Actually, I think that the social stigma of claiming to be a trans person will far outweigh any ‘ohhh, boobies’ benefit. Have you ever talked to a trans person about how much really awful treatment they get… why do I even bother to ask? OK, do you remember being a young, traditional guy and what an insult it was to be called a woman, and how much crap you’d get for walking around wearing a dress? How many young men do you think are going to insist that everyone call them ‘she’ and follow the women’s dress code at their school?
The fact that people like you treat sexual assault by young men as a simple fact of life and not a deep and serious moral failing on the part of said young males is a major social issue, but is really outside of the scope of this thread.
A handful of college kids making a dumb protest is a worthless platform to base an argument on. And you seem really confused about the mores of the ‘safe place’ extremists if you think they’re going to take your side on transphobic laws.
Yes, you stated that you would be willing to claim to be a woman in order to watch women showering, which is predatory behavior. You haven’t explained that you actually meant something different by the statement, although you seem to be trying to dance around it a bit by trying to paint it as being about other people, not you.
And by your own admission, you are one of the males who would be perfectly willing to exploit it in order to engage in criminal sex offenses.
Because, as has been explained here countless times already, transgender rights are not some kind of legal loophole for creeps or a “get out of sex-offender jail free” card. Even if it becomes acknowledged that transwomen have the right to use women’s facilities, that does not mean that men who pretend to be transwomen in order to creep on the users of women’s facilities are somehow suddenly no longer criminals for doing so.
If your creepy behavior gets you accused of committing voyeuristic or other sex-predatory offenses in a women’s room, you are at risk of being questioned or arrested for that. If it’s found that you routinely identify and live as a man but deliberately pretended to be a transwoman in order to commit said sex offenses, you are at risk of criminal conviction.
You will not find it an adequate excuse to whine to the judge, “But wait a minute, there are some other people with penises who are allowed to be in the women’s room, and they’re not going to jail for it!”
The difference is that (pre-op or non-op) transwomen are women with penises, and are therefore entitled to use the women’s room. Men who pretend to be women with penises so they can ogle women in the women’s room without their consent, on the other hand, are pervy lying creeps. Doesn’t matter how young or drunk or college-enrolled they may be: committing that kind of behavior makes them pervy lying creeps, and if there actually are significant numbers of men who would engage in such behavior, then we’ll just have to crack down on it with arrests and jail time until they get it through their heads that it’s not just some giddy prank that they should expect to get away with.
Except that’s exactly what you did say:
Pretending to be a woman in order to be able to ogle undressed women under false pretenses IS predatory behavior, and criminal to boot. What kind of warped rationalization are you managing to spin in your head to persistently avoid recognizing that?
That’s all your opinion. Your opinion stated in bold, italics, or** underlined** does not make it a*** fact.***
It is still your opinion. And sometimes people just need to lighten up a little bit. I mean if you are a straight man and you’ve never joked about showering with the ladies. You honestly think teen and young adult males never joke about that sort of thing? You hang with a square crowd.
Well that’s fine. If evidence says these concerns are overblown who am I to argue with real facts.
Yeah, I don’t consider seeing a naked person in a public area a sex crime. Sorry. Especially if one is legally entitled to the space. What sort of tests are there again?
Again, lighten up. If you reread my original statement closely you could tell it was not meant to be oh Octopus is going to be creeping like these dudes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPZmPaHme0 first chance he gets. But I won’t deny I’d prefer to shower with women than men. Consider that a byproduct of my evil heterosexuality. Sorry I’ve not been brain washed to consider old wrinkly men as attractive as young women.
But let’s talk about false pretenses.
Are any of these false pretense that are predatory, creepy, pervy, and CRIMINAL SEXUAL OFFENSES!1!
That woman with a boob job that is more alluring than one with not?
That man who is up to his eyeballs in debt to portray financial success to attract women more successfully than an otherwise equivalent but apparently poorer man?
The transwoman who never reveals the birth gender?
Tell me in what situation between people are things 100% honest. Are you 100% honest with your significant other? Have you always been? So please chill with the self-righteous indignation.
Anyways… might as well virtue signal just a bit. I think what people are attracted to has a large genetic component. I think how people perceive themselves has a large genetic component. I don’t think the way you are born, if you aren’t a serious and real danger to society, ought to be a reason for people to abuse you.
I just think that the left is very pathetic with their shrieks of homophobia, racist, sexist, _________ist, or __________phobic whenever someone isn’t as pious with their expressions of agreement. Some of these societal changes are relatively drastic and your cause isn’t helped by being jackasses. It’s such a turn-off that even though I’m pretty socially liberal when it comes to these sort of things I’ll probably never vote Democratic.
Left wing thought tyranny needs to end. Or continue seeing the sort of backlash that enables Trump.
Oh good, your assertion about being willing to creep on unsuspecting women by impersonating a transwoman in their shower was just a joke. Kind of a shame it didn’t occur to you to explain that the first three or four or five times you were called out on it.
:dubious: Oh, so you weren’t “joking” after all about trying to make some kind of “legal entitlement” claim to justify your voyeurism in women’s rooms (which are not “public areas”, btw) by pretending to be a transwoman?
Once again, transgender rights are not some kind of legal loophole that allows transgender-impersonators to get away with committing sex offenses scot-free.
Even if you don’t have to pass any kind of “test” to walk into a women’s room wearing a dress and pretending to be a woman, as soon as you start creeping on the other users of the women’s room, you are liable to have your presence questioned, possibly by law enforcement.
And once they invite your dress-clad ass down to the station house and discover that you don’t habitually identify as a woman in any way, you are wide open for prosecution as a sex offender.
That’s not “just, like, my opinion, man”. That’s the sort of legal penalties that voyeurs are actually liable to. Once again, the fact that transwomen can use women’s rooms does not mean that men pretending to be transwomen to commit voyeurism somehow become immune to legal liability for their criminal offenses.
Nobody cares in the least what your shower preferences are, as long as the people you shower with have actually consented to shower with you. (As opposed to, you know, being deceived into believing you’re not a man because you deliberately presented yourself as a transwoman and deceptively claimed the right to use the women’s showers in order to ogle unconsenting women. Which, in case you still haven’t quite grasped the fact, would be illegal.)
Are you honestly unaware that none of those things is in any way a criminal offense, sexual or otherwise?
If you find boob jobs or unsustainable spending or keeping one’s birth-assigned gender identity a secret to be “creepy” or “predatory”, well, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But none of those actions (unlike, say, pretending to be a woman when you don’t really identify as a woman just so you can ogle users of women’s rooms) is in the least criminal.
If you insist upon knowing whether a woman you’re dating had a vagina at birth and she refuses to tell you, you don’t have to go on dating her. But her keeping her personal history private is not any kind of a crime. Nor is it intrinsically deceitful for her to dress and present as a woman if she identifies as a woman. It’s your own responsibility to bear in mind that not all women were born with vaginas.
Unless, of course, you are a woman whom a man might be able to trick into believing he’s a transwoman sharing her locker room, so that he can commit sex offenses by ogling her naked without her consent. That sort of abuse, as everyone knows, is simply high-larious.
Nobody’s “tyrannizing” over your thoughts. We’re just candidly calling you out on it when your expressed thoughts are incoherent and/or despicable.
And then you whine that you’re being subjected to “tyranny” and that people need to “lighten up”. :rolleyes: I think you’re mistaken as to who’s actually the “pathetic” one here.
Trump and the choleric Koch-sucking assholes who support him are responsible for their own actions. Principled progressives are not going to be scared away from standing up for their principles by the occasional miffed whiner trying to blame Trump on them.
Joking about ‘showering with the ladies’ is one thing. Joking about doing so when they’re not willing is another. Joking about doing so by lying and impersonating an already persecuted minority is even further away. And making the joke in a serious thread discussing laws intended to persecute a vulnerable group of people that are justified by falsely accusing the vulnerable group of being predators is even more different.
My crowd would probably qualify as a bunch of degenerate sex fiends in your book, but in general would also not sympathize with your ‘joke’, so the accusation that someone must be hanging with a ‘square crowd’ if they don’t like your ‘joke’ about predatory behavior is pretty amusing to me.
The area under discussion was not a public area, and in your ‘joke’ you weren’t legally entitled to be in the space, you were lying in order to get into the space. And this also has the problem that at the start of the post you’re trying to claim that you were making an obvious joke that no one should take seriously, but later in the same post you start doubling down and defending the ‘joke’ as a real thing. If it was just a joke, then you should be the first to blow it off as a mere lark instead of furiously defending it.
Again, why are you so vehemently defending the background of what you allege is just a joke? And why are you criticizing other people from responding to your statement as a serious statement when you keep treating it as one and making serious arguments justifying the beliefs behind the ‘joke’? If you just early on said ‘It’s a joke guys, get over it’ and dropped it I’d believe you just meant it as humor, but that’s not what you did.
Cite for the law that says impersonating a tarns-person is a crime?
And how can you excuse dishonesty with the intent to sleep with someone and be so hysterical about dishonesty with the intent to look at someone? Could it be that your biases lead to that cognitive dissonance?
Pretending to be something you’re not for purposes of crime or fraud is illegal, do you really need that explained to you?
In the US you can use a name not legally your own, but if you’re using it for fraud or to commit a crime that is illegal.
In the US a man can wear a dress for whatever reason - really a transwoman, a transvestite, on a dare, lost a bet, whatever - but if cross-dressing is done to commit a crime (such a voyeurism or assault) that is when it becomes criminal.
Outside of a backwards state like North Carolina you actually CAN use the bathroom of the other gender - pregnant women do, very young daughters escorted by their fathers do, very young sons escorted by their mother do, situations where one toilet is not functional both sides do it, where one group has excessively long lines… but note that no one in that list is doing this to commit a crime. So it’s not criminal. Except in North Carolina where I guess people are just supposed to piss in their clothes when they can’t hold it anymore, or something equally distasteful.
When a law is passed you can’t rely on the intent of a subset of those who support that law as the sole criterion of that law’s merit or impact on society. You should look for exploits and unintended consequences.
Here’s a for example. Drug dealers are bad! Let’s seize their assets with “civil forfeiture!” Octopus is adamantly against civil forfeiture. Why? The expected unintended consequence of law enforcement corruption.
Another for example. Sex crime registry laws. I have children and so I thought “what the hell let’s check out the sex offender online database.” Database said 20 or so live within a 1 mile radius. Oh no! Perv central! But a lot of these people had to register for a girlfriend or a boyfriend a couple years too, young, junk like a 20 year old and a 17 year old. It seems to me that a lifelong registry, stigma, hostility, and restrictions for an act that one’s own grandparents or great grandparents participated in is an unintended consequence.
Another for example. Immigration laws that are a farce. We have a whole set of laws that some municipalities and states knowingly act counter to. Making them criminals! Yet the states that try to enforce federal law are the ones doing the “wrong” thing. Funny how the concept of a rigid application of law and order is so conveniently applied only when it’s politically convenient and so quickly discarded when the cries of "that’s criminal serve to advance one’s agenda. Now I see why the “liberal hypocrisy” meme is used on this board. Even by the very liberals being hypocrites.
Easy credit that leads to asset bubbles. Minimum wage laws that lead to a mass exodus of manufacturing and a mass influx of de-facto exempt workers. Many examples of unintended consequences.
On the right, if you opposed the sex offender registration or civil forfeiture, irrational attacks would include being soft on crime or a pedophilia supporter or a rapist supporter. On the left you folks kindly provide the irrational arguments every time you without merit shriek “dat’s racist” or “you hate the poors!”
See, you live in a world where a law you like is going to function 100% as you would like it to act. The laws you don’t like you just ignore. That’s not how the real world acts. That’s what I’m trying to communicate to you. Your intent does not matter as much as you think it does. If the world acted the way you think you wouldn’t need these laws to begin with.
But maybe I’m the crazy one. I’m here arguing with people who think looking at women under a false pretense to be a greater crime than sleeping with a man under false pretenses.
Do you realize that the recent laws passed to harass trans people are, in fact, recent? You seem to be acting like they’re established law and getting rid of them is some new liberal idea. I think, it’s hard to tell because you’re really rambling all over the place and neglecting to connect the stuff you say to the rest of the thread.
I think that may be the case. You seem to be really angry about a lot of stuff that’s not related to this thread or the post of mine that you quoted, and neglected to address the stuff that I said in the material you quoted. You also admitted to a desire to participate in predatory sexual behavior and repeatedly tried to justify it while passing it off as a joke.
Angry? Not at all. I just find it fascinating that the simple concept of debate without engaging in ad-hominem attacks or being hyper-literal is seemingly beyond your capabilities. I doubt that’s the real case and I think you are being deliberately offensive as a tactic.
I also find it quite odd that people feel it’s a crime, I’d like a cite for the statue if possible, to see a woman nude under false pretenses yet a post op transgender not revealing status to his/her mate whom is presumably naked during sex is perfectly fine.
I’m a parent, and I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. You seem to say 1) parents don’t want their kids to be gay (not true in my case, and I presume many others) and 2) letting trans folk in bathrooms will increase the chance of a particular child growing up LGBTetc. (not true in any case).
Forgive me if I don’t believe you. I grew up watching MASH please don’t tell me you’ve lived such a sheltered life that you honestly think that people don’t try to exploit rules and that comments or jokes aren’t made about such. Or that the only people who make such jokes are creeps or disturbed. Speaking of which why are you disturbophobic?
Ok you’ve officially gone off the rails with this term. Wow. And MASH? Really? You know that show ended like 30 years ago right? And this is your experience with these issues? Maybe this is why you are having such a hard time understanding. You need to get out more maybe?
Cpl Max Klinger was bucking for a Section 8 discharge based on the presumption that a man who dresses like a woman–in the 1950s and 1970s–was clearly crazy. It was not for prurient purposes. He did not present as a woman, he deliberately and clearly presented himself as a man in a dress. And the joke was that it didn’t work because no one really cared.
Then you realize that any point you have to make about Klinger is entirely irrelevant to whatever point you’re trying to make. Glad we have that cleared up.
A law is passed that says that people born with penises have to use the men’s room and people born with vaginas have to use the women’s room. The intent is to remove gender confusion from the equation. The unintended consequence is that you are requiring (with dubious means of enforcement) transgender men with beards, who present to the world as men, to use the ladies room and you are requiring transgender women with breasts, who present to the word as women, to use the men’s room. You’ve now created gender confusion where none need exist - ergo, it’s a stupid law and we should go back to the status quo, where people are entitled to use the restroom that matches their gender identity.
I can’t honestly say I’m massively bothered about the issue. If tansgendered people want to use certain bathrooms why not let them? I can’t think of a good reason why not. Of all the injustices in the World today I can’t say that I find people being forced to use public toilets specific to their biological sex looming large, but of course the fact there are bigger problems is never in itself reason not to solve a problem.
Maybe I am naive about what surgery can do, but I think personally I wouldn’t want to use most public men’s toilets if I didn’t have the equipment to use the urinals, but that again my hypothetical personal preference is not necessarily someone else’s actual preference.