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?
Are you suggesting that women are "men without penis"?
Can Caster Semenya enter that sauna? How about Kim Petras?
Univariate fallacy: the false belief that if there is not a single variable that distinguishes categories from one another, those categories do not exist.
Do you think "tall" people and "short" people are discrete categories? Or is it a continuum? If they are discrete categories, what is the demarcation line between "tall" and "short"?
How about "heavy" and "light"? Do they have to be disctere categories to tell the difference between "heavy" and "light" people? Do weight classes in combat sports and weightlifting reflect some biological realities about discrete differences in human weight? If so, why are they different for each sport?
Left-handed people can use their hands, whereas people who don't produce either sperm or eggs are infertile.
What does this have to do with restroom or locker room use? Do you think only people who can produce egges should be allowed to use women's restrooms and locker rooms? If so why?
Can you answer this person's question? Has she been using the "wrong" restroom for her entire life?
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.
Let me repeat my request: please write down a (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that allows anyone to categorize every human as either one or the other.
Some of us have made it plentifully clear that our policy preference is to do nothing to change the status quo: people informally choose the bathroom with which they are most comfortable, like they have been for centuries. What’s yours? If you can’t even state it, what are you even arguing so much for?
HE hadn't had surgery, meaning he still had testicles, which is the male organ and they allowed HIM into the female restroom and to compete?
Transgender Female competitors at minimum to make an argument of inclusion should demonstrate "effort" with at least completing the surgery and having testosterone in proper guidelines equal to female competitors... in my opinion, this was a man who is a cross dresser. Which is to say a man who likes to dress as a woman but is still a man!
Reality... MEN SHOULD NOT BE COMPETING WITH WOMEN.
Reality... This is not a Caster Semenya "Intersex" argument, at least intersex "i" have an argument as biological females with ambiguous genitilia which is 1-organ. This is wrong on so many levels.
this is clearly a male with male anatomy. I feel horrified for those young ladies. He still had testicles~!
Liberals="this is a complex issue. While I certainly want to make sports available for all types of people, the feelings of other athletes should be considered"
Conservative ="Wow, this is a loophople that I can use to sneak into women's locker rooms, bathrooms, etc and get my jollies"
Conservative ="Wow, this is a loophople that I can use to sneak into women's locker rooms, bathrooms, etc and get my jollies"
What the voyeur-criers don’t seem to realize is that it isn’t and has never been illegal for anyone to use women’s public bathrooms or locker rooms, just social etiquette that’s been working fine based on self selection.
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?
Are you suggesting that women are "men without penis"?
Can Caster Semenya enter that sauna? How about Kim Petras?
Everybody can enter the sauna as long as they are nude (male, female, other). That’s the rule. Every sauna in Germany is like that.
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.
Let me repeat my request: please write down a (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that allows anyone to categorize every human as either one or the other.
Some of us have made it plentifully clear that our policy preference is to do nothing to change the status quo: people informally choose the bathroom with which they are most comfortable, like they have been for centuries. What’s yours? If you can’t even state it, what are you even arguing so much for?
You are deliberately obfuscating and changing the subject.
How about you write down for me the (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that differentiates between orangutans and homo sapiens, between a pistil and stamen, a hand and a foot.
Conservative ="Wow, this is a loophople that I can use to sneak into women's locker rooms, bathrooms, etc and get my jollies"
What the voyeur-criers don’t seem to realize is that it isn’t and has never been illegal for anyone to use women’s public bathrooms or locker rooms, just social etiquette that’s been working fine based on self selection.
A “peeping Tom” who attacked a member of the East Nashville YMCA while she was inside the women’s locker room told police he did it because “he had never seen a naked girl,&…
STAFFORD, Va. (WDVM) — Brian Anthony Joe has been arrested after spying on women from the ceiling of the women’s locker room at a local gym, according to the Stafford County Sheriff’s Office.…
A North Charleston man was arrested after he was caught taking photos under a woman's bathroom stall in a plasma donation center. 26-year-old Dwayne Sumter was arrested for peeping tom. According to the incident report, on Mo...
What the voyeur-criers don’t seem to realize is that it isn’t and has never been illegal for anyone to use women’s public bathrooms or locker rooms, just social etiquette that’s been working fine based on self selection.
Let me repeat my request: please write down a (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that allows anyone to categorize every human as either one or the other.
Some of us have made it plentifully clear that our policy preference is to do nothing to change the status quo: people informally choose the bathroom with which they are most comfortable, like they have been for centuries. What’s yours? If you can’t even state it, what are you even arguing so much for?
You are deliberately obfuscating and changing the subject.
How about you write down for me the (possibly multivariate) strictly binary classification policy that differentiates between orangutans and homo sapiens, between a pistil and stamen, a hand and a foot.
Ha ha ha, the subject is bathroom use policy, and only because of your insistence, also whether sex is binary. What do you think the subject is?
What the voyeur-criers don’t seem to realize is that it isn’t and has never been illegal for anyone to use women’s public bathrooms or locker rooms, just social etiquette that’s been working fine based on self selection.
How many of those crimes could have been prevented if there had been laws to require every person to use the public restroom based on their sex at birth?
So how many of those men have claimed to "identify as " women?
It doesn't matter. The point is that there is danger in normalizing males in women's bathroons and locker rooms. The ideology you're promoting argues that any male who identifies as a woman is a woman and that there is no reason for women or girls to be concerned--that "Lia Thomas" exposing his penis and testicles in a room full of women who are undressing is no longer a crime because of Thomas' sense of self. You're so convinced that this is a right wing position that you can no longer see that you're promoting a logic that rubber stamps some of the most common sex crimes committed against women (peeping & exhibitionism).
How many of those crimes could have been prevented if there had been laws to require every person to use the public restroom based on their sex at birth?
No. That's not the point. The point is that normalizing males in women's bathrooms will increase the danger of these crimes because it basically makes them legal as long as the predator says he's a woman.
Not only this, but when predators have identifed as trans in recent years, your ideological companions don't believe the women and call them transphobes. This is what happened in the Wi Spa incident, even though the police had arresed the man involved for sex crimes several times in the years prior to his trans identification.
So how many of those men have claimed to "identify as " women?
It doesn't matter. The point is that there is danger in normalizing males in women's bathroons and locker rooms. The ideology you're promoting argues that any male who identifies as a woman is a woman and that there is no reason for women or girls to be concerned--that "Lia Thomas" exposing his penis and testicles in a room full of women who are undressing is no longer a crime because of Thomas' sense of self. You're so convinced that this is a right wing position that you can no longer see that you're promoting a logic that rubber stamps some of the most common sex crimes committed against women (peeping & exhibitionism).
You are building up a strawman here. I do not represent the invisible enemy you are fighting against. So do not attribute any position you dislike to me.
You still have not explained what you think should be the requirement for someone to use a women's restroom or a locker room. And please do not say just "women" without first defining what you mean by "women."
How many of those crimes could have been prevented if there had been laws to require every person to use the public restroom based on their sex at birth?
GD won’t answer any question when cornered into actually stating a concrete policy or position, just mumble something about how sex is a binary even though sex isn’t a strict binary because there are exceptions but they only prove the rule. And 0=1 maybe.
And also most DSDs don’t have reproductive value, so something of significance apparently follows from that observation.
How many of those crimes could have been prevented if there had been laws to require every person to use the public restroom based on their sex at birth?
As I recall the rape in the Virginia high school that was big in the news a few year back was a “gender-fluid” dress-boy assaulting a girl in the girls bathroom, for one.
So how many of those men have claimed to "identify as " women?
It doesn't matter. The point is that there is danger in normalizing males in women's bathroons and locker rooms. The ideology you're promoting argues that any male who identifies as a woman is a woman and that there is no reason for women or girls to be concerned--that "Lia Thomas" exposing his penis and testicles in a room full of women who are undressing is no longer a crime because of Thomas' sense of self. You're so convinced that this is a right wing position that you can no longer see that you're promoting a logic that rubber stamps some of the most common sex crimes committed against women (peeping & exhibitionism).
Your claim is wrong. There are laws prohibiting voyeurism and exhibitionism, but none prohibiting anyone’s use of a women’s bathroom for going to the bathroom. Lia Thomas used a locker room for the purpose for which a locker room is meant, not for exhibitionism or voyeurism, nor did Gaines accuse her of such a crime.
Not only this, but when predators have identifed as trans in recent years, your ideological companions don't believe the women and call them transphobes. This is what happened in the Wi Spa incident, even though the police had arresed the man involved for sex crimes several times in the years prior to his trans identification.
I don't know who my "ideological companions" are. Are you talking about "transmedicalists"? What you are describing is "transtrenders."
You sound like GWB who asked "aren't they all Muslims?" when he was told Shia and Sunni did not get along. Not all your "enemies" agree on everything. Something you should have probably learned before you reached adulthood.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/OC2D36TNGNEN3JY27DGYJ7KGZ4.JPG)
:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/YXDA47VTWRFCDHS2AL27S7N3BM.jpg)
