Jesus wept. Why on Earth would it be rhetorical to ask you to go back to the thing we were discussing instead of the rabbit trails you've gone off instead?

This is a shining example of you failing to follow a conversation.

In post 1360 I responded very pointedly to you, and rather than reply to that and stay on topic you've gone off on two unrelated tangents and moaned about how we go off on tangents.

This is why people are finding you insufferable.

And yet just upthread you apologized for missing one of my posts you filed to follow you insufferable nit.

You might have noticed I am trying to reply to many people at once here.

No, I do not agree with your post 1360 as my argument about Laurel or Kaitlyn that triggered all of this ongoing dispute is not about any of them specifically. I did not even know Laurel's background much, as it did not matter to my view.

My Point in Time comment stands. Bruce Jenners records still stand in the history books in Bruce's name and not Kaitlyn's name and Bruce competed as a cis male in the mens event and I think it would be wrong to change that. Asterisks it and footnote it but do not start pretending Kaitlyn competed and a transwomen competed in the sport especially when that transwomen is a changed person who would not have been able to set those records.

Your view ignores the 'trans' which speaks to an actual transition and it was the pre transition person who won.

We can certainly recognize the trans person in terms of their identity both current and past but not for rewriting actual history and records. Those are not fluid.

This isn't an apology. You said four times in a row that I was either dishonest or lying or both. I've fully explained myself. Cut the conditional "if I am inclined" BS; either you believe I was lying or you don't.

This is important because as has been repeatedly established you have a pattern of accusing people of lying in this forum. It is practically a meme at this point that you say everyone is lying. So I'm pressing you hard on this point because, in my view, it is such an abundantly clear and obvious case where I was honestly paraphrasing you using your own expressions and even then, even with the explanation, there was a torrent of accusations of lying and finally - FINALLY - the weakest of possible admissions you may have been wrong about that accusation.

Do you recognize how you are jumping to these accusations of lying and dishonesty way way WAY too easily?
This doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the above, but I contest that I was a "sloppy" paraphrase. It was obvious to me you were stating your opinion originally. I see no need for special clarification and edification about it being "in general" or not; clearly you were giving your opinion! So I reject the idea that this tiniest of hairsplitting distinctions was something to even worry about. But even if you disagree with that - and I don't care if you do - you should never be getting anywhere near close to lying.

Imagine a different version. When I gave my paraphrase, you could have said "for clarity, I was only giving my opinion!" in which case I could have said "oh I know, don't worry!" and that would be it. But when you go to the accusations of lying it shuts the conversation down for weeks at end.

Be better than this.

it does matter.

When I said it, I believed you were lying. That was my opinion on your statements and stance.

So I am not wrong to think that based on, at best your sloppy error that makes it look like a purposeful misrepresentation.

uke : says something on its face incorrect and seemingly a lie about QP

QP : that is a lie

uke: well here is what i actually intended

QP : that does not change it was wrong and others reading would take away me saying something I did not. BUt ok, at best then you were sloppy and mistaken

uke : so apologize

QP : go **** yourself. You apologize for the misrepresentation that still shows that there that others might read and take away that i said something I did not.

QP : I accept your correction and clarification but be better and this won't happen again.

It is rather disappointing - but not at all surprising - that you would be unable to apology for the egregious series of accusations of lying and dishonesty for.....uh.....well...uh.....this......nearly identically phrased paraphrase using your own exact words.
For a moment I genuinely hoped that if you paused for a moment to reflect on just how incredibly similar those two statements truly are, you would see how quickly and unjustifiably you jump off the deep end with these vapid accusations of lying.

Unfortunately, you seem to have taken a path where you are just doubling down on your accusations of lying being reasonable, refusing to apologize, and trying to pin this all on anyone but yourself. This, despite your holier-than-thou speaches about the onus on accusations:
For the record, I also don't believe you. I think when you got really really mad that I characterized your opinion as it being "wrong" just simply forgot you had used that exact word and I quoted it in the same context you used it. And when I quoted you saying it was "wrong" as well, all empty hair splits between "it is wrong" and "my opinion is that it is wrong" as if I didn't know it was your opinion was rationalized only then. Somehow, that makes the accusations of lying and dishonesty even worse.

You cut me to the quick with your scolding uke. So very uncharacteristic of you that it carries great shock and awe value.

Now on to your next thread as there are people to ooboo for and posters to scold.

Oh wait, also know the disappointment runs both ways. That you are a professor makes me fear for the profession and that all the worst intimations of the right may be more true than I thought. I am far more likely to believe them now than ever before and I feel bad knowing you are far more likely to drive someone trying to navigate this changing world towards the right as you try to root out your enemies and engage them in fights instead of seeking productive discussion and change. Sadly your 'enemy' is the guy who did not get the memo a words usage changed 5 minutes after you got it and now you get to flex your superiority and get out your brightest virtue signaling light.

You won't understand that as you do not see it but you are absolutely the worst of woke culture that we see raged about in media.

wow.

Correct. When a man brings a very young girl into the men's change/restroom she is looked at as not being able to violate the privacy of any men in there because she is not sexually aware. The girl is in the opposite room for her sex but her age and unawareness shields her. Pretty much why the adult always goes into the correct room regardless of the child's sex.


However, a transwoman with male genitalia in the women's room is basically always going to be a violation of privacy and the safe space of the room unless, I suppose, the only females in there were sexually unaware young girls such as the ones young enough to be allowed into the men's room. But that's not going to happen because those children are so young they still need a lot of help, likely from their mother or older sister. And once you'd have one sexually aware female in there it's not going to work.

I'm English, I apologise for everything. I was being polite because I didn't want you to think I ignored your post. All I expected was that if you were going to reply to two other posts of mine not directed at you to discuss some side issues that maybe you'd also reply to the one where we had a substantive disagreement given you've been moaning that it's me taking us on rabbit trails.

I appreciate that you've got more to reply to in this thread than I have, but I can't let the criticism that I force you off in other directions go. I have to point out that it's you. And if you want to do that then fine but don't complain about it as if it's others.

I don't feel like this is much more than reiterating your position, although it does entrench you further in it. The position you're stating is exactly as Gansta characterised it (which you denied): you imply there is a point in time at which an adult goes from cis male to trans woman. What I keep trying to put to you is that I don't think this would fit with even your own intuitions about the subject. To give you the analogy again, do you think Elton John was straight when he was married and then became gay after that, or do you think he was always gay and suppressed it?

I don't think performance is what makes us what we are. I don't think that if a homosexual man does a heterosexual thing like marry a woman that this makes them heterosexual. No more than if I put on a dress for the day that I become a woman and then become a man again when I take it off. There's a difference between our internal identity and our performative acts. An example here would be actors. Cillian Murphy doesn't become a gangster when he stars in Peaky Blinders. He plays a role, he puts on a performance.

Trans people are often forced into a similar performance. They play the role of a cis person because that's what society expects of them. They hide themselves because to come out is so difficult. And when they transition, they aren't transitioning from man to woman, they're transitioning socially, perhaps physically too, but not they aren't transitioning internally. They were always trans. They were always what they are now. Only the performance changes.

Perhaps that sounds too idealistic, but that's why I appeal to your intuitions over sexuality (and you could have different intuitions there, but you haven't yet acknowledged the question). And on top of that I think when we hear the stories of trans people they affirm this idea - they knew they were always "different", they thought about it a lot, they wanted from a young age to be a boy or a girl. This is recognised in psychology too, at least in my understanding. That's why there's a public debate over the puberty blocker issue, because those in the field are telling us this happens at a young age.

When we talk about Caitlyn Jenner or Laurel Hubbard there aren't two people. There isn't a pre-transition person and a post-transition person. There's one person who went through transition. That one person was always a woman even if we didn't know it and so this point in time when they were cis never happened.

When I brought up the example of children going in the opposite changing room the point of it wasn't that a 5yr old girl posed some threat to adult men. Obviously not. The example was to show that it is in fact quite common and quite normal for children to see genitals of the opposite sex in certain settings. The point being that there is nothing inherently bad about a child merely seeing a penis in changing rooms. This is something that kids already see from time to time and it's no big deal.

Given that, it becomes far less easy to empathise with a woman screaming at the receptionist that young girls saw a penis in the changing rooms. That in and of itself is simply no big deal unless you think a young girl being taken into the men's room with their father when they're too young to be unattended is going to be traumatising simply because they'll see a penis or two.

On that basis I don't see why a trans woman's presence is inherently violating the "safe space" of a changing room. Because someone might see a penis? So what?

Now if what someone wants to say is that given the attitudes of people today towards trans people that some will respond completely irrationally to the presence of a trans woman then, yes, of course. That's the problem. What I'm trying to get people to see here is that it can't be the mere presence of a penis that's the issue here. There's nothing intrinsically bad about seeing or penis or dangerous about being near one. Clearly the concerns are something else. So can you explain what that something else is that we might talk about that?

That is my opinion on Non Binary

Sorry I am not jumping aboard the train were I have to use Cis when talking about a female or woman. Just as I will not jump on the train of birther instead of mother or sibling instead of brother and sister. I understand that some words now no longer should be used. I have no issue using CIS when all the pronouns may confuse folks but otherwise nada

I am sure age does not factor into my opinion the large majority believe trans gender woman should not compete against biological woman and kids should not get puberty blocking drugs.

These are all opinions that differ from your opinions. It does mean I need to leave the discussion.

Whatever dude.

So you taking back you apology now by just saying 'I was just going thru the motions as I apologize for everything. That does not mean I meant it.'

Point stands. You are insufferable nit. You decry and insult me for 'missing' a post of yours and not replying timely when you did exactly the same just prior and apologized for doing so but now wave away that apology as if that is the issue. That if only you did not apologize or we don't take it as anything more than you just going thru the motions of being English, then somehow your point stands.

You need to get a mirror and take a long look in to it before casting such aspersions or realized the weight and worth of them is a literal zero the minute you utter them.

the bolded is where you go wrong.

You can hold a different opinion as to why YOU think it no big deal, but you cannot tell others that. You cannot speak for others there with an absolute statement like that.

That is the type of constant mistake on this forum I end up most fighting against where someone assumes 'because I hold that opinion and it makes sense to me, and I can defend it thus it leaves the realm of opinion and i can represent it as a factual statement that governs all others'.


I would likely agree with you mostly on this issue but absolutely would think it would be a big deal in certain areas that could lead to violence and likely murders if suddenly a transwoman with full male genitalia suddenly showed up in deep redneck territory and entered, for instance a changeroom that was occupied by prepubescent girls on a school trip (cheerleading team), and some fathers then confronted the trans woman.

My point is not about who has the moral high ground and is right in this scenario but again goes back to my prior point about how despite being on the side of right, in some instances the right path is still to compromise on how you introduce these changes in and force them in to society. This parallels my dispute with uke where i agree with him(?) in principle but think 'punitive damages' should only apply rarely due to the other issues that are on the tactical side of the considerations.

You must consider the time and place and find ways to break down the barriers and socialize in the changes balanced with brute forcing them in when required, in my view. All the tools must be on the table.

See this is just an example of you doing the meta without addressing the argument I've presented.

I didn't insult you for missing a post of mine. That's fine. I'm telling you that I've put the same argument to you multiple times and yet you chose to reply to two posts that weren't to you while complaining about going on tangents. It's weirdly selective of you that you read my posts talking to other people and yet simultaneously decline to pay attention to the ones addressed to you. It's the type of thing that some might consider "dishonest", but rather than level that at you I just keep asking you if we can talk about the thing that we have a substantive disagreement over.

The funny thing is that you could at any time have said "No, I don't care to discuss that", and then that would've been an end to it. Instead of saying you didn't want to discuss it you've preferred to ramble about "offence", "oobooing", misunderstanding a post in which I said I didn't call Quinn heroic, asked my views on why I think it's good for people to come out, and then thought that me asking if you can address the argument we disagreed over was rhetorical!

So I'm just going to ask you again, can we talk about the thing that we disagreed over instead of all this nothing?

It's literally an example of where that thing happens and people are fine with it.

Are you saying you don't think it's socially acceptable for a parent to take their son into the women's room and vice versa? It certainly is where I'm from.

Because this happens sometimes...

"... The example was to show that it is in fact quite common and quite normal for children to see genitals of the opposite sex in certain settings. The point being that there is nothing inherently bad about a child merely seeing a penis in changing rooms. This is something that kids already see from time to time and it's no big deal...."

... and is 'no big deal' "where (you) are from" does not mean it is no big deal in all areas of the country and in fact it might get a trans person beaten or killed in some areas.

Again, be careful using what seems justifiable and normal to you and expressing it as if the norm everywhere.

If you go back to when I raised the example I think you'll find I did caveat that it was normal when I grew up and was interested in whether it was normal for others. Nobody challenged it and more than one agreed that it is in fact seen as socially acceptable.

Which is why I asked you if you were saying you didn't think it was socially acceptable. Which I notice that rather than actually say "No, that's not normal where I'm from" you've instead taken a non-committal position that allows you to appear as though you're addressing the issue without actually doing so. It's just you lecturing me without actually stating a disagreement, perhaps even "oobooing"? Is this oobooing? Who are you oobooing for?

Any time someone can jump in and say "That's weird" but nobody has. Almost as if it is fairly typical. I don't know. I'm happy enough to say it's typical in the UK and some foreigners have nodded in agreement, so it's definitely a widespread thing that causes zero problems.

Edit: I'm actually not even sure if you realise the thing I'm saying is "no big deal" is kids going in the opposite changing room, not the presence of trans people.

WARNING: WHAT FOLLOWS IS ONE OF MY TYPICALLY GRATUITOUS, LOW-CONTENT "CONTRIBUTIONS" TO THIS THREAD:

This thread the last five weeks or so reads like an old Monty Python sketch I remember:

"We're having an argument."

"No we're not."

"Yes we are."

"No we're not; we're having a disagreement"

etc..etc...etc....


/low-content post

It's not a big concern to most people if a young unaware child briefly sees nudity of the opposite sex in a nonsexual situation(changing room or restroom). But in that case it's always the child in the opposite room not the adult. It's happened for years and many people don't consider it a problem I guess or it wouldn't be allowed at all.

However, the transwoman with a penis is an adult in the women's change room and in that case may be seen by older girls and women and many of them would be uncomfortable with that. There's a big difference between a young child seeing nudity of the opposite sex and and an older child and adult. Isn't this why the child goes into the opposite room and not the adult as I've said?

I totally agree and can only assume at this point these guys are doing this thinking they are trolling me or rustling me. There can be no doubt that on every issue argued here for pages and pages I've done more than my share of post participation. If you cannot discern my views at this point another 10 pages is not going to help. And yet these two keep reviving from the dead each and every issue and complaining I won't reply and using troll tactics to digest that means I have no answer until I reply and the argument is again fully engaged just to recycle the prior journey to no where.

And I'm fine with it. If they think they will fatigue me into submission they are vastly mistaken. But for the sake of others here who I know hate it I offer constantly the 'we can agree to disagree and move on' which they never accept.

One step at a time. The example was simply to show that a young girl seeing a penis in the changing rooms is something that already happens from time to time and is very much socially acceptable.

The example is NOT to show that this is identical to the trans issue. What it shows is that there is nothing inherently bad or damaging about seeing a penis, and not only that but this already happens all the time.

What follows from that is that it cannot be the mere presence of a penis that people are objecting to (at least not if it's a rational objection). It must be something else. The question then is, if not the presence of a penis, what's the thing you're objecting to regarding the presence of the trans woman? Because if all you're saying is "People will have an irrational and negative reaction to the presence of the trans woman" then obviously that's true, but we need to recognise that it is in fact irrational. Or if it's the case that there is some other objection then we need to put the penis thing aside and talk about that.

Than according to your position lets just have one big change room for everyone?

Any comparison of a little girl/boy going into a change room with their parent is not the same

That's what I'm trying to explain to him pretty much. If a father takes a little girl to the change room or mother her little boy the only ones in the opposite room are very young children, they are oblivious so it doesn't offend anyone.

If an adult were to take their child into the child's change room or in the case we're discussing on here a transgender is in one you then have a situation where a sexually aware person can see others of the opposite sex naked or be seen naked by other sexually aware people of the opposite sex. That is the utmost difference.

I actually think the above is where society actually will end up eventually just as you find many Bathrooms now fully open to either sex, with only the stall providing any privacy.

I think having changerooms being open use but with stalls where EVERYONE is expected to go if they get naked gets rid of this problem as it removes any and all expectations of what is normal or not in the changeroom.

The first few times i walked into such bathrooms in New York with men and women all at the mirrors and a man in one stall taking a dump with a girl in the next doing the same, i was quite taken aback by it. But then I quickly got over it. Who really cares, once you get over the initial 'this is not normal' shock.

I always find the focus of the obsession with trans people and changerooms a little...odd. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a trans person going into a changeroom. First, let's just acknowledge they risk violence and possibly even murder:
Sometimes people present the violence and "likely murders" as things when it is the trans persons fault. Perhaps there is this mental picture of the trans person whipping their cock around all around a bunch of little girls, or whatever the most extreme version of this story is where the blame is shifted as much as possible to the trans person. More likely, the trans people are extremely self conscious, the ones most likely to go to a stall to change or use a towel or avoid changerooms altogether. Nevertheless, the risk of violence and the fear that comes with it is something us cis people are privileged not to have to experience.

As a society we need to do better. We have to actively have these discussions and do everything we can to set the societal standard that trans people are as welcome in our spaces as cis people are, that the violence and risk and fear they face is something we remove by changing our transphobic culture. Instead, these conversations with some of you seem to be focus on trying more to exclude trans people.