View Single Post
  #50  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:14 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Of course. And I am free to characterize those who dispute it in a hateful fashion as hateful and bigoted. If someone thinks that marriage does not include the possibility of interracial unions, or same-sex unions, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view
Not the same thing. Same-sex marriage doesn't impact people who aren't involved in it. Recognizing transwomen as women in all circumstances impact, or at least is alleged to impact cis women wrt to issues that are normally considered legitimate concerns for them, hence harm the many for the exclusive benefit of the few.

It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there's a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining "I don't want men parading naked in my locker room" as meaning "I don't want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room" or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn't feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren't some absurd and outrageous stances.

Especially if you consider that if there's no objective reason to feel distressed because a transwoman is present in a locker room, there's in fact no objective reason to feel distressed because a man is present in a locker room, either. The reason why women feel they should be able to avoid such a situation are cultural and subjective, and I doubt that most would be able to clearly enunciate what the issue is exactly, or would agree with each other if they could. "I don't trust people with a dick to enter a women locker room for genuinely innocent reasons, and I have legitimate reasons to feel this way" would be a position enthusiastically supported by yourself if it didn't impact another category you also support.

Just because you feel that the woman writing the article shouldn't be disturbed if the dick owner exposing his parts self-identify as a woman, and that the risk that a cis man will pretend to self-identify as a woman just so that he'll be able to enter the women locker room is close to inexistant doesn't mean that this woman should feel the same way and analyze the risk the way you do.


Quote:
Same if someone thinks "human" doesn't include Jews, or black people, etc.
Not the same thing at all. "Human" can be objectively defined on the basis of purely biological factors. "Black" or "Jew" cannot be. "Woman" can't be objectively defined in this way, or rather, if it were, you would reject this definition.



Quote:
All of this is discussion about how society should treat and view people. Such discussions aren't based on hard and objective facts, any more than discussions about whether gay people should be allowed to be married.
Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says "I identify as a woman" and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences?
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 11:14 AM.