I don't want women in men's bathrooms because they are slow and there is always a line in their bathroom. That's the only reason and a big one for me.
My trip to Montreal I found a few women in the men's bathroom. This local told me they were Coke Whores. This doesn't bother me but dudes competing in women's athletes does. It's not right for the real women athletes.
I have no bias’ against coke whores in the men’s room
“I’m not a biologist,” she said, as if one needed to be a professional scientist to know basic biological facts.
So what are those "biological facts" than this author claims to know? Can SHE give a scientifically accurate definition of a "woman"? What is IT?
Does she claim people with ovotesticular syndrome do not exist?
Does she claim a woman is someone born with an ovary? Does that mean any person born with a testes is a man?
Does she know that some people born with testes have been treated as women for centuries before anyone ever heard of "gender theory"? Does she think it was wrong, and now we should start treating them as "men"? Does she think women will be "erased" unless we start treating those people as "men"?
No, we don't need more people like JK Rawlings. We need more people like Ketanji Brown Jackson. She doesn't have the scientific expertise to correctly define a "woman." And neither does Rawlings.
So suppose we have more people like Rawlings, and only a person with ovary can be considered a woman.
Does that mean someone with CAIS will have to use the men's restroom? Does she also have to change in the men's locker room? But why? Because her chromosomes should determine which facility she should be allowed to enter?
How is that different for someone with PAIS, Swyer syndrome, 5-ARD and all other 46XY DSD? What are the reasons they have to be excluded from the women's restroom or locker room? Because they don't have ovary? Or because they have testes? What if they surgically removed testes? Should they still be banned?
How is that different for a post op trans woman? If Kim Petras was in a women's restroom, would anyone notice she is trans, unless they recognize her as Kim Petras? How about in a locker room? Does she belong in a men's restroom or a locker room?
If sex is binary based on gametes (or chromosome) alone, then there is a clear-cut answer to all of the above, some of which contradict with what has been done for centuries.
Will women be "erased" unless we enforce the rigid binary view of biological sex on all aspects of human life? That had never been done in human history. Does that mean "women" never existed?
So suppose we have more people like Rawlings, and only a person with ovary can be considered a woman.
Does that mean someone with CAIS will have to use the men's restroom? Does she also have to change in the men's locker room? But why? Because her chromosomes should determine which facility she should be allowed to enter?
How is that different for someone with PAIS, Swyer syndrome, 5-ARD and all other 46XY DSD? What are the reasons they have to be excluded from the women's restroom or locker room? Because they don't have ovary? Or because they have testes? What if they surgically removed testes? Should they still be banned?
How is that different for a post op trans woman? If Kim Petras was in a women's restroom, would anyone notice she is trans, unless they recognize her as Kim Petras? How about in a locker room? Does she belong in a men's restroom or a locker room?
If sex is binary based on gametes (or chromosome) alone, then there is a clear-cut answer to all of the above, some of which contradict with what has been done for centuries.
Will women be "erased" unless we enforce the rigid binary view of biological sex on all aspects of human life? That had never been done in human history. Does that mean "women" never existed?
T. Verbosa has a simple answer to such complicated questions, which I think means people just intuitively and informally select their bathroom of comfort like they’ve been doing for centuries just like they intuitively know to right-drive and not mow down pedestrians, children, muppets, chihuahuas, lamp posts, phone booths,, horse carriages, milkmen, bagpipers, drag queens, kittens, mittens, platypuses, etc., so it looks like a rare point of agreement of both principle and implementation has been reached in this ideological debate.
—
”When we get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, we all know which side of the road to drive on and nearly all of us manage to keep to the correct side without being told constantly to "stay in your lane" by law enforcement officers. We don't need police offers riding shotgun, sitting in the backseat, or blowing whistles, holding up signs, and shouting and gesturing at us from the outside in order for us to follow the basic traffic laws and social conventions we picked up by osmosis growing up long before we took a driver's ed course and got our licenses.
When we're behind the wheel of a car or truck, none of us needs constant reminding to remain on the road instead of jumping the curb and riding roughshod all over the sidewalks, lawns, parks, playgrounds, fields - and plowing down pedestrians, prams, pets, cyclists, street vendors, skateboarders, roller bladers, strollers and joggers in the process.”
Do people "instinctively" know whether to drive on the right or on the left? If so, why do they drive on the right in some countries, but on the left in other countries? Are they genetically different in different countries? So if someone from the US goes to Japan, does he "instinctively" drive on the right and get arrested? Or does he pay attention to the local traffic rule and drive on the left?
Be whatever ya need to be, ibentify as whatever you want, no problem. The problem is thinking a male can compete vs females in sports, that just won't work.
Be whatever ya need to be, ibentify as whatever you want, no problem. The problem is thinking a male can compete vs females in sports, that just won't work.
Good, sounds like everyone is coming around to agreeing bathrooms are much ado about nothing, and that people should just be able to choose the bathroom of their comfort like always.
“I’m not a biologist,” she said, as if one needed to be a professional scientist to know basic biological facts.
So what are those "biological facts" than this author claims to know? Can SHE give a scientifically accurate definition of a "woman"? What is IT?
Does she claim people with ovotesticular syndrome do not exist?
Does she claim a woman is someone born with an ovary? Does that mean any person born with a testes is a man?
Does she know that some people born with testes have been treated as women for centuries before anyone ever heard of "gender theory"? Does she think it was wrong, and now we should start treating them as "men"? Does she think women will be "erased" unless we start treating those people as "men"?
No, we don't need more people like JK Rawlings. We need more people like Ketanji Brown Jackson. She doesn't have the scientific expertise to correctly define a "woman." And neither does Rawlings.
Univariate fallacy: the false belief that if there is not a single variable that distinguishes categories from one another, those categories do not exist.
The only way to solve this is to vote Republican in 2024. While the train crisis was happening, Brandon tweeted that he is trying to make tickets cheaper. He’s said nothing about out of control crime plaguing certain cities, inflation, and enemy aircraft in American airspace.
“I’m not a biologist,” she said, as if one needed to be a professional scientist to know basic biological facts.
So what are those "biological facts" than this author claims to know? Can SHE give a scientifically accurate definition of a "woman"? What is IT?
Does she claim people with ovotesticular syndrome do not exist?
Does she claim a woman is someone born with an ovary? Does that mean any person born with a testes is a man?
Does she know that some people born with testes have been treated as women for centuries before anyone ever heard of "gender theory"? Does she think it was wrong, and now we should start treating them as "men"? Does she think women will be "erased" unless we start treating those people as "men"?
No, we don't need more people like JK Rawlings. We need more people like Ketanji Brown Jackson. She doesn't have the scientific expertise to correctly define a "woman." And neither does Rawlings.
Univariate fallacy: the false belief that if there is not a single variable that distinguishes categories from one another, those categories do not exist.
Then please either present your multivariate truism that categorizes every single human or acknowledge that there are exceptions to any rule. Friction is always at the borderlines, so saying that most people have no trouble categorizing most people is both true and meaningless.
Univariate fallacy: the false belief that if there is not a single variable that distinguishes categories from one another, those categories do not exist.
Then please either present your multivariate truism that categorizes every single human or acknowledge that there are exceptions to any rule. Friction is always at the borderlines, so saying that most people have no trouble categorizing most people is both true and meaningless.
No. You're muddying the waters to make your position appear deep. You use the existence of very rare sexual developmental disorders to argue not only that the basic binary sexual reproductive mechanism in human beings (and many other plants and animals) is not binary when it is, but also that this mechanism somehow does not apply to people who clearly belong in either of the two sex categories (the vast, VAST majority of people).
You cannot grasp the significance of Marinov's analysis of "borderlines," aka people with disorders of sexual development, because you confuse reproductive value as determined by the capacity for an individual to pass on their genes (or not) with philosophical liberalism, the idea that all human beings have inherent value regardless of whether they reproduce. What's more, you cart out these liberal axioms (are you sAyInG TnAns pEoPle don't deServe to be fReE and HaPpY?!!!) to support a philosophical standpoint (queer theory) that is explicitly geared toward deconstructing social systems grounded in liberalism.
Human sexual development is a complex multivariate phenomenon that nevertheless unfolds in a predictable way for nearly all human beings. This binary pathway of sexual development is essential to reproduction in human beings. People whose development deviates from this pathway, such that they productive neither sperm nor eggs, cannot reproduce. There ARE exceptions, but these exceptions prove the rule.
Be whatever ya need to be, ibentify as whatever you want, no problem. The problem is thinking a male can compete vs females in sports, that just won't work.
Good, sounds like everyone is coming around to agreeing bathrooms are much ado about nothing, and that people should just be able to choose the bathroom of their comfort like always.
Why would any male not be cool enought to realize he has no business in a females bathroom where is that common sense? I gotta be honest all the guys I know all my buddies won't be cool with guys hanging around their daughters bathrooms.
Once others are involved in when we are going to have problems with the trans thing. Some guy in a bathroom with my wife wlll not work.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Then please either present your multivariate truism that categorizes every single human or acknowledge that there are exceptions to any rule. Friction is always at the borderlines, so saying that most people have no trouble categorizing most people is both true and meaningless.
No. You're muddying the waters to make your position appear deep. You use the existence of very rare sexual developmental disorders to argue not only that the basic binary sexual reproductive mechanism in human beings (and many other plants and animals) is not binary when it is, but also that this mechanism somehow does not apply to people who clearly belong in either of the two sex categories (the vast, VAST majority of people).
You cannot grasp the significance of Marinov's analysis of "borderlines," aka people with disorders of sexual development, because you confuse reproductive value as determined by the capacity for an individual to pass on their genes (or not) with philosophical liberalism, the idea that all human beings have inherent value regardless of whether they reproduce. What's more, you cart out these liberal axioms (are you sAyInG TnAns pEoPle don't deServe to be fReE and HaPpY?!!!) to support a philosophical standpoint (queer theory) that is explicitly geared toward deconstructing social systems grounded in liberalism.
Human sexual development is a complex multivariate phenomenon that nevertheless unfolds in a predictable way for nearly all human beings. This binary pathway of sexual development is essential to reproduction in human beings. People whose development deviates from this pathway, such that they productive neither sperm nor eggs, cannot reproduce. There ARE exceptions, but these exceptions prove the rule.
Sounds like you don’t have a delineation mechanism that actually works, what with saying a lot words but seemingly not disagreeing with anything I actually said.
I went to a hotel sauna in Germany. I was mandated to expose my genitalia to women (all) in the sauna, otherwise I could not enter. The women were mandated to do the same.
I went to a hotel sauna in Germany. I was mandated to expose my genitalia to women (all) in the sauna, otherwise I could not enter. The women were mandated to do the same.
Is that a problem that we should solve?
Should we invade Germany to free them of such practice?
I went to a hotel sauna in Germany. I was mandated to expose my genitalia to women (all) in the sauna, otherwise I could not enter. The women were mandated to do the same.