Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I must be missing something, feel free to quote it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fies-male.html

Quote:

The boy's mother accompanied him back to school the following Tuesday. She said it was then that the principal broached another subject - her son's gender identity. He was wearing a skirt at the time of the attack.

'The principal of Stone Bridge was trying to delicately tap dance the sensitive situation,' she told DailyMail.com. 'So I was like, ''Alright, can you please just ask the question you want to ask?''

'That's when he was like, ''Oh, well, what does he identify as?'' she recalled.

'He identifies as male,' she replied.

'Oh, we never knew that,' he told her. 'And I said, ''Did anybody ever ask?''

And I'm sure that there will be some way to overlook the obvious.


Personally, I wish there were some things posted about what students, especially female students, thought about the case, but I haven't seen anything like that.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The data shows that trans bathroom panic is largely an invented problem:





https://link.springer.com/article/10...178-018-0335-z

You may notice that the entirety of this trans bathroom panic is rooted in salacious anecdotes (if not outright fabrications) because the empirical data to support such a position simply does not exist.

meanwhile, the damage done by these exclusive policies are very well understood and measured.

Also, a more salent figure would be the % of sexual assaults by transwomen full stop, not after a change in legislation that may well have not been well advertised. Do you have it?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm really getting tired of your non-answers. I asked you for your genuine thoughts on the issue. And instead of engaging, you dodged and threw out yet more toxic vilification.

Are you CAPABLE of having a discussion like a grown up?

I’m glad you said that and I back you up on that generally. What ST posted in reply did not actually answer your question.

ST, why didn’t you just plainly and directly answer that substantive question?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And I'm sure that there will be some way to overlook the obvious.


Personally, I wish there were some things posted about what students, especially female students, thought about the case, but I haven't seen anything like that.

Shh... don't you know that you cannot listen to females on this topic?

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

At least she got to have a career, unlike those young dancers apparently, who went to the press with their stories

She founded the company and owns the name and intellectual property. The company has now folded but she will be launching a new one.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

No idea how you'd come to that conclusion, since the article is clearly filtered through the perspective of an obviously transphobic parent. Hard to say what the child really feels, though the behavior the mother admits too is pretty extreme.

Interesting that the mother doesn't really explore why the child had suicidal thoughts when first announcing that they might be trans. Surely it couldn't be because this openly transphobic had an extremely negative reaction.

Because it's based on the information available. If I take the information available as true: That she didn't show any times until contact with a specific group. That a member of that group was sending her porn. That that group was encouraging her to make and sell her own porn. I can surmise that her behavior was influenced by the group.

You, on the other hand, assume that since the mother is obviously anti-trans, that she made everything else up: the porn and other elements.

As you say, it's hard to say how the girl actually felt. She may be trans and she may not. But it looks like she hooked up with a group that was pushing her towards some destructive behavior either way. The fact that her mother overreacted does not make that false.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

Also, a more salent figure would be the % of sexual assaults by transwomen full stop, not after a change in legislation that may well have not been well advertised.

ST doesn't actually read the articles they post here.

I do, though, and encourage everyone to do so as well.

Share and enjoy!

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

So... interpretive anecdotes in a magazine that is well known for being VERY biased is something that you consider "evidence" and you give credence to?

That's some next level confirmation bias you've got there.

I think this is the type of thing that ST dismisses as anecdotes. So they shouldn't be treated as data.

[Graham2001]

Somone supplying copy to the 'Daily Fail' has hit on the Lia Thomas situation.

Quote:

A third female swimmer has spoken out to voice her frustrations of competing against UPenn transgender swimmer Lia Thomas saying that it is 'impossible' to beat her.

Thomas broke two national records when she competed in the female races at the Zippy Invitational earlier this month. She previously competed on the UPenn men's swim team for three years before transitioning and undergoing hormone treatments for nearly two and a half years.

A female swimmer from Niagara University who wishes to remain anonymous and competed against Thomas at the Zippy Invitational told DailyMail.com of the intimidation and discouragement she felt racing the transgender athlete.

'Swimming against Lia Thomas was intimidating,' the senior at Niagara University said. 'It was hard going into a race knowing there was no way I was going to get first.'

'I knew I could drop my time but I also knew there was no way I would physically be able to beat her in the race or even catch up to her,' the collegiate athlete said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ia-Thomas.html

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

ST doesn't actually read the articles they post here.

I do, though, and encourage everyone to do so as well.

Share and enjoy!

Are you sure you read that article?

Because here is its ultimate conclusion (my bolding/highlighting for emphasis):

Quote:

The results show that the passage of such nondiscrimination laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in such public spaces. Additionally, the results show that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms were exceedingly rare and much lower than statewide rates of reporting violent crimes more generally. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded.

Like you, I encourage everyone in this thread to read this report as well. Particularly the conclusions section. Share and enjoy!

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Are you sure you read that article?

Quite sure.

We've gone through some key details upthread.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Have a look at the municipalities with clear GIPANDOs, before and after. Did qualifying criminal incidents go up or down?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Quite sure.

We've gone through some key details upthread.

I think the overall conclusion of the report is what carries the actual weight.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Are you sure you read that article?

Because here is its ultimate conclusion (my bolding/highlighting for emphasis):




Like you, I encourage everyone in this thread to read this report as well. Particularly the conclusions section. Share and enjoy!

I'd like to encourage people to expand their quotes to include full context:

Quote:

Conclusion
Opponents of gender identity nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations have largely cited fear of safety and privacy
violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms if such laws are passed, while proponents have argued that
the laws do not increase danger or harm in such spaces. To date, no evidence has been gathered to empirically test the
hypothesized effect of these laws. This is the first study to collect public records and analytically compare the safety of public
restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms in localities that have gender identity inclusive nondiscrimination laws that
apply to public restrooms and matched localities that do not have such laws. The results show that the passage of such
nondiscrimination laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in such public spaces.
Additionally, the results show that reports of privacy and safe- ty violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing
rooms were exceedingly rare and much lower than statewide rates of reporting violent crimes more generally. This study
provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not
empirically grounded.

In other sections the paper points out that there is limited and inconsistent data and what it had to do to compensate. Basically, I would file this as suggestive, but more work needs to be done and better data needs to be collected.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by TomB

I'd like to encourage people to expand their quotes to include full context:


In other sections the paper points out that there is limited and inconsistent data and what it had to do to compensate. Basically, I would file this as suggestive, but more work needs to be done and better data needs to be collected.

Clearly you don't understand. All the matters if whether the paper reaches the 'correct' conclusion, where the correct conclusion is ideologically motivated and therefore predetermined, not whether the data adequately support the conclusion or even whether it is possible to address the question with this methodology.

On the other hand, where extensive argument and evidence does not lead to the ideologically correct conclusion, one must not read it or process it at all except to find a way to reject or misrepresent it, as LJ repeatedly demonstrates.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by TomB

I'd like to encourage people to expand their quotes to include full context:


In other sections the paper points out that there is limited and inconsistent data and what it had to do to compensate. Basically, I would file this as suggestive, but more work needs to be done and better data needs to be collected.

To be fair, I think what it does show is that there has not been a flood of peeping incidents as guys dress up as women in order to enter women's locker rooms or bathrooms. I, for one, am surprised by that. I expected a lot more Darren Merager (Wi-Spa) incidents.

There have been a few such incidents, but not many.

One other cautionary note is to point out something that has been pointed out many times before in this thread. Looking at criminal statistics doesn't tell an accurate story because the whole point of the law was to decriminalize certain acts. If you make something legal (i.e. allowing males to enter a women's locker room), then when it happens it won't show up in the crime statistics. So, a guy who pretends to be trans in order to get in some peeps is caught, and declares himself trans, and the authorities pretty much have to believe him, so it never makes the statistics.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I think the overall conclusion of the report is what carries the actual weight.

What? It's the data that carries actual weight. The overall conclusion is an interpretation of the data that may or may not be accurate.

Personally, I think that it's impossible to draw conclusions based on the sample size, but that's also just my interpretation.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I think the overall conclusion of the report is what carries the actual weight.

I'd say (along w/ Olmstead) we should look to the data instead.

Suppose someone had hypothesized that the gradual erosion of a cultural norm in favor of sex-segregation in selected private spaces would result in more of the criminal incidents recorded in this study. Does this study tend to disconfirm that hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Personally, I think that it's impossible to draw conclusions based on the sample size, but that's also just my interpretation.

The sample size is even smaller that it may appear at first, since Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Marblehead, Milton, Revere, Salem, & Somerville were excluded from the matched pairs analyses, leaving only three GIPANDO municipalities in the data set for matched locality (1).

If I'm reading Table 3 correctly, there was only one qualifying incident over a four year time span in the localities with GIPANDOs, which have a total population of 80,645.

[theprestige]

It's pretty common in CT/woo circles for the proponent to cite things they haven't read (often with the tragicomic result that their citation doesn't support or even outright contradicts their claim). Less common is the one where the authors of the cited material may have not read their own work.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

1) Immediately affirm their belief about their gender and start them on puberty blockers and a pathway to surgical intervention. Bear in mind that there's a 20% chance that they are mistaken about their identity, and that this treatment will leave them permanently altered: sterile, with a beard, and with their healthy breast tissue removed or never grown.

Puberty blockers do not cause them to be sterile, have a beard, and because it delays breast growth reduces the potential need for surgery.

Quote:

2) Completely reject their belief about their gender and refuse to treat them at all. Bear in mind that there's an 80% chance that they're genuinely dysphoric, and there's a 50% chance that they may consider suicide, and a 50% chance of them acting on those thoughts. For the less mathy, that's an 80% x 50% x 50% = 20% chance of them attempting suicide.

Only if you think those chances are completely independent from treatment. I think it is reasonable to assume that therapy that causes someone to feel as if their feelings aren't taking seriously are more likely to commit suicide.

Quote:

3) Engage in talk therapy with a high awareness of the risk of suicidality, try to get to the root of their identity and make sure it's persistent while they go through a normal puberty, and if they still persist in their gender identity, start them on hormone therapy once their puberty is mostly complete.

Which in your hypothetical means an 80% chance of just prolonging their suffering, and putting them on a path toward surgery that wouldn't have been necessary if they had been given puberty blockers. And yes, often it is necessary to wait until or after puberty to make sure their gender identity if persistent, but lets not pretend like it is some sort of dice roll.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because as long as people are using different definitions for "female" that's only half the question and you know it.

I really didn't think we'd get to the point where even JoeMorgue thinks that calling trans women female* is legitimate, but here we are.

*I don't agree with redefining "woman" to refer to gender rather than sex, I don't even think doing so is coherent, but at least it's not as blatantly anti-science as the move to redefine "female". When Boudicca tried it earlier in the thread everyone seemed to see how clearly wrong that was, but now somehow even Joe, who seems to legitimately not be taking a side here, thinks that there's a legitimate debate about the meaning of the word female.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And I'm sure that there will be some way to overlook the obvious.


Personally, I wish there were some things posted about what students, especially female students, thought about the case, but I haven't seen anything like that.

(I'm getting tired of typing alleged over and over again, but let's just say that all crimes here are alleged, though the evidence seems hard to deny)

Yes, it would be nice if there were some good-faith exploration for why someone who had been credibly accused of a serious sex offense was able to commit a similar crime. It's good that the offender was separated from the victim, but how this person was able to commit another sex crime really begs for a deeper investigation into how the school district deals with high risk students. If this student was just shoved off to a different school with no further precaution, it would be a massive lack of good judgement on the part of administrators.

The sad thing is that this trans freakout, which seems to be entirely baseless, is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The transphobes insist on chasing this red herring (insisting that trans-inclusive policies are too blame) rather than allowing a good-faith analysis to identify what failures might have occurred and how they can be prevented in the future, and, if those failures were severe enough, who to hold accountable.

It's a real shame that because of this moral panic, it seems that nothing is going to be learned from two very serious sexual assaults. Frankly, it's incredibly disrespectful to the victims that their very real traumatic incidents are being distorted and appropriated by the reactionary right for unrelated moral crusades (it's almost as if transphobia is bad for cis-women too...) Do they even care about the second victim, who's assault did not take place in a gender segregated area?

This is the ideal scenario for transphobes. Given this involves a school where both the victim and offender are juveniles, there are strict confidentiality concerns that will allow large gaps of knowledge to exist that the bigots will gladly fill in with their preferred narrative.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

(I'm getting tired of typing alleged over and over again, but let's just say that all crimes here are alleged, though the evidence seems hard to deny)

Yes, it would be nice if there were some good-faith exploration for why someone who had been credibly accused of a serious sex offense was able to commit a similar crime. It's good that the offender was separated from the victim, but how this person was able to commit another sex crime really begs for a deeper investigation into how the school district deals with high risk students. If this student was just shoved off to a different school with no further precaution, it would be a massive lack of good judgement on the part of administrators.

The sad thing is that this trans freakout, which seems to be entirely baseless, is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The transphobes insist on chasing this red herring (insisting that trans-inclusive policies are too blame) rather than allowing a good-faith analysis to identify what failures might have occurred and how they can be prevented in the future, and, if those failures were severe enough, who to hold accountable.

It's a real shame that because of this moral panic, it seems that nothing is going to be learned from two very serious sexual assaults. Frankly, it's incredibly disrespectful to the victims that their very real traumatic incidents are being distorted and appropriated by the reactionary right for unrelated moral crusades (it's almost as if transphobia is bad for cis-women too...) Do they even care about the second victim, who's assault did not take place in a gender segregated area?

This is the ideal scenario for transphobes. Given this involves a school where both the victim and offender are juveniles, there are strict confidentiality concerns that will allow large gaps of knowledge to exist that the bigots will gladly fill in with their preferred narrative.

It's understandable that you are focusing on the assaults, but that isn't what I've been talking about recently. I've been talking about the invasion of privacy.

The rape itself was a simple variation on date rape in an existing relationship. There's nothing extraordinary about it. Even the fact that it occurred in a girls' bathroom is only marginally relevant. So, put it out of your mind for a moment.

What I have been talking about is how self ID created a situation where the privacy of the girls at the school was invaded. This person presented himself as a girl, which presentation was accepted by the principal of the school. In accordance with school policy that existed for at least two years prior to the rape and to the highly publicized confrontations at school board meetings this summer, this person was allowed to use the girls' bathroom.

While using the girls' bathroom, this person was hooking up with a more conventional girl, engaging in rather conventional sex.

This person would enter the sphere of public knowledge after the assaults, and in all of the public discussions about him and his deeds, he has been referred to as a boy. However, this was a surprise to the school principal, who thought he was a girl. Of course the principal was aware of his male anatomy, but the principal was under the impression that he identified as a girl and, therefore, was in fact a girl.

It wasn't until after this person committed a sexual assault that the principal learned of his mistake.

Prior to that, this person had been sharing the girls' bathroom with the conventional girls. The "cis-girls", in modern parlance. I would like to see some commentary on that subject, to hear what the females of the school thought about the situation. Of course, school officials are under confidentiality restrictiosn, but the press is not.

We do have the opinion of one fourteen year old girl who was a student of the school district, because she spoke out at one of the school board meetings, and I've seen an interview on a local news show, but I would like to see a bit more about what the girls who attend those schools actually think about either the trans-inclusive policy in general, or about the specific situation regarding the rapist.

(And, we can drop the "alleged". He has been convicted. There's no issue with trial bias anymore.)

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I really didn't think we'd get to the point where even JoeMorgue thinks that calling trans women female* is legitimate, but here we are.

*I don't agree with redefining "woman" to refer to gender rather than sex, I don't even think doing so is coherent, but at least it's not as blatantly anti-science as the move to redefine "female". When Boudicca tried it earlier in the thread everyone seemed to see how clearly wrong that was, but now somehow even Joe, who seems to legitimately not be taking a side here, thinks that there's a legitimate debate about the meaning of the word female.

I've gotten confused about the terminology and the usage of those two words. we definitely need to retain a word for those two copies of the X chromosome, and another for those with one X and one Y chromosome.

I also don't really know what's supposed to be meant by the word 'transphobe'. I haven't really come across many people that really care that much, and I rub elbows with quite a few conservative people (although I do live in San Francisco). Sure, I know people who think they shouldn't be allowed in this or that bathroom, or people that think pronoun usage shouldn't be compelled by law, or those who thing children under a certain age shouldn't be encouraged to transition, etc. But I can't say I've really come across anyone who is against the idea of someone born as one of the two deciding to live their life as the other of the two.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

(I'm getting tired of typing alleged over and over again, but let's just say that all crimes here are alleged, though the evidence seems hard to deny)

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

(And, we can drop the "alleged". He has been convicted. There's no issue with trial bias anymore.)

(Alleged girl, maybe. But that's not a crime, and shouldn't be. On the other hand "alleged girl" is kind of the central point of contention in this debate.)

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's understandable that you are focusing on the assaults, but that isn't what I've been talking about recently. I've been talking about the invasion of privacy.

The rape itself was a simple variation on date rape in an existing relationship. There's nothing extraordinary about it. Even the fact that it occurred in a girls' bathroom is only marginally relevant. So, put it out of your mind for a moment.

I'm glad we agree on this element. Of course, not everyone is following this story as diligently as you. The distorted version that this rape was the direct result of trans-inclusive policies is one that is almost certainly believed by many who only believed the baseless smears that initially attracted so much attention. As with most sensational reporting, the initial story lingers long after it has been debunked by further facts.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

What I have been talking about is how self ID created a situation where the privacy of the girls at the school was invaded. This person presented himself as a girl, which presentation was accepted by the principal of the school. In accordance with school policy that existed for at least two years prior to the rape and to the highly publicized confrontations at school board meetings this summer, this person was allowed to use the girls' bathroom.

While using the girls' bathroom, this person was hooking up with a more conventional girl, engaging in rather conventional sex.

This person would enter the sphere of public knowledge after the assaults, and in all of the public discussions about him and his deeds, he has been referred to as a boy. However, this was a surprise to the school principal, who thought he was a girl. Of course the principal was aware of his male anatomy, but the principal was under the impression that he identified as a girl and, therefore, was in fact a girl.

It wasn't until after this person committed a sexual assault that the principal learned of his mistake.

Prior to that, this person had been sharing the girls' bathroom with the conventional girls. The "cis-girls", in modern parlance. I would like to see some commentary on that subject, to hear what the females of the school thought about the situation. Of course, school officials are under confidentiality restrictiosn, but the press is not.

We do have the opinion of one fourteen year old girl who was a student of the school district, because she spoke out at one of the school board meetings, and I've seen an interview on a local news show, but I would like to see a bit more about what the girls who attend those schools actually think about either the trans-inclusive policy in general, or about the specific situation regarding the rapist.

Wouldn't hold your breath on this. The reactionary mob screaming from the rooftops are not interested in such nuanced reporting on what the actual students or victims think. As I said before, they don't really seem to care what actually happened to the victim, just what they imagined happened. It's really pretty gross. I don't think the press should be chasing down a rape victim, but I would be very curious to see what the victim feels about their trauma being used as a springboard for an anti-trans wild goose chase. Considering she was dating someone who seemed to be at least some variant of gender noncomforming, I would say it's a safe bet she's not virulently anti-trans like the frothy-mouthed mob that is trying to weaponize her victimhood.

My general impression is that most of these freakouts at school board meetings over trans rights (or CRT and mask/vax policy) are largely driven by parents and right wing media and students are a rarely featured perspective.

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on whatever misunderstanding the principle may have had. Whether or not the offender identified as a girl or boy kinda turned out to be a inconsequential detail, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

(And, we can drop the "alleged". He has been convicted. There's no issue with trial bias anymore.)

I wasn't aware of this, thanks. I suppose it's not that shocking that the case resolved quickly, all indications was that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The distorted version that this rape was the direct result of trans-inclusive policies is one that is almost certainly believed by many who only believed the baseless smears that initially attracted so much attention.

Has anyone here argued for this version of events?

What was actually argued is that it is significantly easier to have heterosexual liaisons in private spaces which are segregated by gender expression rather than birth sex. Parents of young women have particular concerns here, especially in a nation which is increasingly delegalising abortion.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on whatever misunderstanding the principle may have had. Whether or not the offender identified as a girl or boy kinda turned out to be a inconsequential detail, don't you agree?

No, I do not agree, because I am not talking about the sexual assaults. I am talking about the invasion of privacy, and in that case, the principal's misunderstanding is central.

In your post, you began by noting that while I might be talking about one thing, the narrative focused on in the media was all about the other thing. You then proceeded to talk about the other thing, and ended up asking me why I'm hung up on the principal's misunderstanding, because it turned out to be an incosequential detail for that other thing.

For that other thing, I would agree it's pretty inconsequential. I would also agree that a lot of the story has been, and remains, forcused on that other thing. However, for the thing I'm actually talking about, the principal's misunderstanding is not an inconsequential detail.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

No, I do not agree, because I am not talking about the sexual assaults. I am talking about the invasion of privacy, and in that case, the principal's misunderstanding is central.

In your post, you began by noting that while I might be talking about one thing, the narrative focused on in the media was all about the other thing. You then proceeded to talk about the other thing, and ended up asking me why I'm hung up on the principal's misunderstanding, because it turned out to be an incosequential detail for that other thing.

For that other thing, I would agree it's pretty inconsequential. I would also agree that a lot of the story has been, and remains, forcused on that other thing. However, for the thing I'm actually talking about, the principal's misunderstanding is not an inconsequential detail.

What does that have to do with the inciting incident at all then? Or is this just a total tangent? (I don't mean this as a barb, perhaps I'm just confused).

Maybe there's privacy concerns, but I'm not seeing any evidence of a complaint.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

What does that have to do with the inciting incident at all then? Or is this just a total tangent? (I don't mean this as a barb, perhaps I'm just confused).

There was a person claiming to be a girl and using the girls' bathroom, but it turned out he was a boy after all and, not only that, a rapist.

Quote:

Maybe there's privacy concerns, but I'm not seeing any evidence of a complaint.

Yeah. Kind of odd, if you ask me. That's why I would like to see any evidence that the girls of the school actually have opinions on the subject.


(There was a small bit of evidence, actually. A fourteen year old girl was a speaker at one of the school board meetings. She was opposed to trans-inclusive policies.)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In your post, you began by noting that while I might be talking about one thing, the narrative focused on in the media was all about the other thing. You then proceeded to talk about the other thing, and ended up asking me why I'm hung up on the principal's misunderstanding, because it turned out to be an incosequential detail for that other thing.

MEADMAKER: Tell me your opinion about This Thing Right Here.

SUBURBANTURKEY: The media had some other opinion about That Other Thing Over There. Let me tell you my opinion about their opinion about That Thing.

I guess we should add the Gish Gallop to the list of crap that trans-rights activism substitutes in place of actual discussion of serious concerns.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

MEADMAKER: Tell me your opinion about This Thing Right Here.



SUBURBANTURKEY: The media had some other opinion about That Other Thing Over There. Let me tell you my opinion about their opinion about That Thing.



I guess we should add the Gish Gallop to the list of crap that trans-rights activism substitutes in place of actual discussion of serious concerns.

Yes, my mistake for focusing on the rape that was the pivotal incident at the heart of this anti trans freakout rather than realizing that the real crux is the issue was some tangentially related hypothetical that can't be answered

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What was actually argued is that it is significantly easier to have heterosexual liaisons in private spaces which are segregated by gender expression rather than birth sex.

yes, this has been repeatedly asserted here without a lick of evidence, nor is there any evidence that the trans-inclusive policies of the school contributed to the crimes committed.

Despite the details of the story showing that the wild speculations to be without basis, the idea that trans-inclusive policies are even partially responsible for this rape happening is an Article of Faith.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

For that other thing, I would agree it's pretty inconsequential. I would also agree that a lot of the story has been, and remains, forcused on that other thing. However, for the thing I'm actually talking about, the principal's misunderstanding is not an inconsequential detail.

Perhaps you can reframe your point, because I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Are you asking a question?

My reading of the reporting is that the principal and the mob were talking past each other quite a bit, not a surprise given how rowdy things got. Either the principal was playing coy (either out of confidentiality reasons or "cover your ass" reasons) or maybe honestly misunderstood the details. The mob definitely had no idea what had happened and had a pretty clear agenda of their own, which might explain why they were so focused on tedious details that ended up not being important.

So the principal got the gender wrong for some student that liked to wear skirts. So what? Maybe the rapist was also left handed. Why does any of this matter? I'm not playing dumb here, I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to drive at.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Perhaps you can reframe your point, because I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

I know.

Quote:

Are you asking a question?

No.

Quote:

My reading of the reporting is that the principal and the mob were talking past each other quite a bit,

You are probably confusing the principal with the superintendent. It was the superintendent who spoke at the school board meetings.

Quote:

not a surprise given how rowdy things got. Either the principal was playing coy (either out of confidentiality reasons or "cover your ass" reasons) or maybe honestly misunderstood the details. The mob definitely had no idea what had happened and had a pretty clear agenda of their own, which might explain why they were so focused on tedious details that ended up not being important.

When the principal (not the superintendent) made the statements I have referred to, he wasn't talking to "the mob". He was talking to the rapist's mother.

Quote:

So the principal got the gender wrong for some student that liked to wear skirts. So what?

So, as a result, a boy was allowed to use the girls' restroom.

Quote:

Maybe the rapist was also left handed. Why does any of this matter? I'm not playing dumb here,

I know.

Quote:

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to drive at.

You are so obsessed with your anti-fascist propoganda that you can't see this story as anything else. You see a right wing crowd and you see everything else in that light.

To be fair, all media sources are going along with that. Left, right, and whatever possibly masquerades as mainstream media these days are focused on the same thing you are.

Meanwhile, there was a boy using the girls' bathroom.

I can't shake the feeling that some of the girls at Stone Bridge High School think that's significant, but I haven't found any reporting on that.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Meanwhile, there was a boy using the girls' bathroom.

I can't shake the feeling that some of the girls at Stone Bridge High School think that's significant, but I haven't found any reporting on that.

I read through your most recent link and I can't find anything to indicate that the boy was using the women's restroom besides as a private place to meet for sexual liaisons. Am I missing something?

It's definitely sketchy that the superintendent played dumb about this very serious crime. Again, this goes back to what I was talking about before, how anti-trans panic-mongering causes collateral damage. It would have been much better if there were a deep dive into what actually happened and why it seemed like a serious crime was being swept under the rug, but the whole trans witch hunt was a huge red herring.

As you are surely aware, powerful institutions sweeping sex crimes under the rug is a recurring theme dating back well before our current freakout about trans rights.

[Meadmaker]

And why are we even calling the rapist a boy? Do we know that?

He presented as a girl. The principal thought he was a girl. He was photographed at a meeting where he was wearing women's clothing and rainbow motifs. Why are we calling him a boy?

I honestly have no idea about his gender identity, but I can't help wonder if we are dealing with a rare example of the actual No True Scotsman fallacy. Are we saying that because he was having sex with a girl, and he raped a girl, that he cannot be a "true" transgender?

We have insufficient details available to answer questions about his gender identity, but when he had a choice, "he" was presenting as "she". So, why are people who consistently rail against misgendering so quick to declare that this is a boy?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And why are we even calling the rapist a boy? Do we know that?

He presented as a girl. The principal thought he was a girl. He was photographed at a meeting where he was wearing women's clothing and rainbow motifs. Why are we calling him a boy?

I honestly have no idea about his gender identity, but I can't help wonder if we are dealing with a rare example of the actual No True Scotsman fallacy. Are we saying that because he was having sex with a girl, and he raped a girl, that he cannot be a "true" transgender?

We have insufficient details available to answer questions about his gender identity, but when he had a choice, "he" was presenting as "she". So, why are people who consistently rail against misgendering so quick to declare that this is a boy?

The article you linked in the daily mail has the mother claiming the child identified as "Pan sexual", which for all intents and purposes is some variant of vague nonbinary. The mother claims the kid would tended towards androgynous dress, sometimes skirts, sometimes pants. Nonbinary people often see themselves are part of the broader "queer" community, though not necessarily trans despite similar ideas of gender nonconformity.

Again, not seeing any evidence that this kid was ever "using" the women's restroom except for as a clandestine meeting spot.

I think you're being a bit uncharitable to suggest I'm imagining how reactionary and, for lack of a better word, absolutely insane the mob was for these meetings. These school board meetings had been very contentious and rowdy well before this specific incident, with frothy mobs screaming about CRT and trans panic nonsense. Hell, the father was arrested while bloody mouthed trying to accost someone during the shouting match.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I read through your most recent link and I can't find anything to indicate that the boy was using the women's restroom besides as a private place to meet for sexual liaisons. Am I missing something?

In this case, no. Or at least, you aren't missing much. I have never seen it reported either.


What I have seen reported is that the policy since at least 2019 was that students in Loudoun County schools would be allowed to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity. What I have seen reported is that the principal believed that the rapist identified as female. What I have seen reported is that the rapist was wearing women's clothing on the day of the rape, and a picture of that clothing has been published. That clothing would be very, very, odd in the boys' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that when another student, a girl, encountered the couple in the girls' bathroom that the other student did not immediately report the presence of a boy in the girls' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that there were at least three separate occasions on which this person was in the girls' bathroom having sex, and what I have not seen reported was any incident where this person was reported as having invaded the girls' bathroom.

So, I've had to make an inference that the rapist was routinely present in the girls' bathroom. My inference is based on the fact that he did routinely wear women's clothing, and the principal believed him to be a transgirl.

I would love to have confirmation, or refutation, of my inference, but I'm getting nothing in my searches. The kids who attend that school know the answer, but nothing has made it to the media.


As an aside, whose relevance you will almost certainly not understand, is that I guarantee that you will find, and have probably already read, in numerous spots, that in the summer of 2021 the Loudoun County School board voted on a resolution that would allow students to use bathrooms based on their gender identity. This is, at best, misleading. That had been the formal, written, policy since 2019, and an informal policy since 2016.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In this case, no. Or at least, you aren't missing much. I have never seen it reported either.


What I have seen reported is that the policy since at least 2019 was that students in Loudoun County schools would be allowed to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity. What I have seen reported is that the principal believed that the rapist identified as female. What I have seen reported is that the rapist was wearing women's clothing on the day of the rape, and a picture of that clothing has been published. That clothing would be very, very, odd in the boys' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that when another student, a girl, encountered the couple in the girls' bathroom that the other student did not immediately report the presence of a boy in the girls' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that there were at least three separate occasions on which this person was in the girls' bathroom having sex, and what I have not seen reported was any incident where this person was reported as having invaded the girls' bathroom.

So, I've had to make an inference that the rapist was routinely present in the girls' bathroom. My inference is based on the fact that he did routinely wear women's clothing, and the principal believed him to be a transgirl.

I would love to have confirmation, or refutation, of my inference, but I'm getting nothing in my searches. The kids who attend that school know the answer, but nothing has made it to the media.


As an aside, whose relevance you will almost certainly not understand, is that I guarantee that you will find, and have probably already read, in numerous spots, that in the summer of 2021 the Loudoun County School board voted on a resolution that would allow students to use bathrooms based on their gender identity. This is, at best, misleading. That had been the formal, written, policy since 2019, and an informal policy since 2016.

So just idle speculation huh? Cool.

So maybe this person was using the women's restroom routinely, maybe not, which really doesn't seemed to have mattered one bit one way or the other.

I'm still trying to figure out how any of this is relevant to anything. Is there a point?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think you're being a bit uncharitable to suggest I'm imagining how reactionary and, for lack of a better word, absolutely insane the mob was for these meetings.

I am doing no such thing. The mobs at those meeings were indeed reactionary.

What I am suggesting is that you somehow think the mob is part of the story that I'm commenting on. It isn't. You keep coming back to it, but it has nothing to do with the invasion of privacy that (I'm inferring) occurred at the high school.