Article Rise & fall of journals + Is male/female divide a social construct? (Richard Dawkins)

[Syne]

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. 

So you could find ZERO examples of women exposing themselves to girls, in restrooms or locker rooms, being an issue.
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.

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.
- https://kinseyinstitute.org/news-events/...gaydar.php

AI can now even determine this with 91% accuracy.

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.

If you weren't dodging the question, you'd either know or could go check for yourself. You replied:

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. 

And before that:

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'm guessing gay, because, like MR, you seem to be wanting to make it crudely sexual when it's not.
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.

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).

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:

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. 

So you obviously don't understand consent or privacy.
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.

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.

Citing some hypothetical bisexual that is only attracted to 1% of women is obviously cherry-picking.
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.

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.

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.
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..

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. 

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.
Again, simple weight classes do not take into account bone/muscle density, which is a large disparity between trans women and women.

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. 

If it's not the women's fault, why punish them with more injuries and lost opportunities?
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.

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. 

Then prove it.
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.

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.

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).

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?

No, a "new normal" isn't a default, especially in sports that ban performance enhancement.
Yes, men can be such bad athletes that reducing their testosterone and pitting them against women doesn't make them the absolute best.

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.

Again, if only you displayed any basic understanding of privacy or consent.
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.

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.

We are talking about people investigating trans (and cis) women, not what trans people are valid or not.

No, you're talking about a red herring that also only exists because of heightened transgender visibility (demand to be accepted).
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.

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.

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.

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?
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.

[Railko]

So you could find ZERO examples of women exposing themselves to girls, in restrooms or locker rooms, being an issue.
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.

One of these (the last one) are literally an experience of a woman exposing themselves to a girl in a bathroom:

"Victoria Police are searching for a woman who they allege exposed herself to two school girls at a popular Melbourne tourist attraction.

Police will allege the woman entered the bathroom at Melbourne’s highest observation deck on Riverside Quay in Southbank about 8.30pm on March 9.

She then allegedly exposed her buttocks to two teenage girls in the bathroom who were on a school excursion."

It was a woman's only space, a bathroom. Its a problem when women do it to girls too. 

If you weren't dodging the question, you'd either know or could go check for yourself. You replied:

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. 

And before that:

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'm guessing gay, because, like MR, you seem to be wanting to make it crudely sexual when it's not.
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.

Fair enough, I thought I did. Anyway, biological woman, if that makes any difference

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).

Well, considering how "obviously manly" seems to be what transphobes are using to identify transwomen while actually identifying cis women, as I showed in prior cases, my disbelief is warranted. 

So you obviously don't understand consent or privacy.
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.

Again, most people don't consent to a lot of things that happen in the bathroom, but as long as it's not obscene, lewd, or otherwise disturbing the peace there, it's fine.

Citing some hypothetical bisexual that is only attracted to 1% of women is obviously cherry-picking.
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.

Again, you act as if simply being viewed is going to lead to the transwoman forcing the cis women against the wall for sexual gratification or something. Most people don't automatically act on their urges like that, and as long as they keep it in their head it doesn't matter how they view the others who share the locker room with them. 

Cis women bodybuilders take testosterone to gain muscle, not to look more manly, and they don't do it forever like how trans men do. And if a manly transman went to use the women's facilities, wouldn't it also violate a woman's "consent" and "privacy" to be viewed by a man? 

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.
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..

And when you do that, you take the risk that if someone sees you it'd be indecent exposure. Most people know that when they unzip their pants and go to use the bathroom in public - it's an inherent risk. 

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.
Again, simple weight classes do not take into account bone/muscle density, which is a large disparity between trans women and women.

And then in that case, cis women sports should naturally be divided into weight classes anyway. Make it fair for all. Or even test for bone density and other stats before letting players play against each other. 

If it's not the women's fault, why punish them with more injuries and lost opportunities?
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.

Do you have a better solution that allows them to play in the right category?

Then prove it.
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.

Do you think society can't regress, or the testing standards can change? It's unlikely, but it can happen. And in any case, the treatments to fix said conditions are still invasive and harm the athletes.

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).

But if men are stronger overall, and have more biological advantages, he should have done poorly. Instead, he placed second, really good for someone with natural biological disadvantages. 

No, a "new normal" isn't a default, especially in sports that ban performance enhancement.
Yes, men can be such bad athletes that reducing their testosterone and pitting them against women doesn't make them the absolute best.

Then it's not inherently an advantage to be a trans woman competing in sports against cis women.

Again, if only you displayed any basic understanding of privacy or consent.
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.

Nope, it's completely relevant to the point. Do people consent to see a disfigured person in the bathroom, or a person with a catheter? Because I would think that would be just as violating and surprising, given that the bathrooms don't say a disfigured person might come in, and most people aren't expecting it.

No, you're talking about a red herring that also only exists because of heightened transgender visibility (demand to be accepted).
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.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about transphobes being a problem, as they're the ones investigating people.

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.

Nope. If the issue is transwomen using women's restrooms, and they're trying to protect women, they wouldn't be barging into a space they thought was safe for women, bothering them, or demanding proof of gender, especially when the women in question aren't doing anything wrong. That's obsessive vigilantism, and not the fault of trans people. The people harassing women chose to do it, nobody made them do it. 

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?
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.

But why would most cis men want to be in cis women's spaces? Like besides just biology, there's social aspects that most cis men wont understand or be interested in. A lot of cis men balk at the idea of periods, would not find discussion on hair styling and makeup fulfilling or insightful, and (when it comes to bathrooms) might not want to sit down to pee or miss using a urinal. Cis men often take themselves out of women's spaces for fear of looking girly or feminine, so it's self sorting. Only people who keep themselves in then, are perverts and trans women, and they're both easy to spot (a trans woman would be committed to being seen as a woman, a pervert not so much).

Yeah, many women don't trust men, as in cis men. Burly, masculine looking guys, or guys who identify with manhood and masculinity. Men who consider themselves men. Men who don't look like women. A trans woman looks like a woman, will act to the best of her ability as a woman, and is liable to be preyed on by men the same way cis women are. She's allowed a safe space away from men the same way other women are. 

And your statements about passing contradict, because if masculine women exist and it's so easy to tell the difference between a masculine woman and a trans woman, misidentification stories like the ones I shared shouldn't be happening. People should only be picking out transwomen; instead all we hear is about how a cis woman was harassed out of her safe space. 

The only ones actually increasing harm to cis women are the transphobic people.

[Syne]

So you could find ZERO examples of women exposing themselves to girls, in restrooms or locker rooms, being an issue.
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.

One of these (the last one) are literally an experience of a woman exposing themselves to a girl in a bathroom:

"Victoria Police are searching for a woman who they allege exposed herself to two school girls at a popular Melbourne tourist attraction.

Police will allege the woman entered the bathroom at Melbourne’s highest observation deck on Riverside Quay in Southbank about 8.30pm on March 9.

She then allegedly exposed her buttocks to two teenage girls in the bathroom who were on a school excursion."

It was a woman's only space, a bathroom. Its a problem when women do it to girls too. 

You're even cherry-picking that story.

“The teenage girls left the bathroom, joining their classmates, when the offender walked past and pulled her top down, exposing herself again,” police stated.
- https://au.news.yahoo.com/woman-allegedl...00962.html

Can you guess which location is an actual crime? Had the public exposure not happened, it would not have been a police matter nor a news story.
You're obviously grasping at straws.

If you weren't dodging the question, you'd either know or could go check for yourself. ...

I'm guessing gay, because, like MR, you seem to be wanting to make it crudely sexual when it's not.
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.

Fair enough, I thought I did. Anyway, biological woman, if that makes any difference

I don't believe you. You don't demonstrate ANY understanding of consent, privacy, or safety as a women.
Granted, many women are delusional about their strength relative to a man, so I would give you a pass on that one.
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.
And unless you're a "free the nipple"/nudist/hoe, you'd have some sense of personal privacy nowhere demonstrated in your posts.

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).

Well, considering how "obviously manly" seems to be what transphobes are using to identify transwomen while actually identifying cis women, as I showed in prior cases, my disbelief is warranted. 

Again, more harm to women due solely to transgender demand to be accepted.

So you obviously don't understand consent or privacy.
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.

Again, most people don't consent to a lot of things that happen in the bathroom, but as long as it's not obscene, lewd, or otherwise disturbing the peace there, it's fine.

You, personally, thinking "it's fine" is not an argument for standards in society. Things like consent, privacy, and safety are standards in society.

Citing some hypothetical bisexual that is only attracted to 1% of women is obviously cherry-picking.
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.

Again, you act as if simply being viewed is going to lead to the transwoman forcing the cis women against the wall for sexual gratification or something. Most people don't automatically act on their urges like that, and as long as they keep it in their head it doesn't matter how they view the others who share the locker room with them. 

You're making up bullshit again. Again, if trans women are allowed in women-only spaces, why not men too?
Men can keep it in their head too.

Cis women bodybuilders take testosterone to gain muscle, not to look more manly, and they don't do it forever like how trans men do. And if a manly transman went to use the women's facilities, wouldn't it also violate a woman's "consent" and "privacy" to be viewed by a man? 

A trans man is not a man, so no, it would not violate consent or privacy.

Bodybuilders, including males, usually take higher doses of testosterone in cycles, so they do not cause damage with constant high-doses (and women bodybuilders don't want to grow facial hair or change their voices). Trans men take a continuous low-does testosterone, similar to treatment for low-T, just to get it up to average male levels.

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.
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..

And when you do that, you take the risk that if someone sees you it'd be indecent exposure. Most people know that when they unzip their pants and go to use the bathroom in public - it's an inherent risk. 

You're the one who has gone on and on about "accidental wardrobe malfunctions." Most people know that undressing, showering, etc. in a locker room also has an inherent risk of indecent exposure. See how that works?

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.
Again, simple weight classes do not take into account bone/muscle density, which is a large disparity between trans women and women.

And then in that case, cis women sports should naturally be divided into weight classes anyway. Make it fair for all. Or even test for bone density and other stats before letting players play against each other. 

Then you would be putting more strictures on women's sports than you do men's, violating equal treatment.
You'd also be making women do a DEXA (Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scan every season. Where ultrasound tests to check for ovaries (which no one is proposing) would not be invasive nor harmful, you'd be subjecting them to yearly low-dose radiation.

Trans women are already willingly risking sarcopenia and other health consequences of their transition, but no woman athlete is willingly subjecting themselves to radiation. Again, that pesky consent.

Just like trans women are stealing titles and records that should have gone to actual women, that would just lead to more actual women leaving the sport. That literally disenfranchises women.

If it's not the women's fault, why punish them with more injuries and lost opportunities?
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.

Do you have a better solution that allows them to play in the right category?

Few people get to have all of society cater to their every desire. Most desires require tradeoffs. If you want to make a lot of money, you usually have to work hard and sacrifice a lot of your time. Same with wanting to be transgender. There are tradeoffs. You have to decide which is more important to you. If it's sports, compete as your biological sex.

Then prove it.
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.

Do you think society can't regress, or the testing standards can change? It's unlikely, but it can happen. And in any case, the treatments to fix said conditions are still invasive and harm the athletes.

You'd have to prove that such a regression could happen. You haven't. So I have no obligation to keep playing purely hypothetical fearmongering what-ifs with you.
Again, there wouldn't be such strict testosterone limits in women's sports if transgenders hadn't demanded to play in women's sports. Just more, in the long list, of harm caused by appeasing transgenders.

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).

But if men are stronger overall, and have more biological advantages, he should have done poorly. Instead, he placed second, really good for someone with natural biological disadvantages. 

Yes, it is really good, considering. But again, take a woman, whose strength is in her lower body, amp up her testosterone (with any naturally high variation or PCOS), and have her compete in lower body events. You can stack the deck, especially if it is not acceptable for the men to supplement their own testosterone.

No, a "new normal" isn't a default, especially in sports that ban performance enhancement.
Yes, men can be such bad athletes that reducing their testosterone and pitting them against women doesn't make them the absolute best.

Then it's not inherently an advantage to be a trans woman competing in sports against cis women.

It has proven to be an advantage, with the number of titles won and records broken by trans women.

Again, if only you displayed any basic understanding of privacy or consent.
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.

Nope, it's completely relevant to the point. Do people consent to see a disfigured person in the bathroom, or a person with a catheter? Because I would think that would be just as violating and surprising, given that the bathrooms don't say a disfigured person might come in, and most people aren't expecting it.

Women's restrooms are not able-bodied-only or not-disfigured-only spaces. Never have been. So yes, your point is a completely irrelevant red herring, at best, and intentionally intellectually dishonest, at worse.
Even your citation only says "expose himself or herself to public view." Restrooms and locker rooms are legally considered private spaces. Do you even read your own citations? @_@

No, you're talking about a red herring that also only exists because of heightened transgender visibility (demand to be accepted).
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.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about transphobes being a problem, as they're the ones investigating people.

Again, for like the third time on this exact point.
That ONLY occurs because transgenders demand to be accepted and have access to women-only spaces. This harm to women would not happen otherwise.

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.

Nope. If the issue is transwomen using women's restrooms, and they're trying to protect women, they wouldn't be barging into a space they thought was safe for women, bothering them, or demanding proof of gender, especially when the women in question aren't doing anything wrong. That's obsessive vigilantism, and not the fault of trans people. The people harassing women chose to do it, nobody made them do it. 

Without trans women in women-only spaces this did not and would not happen. That literally means the ultimate cause is trans women demanding access. Without A you do not get B. Simple causality.

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?
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.

But why would most cis men want to be in cis women's spaces?

Creeps would love to be in there. Imagine being approached by someone whose attention you don't want. Imagine ducking into the women's room to get away from them.
Now imagine if they could legally follow you inside.

But, if you are a woman, I guess you could have lived your entire life without any unwanted attention from a man.

Like besides just biology, there's social aspects that most cis men wont understand or be interested in. A lot of cis men balk at the idea of periods, would not find discussion on hair styling and makeup fulfilling or insightful, and (when it comes to bathrooms) might not want to sit down to pee or miss using a urinal. Cis men often take themselves out of women's spaces for fear of looking girly or feminine, so it's self sorting. Only people who keep themselves in then, are perverts and trans women, and they're both easy to spot (a trans woman would be committed to being seen as a woman, a pervert not so much).

Again, if men keep it in their head, just like trans women, why wouldn't you want then in women's spaces? @_@

Yeah, many women don't trust men, as in cis men. Burly, masculine looking guys, or guys who identify with manhood and masculinity. Men who consider themselves men. Men who don't look like women. A trans woman looks like a woman, will act to the best of her ability as a woman, and is liable to be preyed on by men the same way cis women are. She's allowed a safe space away from men the same way other women are. 

You claiming it doesn't make it so. Most transgenders are quick to tell people that, as the repercussions of not telling people can go very bad.
Trans women can be just as attracted to women, still have a penis, not be on hormone therapy, and still follow a woman into that "safe space."
Because no amount of transition is necessary to identify as transgender.

And your statements about passing contradict, because if masculine women exist and it's so easy to tell the difference between a masculine woman and a trans woman, misidentification stories like the ones I shared shouldn't be happening. People should only be picking out transwomen; instead all we hear is about how a cis woman was harassed out of her safe space. 

I didn't say everyone was good at identifying trans women.

The only ones actually increasing harm to cis women are the transphobic people.

Nope. Simple causation says that if A causes B, B will not happen without A. The cause is transgenders demanding access to women-only spaces. The reaction to that is, by definition, an effect.

[Magical Realist]

Meanwhile, while straight women AREN'T being raped or sexually harassed by trans women in public bathrooms, this happened in a restaurant bathroom. Who's harassing who exactly?

https://www.wsmv.com/2025/08/14/high-sch...lwpB2h3iFA

[Syne]

As I've said many times now, without transgenders demanding access to women-only spaces, you would not get this kind of questioning.

[Magical Realist]

As I've said many times now, without transgenders demanding access to women-only spaces, you would not get this kind of questioning.

Seeing transgender women have always used women-only restrooms, this kind of sexual harassment would still go on seeing it is only the latest phobic scapegoating by conservatives.

[Syne]

An Edmond police report indicates an Oct. 26 assault in the girls’ bathroom at Memorial High School involved at least one male student who identified as a female.

If Edmond school officials knowingly allowed males to use the girls’ bathroom (and vice versa) based on self-proclaimed gender identity, the school could face the loss of 5 percent of its state funding and be subject to lawsuits by parents under a new law.

An Edmond Police report shows that on Oct. 26 at 8:14 a.m., an officer was called to Memorial High School in reference to a fight. Upon arrival, the officer found a student with injuries in the nurse’s office.

Witness statements included in the report suggest one of the students involved in the reported assault in the girls’ bathroom was a male who identified as a female.
- https://ocpathink.org/post/independent-j...questioned


The Education Department is investigating whether a Georgia school system’s transgender bathroom policy, which permits students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity, played any role in a young girl’s alleged sexual assault.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/edu...story.html

Transgender woman arrested accused of sexually assaulting teen in Walmart bathroom

Transgender sexual assault claims at Brevard Public Schools could bring new state rules

VA Judge Finds Trans Teen Guilty of Sexual Assault in Loudoun County High School Girl's Bathroom Case

Transgender-Identifying Boy Sexually Assaults 5-Year-Old Girl in Girls’ Restroom

Female student RAPED in trans-inclusive restroom at New Mexico school

A Transgender Woman Assaulted a Child in a Restroom

---

As I've said many times now, without transgenders demanding access to women-only spaces, you would not get this kind of questioning.

Seeing transgender women have always used women-only restrooms, this kind of sexual harassment would still go on seeing it is only the latest phobic scapegoating of conservatives.

Only ones who could pass as legit women. Hence only happening because of transgender demand for access, no matter if they can pass or not.

[Magical Realist]

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

"There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, a UCLA study finds."

"There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, according to a new study from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. The study is the first of its kind to rigorously test the relationship between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and reports of crime in public restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities.

“Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms,” said lead author Amira Hasenbush. “But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”

To determine whether a relationship exists between nondiscrimination laws and crime, Hasenbush, a law and policy fellow at the Williams Institute, zeroed in on Massachusetts, where at the time of the study some localities had transgender-inclusive public accommodation laws and others did not. She and her team compared cities and towns with similar characteristics that had such laws to those that did not. They then examined police reports of assault and privacy violations in these localities both before and after the laws came into effect.

The data were collected prior to the 2016 passage of Massachusetts’ statewide nondiscrimination law that protects transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations.

“Research has shown that transgender people are frequently denied access, verbally harassed or physically assaulted while trying to use public restrooms,” according to Jody L. Herman, one of the study’s authors and a public policy scholar at the Williams Institute. “This study should provide some assurance that these types of public accommodations laws provide necessary protections for transgender people and maintain safety and privacy for everyone.”--- https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/...ds-n911106

[Syne]

I just showed evidence, since this old 2018 article.

[Magical Realist]

The date of the study has no effect on its validity. If transgender women using women's restrooms didn't correlate to any increase in crimes then, it won't now either. That's how science works.