The costs of trans visibility

I really don't think it is worth going back to, but this is the post I'm talking about. You give off zero Matt Walsh vibes, but basically the guy is a far right anti-trans agitator who made a "documentary" called "what is a woman" full of, well, uh, just read hole in wan's posts on the topic the whole thing was exactly that.

Regardless, I don't really agree with most of this post here. Lots of things like "love" in human behaviour are complex and don't have "objective" ways to independently confirm it. But so what? I'd also be ok with things like unisex bathrooms, but in the meantime I don't need some objective independent measure to figure out precisely who is and who is not a woman to assert that people who believe they are women should be allowed to use the women's bathroom.

Ok. My suggestion was that we stop centering the conversation around murdered trans victims not being victims because they are bad bad rapists. Like sure, if you pull that thread long enough you can imagine some hypothetical where an evil rapist is killed in self defense and there isn't a murder charge, but why is this conversation leading to these kinds of hypotheticals? You've jumped in late, but the usual "bad trans person of the day" narrative that we see up and down this thread is particularly acute right now.

I'm curious about what the directions are.

Can’t spoil it!

Though chilrob did one already when he was still guessing my answer: THATS CIRCULAR!!!!!!!

Yeah, that post doesn't give a definition at all, it just says that humans have sexual dismorphism and you're ok with someone choosing to switch sides. It should be clear why many people are not ok with switching sides when different rules and benefits are applied to one side.

"Love" isn't easy to define objectively, but "woman" isn't a behavior or feeling. And because love can't be objectively determined, there are no laws or rules based on it. Typically people who get married claim to be in love, but no marriage laws say they must be. Tables in fancy restaurants aren't reserved for people who are in love.

They're starting to be pretty common in businesses in Portland and Seattle. It feels a bit funny when you're using a urinal and a woman comes in, but it doesn't seem to bother them.

I mentioned looking for a good account of "non-binary." I think I found one.

https://aeon.co/essays/nonbinary-identit...

A lot if the trans movement is based on continental writers who are kind of silly. This is a good, Anglo philosopher.

I have some sympathy for the position that many social norms are capricious and needlessly confining. I was a punk/metal kid and remain a big weirdo.

I don't buy that these weirdos are special, that being one makes well off people oppressed, that we should pay tons of attention to this or alter the English language etc.

I think it's good, however, for people to explain where they are coming from so we can understand each other and treat each other better. I just don't see any argument as to why "non binary" deserves vastly more consideration than the spectrum, nudists. Vegans, or others who are intentionally or unintentionally non conforming.

Anyway, this is a good article arguing otherwise.

OK, so you do support vigilante justice, you're just too cowardly to say so.

That's silly.

I oppose the death penalty but I don't really feel bad for someone like Ted Bundy.

I don't want drunk drivers to be injured, but don't feel too bad for them if they solo crash.

Could go on forever.

the only thing trolly ever put any thought into was his username

I've seen communal bathrooms before in small offices but never one that had a urinal

friend in Seattle owns an office building, each office has its own bathroom, it's mostly small offices with single occupancy bathrooms but two floors are just one unit and have a large female bathroom on one side and a large male bathroom on the other

one of those tenants exclaimed that they wanted to convert them both to coed because some of the people wouldn't need to walk as far - he said sure, he doesn't care who uses what bathroom

tenant said great and then asked which weekend he would start construction so they would make sure nobody came in to work on those weekends, my friend was confused and asked what construction would be required and they wanted him to take out all the urinals and upgrade all the stalls to 100% enclosed

he refused, said it would cost too much to do that and would make it harder to rent because the next tenant would probably want urinals in the men's room

offered a compromise where they signed a 10 year extension (they were on year 2-3 of a 5 year lease) and paid a deposit equal to 75% of the cost of the renovations that they would only get back at the end of the 10 year extension so he had his bases covered if they left early

they refused and just covered up the urinals instead, the idea of a coed bathroom with urinals in use was just a non starter

So if you're a guy, you pee in the sink?

No, I have come out very much against some vigilante activity, including saying that both Kyle Rittenhouse and his parents should be in prison.

The unisex restrooms with urinals were not designed that way. A lot of music venues in the area have just changed the signs on the doors of the previously single sex facilities.

In at least some of the places there is now a picture showing what is inside.
The former men's room will have a picture of a toilet and a urinal and the former women's room a picture of two toilets. I assume this is mostly so women can avoid the room with urinals if they want to do so, but some don't care. I only ever went into a former women's room by mistake, but since I was already in there I went ahead and used a stall.

The one I regularly see purposefully unisex has no urinals and about 5 stalls, whose doors go both higher and lower than the typical ones which could be peeked under or over. Then the washing facilities are all in the outer chamber which has no door at all to the hallway. This should work to suppress anything inappropriate that might be attempted in a unisex washroom that was more hidden by a door. I think this is the kind of setup that should be the standard for all public restrooms in the future. They could make waiting times a bit longer for men, but personally I wouldn't miss urinals.

Just a slight urinal upgrade needed, to this one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_u...

He's just being Uke. He just dishonestly sent you searching for a definition in his post history that doesn't exist. He knows he looks ridiculous but I'm sure in his mind it's justified

Look, gender ideology is the root of all these controversies. Men in womens sports, transitioning kids, the pronoun police including the canadian human rights code, drag queen story hour, men in women's shelters, men in women's prison, etc. At the root of gender ideology is obviously some basic concepts. What is a woman? What is a man? That's 99% of the population across cultures throughout human history. Everyone understood these things. They can't even define what man or woman is now. Ok so there's also other genders. I asked to list and describe 2 additional genders and give a definition. That didn't happen either. I asked a handful of other pro trans agenda crowd and they had nothing either. This is at total, complete, and utter clown show

Now his tactic is to deflect. But Matt Walsh already asked this question. This would be irrelevant to me asking uke except it makes him look even worse. He's seen Walsh aske the question and instead of pumping the brakes and re-evaluating his own position or coming up with an actual answer, he just marches forward like a hypnotized cult member. The fact matt walsh asked the question doesn't change the fact that he or his comrades can't make any sense of the gender ideology they subscribe to. It's a feeble and transparent attempt to deflect. The next move is to keep uking people in the thread while pretending we all can't see the giant shoes and big red nose. It's just an amazing schtick

Bro. What is a woman? You stumped? OK that's embarrassing. How about demonstrating you have a shred of humility and tone down the uke o mania

Because society has rules, and decision have consequences. Whenever society makes rules that lead to less rapes and murders, that's a good thing.

If society decides that it's okay to obtain sex by deception, then that's going to lead to more rapes and more murders. That's a bad thing.

Ya bud, that's great. Nobody is proposing some imaginary pro-rape rules. I get that the bad bad trans person trope gets everyone all caught up and the idea of evil trans people going around raping people is just fodder for this, but can you maybe tone the thought experiments down a tad?

Well, you missed the key point which is that the (simple to state) concept of sexual dimorphism has led to the (complicated to state) concept of gender which is the part that trans people are identifying with.

Your objections don't really make sense. Whether some people are or are not ok with trans people doesn't make it any more or less valid of a concept. All sorts of jurisdictions have policies and laws either restricting or enabling trans people - that there may be no independent way to conclusively "objectively determine" whether someone is trans may occasionally make some legal sticking points, but this isn't some inherent flaw with the concept of trans people, it's just a reality of a messy world where all sorts of legal sticking points occur.

let's go defend rape for a few dozen posts in a row

Yet people argue people should not have to disclose their biological sex when engaging in sexual activity, which under UK law is rape.

And this is not some abstract thought experiment - people do lie about their sex in order to rape people, and get sent to prison for it.

I didn't say anything about objectively determining who is trans, but about who is a woman. Maybe a minor difference, but it seems important to me, because women are the ones special privileges and spaces are given to, not trans people. I think if special spaces were given to trans people, that would cause fewer objections.

However, except in extremely rare circumstances, I don't think there should be separate spaces for anyone. You seemed to at least agree with me somewhat in the support for unisex bathrooms. I don't think that expanding the number of people given special privileges helps progress towards the ideal of no special privileges for anyone.

Vintage uke

He might not be able to tell you what a woman is, but he can play this game all day

Congratulations