(Aug 17, 2025 10:31 PM)Raikuo Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 17, 2025 06:56 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]LOL! You think everything reported must be a crime? You don't know that reporters usually give more of the story that just the actual crime?
...
So where's the law against a woman exposing herself for other females in a women's restroom (not visible to the public)? @_@
Or are you going to argue that restrooms are "visible to the public"? 9_9
They don't give irrelevant information, though. They also didn't put down what the girls were wearing, or what the people on the trip were eating. If it wasn't relevant to the crime, they wouldn't have put it down. The first incident is clearly relevant here.
It pains me that I actually have to explain this... writing in crayon for you.
Yes, if there is a crime, what led up to the crime is relevant to the story. If someone was following you before they mugged you, that would be relevant, but following you is not a crime.
You really seem to like moving the goalposts and dodging questions.
Again, where's the law against a woman exposing herself for other females in a women's restroom??????
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Knock it off. You obviously know that ad hom is complete bullshit when only dealing with text online. You didn't call shit. If you had, you would have predicted my response.
And if you read it again, you'll see I didn't even mention your views on transgenders as influencing my incredulity.
Predictably, you don't even try to justify yourself on any of those three points, which makes the attempted ad hom seem like nothing but avoidance.
I did call it. I literally said:
Quote: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.
To which I relied:
(Aug 15, 2025 06:18 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]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:So I could tell how this was gonna go.
So you were projecting the whole time.
Quote:And it's not my views on transgender people I'm talking about, but any and all of views contrary to the norm, which you disbelieve I can have:
Quote:You don't demonstrate ANY understanding of consent, privacy, or safety as a women.
Quote:But after #MeToo, consent is the most powerful weapon a woman can wield. That any woman would be so completely ignorant of that seriously strains credibility.
I genuinely don't get this. You don't "wield" consent; it's important for both sexes to consent to any sexual activity.
Quote:And unless you're a "free the nipple"/nudist/hoe, you'd have some sense of personal privacy nowhere demonstrated in your posts.
Yeah, personal privacy. Nobody should care about what another human being is doing with their body, especially if it doesn't impact you.
So, at best, you're a very neuroatypical woman?
You don't understand the basis of #MeToo, you don't have/understand your own personal sense of privacy (conflating it with what other people do with their bodies, for some baffling reason), and you
still avoid safety.
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, causation proves otherwise. Gender incredulity only exists because of transgenders demanding access to women's spaces.
Antisemitic loons like Owens using it for political purposes is just moron conspiracy theory or grifting.
Nope, men have always questioned a woman's gender when she performs better than expected.
You can't cite things that
have happened since the rise of transgender activism and claim one has nothing to do with the other.
And if you're talking about in sports, it wasn't just men and often (every time in your own citation) the gender accusations were correct:
competitors [in women's sport] and coaches to tell the federation that her physique seemed suspiciously masculine
...
With relief so apparent that the police noted it in their report, Ratjen told them that despite his parents’ claims, he had long suspected he was male.
...
Several Soviet women who had dominated international athletics abruptly dropped out, cementing popular conviction that the Soviets had been tricking authorities. (More recently, some researchers have speculated that those athletes may have been intersex.)
...
Patiño had XY chromosomes and internal testes.
...
She saw other 15-year-old girls becoming curvier and heard them talk about getting their periods. She asked her mother why her body wasn’t doing the same thing, and trusted her answer: Chand’s body would change when it was good and ready.
- http://web.archive.org/web/2020061914052...letes.html
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]The aforementioned consent, privacy, and safety. 9_9
Which is not violated by any of what I mentioned.
Not that you can comprehend anyway. 9_9
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]See the list of trans women assaulting people in women's restrooms I posted earlier.
You didn't actually answer the question. If some men not being able to keep it in their head is sufficient to exclude them from women's spaces, then the articles I cited means the same for trans women.
The "some men" is a much larger portion, as compared to trans women. Cis men will catcall women, jeer at them, make fun of them, beat them up and rape and kill them, sometimes for no reason. In other countries where being transgender is basically outlawed, many men will not hesitate to make women unsafe. It really is cis men (and in particular cis heterosexual men, the demographic attracted to women), and the cases you've listed here of trans women making women unsafe can't even compare.
You don't know that it's a larger portion, especially because there's so few trans women (not enough to have their own sports, according to you).
Again, you can identify as a trans women, without any change to hormones or removing your penis. And since the vast majority of trans women are attracted to women, there's every reason to think they are the same risk as cis men... only with free access to women's spaces.
Other countries, catcalls, etc. are all red herrings or whataboutism (relevance or tu-quoque fallacies).
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Simple, if anyone wants to use the men's restroom, do so. Even cis women (just don't complain about how they might be treated).
Because a trans man can consent to putting themselves in a position that may compromise their own safety. Violating the consent of others is generally considered wrong.
Now, does that violate the consent and privacy of men? Sure, but most heterosexual men are willing to accept that in order to protect women. This is why only men are subject to the draft and first responders are overwhelmingly men. Men have always sacrificed to protect women.
You'd kinda be turning the men's restroom into a gender neutral place then, no? Cis women already kind of go to the men's bathroom when needed, which is why it shouldn't be any big deal that a trans woman (who typically means no harm) is using the women's restroom.
Strength discrepancy (e.g. safety), consent, and privacy. Women, trans women, and trans men are not a safety risk to your average man.
Quote:And women by and large have never wanted to be "protected" by men. Women are people, not children or animals. Women have actually been begging men to stop protecting them, especially from things they want to do. Women fought to be able to be on a jury, to join the military (most women oppose the draft entirely but if enacted would like it to be fair) and to have jobs like men do. Women don't need protecting.
The only "protection" in your cited article is "guaranteed that they would not get fired for getting pregnant." A protection women do actually want.
So you are equivocating the word "protection" when it should be clear that I've been talking about safety (physical protection) this entire time.
There are many men who want women drafted too (misguided equality), but it would be harder for society to support a war when women start coming home in body bags.
And no matter what women claim they want, their actual choices belie it.
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]"Most people"? Can you prove that? Many people are use to communal showers in schools, gyms, military, sports, jails/prisons, etc..
You cannot equate children with adults... unless you are an adult-child. I've already given you examples of intentional exposure by trans women.
People do it because they have to, not because they want to. People describe communal showers as gross, people wanting more privacy in them (such as shower curtains) and some guys not being comfortable with nudity in a shower setting. It's not something everyone is looking forward to.
You own article doesn't call communal showering gross because of showering with other people. Maybe read your own citations before posting them. 9_9
You arguing for privacy while dismissing that concern from women is the height of hypocrisy.
The existence of communal shower etiquette belies that "most people try to avoid it." You're only citation to that effect was children, which you've never justified as applying to adults.
Children are likely to be much more insecure and self-conscious than adults. But... maybe you still feel that way.
Quote: (Aug 11, 2025 09:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You're being intellectually dishonest. You know very well that a pap smear is due to a difference in biology, not discrimination.
Since you cannot determine muscle density by a heel ultrasound, you would still have to use low-dose radiation.
What you "think" people would or wouldn't mind is not an argument.
Read it again. Women understand that the pap smear is necessary because of biology, but the care given to women vs. men for similar circumstances is unfair. A pap smear is painful and is done with uncomfortable tools, but a man getting a procedure that is even remotely painful is offered pain meds and comfort. Getting an IUD is extremely painful to the point of women throwing up, but women are told to take Tylenol and walk it off, whereas a man getting the same procedure might get great pain meds and listened to if it were bad. It's discrimination to restrict pain relief to a group that is throwing up and suffering from it, but offer it to a group with comparatively milder symptoms.
There's also plenty of women who brag about their pain tolerance relative to men. Men are also more assertive and will make more demands than women.
But this is just another in your long list of red herrings.
Quote:There are also less invasive ways to measure muscle density, such as hydrostatic weighing and bioelectrical impedance analysis.
Nope. Hydrostatic weighing can only estimate overall
body density, and bioelectrical impedance can only estimate muscle and fat
mass and has accuracy problems.
CTs and MRIs are cost-prohibitive.
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yet you've been the one demanding that they would do genital inspections at the drop of a hat, seemingly without recourse.
How would such a regime safeguard women in sports without mandatory compliance? Without it, trans women would just opt out, defeating the purpose entirely.
Not at the drop of a hat, but if it were hard to determine by other means, they might resort to that.
Trans women might not opt out if it could show they don't have an unfair advantage, and it was being offered for everyone. Especially if not invasive.
"Might not" is not a good safeguard against women getting injured.
Again, it would require low-dose radiation.
Quote: (Aug 11, 2025 09:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No, you just keep the definitions of man and women we've had for thousands of years, prior to transgender activism.
Until there are enough trans for their own leagues, they have to choose between appeasing their gender dysphoria or playing sports. Just like many athletes have to choose between sports and their personal lives.
But this fails to account for intersex athletes who may have also been caught by these tests, and women with hormonal differences. A more neutral change in language would be an easy fix and make it fair, if we're going by chromosomes and hormone levels. And if men are typically XY and women XX, why does the change matter to you?
Too bad. Minorities don't get to put everyone else at risk, nor dictate what everyone else does or the terms they use.
Assuming a minority has the right to dictate what the majority does is fascism.
Quote: (Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Nonsense. You can't defend your claim that we would revert to 1966 with the even more ridiculous claim that we'd revert to 1898. 9_9
Since no one ever claimed there were never any limits placed on women in sports, you're arguing a completely fabricated straw man. Try to keep up.
You said:
Quote:Again, there wouldn't be such strict testosterone limits in women's sports if transgenders hadn't demanded to play in women's sports.
But the limits were so strict even before transgender people were on the scene. Again, women were never thought capable of sports, and this wasn't due to transgender people.
Per your own citation, testosterone tests in sports didn't start until 2011, well into transgender activism.
See where I specifically said "strict testosterone limits"? 9_9
Quote: (Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]If you read that again, you'll see where I clearly said "naturally high variation or PCOS."
And:
Yes, women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) can absolutely play sports! In fact, regular exercise is highly beneficial for managing PCOS symptoms and improving overall health. - Google AI
Again, testosterone treatments for trans men are meant to get them to the average male level, same as a man with low-T (and usually banned for men in sports).
Fair enough, they can play sports, but insulin resistance makes it harder for those with PCOS.
And it gets them to the average, but many cis men can be above average too, meaning that he could potentially be playing against a high testosterone man. So being able to do well in spite of that indicate that testosterone isn't all that's necessary to do well.
I never said otherwise. If you recall, my main objection is about disparities in bone/muscle density.
Trans men are taking their own, consensual risk in men's sports.
Quote: (Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]They only compare performance... again avoiding safety concerns due to higher bone/muscle density. Reduced muscle mass does not equate to equally reduced muscle density.
You also haven't addressed the records broken... to such an extent that no women will ever reach them.
Not all sports are contact sports (where bone density matters the most), and it's such a small part of the overall equation when it comes to whether transwomen have an advantage or not.
And you're assuming no woman would ever be able to break them. Right now however, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy where a person raised as a woman, treated as a woman and identifying with womanhood can never break the records because the moment they do they're assumed to be something other than a woman.
But also in some sports women have more of a natural advantage, so transwomen being in those events shouldn't give them an unfair advantage.
If they present zero risk to women and do not unfairly disadvantage women, I don't care.
The U.N. says transgender athletes competing in women's athletic events have won nearly 900 medals over their competitors, according to the results of a study obtained by The National News Desk (TNND).
The 20-page document examined “violence against women and girls in sports” and claims more than 600 biologically female athletes have lost at least 890 medals to transgender competitors. These defeats occurred in over 400 competitions in 29 sports, though authors did not specify specific events, levels of competition or time periods.
- https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/un-...-athletics
Andres, a biological male who identifies as a woman and holds multiple powerlifting records in the female division, blew out opponents in the Canadian Powerlifting Union’s 2023 Western Canadian Championship Female Masters Unequipped category.
Her total weight lifted in squat, bench and deadlift resulted in a final score of 597.5 kilograms, which was over 200 kilograms more than her closest opponent, SuJan Gill, who finished at 387.5 kilograms.
- https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tra...ely-unfair
You understand that? He beat the closest woman by over 440 pounds. That is an insurmountable record for a woman.
You have yet to show any genuine women being disenfranchised from sports. If you can find any, they will be since testosterone testing was implemented due to transgenders in women's sports.
Quote: (Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really care. You're bringing up an irrelevant, obsolete law, as a red herring, that doesn't speak to the present-day reality. IOW, you're grasping at straws.
And you trying to cite a "blog that caters to the needs of homeowners who are passionate about enhancing the aesthetic appeal, comfort, and functionality of their homes" is beyond ridiculous. It makes transparently stupid claims it doesn't bother to support and omits critical context (like modern segregation being the doing of leftists claiming to create "safe spaces" for minorities). Your confirmation bias has to be pretty powerful to fall for that.
It definitely matters, because that question is also a matter of privacy, consent and security. Both are being done for "the protection of women". Both claim that the other group trying to get into the bathroom poses a threat (in the case of segregation it was claimed that being in the room with a black woman would give a white woman venereal disease, or that black women would sexually assault white women). If it really is all about privacy, consent and security, how do you feel about the small percentage of white women who don't like black women and would rather not share the bathroom with them, or who weren't given a warning that a black woman is going to be in the stall? Or are you picking and choosing who you want to "protect"? Or if not, how does being anti-trans woman differ from being anti-black woman in the bathroom?
Does the origin matter if the information is sound? You can compare it with other sources talking about the same thing, and it talks about how even today there's social segregation deep in the south regarding bathrooms - not legal, but implicit. And the laws banning this have just been repealed, so now any government contractor could have segregated bathrooms if they wanted to, and it would be legally fine. So it's a current day issue as well.
Modern segregation is not due to leftists - I haven't seen anybody left calling for segregated bathrooms. Can you cite the ones who have? Most of the time leftists are calling for desegregation, and maybe a safe space or two for minorities to relate to each other. But not separate facilities, or complete segregation of society. Hence why most leftists don't care for transgender bans.
But if leftists were calling for that, wouldn't that also be what you're calling for, wanting a "safe space" for women that excludes transwomen?
Again, obsolete laws... irrelevant.
I'm using objective strength discrepancies, not subjective views of things like race.
Your "homeowner's blog" is not sound. If you bothered to read your own citations, you'd see that your "other sources" don't try to make the ignorant claim that race-segregated bathrooms still exist. No, it doesn't say anything like "even today there's social segregation deep in the south regarding bathrooms." Please learn to read... or quit imagining things.
Seems your MO is to post inline links that you don't quote so you can mischaracterize them. That's just lying.
And if you read your last link, it clearly said that there are still federate and state anti-discrimination laws. 9_9
Whole lotta nothing.
Only your "homeowner's blog" claims there's racially segregated bathrooms, without an support.
I'm talking about "safe space...for minorities to relate to each other." As this is the only segregation that exists, by leftists.
Unless you
think you can finally get around to showing any real evidence for your bullshit claim. 9_9
Quote: (Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]He told her a customer complained a man was in the women's room. - https://www.foxnews.com/story/lesbian-su...s-bathroom
An actual woman thought she was a man. So couldn't be sexist, and you say, "Trans issues weren't as publicized back then." So not likely a transphobe either.
Yes, normal people find it highly inappropriate for a man to enter a women's restroom, and it can lead to accusations of indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, etc..
Women can still be sexist. Trans issues weren't publicized back then, but they still assumed any woman who looks masculine is a man, which is sexism.
No, that's just women trying to protect their own safety, privacy, and consent.
You can't call honestly thinking someone looks like a man sexism.
Sexism is literally prejudice on the basis of sex. You can't be sexist if you're mistaking which sex you're supposedly being prejudiced to. 9_9
Quote: (Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You're moving your own goalposts, as you were clearly talking about people barging in due to transgenders.
And since the only criteria for transgender identity is the claim, these same creeps will now do so much easier where laws/policies allow it.
Not really. Maybe one or two, but creeps were still getting in regardless, and a transgender identity is not an excuse for crime, as you see.
I've already given a list of more than one or two... and I got tired of reading Google results, or it would have been a longer list.
It's like allowing pedophiles access to child daycare, and very often does target children.
You like defending that? @_@
Quote: (Aug 10, 2025 09:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Before the push for transgender access to women's restrooms, any witnesses would have stopped it. The force would usually come from any men nearby.
IOW, now this is more likely to happen.
No? The bystander effect is a thing, and there are incidents where a woman is raped by a group of men who all want to take part. Sometimes the bystanders (if they are men) want to participate in the crime, not stop it. And you still don't need to dress up as a woman or claim to be trans to enter the bathroom, even now most men just leap in.
I'm just going to ignore your intellectually dishonest inline links from now on.
You've repeatedly proven that they don't actually support your characterizations of them. Apparently, you either lack reading comprehension, have overwhelming confirmation bias, or are intentionally trying to lend your bare assertions some authority with the simple existence of a link. All 100% bullshit, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you think a link makes a point, quote it. Otherwise, it will be ignored as completely irrelevant. Got it? @_@
By contrast, notice how I quote my citations... and even quote your citations more than you do yourself. That is intellectual honesty.
Here, you show no reason to believe the bystander effect means men want to participate in a crime.
The by stander effect is relevant to big cities, where a greater number of witnesses is more likely to produce apathy, but you have not shown that to be the case in any of your examples. None of them include witnesses that did not take action. So you're obviously just lying... maybe just that ignorant.
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, many trans women have also proven they can't keep it in their head... inside the restroom.... proving them a threat.
Again, the percent of trans women doing that is so small compared to the amount of men doing that on a daily. And as I said, you never hear of gangs of trans women raping cis women, or trans women in the workplace assaulting cis women or whistling at them. Whereas in some areas cis men do that on the regular. If you have evidence of trans women assaulting regular cis women in droves like this, feel free to show it.
Another bullshit inline link.
Does it compare the percent of men versus the percent of trans who commit sexual assault? If not, it's irrelevant. At best, it's whataboutism (tu-quoque fallacy).
You do realize that you have to compare percentages when there's a large difference in populations, right? @_@
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Still proves them a threat. Action is only taken after the crime. Someone's already been victimized.
How are you supposed to take action before a crime begins?
Basic crime prevention. Limit the circumstances in which crimes occur. Hence not allowing trans in women's spaces.
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No, I'd bet they just genuinely thought it was a man. Enforcing the social contract to protect women.
Wait, you're claiming trans women on dating apps are not as good as looking female? You'd have to support that claim for it to fly. If anything, they can only post the "perfect picture," just like most women do online... that obscures many flaws or tells.
No, I'm saying that regardless of gender or sex, trans or cis, the people there are probably not the best examples of their representative groups. A dating app is usually a last resort kind of thing, if they could get with people in the real world they probably wouldn't be on the apps.
Ahem:
The way people meet their significant others has changed drastically over the last decade. According to recent studies, the most common ways couples meet in 2025 are:
Online Dating – 50%+
- https://www.southdenvertherapy.com/blog/...-love-2025
+50% isn't representative?
Quote: (Aug 12, 2025 11:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No, you don't get to blame people for honestly trying to protect women when it's transgenders who screwed that up. Good people in a society have a duty to protect others, if possible. Otherwise many more vulnerable people could be harmed before police can respond. But maybe you live in a big city, surrounded by callous and uncaring people, and are completely unaware of this.
But the transwomen aren't the ones typically harming women, and in those incidents when people go trying to expose a "man" nobody was complaining or crying out for help. Plus, most women aren't calling on men of all people to "protect them". If any women do have issues with transwomen they vocalize it themselves or take precautions - they don't need a white knight saving them.
You don't know how "typical" they may be. You keep citing raw numbers that don't account for the huge discrepancy in the number of men and trans women. It's the same problem with comparing the raw numbers of white versus black crime, when there's a huge discrepancy in population sizes. You do not know the rate for trans women, so you cannot compare the two.
Well, if you're the least bit intellectually honest.
And you're just continuing to make more unsupported claims. As such, these are only your own irrelevant opinions.
