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

[Syne]

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.

You're a moron. Of course the date of the study matters, when new data is available and makes the study obsolete.
As usual, you continue to prove you have no idea how science works, by new data correcting and changing the conclusions of old data, more data points improving conclusions, etc..

[Magical Realist]

Of course the date of the study matters, when new data is available and makes the study obsolete.

When did that happen? lol!

[Syne]

Of course the date of the study matters, when new data is available and makes the study obsolete.

When did that happen? lol!

In a constantly evolving world, new data can emerge that renders previous studies obsolete or necessitates re-evaluating the findings of existing research.
Expansion of knowledge: As scientific understanding progresses, new discoveries can reshape fundamental assumptions that underpinned prior research, making those earlier conclusions no longer relevant or accurate. For instance, the discovery of Helicobacter pylori as a primary cause of stomach ulcers rendered the long-held belief of stress being the major factor largely obsolete.
Availability of new data: Larger, more diverse datasets can become available, leading to different or more robust conclusions when analyzed compared to smaller, older datasets
- Google AI

[Magical Realist]

new data can emerge that renders previous studies obsolete

So in this case you're saying new data CAN emerge that makes the study obselete but hasn't. Therefore the study remains sound. Tks for confirming that..

Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the artificiality of the boy-girl distinction:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2839697436221416

[Syne]

I already showed you new data since that study. But as usual, you either can't read or won't read anything you don't like.
Tyson repeatedly proves himself a moron ultracrepidarian.

[Railko]

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.

No, the bathroom part is part of the crime, or else they wouldn't have reported it. 

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.

So you're acting exactly like those men who won't believe women unless  they behave in a certain manner or appear a certain way. Called it.
Granted, this is the internet so skepticism is more warranted here, but it's not like women with my views don't exist on the internet. 

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

Nope. Women are accused of being manly with or without the existence of trans people. Whenever a woman does something too well it's often disbelieved, and one of those ways is through assuming she must actually be a man.

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

No, it's a fact that it would be fine. What would someone be complaining about if those three things (not lewd, not obscence, and not disturbing the peace) were followed?

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.

If you're talking about cis men, a lot have shown that they can't. Trans men may be able to, but trans men generally don't want to be in women's spaces.

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.

But the trans man looks like a man. Even if you tell a cis woman that, it's not going to chance the fact that he looks like a man. And, since you're complaining about men trying to enter women's restrooms, would you really trust it if a man with a full beard, muscles, and other signifiers of masculinity said "well I'm allowed to use this bathroom, I was born a woman"? 

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 they do, which is why most people try to avoid it as much as possible (see my prior articles about how most children don't like showering among others). Thus any exposure that does occur could plausibly be accidental.

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.

No, equal treatment refers to discrimination, not medical procedures. Women don't complain about how unfair it is that they need pap smears and men don't, only the inequity in pain management, a type of discrimination. So likewise, if there was a way to measure bone density that wasn't invasive (like heel ultrasounds) or didn't unfairly subject women to harm, I don't think most would mind it. 

And you know that ideally people would ask women if they want these procedures first, right? They're not gonna hold a girl down and stuff her in an X-ray machine lol.

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.

It depends on the tradeoff. Most trans athletes want to compete not as their birth sex and would be out of place in their birth sex's group. Right now, the only way I can see bio sex Olympics working is if they don't divide it into men's and women's, and instead keep the language neutral (maybe "Category 1: XY Division", "Category 2: XX Division", "Category 3: Null", or something similar)

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.

So when men used to say women couldn't do physical activities because their uterus would fall out, that was because of trans people?

Nope, the limits were there from the start. Women had to fight to compete because men thought it was unbecoming of women, and they were checked whenever people thought they were doing too good. It was sexism, plain and simple:

"Well into the 20th century, women were discouraged from participating in sports. Some medical experts claimed that vigorous exercise would damage women’s reproductive capacity and their fragile emotional state and would make them muscular, “mannish” and unattractive to men. Critics fretted that athletics would unbind women from femininity’s modesty and self-restraint.

As women athletes’ strength and confidence grew, some observers began to wonder if fast, powerful athletes could even be women."

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.

PCOS usually makes you unable to play because it gives you weight gain and body problems. A trans man has a limit he has to play with IIRC (because you can't just give him an unlimited supply of testosterone), whereas the men don't because they make their own, so the fact that he was able to beat men who can make their own testosterone shows that it may not be the transness affecting the sport.

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

And there are trans men doing the same. Plus, it's not a de-facto advantage:

"The trans women who took part also had an advantage in parameters such as absolute maximum oxygen uptake and the fat-free mass index. In some respects, however, they performed worse than the cis women, for example in the vertical jump with lunge. According to the study authors, this shows how complex the physiology of trans athletes is; they warned against a precautionary exclusion.

"Trans women as a population group are taller, bigger, and in an absolute sense stronger than cis women," explained Joanna Harper, a medical physicist at Loughborough University in the UK. "However, after going through hormone therapy, trans women are now moving their bodies with reduced aerobic capacity, reduced muscle mass." 

This can lead to disadvantages in terms of speed, recovery and endurance. 

The expert also pointed out that trans people often struggle with poorer mental health due to prejudice and discrimination. This should not be underestimated as a component of athletic performance."

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? @_@

Do you think they teleport into the restroom? You have to be in public to get into the restroom, and if someone is disfigured in public but hides it only to reveal it in a restroom, do you think people will go "oh it's okay, they're in the bathroom", or do you think they'll freak out the same way?

And in that case, what about race segregated bathrooms, since that has been a thing. Do white women need to consent to a black person entering the restroom? 

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.

No, it's the transphobes and sexists causing harm. Unless they have a mental illness, they have full control over their actions and harassing others is a choice they choose to make. If trans people didn't exist, they'd still try to say that a woman was too much of a man to enter a restroom, as happened in 2007 to one woman. Trans issues weren't as publicized back then, and she still got bothered because she looked like a man to some people. Not because she looked trans, simply because she looked like a man. 

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.

Yes it still would. Maybe not for gender, but women would still be harassed and bothered by men. 

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. 

Do you think a creep will just wait outside the door like a gentleman? If they wanted to they could just walk in, there's no forcefield stopping them.

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

Many cis men have proven they can't even keep it in their head outside of the bathroom, often attacking, harassing and raping women, they wouldn't do much better in it at this point in time. Meanwhile, you never hear about the gang of trans women that forced themselves on a cis woman, or how a bunch of transwomen doing construction work whistled and jeered at a cis woman walking by. It's the cis men that are the issue, and they are the ones repeatedly proving they're a threat.

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.

That's true. However most transwomen tend to go through transitioning to use their identified gender's bathroom, and even if they don't most of them will not act as how cis men will (by leering or harassing cis women). But, if and when that does happen (as evidenced by the news reports you've shown me) action is taken so they don't get away with it. 

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

But I'm sure every person who followed a woman into the bathroom thinking they were trans also thought they were good. What I'm saying is, you may not be as correct as you think you are, especially since you're using dating apps (which already self-selects for a particular type of person) instead of real-world 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.

And should it be excused? No. These people are not above the law, and if harassing a cis woman in her safe space would be bad for a trans woman to do, then it's just as bad for a cis man (or any other transvestigator) to do the same. They are not police officers or being bothered by trans people, they should not be reacting to anything.

[Syne]

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.

No, the bathroom part is part of the crime, or else they wouldn't have reported it. 

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?

In Melbourne, Australia, indecent exposure is governed by the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic). Specifically, section 19 of this Act deals with obscene exposure, where a person wilfully and obscenely exposes their genitals in a public place. - Google AI


The definition of a “public place” is broad, encompassing areas such as parks, roads, schools, and licensed venues.
...
A “public place” includes any area visible to the public, even if the act happens elsewhere.
- https://www.criminalsolicitorsmelbourne....t-exposure

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

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.

So you're acting exactly like those men who won't believe women unless  they behave in a certain manner or appear a certain way. Called it.
Granted, this is the internet so skepticism is more warranted here, but it's not like women with my views don't exist on the internet. 

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.

Nope. Women are accused of being manly with or without the existence of trans people. Whenever a woman does something too well it's often disbelieved, and one of those ways is through assuming she must actually be a man.

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.

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

No, it's a fact that it would be fine. What would someone be complaining about if those three things (not lewd, not obscence, and not disturbing the peace) were followed?

The aforementioned consent, privacy, and safety. 9_9

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.

If you're talking about cis men, a lot have shown that they can't. Trans men may be able to, but trans men generally don't want to be in women's spaces.

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.

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.

But the trans man looks like a man. Even if you tell a cis woman that, it's not going to chance the fact that he looks like a man. And, since you're complaining about men trying to enter women's restrooms, would you really trust it if a man with a full beard, muscles, and other signifiers of masculinity said "well I'm allowed to use this bathroom, I was born a woman"? 

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'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 they do, which is why most people try to avoid it as much as possible (see my prior articles about how most children don't like showering among others). Thus any exposure that does occur could plausibly be accidental.

"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.

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.

No, equal treatment refers to discrimination, not medical procedures. Women don't complain about how unfair it is that they need pap smears and men don't, only the inequity in pain management, a type of discrimination. So likewise, if there was a way to measure bone density that wasn't invasive (like heel ultrasounds) or didn't unfairly subject women to harm, I don't think most would mind it. 

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.

And you know that ideally people would ask women if they want these procedures first, right? They're not gonna hold a girl down and stuff her in an X-ray machine lol.

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.

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.

It depends on the tradeoff. Most trans athletes want to compete not as their birth sex and would be out of place in their birth sex's group. Right now, the only way I can see bio sex Olympics working is if they don't divide it into men's and women's, and instead keep the language neutral (maybe "Category 1: XY Division", "Category 2: XX Division", "Category 3: Null", or something similar)

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.

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.

So when men used to say women couldn't do physical activities because their uterus would fall out, that was because of trans people?

Nope, the limits were there from the start. Women had to fight to compete because men thought it was unbecoming of women, and they were checked whenever people thought they were doing too good. It was sexism, plain and simple:

"Well into the 20th century, women were discouraged from participating in sports. Some medical experts claimed that vigorous exercise would damage women’s reproductive capacity and their fragile emotional state and would make them muscular, “mannish” and unattractive to men. Critics fretted that athletics would unbind women from femininity’s modesty and self-restraint.

As women athletes’ strength and confidence grew, some observers began to wonder if fast, powerful athletes could even be women."

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.

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.

PCOS usually makes you unable to play because it gives you weight gain and body problems. A trans man has a limit he has to play with IIRC (because you can't just give him an unlimited supply of testosterone), whereas the men don't because they make their own, so the fact that he was able to beat men who can make their own testosterone shows that it may not be the transness affecting the sport.

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).

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

And there are trans men doing the same. Plus, it's not a de-facto advantage:

"The trans women who took part also had an advantage in parameters such as absolute maximum oxygen uptake and the fat-free mass index. In some respects, however, they performed worse than the cis women, for example in the vertical jump with lunge. According to the study authors, this shows how complex the physiology of trans athletes is; they warned against a precautionary exclusion.

"Trans women as a population group are taller, bigger, and in an absolute sense stronger than cis women," explained Joanna Harper, a medical physicist at Loughborough University in the UK. "However, after going through hormone therapy, trans women are now moving their bodies with reduced aerobic capacity, reduced muscle mass." 

This can lead to disadvantages in terms of speed, recovery and endurance. 

The expert also pointed out that trans people often struggle with poorer mental health due to prejudice and discrimination. This should not be underestimated as a component of athletic performance."

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.

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? @_@

Do you think they teleport into the restroom? You have to be in public to get into the restroom, and if someone is disfigured in public but hides it only to reveal it in a restroom, do you think people will go "oh it's okay, they're in the bathroom", or do you think they'll freak out the same way?

And in that case, what about race segregated bathrooms, since that has been a thing. Do white women need to consent to a black person entering the restroom? 

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.

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.

No, it's the transphobes and sexists causing harm. Unless they have a mental illness, they have full control over their actions and harassing others is a choice they choose to make. If trans people didn't exist, they'd still try to say that a woman was too much of a man to enter a restroom, as happened in 2007 to one woman. Trans issues weren't as publicized back then, and she still got bothered because she looked like a man to some people. Not because she looked trans, simply because she looked like a man. 

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..

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.

Yes it still would. Maybe not for gender, but women would still be harassed and bothered by men. 

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.

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. 

Do you think a creep will just wait outside the door like a gentleman? If they wanted to they could just walk in, there's no forcefield stopping them.

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.

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

Many cis men have proven they can't even keep it in their head outside of the bathroom, often attacking, harassing and raping women, they wouldn't do much better in it at this point in time. Meanwhile, you never hear about the gang of trans women that forced themselves on a cis woman, or how a bunch of transwomen doing construction work whistled and jeered at a cis woman walking by. It's the cis men that are the issue, and they are the ones repeatedly proving they're a threat.

Again, many trans women have also proven they can't keep it in their head... inside the restroom.... proving them a threat.

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.

That's true. However most transwomen tend to go through transitioning to use their identified gender's bathroom, and even if they don't most of them will not act as how cis men will (by leering or harassing cis women). But, if and when that does happen (as evidenced by the news reports you've shown me) action is taken so they don't get away with it. 

Still proves them a threat. Action is only taken after the crime. Someone's already been victimized.

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

But I'm sure every person who followed a woman into the bathroom thinking they were trans also thought they were good. What I'm saying is, you may not be as correct as you think you are, especially since you're using dating apps (which already self-selects for a particular type of person) instead of real-world people. 

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.

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.

And should it be excused? No. These people are not above the law, and if harassing a cis woman in her safe space would be bad for a trans woman to do, then it's just as bad for a cis man (or any other transvestigator) to do the same. They are not police officers or being bothered by trans people, they should not be reacting to anything.

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.

[Railko]

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?

In Melbourne, Australia, indecent exposure is governed by the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic). Specifically, section 19 of this Act deals with obscene exposure, where a person wilfully and obscenely exposes their genitals in a public place. - Google AI


The definition of a “public place” is broad, encompassing areas such as parks, roads, schools, and licensed venues.
...
A “public place” includes any area visible to the public, even if the act happens elsewhere.
- https://www.criminalsolicitorsmelbourne....t-exposure

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.

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:

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.

So I could tell how this was gonna go.

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:

You don't demonstrate ANY understanding of consent, privacy, or safety as a women.

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.

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. 

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. 

The aforementioned consent, privacy, and safety. 9_9

Which is not violated by any of what I mentioned. 

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. 

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.

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. 

"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'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 are also less invasive ways to measure muscle density, such as hydrostatic weighing and bioelectrical impedance analysis.

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.

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? 

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:

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.

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.

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.

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? 

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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? 

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.

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.

[Syne]

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??????

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:

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:

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.

So I could tell how this was gonna go.

So you were projecting the whole time.

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:

You don't demonstrate ANY understanding of consent, privacy, or safety as a women.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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

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? @_@

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.

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? @_@

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.

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?

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.

[Syne]

Crickets.