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

[Railko]

I actually didn't get a notification for the thread, only for this new reply. Didn't mean to ignore you!

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??????

Right here: "Exposure of a person is a violation that involves showing your intimate parts in public. This offense is similar to the crime of public lewdness. However, the difference is that public lewdness requires some sort of lewd act, while exposure of a person requires the mere exposing of intimate parts in public. Public can mean almost any place that is open to the general public such as a park, subway station, bus, train, library, or public restroom. But it can also mean a place that while not open to the public is not private."

And here: Simply put, you can break the law if you loiter around a public restroom with intent to engage in or solicit someone else for lewd conduct. The keyword here is “intent,” meaning it's not illegal to simply hang around a public restroom.

The term "lewd and lascivious act" has a broad meaning under California criminal law. Still, in the context of loitering around a public toilet, it means committing obscene or indecent sexual acts. These acts can include indecent exposure, solicitation for prostitution, and engaging in sexual acts in public."

So you were projecting the whole time.

No? Just predicting your actions.

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.

The basis of #MeToo was to talk about how prevalent sexual abuse was. It wasn't about how powerful consent can be (although people should be asked for consent before any sexual action), but about survivors sharing stories of sexual abuse. Again, I don't care what anybody else does with their body, and as long as it doesn't bother me I'm good with anything. And quite bluntly, your appeals to "safety" are stupid. The real world is not safe, and people can die or get hurt for a myriad of reasons at any time. To have particular fear over one thing but not the rest is moronic. And nope, I'm neurotypical.

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

But if everyone could accept that a natural woman could be that good, they wouldn't have been investigated. Transgender people were not a movement back then, so there was no reason to suspect women of being men for trans reasons.

The article states:

"In the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the runners Stella Walsh of Poland and Helen Stephens of the United States were rumored to be male impostors because of their remarkable athleticism, “male-like” muscles and angular faces."

But trans activism only really took off in 1952:

"In 1952, when World War II veteran Christine Jorgensen made headlines as the first public case of sex reassignment surgery in the U.S., it set the stage for the beginnings of trans advocacy."

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).

You kinda can. 5-12% of men out of the entire population will commit sexual assault. 0.8% of the adult population is trans, and of that 0.8%, about 1/3 are transwomen, so about 0.26% (my math). Correct me if I'm wrong with this rough estimate, but even if every single transwoman was committing an assault it would not equal to the amount that men in general do, and assuming the population stats for trans women are right, subtracting the men who assault from the population of trans women would leave probably 4.74-11.74% cis men. So regardless out of the portion of men doing these crimes, it would still be a large portion of cis men.

Strength discrepancy (e.g. safety), consent, and privacy. Women, trans women, and trans men are not a safety risk to your average man.

So you acknowledge that trans women are weaker than cis men (by not being a "safety risk") and shouldn't be in a space where they could be hurt.

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.

"The post states that women were kept out of some jury pools because they were considered the center of the home and were “too fragile to hear the grisly details of crimes and too sympathetic by nature to be able to remain objective about those accused of offenses.” It says that this varied by state, as Utah found women were fit for jury duty in 1879." A type of misguided "protection" that benefits no one.

And of course, I showed you that article where men were trying to "protect women" from running because they thought their uteruses would fall out. Benevolent sexism is what that is:

"Misbelief #1: Men are responsible for women.
This stems from the twin ideas that men should protect and provide for women and that women need men’s protection and support. Giving unsolicited help to women, such as opening doors or managing the finances, may seem well intentioned, but paternalistic actions like these assume that women are fragile, less competent, and can’t or shouldn’t make their own life and career decisions.

Example: Not offering a woman a high-visibility project or challenging international assignment because she has young children."

Women have been asking for equal draft or no draft for years. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/...rimination:

"Like many laws that appear to benefit women, men-only registration actually impedes women’s full participation in civic life. Limiting registration to men sends a message that women are unqualified to serve in the military, regardless of individual capabilities and preferences. It reflects an outmoded view that, in the event of a draft, women’s primary duty would be to the home front — and, on the flip side, that men are unqualified to be caregivers. The Military Selective Service Act not only perpetuates these stereotypes, it enshrines them in federal law.

Limiting draft registration to men also devalues the contributions of women who serve in the military. That’s why military women’s organizations like the Service Women’s Action Network support extending registration to women. National experts agree: A congressional commission formed to study the Selective Service System recommended that Congress update the Military Selective Service Act to allow women to be registered, too, and the Department of Defense has advised Congress that doing so would promote military preparedness — as well as fairness."

Women are people, not puppies that need to be protected, and other armies in other parts of the world (like Israel) draft men and women equally without issue. What you think society would want is irrelevant. And regardless of whether you think women's choices are genuine or not doesn't matter - even the most inconsistent men can make decisions we later hold them to, and we should do the same to women.  

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.

"Showering at the gym is gross and can be a horrible experience, especially during peak hours." Huh, I wonder what could be going on during peak hours? Maybe a sudden influx of people?

"Overall, you can go to the gym just to shower because it’s an easy way to save money and reduce your water and electric bills.
However, from the gym etiquette perspective, it is not recommended (even a little bit weird).
You don’t wanna be that guy or gal who comes to the gym with a bag full of bathroom products and spends 20-30 minutes showering and grooming.
Firstly, it’s gross because gym bathrooms are full of people that don’t wish to watch you shaving.
Secondly, gym bathrooms aren’t always clean. They are full of bacteria and fungi that can easily be spread even if you wear showering shoes.
All you need is to touch some surfaces that haven’t been properly washed.
Thirdly, during peak times, people are busy and want to get in and out of the shower as fast as possible.
The last thing they want to see is the person who comes in and takes a spot for longer just to save a few bucks."

"And lastly, there is a trend towards more privacy in gym showers. Some gyms are now offering private shower stalls or curtains for those who prefer a bit more seclusion while showering." 

"You also need to respect the privacy of others. Some guys are uncomfortable taking their clothes off in public or being around someone who's naked. Don't stare, whether in the shower or the locker room. Give others as much space as you can."

All of these articles are geared towards adults showering, not children. Women generally don't like getting naked in front of others: 

"They all talked about the dance," says Clark, a PhD candidate on the faculty of the physical education and recreation department at University of Alberta, who just published a paper on women's self-consciousness in public locker rooms. "It's about exposing as little skin as possible. This was very common."
Clark did extensive interviews with a handful of women about getting naked in public places like gym locker rooms and found that many felt extremely uncomfortable stripping down in front of strangers.

Morgan Adams Blake, a 41-year-old communications professional from Richmond, Virginia, says she'll often change her clothes in a bathroom stall so people won't see her naked.
"It's not that I'm ashamed of the way I look," she says. "I'm fit, I never really was significantly overweight so it doesn't stem from that. It's just how I'm wired. I'm very self-conscious about changing in a locker room.""

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.

Yeah, women do have good pain tolerance (which ironically is proven by many continuing to put up with with these procedures) but it would be humane to give pain medication in this modern age, no? You argue men are stronger than women but most men would still want help if they got overpowered by another man. Women may have better pain tolerance but it would still be nice to offer up meds. And this is relevant because you're trying to argue that it's discrimination to perform sex relevant procedures and women would hate it, when it simply isn't. Only thing women hate is the unevenness in care.

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.

Are they? I'm sure if necessary (and especially with the amount of money sports must generate), we could find the funding.

"Might not" is not a good safeguard against women getting injured.
Again, it would require low-dose radiation.

Then... do you think women might not consent once or twice to play? Every year or two is a bit much, but once in a while could be fine if it's to reduce injury.

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.

(one) definition of fascism: "[A] cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists and minorities and immigrants who are supposedly posing a threat to the character and the history of a nation ... The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors."

Interesting, given that you feel transwomen (a minority) are posing a threat to the "privacy" and "safety" of women and somehow have more power than the majority. Maybe your side is fascism. 

And sometimes the minority must dictate what the majority does. A minority of people use wheelchairs, but they're in most establishments. A minority of people have food allergies, but food makers are required to list allergens on packages. Part of being in a society is conceding to the minority when they have genuine needs.

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

And those limits developed from a long history of doubting women's athletic abilities.

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.

And as I showed before, those bone/muscle disparities aren't everything. The evidence shows that it's not cut and dry, and as long as that's not settled and women are proven to have some advantages, I think it's fine to let them in for now.

"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."

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.

That first claim is false. First, there aren't even that many trans athletes, let alone transitioned ones competing in sports, and the UN report for that doesn't even exist. It's made up:

"SheWon first went viral last year, after it was featured in a report stamped with the United Nations letterhead. Fox News declared, “Biological females have lost nearly 900 medals to trans athletes: UN report.” Similar headlines ran in outlets such as The New York Post, The Daily Mail and The Hill. Senator Tommy Tuberville, a Republican of Alabama, cited the number during a March floor speech on an anti-trans sports ban.

But the statistic did not originate from a United Nations report; it was merely “information submitted” by third parties to Reem Alsalem, a Special Rapporteur, which is a kind of independent expert who advises the Assembly. A Special Rapporteur doesn’t express the official views of the United Nations, although Alsalem has publicly maintained the veracity of the report and its claims."

For your second source - Canada's Powerlifting, Female Unequipped. In total (squat, bench, and deadlift) she got 597.5kg, which is impressive, but could still be beaten by a biological woman. Becca Swanson has done (squat, bench and deadlift) 930kg, 198+ weight class. Its not impossible to pass, but probably difficult. But as cis women have lifted much heavier, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

Ewa. She was given a chromosome test and they said she had one chromosome too many. Decided to leave instead of fight it, and had a child years later, proving them wrong. (XXY people cannot have children, or if they can they can only impregnate and not carry.)

Dutee Chand. She's a woman with hypoandrogenism, so basically natal female with high testosterone. Yet despite having XX chromosomes (hypoandrogenism is not a intersex condition) she's still not allowed to play. Plus, this isn't rare either:

"One recent study on women competing at the 2011 track and field world championships found that 7 in 1,000 elite track and field athletes had hyperandrogenism and some blend of male and female anatomical characteristics. That’s 140 times more than expected in the general population." Even if you discount intersex people, many of the women in these sports are high testosterone to begin with, and it's natural for them. They shouldn't be discounted because of the way they naturally work.

And this case even reflects my prior concerns: despite it not being necessary, they did interfere with other athletes genitalia:
"A study published last year revealed the cases and reported that those athletes also had medical procedures that had nothing to do with lowering their testosterone levels for sports: a reduction to the size of their clitorises, feminizing plastic surgery and estrogen replacement therapy." This shouldn't be happening if it's only about lowering testosterone.

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

I'm talking about them having had existed, based on the same logic that's now being used for trans people. Legally, they don't exist anymore. Socially, they do: 

"In the United States, those of the wrong class, race, or both, can have trouble easing themselves into places where they don't quite fit. Even the more privileged, as we all know, sometimes must deploy a certain cunning for getting past control points to access restaurants, and bars that will “let us” use the toilet. As a result, many people lack reasonable and reliable access to toilets outside their home."

Seems like you're having trouble understanding my text. If it's genuinely my writing style, I'll try to make it easier for you. But in any case, the burden of proof is on you to explain how your fears about transwomen using the bathroom are ~totally different~ than the fears white people had about black people using the same facilities as them, given that the claims are the same. Black people have been stereotyped as being stronger, black women as being able to sexual assault. What makes these two different? Or else I'll assume it's fearmongering by someone who has no idea how the world - or people - work.

And people making spaces to talk to those like them is not segregation. They all chose to make the group to talk about shared experiences, it's no different than making an exclusive group for volleyball players or football fanatics. 

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

If it were a honest mistake? It could still be seen as sexism, because that "man" is actually a woman and women don't all have to present the same way. Would probably depend on whether they were going by stereotypes or not.

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? @_@

Statistically, it's such a small list compared to the many many cases of men assaulting women everyday.

Nobody ever sees a pedophile and go, "sure, you can work with kids" (unless they're a pedophile themselves), nor do pedophiles typically out themselves as such when they're looking for work, and yet they still get 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.

No, you just refuse to read properly. I paraphrase my links, but you click it and you can easily read the entire article to see how it supports my claim (and also on mobile it's just easier to link; the site is wonky and I'm not sure if any of the more graphic news cases would break site rules?) But fine, I guess you need things spelled out for you.

Anyway, bystander effect doesn't mean men want to participate in a crime. But it means that men may ignore a crime happening in front of them. Not all men will jump in to stop a woman from being raped, in fact many may continue. Laura Logan is one such case, she was attacked by a mob of 300 men and was only saved later by some soldiers and women. Not one of those 300 wanted to step in and help.

"In a statement, CBS said that Ms Logan and her team became "surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration" with a mob of more than 200 people "whipped into a frenzy".

It said Ms Logan was recovering following what it described as "a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating".

A group of women and an estimated 20 soldiers managed to save her after she became separated from her colleagues and security, it added."

Or, for incidents closer to home - this one was actually encouraged by three girls and the men stepped in to rape her:

"Seven teenage boys were being held Tuesday after a 17-year-old girl was gang-raped in what a court commissioner called the worst sexual assault of its type he has ever seen.

The Sunday night assaults, which may have involved 10 to 15 assailants, took place in a North Side flat that took on the sounds of a lively party as teenage boys laughed, talked and wandered in and out of the bedroom where the girl was raped, authorities said."

Or what about this case where a woman was being raped and two police officers ignored her? A woman had to intervene and call cops despite the cops standing there.

But sure, men naturally want to protect women, right?

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? @_@

So we can try to compare with what we have.

5-12% of men in the population are rapists or will sexually assault someone: "Given consistent findings that between 1/3 and ½ of men report engaging in some form of sexually aggressive behavior over time (Abbey, Wegner, Pierce, & Jacques-Tiura, 2012; Parkill & Abbey, 2008; White & Smith, 2004), with around 5-12% committing completed or attempted rape (Abbey et al., 2012; Dardis, Murphy, Bill & Gidycz, 2016), better understanding the role of men’s beliefs about their peers’ sexual conduct is an important element of untangling the etiology of sexual aggression.

This is supported by another study: "Among the 197 participants who completed both the initial and follow-up surveys, 69 participants reported that they had committed at least one sexual assault since the age of 14 years on the Time 1 survey (35%). The highest level of sexual assault reported by 33 of the men was forced sexual contact (16.8%), 19 men reported verbally coerced sexual intercourse (9.6%), and 17 men committed attempted or completed rape (8.6%). All of the perpetrators assaulted women they knew. Of these men, 57% sexually assaulted a casual date and 33% sexually assaulted a steady dating partner."


Here's a study: "An estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male. (1) This US Dept. of Justice statistic does not report those who do not identify in these gender boxes." It's a small percentage of men out of the entire population sexually assaulting women (12% at most), but when they commit assaults 99% of the assaults are committed by men.

Second source: 1.0% of people in the United States identify as transgender. 0.8% of those trans people are adults. Of that 0.8%, 32.7% are transgender women, an already small percentage. 0.26% of that 8% are trans women, by my math. It'd be a ridiculously tiny number of trans women out of that already small number of men assailants who are assaulting women, and that's assuming even half were on board.

Another source: "Transgender people (16+) are victimized over four times more often than cisgender people. In 2017-2018, transgender people experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 people compared to 21.7 victimizations per 1,000 people for cisgender people." Transwomen are also very likely to be the victims of sexual assault, meaning that they're unlikely to be perpetrators.

There's no exact stats for how many transwomen vs cis men commit sexual assault, on either end. But we can presume, since cis are the majority, that it's majority cis men assaulting women. Transwomen are more likely than ciswomen to experience victimization, and are a tiny minority compared to the vast majority of men assaulting women. While some transwomen might be the men assaulting women, most are victims, not perpetrators.

Basic crime prevention. Limit the circumstances in which crimes occur. Hence not allowing trans in women's spaces.

Which are already limited with laws prohibiting such conduct. There's no need for vigilantism, which is also a crime (so you're essentially supporting criminals): "In almost every case, the state will press charges against the vigilante for their actions. Even if your intentions are good or you end up leading the police to someone quite a bit more dangerous, you still broke the law, so you’ll have to deal with the consequences of your actions."

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?

Fair enough. But still, probably not representative of every trans person you could encounter.

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.

We can get close though. See above stats.

And women don't need a white knight, by admission. This idea that men should protect women is called benevolent sexism:

"The work of Ellen Lamont, assistant professor of sociology at Appalachian State University, also noted benevolent sexism in the behavior of middle-aged men who characterized themselves as “caring, progressive and respectful of women.” Some of the men even distanced themselves from casual sex encounters—at least after they formed committed relationships—because they felt they were disrespectful to women. Nonetheless, Lamont argued that these men may use egalitarian narratives to position themselves as progressive and benevolent when they aren’t actually challenging male privilege or translating their beliefs into more egalitarian relationships."

[Syne]

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??????

Right here: "Exposure of a person is a violation that involves showing your intimate parts in public. This offense is similar to the crime of public lewdness. However, the difference is that public lewdness requires some sort of lewd act, while exposure of a person requires the mere exposing of intimate parts in public. Public can mean almost any place that is open to the general public such as a park, subway station, bus, train, library, or public restroom. But it can also mean a place that while not open to the public is not private."

And here: Simply put, you can break the law if you loiter around a public restroom with intent to engage in or solicit someone else for lewd conduct. The keyword here is “intent,” meaning it's not illegal to simply hang around a public restroom.

The term "lewd and lascivious act" has a broad meaning under California criminal law. Still, in the context of loitering around a public toilet, it means committing obscene or indecent sexual acts. These acts can include indecent exposure, solicitation for prostitution, and engaging in sexual acts in public."

Aw, too bad you forgot that the context here is Melbourne, Australia... not New York or California.
Even so, the NY penal code doesn't actually say "public restroom."

NY Penal Law § 245.01 defines the crime of "exposure of a person" in public
. While it does not specifically use the term "restroom," other New York statutes address illegal conduct within restrooms, such as unlawful surveillance, which is often mistakenly conflated with § 245.01.
- Google AI

That California penal code is primarily about engaging in or soliciting for prostitution.

California Penal Code 288(a) states that it is illegal for a person to engage in any lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor. “Lewd and lascivious” acts refer to any actions that are indecent or of a sexual nature with an individual under the age of 14. This includes “arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires” of the person or child. We will often see these charges commonly referred to as child molestation in the state of California. - https://www.gddlaw.com/2021/04/21/califo...duct-288a/

So all of your arguments are completely irrelevant, as if you didn't bother to read beyond your own confirmation bias. 9_9

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.

The basis of #MeToo was to talk about how prevalent sexual abuse was. It wasn't about how powerful consent can be (although people should be asked for consent before any sexual action), but about survivors sharing stories of sexual abuse. Again, I don't care what anybody else does with their body, and as long as it doesn't bother me I'm good with anything. And quite bluntly, your appeals to "safety" are stupid. The real world is not safe, and people can die or get hurt for a myriad of reasons at any time. To have particular fear over one thing but not the rest is moronic. And nope, I'm neurotypical.

#MeToo proved that every widely-covered story was, at best, "he said,she said" without any corroborating evidence, and at worst, completely fake. Many cases weaponized consent, by claiming they could remove it retroactively if they simply regretted the experience. And it was mainly used to extort resources from rich and famous men. It did serious and lasting harm to actual cases of sexual abuse.
Again, for some baffling reason, you conflate your own privacy with what other people do with their bodies. It's like you have no clue what your own personal privacy entails.
That and having no sense of mitigating avoidable dangers, certainly makes one question if you're neuroatypical... or just ignorant (whether that sheltered or that dense).

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

But if everyone could accept that a natural woman could be that good, they wouldn't have been investigated. Transgender people were not a movement back then, so there was no reason to suspect women of being men for trans reasons.

We do not just accept what is well beyond any reasonable expectation. As in science, we look to explain the anomalous. In this case, not doing so would rob women of titles and medals they rightfully deserved.
Not about trans back then, just men/countries potentially trying to cheat.

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).

You kinda can. 5-12% of men out of the entire population will commit sexual assault. 0.8% of the adult population is trans, and of that 0.8%, about 1/3 are transwomen, so about 0.26% (my math). Correct me if I'm wrong with this rough estimate, but even if every single transwoman was committing an assault it would not equal to the amount that men in general do, and assuming the population stats for trans women are right, subtracting the men who assault from the population of trans women would leave probably 4.74-11.74% cis men. So regardless out of the portion of men doing these crimes, it would still be a large portion of cis men.

Apparently you don't understand the simple concept of a percentage... or even simple math. 9_9
You're still ignorantly talking about raw numbers (and even conflating raw numbers with percentages), when likelihood can only be expressed as a percentage of the entire said population. If 5-12% of men commit sexual assault, and 100% of trans women do as well, the likelihood of being sexually assaulted by any given trans woman is literally at least 88% higher than being sexually assaulted by any given man. Yes, you are exposed to more men in public, but you are also more vulnerable when exposed to trans women in women's spaces.
You have yet to compare the portion of men to the portion of trans women. Typical math illiteracy.

Strength discrepancy (e.g. safety), consent, and privacy. Women, trans women, and trans men are not a safety risk to your average man.

So you acknowledge that trans women are weaker than cis men (by not being a "safety risk") and shouldn't be in a space where they could be hurt.

Again, you can identify as a trans woman without lowering your testosterone. So it does not follow that trans women, in general, are weaker that cis men. There are plenty of weak men in men's spaces, but their innate muscle/bone density gives them a better chance to withstand an attack from a stronger man. And even with lowered testosterone, it doesn't follow that trans women are on par with cis women, in strength or muscle/bone density.

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.

[snip bunch of historical, irrelevant arguments]
Women have been asking for equal draft or no draft for years. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/...rimination:

"Like many laws that appear to benefit women, men-only registration actually impedes women’s full participation in civic life. Limiting registration to men sends a message that women are unqualified to serve in the military, regardless of individual capabilities and preferences. It reflects an outmoded view that, in the event of a draft, women’s primary duty would be to the home front — and, on the flip side, that men are unqualified to be caregivers. The Military Selective Service Act not only perpetuates these stereotypes, it enshrines them in federal law.

Limiting draft registration to men also devalues the contributions of women who serve in the military. That’s why military women’s organizations like the Service Women’s Action Network support extending registration to women. National experts agree: A congressional commission formed to study the Selective Service System recommended that Congress update the Military Selective Service Act to allow women to be registered, too, and the Department of Defense has advised Congress that doing so would promote military preparedness — as well as fairness."

Women are people, not puppies that need to be protected, and other armies in other parts of the world (like Israel) draft men and women equally without issue. What you think society would want is irrelevant. And regardless of whether you think women's choices are genuine or not doesn't matter - even the most inconsistent men can make decisions we later hold them to, and we should do the same to women.  

No, objective measures devalue women's contribution in combat. Israel requires all citizens to serve in the military because they have such a small population and are constantly under attack. Not really a choice if your very survival relies on having bodies, any bodies, to throw at the threats.
Woman do not have the stamina, pack weight capacity, strength, etc. that men do. Unless the US comes under attack by equally advanced and numerically superior forces, there's zero justification for putting women, in general, in harm's way.

You can whine about it. But it's that same sentiment that keeps men from decking women who mouth off, just as they would another guy who does.
Women claim to want equality, but they are not opting to work physically strenuous or dangerous jobs.

The DOD only lifted the ban on women in combat under Democrats, which fits the pattern of leftists not giving a damn about the welfare of women.

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.

"Showering at the gym is gross and can be a horrible experience, especially during peak hours." Huh, I wonder what could be going on during peak hours? Maybe a sudden influx of people?

"Overall, you can go to the gym just to shower because it’s an easy way to save money and reduce your water and electric bills.
However, from the gym etiquette perspective, it is not recommended (even a little bit weird).
You don’t wanna be that guy or gal who comes to the gym with a bag full of bathroom products and spends 20-30 minutes showering and grooming.
Firstly, it’s gross because gym bathrooms are full of people that don’t wish to watch you shaving.
Secondly, gym bathrooms aren’t always clean. They are full of bacteria and fungi that can easily be spread even if you wear showering shoes.
All you need is to touch some surfaces that haven’t been properly washed.
Thirdly, during peak times, people are busy and want to get in and out of the shower as fast as possible.
The last thing they want to see is the person who comes in and takes a spot for longer just to save a few bucks."

"And lastly, there is a trend towards more privacy in gym showers. Some gyms are now offering private shower stalls or curtains for those who prefer a bit more seclusion while showering." 

"You also need to respect the privacy of others. Some guys are uncomfortable taking their clothes off in public or being around someone who's naked. Don't stare, whether in the shower or the locker room. Give others as much space as you can."

All of these articles are geared towards adults showering, not children. Women generally don't like getting naked in front of others: 

"They all talked about the dance," says Clark, a PhD candidate on the faculty of the physical education and recreation department at University of Alberta, who just published a paper on women's self-consciousness in public locker rooms. "It's about exposing as little skin as possible. This was very common."
Clark did extensive interviews with a handful of women about getting naked in public places like gym locker rooms and found that many felt extremely uncomfortable stripping down in front of strangers.

Morgan Adams Blake, a 41-year-old communications professional from Richmond, Virginia, says she'll often change her clothes in a bathroom stall so people won't see her naked.
"It's not that I'm ashamed of the way I look," she says. "I'm fit, I never really was significantly overweight so it doesn't stem from that. It's just how I'm wired. I'm very self-conscious about changing in a locker room.""

Literally only says it's gross because "showering without any soap," "don’t wish to watch you shaving," and "bacteria and fungi."
The rest is just anecdotes that still don't justify your claim that "most people try to avoid it."

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.

Yeah, women do have good pain tolerance (which ironically is proven by many continuing to put up with with these procedures) but it would be humane to give pain medication in this modern age, no? You argue men are stronger than women but most men would still want help if they got overpowered by another man. Women may have better pain tolerance but it would still be nice to offer up meds. And this is relevant because you're trying to argue that it's discrimination to perform sex relevant procedures and women would hate it, when it simply isn't. Only thing women hate is the unevenness in care.

Again, if women were more assertive, they'd simply demand more pain meds... instead of whining about not having them "offer up meds."

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.

Are they? I'm sure if necessary (and especially with the amount of money sports must generate), we could find the funding.

Competing in the Olympics involves significant costs, with expenses for elite athletes often ranging from $20,000 to $50,000 or more annually for training, equipment, and travel, though it varies greatly by sport and country. These costs cover expenses like coaches, specialized gear, physiotherapy, and competition fees, which athletes often pay out of pocket due to limited funding from their national Olympic committees, with many athletes earning very little income from their sport.
- Google AI

You're not taxing me more to fund your bullshit.

"Might not" is not a good safeguard against women getting injured.
Again, it would require low-dose radiation.

Then... do you think women might not consent once or twice to play? Every year or two is a bit much, but once in a while could be fine if it's to reduce injury.

Low-dose radiation can damage female fertility by accelerating the depletion of ovarian follicles, which can lead to premature ovarian failure (POI) and early menopause. - Google AI

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.

(one) definition of fascism: "[A] cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists and minorities and immigrants who are supposedly posing a threat to the character and the history of a nation ... The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors."

Interesting, given that you feel transwomen (a minority) are posing a threat to the "privacy" and "safety" of women and somehow have more power than the majority. Maybe your side is fascism. 

And sometimes the minority must dictate what the majority does. A minority of people use wheelchairs, but they're in most establishments. A minority of people have food allergies, but food makers are required to list allergens on packages. Part of being in a society is conceding to the minority when they have genuine needs.

No, there's a difference between the majority willingly accommodating a minority and the minority making demands on the majority.
You have yet to demonstrate "genuine needs" in this case.

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.

And as I showed before, those bone/muscle disparities aren't everything. The evidence shows that it's not cut and dry, and as long as that's not settled and women are proven to have some advantages, I think it's fine to let them in for now.

"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."

Only relevant in zero-contact sports. But those still risk depriving women of titles, records, scholarships, etc..

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.

That first claim is false. First, there aren't even that many trans athletes, let alone transitioned ones competing in sports, and the UN report for that doesn't even exist. It's made up:

"SheWon first went viral last year, after it was featured in a report stamped with the United Nations letterhead. Fox News declared, “Biological females have lost nearly 900 medals to trans athletes: UN report.” Similar headlines ran in outlets such as The New York Post, The Daily Mail and The Hill. Senator Tommy Tuberville, a Republican of Alabama, cited the number during a March floor speech on an anti-trans sports ban.

But the statistic did not originate from a United Nations report; it was merely “information submitted” by third parties to Reem Alsalem, a Special Rapporteur, which is a kind of independent expert who advises the Assembly. A Special Rapporteur doesn’t express the official views of the United Nations, although Alsalem has publicly maintained the veracity of the report and its claims."

Published by the UN: https://docs.un.org/en/A/79/325
But fair enough. UN advisor.

For your second source - Canada's Powerlifting, Female Unequipped. In total (squat, bench, and deadlift) she got 597.5kg, which is impressive, but could still be beaten by a biological woman. Becca Swanson has done (squat, bench and deadlift) 930kg, 198+ weight class. Its not impossible to pass, but probably difficult. But as cis women have lifted much heavier, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

No public record of Becca Swanson failing a drug test exists, although her career is associated with federations that do not conduct anti-doping tests. Her results and physical development have led to widespread speculation about her use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).
- Google AI

Try again. 9_9

Dutee Chand. She's a woman with hypoandrogenism, so basically natal female with high testosterone. Yet despite having XX chromosomes (hypoandrogenism is not a intersex condition) she's still not allowed to play.

Again, if it weren't for trans demanding to play in women's sports, we wouldn't have "strict testosterone limits."
Again, just another way transgenders harm women.

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

I'm talking about them having had existed, based on the same logic that's now being used for trans people. Legally, they don't exist anymore. Socially, they do: 

"In the United States, those of the wrong class, race, or both, can have trouble easing themselves into places where they don't quite fit. Even the more privileged, as we all know, sometimes must deploy a certain cunning for getting past control points to access restaurants, and bars that will “let us” use the toilet. As a result, many people lack reasonable and reliable access to toilets outside their home."

Intellectually dishonest, as the only example of race is because "because he was not a paying customer." And in Philadelphia, so not in the south, as you previously claimed.
Again, your arguments about decades ago are irrelevant to today. 

Seems like you're having trouble understanding my text. If it's genuinely my writing style, I'll try to make it easier for you. But in any case, the burden of proof is on you to explain how your fears about transwomen using the bathroom are ~totally different~ than the fears white people had about black people using the same facilities as them, given that the claims are the same.

Black people have been stereotyped as being stronger, black women as being able to sexual assault. What makes these two different? Or else I'll assume it's fearmongering by someone who has no idea how the world - or people - work.

Easy... immutable traits. Discrimination against someone for immutable traits, like the unchangeable color of their skin, is bigotry.
Transitioning to another gender is the opposite of immutable, as it clearly proves the trait has been changed.

In law, "immutable traits" are characteristics like race or sex that are considered fundamental to a person's identity and are protected by anti-discrimination laws, as they cannot or should not be abandoned or changed. - Google AI

And people making spaces to talk to those like them is not segregation. They all chose to make the group to talk about shared experiences, it's no different than making an exclusive group for volleyball players or football fanatics. 

No, "blacks only" spaces are just like "whites only" spaces. It's intellectually dishonest to compare them to sports groups when you know there's a direct analog that proves it is segregation. Both exclude others by race, which is literally racial discrimination.

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

If it were a honest mistake? It could still be seen as sexism, because that "man" is actually a woman and women don't all have to present the same way. Would probably depend on whether they were going by stereotypes or not.

Again, can't be sexism without being intentional prejudice against a particular sex. If you mistake the sex, it can't be intentional.

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? @_@

Statistically, it's such a small list compared to the many many cases of men assaulting women everyday.

Again, you've never compared the actual percentages (likelihoods) of the two, as demonstrated above.

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.

No, you just refuse to read properly. I paraphrase my links, but you click it and you can easily read the entire article to see how it supports my claim (and also on mobile it's just easier to link; the site is wonky and I'm not sure if any of the more graphic news cases would break site rules?) But fine, I guess you need things spelled out for you.

No, your reading comprehension is obviously suspect. Your "paraphrasing" makes claims your links do not support. I have already wasted plenty of time reading your articles, and repeatedly shown how they don't support your claims.

Anyway, bystander effect doesn't mean men want to participate in a crime. But it means that men may ignore a crime happening in front of them. Not all men will jump in to stop a woman from being raped, in fact many may continue.

The bystander effect is not just about men. It also includes women not calling 911, etc..

Laura Logan is one such case, she was attacked by a mob of 300 men and was only saved later by some soldiers and women. Not one of those 300 wanted to step in and help.

Irrelevant. Egypt is a Muslim country. Muslim men are not known for respecting women in general, much less non-Muslim Westerners.

Or, for incidents closer to home - this one was actually encouraged by three girls and the men stepped in to rape her:

"Seven teenage boys were being held Tuesday after a 17-year-old girl was gang-raped in what a court commissioner called the worst sexual assault of its type he has ever seen.

The Sunday night assaults, which may have involved 10 to 15 assailants, took place in a North Side flat that took on the sounds of a lively party as teenage boys laughed, talked and wandered in and out of the bedroom where the girl was raped, authorities said."

Or what about this case where a woman was being raped and two police officers ignored her? A woman had to intervene and call cops despite the cops standing there.

But sure, men naturally want to protect women, right?

Apparently you don't understand the simple difference between a witness and multiple participating assailants (or a crooked/apathetic cop).
That you think these anecdotes show that men in general don't want to protect women is just intellectually dishonest.

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? @_@

So we can try to compare with what we have.

5-12% of men in the population are rapists or will sexually assault someone: "Given consistent findings that between 1/3 and ½ of men report engaging in some form of sexually aggressive behavior over time (Abbey, Wegner, Pierce, & Jacques-Tiura, 2012; Parkill & Abbey, 2008; White & Smith, 2004), with around 5-12% committing completed or attempted rape (Abbey et al., 2012; Dardis, Murphy, Bill & Gidycz, 2016), better understanding the role of men’s beliefs about their peers’ sexual conduct is an important element of untangling the etiology of sexual aggression.

This is supported by another study: "Among the 197 participants who completed both the initial and follow-up surveys, 69 participants reported that they had committed at least one sexual assault since the age of 14 years on the Time 1 survey (35%). The highest level of sexual assault reported by 33 of the men was forced sexual contact (16.8%), 19 men reported verbally coerced sexual intercourse (9.6%), and 17 men committed attempted or completed rape (8.6%). All of the perpetrators assaulted women they knew. Of these men, 57% sexually assaulted a casual date and 33% sexually assaulted a steady dating partner."


Here's a study: "An estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male. (1) This US Dept. of Justice statistic does not report those who do not identify in these gender boxes." It's a small percentage of men out of the entire population sexually assaulting women (12% at most), but when they commit assaults 99% of the assaults are committed by men.

Second source: 1.0% of people in the United States identify as transgender. 0.8% of those trans people are adults. Of that 0.8%, 32.7% are transgender women, an already small percentage. 0.26% of that 8% are trans women, by my math. It'd be a ridiculously tiny number of trans women out of that already small number of men assailants who are assaulting women, and that's assuming even half were on board.

Another source: "Transgender people (16+) are victimized over four times more often than cisgender people. In 2017-2018, transgender people experienced 86.2 victimizations per 1,000 people compared to 21.7 victimizations per 1,000 people for cisgender people." Transwomen are also very likely to be the victims of sexual assault, meaning that they're unlikely to be perpetrators.

There's no exact stats for how many transwomen vs cis men commit sexual assault, on either end. But we can presume, since cis are the majority, that it's majority cis men assaulting women. Transwomen are more likely than ciswomen to experience victimization, and are a tiny minority compared to the vast majority of men assaulting women. While some transwomen might be the men assaulting women, most are victims, not perpetrators.

Nope, you're still trying to compare raw numbers instead of likelihoods.

Basic crime prevention. Limit the circumstances in which crimes occur. Hence not allowing trans in women's spaces.

Which are already limited with laws prohibiting such conduct. There's no need for vigilantism, which is also a crime (so you're essentially supporting criminals): "In almost every case, the state will press charges against the vigilante for their actions. Even if your intentions are good or you end up leading the police to someone quite a bit more dangerous, you still broke the law, so you’ll have to deal with the consequences of your actions."

Did I say vigilantism?
Is vigilantism the only form of crime prevention?

IOW, you're arguing a straw man.

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?

Fair enough. But still, probably not representative of every trans person you could encounter.

Unsupported claim.

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.

We can get close though. See above stats.

And women don't need a white knight, by admission. This idea that men should protect women is called benevolent sexism:

"The work of Ellen Lamont, assistant professor of sociology at Appalachian State University, also noted benevolent sexism in the behavior of middle-aged men who characterized themselves as “caring, progressive and respectful of women.” Some of the men even distanced themselves from casual sex encounters—at least after they formed committed relationships—because they felt they were disrespectful to women. Nonetheless, Lamont argued that these men may use egalitarian narratives to position themselves as progressive and benevolent when they aren’t actually challenging male privilege or translating their beliefs into more egalitarian relationships."

Leftist sociological bullshit.

[Yazata]

[Image: GziIcSMaAAAzSl_?format=jpg&name=small]

[Railko]

Aw, too bad you forgot that the context here is Melbourne, Australia... not New York or California.
Even so, the NY penal code doesn't actually say "public restroom."

NY Penal Law § 245.01 defines the crime of "exposure of a person" in public
. While it does not specifically use the term "restroom," other New York statutes address illegal conduct within restrooms, such as unlawful surveillance, which is often mistakenly conflated with § 245.01.
- Google AI

That California penal code is primarily about engaging in or soliciting for prostitution.

California Penal Code 288(a) states that it is illegal for a person to engage in any lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor. “Lewd and lascivious” acts refer to any actions that are indecent or of a sexual nature with an individual under the age of 14. This includes “arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires” of the person or child. We will often see these charges commonly referred to as child molestation in the state of California. - https://www.gddlaw.com/2021/04/21/califo...duct-288a/

So all of your arguments are completely irrelevant, as if you didn't bother to read beyond your own confirmation bias. 9_9

Still relevant. The original case with the transgender teen we were arguing about is in the US, after all - Wisconsin to be exact:

"(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:

(a) Commits an indecent act of sexual gratification with another with knowledge that they are in the presence of others; or

(b) Publicly and indecently exposes genitals or pubic area."

And a public area is public if you don't require permission from an owner to use it, which most bathrooms don't.

"A location is considered public if it is open and accessible to people without needing special permission from an owner."

New York stature doesn't, but it makes it pretty clear that there's few exceptions. https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/p...45-00.html

"A person is guilty of public lewdness when he or she intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his or her body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act: (a) in a public place, or (b) (i) in private premises under circumstances in which he or she may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he or she be so observed, or (ii) while trespassing, as defined in section 140.05 of this part, in a dwelling as defined in subdivision three of section 140.00 of this part, under circumstances in which he or she is observed by a lawful occupant."

Bathrooms are considered public places by law (as I showed before) but even if they're private, if the public can readily observe you (even in a private premises) and there's intent to show genitalia, that's still public lewdness. 

"California Penal Code 647(d) defines the crime of loitering in or about an open toilet to engage in or solicit lewd conduct."

I don't know how you got 288 from 647, but the article of my source says 647(d). This is the full law for it by the way, which includes exposing oneself near a toilet, not just prostitution.

"(d) Who loiters in or about a toilet open to the public for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act."

And here's Australia's:

"(1) A person in a public place must not wilfully expose the person’s genitals, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

(2) A person who is so near a public place that the person may be seen from the public place must not wilfully expose the person’s genitals so that the person’s genitals may be seen from the public place, unless the person has a reasonable excuse."

And how they define "public place":

"premises to which the public, or a section of the public, has access, whether by payment or not."

Here it would seem dependent on where the bathroom is.

#MeToo proved that every widely-covered story was, at best, "he said,she said" without any corroborating evidence, and at worst, completely fake. Many cases weaponized consent, by claiming they could remove it retroactively if they simply regretted the experience. And it was mainly used to extort resources from rich and famous men. It did serious and lasting harm to actual cases of sexual abuse.
Again, for some baffling reason, you conflate your own privacy with what other people do with their bodies. It's like you have no clue what your own personal privacy entails.
That and having no sense of mitigating avoidable dangers, certainly makes one question if you're neuroatypical... or just ignorant (whether that sheltered or that dense).

Anyone can revoke consent, not just women. A man has just as much right to revoke consent at any time, just like women. And many women were accusing the same few men of this behavior, suggesting a pattern with those men in particular. Even some men were sharing their stories during #MeToo,  but I guess they just wanted to extort money from other people too, right? 

https://time.com/4985787/me-too-sexual-h...-reaction/

"Men began opening up last week after the Weinstein allegations were revealed, starting with actor Terry Crews, who said he was assaulted by an unnamed Hollywood executive. Actor James Van Der Beek, best known for his role on Dawson’s Creek, said he’s had his “ass grabbed by older, powerful men.”"

https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2017/10/24...arassment/

"The trouble is that most people who witness or become aware of sexual harassment don’t speak out. Screenwriter, producer and actor Scott Rosenberg has both admitted to and denounced how this dynamic enabled Weinstein to become an alleged serial abuser. “Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing,” he wrote in a private Facebook post published in the media. “Everybody-f—ing-knew.” "

https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/10/13/wei...pen-secret

"So when the New York Times broke the story of Weinstein’s alleged decades-long pattern of workplace sexual abuse, it came as no surprise. Everybody had heard the whispers — from Seth MacFarlane, who joked about the producer’s unsavory reputation at the 2013 Oscars, to myself, a lowly box office employee with nary a connection to the film industry."

This isn't a "wow, who could have guessed?" moment - most people already knew, and were not surprised by the accusations. 

The topic is literally about trans women and how you think it's a violation of a woman's privacy for one to be in the bathroom. I have said that at least on my end, I don't care what they do, or what bathrooms they use, as long as they behave themselves. And my privacy is, well, my privacy. It doesn't affect anybody other than me, and I don't care about what other people are doing with their privacy.

And again, reality is that you cannot avoid danger. I don't know if you're aware but in the real world, most people are aware they're taking a risk every time they leave their house, and that anything can happen. Most people (or at least more level headed people) are comfortable with that reality, and if not they take steps to safeguard themselves so they do feel safe. If you're not comfortable with that, that's fine, but don't project your anxieties onto me. 

We do not just accept what is well beyond any reasonable expectation. As in science, we look to explain the anomalous. In this case, not doing so would rob women of titles and medals they rightfully deserved.
Not about trans back then, just men/countries potentially trying to cheat.

Nope, men never though women could do well. Again, it was stemming from sexism, and if you don't believe someone can do good every effort they make will be viewed with suspicion. There would be no reason to think men would pretend to be women to cheat if they believed women could be as good normally. 

Apparently you don't understand the simple concept of a percentage... or even simple math. 9_9
You're still ignorantly talking about raw numbers (and even conflating raw numbers with percentages), when likelihood can only be expressed as a percentage of the entire said population. If 5-12% of men commit sexual assault, and 100% of trans women do as well, the likelihood of being sexually assaulted by any given trans woman is literally at least 88% higher than being sexually assaulted by any given man. Yes, you are exposed to more men in public, but you are also more vulnerable when exposed to trans women in women's spaces.
You have yet to compare the portion of men to the portion of trans women. Typical math illiteracy.

Where's the conflation? Everything was a percentage so I worked within that, or converted it. 

Raw percentages are useful because we have the facts on who is committing a crime, instead of hypotheticals.

Likelihood would be based on different variables, like whether they were a repeat offender, high libido, whether there were special factors that led one to commit an assault or not, what bathrooms were even available and the percentage of women that generally use the bathroom, etc. And that information isn't available for either cis men or trans women. Nor are the conditions the same (most of the men assaulted women in private places, whereas we're using a hypothetical women's bathroom for trans women) and we would need stats on how many cis men vs trans women assault women in bathrooms (because as I showed few post so before, some cis men do go into the women's bathroom as well to attack.)

But let's see! What factors can make it more likely that a man commits assault?

https://www.binghamton.edu/news/story/51...l-assault/

“A high proportion of men report that they would commit a considerably violent rape if they could be assured that they would not get caught,” he said. “This may sound surprising, but the men that are likeliest to commit rape also tend to carry traits that make their reporting less surprising, like high levels of impulsivity and adherence to hypermasculine ideologies that see nothing wrong with male sexual dominion.”

According to their findings, factors that predispose men to sexual assault include rigid adherence to traditional gender roles, which assume male dominance; personalities that exhibit a callous disregard for others; sexism, whether overtly hostile or benevolent; and low empathy. Other factors include a belief in rape myths and ideologies that promote social dominance, such as right-wing authoritarianism."

Most transwomen tend to not rigidly adhere to traditional gender roles (as they must transgress them in order to be trans), or be right-wing:

"Four in ten trans adults (42%) identify as a Democrat, a larger share than non-trans adults (29%) and few, just one in ten (10%), identify as a Republican compared to almost one-third (31%) of non-trans adults." 

As trans women are often looking for validation of their female identity, and receiving is a female trait, when they haven't transitioned it seems that they're actually going with men more than women:

"Some transwomen report that receptivity during sex is experienced as affirming of their female gender identity, and since very few transwomen have access to (and many do not desire) genital surgery, receptivity during sex for transwomen usually means receptive anal sex. In addition, studies have shown that experiences of stigma and discrimination increase transwomen’s need for gender affirmation from their male sexual partners, thus increasing their willingness to engage in risky sexual behavior and reducing their self-efficacy to negotiate condom use and/or substance use during sex." Which makes sense, if you're a trans woman you'd probably be reluctant to use your genitalia if it were male.

Another set of researchers found that sexual predators rarely took advantage of the existence of transwomen to assault, and when that did happen it was cis men doing it, not trans women. 

"Historically, transgender individuals have been expected to conform their behavior to their anatomical sex; however, this notion is discriminatory. Trans-gender individuals report frequent harassment specifically related to restroom use. According to the2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, more than half(59%) of respondents avoided using a public rest-room in the past year because they were afraid of confrontations or other problems they might experience. Nearly one third (32%) of respondents limited the amount that they ate and drank to avoid using the restroom in the past year. During that time, respondents reported being verbally harassed (12%),physically attacked (1%), or sexually assaulted (1%)when accessing a restroom.

To assess the degree to which sexual predators may take advantage of transgender friendly restroom laws, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, NexisUni, and Google to find cases of such behaviors .Although the searches of PubMed and NexisUni returned no pertinent results, the Google search re-turned websites for conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council, American Family Association, the Liberty Counsel, and Breitbart, which have compiled lists of alleged cases. These websites claim that the compiled incidents are evidence that transgender individuals or individual staking advantage of transgender-friendly restroom provisions will prey upon victims in rest-rooms.32–36A thorough review revealed that only a small number of cases actually involved perpetrators who were transgender, perpetrators who falsely claimed to be transgender, or perpetrators who attempted to disguise themselves as a member of the opposite sex to gain restroom access.

We were able to locate only one report of a trans-gender individual committing a sexual offense (taking photos) in a dressing room. Instances of cis-gender men dressing as women to gain access to women in various stages of dress also appear to be an extremely rare phenomenon based on our review. Of the incidents in which cis-gender males dressed as women to gain access to female facilities, 11 occurred in restrooms and 7 occurred in other female facilities."

So if we have 0.56% of transpeople avoiding the bathroom (the actual presentation was not specific on their genders), I'll divide that by 3 to account for and exclude transmen and nonbinaries who might also be afraid (and also to keep it consistent with the previous 1/3 of transwomen existing in the population), so 0.18% of transwomen are avoiding the bathroom. 0.26% of transwomen exist in the US (my previous estimate). So about 0.08% are using the bathroom? So any woman's chance of even encountering a trans woman is lower than the amount that actually exists. 

The journal above (this one) has 20 cases of sexual assault, with only one being done by a transwoman who was not trying to pass - rest were done by cis men pretending to be or disguising themselves as women. The transwoman offender did not offend in a restroom, and of the twenty offenses 11 of them were done in a women's restroom. So 0% percent likelihood of being attacked by a transwoman in a restroom, but a 55% chance of being attacked by a cis man trying to pretend to be trans in a restroom. (Which, as I've mentioned in previous posts is usually filtered out from the trans women by the way they're behaving.) And a 5% chance of being attacked by a transwoman in any woman's area, which doesn't compare to the large amount of cis men attacking cis women. The phenomenon of bathroom assault is overall rare, but you have a greater chance at being attacked by a cis man than a transwoman. 

Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out (a woman with a dick raping someone is more notable than a regular woman doing it), and so more likely to get caught. So if anything, it shows that maybe low empathy, right wing patriarchal trans women and cis men should maybe be kept out of cis women spaces, as the likelihood that a transwoman is actually interested in performing sexual assault on someone is low, especially if they're not right wing, patriarchal, or if they care about their gender identity. 

Again, you can identify as a trans woman without lowering your testosterone. So it does not follow that trans women, in general, are weaker that cis men. There are plenty of weak men in men's spaces, but their innate muscle/bone density gives them a better chance to withstand an attack from a stronger man. And even with lowered testosterone, it doesn't follow that trans women are on par with cis women, in strength or muscle/bone density.

Fair enough on that, but as the stats above show, they're unlikely to be attacking cis women at all.

No, objective measures devalue women's contribution in combat. Israel requires all citizens to serve in the military because they have such a small population and are constantly under attack. Not really a choice if your very survival relies on having bodies, any bodies, to throw at the threats.
Woman do not have the stamina, pack weight capacity, strength, etc. that men do. Unless the US comes under attack by equally advanced and numerically superior forces, there's zero justification for putting women, in general, in harm's way.

You can whine about it. But it's that same sentiment that keeps men from decking women who mouth off, just as they would another guy who does.
Women claim to want equality, but they are opting to work physically strenuous or dangerous jobs.

The DOD only lifted the ban on women in combat under Democrats, which fits the pattern of leftists not giving a damn about the welfare of women.

Israel has America as allies, as well as other countries. They could absolutely borrow soldiers if they didn't want to fight, and they could avoid war at all cost if they didn't want to harm women. They also have drones, bombs, guns, all sorts of weapons that can do damage without But instead, they're fighting without a care. 

And for all the things women lack, the IDF sure seems to be doing well in their efforts to get Hamas.

And once again, not true: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...oledo.html

"A road rage 'Karen' filmed being body slammed by a man she attacked unprovoked has broken her silence to say she has 'learned her lesson.'  

Katreena Aiken, 36, voluntarily identified herself as the 'Karen' seen in the now-viral incident which took place in Toledo earlier this month.

The mom ended up being body slammed into the ground after she attacked a passenger in a car during a confrontation as he tried to walk away from her."

https://nypost.com/2021/08/22/woman-slap...ame-fight/

A woman was shown arguing with a man in front of her at Heinz Field, before slapping him in the face to spark a wild fight in which she and another man were struck.

During the argument, the woman can be heard yelling “Get the f—k out,” and apparently makes contact with the man. He replies, “Don’t touch me,” and pushes her hand away, prompting the slap.

A man seated next to the woman intervenes, and both are punched by the man who’d been slapped in the ensuing fisticuffs. Other fans eventually broke up the fight, which lasted nearly 30 seconds."

Nobody should be fighting, but if you fuck around, you will find out. Women are not exempt from reaping the consequences of their actions. 
    
And no, it fits the pattern of Democrats actually caring about what women say, instead of acting creepy and paternalistic. It's why women consistently favor Democrats over Republicans:

"In every presidential election since 1996, a majority of women have preferred the Democratic candidate. Moreover, women and men have favored different candidates in presidential elections since 2000, with the exception of 2008 when men were almost equally divided in their preferences for Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. In 2024, a majority of women favored the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris while a majority of men voted for the Republican victor, Donald Trump."

Literally only says it's gross because "showering without any soap," "don’t wish to watch you shaving," and "bacteria and fungi."
The rest is just anecdotes that still don't justify your claim that "most people try to avoid it."

From the previous article I linked:

"It's about exposing as little skin as possible. This was very common."

Clark did extensive interviews with a handful of women about getting naked in public places like gym locker rooms and found that many felt extremely uncomfortable stripping down in front of strangers."

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nake...-room-guys

"Those old naked guys in the public locker room may be a dying breed. According to Bryan Dunkelberger, a founding principal of S3 Design, a firm that has worked for the upscale gym Equinox, younger generations’ expectation of privacy is so widespread, it’s starting to influence the design of new gyms.
“Younger generations tend to prefer more privacy in locker rooms,” he tells MEL. “This can manifest in private changing areas, private shower compartments or even younger family changing areas. And because the shift is happening, more people are expecting to have many of these options available to them when they join a club.”"

https://web.archive.org/web/201907142135...nials.html

"“Old-timers, guys that are 60-plus, have no problem with a gang shower and whatever,” Mr. Dunkelberger said. “The Gen X-ers are a little bit more sensitive to what they’re spending and what they’re expecting. And the millennials, these are the special children. They expect all the amenities. They grew up in families that had Y.M.C.A. or country club memberships. They expect certain things. Privacy, they expect.”"

Again, if women were more assertive, they'd simply demand more pain meds... instead of whining about not having them "offer up meds."

Women do, and doctors regularly dismiss these complaints.

"Despite their effectiveness, IUD insertion is known to be painful for many patients (4–6). Studies show that a significant majority of women — ranging between 57-100% — report the  insertion as moderately or severely painful (7–11). Factors such as no prior pregnancy, a history of dysmenorrhea (a condition characterized by painful menstrual periods caused by uterine contractions), and patient anxiety are all associated with higher levels of pain (5, 8, 12–16).

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as ibuprofen, are commonly recommended to patients prior to IUD insertion to reduce cramping and discomfort (17). However, evidence supporting their effectiveness is limited. Multiple randomized trials and systematic reviews have shown that NSAIDs do not significantly reduce IUD insertion-related pain, suggesting other forms of pain management, such as lidocaine, may be more effective (18–20)."

From the second linked article: 

"The way that pain has historically been managed has long been influenced by racism and sexism, ACOG noted in the guidance. Studies have found that health care professionals sometimes underestimate how much pain a female patient experiences and don’t perceive female pain to be urgent, said Amanda Williams, a pain researcher and professor of clinical health psychology at University College London.

In a 2016 study co-authored by Dr. Williams, 63 pain doctors and medical students were shown images of people in pain and were asked what the appropriate treatment for that pain would be. Participants suggested “more medical referrals for the male images and more psychologist or psychiatrist referrals for females,” Dr. Williams said. The findings underscore a notion that “women can’t distinguish pain from emotion, whereas men can suppress their emotions and give you a pure account of their pain,” she added."

And I would think a hospital offering up medication would be standard practice. You don't bring your own anesthesia and pain meds when you're doing surgery.

Competing in the Olympics involves significant costs, with expenses for elite athletes often ranging from $20,000 to $50,000 or more annually for training, equipment, and travel, though it varies greatly by sport and country. These costs cover expenses like coaches, specialized gear, physiotherapy, and competition fees, which athletes often pay out of pocket due to limited funding from their national Olympic committees, with many athletes earning very little income from their sport.
- Google AI

You're not taxing me more to fund your bullshit.

So this was never about caring about the safety of women, or women in general, if you consider funding women's sports "bullshit".

Low-dose radiation can damage female fertility by accelerating the depletion of ovarian follicles, which can lead to premature ovarian failure (POI) and early menopause. - Google AI

As I said, once or twice might be fine. You do know women get X-rays occasionally (for dental issues, bone problems) without issue, right?

No, there's a difference between the majority willingly accommodating a minority and the minority making demands on the majority.
You have yet to demonstrate "genuine needs" in this case.

Disabled people had to fight and do sit ins to get accommodations.

"A group of activists, including Judy Heumann (center, with yellow stockings) protest for the enforcement of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, in April of 1977. Later that month, the protesters would occupy a federal building in San Fransisco in protest in a sit-in that lasted more than 25 days."

People with allergies have been fighting to get their allergens listed on packages; the FDA finally added sesame allergies due to those demands:

"In 2004, when Congress passed the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, those "Big 8" allergens were understood to account for about 90 percent of allergic reactions caused by food. But numerous food-allergy experts cited by CSPI consider sesame to be an emerging cause of severe allergy, affecting an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people in the United States. And for those allergic to sesame, the ingredient can trigger life-threatening anaphylaxis.

[...]

The regulatory petition filed by CSPI today also asks that the agency raise awareness among restaurateurs and other food service providers about sesame's potential to cause problems."

The minority always makes demands (or else nobody would know what they need) and the majority listens, if they're genuine needs. I think being able to use the bathroom of your gender in peace is a genuine need, as everyone needs to go and it is inhumane to deny someone a human need based on unfounded worries. 

Only relevant in zero-contact sports. But those still risk depriving women of titles, records, scholarships, etc..

And as I've shown, there are cis women who can do better than transwomen. It's not guaranteed they'll overtake them.

Published by the UN: https://docs.un.org/en/A/79/325
But fair enough. UN advisor.

I still can't find a source for the 600 females losing medals part. Clicking on it leads me to SheWon.org, which the previous source I linked cautioned against:

"A Special Rapporteur doesn’t express the official views of the United Nations, although Alsalem has publicly maintained the veracity of the report and its claims. As Erin in the Morning previously reported, Alsalem has a history of opposing trans-affirming policies, such as those found in President Joe Biden’s Title IX reforms and standards set by the World Health Organization supporting self-identification.

The real sources of these statistics, SheWon and HeCheated, sought to stay anonymous, but there are some smoking guns connecting the sites to well-known extremist communities.

For starters, the header of SheWon’s homepage is attributed to a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality and the forced sterilization of trans people."

If they can't show their sources, the veracity of the paper is hard to trust. The UN paper is also trying to conflate "harm to women" with "transwomen harming women". For example:

"Women and girls in sport, including female sports officials, are vulnerable to physical violence.5 When eligibility norms are deliberately violated and when the risk of injury to athletes is knowingly increased, the physical harms sustained can be characterized as “violence”. Examples of physical violence include being deliberately subjected to physical punishment or initiation rituals. Corporal punishment in sport, for example, the practice known as taibatsu in Japan, has led to life-long injuries for children, including girls, or death."

But taibatsu is aimed at both boys and girls, and it's not caused by transwomen joining the team:

"I had never been coached by Japanese coaches in my school ages because I spent my times in the (United) States. Based on what I heard, it seems like most of Japanese school coaches don’t have any clue or strategy when it comes to basketball.
“That’s why they just go with the Japanese way, ‘taibatsu,’ (corporal punishment). In addition to that, it has a lot to do with culture, too. In Japan, some parents hit their kids as they raise the children. So I guess it’s considered ‘normal’ to hit the kids in Japanese culture."

Some of the linked sources in that paper seem to come from genuine scientific journals, but not those. 

No public record of Becca Swanson failing a drug test exists, although her career is associated with federations that do not conduct anti-doping tests. Her results and physical development have led to widespread speculation about her use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).
- Google AI

Try again. 9_9

And drug tested, Alexis Jones has lifted 721kg (raw, total 1590.6lbs). Another biological woman who's done better than a transwoman. 

Again, if it weren't for trans demanding to play in women's sports, we wouldn't have "strict testosterone limits."
Again, just another way transgenders harm women.

False. As demonstrated previously, men doubted women's abilities to play long before transgender people reached the scene. Every attempt at identifying a limit after that, whether testosterone or chromosome, has been an offshoot of that original doubt.

Intellectually dishonest, as the only example of race is because "because he was not a paying customer." And in Philadelphia, so not in the south, as you previously claimed.
Again, your arguments about decades ago are irrelevant to today. 

No, they're relevant because they're based on the same logic. First time was a false alarm, you need to prove how this time it's ~totally a real concern~. Still, here's some more examples of social discrimination:

https://news.maryland.gov/msp/2020/02/27...comico-co/

"Maryland State Police are investigating the origin of racist comments found last night etched in a restroom of a commercial establishment in Wicomico County.
Shortly before 9:30 p.m. yesterday, Maryland State Police from the Salisbury Barracks responded to a bar/restaurant in the 1400-block of South Salisbury Blvd., after the business owner called to report racist comments found in the women’s restroom.  Troopers responded and initiated an investigation.
The preliminary investigation indicates multiple racial epithets were scratched into bathroom stall doors/walls.  The epithets were placed so they would immediately be seen upon entering the restroom."

https://www.forsythelawfirm.com/asphalt-...vironment/

"According to the lawsuit, the company subjected Black employees to a hostile work environment. Specifically, Asphalt Paving Systems, Inc. is alleged to have subjected 12 Black former employees and a class of other Black employees to frequent and severe harassment because of their race. Black employees were forced to work in degrading and humiliating conditions. This includes being required to work in the pouring rain while white employees watched. They were also forced to urinate outside while white employees used indoor restrooms. Black employees were further subjected to being called racial slurs including the “n-word.”"

https://nypost.com/2024/03/01/business/m...ooms-suit/

"Nine former employees of a Michigan trucking company claim they were forced to use minority-only bathrooms even as they were subjected to racist taunts and harassment — including finding the letters “KKK” scrawled on a door and slurs such as the N-word, “beaners,” and “porch monkeys,” according to a federal lawsuit.
Workers at the Lake Orion, Mich.-based Environmental Wood Solutions claimed in a lawsuit filed in the US Eastern District of Michigan that they were forced to use segregated bathrooms.
One of the plaintiffs, Darryl Morgan, a 57-year-old black man from Fraser, Mich., said he was paid less to drive trucks than his white counterparts."

Easy... immutable traits. Discrimination against someone for immutable traits, like the unchangeable color of their skin, is bigotry.
Transitioning to another gender is the opposite of immutable, as it clearly proves the trait has been changed.

In law, "immutable traits" are characteristics like race or sex that are considered fundamental to a person's identity and are protected by anti-discrimination laws, as they cannot or should not be abandoned or changed. - Google AI

Being transgender is generally considered an immutable trait. You said it yourself, you can be trans without transitioning, so it's not the gender identity that is changing, but the body, and the gender is an immutable trait. So again, how is it different?

No, "blacks only" spaces are just like "whites only" spaces. It's intellectually dishonest to compare them to sports groups when you know there's a direct analog that proves it is segregation. Both exclude others by race, which is literally racial discrimination.

Definition of segregation:

"Segregation, separation of groups of people with differing characteristics, often taken to connote a condition of inequality. Racial segregation is one of many types of segregation, which can range from deliberate and systematic persecution through more subtle types of discrimination to self-imposed separation."

Definition of a safe space:

": a place (as on a college campus) intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations."

So "black people gathering together to talk about shared experiences" isn't segregation, as black people aren't doing it to put down white people, and are comfortable with the space.

Again, can't be sexism without being intentional prejudice against a particular sex. If you mistake the sex, it can't be intentional.

Nope, sexism can be accidental. If you see a woman and assume she's a secretary instead of the CEO of a company because she's a woman, it may not have been your intent to be sexist, but it's still a sexist statement. If a woman is crying and you assume it's because of her period, even if you're being genuine it's still sexist. It would depend heavily on the intent though. 

Again, you've never compared the actual percentages (likelihoods) of the two, as demonstrated above.

Just did, with that new paper.

No, your reading comprehension is obviously suspect. Your "paraphrasing" makes claims your links do not support. I have already wasted plenty of time reading your articles, and repeatedly shown how they don't support your claims.

Nope, they do. But in any case, there are quotes now, if that makes it easier for you. 

The bystander effect is not just about men. It also includes women not calling 911, etc..

But in this case it's about men, as you said the force to stop it would come from any men nearby.

Irrelevant. Egypt is a Muslim country. Muslim men are not known for respecting women in general, much less non-Muslim Westerners.

They are still men. 

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.

-Your previous quote. You said the force would come from any men nearby. These are men, why didn't they stop it?

Apparently you don't understand the simple difference between a witness and multiple participating assailants (or a crooked/apathetic cop).
That you think these anecdotes show that men in general don't want to protect women is just intellectually dishonest.

What about this?

"As a woman was raped on a public transit train in Philadelphia last week, riders held up their cellphones and pointed them in the direction of the sexual assault instead of calling 911, authorities said.
Officials are investigating whether some bystanders recorded the attack, which happened Wednesday night on the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, or SEPTA, Market-Frankford line toward the town of Upper Darby.

"I can tell you that people were holding their phone up in the direction of this woman being attacked," SEPTA Police Chief Thomas J. Nestel III said at a news conference Monday.
A suspect, Fiston Ngoy, 35, was arrested on rape and assault charges. Ngoy, who listed his last address as a homeless shelter, remains in custody on $180,000 bail. It's not clear whether he has an attorney or a public defender.
Nestel said that other riders were on the train at the time but that "there were very few notifications to the police."
No calls were made to 911 in Philadelphia, he said. Police are still waiting to see whether 911 calls were made to Delaware County, which covers the train's last two stops.
The attack wasn't reported until a SEPTA employee saw what was happening. Officials said at the news conference that officers responded within three minutes of the employee's report.
"What we want everyone to be is angry, disgusted and join us in being resolute to continue to make the system safe. We need help from the public to notify us when they see incidents that are occurring that are unusual," Nestel said."

Or this?

"On Sunday, I had the unfortunate displeasure of experiencing what that sort of behaviour looks like firsthand: a young guy in a pack of three decided to speak inappropriately to a friend of mine, before brazenly groping her in broad daylight. When I decided to intervene, the only thing stopping me from getting dragged into a physical altercation with his two male friends was the fact that they’d have to hit a girl to get through to me. After threatening me a number of times and using the glorious epithet “white knight fag”, they eventually stood down and left.

[...]

But then I realised there was another solution. It was all of the people around us. If they didn’t see what had happened, they definitely got wind of it afterwards – but at no point did anyone try and intervene. This is unconscionable to me."

Or this:

"A Brooklyn woman said she was raped by a stranger while boozing it up on Coney Island on the Fourth of July — while bystanders laughed and shot video “like it was a movie.”

Melasia Harris, 25, told The Post she was at the Brooklyn beach to meet a pal who never showed up — so she stayed to celebrate the holiday with a group of strangers into the early morning.

“There were people around,” Harris recalled. “I started hearing people laughing. They sat across and watched like it was a movie.”
At one point during her ordeal, the light from a golf cart — presumably driven by beach security — shone on the group during the attack, but simply drove off and left her behind, she said."

But the nightmare didn’t end there. Harris said after she broke free the creep followed her, threw her into a nearby fence and raped her, all while she called for help.
“People were there,” she said. “He had my face in the sand. He had my face in the bushes. I was screaming.”

Bizarrely, she said her attacker then followed her to the West 8th subway station and sat next to her, “like we were a couple.”
When she was finally able to break away from the man, she ran home and said she was later taken to the hospital by ambulance, where a rape kit was done."
AD

People see things happen and ignore it all the time. 

Nope, you're still trying to compare raw numbers instead of likelihoods.

Well the likelihood of a transwoman attacking a cis woman in the bathroom seems pretty low based on the information I just posted. 

Basic crime prevention. Limit the circumstances in which crimes occur. Hence not allowing trans in women's spaces.
Did I say vigilantism?
Is vigilantism the only form of crime prevention?

IOW, you're arguing a straw man.

When we're talking about civilians barging into bathrooms and accosting women minding their own business (the topic that led to this), it can only be vigilantism. 

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.

 
- me a few replies back. If you decide to go on your own and take the law into your own hands, you would be a criminal.

Unsupported claim.

So, assuming you're North American, I'm guessing you suffer from anxiety?

"183 North-American adults, both sexes, aged between 18 and 65 (M = 29.97, SD = 8,50). Recruited via Amazon´s Mechanical Turk. -

People with a more anxious attachment orientation were more likely to report using dating apps than people lower in anxiety attachment. People with a more avoidance attachment orientation were less like to report using dating apps than people lower in avoidant attachment. The most common reason people reported for using apps was to meet others, and the most common reason people reported for not using apps was difficulty trusting people online."

Or are you a middle aged psychopath from the UK?

"216 current or former Tinder users, from UK, USA and Canada, both sexes, aged between 18 and 56 -

Using Tinder for acquiring sexual experience was related to being male and being high in psychopathy. Psychopathy was positively correlated with using Tinder to distract oneself from other tasks. Higher Machiavellianism and being female were related to peer pressure as a Tinder use motivation. Using Tinder for acquiring social or flirting skills had a negative relationship with narcissism, and a positive relationship with Machiavellianism. Finally, Machiavellianism was also a significant, positive predictor of Tinder use for social approval and to pass the time."

It's self-selecting for a certain type of person. Plus, do you think every trans person is on the dating apps you're using? Especially the ones into women - they're going to be using women only apps, not the general heterosexual ones. 

Leftist sociological bullshit.

You mean, "women say what they need and you ignore them."

[Syne]

Aw, too bad you forgot that the context here is Melbourne, Australia... not New York or California.
Even so, the NY penal code doesn't actually say "public restroom."

NY Penal Law § 245.01 defines the crime of "exposure of a person" in public
. While it does not specifically use the term "restroom," other New York statutes address illegal conduct within restrooms, such as unlawful surveillance, which is often mistakenly conflated with § 245.01.
- Google AI

That California penal code is primarily about engaging in or soliciting for prostitution.

California Penal Code 288(a) states that it is illegal for a person to engage in any lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor. “Lewd and lascivious” acts refer to any actions that are indecent or of a sexual nature with an individual under the age of 14. This includes “arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires” of the person or child. We will often see these charges commonly referred to as child molestation in the state of California. - https://www.gddlaw.com/2021/04/21/califo...duct-288a/

So all of your arguments are completely irrelevant, as if you didn't bother to read beyond your own confirmation bias. 9_9

Still relevant. The original case with the transgender teen we were arguing about is in the US, after all - Wisconsin to be exact:

You mean the 18 year old man (identifying as a woman) intentionally exposing himself (male genitalia) to 14 year old girls, right?

"(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:

(a) Commits an indecent act of sexual gratification with another with knowledge that they are in the presence of others; or

(b) Publicly and indecently exposes genitals or pubic area."

And a public area is public if you don't require permission from an owner to use it, which most bathrooms don't.

"A location is considered public if it is open and accessible to people without needing special permission from an owner."

New York stature doesn't, but it makes it pretty clear that there's few exceptions. https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/p...45-00.html

"A person is guilty of public lewdness when he or she intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his or her body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act: (a) in a public place, or (b) (i) in private premises under circumstances in which he or she may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he or she be so observed, or (ii) while trespassing, as defined in section 140.05 of this part, in a dwelling as defined in subdivision three of section 140.00 of this part, under circumstances in which he or she is observed by a lawful occupant."

Bathrooms are considered public places by law (as I showed before) but even if they're private, if the public can readily observe you (even in a private premises) and there's intent to show genitalia, that's still public lewdness. 

"California Penal Code 647(d) defines the crime of loitering in or about an open toilet to engage in or solicit lewd conduct."

I don't know how you got 288 from 647, but the article of my source says 647(d). This is the full law for it by the way, which includes exposing oneself near a toilet, not just prostitution.

"(d) Who loiters in or about a toilet open to the public for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act."

And here's Australia's:

"(1) A person in a public place must not wilfully expose the person’s genitals, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

(2) A person who is so near a public place that the person may be seen from the public place must not wilfully expose the person’s genitals so that the person’s genitals may be seen from the public place, unless the person has a reasonable excuse."

And how they define "public place":

"premises to which the public, or a section of the public, has access, whether by payment or not."

Here it would seem dependent on where the bathroom is.

Whether you realize it or not, you are conflating different legal contexts of the term "public." Code 647 clearly specifies "a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view." These are all different places. Can you guess which is a restroom and which are not?
This is why 647(d) specifies "toilet." As a toilet is "a place open to the public" but is not "a public place" (as opposed to private property) nor "exposed to public view." And where it mentions "toilet," it's only with regard to "engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act."
California penal code 288 is the only other place they define "lewd or lascivious acts."

In Victoria (the Australian state of Melbourne), indecent exposure is covered by the SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966. And again, their definition of "public place" does not include restrooms: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewd...89/s3.html

#MeToo proved that every widely-covered story was, at best, "he said,she said" without any corroborating evidence, and at worst, completely fake. Many cases weaponized consent, by claiming they could remove it retroactively if they simply regretted the experience. And it was mainly used to extort resources from rich and famous men. It did serious and lasting harm to actual cases of sexual abuse.
Again, for some baffling reason, you conflate your own privacy with what other people do with their bodies. It's like you have no clue what your own personal privacy entails.
That and having no sense of mitigating avoidable dangers, certainly makes one question if you're neuroatypical... or just ignorant (whether that sheltered or that dense).

Anyone can revoke consent, not just women.

You do know what the word "retroactively" means, right? @_@

And many women were accusing the same few men of this behavior, suggesting a pattern with those men in particular.

Or the same men being targeted. Without evidence, it's still he said, she said.

https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2017/10/24...arassment/

"The trouble is that most people who witness or become aware of sexual harassment don’t speak out. Screenwriter, producer and actor Scott Rosenberg has both admitted to and denounced how this dynamic enabled Weinstein to become an alleged serial abuser. “Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing,” he wrote in a private Facebook post published in the media. “Everybody-f—ing-knew.” "

https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/10/13/wei...pen-secret

"So when the New York Times broke the story of Weinstein’s alleged decades-long pattern of workplace sexual abuse, it came as no surprise. Everybody had heard the whispers — from Seth MacFarlane, who joked about the producer’s unsavory reputation at the 2013 Oscars, to myself, a lowly box office employee with nary a connection to the film industry."

This isn't a "wow, who could have guessed?" moment - most people already knew, and were not surprised by the accusations. 

Yes, Hollywood has long been known to be filled with degenerates, both men in positions of power and women willing to do anything for fame.
Do you think Hollywood is representative of the entire population? @_@

The topic is literally about trans women and how you think it's a violation of a woman's privacy for one to be in the bathroom. I have said that at least on my end, I don't care what they do, or what bathrooms they use, as long as they behave themselves. And my privacy is, well, my privacy. It doesn't affect anybody other than me, and I don't care about what other people are doing with their privacy.

You also don't seem to care how other women may feel. Maybe you're just that self-centered. 9_9

And again, reality is that you cannot avoid danger. I don't know if you're aware but in the real world, most people are aware they're taking a risk every time they leave their house, and that anything can happen. Most people (or at least more level headed people) are comfortable with that reality, and if not they take steps to safeguard themselves so they do feel safe. If you're not comfortable with that, that's fine, but don't project your anxieties onto me. 

I never suggested you should feel any way about anything.
As with privacy, maybe you really are incapable of understanding or taking the potential feelings of others into account. Or even the objective fact that one situation may be more vulnerable or unsafe than another.
Maybe you're just a narcissist.

We do not just accept what is well beyond any reasonable expectation. As in science, we look to explain the anomalous. In this case, not doing so would rob women of titles and medals they rightfully deserved.
Not about trans back then, just men/countries potentially trying to cheat.

Nope, men never though women could do well. Again, it was stemming from sexism, and if you don't believe someone can do good every effort they make will be viewed with suspicion. There would be no reason to think men would pretend to be women to cheat if they believed women could be as good normally. 

A claim not supported by anything you've posted. In each of your historical examples, it wasn't that women simply did well, it was that some did so much better than other women that is raised suspicions.

Apparently you don't understand the simple concept of a percentage... or even simple math. 9_9
You're still ignorantly talking about raw numbers (and even conflating raw numbers with percentages), when likelihood can only be expressed as a percentage of the entire said population. If 5-12% of men commit sexual assault, and 100% of trans women do as well, the likelihood of being sexually assaulted by any given trans woman is literally at least 88% higher than being sexually assaulted by any given man. Yes, you are exposed to more men in public, but you are also more vulnerable when exposed to trans women in women's spaces.
You have yet to compare the portion of men to the portion of trans women. Typical math illiteracy.

Where's the conflation? Everything was a percentage so I worked within that, or converted it. 

Raw percentages are useful because we have the facts on who is committing a crime, instead of hypotheticals.

You never gave a percentage of trans women committing sexual assaults. Hence you could not compare it to anything.

Likelihood would be based on different variables, like whether they were a repeat offender, high libido, whether there were special factors that led one to commit an assault or not, what bathrooms were even available and the percentage of women that generally use the bathroom, etc. And that information isn't available for either cis men or trans women. Nor are the conditions the same (most of the men assaulted women in private places, whereas we're using a hypothetical women's bathroom for trans women) and we would need stats on how many cis men vs trans women assault women in bathrooms (because as I showed few post so before, some cis men do go into the women's bathroom as well to attack.)

No, now you're just conflating the likelihood of individual perpetration with the general likelihood of perpetration.
Your previous "5-12% of men" doesn't take into account any of the circumstances in any individual perpetrators. Why did you bring up that figure if you're now just going to move the goalpost (fallacy) to specifying restrooms? When you were accusing men, it sure seemed good enough for you.

We don't need stats on restrooms to establish the general likelihood between men and trans women. It really seems like you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

But let's see! What factors can make it more likely that a man commits assault?

https://www.binghamton.edu/news/story/51...l-assault/

Too bad you completely missed that the context there was "dating," not strangers.

To assess the degree to which sexual predators may take advantage of transgender friendly restroom laws, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, NexisUni, and Google to find cases of such behaviors .Although the searches of PubMed and NexisUni returned no pertinent results, the Google search re-turned websites for conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council, American Family Association, the Liberty Counsel, and Breitbart, which have compiled lists of alleged cases. These websites claim that the compiled incidents are evidence that transgender individuals or individual staking advantage of transgender-friendly restroom provisions will prey upon victims in rest-rooms.32–36A thorough review revealed that only a small number of cases actually involved perpetrators who were transgender, perpetrators who falsely claimed to be transgender, or perpetrators who attempted to disguise themselves as a member of the opposite sex to gain restroom access.
...
So if we have 0.56% of transpeople avoiding the bathroom (the actual presentation was not specific on their genders), I'll divide that by 3 to account for and exclude transmen and nonbinaries who might also be afraid (and also to keep it consistent with the previous 1/3 of transwomen existing in the population), so 0.18% of transwomen are avoiding the bathroom. 0.26% of transwomen exist in the US (my previous estimate). So about 0.08% are using the bathroom? So any woman's chance of even encountering a trans woman is lower than the amount that actually exists. 

So no scientifically sound numbers to work with, making your guesstimate worthless.

The journal above (this one) has 20 cases of sexual assault, with only one being done by a transwoman who was not trying to pass - rest were done by cis men pretending to be or disguising themselves as women. The transwoman offender did not offend in a restroom, and of the twenty offenses 11 of them were done in a women's restroom. So 0% percent likelihood of being attacked by a transwoman in a restroom, but a 55% chance of being attacked by a cis man trying to pretend to be trans in a restroom. (Which, as I've mentioned in previous posts is usually filtered out from the trans women by the way they're behaving.) And a 5% chance of being attacked by a transwoman in any woman's area, which doesn't compare to the large amount of cis men attacking cis women. The phenomenon of bathroom assault is overall rare, but you have a greater chance at being attacked by a cis man than a transwoman. 

Hence allowing trans women (which is only determined by claiming the identity) access made women less safe. Even if mostly from cis men, it's the "more permissive restroom entry laws," designed for transgenders, that literally facilitated harm to women.
20 cases is not a representative sample size to be making intellectually honest pronouncements about the likelihood in general.

Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out (a woman with a dick raping someone is more notable than a regular woman doing it), and so more likely to get caught. So if anything, it shows that maybe low empathy, right wing patriarchal trans women and cis men should maybe be kept out of cis women spaces, as the likelihood that a transwoman is actually interested in performing sexual assault on someone is low, especially if they're not right wing, patriarchal, or if they care about their gender identity. 

You're making up unsupported bullshit again.

Again, you can identify as a trans woman without lowering your testosterone. So it does not follow that trans women, in general, are weaker that cis men. There are plenty of weak men in men's spaces, but their innate muscle/bone density gives them a better chance to withstand an attack from a stronger man. And even with lowered testosterone, it doesn't follow that trans women are on par with cis women, in strength or muscle/bone density.

Fair enough on that, but as the stats above show, they're unlikely to be attacking cis women at all.

You're stats don't show that at all. The sample size is so small as to be anecdotal.

No, objective measures devalue women's contribution in combat. Israel requires all citizens to serve in the military because they have such a small population and are constantly under attack. Not really a choice if your very survival relies on having bodies, any bodies, to throw at the threats.
Woman do not have the stamina, pack weight capacity, strength, etc. that men do. Unless the US comes under attack by equally advanced and numerically superior forces, there's zero justification for putting women, in general, in harm's way.

You can whine about it. But it's that same sentiment that keeps men from decking women who mouth off, just as they would another guy who does.
Women claim to want equality, but they are not opting to work physically strenuous or dangerous jobs.

The DOD only lifted the ban on women in combat under Democrats, which fits the pattern of leftists not giving a damn about the welfare of women.

Israel has America as allies, as well as other countries. They could absolutely borrow soldiers if they didn't want to fight, and they could avoid war at all cost if they didn't want to harm women. They also have drones, bombs, guns, all sorts of weapons that can do damage without But instead, they're fighting without a care. 

And for all the things women lack, the IDF sure seems to be doing well in their efforts to get Hamas.

Apparently you don't know much about Israel. No country offers their own soldiers to aid Israel. Israel cannot avoid war, as their neighbors are constantly attacking them, with rockets, suicide bombers, terror attacks, etc.. Israel faces biased international scrutiny, so they seek to severely limit civilian casualties, often requiring troops on the ground rather than bombs, drones, etc..

And once again, not true: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...oledo.html

"A road rage 'Karen' filmed being body slammed by a man she attacked unprovoked...

https://nypost.com/2021/08/22/woman-slap...ame-fight/

A woman was shown arguing with a man in front of her at Heinz Field, before slapping him in the face...

Did you see where I literally wrote "women who mouth off"?
Do you see the obviously difference in your examples? @_@

And no, it fits the pattern of Democrats actually caring about what women say, instead of acting creepy and paternalistic. It's why women consistently favor Democrats over Republicans:

No, women favor Democrats because Democrats try to help women avoid accountability. Abortion on demand, welfare for women with 5 baby daddies, etc..
That's not caring, that's called pandering.

Literally only says it's gross because "showering without any soap," "don’t wish to watch you shaving," and "bacteria and fungi."
The rest is just anecdotes that still don't justify your claim that "most people try to avoid it."

From the previous article I linked:

"It's about exposing as little skin as possible. This was very common."

Clark did extensive interviews with a handful of women about getting naked in public places like gym locker rooms and found that many felt extremely uncomfortable stripping down in front of strangers."

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nake...-room-guys

"Those old naked guys in the public locker room may be a dying breed. According to Bryan Dunkelberger, a founding principal of S3 Design, a firm that has worked for the upscale gym Equinox, younger generations’ expectation of privacy is so widespread, it’s starting to influence the design of new gyms.
“Younger generations tend to prefer more privacy in locker rooms,” he tells MEL. “This can manifest in private changing areas, private shower compartments or even younger family changing areas. And because the shift is happening, more people are expecting to have many of these options available to them when they join a club.”"

https://web.archive.org/web/201907142135...nials.html

"“Old-timers, guys that are 60-plus, have no problem with a gang shower and whatever,” Mr. Dunkelberger said. “The Gen X-ers are a little bit more sensitive to what they’re spending and what they’re expecting. And the millennials, these are the special children. They expect all the amenities. They grew up in families that had Y.M.C.A. or country club memberships. They expect certain things. Privacy, they expect.”"

Do you see where all of these are talking about people wanting their own privacy?
Do you see any talking about demanding others to not expose themselves? @_@

Again, if women were more assertive, they'd simply demand more pain meds... instead of whining about not having them "offer up meds."

Women do, and doctors regularly dismiss these complaints.

"Despite their effectiveness, IUD insertion is known to be painful for many patients (4–6). Studies show that a significant majority of women — ranging between 57-100% — report the  insertion as moderately or severely painful (7–11). Factors such as no prior pregnancy, a history of dysmenorrhea (a condition characterized by painful menstrual periods caused by uterine contractions), and patient anxiety are all associated with higher levels of pain (5, 8, 12–16).

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as ibuprofen, are commonly recommended to patients prior to IUD insertion to reduce cramping and discomfort (17). However, evidence supporting their effectiveness is limited. Multiple randomized trials and systematic reviews have shown that NSAIDs do not significantly reduce IUD insertion-related pain, suggesting other forms of pain management, such as lidocaine, may be more effective (18–20)."

From the second linked article: 

"The way that pain has historically been managed has long been influenced by racism and sexism, ACOG noted in the guidance. Studies have found that health care professionals sometimes underestimate how much pain a female patient experiences and don’t perceive female pain to be urgent, said Amanda Williams, a pain researcher and professor of clinical health psychology at University College London.

In a 2016 study co-authored by Dr. Williams, 63 pain doctors and medical students were shown images of people in pain and were asked what the appropriate treatment for that pain would be. Participants suggested “more medical referrals for the male images and more psychologist or psychiatrist referrals for females,” Dr. Williams said. The findings underscore a notion that “women can’t distinguish pain from emotion, whereas men can suppress their emotions and give you a pure account of their pain,” she added."

And I would think a hospital offering up medication would be standard practice. You don't bring your own anesthesia and pain meds when you're doing surgery.

If you could read, you'd see that none of those say women are refused medication they request. Again, your "women do" is not supported by your citation. @_@
Hence more assertive men getting more meds.

Competing in the Olympics involves significant costs, with expenses for elite athletes often ranging from $20,000 to $50,000 or more annually for training, equipment, and travel, though it varies greatly by sport and country. These costs cover expenses like coaches, specialized gear, physiotherapy, and competition fees, which athletes often pay out of pocket due to limited funding from their national Olympic committees, with many athletes earning very little income from their sport.
- Google AI

You're not taxing me more to fund your bullshit.

So this was never about caring about the safety of women, or women in general, if you consider funding women's sports "bullshit".

False dilemma, as this is only an issue because trans demand to play against women. No trans, no issue.
And as you've proven, sports governing bodies were already catching trans women in sports, without any extra cost to taxpayers.
Added expense to allow trans to play against women is ideologically-driven bullshit.

Low-dose radiation can damage female fertility by accelerating the depletion of ovarian follicles, which can lead to premature ovarian failure (POI) and early menopause. - Google AI

As I said, once or twice might be fine. You do know women get X-rays occasionally (for dental issues, bone problems) without issue, right?

When people usually get x-rays anywhere near their reproductive organs, they are covered with a lead apron for protection.
You're talking about using x-rays directly on reproductive organs.

No, there's a difference between the majority willingly accommodating a minority and the minority making demands on the majority.
You have yet to demonstrate "genuine needs" in this case.

Disabled people had to fight and do sit ins to get accommodations.

"A group of activists, including Judy Heumann (center, with yellow stockings) protest for the enforcement of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, in April of 1977. Later that month, the protesters would occupy a federal building in San Fransisco in protest in a sit-in that lasted more than 25 days."

People with allergies have been fighting to get their allergens listed on packages; the FDA finally added sesame allergies due to those demands:

"In 2004, when Congress passed the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, those "Big 8" allergens were understood to account for about 90 percent of allergic reactions caused by food. But numerous food-allergy experts cited by CSPI consider sesame to be an emerging cause of severe allergy, affecting an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people in the United States. And for those allergic to sesame, the ingredient can trigger life-threatening anaphylaxis.

[...]

The regulatory petition filed by CSPI today also asks that the agency raise awareness among restaurateurs and other food service providers about sesame's potential to cause problems."

The minority always makes demands (or else nobody would know what they need) and the majority listens, if they're genuine needs. I think being able to use the bathroom of your gender in peace is a genuine need, as everyone needs to go and it is inhumane to deny someone a human need based on unfounded worries. 

Again, no one has demonstrated that trans have "genuine needs."
Trans "gender" is literally a disorder... gender dysphoria. And you've already proven the worries well-founded, even if only due to the greater potential for males to abuse access.

Only relevant in zero-contact sports. But those still risk depriving women of titles, records, scholarships, etc..

And as I've shown, there are cis women who can do better than transwomen. It's not guaranteed they'll overtake them.

You actually haven't shown that. You've shown people who very likely use performance-enhancing drugs can beat those who don't.

Published by the UN: https://docs.un.org/en/A/79/325
But fair enough. UN advisor.

I still can't find a source for the 600 females losing medals part. Clicking on it leads me to SheWon.org, which the previous source I linked cautioned against:

My link leads to a docs.un.org PDF.

C. Opportunity for fair and safe competition

11. Policies implemented by international federations and national governing
bodies, along with national legislation in some countries, allow males who identify
as women to compete in female sports categories.28 In other cases, this practice is not
explicitly prohibited and is thus tolerated in practice. The replacement of the female
sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of
female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against
males. According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female
athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different
sports.29

28 Submission from Universidad de La Sabana.
29 Submission from Women’s Liberation Front, International Consortium on Female Sport and
Dianne Post on behalf of Lavender Patch.

No public record of Becca Swanson failing a drug test exists, although her career is associated with federations that do not conduct anti-doping tests. Her results and physical development have led to widespread speculation about her use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs).
- Google AI

Try again. 9_9

And drug tested, Alexis Jones has lifted 721kg (raw, total 1590.6lbs). Another biological woman who's done better than a transwoman. 

Higher weight class. Weren't you all about fair weight classes? @_@
9_9

Again, if it weren't for trans demanding to play in women's sports, we wouldn't have "strict testosterone limits."
Again, just another way transgenders harm women.

False. As demonstrated previously, men doubted women's abilities to play long before transgender people reached the scene. Every attempt at identifying a limit after that, whether testosterone or chromosome, has been an offshoot of that original doubt.

Again, we've only instituted "strict testosterone limits" since transgenders.
It's intellectually dishonest to repeatedly try to apply decades-old history that is not relevant to the present circumstances.
I'm starting to think you're just chronically intellectually dishonest.

Intellectually dishonest, as the only example of race is because "because he was not a paying customer." And in Philadelphia, so not in the south, as you previously claimed.
Again, your arguments about decades ago are irrelevant to today. 

No, they're relevant because they're based on the same logic. First time was a false alarm, you need to prove how this time it's ~totally a real concern~. Still, here's some more examples of social discrimination:

https://news.maryland.gov/msp/2020/02/27...comico-co/

You mean this hoax by a black man: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/j...ti-latest/

https://www.forsythelawfirm.com/asphalt-...vironment/

https://nypost.com/2024/03/01/business/m...ooms-suit/

No one disputes that actual racists exist.

Easy... immutable traits. Discrimination against someone for immutable traits, like the unchangeable color of their skin, is bigotry.
Transitioning to another gender is the opposite of immutable, as it clearly proves the trait has been changed.

In law, "immutable traits" are characteristics like race or sex that are considered fundamental to a person's identity and are protected by anti-discrimination laws, as they cannot or should not be abandoned or changed. - Google AI

Being transgender is generally considered an immutable trait. You said it yourself, you can be trans without transitioning, so it's not the gender identity that is changing, but the body, and the gender is an immutable trait. So again, how is it different?

Changing your gender literally means it's not immutable. It's only "considered" immutable by ideologically-driven leftists pandering to and enabling the mentally ill.
I didn't actually say you can be trans without transitioning. You're making that up. I said you can be trans without taking hormones or having surgery. There's more to "transitioning" than that:

Gender transition is the process of affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.
...
A social transition may include coming out as transgender,[a] using a new name and pronouns, and changing one's public gender expression.[7] This is usually the first step in a gender transition. People socially transition at almost any age,[8][9] as a social transition does not involve medical procedures.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_transition

Any kind of gender transition is "changing your gender," hence not immutable.

No, "blacks only" spaces are just like "whites only" spaces. It's intellectually dishonest to compare them to sports groups when you know there's a direct analog that proves it is segregation. Both exclude others by race, which is literally racial discrimination.

Definition of segregation:

"Segregation, separation of groups of people with differing characteristics, often taken to connote a condition of inequality. Racial segregation is one of many types of segregation, which can range from deliberate and systematic persecution through more subtle types of discrimination to self-imposed separation."

Definition of a safe space:

": a place (as on a college campus) intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations."

So "black people gathering together to talk about shared experiences" isn't segregation, as black people aren't doing it to put down white people, and are comfortable with the space.

You're cherry-picking definitions.
Both are literally segregation - the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segregation
Both enforce the exclusion of others based solely on race, in order to erect barriers to social intercourse, education facilities, etc..

Again, can't be sexism without being intentional prejudice against a particular sex. If you mistake the sex, it can't be intentional.

Nope, sexism can be accidental. If you see a woman and assume she's a secretary instead of the CEO of a company because she's a woman, it may not have been your intent to be sexist, but it's still a sexist statement. If a woman is crying and you assume it's because of her period, even if you're being genuine it's still sexist. It would depend heavily on the intent though. 

You just proved my point. Assuming a woman is a secretary isn't mistaking her sex.
You have to know it's a women to even accidentally be sexist toward women. You can't see a women, assume she's a secretary, and that somehow makes you sexist against men.

Again, you've never compared the actual percentages (likelihoods) of the two, as demonstrated above.

Just did, with that new paper.

No, you only think you did.

No, your reading comprehension is obviously suspect. Your "paraphrasing" makes claims your links do not support. I have already wasted plenty of time reading your articles, and repeatedly shown how they don't support your claims.

Nope, they do. But in any case, there are quotes now, if that makes it easier for you. 

And as I've already shown, you even misrepresent citations you quote.
Makes me doubt your reading comprehension skills.

The bystander effect is not just about men. It also includes women not calling 911, etc..

But in this case it's about men, as you said the force to stop it would come from any men nearby.

Did I say things like the bystander effect would cease to exist? @_@
But the bystander effect is most prominent in big cities... that are also more likely to allow transgenders access to women's spaces, since they are largely run by Democrats.

Irrelevant. Egypt is a Muslim country. Muslim men are not known for respecting women in general, much less non-Muslim Westerners.

They are still men. 

That's just sad. You know it's not representative. You have to know that's intellectually dishonest.

Apparently you don't understand the simple difference between a witness and multiple participating assailants (or a crooked/apathetic cop).
That you think these anecdotes show that men in general don't want to protect women is just intellectually dishonest.

What about this?

Or this?

Or this:

People see things happen and ignore it all the time. 

Again, who said the bystander effect, apathy, etc. ceased to exist?
If you live in a big city, you're just more likely to be a victim in general... exacerbated by defunded/underfunded police, strict gun control, etc..

Nope, you're still trying to compare raw numbers instead of likelihoods.

Well the likelihood of a transwoman attacking a cis woman in the bathroom seems pretty low based on the information I just posted. 

"Seems" is not an argument.

Basic crime prevention. Limit the circumstances in which crimes occur. Hence not allowing trans in women's spaces.
Did I say vigilantism?
Is vigilantism the only form of crime prevention?

IOW, you're arguing a straw man.

When we're talking about civilians barging into bathrooms and accosting women minding their own business (the topic that led to this), it can only be vigilantism. 

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.

 
- me a few replies back. If you decide to go on your own and take the law into your own hands, you would be a criminal.

Laws and the ability to call police have deterrent effects on crime.
It's also legal to make a citizen's arrest, to detain people until police arrive, in some circumstances.
But usually in the case of restrooms, simply being told you are trespassing, and will face legal action unless you leave, is enough.
Any business or owner of private property can demand a trespasser to leave, for any reason.

Unsupported claim.

So, assuming you're North American, I'm guessing you suffer from anxiety?

"183 North-American adults, both sexes, aged between 18 and 65 (M = 29.97, SD = 8,50). Recruited via Amazon´s Mechanical Turk. -

People with a more anxious attachment orientation were more likely to report using dating apps than people lower in anxiety attachment. People with a more avoidance attachment orientation were less like to report using dating apps than people lower in avoidant attachment. The most common reason people reported for using apps was to meet others, and the most common reason people reported for not using apps was difficulty trusting people online."

Or are you a middle aged psychopath from the UK?

"216 current or former Tinder users, from UK, USA and Canada, both sexes, aged between 18 and 56 -

Using Tinder for acquiring sexual experience was related to being male and being high in psychopathy. Psychopathy was positively correlated with using Tinder to distract oneself from other tasks. Higher Machiavellianism and being female were related to peer pressure as a Tinder use motivation. Using Tinder for acquiring social or flirting skills had a negative relationship with narcissism, and a positive relationship with Machiavellianism. Finally, Machiavellianism was also a significant, positive predictor of Tinder use for social approval and to pass the time."

It's self-selecting for a certain type of person. Plus, do you think every trans person is on the dating apps you're using? Especially the ones into women - they're going to be using women only apps, not the general heterosexual ones. 

Way to cherry-pick two studies from a systematic review, and very weak studies at that. 183 and 216 participants recruited online means not likely to be representative and with a selection bias of participants.

Personally, I've never used Tinder or apps (just online).

Leftist sociological bullshit.

You mean, "women say what they need and you ignore them."

No, you ignore the women. I ignore the men pretending to be women.

[Railko]

You mean the 18 year old man (identifying as a woman) intentionally exposing himself (male genitalia) to 14 year old girls, right?

Again, it was never confirmed if it were intentional, and it must be proven intentional to be a crime. If you have actual proof of this, provide it.

https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/aft...l-scrutiny

"The people involved on both sides of this did not know the rules, even the student who exposed himself did not know the rules about the shower and the girls who were the victims of this also did not know the rules," Lennington noted. "So, it's not really about the kids in this case, it's about the failure of the school district, and the school district's failure to abide by just basic common sense and legal protections afforded by federal law."

Whether you realize it or not, you are conflating different legal contexts of the term "public." Code 647 clearly specifies "a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view." These are all different places. Can you guess which is a restroom and which are not?
This is why 647(d) specifies "toilet." As a toilet is "a place open to the public" but is not "a public place" (as opposed to private property) nor "exposed to public view." And where it mentions "toilet," it's only with regard to "engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act."
California penal code 288 is the only other place they define "lewd or lascivious acts."
In Victoria (the Australian state of Melbourne), indecent exposure is covered by the SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966. And again, their definition of "public place" does not include restrooms: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewd...89/s3.html

Lewd or lascivious or unlawful acts. Which, as lawyers have pointed out, lewd or lascivious acts would include more things than touching a child:

"Loitering in a public toilet frequently occurs in tandem with other charges. Examples of related offenses may include, but are not limited to:

• Lewd conduct - Penal Code 647a PC: Touching yourself or someone else's private parts in public for sexual gratification or to cause annoyance—or soliciting someone else to do so.
  
• Prostitution - Penal Code 647b PC: Soliciting or engaging in sex for money. If your loitering led to a solicitation, you might be charged with prostitution, as well.
  
• Indecent exposure - Penal Code 314 PC: Exposing one's genitals or naked body in the presence of those who would be offended. If your loitering led to exposure, you might face this charge, also.
  
• "Peeping tom" offenses - Penal Code 647i, 647j: It is against the law to "loiter while peeking" into someone's house to observe them without their permission. It's also illegal to photograph someone secretly or without their consent. In the case of loitering in a public restroom, if you were doing so to photograph people secretly, you may face this charge, also
  
• Lewd acts with a minor - Penal Code 288 PC: Touching any part of a child's body, clothed or unclothed, in public or private, for sexual gratification.
  
• Loitering for prostitution - Penal Code 653.22 PC - It's a crime to loiter in a public place with the intent to engage in prostitution.
  
• Statutory rape - Penal Code 261.5 PC: Sexual intercourse with a minor, with or without consent. A minor is anyone under 18 years old.
  
• Oral copulation with a minor - Penal Code 287 PC: Acts of oral sex with a minor, including the use of force, fear, violence, or coercion.
  
• Oral copulation by force or fear - Penal Code 287 PC: Inducing someone to perform or receive oral sex by force or by fear, regardless of age or age difference."
  

If we went with your interpretation, someone touching themselves outside of a stall but inside the bathroom and grinning at people would be a legal act, assuming there's no children involved. Or they could take pictures of you inside the bathroom and it would be okay.

And no, it's included in the law:

"Section 3 of the Act defines a public place as any ‘place’ or ‘a part of a premises’ that is open to the public. So even a change room or public toilet is captured in this definition.
Exposure must be wilful; and not accidental, or through negligence, or through the act of another person."

You do know what the word "retroactively" means, right? @_@

Yes. And it doesn't apply here because everyone agreed that what Weinstein did was inappropriate from the start. 

Or the same men being targeted. Without evidence, it's still he said, she said.

The same men being accused is a strong indication that something's up. After all, why them instead of anybody else?

Yes, Hollywood has long been known to be filled with degenerates, both men in positions of power and women willing to do anything for fame.
Do you think Hollywood is representative of the entire population? @_@

Then why does it matter here? You brought it up, going on about consent and #MeToo. If you know Hollywood is filled with degenerates, and #MeToo centered primarily about how men in power take advantage of others (which you agree is the case?) and not about "consent being the most powerful thing a woman can wield", it really doesn't matter here. 

You also don't seem to care how other women may feel. Maybe you're just that self-centered. 9_9

No, I actually do:

"About half of U.S. adults (51 percent) say people should be able to pee where their identity takes them, according to the Pew Research Center. Men appear to skew that number: Fifty-five percent are opposed to that idea, compared with 45 percent of women.

A Reuters survey, meanwhile, found that 44 percent of women were okay with letting a transgender person use the women’s restroom, while 39 percent said they’d rather people use facilities that match their birth gender."

More women than not are comfortable with letting trans people using the bathroom they want to use. And as you said elsewhere, we shouldn't have to cater to a minority opinion so majority rules: trans people should use their preferred bathroom. 

"Female commenters, she wrote, were four times as likely than their male counterparts to say transgender women in women’s restrooms didn’t register as threats."

Meanwhile, you, a man, think you can speak for women on issues affecting women. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...016-9181-6

"The fact that cisgender males don’t normally use female bathrooms makes the observations about their heightened concerns about transgender females in female bathrooms particularly curious. Female concerns tend to be similar in content to male concerns, but are less frequently posted and phrased less intensely.

It’s possible that males believe they are voicing female concerns. However, many females do not share these concerns:

‘As a woman, I have no problems with a man, transgender or not, using a woman’s bathroom. I have lived in Europe long enough to know it’s not a big deal. Also, I’ve used men’s rooms and again, no fuss’; ‘I’m a 63-year old woman, and I don’t see why this is a big deal. We aren’t dainty little flowers needing protection by men. I don’t care if the woman in the stall next to me is transgender or not’; ‘I couldn’t care less where people pee and poo. It’s not like this person is going to be ogling us.’; ‘As a woman who uses public bathrooms, I do not care if a trans person is in there with me’; ‘I have no problems using a ladies bathroom with a transgender woman’; ‘I can’t speak for other women, but it doesn’t bother me’; ‘People dress according to their gender. I dress as a woman, and a trans woman dresses as a woman. As women, we should both be permitted to use the women’s bathroom’; ‘I’m a girl, and if a transgender was in ‘my’ bathroom, so what?’; ‘Unless I am threatened, I don’t think I care... and I’ve never heard a complaint about transgender women using a female restroom, from anyone.’

The observations in this paper do not support the belief that most women are against transgender females using female bathrooms: we find that, in the sampled population, about 70% of cisgender female users post non-negative comments, and about a half of the negative comments by cisgender females are incidental.
One user even expressed surprise at the responses they received when commenting on a gym’s Facebook page in response to an incident involving a transgender woman in a gym locker room:

User A: Most women do not want these freaks around when they are undressing. – cisgender male
User B: You would think so. But I posted on [gym name]’s Facebook page... and I was amazed at the comments made against me. I guess people really want this. – gender unclear

Consistent with Westbrook and Schilt [54], we also observe a strong fixation on penises (regardless of gender, transgender status, or stance on bathroom usage), e.g.: [...]

As evidence supporting item 2, we observe an imbalance in the House debate for Canada’s Bill C-279 proposing protections against discrimination based on gender identity [40]. In this debate, neither of the two women opponents of the bill expressed concerns about transgender females in female bathrooms, instead opposing the bill based on its viability or necessity.
On the other hand, three out of six men opponents of the bill expressed concern: [...]
It’s implausible for the two women opponents in this debate to be unaware of or indifferent to concerns about safety and privacy in female bathrooms. Therefore, we surmise that they did not consider transgender females in female bathrooms a serious concern for their constituents (unlike 50% of the men opponents).

As you can see, most women simply aren't bothered, and the ones that are are only concerned about perverts, not necessarily about transwomen. It's men who are bothered. As I said, assuming the transwoman isn't doing anything offensive or obscene, nobody normal cares.

I never suggested you should feel any way about anything.
As with privacy, maybe you really are incapable of understanding or taking the potential feelings of others into account. Or even the objective fact that one situation may be more vulnerable or unsafe than another.
Maybe you're just a narcissist.

You:

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.

Implying that I should feel... exposed? scared of trans people? Whatever it is, you were implying I should feel some sort of way or demonstrate some sort of feeling within my posts. 

I have taken the feelings of others into account - which is why I as well as the many women who also don't feel concerned agree that transwomen should be able to use the restroom in peace. Maybe you should follow my example and do the same. 

Some situations are more dangerous than others, but in order to live in this world you must accept risk. Every individual can calculate the danger for themselves and make their own decision based on that information.

Your ad hominins seem like projection on your end, seeing as how you think you can speak for women.

A claim not supported by anything you've posted. In each of your historical examples, it wasn't that women simply did well, it was that some did so much better than other women that is raised suspicions.

But it wouldn't raise suspicion unless you thought the woman couldn't do well naturally to begin with. If women were just getting into the field, they don't really have an idea of how good they can be, or what is a limit for women. Who are they to say what's too good for a woman?

You never gave a percentage of trans women committing sexual assaults. Hence you could not compare it to anything.

From that one study, with the twenty cases? Maybe around 5%, but it would be lower if extrapolated to the general population. But of course, this doesn't happen often, so you're demanding information on a phenomenon that really doesn't exist. 

No, now you're just conflating the likelihood of individual perpetration with the general likelihood of perpetration.
Your previous "5-12% of men" doesn't take into account any of the circumstances in any individual perpetrators. Why did you bring up that figure if you're now just going to move the goalpost (fallacy) to specifying restrooms? When you were accusing men, it sure seemed good enough for you.
We don't need stats on restrooms to establish the general likelihood between men and trans women. It really seems like you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

You were the one who pointed out that a woman is exposed to more transwomen in women's spaces, which I didn't account for originally. 

 Yes, you are exposed to more men in public, but you are also more vulnerable when exposed to trans women in women's spaces.

So I did it then, as this has all been about restrooms, no? And the circumstances in individuals vary, but here's a good list of the factors that can lead one to sexual assault: 

• Alcohol and drug use
  
• Delinquency
  
• Empathic deficits
  
• General aggressiveness and acceptance of violence
  
• Early sexual initiation
  
• Coercive sexual fantasies
  
• Preference for impersonal sex and sexual-risk taking
  
• Exposure to sexually explicit media
  
• Hostility towards women
  
• Adherence to traditional gender role norms
  
• Hyper-masculinity
  
• Suicidal behavior
  
• Prior sexual victimization or perpetration
  

As the prior study I linked suggested. But an adherence to traditional gender roles, sexism, hyper-masculinity, and low empathy puts a man most at risk for assaulting a woman. Stuff that most transwomen lack, by definition.

Too bad you completely missed that the context there was "dating," not strangers.

Most sexual assaults are committed by men who know their victim:

"60% of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.
31% are committed by strangers; 28.3% are committed by well-known or casual acquaintances; 21.4% are committed by intimate partners; 13.1% are committed by other relatives; 3.7% are committed by an unknown number of perpetrators; 2.5% are committed by someone with an unknown relationship to the victim."

And even more generalized sexual assaults (such as with incarcerated sex offenders) seem to follow the same set of risks as I outlined earlier:

The problem of sexual offending is too complex to attribute solely to a single theory (multifactor theories are stronger).
 What is known —

• Sexual abuse is a learned behavior.
  
• Negative or adverse conditions in early development — particularly poor relationships with caregivers — can contribute to the problem.
  
• Sex offenders engage in cognitive distortions. 
  
• Repeated exposure to sexually violent pornography can contribute.
  
• Problems with self-regulation and impulse control can contribute.
  
• Short-term relationships and negative attitudes toward women can contribute."
  

So no scientifically sound numbers to work with, making your guesstimate worthless.

Nope. It's closer than nothing, and is based on actual studies. 

Hence allowing trans women (which is only determined by claiming the identity) access made women less safe. Even if mostly from cis men, it's the "more permissive restroom entry laws," designed for transgenders, that literally facilitated harm to women.
20 cases is not a representative sample size to be making intellectually honest pronouncements about the likelihood in general.

Nope. Because bathroom assaults are quite rare in general. The likelihood is already quite low, and the likelihood of a transwoman doing it even lower. 

You're making up unsupported bullshit again.

Can't be "unsupported bullshit" if it's supported by the evidence. You seem to have noticed the cases of transwomen doing wrong, proving that they are noteworthy even to you. Any significant number of trans women committing assaults would not be ignored for long. The studies show that it's sexist, low empathy men that hold rigid gender roles that are committing sexual assaults, and even when it's assaults on women's spaces it's mostly cis men. All of this is evidence I've shown you before. 

You may not like the evidence, but it's there. Unless you have sources to debunk this? 

You're stats don't show that at all. The sample size is so small as to be anecdotal.

The sample size is small because it rarely happens. 

Apparently you don't know much about Israel. No country offers their own soldiers to aid Israel. Israel cannot avoid war, as their neighbors are constantly attacking them, with rockets, suicide bombers, terror attacks, etc.. Israel faces biased international scrutiny, so they seek to severely limit civilian casualties, often requiring troops on the ground rather than bombs, drones, etc.. 

No, Israel has received some soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin...e_Gaza_war:

"On 12 October, the UK announced that it would send two Royal Navy supports ships, 100 Royal Marines and surveillance aircraft to the Eastern Mediterranean from 13 October to support Israel. This includes Poseidon P-8 aircraft and other planes tasked partly with preventing weapon transfers to Hezbollah in Lebanon from Iran."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/28...tional-law

"Alongside its direct military intervention in Yemen, the UK has protected Israel’s military infrastructure during its escalation against Iran, the report said, focusing on the UK’s military joining efforts to shield Israel’s military infrastructure from an anticipated Iranian response in April 2024."

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/13/g-s1-2808...rael-thaad

"The Pentagon said Sunday it will send an air defense system along with about 100 U.S. troops to operate it.

If Israel needed more troops, they would get it. If Israel thought its women couldn't handle it, they would use their allies' soldiers instead, especially now since they have a lot. They also have a lot of weapons at this point to make up for a lack of soldiers.

Did you see where I literally wrote "women who mouth off"?
Do you see the obviously difference in your examples? @_@

Mouthing off: "to talk in a loud, unpleasant, or rude way"

These women are literally mouthing off. But fine: 

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/woman-kn...own-austin

"Police say a man was involved in a verbal altercation and then was caught on surveillance and cell phone video punching a female in the jaw, knocking her out."

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local...omen/4970/

"During an interview with NBC4 Monday, the woman seen in the dark jacket, who spoke on condition of not being named, said the man began hitting her and her friend after they chided him for being rude to a mobile hot dog vendor."

Also, men don't need a reason to deck women. Plenty of that happening in cities without any provocation: 

"Police told NBC New York there have been 95 unprovoked assaults in Manhattan so far this year, with 50 of them involving victims who are women."

No, women favor Democrats because Democrats try to help women avoid accountability. Abortion on demand, welfare for women with 5 baby daddies, etc..
That's not caring, that's called pandering.

Unsupported claim, and doesn't apply to most women. 

Do you see where all of these are talking about people wanting their own privacy?
Do you see any talking about demanding others to not expose themselves? @_@

They clearly state they're uncomfortable with it. Plus, in other areas there have been complaints: 

"Norm Waddell lives in Duncan and receives physiotherapy at the Cowichan Aquatic Centre. He says the men’s changing room is constantly filled with elderly men who indulge in “excessive nudity”.
He acknowledged that the men are not engaging in any unlawful activities that he is aware of, but said the change rooms are for the public, and people using the rooms should feel comfortable in them.
Waddell said he spoke to officials at the CAC about his concerns, but was told that management was not aware of what legally constitutes excessive nudity in the change rooms.
“I don’t think it’s right that these men make it so uncomfortable for others with their nudity,” he said.
“I have a son who is not comfortable with it either. There are separate cubicals and shower stalls in the change rooms so these men should be made to use them.”

If you could read, you'd see that none of those say women are refused medication they request. Again, your "women do" is not supported by your citation. @_@
Hence more assertive men getting more meds.

Well I'm basing it off my knowledge of the procedure as discussed with women - it's easy to forget that you don't have that firsthand knowledge. 

https://web.archive.org/web/202308272027...s-doctors/

When Molly Hill made an appointment at a Connecticut clinic in 2017 to get an IUD, she said she was warned it would be uncomfortable, but she was not prepared for “horrific” pain. Hill, now 27 and living in San Francisco, recalled that during the procedure, she began crying in pain and shouted at the doctor to stop.
“We’re almost done,” she said the doctor told her and continued the procedure.
“It was full-body, electrifying, knife-stabbing pain,” she said. After it was done, she said she lay sobbing on the table in physical and emotional pain. “It felt violating, too, to have that pain that deep in your core where you feel the most vulnerable.”

https://healthydebate.ca/2024/04/topic/m...-pain-iud/

"Bridget Irwin, a 28-year-old teacher, was told she would experience “some pressure” during her IUD insertion at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, and that it would be very fast. Instead, it was so painful that she nearly passed out. “We had to Uber home because I couldn’t walk,” she says.
“I remember laying on the floor of the doctor’s office in pain. They just kind of left me and didn’t ever check in again,” says Jada Gannon-Day, a 23-year old student and researcher at Carleton University.
“She made me feel dramatic and stupid for fainting,” says Emilie O’Neil, a 26-year-old architectural designer in Toronto. “She seemed annoyed when I stuck around in the hall to calm down.”
For the 20 per cent of women who use an IUD, these stories are extraordinarily common.

“I normally have really high pain tolerance, but the IUD insertion was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced,” says Liz Faria, a web developer from Toronto who cannot find a clinic that will replace her IUD with anesthetic."

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-healt...tment-acog
[/url]
"Countless patients have suffered through in-office gynecological procedures like IUD insertions or cervical biopsies, with nothing more than ibuprofen and white knuckles.
Pain is complex and individual. One patient might feel little to no discomfort and for another it can be excruciating. But some clinicians don't offer pain management because they believe it's unnecessary."

But regardless, if someone (especially many someones) reports a procedure hurts, with nearly 100% of patients saying so, the doctor should offer pain medication first. Advocacy is good, but a doctor should also know how to proceed if a patient reports pain. 

False dilemma, as this is only an issue because trans demand to play against women. No trans, no issue.
And as you've proven, sports governing bodies were already catching trans women in sports, without any extra cost to taxpayers.
Added expense to allow trans to play against women is ideologically-driven bullshit.

I also suggested this could be helpful for cis women playing against cis women too. Which you have also been fighting against.
Sports bodies weren't catching trans women. They were catching intersex women, who are not trans. They're born that way. 

When people usually get x-rays anywhere near their reproductive organs, they are covered with a lead apron for protection.
You're talking about using x-rays directly on reproductive organs.

We're talking about measuring the bones and muscle mass of women, not directly on their ovaries. It's inexpensive and not invasive. [url=https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/bone-density-scan/#:~:text=Are%20there%20any%20risks%20to,is%20not%20recommended%20during%20pregnancy.]Bone density scans are routine for some women, and they don't become infertile:

"A bone density scan uses very low doses of radiation. It is safe for most people. But it is not recommended during pregnancy.

Your provider may recommend how often you need to have repeat scans, based on your risk of bone fractures. The recommendations are to get a central DEXA scan every two years for high risk, every 3 to 5 years for moderate risk, and every 10 to 15 years for low risk."

Only women who would have to worry are the pregnant, but they'd likely not be playing in sports anyway after a certain point. 

Again, no one has demonstrated that trans have "genuine needs."
Trans "gender" is literally a disorder... gender dysphoria. And you've already proven the worries well-founded, even if only due to the greater potential for males to abuse access.

And if it is a disorder, then they require accommodations. People with learning disabilities get extra time on tests, people with physical ailments may get an aid to help them move around, people with PTSD may get a dog to help them through attacks. If this is the case, then trans people should be able to use the bathroom, as it is a need. People trying to take advantage of the accommodations granted to others does not make those accommodations invalid.

You actually haven't shown that. You've shown people who very likely use performance-enhancing drugs can beat those who don't.

There's no evidence to suggest the women I showed were on performance-enhancing drugs... unless I missed it, or you have evidence proving otherwise.

My link leads to a docs.un.org PDF.

C. Opportunity for fair and safe competition
11. Policies implemented by international federations and national governing
bodies, along with national legislation in some countries, allow males who identify
as women to compete in female sports categories.28 In other cases, this practice is not
explicitly prohibited and is thus tolerated in practice. The replacement of the female
sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of
female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against
males. According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female
athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different
sports.29
28  Submission from Universidad de La Sabana.
29  Submission from Women’s Liberation Front, International Consortium on Female Sport and
Dianne Post on behalf of Lavender Patch.

Yes, this part:  "Submission from Women’s Liberation Front, International Consortium on Female Sport and
Dianne Post on behalf of Lavender Patch"

Where is the submission? Where is their data, the stats, the journal? We should be able to read where this information came from, and how they tallied the numbers. 

Higher weight class. Weren't you all about fair weight classes? @_@
9_9

They are both in the same weight class. Anne Andres and Alexis Jones are both 185+.

Again, we've only instituted "strict testosterone limits" since transgenders.
It's intellectually dishonest to repeatedly try to apply decades-old history that is not relevant to the present circumstances.
I'm starting to think you're just chronically intellectually dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verifi..._in_sports

"Sex verification in sports began in the 1940s with "femininity certificates" provided by a physician. It subsequently evolved into visual inspections, physical examinations, chromosome testing, and later testosterone level testing."

I'm starting to think you don't understand cause and effect. 

You mean this hoax by a black man: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/j...ti-latest/

Alright, fair enough. That one is discounted.

No one disputes that actual racists exist.

You disputed that people were still socially segregated, even sometimes regarding bathrooms. That is what this was about. 

Changing your gender literally means it's not immutable. It's only "considered" immutable by ideologically-driven leftists pandering to and enabling the mentally ill.
I didn't actually say you can be trans without transitioning. You're making that up. I said you can be trans without taking hormones or having surgery. There's more to "transitioning" than that:

Gender transition is the process of affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.
...
A social transition may include coming out as transgender,[a] using a new name and pronouns, and changing one's public gender expression.[7] This is usually the first step in a gender transition. People socially transition at almost any age,[8][9] as a social transition does not involve medical procedures.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_transition

Any kind of gender transition is "changing your gender," hence not immutable.

Did you forget the rest of the sentence? "...is the process of affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth." They say nothing about changing one's gender, but instead affirming and expressing it. It would be no more changing your gender than getting a tan is changing your race. So again, how is it different?

You're cherry-picking definitions. 
Both are literally segregation - the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segregation
Both enforce the exclusion of others based solely on race, in order to erect barriers to social intercourse, education facilities, etc..

You can't cherry pick a definition: that the exact definition of the term because that's how people use it. In an extremely literal sense it might be segregation (in the same way you might considering putting apples and oranges in different bowls to be segregation) but it's not segregation by the legal, social definition. There are no barriers, because not being invited to the black social justice club doesn't prevent you from doing anything; you can still socialize and interact with others, and they can still socialize and interact with you. Nobody is forcing either of you to be there (or not be there) or do anything. Or do people having friends and social activities you're not a part of make you feel left out?

You just proved my point. Assuming a woman is a secretary isn't mistaking her sex.
You have to know it's a women to even accidentally be sexist toward women. You can't see a women, assume she's a secretary, and that somehow makes you sexist against men.

True. My example was a little off as those are roles rather than gender mistakes. Seems it would be misgendering rather than sexism.

No, you only think you did.

Nope. Got as close as possible... unless you have evidence to contradict what I have.

And as I've already shown, you even misrepresent citations you quote.
Makes me doubt your reading comprehension skills.

You seem to be making more blunders than me, truthfully - trying to argue that only indecent activities with minors in a bathroom goes against the law, that Israel gets no troops from other countries, etc. 

Did I say things like the bystander effect would cease to exist? @_@
But the bystander effect is most prominent in big cities... that are also more likely to allow transgenders access to women's spaces, since they are largely run by Democrats.

No, but you said the force would come from any witnesses nearby, usually men. These are cases proving that's not always true, and acting like it is is dishonest.

That's just sad. You know it's not representative. You have to know that's intellectually dishonest.

Hey, you're the one that said men would step in, not me. 

Again, who said the bystander effect, apathy, etc. ceased to exist?
If you live in a big city, you're just more likely to be a victim in general... exacerbated by defunded/underfunded police, strict gun control, etc..

Your claim was that any bystanders nearby would step in, men especially. They did not, even in civilized countries.

"Seems" is not an argument.

When it's based on evidence it is. When it's patriarchal, sexist, low empathy, right wing men committing more sexual assaults and transwomen basically fly in the face of that, it would seem pretty unlikely for transwomen to be a threat - and is backed by the rarity of such a thing happening.

Laws and the ability to call police have deterrent effects on crime.
It's also legal to make a citizen's arrest, to detain people until police arrive, in some circumstances.
But usually in the case of restrooms, simply being told you are trespassing, and will face legal action unless you leave, is enough.
Any business or owner of private property can demand a trespasser to leave, for any reason.

In some circumstances, like if someone was robbing a bank or committing a clear crime. But it is not illegal to walk into a bathroom looking unlike your birth sex. Plus, discrimination laws may or may not apply - if the laws state you cannot deny someone on the basis of sex or gender, that could be seen as discrimination. 

Way to cherry-pick two studies from a systematic review, and very weak studies at that. 183 and 216 participants recruited online means not likely to be representative and with a selection bias of participants.
Personally, I've never used Tinder or apps (just online).

Well, considering you seem Western, I picked studies that would most likely apply to a Western heterosexual man... unless you're saying I should have used the information from the gay Thai portion of the review instead? 

Recruiting online makes sense, as dating apps are online. Bias would have been small:

"Finally, as the initial search in the different databases was carried by only one of the authors, some bias could have been introduced. However, as previously noted, with any doubt about the inclusion of any study, the final decision was agreed between both authors, so we expect this possible bias to be small."


And are you lying? You said before:

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.

This implies access to an app. 

No, you ignore the women. I ignore the men pretending to be women.

While trying to speak for women, and try to say who should and shouldn't enter their spaces... you're acting more like your negative stereotype of a transwoman than even most transwomen do.

[Syne]

You mean the 18 year old man (identifying as a woman) intentionally exposing himself (male genitalia) to 14 year old girls, right?

Again, it was never confirmed if it were intentional, and it must be proven intentional to be a crime. If you have actual proof of this, provide it.

https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/aft...l-scrutiny

"The people involved on both sides of this did not know the rules, even the student who exposed himself did not know the rules about the shower and the girls who were the victims of this also did not know the rules," Lennington noted. "So, it's not really about the kids in this case, it's about the failure of the school district, and the school district's failure to abide by just basic common sense and legal protections afforded by federal law."

Literally announced he was trans and started stripping in front of 14 year old girls. If there wasn't this "trans" excuse, everyone would have known it was wrong. The girls who fled obviously did, but that didn't cue in the perv. An 18 year old adult should know better.
If there weren't trans access to women's spaces, it would have been a crime without any need to show intent.
But you're obviously fine with pervs having access to little girls. Lemme guess, you're lesbian/bi too. We all know how the gays like the young ones.

Whether you realize it or not, you are conflating different legal contexts of the term "public." Code 647 clearly specifies "a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view." These are all different places. Can you guess which is a restroom and which are not?
This is why 647(d) specifies "toilet." As a toilet is "a place open to the public" but is not "a public place" (as opposed to private property) nor "exposed to public view." And where it mentions "toilet," it's only with regard to "engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act."
California penal code 288 is the only other place they define "lewd or lascivious acts."
In Victoria (the Australian state of Melbourne), indecent exposure is covered by the SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966. And again, their definition of "public place" does not include restrooms: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewd...89/s3.html

Lewd or lascivious or unlawful acts. Which, as lawyers have pointed out, lewd or lascivious acts would include more things than touching a child:

Since I never said otherwise, this seems like a distraction... or more likely just poor reading comprehension.

"Loitering in a public toilet frequently occurs in tandem with other charges. Examples of related offenses may include, but are not limited to:

• Lewd conduct - Penal Code 647a PC: Touching yourself or someone else's private parts in public for sexual gratification or to cause annoyance—or soliciting someone else to do so.
  
• Prostitution - Penal Code 647b PC: Soliciting or engaging in sex for money. If your loitering led to a solicitation, you might be charged with prostitution, as well.
  
• Indecent exposure - Penal Code 314 PC: Exposing one's genitals or naked body in the presence of those who would be offended. If your loitering led to exposure, you might face this charge, also.
  
• "Peeping tom" offenses - Penal Code 647i, 647j: It is against the law to "loiter while peeking" into someone's house to observe them without their permission. It's also illegal to photograph someone secretly or without their consent. In the case of loitering in a public restroom, if you were doing so to photograph people secretly, you may face this charge, also
  
• Lewd acts with a minor - Penal Code 288 PC: Touching any part of a child's body, clothed or unclothed, in public or private, for sexual gratification.
  
• Loitering for prostitution - Penal Code 653.22 PC - It's a crime to loiter in a public place with the intent to engage in prostitution.
  
• Statutory rape - Penal Code 261.5 PC: Sexual intercourse with a minor, with or without consent. A minor is anyone under 18 years old.
  
• Oral copulation with a minor - Penal Code 287 PC: Acts of oral sex with a minor, including the use of force, fear, violence, or coercion.
  
• Oral copulation by force or fear - Penal Code 287 PC: Inducing someone to perform or receive oral sex by force or by fear, regardless of age or age difference."
  

Notice how simple exposure by the same sex is not included.

If we went with your interpretation, someone touching themselves outside of a stall but inside the bathroom and grinning at people would be a legal act, assuming there's no children involved. Or they could take pictures of you inside the bathroom and it would be okay.

And no, it's included in the law:

"Section 3 of the Act defines a public place as any ‘place’ or ‘a part of a premises’ that is open to the public. So even a change room or public toilet is captured in this definition.
Exposure must be wilful; and not accidental, or through negligence, or through the act of another person."

You seem to have completely forgotten that we're only talking about simple exposure. 9_9
I've never even implied that sex acts in a restroom are legal.

You do know what the word "retroactively" means, right? @_@

Yes. And it doesn't apply here because everyone agreed that what Weinstein did was inappropriate from the start. 

First, you're cherry-picking Weinstein, as that was not the only person involved in #MeToo.
Second, the only actual evidence (a video recorded by a woman) showed him repeatedly asking for and getting consent.
Third, what I was talking about: Studies showed that consensual sex can be regretted, and may lead to a false allegation of rape.
That's what "retroactively" means. Consent supposedly removed after sex is complete.

Or the same men being targeted. Without evidence, it's still he said, she said.

The same men being accused is a strong indication that something's up. After all, why them instead of anybody else?

Rich, famous, a big payday.
More accusations, without actual evidence, is only good enough to convince 12 morons.
Many of these women didn't report it at the time or get a rape kit done, likely because they were trading sex for favors (e.g. acting role, contacts, money, etc.).

Yes, Hollywood has long been known to be filled with degenerates, both men in positions of power and women willing to do anything for fame.
Do you think Hollywood is representative of the entire population? @_@

Then why does it matter here? You brought it up, going on about consent and #MeToo. If you know Hollywood is filled with degenerates, and #MeToo centered primarily about how men in power take advantage of others (which you agree is the case?) and not about "consent being the most powerful thing a woman can wield", it really doesn't matter here. 

See the aforementioned retroactive removal of consent.

You also don't seem to care how other women may feel. Maybe you're just that self-centered. 9_9

No, I actually do:

"About half of U.S. adults (51 percent) say people should be able to pee where their identity takes them, according to the Pew Research Center. Men appear to skew that number: Fifty-five percent are opposed to that idea, compared with 45 percent of women.

A Reuters survey, meanwhile, found that 44 percent of women were okay with letting a transgender person use the women’s restroom, while 39 percent said they’d rather people use facilities that match their birth gender."

More women than not are comfortable with letting trans people using the bathroom they want to use. And as you said elsewhere, we shouldn't have to cater to a minority opinion so majority rules: trans people should use their preferred bathroom. 

"Female commenters, she wrote, were four times as likely than their male counterparts to say transgender women in women’s restrooms didn’t register as threats."

Meanwhile, you, a man, think you can speak for women on issues affecting women. 

By that reasoning, if a bare majority believe slavery is fine we should allow it, right? No, that's stupid reasoning. Ever heard the phrase tyranny of the majority?
It's obvious not about the majority opinion. It's about respecting the consent, privacy, and safety of women (and more importantly girls, who can't legally consent) who are offended. Remember, offense is defined by the viewer, just as sexual harassment is defined by being unwelcome.
Again, you only continue to prove that you couldn't care less about women who disagree with you. Politics over protecting people.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...016-9181-6

"The fact that cisgender males don’t normally use female bathrooms makes the observations about their heightened concerns about transgender females in female bathrooms particularly curious. Female concerns tend to be similar in content to male concerns, but are less frequently posted and phrased less intensely.

It’s possible that males believe they are voicing female concerns. However, many females do not share these concerns:

[snip anecdote]

Again, since men are generally stronger, many feel it is their obligation to protect women, just as many women feel they need to protect children.

We’re more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.

“Our study indicates that we think women’s welfare should be preserved over men’s,”
- https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publicati...ality.html

That, or you just think men are disposable. @_@

I never suggested you should feel any way about anything.
As with privacy, maybe you really are incapable of understanding or taking the potential feelings of others into account. Or even the objective fact that one situation may be more vulnerable or unsafe than another.
Maybe you're just a narcissist.

You:

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.

Implying that I should feel... exposed? scared of trans people? Whatever it is, you were implying I should feel some sort of way or demonstrate some sort of feeling within my posts. 

I have taken the feelings of others into account - which is why I as well as the many women who also don't feel concerned agree that transwomen should be able to use the restroom in peace. Maybe you should follow my example and do the same. 

Some situations are more dangerous than others, but in order to live in this world you must accept risk. Every individual can calculate the danger for themselves and make their own decision based on that information.

Your ad hominins seem like projection on your end, seeing as how you think you can speak for women.

Not implying anything. Just observing your lack of any sense of privacy.
Maybe you should take the opinions of those who do feel vulnerable into account.
By not taking their feelings into account, you are imposing more danger on them without them being allowed to "make their own decision." Again, ignoring consent.
According to your own cited polls, I clearly do speak for many women... sticking up for a minority that you think the majority should ignore.

A claim not supported by anything you've posted. In each of your historical examples, it wasn't that women simply did well, it was that some did so much better than other women that is raised suspicions.

But it wouldn't raise suspicion unless you thought the woman couldn't do well naturally to begin with. If women were just getting into the field, they don't really have an idea of how good they can be, or what is a limit for women. Who are they to say what's too good for a woman?

Again, all your examples were of people doing better than other women.

You never gave a percentage of trans women committing sexual assaults. Hence you could not compare it to anything.

From that one study, with the twenty cases? Maybe around 5%, but it would be lower if extrapolated to the general population. But of course, this doesn't happen often, so you're demanding information on a phenomenon that really doesn't exist. 

I've already shown examples of it happening.
You continuing to make unsupported guesses doesn't change that fact.

No, now you're just conflating the likelihood of individual perpetration with the general likelihood of perpetration.
Your previous "5-12% of men" doesn't take into account any of the circumstances in any individual perpetrators. Why did you bring up that figure if you're now just going to move the goalpost (fallacy) to specifying restrooms? When you were accusing men, it sure seemed good enough for you.
We don't need stats on restrooms to establish the general likelihood between men and trans women. It really seems like you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

You were the one who pointed out that a woman is exposed to more transwomen in women's spaces, which I didn't account for originally. 

 Yes, you are exposed to more men in public, but you are also more vulnerable when exposed to trans women in women's spaces.

So I did it then, as this has all been about restrooms, no? And the circumstances in individuals vary, but here's a good list of the factors that can lead one to sexual assault: 

Apparently you don't understand how you're comparing the likelihood of men in general to the specific cases of transgenders.
You can only, honestly, compare the general likelihood of both or both in the same specific circumstances. Since men don't have such ready access to women's spaces, the latter would seem like an unfair comparison. But comparing the general stat of one to specific (cherry-picked) stats of another is intellectually dishonest and not even proper science.

Too bad you completely missed that the context there was "dating," not strangers.

Most sexual assaults are committed by men who know their victim:

"60% of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.
31% are committed by strangers; 28.3% are committed by well-known or casual acquaintances; 21.4% are committed by intimate partners; 13.1% are committed by other relatives; 3.7% are committed by an unknown number of perpetrators; 2.5% are committed by someone with an unknown relationship to the victim."

And even more generalized sexual assaults (such as with incarcerated sex offenders) seem to follow the same set of risks as I outlined earlier:

The problem of sexual offending is too complex to attribute solely to a single theory (multifactor theories are stronger).
 What is known —

• Sexual abuse is a learned behavior.
  
• Negative or adverse conditions in early development — particularly poor relationships with caregivers — can contribute to the problem.
  
• Sex offenders engage in cognitive distortions. 
  
• Repeated exposure to sexually violent pornography can contribute.
  
• Problems with self-regulation and impulse control can contribute.
  
• Short-term relationships and negative attitudes toward women can contribute."
  

Way to double down on irrelevancies. 9_9

Hence allowing trans women (which is only determined by claiming the identity) access made women less safe. Even if mostly from cis men, it's the "more permissive restroom entry laws," designed for transgenders, that literally facilitated harm to women.
20 cases is not a representative sample size to be making intellectually honest pronouncements about the likelihood in general.

Nope. Because bathroom assaults are quite rare in general. The likelihood is already quite low, and the likelihood of a transwoman doing it even lower. 

So as long as only a few people are harmed, it's fine? @_@

You're making up unsupported bullshit again.

Can't be "unsupported bullshit" if it's supported by the evidence. You seem to have noticed the cases of transwomen doing wrong, proving that they are noteworthy even to you. Any significant number of trans women committing assaults would not be ignored for long. The studies show that it's sexist, low empathy men that hold rigid gender roles that are committing sexual assaults, and even when it's assaults on women's spaces it's mostly cis men. All of this is evidence I've shown you before. 

You may not like the evidence, but it's there. Unless you have sources to debunk this? 

You have no evidence for your claim that "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out (a woman with a dick raping someone is more notable than a regular woman doing it), and so more likely to get caught."
In such a tiny population, any number of sexual assaults is noteworthy.
Again, you're citing a study about date rape, not rape in general.

You're stats don't show that at all. The sample size is so small as to be anecdotal.

The sample size is small because it rarely happens. 

Again, unsupported claim.
Not only is the study from 2018, that sample is unreliable:

To assess the degree to which sexual predators may
take advantage of transgender friendly restroom laws,
we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Nexis
Uni, and Google to find cases of such behaviors.
Although the searches of PubMed and Nexis Uni
returned no pertinent results, the Google search re-
turned websites for conservative organizations such
as the Family Research Council, American Family
Association, the Liberty Counsel, and Breitbart,
which have compiled lists of alleged cases.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nd_Science

I've told you this before. Sourcing from conservative websites is no indication of a representative list.

Apparently you don't know much about Israel. No country offers their own soldiers to aid Israel. Israel cannot avoid war, as their neighbors are constantly attacking them, with rockets, suicide bombers, terror attacks, etc.. Israel faces biased international scrutiny, so they seek to severely limit civilian casualties, often requiring troops on the ground rather than bombs, drones, etc.. 

No, Israel has received some soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin...e_Gaza_war:

"On 12 October, the UK announced that it would send two Royal Navy supports ships, 100 Royal Marines and surveillance aircraft to the Eastern Mediterranean from 13 October to support Israel. This includes Poseidon P-8 aircraft and other planes tasked partly with preventing weapon transfers to Hezbollah in Lebanon from Iran."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/28...tional-law

"Alongside its direct military intervention in Yemen, the UK has protected Israel’s military infrastructure during its escalation against Iran, the report said, focusing on the UK’s military joining efforts to shield Israel’s military infrastructure from an anticipated Iranian response in April 2024."

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/13/g-s1-2808...rael-thaad

"The Pentagon said Sunday it will send an air defense system along with about 100 U.S. troops to operate it.

If Israel needed more troops, they would get it. If Israel thought its women couldn't handle it, they would use their allies' soldiers instead, especially now since they have a lot. They also have a lot of weapons at this point to make up for a lack of soldiers.

Maybe you don't understand that when you're talking about the IDF, you're comparing the operations the IDF undertakes. You know, troops on the ground in direct firefights with hostiles. Sending Navy support ships and troops to operate a missile defense system are not the same. These are not supplementing the IDF need for their own troops.

They could absolutely borrow soldiers if they didn't want to fight.

No, they can't.

Plenty of countries have sent weapons to Ukraine, but again, no troops to fight on the front lines.

Did you see where I literally wrote "women who mouth off"?
Do you see the obviously difference in your examples? @_@

Mouthing off: "to talk in a loud, unpleasant, or rude way"

These women are literally mouthing off. But fine: 

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/woman-kn...own-austin

"Police say a man was involved in a verbal altercation and then was caught on surveillance and cell phone video punching a female in the jaw, knocking her out."

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local...omen/4970/

"During an interview with NBC4 Monday, the woman seen in the dark jacket, who spoke on condition of not being named, said the man began hitting her and her friend after they chided him for being rude to a mobile hot dog vendor."

Also, men don't need a reason to deck women. Plenty of that happening in cities without any provocation: 

"Police told NBC New York there have been 95 unprovoked assaults in Manhattan so far this year, with 50 of them involving victims who are women."

It's cute that you think anecdotes are making some kind of point.
Now if that were the majority of men happening all the time, you might have something. Otherwise, these just contrast the vast majority of men who don't assault women.

No, women favor Democrats because Democrats try to help women avoid accountability. Abortion on demand, welfare for women with 5 baby daddies, etc..
That's not caring, that's called pandering.

Unsupported claim, and doesn't apply to most women. 

It does, you just don't realize it.
"Reproductive freedom" is part of the Democrat party platform, and:

Social policy matters have long been considered women’s issues. Extant research has documented a strong link between gender and the policies of the welfare state in the legislative, executive and electoral arenas.
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5505229/

Women, who are more likely than men to identify as Democrats, are also more likely to express opinions that align with the policy positions of the Democratic Party...

Women tend to be more supportive of gun control, reproductive rights, welfare, and equal rights policies than men.
- https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-public-opinion

"Most women" vote Democrat.

Do you see where all of these are talking about people wanting their own privacy?
Do you see any talking about demanding others to not expose themselves? @_@

They clearly state they're uncomfortable with it. Plus, in other areas there have been complaints: 

"Norm Waddell lives in Duncan and receives physiotherapy at the Cowichan Aquatic Centre. He says the men’s changing room is constantly filled with elderly men who indulge in “excessive nudity”.
He acknowledged that the men are not engaging in any unlawful activities that he is aware of, but said the change rooms are for the public, and people using the rooms should feel comfortable in them.
Waddell said he spoke to officials at the CAC about his concerns, but was told that management was not aware of what legally constitutes excessive nudity in the change rooms.
“I don’t think it’s right that these men make it so uncomfortable for others with their nudity,” he said.
“I have a son who is not comfortable with it either. There are separate cubicals and shower stalls in the change rooms so these men should be made to use them.”

If your previous examples "clearly stated" it, you wouldn't feel the need to find another anecdote.
So you seem to realize the weakness of your argument, but won't admit it.

If you could read, you'd see that none of those say women are refused medication they request. Again, your "women do" is not supported by your citation. @_@
Hence more assertive men getting more meds.

Well I'm basing it off my knowledge of the procedure as discussed with women - it's easy to forget that you don't have that firsthand knowledge. 

https://web.archive.org/web/202308272027...s-doctors/

When Molly Hill made an appointment at a Connecticut clinic in 2017 to get an IUD, she said she was warned it would be uncomfortable, but she was not prepared for “horrific” pain. Hill, now 27 and living in San Francisco, recalled that during the procedure, she began crying in pain and shouted at the doctor to stop.
“We’re almost done,” she said the doctor told her and continued the procedure.
“It was full-body, electrifying, knife-stabbing pain,” she said. After it was done, she said she lay sobbing on the table in physical and emotional pain. “It felt violating, too, to have that pain that deep in your core where you feel the most vulnerable.”

https://healthydebate.ca/2024/04/topic/m...-pain-iud/

"Bridget Irwin, a 28-year-old teacher, was told she would experience “some pressure” during her IUD insertion at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, and that it would be very fast. Instead, it was so painful that she nearly passed out. “We had to Uber home because I couldn’t walk,” she says.
“I remember laying on the floor of the doctor’s office in pain. They just kind of left me and didn’t ever check in again,” says Jada Gannon-Day, a 23-year old student and researcher at Carleton University.
“She made me feel dramatic and stupid for fainting,” says Emilie O’Neil, a 26-year-old architectural designer in Toronto. “She seemed annoyed when I stuck around in the hall to calm down.”
For the 20 per cent of women who use an IUD, these stories are extraordinarily common.

“I normally have really high pain tolerance, but the IUD insertion was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced,” says Liz Faria, a web developer from Toronto who cannot find a clinic that will replace her IUD with anesthetic."

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-healt...tment-acog
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-healt...tment-acog
"Countless patients have suffered through in-office gynecological procedures like IUD insertions or cervical biopsies, with nothing more than ibuprofen and white knuckles.
Pain is complex and individual. One patient might feel little to no discomfort and for another it can be excruciating. But some clinicians don't offer pain management because they believe it's unnecessary."

But regardless, if someone (especially many someones) reports a procedure hurts, with nearly 100% of patients saying so, the doctor should offer pain medication first. Advocacy is good, but a doctor should also know how to proceed if a patient reports pain. 

Again, no one demanding pain meds or anesthesia at the time... just one, looking for it for next time.
Maybe it takes more to change the behaviors of, both male and female, doctors who think they know better. Maybe requires more assertiveness.

False dilemma, as this is only an issue because trans demand to play against women. No trans, no issue.
And as you've proven, sports governing bodies were already catching trans women in sports, without any extra cost to taxpayers.
Added expense to allow trans to play against women is ideologically-driven bullshit.

I also suggested this could be helpful for cis women playing against cis women too. Which you have also been fighting against.
Sports bodies weren't catching trans women. They were catching intersex women, who are not trans. They're born that way. 

Intersex is essentially the same in terms of competitive advantage. Ambiguous genitalia doesn't always indicate intersex, so those were technically transgender.
A simple, noninvasive PCR test is all that's necessary for either.

When people usually get x-rays anywhere near their reproductive organs, they are covered with a lead apron for protection.
You're talking about using x-rays directly on reproductive organs.

We're talking about measuring the bones and muscle mass of women, not directly on their ovaries. It's inexpensive and not invasive. Bone density scans are routine for some women, and they don't become infertile:

"A bone density scan uses very low doses of radiation. It is safe for most people. But it is not recommended during pregnancy.

Your provider may recommend how often you need to have repeat scans, based on your risk of bone fractures. The recommendations are to get a central DEXA scan every two years for high risk, every 3 to 5 years for moderate risk, and every 10 to 15 years for low risk."

Only women who would have to worry are the pregnant, but they'd likely not be playing in sports anyway after a certain point. 

Do all women know as soon as they're pregnant? No, they do not.
You also left out this bit: "Most women age 65 or older should have a bone density scan."

IOW, this citation has nothing to do with sports-aged women. 9_9

Again, no one has demonstrated that trans have "genuine needs."
Trans "gender" is literally a disorder... gender dysphoria. And you've already proven the worries well-founded, even if only due to the greater potential for males to abuse access.

And if it is a disorder, then they require accommodations. People with learning disabilities get extra time on tests, people with physical ailments may get an aid to help them move around, people with PTSD may get a dog to help them through attacks. If this is the case, then trans people should be able to use the bathroom, as it is a need. People trying to take advantage of the accommodations granted to others does not make those accommodations invalid.

You don't accommodate disorders, you treat them. Do you understand the difference between a disorder and a disability?

The judicial system interprets our laws. So far, many courts have concluded that it is possible for gender dysphoria to be considered a disability under the ADA. There have not been a lot of cases where people with gender dysphoria have successfully been able to seek protection from the ADA. However, in most of the unsuccessful cases, the person with gender dysphoria did not clearly link gender dysphoria with physical impairments. Many lower courts still allow for the consideration that gender dysphoria can be a disability under the ADA, but not all.

Can gender dysphoria be a disability under the ADA? In many cases it can, if it is the result of physical impairments, and it also depends on previous rulings of the Federal Circuit Court in one’s area. The answer won’t be universally clear until it goes before the Supreme Court.
- https://rockymountainada.org/resources/g...20distress.

So not settled law, hence not "required."

You actually haven't shown that. You've shown people who very likely use performance-enhancing drugs can beat those who don't.

There's no evidence to suggest the women I showed were on performance-enhancing drugs... unless I missed it, or you have evidence proving otherwise.

Competing in non-tested leagues is sufficient to account for the huge discrepancy between the performance of women in drug-tested competitions.
All of your examples are from non-testing leagues.

My link leads to a docs.un.org PDF.

C. Opportunity for fair and safe competition
11. Policies implemented by international federations and national governing
bodies, along with national legislation in some countries, allow males who identify
as women to compete in female sports categories.28 In other cases, this practice is not
explicitly prohibited and is thus tolerated in practice. The replacement of the female
sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of
female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against
males. According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female
athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different
sports.29
28  Submission from Universidad de La Sabana.
29  Submission from Women’s Liberation Front, International Consortium on Female Sport and
Dianne Post on behalf of Lavender Patch.

Yes, this part:  "Submission from Women’s Liberation Front, International Consortium on Female Sport and
Dianne Post on behalf of Lavender Patch"

Where is the submission? Where is their data, the stats, the journal? We should be able to read where this information came from, and how they tallied the numbers. 

I already said, "But fair enough. UN advisor." I just gave you the relevant part of the UN doc, since you couldn't manage to access it.

In tallying the total number of medals in this data set, it appears that SheWon.org counts one medal lost for every woman who places after the disputed athlete in question. So if a disputed athlete places first, then the second, third, and fourth place athletes in that event are counted as being denied medals; if the disputed athlete places second; then the third and fourth place athletes are counted as being denied medals; and so on.
...
WoLF has no connection to SheWon.org.

SheWon.org and HeCheated.org provide something incredibly useful that women globally had been looking for: tabulation. Over the past few years, story after story has broken of male 'transgender' athletes taking wins in women's sport. Both sites are repositories for the record of lost titles and medals taken from women by men.

Despite the NCAA cavalierly dismissing all concerns as just a tiny number of 'transgender' athletes competing in women's sports, a search for 'transgender athlete wins' shows that males winning in female sports is now ubiquitous.

We're incredibly grateful to women out there volunteering their precious time and efforts to keep the record straight. We don't know who they are, but we sure appreciate them.
- https://womensliberationfront.org/news/l...ens-sports

Higher weight class. Weren't you all about fair weight classes? @_@
9_9

They are both in the same weight class. Anne Andres and Alexis Jones are both 185+.

No, your numbers for Alexis Jones came from competing in the 220+ weight class, per your link.

Again, we've only instituted "strict testosterone limits" since transgenders.
It's intellectually dishonest to repeatedly try to apply decades-old history that is not relevant to the present circumstances.
I'm starting to think you're just chronically intellectually dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verifi..._in_sports

"Sex verification in sports began in the 1940s with "femininity certificates" provided by a physician. It subsequently evolved into visual inspections, physical examinations, chromosome testing, and later testosterone level testing."

I'm starting to think you don't understand cause and effect. 

I'm starting to think you don't understand simple English.
You've already admitted that testosterone testing only came about due to transgenders and that intersex is different from transgender.

You mean this hoax by a black man: https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/j...ti-latest/

Alright, fair enough. That one is discounted.

No one disputes that actual racists exist.

You disputed that people were still socially segregated, even sometimes regarding bathrooms. That is what this was about. 

Do you understand the weakness of anecdotal evidence? @_@
Do you think I know everything every racist does? @_@

Your homeowner's blog claimed: "Research conducted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that in many schools and public facilities, there are separate bathrooms designated for white and non-white individuals."
Schools and public facilities are not individual or private company racism.
You might want to disown that source before trying to change the subject to run-of-the-mill racists.

Changing your gender literally means it's not immutable. It's only "considered" immutable by ideologically-driven leftists pandering to and enabling the mentally ill.
I didn't actually say you can be trans without transitioning. You're making that up. I said you can be trans without taking hormones or having surgery. There's more to "transitioning" than that:

Gender transition is the process of affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.
...
A social transition may include coming out as transgender,[a] using a new name and pronouns, and changing one's public gender expression.[7] This is usually the first step in a gender transition. People socially transition at almost any age,[8][9] as a social transition does not involve medical procedures.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_transition

Any kind of gender transition is "changing your gender," hence not immutable.

Did you forget the rest of the sentence? "...is the process of affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth." They say nothing about changing one's gender, but instead affirming and expressing it. It would be no more changing your gender than getting a tan is changing your race. So again, how is it different?

The whole wiki is literally about "gender transition."
"affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth" literally means changing their gender, whether socially or medically.
But go ahead, let's see you try to tell a transgender that they haven't changed their gender because they are only dressing and acting like a women.
We have another word for that. It's called transvestite. Are you claiming transgenders who have only socially transitioned are only transvestites? @_@

You're cherry-picking definitions. 
Both are literally segregation - the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segregation
Both enforce the exclusion of others based solely on race, in order to erect barriers to social intercourse, education facilities, etc..

You can't cherry pick a definition: that the exact definition of the term because that's how people use it. In an extremely literal sense it might be segregation (in the same way you might considering putting apples and oranges in different bowls to be segregation) but it's not segregation by the legal, social definition. There are no barriers, because not being invited to the black social justice club doesn't prevent you from doing anything; you can still socialize and interact with others, and they can still socialize and interact with you. Nobody is forcing either of you to be there (or not be there) or do anything. Or do people having friends and social activities you're not a part of make you feel left out?

Yes, you can. Most words have several definitions, that are often used in different contexts.
Even you ignoring the definition I just gave you illustrates that you'd rather cherry-pick.

You don't think a black social clubs, safe spaces, etc. would actively excludes whites?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts...e-students
https://nypost.com/2023/02/07/washington...r-outrage/
https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racia...gal-ground

Maybe do a little research so you don't sound so out of touch.

You just proved my point. Assuming a woman is a secretary isn't mistaking her sex.
You have to know it's a women to even accidentally be sexist toward women. You can't see a women, assume she's a secretary, and that somehow makes you sexist against men.

True. My example was a little off as those are roles rather than gender mistakes. Seems it would be misgendering rather than sexism.

Yep, and it's no one's fault for misgendering people who intentionally present ambiguously.

No, you only think you did.

Nope. Got as close as possible... unless you have evidence to contradict what I have.

Again, not a representative sample. Hell, not even a vaguely scientific sample.

And as I've already shown, you even misrepresent citations you quote.
Makes me doubt your reading comprehension skills.

You seem to be making more blunders than me, truthfully - trying to argue that only indecent activities with minors in a bathroom goes against the law, that Israel gets no troops from other countries, etc. 

Straw man. I never said that.

Did I say things like the bystander effect would cease to exist? @_@
But the bystander effect is most prominent in big cities... that are also more likely to allow transgenders access to women's spaces, since they are largely run by Democrats.

No, but you said the force would come from any witnesses nearby, usually men. These are cases proving that's not always true, and acting like it is is dishonest.

Again, did I say it would always happen? @_@
Quit arguing your own straw men.

That's just sad. You know it's not representative. You have to know that's intellectually dishonest.

Hey, you're the one that said men would step in, not me. 

Did I say "all men" universally? @_@
No. I also didn't claim gay men would lift a finger to protect women.
Maybe try asking more clarifying questions instead of running with every straw man you dream up. 9_9

Again, who said the bystander effect, apathy, etc. ceased to exist?
If you live in a big city, you're just more likely to be a victim in general... exacerbated by defunded/underfunded police, strict gun control, etc..

Your claim was that any bystanders nearby would step in, men especially. They did not, even in civilized countries.

Yes, I don't live in a big city where the bystander effect is a prominent concern. Around here, women would say something and men would help. If it's a company that openly allows transgenders in whatever restroom, women who disagree avoid them.

"Seems" is not an argument.

When it's based on evidence it is. When it's patriarchal, sexist, low empathy, right wing men committing more sexual assaults and transwomen basically fly in the face of that, it would seem pretty unlikely for transwomen to be a threat - and is backed by the rarity of such a thing happening.

Again, you're conflating date rape.

Laws and the ability to call police have deterrent effects on crime.
It's also legal to make a citizen's arrest, to detain people until police arrive, in some circumstances.
But usually in the case of restrooms, simply being told you are trespassing, and will face legal action unless you leave, is enough.
Any business or owner of private property can demand a trespasser to leave, for any reason.

In some circumstances, like if someone was robbing a bank or committing a clear crime. But it is not illegal to walk into a bathroom looking unlike your birth sex. Plus, discrimination laws may or may not apply - if the laws state you cannot deny someone on the basis of sex or gender, that could be seen as discrimination. 

It is illegal in some places. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/no...hroom_bans

Way to cherry-pick two studies from a systematic review, and very weak studies at that. 183 and 216 participants recruited online means not likely to be representative and with a selection bias of participants.
Personally, I've never used Tinder or apps (just online).

Well, considering you seem Western, I picked studies that would most likely apply to a Western heterosexual man... unless you're saying I should have used the information from the gay Thai portion of the review instead? 

Recruiting online makes sense, as dating apps are online. Bias would have been small:

"Finally, as the initial search in the different databases was carried by only one of the authors, some bias could have been introduced. However, as previously noted, with any doubt about the inclusion of any study, the final decision was agreed between both authors, so we expect this possible bias to be small."

Author selection-bias doesn't account for self-selection bias nor the weakness of having non-representative sample sizes.

And are you lying? You said before:

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.

This implies access to an app. 

Maybe you don't know, but the online versions have the same dating profiles and the app versions.
Things like "usage patterns" would obviously differ between a stationary computer and an always available phone app.

No, you ignore the women. I ignore the men pretending to be women.

While trying to speak for women, and try to say who should and shouldn't enter their spaces... you're acting more like your negative stereotype of a transwoman than even most transwomen do.

Never said I speak for all women. Another sad straw man.
No, trans women ignoring the privacy, consent, and safety of women is nothing like listening to women's concerns and supporting them.
Yes, to some women, it's not a concern. That doesn't make the concerns a moot point... unless you ignore them.

[Syne]

Malcolm Gladwell Says He Was 'Cowed' Into Supporting Trans Athletes

Best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell is revising his take on transgender athletes, saying he's ashamed of his previous comments supporting trans women in sports.

Gladwell, 62, divulged his amended point of view on the hot-button issue during a podcast Tuesday, insisting "trans women have no place" competing with athletes assigned female at birth.

"If we did a replay of that exact panel at the Sloan conference this coming March, it runs in exactly the opposite direction," Gladwell said. "And it would be, I suspect, near unanimity in the room that trans athletes have no place in the female category. I don't think there's any question."

Gladwell said he regretted his 2022 appearance at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, where he moderated a panel discussing the "path forward for the inclusion" of transgender athletes in sports.

"I'm ashamed of my performance at that panel because I share your position 100 percent and I was cowed," Gladwell said on The Real Science of Sport. "The idea of saying anything on this issue — I was, I believe in retrospect, in a dishonest way, I was objecting in a dishonest way."
...
"Like him or not, Malcolm Gladwell is one of the most influential and financially successful journalists of the last 30 years," Michael Shellenberger wrote on X. "For him to say he was too scared to say men don't belong in girls sports shows both how totalitarian the [mainstream media] is and how chicken shit MSM journalists are."

[Railko]

Literally announced he was trans and started stripping in front of 14 year old girls. If there wasn't this "trans" excuse, everyone would have known it was wrong. The girls who fled obviously did, but that didn't cue in the perv. An 18 year old adult should know better.
If there weren't trans access to women's spaces, it would have been a crime without any need to show intent.
But you're obviously fine with pervs having access to little girls. Lemme guess, you're lesbian/bi too. We all know how the gays like the young ones.

Evidence shows otherwise and the school admits it's their fault. It doesn't matter what you think.

Since I never said otherwise, this seems like a distraction... or more likely just poor reading comprehension.

You:

Whether you realize it or not, you are conflating different legal contexts of the term "public." 
[...]
This is why 647(d) specifies "toilet." As a toilet is "a place open to the public" but is not "a public place" (as opposed to private property) nor "exposed to public view." And where it mentions "toilet," it's only with regard to "engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act." California penal code 288 is the only other place they define "lewd or lascivious acts." 

 
You see the only? You said that penal code 288 is the only other place they define the acts, meaning that it would only be a crime if a minor was involved. That's what you said. 

I'm saying it's not.

Notice how simple exposure by the same sex is not included.

Because all exposure falls under that, regardless of sex. 

https://wjactv.com/news/local/police-bel...te-college

"Authorities in Centre County say a Bellefonte man is facing charges after he was accused of exposing himself to others inside a bathroom at the Nittany Mall in State College.
Police say on Feb. 17, officers were dispatched to the mall for reports that a male was exposing himself inside the public restroom.
According to the affidavit, one witness reportedly told police that he had entered one of the bathroom stalls, and closed it, at which time the suspect reportedly stuck his genitalia through the "crack of the stall door.""

https://abc7.com/post/ucla-on-lookout-af...m/2229523/
"Around 11:20 a.m. on July 11, a man was using a men's bathroom on the third floor of the Ackerman Union building when he noticed another man standing in front of a restroom stall exposing himself.
The incident lasted for about 10 seconds and then the suspect walked out. The victim is associated with UCLA, according to a campus alert, but it did not specify if the victim was a student.
The suspect is described as man between 40 and 50 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, has short black hair, facial hair, dark-colored eyes and was last seen wearing a black or gray shirt and black pants."

Exposing yourself isn't suddenly okay because you share the same parts as the person. But, seeing as how you're fixated on imagining everyone in this thread who disagrees with you as gay, I suppose you live for that. 

You seem to have completely forgotten that we're only talking about simple exposure. 9_9
I've never even implied that sex acts in a restroom are legal.

Again, look above. You saying 288 is the only place they define lewd and lascivious acts (basically, acts with a minor) implies otherwise. 

First, you're cherry-picking Weinstein, as that was not the only person involved in #MeToo.
Second, the only actual evidence (a video recorded by a woman) showed him repeatedly asking for and getting consent.
Third, what I was talking about: Studies showed that consensual sex can be regretted, and may lead to a false allegation of rape.
That's what "retroactively" means. Consent supposedly removed after sex is complete.

He's not, which is why I brought up some of the other men who came forward with their stories of abuse perpetrated by other men. That being said, Weinstein was the most prominent.

Do we have evidence of this regret for the other women? People can regret, but again for so many people to regret with one man to the point of taking legal action seems unlikely. Your own linked study highlights this:

"However, an apparent paradoxical situation occurs with the denial of responsibility as a mode of reduction of the cognitive dissonance experienced after a consensual but regretful sexual intercourse. First, regret is a counterfactual emotion emerging from cognitive dissonance. Second, regret is not rare after casual sex: from 35% to more than 70% of the participants reported regret after consensual sex. Third, regret is a FRA motive.But fourth, – and this is the paradox! – FRA are rare. Thus, if our proposal is relevant, many women should file a deceitful complaint to the judicial authority to reduce their psychological discomfort due to the arousal of cognitive dissonance. But, it is not the case."

If one or two people were saying it it could be reasonably passed off as false, depending on the credibility of the accusers. But 87? Nope, very unlikely.

Rich, famous, a big payday.
More accusations, without actual evidence, is only good enough to convince 12 morons.
Many of these women didn't report it at the time or get a rape kit done, likely because they were trading sex for favors (e.g. acting role, contacts, money, etc.).

No, many women don't report it at first because they're afraid they won't be believed, or be harassed for coming out. 

"Women can be reluctant to report sexual assault because of a fear of retribution. Abuses are often made by men in a position of power, by their bosses and senior colleagues, while reporting them can lead to further harassment, the victim’s demotion, or even dismissal.

One study found that only one in five women report sexual harassment. Of these, 80 percent found that nothing changed as a result, while 16 percent said the harassment worsened. Abusers often intimidate the victim with violence if they dare to speak out, or threaten to ruin their reputation or career." 

Again, you have no evidence to support that assertion that they're trading sex for anything. And men are also reluctant to come out too, is it because they were trading sex for favors? And is that even really okay if it creates an unhealthy power dynamic? Like either way, it's not good.

See the aforementioned retroactive removal of consent.

No, I mean why does it matter to this entire chain of posts here? I'm not in Hollywood, so even if you were trying to imply something, I'm not the demographic involved in that conflict.

By that reasoning, if a bare majority believe slavery is fine we should allow it, right? No, that's stupid reasoning. Ever heard the phrase tyranny of the majority?
It's obvious not about the majority opinion. It's about respecting the consent, privacy, and safety of women (and more importantly girls, who can't legally consent) who are offended. Remember, offense is defined by the viewer, just as sexual harassment is defined by being unwelcome.
Again, you only continue to prove that you couldn't care less about women who disagree with you. Politics over protecting people.

That did happen though, and it eventually led to a war in which the South lost and slavery was abolished. 

Slavery objectively hurts the slaves (through mistreatment, neglect, and slavery of a human being) which is an ethical reason to abolish it too, even if the majority was in favor of it. 

In contrast, more people support trans people using the bathroom of their gender than not.

Bathroom bans objectively hurt trans people and cis women (by forcing trans women into unsafe men's bathrooms, by forcing trans men into women's restrooms making the women there uncomfortable, and arguably by even locking off cis women who might have needed to use the men's bathrooms in times of desperation) so there's an ethical reason to abolish bathroom bans. So this is not tyranny of the majority, it's the option that does less harm. 

But weren't you just saying earlier that

Assuming a minority has the right to dictate what the majority does is fascism. 

hmm? If the majority here agrees that transwomen should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, then you, a minority trying to dictate what the majority does is fascism, by your own words. 

But also, transwomen using women's bathrooms is an issue that primarily affects women. 

Again, since men are generally stronger, many feel it is their obligation to protect women, just as many women feel they need to protect children.

We’re more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.

“Our study indicates that we think women’s welfare should be preserved over men’s,”
- https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publicati...ality.html

That, or you just think men are disposable. @_@

And as I've said before, women don't need protection from strange men who don't even understand the situation they're talking about.This decision primarily affects women, men should largely not be a part of it especially since they're not voicing women's actual concerns (which objectively you can't, being a man) and women are able to talk about it without sounding like a pervert in the process.

Not implying anything. Just observing your lack of any sense of privacy.
Maybe you should take the opinions of those who do feel vulnerable into account.
By not taking their feelings into account, you are imposing more danger on them without them being allowed to "make their own decision." Again, ignoring consent.
According to your own cited polls, I clearly do speak for many women... sticking up for a minority that you think the majority should ignore.

Majority rules, and transwomen have not been shown to be a threat, meaning that there is no danger to cis women. If you have actual studies to prove otherwise, and not just anecdotes, feel free to show it.

Again, all your examples were of people doing better than other women.

In a competition some women will do better than other women, which shouldn't be immediately suspect, especially when women have just been allowed in and you don't have a baseline for what is a standard woman performance. 

I've already shown examples of it happening.
You continuing to make unsupported guesses doesn't change that fact.

You haven't shown any studies, just anecdotal evidence. If you have actual studies, then show them.

Apparently you don't understand how you're comparing the likelihood of men in general to the specific cases of transgenders.
You can only, honestly, compare the general likelihood of both or both in the same specific circumstances. Since men don't have such ready access to women's spaces, the latter would seem like an unfair comparison. But comparing the general stat of one to specific (cherry-picked) stats of another is intellectually dishonest and not even proper science.

Then bring in your studies. I've shown mine, multiple papers, while you're just grabbing links off of news sites.

Way to double down on irrelevancies. 9_9

It's relevant, as those are the factors that go into sexual assault. I included sex offenders (including those who do and don't go after children) did you miss that?

So as long as only a few people are harmed, it's fine? @_@

Never said that. Just that the rate is extremely low, showing that it's not even a crime that happens much, if at all.

You have no evidence for your claim that "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out (a woman with a dick raping someone is more notable than a regular woman doing it), and so more likely to get caught."
In such a tiny population, any number of sexual assaults is noteworthy.
Again, you're citing a study about date rape, not rape in general.

You know you just agreed with what I was saying with your second sentence, right? in such a tiny population, any number of sexual assaults are noteworthy, meaning that anybody reporting them is likely to get more attention on the case, and find them sooner. As evidenced by your small stockpile of anecdotes.

Nope, I even cited studies into sex offenders in prison (some who've assaulted children), not just college students, and similar causation applied to them too. Other studies also implicate hypermasculinity in stranger assaults:

"Research on the causes of sexual assault typically analyzes rape committed by
acquaintances and strangers together, despite the fact that the characteristics of theassault in these two circumstances are very different. Thus, this work examines whether the causes of each type of sexual assault—stranger and acquaintance rape—differ. The results of the analyses reveal that variables that describe a culture of gender equality, prior child abuse, and prior sexual assaults are associated with acquaintance assaults. In contrast, a culture of “hypermasculinity” is associated with stranger rape. The
implications of these findings are discussed."

Again, unsupported claim.
Not only is the study from 2018, that sample is unreliable:

To assess the degree to which sexual predators may
take advantage of transgender friendly restroom laws,
we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Nexis
Uni, and Google to find cases of such behaviors.
Although the searches of PubMed and Nexis Uni
returned no pertinent results, the Google search re-
turned websites for conservative organizations such
as the Family Research Council, American Family
Association, the Liberty Counsel, and Breitbart,
which have compiled lists of alleged cases.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nd_Science

I've told you this before. Sourcing from conservative websites is no indication of a representative list.

They explained why they did so. Their typical sources had none, so they went to conservative sources which do stockpile cases. (Doing so would also negate any claims that they decided to leave some out or didn't pick the right articles.) And you seem to have no issue sourcing another conservative group that has made the baseless claim that 600 female athletes lost 890 medals to transwomen without proper sources, so why are these an issue?

Maybe you don't understand that when you're talking about the IDF, you're comparing the operations the IDF undertakes. You know, troops on the ground in direct firefights with hostiles. Sending Navy support ships and troops to operate a missile defense system are not the same. These are not supplementing the IDF need for their own troops.

https://www.aipac.org/resources/us-secur...%20Israel.

"As part of its strategic alliance with Israel, the United States has agreed to provide security assistance through 10-year MOUs. Beginning in 2019, the new MOU stipulates an annual sum of $3.3 billion in foreign military funding and $500 million for cooperative missile defense. Congress must now fulfill this commitment by legislating full funding as called for in the MOU. Congress must also work to expand joint innovation, ensure Israel’s QME and consider upgrades to the value of U.S. stockpiles in Israel."

What I'm saying is, if Israel wanted help they could request it. The US already provides weapons, security assistance, funding, and more. If Israel really wanted to "protect its women" they could ask for help. The US does it for other countries, like Japan, Israel could certainly request it.

No, they can't.

Plenty of countries have sent weapons to Ukraine, but again, no troops to fight on the front lines.

If Ukraine needed troops, they would receive them. Russia, a much bigger country has been asking for and receiving troops from North Korea, and I'm sure if Ukraine, Israel, or any other country under plight right now requested it they would get some.

It's cute that you think anecdotes are making some kind of point.
Now if that were the majority of men happening all the time, you might have something. Otherwise, these just contrast the vast majority of men who don't assault women.

So likewise, anecdotes on the few transwomen who may commit sexual assault contrast the vast majority who don't.

It does, you just don't realize it.
"Reproductive freedom" is part of the Democrat party platform, and:

Social policy matters have long been considered women’s issues. Extant research has documented a strong link between gender and the policies of the welfare state in the legislative, executive and electoral arenas.
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5505229/

Women, who are more likely than men to identify as Democrats, are also more likely to express opinions that align with the policy positions of the Democratic Party...

Women tend to be more supportive of gun control, reproductive rights, welfare, and equal rights policies than men.
- https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-public-opinion

"Most women" vote Democrat.

So no source for the "abortion on demand" and "welfare from five baby daddies" claim. Because wanting abortion rights and welfare for struggling families is different from "abortion on demand" and "welfare for mothers with 5 baby daddies", if that is even a common situation.

If your previous examples "clearly stated" it, you wouldn't feel the need to find another anecdote.
So you seem to realize the weakness of your argument, but won't admit it.

No, I just understand you're the type of person who needs everything spelled out for you, so I'm doing so. Most people can read between the lines or understand that if someone is uncomfortable with the nudity around them, likely they don't want people to do it and would probably want them to stop if possible. You need someone saying that before you believe it. So I'm getting you your sources. 

Again, no one demanding pain meds or anesthesia at the time... just one, looking for it for next time.
Maybe it takes more to change the behaviors of, both male and female, doctors who think they know better. Maybe requires more assertiveness.

Again, a doctor should naturally provide pain meds once they see their patient is suffering. If a doctor is doing surgery and the patient starts screaming because they're cutting them open, the doctor should not ignore that, they should be the first one offering remedies for this pain or stopping the surgery. How much more assertive do you want women to be? One of the patients literally shouted stop but the doctor continued, you can't get more assertive than that. 

Intersex is essentially the same in terms of competitive advantage. Ambiguous genitalia doesn't always indicate intersex, so those were technically transgender.
A simple, noninvasive PCR test is all that's necessary for either.

It is not, as there are different intersex conditions, some which lead to extra testosterone and a XY makeup, and some that don't. Intersex people don't generally identify as another gender, they often identify as the gender they were raised as (and are sometimes assigned that gender by a doctor) and would be none the wiser unless they tried to have kids or ran in the Olympics. 

Do all women know as soon as they're pregnant? No, they do not.
You also left out this bit: "Most women age 65 or older should have a bone density scan."

IOW, this citation has nothing to do with sports-aged women. 9_9

If only there was a way to determine if a woman was pregnant before any visible signs are apparent... maybe by peeing on a stick or measuring the amount of hCG hormone in her system... hmm...

And no, the citation does, because we were talking about bone density scans and how safe or unsafe they were for women. Only risk is if you're pregnant, and most players are not pregnant. 

You don't accommodate disorders, you treat them. Do you understand the difference between a disorder and a disability?

The judicial system interprets our laws. So far, many courts have concluded that it is possible for gender dysphoria to be considered a disability under the ADA. There have not been a lot of cases where people with gender dysphoria have successfully been able to seek protection from the ADA. However, in most of the unsuccessful cases, the person with gender dysphoria did not clearly link gender dysphoria with physical impairments. Many lower courts still allow for the consideration that gender dysphoria can be a disability under the ADA, but not all.

Can gender dysphoria be a disability under the ADA? In many cases it can, if it is the result of physical impairments, and it also depends on previous rulings of the Federal Circuit Court in one’s area. The answer won’t be universally clear until it goes before the Supreme Court.
- https://rockymountainada.org/resources/g...20distress.

So not settled law, hence not "required."

You do know you're arguing with yourself here, right? I've made no claim about whether it is a disorder or disability, that's all you. 

https://adata.org/factsheet/ada-definitions

"The ADA defines a physical or mental impairment this way:

• Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or
  
• Any mental or psychological disorder such as intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disability.
  

The ADA regulations give examples of impairments that are considered disabilities, but it is very clear that "the definition of ‘disability’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage." This means that the examples do not include all possible disabilities. You should always evaluate whether a condition or impairment fits under the ADA definition."

Regardless, you do accommodate disorders, as not all disorders can be treated fully. (Ex. extra time for cognitive disorders, service dog for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.) Even so, treatment for gender dysphoria (if it is considered a disorder) is typically transitioning and living as the identified gender, which includes bathrooms. 

Competing in non-tested leagues is sufficient to account for the huge discrepancy between the performance of women in drug-tested competitions.
All of your examples are from non-testing leagues.

Any evidence for this claim? One of the athletes I showed, Alexis Jones is specifically drug tested.

I already said, "But fair enough. UN advisor." I just gave you the relevant part of the UN doc, since you couldn't manage to access it.

In tallying the total number of medals in this data set, it appears that SheWon.org counts one medal lost for every woman who places after the disputed athlete in question. So if a disputed athlete places first, then the second, third, and fourth place athletes in that event are counted as being denied medals; if the disputed athlete places second; then the third and fourth place athletes are counted as being denied medals; and so on.
...
WoLF has no connection to SheWon.org.

SheWon.org and HeCheated.org provide something incredibly useful that women globally had been looking for: tabulation. Over the past few years, story after story has broken of male 'transgender' athletes taking wins in women's sport. Both sites are repositories for the record of lost titles and medals taken from women by men.

Despite the NCAA cavalierly dismissing all concerns as just a tiny number of 'transgender' athletes competing in women's sports, a search for 'transgender athlete wins' shows that males winning in female sports is now ubiquitous.

We're incredibly grateful to women out there volunteering their precious time and efforts to keep the record straight. We don't know who they are, but we sure appreciate them.
- https://womensliberationfront.org/news/l...ens-sports

I'm demanding the source, the exact paper for the 600 claim.

Alright, I had to go find it myself, and it's here. It has the issues the article I linked before mentioned and more. They include intersex (Caster Semenya is on there) as an example of "transwomen stealing medals" when intersex isn't that, biologically and socially. They're trying to argue that transwomen have an unfair advantage while including sports that already let cis men and women compete against each other (like dancing or snooker). 
They're also inflating the numbers of medals lost (even if a trans woman were to displace a single athlete, you cannot predict how the other athletes would have placed had the trans woman not been there.) If their research was sound, they wouldn't need to distort the facts so much.

No, your numbers for Alexis Jones came from competing in the 220+ weight class, per your link.

She's also in the 185+ category too, as you can see. She's in both.

I'm starting to think you don't understand simple English. 
You've already admitted that testosterone testing only came about due to transgenders and that intersex is different from transgender.

No, the source doesn't say that, and I haven't said that. Testosterone testing evolved from the various methods of sex verification used to test women originally, because men didn't believe women could be as good as they were. I in fact said it didn't come about due to transgender people, because the Olympics started first before trans activism was underway.

Do you understand the weakness of anecdotal evidence? @_@
Do you think I know everything every racist does? @_@

Your homeowner's blog claimed: "Research conducted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that in many schools and public facilities, there are separate bathrooms designated for white and non-white individuals."
Schools and public facilities are not individual or private company racism.
You might want to disown that source before trying to change the subject to run-of-the-mill racists.

I made it clear before that I was talking about social segregation, not literal segregation. 
Me:

I'm talking about them having had existed, based on the same logic that's now being used for trans people. Legally, they don't exist anymore. Socially, they do: 

You disputed that people were still socially segregated, even sometimes regarding bathrooms. That is what this was about. 

Social segregation, not legal segregation.

The whole wiki is literally about "gender transition." 
"affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth" literally means changing their gender, whether socially or medically.
But go ahead, let's see you try to tell a transgender that they haven't changed their gender because they are only dressing and acting like a women.
We have another word for that. It's called transvestite. Are you claiming transgenders who have only socially transitioned are only transvestites? @_@

They haven't changed their gender. They've socially changed their sex or gender presentation, but they don't change their gender - if that was the case they'd just change their gender to match their body's sex and then there'd be no need to be trans.

And no, a trans woman who is dressing and acting like a woman hasn't changed her gender - she's affirming it, expressing it, but not changing it or else that implies people just suddenly identify as a woman the second they put on a dress, and once they take it off they become a man again.

Yes, you can. Most words have several definitions, that are often used in different contexts.
Even you ignoring the definition I just gave you illustrates that you'd rather cherry-pick.

You don't think a black social clubs, safe spaces, etc. would actively excludes whites?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts...e-students
https://nypost.com/2023/02/07/washington...r-outrage/
https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racia...gal-ground

Maybe do a little research so you don't sound so out of touch.

I acknowledged your definition. Even using it however it doesn't change the fact that black only clubs wouldn't be discrimination, no more than an exclusive "soccer fans only" club would be.

And to quote something you said earlier...

No one disputes that actual racists exist. 

It's not okay to forcibly separate little kids or adults, but adults can choose to associate with who'd they like. Groups that people willingly make to associate with others of their race are fine, and aren't segregation. Maybe a school body shouldn't be doing it, as it would then fall under legal discrimination, but individuals can create whatever exclusive clubs they want.

Legally, it may also be permissible if the group is not a public group:

"Yes, you may be able to sue a group if they kick you out because of your race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, among other things. Private groups can kick you out for any or no reason. But if a seemingly private group is actually public enough to be considered a “public accommodation," the group can’t discriminate against you because of your membership in one of these protected classes.

Private groups and exclusive clubs have been around since the founding of the U.S. They were originally comprised of wealthy white men who sought to develop social, business, and political relationships. Protected as they are by the First Amendment’s freedom of association, private groups were not bound by laws that applied to public accommodations (such as taverns). Their members were free to engage in all sorts of shenanigans, like gambling, that public accommodations couldn’t.

Private groups look very different today. You can find a private club devoted to virtually any subject, such as:

• High school glee clubs
  
• Social fraternities and sororities at community colleges and four-year universities
  
• Country clubs
  
• Fantasy football teams
  
• Movies
  

Private clubs are generally not considered to be public accommodations for purposes of anti-discrimination laws. But, courts generally construe these laws broadly concerning discrimination."

So people can have whatever groups they want. If they're trying to advertise it to everyone and then blocking you off, then yeah that would be discrimination, but they're making it clear from the start and aren't advocating for anything harmful, then it should be legal and fine.

Again, not a representative sample. Hell, not even a vaguely scientific sample.

Since it came from scientific papers, it is "vaguely scientific", and fairly indicative of what we see today.

Again, did I say it would always happen? @_@
Quit arguing your own straw men.

If it's not something that always happens, then it's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? Because then it's just a "no shit, some people would come and some people wouldn't" situation, but you specifically stated that it would usually come from men, indicating men specifically would intervene and that this is a typical phenomenon.

Did I say "all men" universally? @_@
No. I also didn't claim gay men would lift a finger to protect women.
Maybe try asking more clarifying questions instead of running with every straw man you dream up. 9_9

Then again, like above, it's irrelevant.

Again, you're conflating date rape.

Then provide evidence otherwise, of the stats of men who assault without knowing the victim.

It is illegal in some places. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/no...hroom_bans

That map talks about how it's illegal to be trans. I'm talking about how it's not illegal to not look like your birth sex. A woman could look like a man but that's not illegal. 

Author selection-bias doesn't account for self-selection bias nor the weakness of having non-representative sample sizes.

But there were two authors, meaning one could surely call out the other for any biases. Plus, they pulled from multiple studies to draw the conclusions they did. 
The sample sizes were good though, having at least 100 is the minimum, and going beyond (which was regularly done) ensures its accuracy.

Maybe you don't know, but the online versions have the same dating profiles and the app versions.
Things like "usage patterns" would obviously differ between a stationary computer and an always available phone app.

But then you wouldn't say that you used the app, you'd say you were online dating...   Like if you see a distinction there, you wouldn't say you can distinguish trans people on dating apps when you've never been on one. 

Never said I speak for all women. Another sad straw man.
No, trans women ignoring the privacy, consent, and safety of women is nothing like listening to women's concerns and supporting them.
Yes, to some women, it's not a concern. That doesn't make the concerns a moot point... unless you ignore them.

Could have fooled me:

Are cis women's experiences completely irrelevant? @_@

The vast majority of women are having their safety, privacy, and consent violated. And no amount of hurt "feelings" can excuse that fact.

You speak like you're a woman and have concern for women, despite knowingly being male and harboring misogyny that reveals itself later:

And no matter what women claim they want, their actual choices belie it.

No, women favor Democrats because Democrats try to help women avoid accountability. Abortion on demand, welfare for women with 5 baby daddies, etc..
That's not caring, that's called pandering. 

You don't actually care about women's concerns, you're just using women as a cudgel to hit trans people with. You're fake as hell lol

Anyways, don't reply back unless you have evidence to prove your claims. I won't answer unless you do.

[Syne]

Literally announced he was trans and started stripping in front of 14 year old girls. If there wasn't this "trans" excuse, everyone would have known it was wrong. The girls who fled obviously did, but that didn't cue in the perv. An 18 year old adult should know better.
If there weren't trans access to women's spaces, it would have been a crime without any need to show intent.
But you're obviously fine with pervs having access to little girls. Lemme guess, you're lesbian/bi too. We all know how the gays like the young ones.

Evidence shows otherwise and the school admits it's their fault. It doesn't matter what you think.

I already cited the witness statement from the girls themselves, and you haven't shown otherwise. You've only shown that biased sources will try to hide damning evidence.

Since I never said otherwise, this seems like a distraction... or more likely just poor reading comprehension.

You:

Whether you realize it or not, you are conflating different legal contexts of the term "public." 
[...]
This is why 647(d) specifies "toilet." As a toilet is "a place open to the public" but is not "a public place" (as opposed to private property) nor "exposed to public view." And where it mentions "toilet," it's only with regard to "engaging in or soliciting a lewd or lascivious or an unlawful act." California penal code 288 is the only other place they define "lewd or lascivious acts." 

 
You see the only? You said that penal code 288 is the only other place they define the acts, meaning that it would only be a crime if a minor was involved. That's what you said. 

I'm saying it's not.

You see the "other"? @_@
You're just proving that your reading comprehension isn't up to the task, because "only other" literally means that it's the only one other than the one previously mentioned (e.g. 647(d)).

Notice how simple exposure by the same sex is not included.

Because all exposure falls under that, regardless of sex. 

https://wjactv.com/news/local/police-bel...te-college

"Authorities in Centre County say a Bellefonte man is facing charges after he was accused of exposing himself to others inside a bathroom at the Nittany Mall in State College.
Police say on Feb. 17, officers were dispatched to the mall for reports that a male was exposing himself inside the public restroom.
According to the affidavit, one witness reportedly told police that he had entered one of the bathroom stalls, and closed it, at which time the suspect reportedly stuck his genitalia through the "crack of the stall door.""

Authorities say Chilcoat was also accused of sticking his hand under the stall door and "moaning."

Police say the witness told officers that he believed that Chilcoat was "pleasuring himself" inside the bathroom stall.

"Conduct... likely to offend or alarm."

In Pennsylvania, indecent exposure is defined as intentionally exposing your genitals in a public place or anywhere other people are present, knowing or should know that the conduct is likely to offend or alarm them. - Google AI

So again, not just simple exposure to the same-sex in a that-sex only space.

https://abc7.com/post/ucla-on-lookout-af...m/2229523/
"Around 11:20 a.m. on July 11, a man was using a men's bathroom on the third floor of the Ackerman Union building when he noticed another man standing in front of a restroom stall exposing himself.
The incident lasted for about 10 seconds and then the suspect walked out. The victim is associated with UCLA, according to a campus alert, but it did not specify if the victim was a student.
The suspect is described as man between 40 and 50 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, has short black hair, facial hair, dark-colored eyes and was last seen wearing a black or gray shirt and black pants."

2017 incident: In July 2017, UCLA police issued a warning to students after a man exposed himself inside a men's restroom on campus. The incident occurred in a third-floor bathroom in the Ackerman Union.
2018 incident: In November 2018, UCLA police arrested a suspect for allegedly exposing himself and masturbating in front of students multiple times near the campus.
- Google AI

So again, the only arrest involved someone pleasuring themselves. You keep proving my point, over and over again.

Exposing yourself isn't suddenly okay because you share the same parts as the person. But, seeing as how you're fixated on imagining everyone in this thread who disagrees with you as gay, I suppose you live for that. 

I have no idea what you are, as you've been very dodgy about it. You might be a women and might be black/minority, but I don't really know what to believe. You're probably just a troll.

You seem to have completely forgotten that we're only talking about simple exposure. 9_9
I've never even implied that sex acts in a restroom are legal.

Again, look above. You saying 288 is the only place they define lewd and lascivious acts (basically, acts with a minor) implies otherwise. 

I said "only other place." Please learn how to read. 9_9

First, you're cherry-picking Weinstein, as that was not the only person involved in #MeToo.
Second, the only actual evidence (a video recorded by a woman) showed him repeatedly asking for and getting consent.
Third, what I was talking about: Studies showed that consensual sex can be regretted, and may lead to a false allegation of rape.
That's what "retroactively" means. Consent supposedly removed after sex is complete.

He's not, which is why I brought up some of the other men who came forward with their stories of abuse perpetrated by other men. That being said, Weinstein was the most prominent.

Do we have evidence of this regret for the other women? People can regret, but again for so many people to regret with one man to the point of taking legal action seems unlikely. Your own linked study highlights this:

"However, an apparent paradoxical situation occurs with the denial of responsibility as a mode of reduction of the cognitive dissonance experienced after a consensual but regretful sexual intercourse. First, regret is a counterfactual emotion emerging from cognitive dissonance. Second, regret is not rare after casual sex: from 35% to more than 70% of the participants reported regret after consensual sex. Third, regret is a FRA motive.But fourth, – and this is the paradox! – FRA are rare. Thus, if our proposal is relevant, many women should file a deceitful complaint to the judicial authority to reduce their psychological discomfort due to the arousal of cognitive dissonance. But, it is not the case."

If one or two people were saying it it could be reasonably passed off as false, depending on the credibility of the accusers. But 87? Nope, very unlikely.

If you checked the citations:

The meta-analysis of seven relevant studies shows that confirmed false allegations of sexual assault made to police occur at a significant rate. The total false reporting rate, including both confirmed and equivocal cases, would be greater than the 5 % rate found here.
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...015-0666-2

These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%.
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177...1210387747

Approximately 5% of the allegations of rape were deemed false or baseless. That was at least five times higher than for most other offence types.
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar_looku...n%20Koppen

So unless you think 87 is 2-10% of all sexual assault allegations, it's a drop in the bucket.
FRA is only considered rare in relation to the percent who regret consensual sex:

Second, regret is not rare after casual sex: from 35% to more than 70% of the participants reported regret after consensual sex.

Again, the rich and famous are prime targets.

Rich, famous, a big payday.
More accusations, without actual evidence, is only good enough to convince 12 morons.
Many of these women didn't report it at the time or get a rape kit done, likely because they were trading sex for favors (e.g. acting role, contacts, money, etc.).

No, many women don't report it at first because they're afraid they won't be believed, or be harassed for coming out. 

"Women can be reluctant to report sexual assault because of a fear of retribution. Abuses are often made by men in a position of power, by their bosses and senior colleagues, while reporting them can lead to further harassment, the victim’s demotion, or even dismissal.

One study found that only one in five women report sexual harassment. Of these, 80 percent found that nothing changed as a result, while 16 percent said the harassment worsened. Abusers often intimidate the victim with violence if they dare to speak out, or threaten to ruin their reputation or career." 

Again, you have no evidence to support that assertion that they're trading sex for anything. And men are also reluctant to come out too, is it because they were trading sex for favors? And is that even really okay if it creates an unhealthy power dynamic? Like either way, it's not good.

"Sexual harassment" not sexual assault. 9_9
No citations about sexual assault.
Whether an unhealthy power dynamic or not, if an adult consents, at the time, it's still consent.

See the aforementioned retroactive removal of consent.

No, I mean why does it matter to this entire chain of posts here? I'm not in Hollywood, so even if you were trying to imply something, I'm not the demographic involved in that conflict.

Ahem, you're the one who brought up Weinstein: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-17333-...l#pid75439

By that reasoning, if a bare majority believe slavery is fine we should allow it, right? No, that's stupid reasoning. Ever heard the phrase tyranny of the majority?
It's obvious not about the majority opinion. It's about respecting the consent, privacy, and safety of women (and more importantly girls, who can't legally consent) who are offended. Remember, offense is defined by the viewer, just as sexual harassment is defined by being unwelcome.
Again, you only continue to prove that you couldn't care less about women who disagree with you. Politics over protecting people.

That did happen though, and it eventually led to a war in which the South lost and slavery was abolished. 

Slavery objectively hurts the slaves (through mistreatment, neglect, and slavery of a human being) which is an ethical reason to abolish it too, even if the majority was in favor of it. 

In contrast, more people support trans people using the bathroom of their gender than not.

Bathroom bans objectively hurt trans people and cis women (by forcing trans women into unsafe men's bathrooms, by forcing trans men into women's restrooms making the women there uncomfortable, and arguably by even locking off cis women who might have needed to use the men's bathrooms in times of desperation) so there's an ethical reason to abolish bathroom bans. So this is not tyranny of the majority, it's the option that does less harm. 

If you want to talk ethics, privacy, consent, and safety are powerful ethical arguments. Using a particular bathroom is not, itself, an ethical argument.
I've already said that trans men could use men's spaces, as that wouldn't risk anyone's safety. Trans women are biological men, who do pose a greater risk to women.
Slave owners also claimed the slaves were "better off" in slavery than free in Africa. So "less harm" arguments have a history of being misused.

Even just looking at it through a consequentialism lens (least harm), the potential harm to such a small minority dwarfs the potential harm to the vastly larger number of women.

But weren't you just saying earlier that

Assuming a minority has the right to dictate what the majority does is fascism. 

hmm? If the majority here agrees that transwomen should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, then you, a minority trying to dictate what the majority does is fascism, by your own words. 

But also, transwomen using women's bathrooms is an issue that primarily affects women. 

Again, majority opinion is not an ethical argument, just like it wasn't during slavery.
The minority here are the transgenders. You seem to conflating minorities with minority opinions. They are not interchangeable.

Again, since men are generally stronger, many feel it is their obligation to protect women, just as many women feel they need to protect children.

We’re more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.

“Our study indicates that we think women’s welfare should be preserved over men’s,”
- https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publicati...ality.html

That, or you just think men are disposable. @_@

And as I've said before, women don't need protection from strange men who don't even understand the situation they're talking about.This decision primarily affects women, men should largely not be a part of it especially since they're not voicing women's actual concerns (which objectively you can't, being a man) and women are able to talk about it without sounding like a pervert in the process.

You're conflating your personal opinion with being able to speak for all women (which you've accused me of).
You can't use your leftist bullshit "lived experience" excuse to discount valid opinions. It doesn't hold up to the simplest logical test. If it did, only murderers and murder victims could opine on murder. I speak for women I've either read, heard, or know personally. Any person can validly opine on and discuss any ethical matter. Inferring someone might be a pervert to stifle opposition is intellectually dishonest and fallacious.

Not implying anything. Just observing your lack of any sense of privacy.
Maybe you should take the opinions of those who do feel vulnerable into account.
By not taking their feelings into account, you are imposing more danger on them without them being allowed to "make their own decision." Again, ignoring consent.
According to your own cited polls, I clearly do speak for many women... sticking up for a minority that you think the majority should ignore.

Majority rules, and transwomen have not been shown to be a threat, meaning that there is no danger to cis women. If you have actual studies to prove otherwise, and not just anecdotes, feel free to show it.

Protecting against a tyranny of majority is why the US is a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. IOW, the majority doesn't rule.
I've already shown many examples of trans women being threats.
And it's rich for you to suddenly discount anecdotes when you cite them all the time.

Eighty-two percent of gender diverse offenders with sexual
offence histories were trans-women and the remaining
17% were in the “other” group. On average, these
offenders were 42 years at the time of the study. Two-
thirds were serving their first federal sentence and about
half (46%) were serving indeterminate sentences.
...
Over 80% of gender diverse offenders with sexual offence
histories were trans-women. Sexual offending indicators
showed... that the highest
proportion of victims were children or female. In addition, a
majority of this sub-group caused death or serious harm to
their victim(s).
- https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/csc-sc...2_O-en.pdf

In 2018 the MOJ released statistics showing half of the people in prison who declare themselves transgender have been sentenced with one or more sexual offences. We have now obtained new data which is the clearest and most recent evidence confirming the vast majority of these trans sex offenders were born male. These MOJ statistics show that transgender women exhibit a male-type pattern of criminality. We conclude that transwomen in prison exhibit a propensity to sexual crime that matches their birth sex and not their gender identity. This is relevant and necessary information when making legislation and policies designed to keep women safe.
- https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender...-offences/

Again, all your examples were of people doing better than other women.

In a competition some women will do better than other women, which shouldn't be immediately suspect, especially when women have just been allowed in and you don't have a baseline for what is a standard woman performance. 

Again, it only comes into question when the performance is so far beyond all other competitors.
You have not shown that they had no women's performance for comparison.

I've already shown examples of it happening.
You continuing to make unsupported guesses doesn't change that fact.

You haven't shown any studies, just anecdotal evidence. If you have actual studies, then show them.

I expect you'll quit making anecdotal arguments yourself from now on.
Studies on transgender offenders goes against the politics of largely leftist academics, but I've given two above.
Here's another one:

This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne et al. (2011) followed a population of individuals who
had undergone surgical and legal sex reassignment involving hormonal and surgical
treatment between 1973 and 2003 (324 in total) and compared them to a matched control
group of their birth sex. It is crucial to emphasise that this study looks only at those who
have undergone hormonal and surgical transition, which is a much tighter group than
individuals who self- identify as transgender.
...
The researchers state:
‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was
true regarding violent crime.’
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female
comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence. The group had
no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending. The group examined were those who committed to surgery, and so
were more tightly defined than a population based solely on self-declaration.
- https://committees.parliament.uk/written...18973/pdf/

Apparently you don't understand how you're comparing the likelihood of men in general to the specific cases of transgenders.
You can only, honestly, compare the general likelihood of both or both in the same specific circumstances. Since men don't have such ready access to women's spaces, the latter would seem like an unfair comparison. But comparing the general stat of one to specific (cherry-picked) stats of another is intellectually dishonest and not even proper science.

Then bring in your studies. I've shown mine, multiple papers, while you're just grabbing links off of news sites.

No, you haven't shown a single study on the offending rate of transgenders (that doesn't source the same "news sites" you're criticizing me for). You just keep making spurious claims.
I've now given you studies that show there is no difference in the criminality between men and trans women, making free access to women's spaces a greater danger to women.

Way to double down on irrelevancies. 9_9

It's relevant, as those are the factors that go into sexual assault. I included sex offenders (including those who do and don't go after children) did you miss that?

And I've now given you studies that show there is no difference in the criminality between men and trans women.

So as long as only a few people are harmed, it's fine? @_@

Never said that. Just that the rate is extremely low, showing that it's not even a crime that happens much, if at all.

You sure show zero concern for the victims, past, future, and including children.
And you don't know how much it happens, as:

In the U.S., police departments have varying, and often conflicting, policies on recording the gender identity of offenders. While the FBI collects information on gender identity for hate crime statistics, there is no federal standard for recording gender identity in routine police reports.
- Google AI

You have no evidence for your claim that "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out (a woman with a dick raping someone is more notable than a regular woman doing it), and so more likely to get caught."
In such a tiny population, any number of sexual assaults is noteworthy.
Again, you're citing a study about date rape, not rape in general.

You know you just agreed with what I was saying with your second sentence, right? in such a tiny population, any number of sexual assaults are noteworthy, meaning that anybody reporting them is likely to get more attention on the case, and find them sooner. As evidenced by your small stockpile of anecdotes.

Please learn to read. Getting attention doesn't mean that "Transwomen sexual assault perpetrators are also more likely to stick out."

Nope, I even cited studies into sex offenders in prison (some who've assaulted children), not just college students, and similar causation applied to them too. Other studies also implicate hypermasculinity in stranger assaults:

"Research on the causes of sexual assault typically analyzes rape committed by
acquaintances and strangers together, despite the fact that the characteristics of theassault in these two circumstances are very different. Thus, this work examines whether the causes of each type of sexual assault—stranger and acquaintance rape—differ. The results of the analyses reveal that variables that describe a culture of gender equality, prior child abuse, and prior sexual assaults are associated with acquaintance assaults. In contrast, a culture of “hypermasculinity” is associated with stranger rape. The
implications of these findings are discussed."

https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-2-e...-offending - this one only cites "a sense of powerlessness and establish their ideal image of masculinity" and "hostile masculinity," and notably from "feminist theorists." Not actual, existing masculinity. This "sense of powerlessness" would actually be exacerbated in trans women.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...uaintances - this one specifies "a culture of “hypermasculinity”" and does not support this claim, either in the excerpt of this study (behind paywall) nor the full study cited by it.
I really wish people knew how to read studies, beyond just the abstract.

Again, unsupported claim.
Not only is the study from 2018, that sample is unreliable:

To assess the degree to which sexual predators may
take advantage of transgender friendly restroom laws,
we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Nexis
Uni, and Google to find cases of such behaviors.
Although the searches of PubMed and Nexis Uni
returned no pertinent results, the Google search re-
turned websites for conservative organizations such
as the Family Research Council, American Family
Association, the Liberty Counsel, and Breitbart,
which have compiled lists of alleged cases.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nd_Science

I've told you this before. Sourcing from conservative websites is no indication of a representative list.

They explained why they did so. Their typical sources had none, so they went to conservative sources which do stockpile cases. (Doing so would also negate any claims that they decided to leave some out or didn't pick the right articles.) And you seem to have no issue sourcing another conservative group that has made the baseless claim that 600 female athletes lost 890 medals to transwomen without proper sources, so why are these an issue?

Non-academic "conservative sources" are not compiling for academic purposes, with the necessary controls. Using these are an exhaustive list, upon which to base crime statistics, is not scientifically sound. Since many jurisdictions do not record gender identity, many likely go unnoticed as just run-of-the-mill sexual assault cases. Again, not a representative sample.

For the third time now. "But fair enough. UN advisor." Personally, I don't care how many women have lost medals to transgenders. I only care that they are losing to transgenders at all. Any disenfranchisement is still disenfranchisement.

Maybe you don't understand that when you're talking about the IDF, you're comparing the operations the IDF undertakes. You know, troops on the ground in direct firefights with hostiles. Sending Navy support ships and troops to operate a missile defense system are not the same. These are not supplementing the IDF need for their own troops.

https://www.aipac.org/resources/us-secur...%20Israel.

"As part of its strategic alliance with Israel, the United States has agreed to provide security assistance through 10-year MOUs. Beginning in 2019, the new MOU stipulates an annual sum of $3.3 billion in foreign military funding and $500 million for cooperative missile defense. Congress must now fulfill this commitment by legislating full funding as called for in the MOU. Congress must also work to expand joint innovation, ensure Israel’s QME and consider upgrades to the value of U.S. stockpiles in Israel."

What I'm saying is, if Israel wanted help they could request it. The US already provides weapons, security assistance, funding, and more. If Israel really wanted to "protect its women" they could ask for help. The US does it for other countries, like Japan, Israel could certainly request it.

No, they couldn't, because it's not in the interest of the US to put our own troops in harm's way. We're talking about troops on the ground here. Not weapons and funding.
Quit trying to move the goalpost. The US has a formal security treaty with Japan. We have no such formal treaty with Israel.

No, they can't.

Plenty of countries have sent weapons to Ukraine, but again, no troops to fight on the front lines.

If Ukraine needed troops, they would receive them. Russia, a much bigger country has been asking for and receiving troops from North Korea, and I'm sure if Ukraine, Israel, or any other country under plight right now requested it they would get some.

LOL! Ukraine does need troops, right now.

“A troop contingent from one country or another could be present in Ukraine for as long as it isn’t part of Nato. But for that we need to have a clear understanding of when Ukraine becomes an EU member and when a Nato member,” Zelenskyy said.
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2...-zelenskyy

Ukraine has been seeking NATO membership, which would commit EU & US troops, but that will not happen, as that would risk world war. Even having NATO troops in Ukraine, without NATO membership, could risk Putin taking it as a NATO attack and retaliating against EU & US targets.

It's cute that you think anecdotes are making some kind of point.
Now if that were the majority of men happening all the time, you might have something. Otherwise, these just contrast the vast majority of men who don't assault women.

So likewise, anecdotes on the few transwomen who may commit sexual assault contrast the vast majority who don't.

Until you have any more solid data than what I've provided, it will have to suffice.
Since you don't have that data, you cannot credibly claim that you know the percentage. So quit making such unsupported claims.

It does, you just don't realize it.
"Reproductive freedom" is part of the Democrat party platform, and:

Social policy matters have long been considered women’s issues. Extant research has documented a strong link between gender and the policies of the welfare state in the legislative, executive and electoral arenas.
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5505229/

Women, who are more likely than men to identify as Democrats, are also more likely to express opinions that align with the policy positions of the Democratic Party...

Women tend to be more supportive of gun control, reproductive rights, welfare, and equal rights policies than men.
- https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-public-opinion

"Most women" vote Democrat.

So no source for the "abortion on demand" and "welfare from five baby daddies" claim. Because wanting abortion rights and welfare for struggling families is different from "abortion on demand" and "welfare for mothers with 5 baby daddies", if that is even a common situation.

64% of all women and 85% of Democrats support "abortion should be legal in all or most cases." That's literally abortion on demand.

"Abortion on demand" refers to the concept that a pregnant individual should have the right to obtain an abortion at their request, rather than needing to fulfill specific legal or personal conditions. - Google AI

No, current mainstream Democratic policy generally opposes new work requirements for welfare and seeks to weaken existing ones, viewing these programs as essential protections against inequality and advocating for more comprehensive benefits rather than stricter mandates. - Google AI

No restrictions on welfare means supporting women no matter how many baby daddies they amass.

One in five of all American moms have kids who have different birth fathers, a new study shows. And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men.

“To put it in perspective, this is similar to the number of American adults with a college degree,” says the study’s author, Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. “It’s pervasive.”
- https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...a1c9462927

In 2010, 41 percent of U.S. births were to unmarried parents. As a result, the share of U.S. children whose family lives are shaped by multi-partner fertility is substantial. Carlson also reported the findings of a variety of other studies indicating that as many as one in five children have a half-sibling, and as many as one in three mothers on welfare have a child with more than one partner.
- https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-parent...%20partner.

If your previous examples "clearly stated" it, you wouldn't feel the need to find another anecdote.
So you seem to realize the weakness of your argument, but won't admit it.

No, I just understand you're the type of person who needs everything spelled out for you, so I'm doing so. Most people can read between the lines or understand that if someone is uncomfortable with the nudity around them, likely they don't want people to do it and would probably want them to stop if possible. You need someone saying that before you believe it. So I'm getting you your sources. 

I've humored this little red herring of yours long enough. Remember, you brought this up when the actual topic of discussion was illegal indecent exposure.
I've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the laws you try to cite.

Again, no one demanding pain meds or anesthesia at the time... just one, looking for it for next time.
Maybe it takes more to change the behaviors of, both male and female, doctors who think they know better. Maybe requires more assertiveness.

Again, a doctor should naturally provide pain meds once they see their patient is suffering. If a doctor is doing surgery and the patient starts screaming because they're cutting them open, the doctor should not ignore that, they should be the first one offering remedies for this pain or stopping the surgery. How much more assertive do you want women to be? One of the patients literally shouted stop but the doctor continued, you can't get more assertive than that. 

Yes, you found one that reported she said to stop. If true, that doctor violated her consent and should be sued.
But again, only one anecdote, where I've explained why men are not treated like this. If more women were assertive, the pattern of treatment would likely change.

Intersex is essentially the same in terms of competitive advantage. Ambiguous genitalia doesn't always indicate intersex, so those were technically transgender.
A simple, noninvasive PCR test is all that's necessary for either.

It is not, as there are different intersex conditions, some which lead to extra testosterone and a XY makeup, and some that don't. Intersex people don't generally identify as another gender, they often identify as the gender they were raised as (and are sometimes assigned that gender by a doctor) and would be none the wiser unless they tried to have kids or ran in the Olympics. 

Please learn to read... like the entire context (e.g. "in terms of competitive advantage").

Do all women know as soon as they're pregnant? No, they do not.
You also left out this bit: "Most women age 65 or older should have a bone density scan."

IOW, this citation has nothing to do with sports-aged women. 9_9

If only there was a way to determine if a woman was pregnant before any visible signs are apparent... maybe by peeing on a stick or measuring the amount of hCG hormone in her system... hmm...

And no, the citation does, because we were talking about bone density scans and how safe or unsafe they were for women. Only risk is if you're pregnant, and most players are not pregnant. 

No, 65 is after menopause. Hence irrelevant.
Requiring pregnancy test results would violate their HIPAA rights.

You don't accommodate disorders, you treat them. Do you understand the difference between a disorder and a disability?

The judicial system interprets our laws. So far, many courts have concluded that it is possible for gender dysphoria to be considered a disability under the ADA. There have not been a lot of cases where people with gender dysphoria have successfully been able to seek protection from the ADA. However, in most of the unsuccessful cases, the person with gender dysphoria did not clearly link gender dysphoria with physical impairments. Many lower courts still allow for the consideration that gender dysphoria can be a disability under the ADA, but not all.

Can gender dysphoria be a disability under the ADA? In many cases it can, if it is the result of physical impairments, and it also depends on previous rulings of the Federal Circuit Court in one’s area. The answer won’t be universally clear until it goes before the Supreme Court.
- https://rockymountainada.org/resources/g...20distress.

So not settled law, hence not "required."

You do know you're arguing with yourself here, right? I've made no claim about whether it is a disorder or disability, that's all you. 

Again, you don't accommodate disorders, and that's literally what gender dysphoria is.

https://adata.org/factsheet/ada-definitions

"The ADA defines a physical or mental impairment this way:

• Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or
  
• Any mental or psychological disorder such as intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disability.
  

The ADA regulations give examples of impairments that are considered disabilities, but it is very clear that "the definition of ‘disability’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage." This means that the examples do not include all possible disabilities. You should always evaluate whether a condition or impairment fits under the ADA definition."

Regardless, you do accommodate disorders, as not all disorders can be treated fully. (Ex. extra time for cognitive disorders, service dog for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.) Even so, treatment for gender dysphoria (if it is considered a disorder) is typically transitioning and living as the identified gender, which includes bathrooms. 

No, treatment is treating the objective delusion that a person is a gender other than their biological sex. Placating delusion is called enabling, which is the opposite of treatment.
Only the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that gender dysphoria falls under the ADA, so this is not settled law.

Competing in non-tested leagues is sufficient to account for the huge discrepancy between the performance of women in drug-tested competitions.
All of your examples are from non-testing leagues.

Any evidence for this claim? One of the athletes I showed, Alexis Jones is specifically drug tested.

Again, different weight class. 9_9

I already said, "But fair enough. UN advisor." I just gave you the relevant part of the UN doc, since you couldn't manage to access it.

In tallying the total number of medals in this data set, it appears that SheWon.org counts one medal lost for every woman who places after the disputed athlete in question. So if a disputed athlete places first, then the second, third, and fourth place athletes in that event are counted as being denied medals; if the disputed athlete places second; then the third and fourth place athletes are counted as being denied medals; and so on.
...
WoLF has no connection to SheWon.org.

SheWon.org and HeCheated.org provide something incredibly useful that women globally had been looking for: tabulation. Over the past few years, story after story has broken of male 'transgender' athletes taking wins in women's sport. Both sites are repositories for the record of lost titles and medals taken from women by men.

Despite the NCAA cavalierly dismissing all concerns as just a tiny number of 'transgender' athletes competing in women's sports, a search for 'transgender athlete wins' shows that males winning in female sports is now ubiquitous.

We're incredibly grateful to women out there volunteering their precious time and efforts to keep the record straight. We don't know who they are, but we sure appreciate them.
- https://womensliberationfront.org/news/l...ens-sports

I'm demanding the source, the exact paper for the 600 claim.

Alright, I had to go find it myself, and it's here. It has the issues the article I linked before mentioned and more. They include intersex (Caster Semenya is on there) as an example of "transwomen stealing medals" when intersex isn't that, biologically and socially. They're trying to argue that transwomen have an unfair advantage while including sports that already let cis men and women compete against each other (like dancing or snooker). 
They're also inflating the numbers of medals lost (even if a trans woman were to displace a single athlete, you cannot predict how the other athletes would have placed had the trans woman not been there.) If their research was sound, they wouldn't need to distort the facts so much.

Again, in terms of fair competition, intersex are equivalent to transgender. Both disadvantage and disenfranchise actual women.
Which mixed-sex sports did they count? U14 Irish dance is divided into men's, women's, boy's, and girl's classes. And is the "Ladies Champion of Champions national pool tournament" or "US Women’s Snooker Open" mixed-sex?

Even leaving those out, the number of medals lost to trans/intersex is still very high.

Yes, you can count every following athlete as displaced. If the tranny didn't take second, the women who placed third would have... meaning she was robbed of a second place medal and the next woman up robbed of the third place medal. You can absolutely predict that the next best would place. There is no other option.

No, your numbers for Alexis Jones came from competing in the 220+ weight class, per your link.

She's also in the 185+ category too, as you can see. She's in both.

Not for the total weight and league you cited. Try again.

I'm starting to think you don't understand simple English. 
You've already admitted that testosterone testing only came about due to transgenders and that intersex is different from transgender.

No, the source doesn't say that, and I haven't said that. Testosterone testing evolved from the various methods of sex verification used to test women originally, because men didn't believe women could be as good as they were. I in fact said it didn't come about due to transgender people, because the Olympics started first before trans activism was underway.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Strict testosterone testing in sports for female athletes began in 2011, when the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), now called World Athletics, implemented a "hyperandrogenism policy". This policy set a limit on naturally-occurring testosterone for women and was the first time that sports authorities used testosterone levels as a measure for eligibility.
- Google AI

In 2011, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was at the forefront of transgender sports policies by becoming one of the first major athletic organizations to adopt guidelines for the participation of transgender student-athletes.
- Google Ai

Do you understand the weakness of anecdotal evidence? @_@
Do you think I know everything every racist does? @_@

Your homeowner's blog claimed: "Research conducted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that in many schools and public facilities, there are separate bathrooms designated for white and non-white individuals."
Schools and public facilities are not individual or private company racism.
You might want to disown that source before trying to change the subject to run-of-the-mill racists.

I made it clear before that I was talking about social segregation, not literal segregation. 
Me:

I'm talking about them having had existed, based on the same logic that's now being used for trans people. Legally, they don't exist anymore. Socially, they do: 

You disputed that people were still socially segregated, even sometimes regarding bathrooms. That is what this was about. 

Social segregation, not legal segregation.

Anecdotal. 9_9

The whole wiki is literally about "gender transition." 
"affirming and expressing one's internal sense of gender, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth" literally means changing their gender, whether socially or medically.
But go ahead, let's see you try to tell a transgender that they haven't changed their gender because they are only dressing and acting like a women.
We have another word for that. It's called transvestite. Are you claiming transgenders who have only socially transitioned are only transvestites? @_@

They haven't changed their gender. They've socially changed their sex or gender presentation, but they don't change their gender - if that was the case they'd just change their gender to match their body's sex and then there'd be no need to be trans.

And no, a trans woman who is dressing and acting like a woman hasn't changed her gender - she's affirming it, expressing it, but not changing it or else that implies people just suddenly identify as a woman the second they put on a dress, and once they take it off they become a man again.

No, you're not getting away with equivocating words. I clearly showed that social transition is a step in the transition process.
Again, go try and tell a socially transitioned trans women that he's not a woman yet. See how that works out for you. 9_9

Yes, social gender transition is a form of gender change that involves aligning one's outward expression of gender with their internal gender identity, rather than a change in their gender identity itself. This non-medical process can include changing one's name, pronouns, clothing, hairstyles, and mannerisms to reflect their true gender, but does not involve any physical or hormonal intervention.
- Google AI

Social transitioning is a nonmedical, reversible form of gender transition. For some people, it is the only type they want. For others, social transitioning is the first step toward legal recognition or medical gender affirming care.
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/article...nsitioning

Many folks also choose to affirm their gender identity through medical means, such as the use of hormones or surgery. Others wish to only socially transition but not medically transition. Both types of gender identity and expression affirmation are valid. Social transition is your own journey and something you can initiate without a provider.
- https://library.nshealth.ca/TransGenderD...%20surgery.

But maybe you are trying to defend people you have no understanding of. @_@

Yes, you can. Most words have several definitions, that are often used in different contexts.
Even you ignoring the definition I just gave you illustrates that you'd rather cherry-pick.

You don't think a black social clubs, safe spaces, etc. would actively excludes whites?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts...e-students
https://nypost.com/2023/02/07/washington...r-outrage/
https://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racia...gal-ground

Maybe do a little research so you don't sound so out of touch.

I acknowledged your definition. Even using it however it doesn't change the fact that black only clubs wouldn't be discrimination, no more than an exclusive "soccer fans only" club would be.

So you are completely out of touch. Got it.

And to quote something you said earlier...

No one disputes that actual racists exist. 

It's not okay to forcibly separate little kids or adults, but adults can choose to associate with who'd they like. Groups that people willingly make to associate with others of their race are fine, and aren't segregation. Maybe a school body shouldn't be doing it, as it would then fall under legal discrimination, but individuals can create whatever exclusive clubs they want.

Black safe spaces only exist at colleges because they overtly exclude whites. This is discrimination because colleges are places of public accommodation.
Private clubs/groups have zero need to call themselves "safe spaces," as they are already isolated by their own membership guidelines.
IOW, you're conflating entirely different things again.

Again, not a representative sample. Hell, not even a vaguely scientific sample.

Since it came from scientific papers, it is "vaguely scientific", and fairly indicative of what we see today.

That's called an appeal to authority, and it's a fallacy.

Again, did I say it would always happen? @_@
Quit arguing your own straw men.

If it's not something that always happens, then it's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? Because then it's just a "no shit, some people would come and some people wouldn't" situation, but you specifically stated that it would usually come from men, indicating men specifically would intervene and that this is a typical phenomenon.

Because it is... if you don't live in a Democrat-run shithole, where crime is so prevalent that people become numb and prone to the bystander effect.

Did I say "all men" universally? @_@
No. I also didn't claim gay men would lift a finger to protect women.
Maybe try asking more clarifying questions instead of running with every straw man you dream up. 9_9

Then again, like above, it's irrelevant.

So you really thought I also meant gay men would protect women? @_@
Are you really that dense? @_@

Again, you're conflating date rape.

Then provide evidence otherwise, of the stats of men who assault without knowing the victim.

The missing data is on trans women offenders, but I've given some data on that above.
You can't be so dumb that you honestly think date rape stats apply to stranger assault, can you? @_@

It is illegal in some places. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/no...hroom_bans

That map talks about how it's illegal to be trans. I'm talking about how it's not illegal to not look like your birth sex. A woman could look like a man but that's not illegal. 

That was obviously (I guess not for you) a reply to "if the laws state you cannot deny someone on the basis of sex or gender, that could be seen as discrimination."
Looking like a fop or tomboy is irrelevant. Or it would be if transgenders hadn't muddied the water. Again, more harm done by transgenders.

Author selection-bias doesn't account for self-selection bias nor the weakness of having non-representative sample sizes.

But there were two authors, meaning one could surely call out the other for any biases. Plus, they pulled from multiple studies to draw the conclusions they did. 
The sample sizes were good though, having at least 100 is the minimum, and going beyond (which was regularly done) ensures its accuracy.

If only you could read. 9_9
In crayon: there could be no author selection-bias, but still be self-selection bias and non-representative samples.
Sample size alone does not ensure a representative sample.
From your link"

This advice is NOT for:
Research studies conducted by universities, research firms, etc.

Duh.

Maybe you don't know, but the online versions have the same dating profiles and the app versions.
Things like "usage patterns" would obviously differ between a stationary computer and an always available phone app.

But then you wouldn't say that you used the app, you'd say you were online dating...   Like if you see a distinction there, you wouldn't say you can distinguish trans people on dating apps when you've never been on one. 

Not my problem if you're completely ignorant about dating apps also having online websites.
Again, the profiles are the same on both. It wouldn't make sense for a company to segregate it's users by platform, as that would artificially limit the number of potential matches users could see.

Never said I speak for all women. Another sad straw man.
No, trans women ignoring the privacy, consent, and safety of women is nothing like listening to women's concerns and supporting them.
Yes, to some women, it's not a concern. That doesn't make the concerns a moot point... unless you ignore them.

Could have fooled me:

Are cis women's experiences completely irrelevant? @_@

The vast majority of women are having their safety, privacy, and consent violated. And no amount of hurt "feelings" can excuse that fact.

You speak like you're a woman and have concern for women, despite knowingly being male and harboring misogyny that reveals itself later:

And no matter what women claim they want, their actual choices belie it.

No, women favor Democrats because Democrats try to help women avoid accountability. Abortion on demand, welfare for women with 5 baby daddies, etc..
That's not caring, that's called pandering. 

You don't actually care about women's concerns, you're just using women as a cudgel to hit trans people with. You're fake as hell lol

Anyways, don't reply back unless you have evidence to prove your claims. I won't answer unless you do.

I'm expecting you to beg off, regardless of what I say. You're obviously intellectually dishonest, no matter how many times I've corrected you.
I speak like I listen to women, in my personal life and otherwise. Can't help it if you're so ignorant of any women who disagree with you. Seems to indicate narcissism.
Objective reality clearly shows that what many women say, and even think, they want does not align with what they actually go for.

While there is no universal study proving "women don't know what they want," various sources suggest that women's stated desires may differ from their actual preferences, and that factors like societal expectations, fear of conflict, and limited self-awareness can influence what women say they want versus what they truly desire in a partner or relationship.
- Google AI

That you don't know this might be evidence that you're not lesbian or bisexual. That would make you, if a biological women, frustrated with foppish leftist men.
Did I miss where you told me why women favor Democrats? @_@