Aug 15, 2025 06:18 AM
(Aug 15, 2025 01:20 AM)Raikuo Wrote: [ -> ]So you could find ZERO examples of women exposing themselves to girls, in restrooms or locker rooms, being an issue.(Aug 14, 2025 10:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, I'll bite. Show me an example of an 18 year old female student showering with 14 year old girls being an issue.
You know, news coverage. If you can't, you're just making shit up.
Well, I can't get that specific, but similar cases do exist:
Woman records 2 children in shower arrested
Woman exposes herself to girls
Woman flashes boys while in a pool
Female teacher sexually abuses student
Woman allegedly exposes herself to teens
And this article explaining that most students don't even want to shower amongst their peers. It's old, but shows how even then nobody wanted to shower next to each other, and that getting nude was especially violating for both parties. So yes, an 18 year old female student showering with 14 year olds would still be a problem.
Recording child pornography is already a crime and did not happen in a women-only space.
Exposing yourself in a public park is already indecent exposure and did not happen in a women-only space.
Exposing yourself in a pool is already indecent exposure and did not happen in a women-only space.
Sexually abusing a minor is already a crime and did not happen in a women-only space.
Exposing yourself at a tourist attraction is already indecent exposure and did not happen in a women-only space.
Students are no longer forced to shower together, and no issue was made of one girl exposed herself to another. The only issue was making students expose themselves.
So you've wasted your time collecting irrelevant red herrings.
Quote:If you weren't dodging the question, you'd either know or could go check for yourself. You replied:(Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Since you're dodging the question, I can only assume one of those is true.
As a heterosexual male, I can identify trans women at least 90% of the time, just from a picture of their face. I assume instinct plays some role in this, as I can't always pick out a specific reason why. This correlates to studies done that show people, in general, can often identify gay men from pictures, due to subtleties in how they hold their facial muscles.
These studies have focused on very different types of sexuality cues, too. For example, people seem to be able to detect sexual orientation while listening to short audio recordings, but also while watching silent videos. In addition, they can detect sexual orientation from still images of faces that appear on a computer screen for just a fraction of a second. These wide-ranging findings suggest that gaydar can potentially pick up on everything from one’s looks to movements to speech patterns.
AI can now even determine this with 91% accuracy.
- https://kinseyinstitute.org/news-events/...gaydar.php
I gave you the answer in the previous reply, no? But if you, like the rest of the odd men and women in the transvestigation cases I listed before really feel the need to (through text) know what's in my pants specifically, that's a little strange but just say the word.
(Aug 14, 2025 07:45 PM)Raikuo Wrote: [ -> ]And before that:(Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So you are gay, trans, and/or delusional. Got it.You do know it's not really normal for anybody to see a person and immediately go, "trans", right? Especially if they aren't sexist, traumatized or obsessive.
(Aug 13, 2025 11:47 PM)Raikuo Wrote: [ -> ]I'm guessing gay, because, like MR, you seem to be wanting to make it crudely sexual when it's not.(Aug 11, 2025 09:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I'm starting to wonder if you're gay, like MR. Both of you have an appalling indifference toward women's safety, privacy, consent, feelings, etc..Lol, I said weight classes also for cis women, too, since they do get hurt by these sports too. We might as well try, and if including transwomen it would be better because they'd still be more evenly matched than a regular transwoman and a lightweight cis woman for example.
I don't care what you're packing. If your sex and/or orientation is a huge secret, by all means keep it so. God forbid I out someone from the closet.
I'll just keep presuming you have a reason to be biased against women or for trans women.
Quote:And I'm skeptical you can, as that's what every straight male thinks when they're scouting for trans people (but even a 90% rate means that there's 10% that are cis women that you're misidentifying). Does this happen in real life, or just online? Do you ask them afterwards to make sure?I've seen tons of pictures on dating apps, and at least 90% of the time I can call it before clicking the profile to verify it.
Again, your incredulity is not an argument, especially when science proves that people can tell orientation (which is much more subtle than sex) from pictures alone.
I don't misidentify cis women. I misidentify the 10% of trans that can "pass" in a single picture. Most trans women are either obviously manly or tend to be too heavy-handed with the makeup (leaning more toward drag queen than cis woman).
Quote:So you obviously don't understand consent or privacy.(Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Indecent exposure, violating privacy, violating consent. How many times do I have to say it?
Are these really that difficult of concepts for you? @_@
Not in the scenario I gave you:
Quote:But among peers, and assuming no clothing mishaps? It shouldn't be an issue. Again, it would be a surprise, but at the age you're changing with peers you should already have a basic understanding of the different anatomy of the sexes, and it shouldn't be that upsetting if the transwoman is behaving herself.
No indecent exposure there, no violation of consent or privacy either.
Being "surprised" literally means you did not consent. And being viewed by a biological male is a violation of privacy, in a women-only space where there is a legal expectation of privacy.
Quote:Citing some hypothetical bisexual that is only attracted to 1% of women is obviously cherry-picking.(Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Please learn to read. 76.7% of transgender women is a majority. Yes, lesbian and bisexual are sexual minorities among the entire populace. You're conflating that with it being a sexual minority among trans women, but it's not.
Doesn't matter how much or how often a bisexual is attracted to women. That there is any attraction means women are a "target of interest." Quit trying to weasel out of the fact.
I just said: "Trans men do pose a risk to cis women, as the testosterone for transition does give them an outsized force disparity." But trans men are not allowed in women-only spaces, even by the most leftist companies and municipalities. In light of that, trans men pose no greater risk to women than any rapist, abuser, or pervert. That have no special access to women in vulnerable places... unless they still try to pass as women too (gender fluid).
It does matter, because if she's only attracted to 1% of women, it's less likely she does anything at all in a room full of women.
But also, attraction doesn't equal an action anyway, and even if the trans woman was lusting after women, she should have that under control. Cis lesbians manage to keep it under control, trans women should be the same.
And trans men are in women's spaces for a time while they're transitioning, though, plus with any bathroom law forbidding trans people from using their gender's restroom or forcing trans men to go by their birth sex, trans men are forced into women's spaces.
Doesn't matter if a trans women has it under control. The fact remains that women will be looked at sexually, violating their privacy, in a women-only space by a biological man. Cis lesbians have no great strength disparity with other women, making them no special threat.
Yes, unless there are unisex facilities, there are no better options for trans men (biological women). There are also cis women bodybuilders who take testosterone, so that alone is no argument.
Quote:How many times do I have to explain it? Public urination is intentional but public urination that includes indecent exposure is usually not. The former doesn't always necessitate the latter.(Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Either way, it doesn't support your inane argument that indecent exposure is somehow excusable because trans women "accidentally" expose male genitals to women and young girls. Again, most public urination indecent exposure is not intentional.
Most public urination is a purposeful act, as I said again. There's an alternative (wetting your pants) and in order to be seen you have to actually make an effort to remove your belt and unzip your pants. A trans woman accidentally exposing their genitalia, while still indecent, is not purposeful.
Might be news to you, but you can often urinate in public without anyone seeing your genitals. That's why people usually do it behind trees, dumpsters, etc..
Quote:Yes, women in general have lower bone/muscle density, making them more susceptible to injury. This is all the more reason not to include denser trans women.(Aug 11, 2025 09:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]The "simple change" is to ban trans women from women's sports. Making weight classes that ignore bone/muscle density disparities will not improve safety in women-only sports.
Stronger cis women are still within the natural variability of women, where trans women can be, and very often are, beyond the natural variability of women, as developmental exposure to testosterone cannot be completely erased.
You'd have to support your claim that "stronger cis woman against a stronger cis woman would cause similar damages." As far as I can tell, this is just another thing you're making up.
And there are already weight classes in every contact sport. So adding trans women only increases the risk to women.
Female athletes are more prone to a variety of injuries, even amongst themselves. Part of that is biology, part of that is environment, but women are getting hurt more than men even without the inclusion of transwomen. And not all contact sports have weight classes, which is part of the reason why women get hurt.
Again, simple weight classes do not take into account bone/muscle density, which is a large disparity between trans women and women.
Quote:If it's not the women's fault, why punish them with more injuries and lost opportunities?(Aug 11, 2025 09:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Is that women's fault, that they should have to face the increased risks and loss of opportunities?
Nope, but there's no other place to really have transwomen compete at the moment.
Just because trans women want to compete against them? How is that at all fair?
That's like a heavyweight boxer wanting to compete in featherweight. The featherweight boxers will receive more injuries and have fewer opportunities to win titles.
Quote:Then prove it.(Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]There are certainly less invasive ways to verify further. But you made the argument, so it's on you to support your claim.
You obviously can't.
If there are, then enlighten me. Most women understand that it can very easily lead to genital exams, and as you've seen they have happened in the past.
Happening all the way back in 1966 is irrelevant nowadays.
You've given no recent evidence that anything beyond a simple PCR test would be required.
So quit arguing this obvious, irrelevant red herring.
Quote:You've just proved my point. This trans man could qualify for and even place in competitions, not lowering the average for men. You'll notice how this example is both not in a contact sport and primarily uses lower body strength (a higher portion of women's strength is in their lower body).(Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No, because it's the average time for those who qualify to compete.
But please, show me trans men competing in men's sports. There's a reason we only hear about the trans women, who can gain an advantage by competing against women.
Chris Mosier. Won second place in his age group too, he did pretty well for someone who's supposed to be at a disadvantage.
Quote:No, a "new normal" isn't a default, especially in sports that ban performance enhancement.(Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Two things can be true at the same time. And since many of these trans women used to compete in men's sport, where they did abysmally, it clearly is a competitive advantage.
No physical state that requires hormone therapy or surgery to remove healthy tissue/organs is "default." Please learn what that word means.
May not be default in that you're born with it, but if you're undergoing hormone therapy for years and years on end, and have had SRS, it's your new normal, and thus the default. And if they're getting an advantage in women's sports, why are transwomen like Lia Thomas losing to cisgender women and even transmen who haven't transitioned?
Yes, men can be such bad athletes that reducing their testosterone and pitting them against women doesn't make them the absolute best.
Quote:Again, if only you displayed any basic understanding of privacy or consent.(Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Because there's a legal expectation of privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms. This is why it's illegal to take pictures or film in these places, at least when others are present. Because you do not have their consent to photograph or film them in a private space. Compare that to being out in public, where you have no expectation of privacy and have no legal recourse to keep someone from photographing/filming you.
These are very simple laws that you'd likely understand if you weren't trying so hard to make up circumstances to fit your agenda. Masks, tattoos, disabilities, disfigurements, etc. do not fall under indecent exposure laws nor do they violate the expectation of privacy in women-only spaces. Such arguments are very intellectually dishonest... of extremely ignorant,
Once upon a time, trans women only tried to use women's restrooms if they could "pass for" women at a casual glance. And if they could pass, no one would know any better.
But now, men with beards claim to be women. If you expect that to "pass" you're delusional. Trans bathroom policies open the door to men claiming to be women, whether they actually believe it or not. And these policies have repeatedly led to indecent exposure in women's locker rooms.
Yes, but a trans woman doesn't infringe on any of that in the bathroom when she's using it. She's not filming people there, nor is she exposing her genitalia to women there in her own stall. (And if she was, the law penalizes that.)
Disabilities have fallen under a kind of indecent exposure law in the past, and I don't see how a trans woman using the bathroom would be different than say, a man with a catheter or a person with a genital injury and facial disfigurement. I'm not going to see the genitals of the person using the bathroom, and how they look cannot be controlled.
And I wouldn't care about a person with a beard walking in, as long as they didn't bother me and acted appropriately. There are cis women with beards, it's not something I'm going to care about unless the person is behaving inappropriately.
Citing obsolete, decades-old laws is just another irrelevant red herring.
And again, your cherry-picking isn't relevant in general. Most women with PCOS shave or would expect to get some negative reactions if they didn't (even if only children pointing at them). PCOS sufferers are just another example of women harmed due to the heightened visibility (demand to be accepted) of transgenders.
Quote:No, you're talking about a red herring that also only exists because of heightened transgender visibility (demand to be accepted).(Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]We are talking about people investigating trans (and cis) women, not what trans people are valid or not.Quote:No, the trans women have not made cis women unsafe - it's transphobic (and potentially perverted) men and women making cis women unsafe. Nobody is making these people investigate women, they're doing it themselves.You're making up shit again. You cannot show me that a person who claims to be transgender is not actually transgender, because the only criteria for the identity is the simple claim. So you playing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is not going to fly here.
You cannot claim that all the people who are a problem are lying about being transgender, because we can only ever take someone's word for their gender identification. That's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Quote:Transphobic men and women are the ones breaking into the bathrooms to demand gender verification from cis women. Not trans women. The small amount of trans women who do harm in those places are being dealt with (they don't seem to get a free pass) but transphobes and/or perverts seem to feel it's appropriate to accost women and little girls for proof of their gender. They're doing more harm than the trans women, especially as this keeps on happening over and over again.Again, this only exists because of transgender demand to be accepted. If no transgenders tried to use women's restrooms, this obviously wouldn't happen.
Quote:Most cis men aren't going to do anything to a cis women. Does that mean we have to allow them in women's only spaces too?(Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]The simple fact is the strength disparity between the average woman and the average trans women (many having not begun transition at all) is enough to establish the potential danger in spaces where men, who could defend against such danger, are prohibited. It's similar to "gun free zones," where it's a space criminals know they can victimize people with little threat a response of equal force.
Again, stories about being falsely accused of being trans wouldn't happen if trans weren't so visible in society. Again, if they could "pass" no one would be any the wiser. And if you try to claim the vast majority of trans can "pass," you're either lying or delusional.
All of this is due to transgenders, and their allies, demanding access and acknowledgement. It was once silent and invisible. So they brought this on themselves and inflicted it one society... including the further threatening women falsely accused. All the doing of transgenderism.
You act as if every encounter with a trans woman is going to end up in a PvP match. Most trans women aren't going to do anything to a regular cis woman (and again, if that does happen the authorities would be called to intervene). Plus, if trans women are such a threat on a hormone therapy that should reduce testosterone (and thus aggression), that implies that every cis man is necessarily a danger to women, automatically by being a genetic man. That being alone in a room with a man will necessarily end in violence or something bad, and that men as a class should never be trusted. Is that something you believe?
What is "passing" when it seems these cis women don't even "pass" to transphobes? Should women look a certain way to be treated as their gender, or be treated with respect? Why enforce a standard of femininity upon women?
Trans people have always existed, and they have every right to be out and proud about who they are, just the same as anybody else doing so. Don't blame trans people for the actions of sinister people.
It's a ridiculous argument to demand violating someone's privacy, safety, and/or consent because "it usually doesn't harm anyone." Even if no one is physically harmed, their sense of safety, privacy, and consent can still be violated.
Men are a greater threat to women, which is exactly why trans women are also a greater threat to women. I always advise women to carry a gun, because that is the ONLY means they have to equalize the force potential of men. Many women literally don't trust men as a class. There was a whole viral "man or bear" question that proved it. Depending on where you're at, if police are near, if trusted men are near, etc., that distrust can be valid.
"Passing" means that you look so much like a woman that no one would questions it. That doesn't mean super feminine, as there are plenty of masculine women. But the rise in transgender demand to be accepted has raised the bar. Again, harming cis women.
There's no way to look at this that doesn't increase harm to cis women. And all to the benefit of biological males... which is definitively sexist/chauvinistic.
