No one is saying they should
Yes but how do you know?
Oh yes they are. But of course Tom is being evasive here, in the usual way. By “men” he means men who don’t identify as women, while we mean men.
Oh really. How do we know? How does anyone know? What’s the cutoff point? A week of claiming to be a woman? A month? A year? What are the criteria, what is the evidence, what is the test, who are the experts, how do we know?
It’s such bullshit. Of course it is. The whole thing is a fiction, and there are some ways it could be possible to accept the fiction socially, but that’s not good enough, we have to treat it as not a fiction, and as absolutely mandatory on pain of ostracism. Unless it’s a whim, of course.
They’re all “on a whim” as far as reality goes. Some tell you how whimsical they are by being Officer Joe on M-T, and Officer Jane on W-Th-F. Or by turning on “girl mode” when they feel like it. Or by being Powerful Businessman by day and Sexy Bombshell More-woman-than-you’ll-ever-be by night.
“If you [identified as a woman] on a whim, no.”
Meanwhile, the trans lobby continues to push for laws that permit self identifying with no transition requirements.
Maybe it’s a bit like a woman trying to prove rape in an islamic country – she has to provide two male witnesses to back up her word. Perhaps Tom is suggesting that a trans wanting to enter a female space needs two accepted trans to vouch for them? Not quite reading from the approved script and I’m sure he’s back off that claim and abjectly apologise if challenged. Pretty much the only way you can interpret the response though, other than to mock it.
Yet TAs are using “edge cases” to redefine women as a sex class, using people with DSDs to invalidate the very concepts of “woman” and “female” and convince us that sex is a “spectrum.” So who exactly is obsessing over edge cases?
The “on a whim” comment supposes that men who declare themselves women not “on a whim” are significantly less likely to be predatory. On what basis is this claim made? Sounds like a variant of No True Scotsman.
Oh I don’t think Tom is thinking at all about which men are more predatory, I think his point is just that jokers don’t get to impinge on women’s safety but really sincere men who identify as women absolutely do. If the sincere men are also predatory well that’s just too damn bad, the women will have to deal with it.
Seems to me that Harwood and too many other people believe in what amounts to a “womanly essence” which washes away any suspicion that those who claim it aren’t men. Only women can sincerely know they have it. However they walk, that’s a woman walking that way. However they dress, they do it as a woman would, whether it be skirt & heels or work boots & overalls. If they commit violence, it’s just like other women committing violence — except it’s probably fueled by frustration over not being recognized as a woman. And it hardly ever happens, of course. That’s just folks drawing conclusions from a minuscule percentage of edge cases.
@YNNB — yes. That jumped out for me, too.
No! We cissies don’t get to be called “folks”! That’s a distinction that only TQ+ people are allowed!
Fine with me. I’d rather not be called ‘folx’ or ‘folks’. But I do think you failed to make a distinction here, GW. Folks is for us boring ‘cis’. Trans get the much more interesting and special ‘folx’.
The on a whim remark, excludes all men who have carefully thought about this, and came to the conclusion that insincerly pretending to be a woman, was an efficient way to prey on them.
Good point.