I didn’t make any other accusation than “I seem to remember you participating in those threads.” Note I didn’t say you absolutely had, nor even what side you are on. You admit in here that you have participated, given your statement above, so you’re not really fooling anyone.
Are you going to address the questions you have been asked? Such as what about the “comfort level” of cisgender women who may be forced be share their bathroom with big ol’ bearded transmen? I can tell you from personal experience that cisgender women REALLY do not like it when Billy Bob the Cajun transman goes into their bathroom - which is what bigoted legislation like that in North Carolina would force him to do.
There were perhaps easier ways to duck answering the question. I know someone else on here who has done the same tactic when faced with this question.
In general, considering a typical non-intersex transgender woman, is she a woman in your viewpoint? Yes or no? If the answer is “no” then we’re done talking, because I do not have the time nor energy to convince you otherwise. If the answer is “yes”, then I’m going to be scratching my head over what your goal here is.
You said that you had addressed the issues being discussed in threads in which I participated, and implied, by that and the rest of your post, that I was deliberately ignoring information that you had already presented. That was not straightforward of you.
I certainly acknowledge participating in various threads involving trans issues, but I don’t recall bathroom violence ever being a part of the discussions I was involved in, and I’m pretty sure they were not.
If you’ve provided this information to other people and are not interested in providing it again, that’s your choice. That doesn’t make you a martyr, or reflect badly on anyone else.
If that’s the case, then once this becomes apparent then cisgender women in NC will presumably rise up and protest against this law.
That has nothing to do with what I’ve been discussing.
Then can you expand on it? Under what circumstances, in which you know that a person considers themselves a transwoman, would you refer to them as a woman, and under what circumstances would you refer to them as a man, or some other word? If it would take too long to explain, then can you just offer an example or two of the different circumstances in which you’d refer to them as a woman, or man, or some other word?
I notice that you’re switching from andros’ question, which was about what I would consider them, to what I would refer to them as. The first is about mental categorization, and the second about practical action.
Either way, I’m not sure I’m interested at this time in a full blown discussion that you seem to be aiming for. If you’re really that interested in my opinion about this, you can see some posts in a prior thread, starting around here.
If you say so. I can’t even parse your convoluted answer to the fundamental question of how you view transgender people.
If you claim the problem is specifics versus general categorizations, then I’ll play that game. Which bathroom do you personally believe should I have a full legal right to use? Two choices, pick one please (but pick fast, because this coffee just ran right through me!)
IMO, it’s more likely that transgender men will face continued harassment, arrest, and abuse while the GOP legislature figuratively laughs.
You mean the thread in which someone posted the following?
If your answer stands, fine. I’m sorry you found the question to be so deeply flawed as to preclude a straightforward answer. And unfortunately (for me), I’m no closer to understanding where you’re coming from than before. So it goes.
So I take it that you do not intend to back up your accusation. Unsurprising - I mean, you’re probably too busy with your heroic work and all.
Personally I don’t care, as I’ve indicated earlier. If you have to pass laws about it, it should depend on what the makes the fewest people uncomfortable. But it doesn’t seem to me like something that needs laws one way or the other. If there’s actual evidence that one choice or the other was putting people at increased risk of violence, then that’s a big factor too.
My point in this thread was specifically related to the OP, and was that - contrary to the position taken by the OP - the question of “why do we have separate-gendered bathrooms to begin with?” is relevant to the trans question - since the entire point of separate bathrooms is about nothing more than people’s social discomfort, that’s what ultimately counts in who goes where.
Got it right on the first guess.
In this thread I both “actually link[ed] to the specific part of the a prior thread which addresses the specific point under discussion” and “use[d] the prior threads as an excuse for not bothering to debate the issue in this one”, in either of which case I said it was OK, as you so helpfully quoted.
Exactly, so it goes. Be strong - you’ll survive it.
The question may be relevant, but that’s not contrary to my position. My position is that lance’s concerns, that allowing trans people to use gendered bathrooms undermines the use of gendered bathrooms, are trivial.
Recalling that you had participated in those threads is not an “accusation,” no matter how you try to spin it for the peanut gallery. More baffling is the fact that you yourself admitted you had participated. The only dispute was whether or not the specific topic of bathrooms was a major plot point in those threads. My “recollection” is not an accusation. Furthermore, as I didn’t even say which side I recalled you being on…help me out here, what are you trying to spin that I accused you of earlier? Or is this obfuscate the topic tactic #27?
First, that begs the question why you’re posting so much in here on it, and second, it’s another non-answer of yours. You seem to be a very indecisive person.
So is it your opinion that some people being “uncomfortable” outweighs other people being attacked? I recall that was a critical point made in arguments against desegregation of bathrooms and other facilities in the 1960’s, when white folks argued that “them’ thar’ negroes don’t belong in our bathrooms and lunch counters.” But since it’s only my recollection, I’m certain that means it must be wrong.
There is evidence. I provided testimony. Google for it. And your Wiki link doesn’t actually define and stay specifically on the subject of harassment within gender-congruent bathrooms, it’s vague on the subject. It doesn’t back either side up (guessing you didn’t read the PDF). Or you can simply Google further on the subject. Or ask any transgender person. Why don’t you do that? We aren’t going to steal your babies or pollute your precious bodily fluids.
OK, then we may have been talking past each other on this point. My point was again just that the rationale for gendered bathrooms is relevant to the trans issue.
I addressed this in post #65, first paragraph. Not only is this a thread in which you’re participating, but it was a post directed to you and which you yourself subsequently quoted. And now you pretend to not have seen it and ask me to repeat it again. You earlier indicated that you disapproved of such things. Hmm …
This, and anything else I post to this MB, is for my amusement. I wouldn’t have thought this required a long drawn-out back-and-forth, but that’s how it goes sometimes, with some people.
I suppose if in your mind the only alternative to “indecisive” is a simpleminded “four legs good two legs bad” approach, you can call me indecisive.
If you were capable of looking at this through a lens other than the great great suffering of trans people at the hands of their oppressors you might have observed that I said pretty much the opposite.
Well. I was trying to be friendly. My apologies if it didn’t come across that way.
The post you quoted–someone else’s, oddly enough–that you said was the beginning of your presenting your opinion about whether or not transwomen and transmen are actually women and men, respectively, points to a thread in which you participate relatively little and do not in any event make clear your position.
But that’s of no import, really; I get that you are disinclined to make that position clear.
You seem not to care about whether or not you are understood by your interlocutors. Indeed, you seem actively to seek conflict for your amusement. I understand that; trolling can be fun. You’ve made it clear that’s all you’re doing–pushing buttons for your own entertainment. Good enough, you do you.
.
I quoted the other person’s post because that person quoted the entire relevant portion of my initial post on the subject. I could have begun with my original post, but that included mostly unrelated matters and in addition there were a lot of other posts on unrelated matters between that one and the one I quoted. But anyone interested in seeing the original F-P post in all its glory needed only to click on the link in the quote-box.
So, just trying to be helpful, sorry to disappoint.
I wouldn’t say that I clarified my position in that thread, but I certainly shed some light on it if anyone happened to be interested for whatever reason. I generally don’t feel any sense of obligation to clarify my position on any issues I’ve not raised myself.
There’s a smidgeon of truth here, so I’ll address it, because you’re glossing over some subtle distinctions.
“Seeking conflict” is not the same thing as “pushing buttons”, let alone “trolling”. I absolutely plead guilty to posting here for my own amusement, and I acknowledge that a lot of what amuses me is battling it out with people who disagree with me, in some cases vehemently. But that’s not the same thing as pushing buttons. I am not trying to get anyone riled up about anything. And I’m certainly not adopting positions that I disagree with in order to achieve that end. (On a board like this, that’s completely unnecessary in any event.)
As for being understood, my primary goal is to be understood, but I’m aware that it’s not always possible, especially when many people are firmly wedded to a dogmatic viewpoint and cannot see things other through a carefully constructed paradigm that supports it. Only so much you can do. But what I do generally resist is being drawn into major expansions of the topic onto other issues that others feel more comfortable with, when I’m trying to make a specific point. This is pretty much what happened here, as regards to my exchange with you.
