you will save genuine trans people the minor inconvenience of changing in a changeroom that corresponds to their birth sex. The disadvantage is opening up a loophole that significantly increases the risk that bad actors will sexually abuse women and girls. I believe any fair-minded person should accept that it's best to keep the traditional sex-segregation.