What does it mean to be a "female?"

How did any of that tripe even begin to make sense ?

What proof can you show that today's prison system is successful ?

I do not know of a superior alternative, however, today's punitive incarceration of all offenders is not a great success either, more of a confounded failure with no immediate remedy.

 

Why do I need to want to cooperate with the current exploitative system to have my response be considered valid by you?

I reject the entire lesser of two evils game. I don't care what happens to prisons today, because they all need to be shut down.

 

At least you admit you want to put thousands of psychotic murders, pedophiles and serial rapists back on the street.

STILL, since that ISN'T happening, you message is as much a non-response as a person saying they oppose all rights to transgenders because they think no one should be born transgender - therefore no laws should be passed in deference to their fantasy reality.

THE REAL response is that you have NO response whatsoever other than some never-going-to-happen fantasy reality for which you don't even pretend to give an alternative in actual reality.

So, let's instead pretend that no one is transgender or transsexual - and pretend no one is gay either - and then really there is no topic at all, right? "It would be better if no one was gay, transgender or transsexual, therefore there should be no laws or rights related to them. There's nothing even to discuss." That's YOUR reasoning.

I will remember your stated position that serial murderers, rapists, pedophiles, the Boston bombers - no one - should be locked up. I will remind of that often to others on the forum in responses to your messages in the future.

( find this message )

 

You assume that because I oppose the prison system that I must be against any sort of justice system.

I just feel that the prison system needs to be replaced with a rehabilitative system that focuses on rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders, under communal control.

Think more like a system where someone who, say, kills somebody in a fit of rage, is at first confined in a relatively small but comfortable campus focusing on helping them address their violent impulses and control them, followed by a stages of reintegration into society.

 

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Most violent crimes are not in "a fit of rage," and certainly not all are.

Regardless, that still leaves the question you refuse to give opinion on of what about a genetic man convicted of raping a woman and that man is not on hormonal treatment and still has male genitals saying "I identify as a woman." Which of your really nice places, comfortable and roomy places to be locked up should s/he be put into - with women or men?

 

Some guy's are just idiots.

AA

 

I read somewhere that femaleness is is the 'default' for most mammals including humans. Some mammals even have the ability to switch their sex depending on environmental factors. We are also told that men have female hormones. If all this is true, then the 'transgendered' (as defined today) has less to do with birth-sex orientation than it does with environmental influence.

Since women currently outnumber men then it is obvious that the environment in which we all live, is biased toward the female perspective therefore, maleness is no longer equal to femaleness. Perhaps nature uses this transgenderism as a way of limiting the population or perhaps there are just too many females being born for other reasons.

In any case, IMO, it is important to preserve maleness in our societal structure instead of constantly tearing it down.

 

You're more likely to be raped by a republican senator than by a trans woman.

Seriously, everyone acts like those cases are a thing. They aren't. I've done research and I haven't been able to track down more than a single case from 2007 where the man didn't even identify as transgender.

 

Once again your refuse to respond. What is this, the 5th time? Whether it be REALITY or in your fantasy nice lock-up system, which should a man convicted as a serial rapist of women who claims he "identifies as a woman," even if not on hormone therapy and having male genitals be placed with - men or women?

 

Imagine that, on a deserted island, there's a set of train tracks and a child is on it. You're the conductor, and you must either accept the inherent absurdity of life or reject it in favor of religion, and then a hypothetical being with no consciousness but the appearance of one comes into being out of random quantum fluctuations and the universe is a simulation.

My point is, you're asking an absurd hypothetical that doesn't actually happen about the use of an institution I don't believe in using.

And anyway, why does a prison have to be segregated between men and women in the first place? And don't sex offenders usually get segregated from the general population anyway?

The question is inherently flawed.

 

No sex offenders are not segregated from the general population and it is not an absurd question at all. You claim that you refuse to discuss a topic in terms of actual reality on behalf of your fantasy reality you want is what is absurd.

In fact, it is a real issue and one that does in fact occur - men sentenced to prison do claim to be transgender/transsexual - regardless of your denial that reality could not possibly exist and even if it does you are going to deny it does anyway.

There is really little point in your posting on this forum since you can only think in terms of non-existence fantasy realities you wish were true.

 

I believe your confusion is not understanding that bathrooms are segregated according to sex, not gender.

 

Which is essentially the same thing, male or female.

 

Is this accurate?

If it is acceptable to for nude men to shower with little girls in person - if the man with male genitals says he identifies as female, then it certainly should legal for a man to stand outside a middle school handing out photos of nude boys and men to girls coming and going to the school.

If it is acceptable to the government (ie schools and public government showers such as at swimming pools), then is certainly should be legal for anyone else to do it too.

What is wrong in that logic? if it acceptable to force children forced to nudity, then public nudity should also be entirely legal.

 

If you have ever described an article of clothing as "cute", especially shoes, handbags,or tops, you are a female.

If you have ever been best friends, worst enemies, and best friends again with another person over a 3 day weekend, you are a female.

If you have ever demanded someone tell you "What's wrong?" when there was nothing wrong, you are a female.

If the only tools in your house are a phillips screw driver, a small hammer, and a pair of pliers, you are definitely a female.

 

Well if you feel that way, go forth and advocate openly for it.

 

all men have female chromosomes. they come from your mother.

 

They use to be the same thing. But now gender is a state of mind while sex is a biological trait.

 

Houses and cars aren't public facilities, so poor example.

You're free to think my arguments are stupid. Whether your can present a convincing argument for why you regard them as such is another matter entirely.

Where is your evidence of transwomen assaulting cisgender women in public facilities?

Yes, there are laws against assault. Does their existence justify creating a potentially dangerous situation for transmen and transwomen by forcing them into the wrong bathroom?

Your claim is that laws allowing them to use the bathroom that is correct for their gender identity and presentation also gives cover to predators, endangering women (we can reasonably assume from your arguments you only mean cisgender women; that transwomen just don't matter to you.) And that is where your claim falls apart, as those laws do no such thing. Show me where in the actual law it says anyone can use either bathroom for any purpose, including assaulting women. It doesn't. Predators aren't kept out by the laws that prosecute transgender people, and they aren't welcomed in by laws that make it possible for transwomen to use facilities for women.

What this always comes back around to is how we define 'man' vs. 'woman'. You have your preferred definition, and I have mine. Yours makes no sense to me. I can only assume that mine probably makes no sense to you, either. So we are at an impasse that cannot be resolved by endless debate.

Rhetorical nonsense. The laws that prosecute transmen and transwomen don't "un-murder" or "un-rape" anyone either, nor do they prevent murders and rapes from happening.

Laws do a poor job of preventing future crimes, because criminals don't respect the law. They do make it possible to define and prosecute actual crimes. Unfortunately, you've chosen a side that makes it a crime for transmen and transwomen merely to be in what you consider the "wrong" place.

 

Until they have to pee/poo, apparently.

And a transwomen peeing in a women's bathroom endangers no one. Yet you want it to be a crime.

Except the laws don't do that. They let transwomen use restrooms designated for women.

And I'm supposed to care, why exactly? I'm only a 'liberal' when that apparently suits someone else' agenda-driven arguments. I don't call myself a 'feminist' because, while I believe in the equality of men and women, I don't subscribe to the radical idea of women's superiority to men. In my view, feminism gets a bad name from those who do.

 

No, I oppose laws that allow men to stake out potential victims in ladies only restrooms and oppose laws requiring little girls be exposed to nake men.
Laws now call such actions criminal before anyone is assaulted and men exposing themselves to girls is a serious criminal offense.

I'll ask you the same question. If you want it legal for genetic males to expose themselves naked in public women's only group showers such as at public swimming pools and girls exposed to naked boys in school showers, then clearly you see no problem with men and boys walking thru school naked and handing out pictures of naked boys and men to girls at the mall - and all this should be entirely legal, correct?

 

Which one of these women.....looks more like a woman?

 

Which the laws in question don't do, except in the fevered imaginations of some people.

And it remains so if transwomen use facilities for women. You still haven't shown us where the law says that men can now expose themselves to little girls or target potential victims in the women's restrooms.

Nope. Interesting though that you've now moved the goalposts from restrooms to showers. What I favor is reasonable accommodation. You like to pretend none is possible. There's a balance to be struck, but you aren't willing to do so. It's all or nothing to you, and you imagine all kinds of ridiculous unrelated scenarios apparently (Passing out naked pictures to people at the mall. That only merits a )

 

But you can't post the REAL pictures as porn isn't allowed. You can't show their genital area with them naked on the forum. But you're just fine with them doing so in school and public showers including to little children of the opposite sex. Literally what you want every man to be able to do in real life can't even been done on the forum without getting banned. Maybe you should be raging about that to the forum owner.

 

BTW, men in public ladies only bathrooms is a crime. I used to only run them off but I'm tired of this and hardening on the topic. I arrested a male bum doing so for the first time last week at one of the area parks after dark but before the restrooms were locked down. And even if Obama gets his next pro-criminal law made on a federal level, I suspect - somehow - on occasion they'll still be some reason to arrest them anyway.

This area is fairly well known for shooting the feds the middle finger at all levels of local, county and state government.

If you interprete that to mean I oppose LEGITIMATE LGTB rights and equality you are 100% wrong. My actual LAST interaction with a transgender (male), but not transsexual, was to buy him a car and give him so cash so he could move out of a very abusive home that was ridiculing him for being a gay transvestite. However, the previous interaction before than with a transgender (male) was to roughly throw him down the stone steps at our house when s/he refused to leave after repeatedly told to and tried to assault one of the lebian women while screaming spit into her face until she dropped him/her with a knee.

We're very reasonable people of particularly high tolerances, but we don't put up crap from other people either. Clever words and slogans of themselves have NO value whatsoever.

But, unlike you, I also support women's rights and parental rights too. I particularly despise predatory men and will remain so regardless of what clever legalisms they can learn to say that you want government to dictate they have
.