Oh, yeah, Sandy, what the hell is a cradle woman who doesn’t think anything about the transgender community is valid, doing writing comments on a blog for transgender activists?
I don’t care to bother to read the fecal matter that is written about T people on Religious Reich and Janice Raymond-ite blogs, so why are you here?

That, dear Polar Bear is because Sandy is actually a transgendered woman on a personal cruisaid to devalueate every single other transgendered woman’s claim’s to womanhood, starting from the “delusion” that a person with a penis can ever be a woman and ending with the delusion that a person who ever had a penis can be a woman at all.

Sandy (Rainsong as she is better known) is a well known identity kamikaze out to delete herself and every other transgenderd woman from existance. When she manages to convince herself that no transgendered woman is a woman, then she will blow her brains out and lie in peace. For the time being she just lies through her teeth.

Sandy, answer my question, where you ever known as Rainsong or Renee in the blogosphere? If not where can one find a repository of your online wisdom? Do you even have a blog or any sort of internet presence other than just trolling around transgendered sites?

Btw I would like to apologise if my pestering Rainsong to admit herself and her transness sounds like a personal veneta, it is, but it’s not with Renee only, but with her “kind” of transgendered women who lie about their transness in general and I don’t like the second waive feminists very much.

These are not questions of entitlement or detection. Those are deflections.

The questions are questions male entitlement to spaces that are reserved for women.

It doesn’t make any more difference in terms of your needs for self expression are than it does say for a pedophiles needs for self expression.

It’s men who confuse their own needs for “rights” to act upon those needs. Male needs are not the same as license regardless of what has been decided here. If you ask the KKK they will all advocate white supremacy. The principles are manifested on your agreement here. It’s meaningless.

“The questions are questions male entitlement to spaces that are reserved for women.”

I take it you accidentally failed to type a word there. Happens to us all. It might help if you clarify which one/s and where for us.

Of course there is an interesting question in why there should be male-only or women-only spaces at all… remember this:

” “I just don’t want penises in women’s rooms. People with penises aren’t women. They don’t belong there.
You are man, you live as a man. I don’t want to share a bathroom with you.”

We know what you want, but that doesn’t mean that it would be right for you to get what you want.
Some people didn’t want black people in white’s rooms. People with black skin aren’t white. Some people said they didn’t belong there.
The blacks were black, they lived as blacks, some whites didn’t want to share a bathroom with them.

See the problem is that the argument is precisely the same.”

I’d like your views on what makes skin colour or racial segregation bad but genital/sex based segregation good. Both have involved toilets and showers and changerooms. Both have involved the fear of rape and assault and murder etc. So where, exactly where, is the difference that makes you right but the KKK wrong? I don’t see one. I seee lots of reasons both would be wrong but not a lot for either to be right.

“It doesn’t make any more difference in terms of your needs for self expression are than it does say for a pedophiles needs for self expression.”

Well this may well shock you, but there is a distinct difference between someone violating someone else not mature enough to be able to consent to an act and someone who dresses and acts differently to many others.

You see self expression requires no consent so long as people are able to look away, change the chanel or choose not to listen. If there is a ‘captive audience’ it is the captivity and not the expression that is the wrong.

Violating someone is 100% about lack of consent. Rape, it’s wrong cause it doesn’t involve consent, informed consent that is uncoerced in any way. You’ll find much of all wrongdoings of any great meaning involve violating another persons personal soveriegnty.

If you can’t understand the difference between a child rapist raping children and someone who dresses and acts differently you must be a direct danger to yourself and to others!

“It’s men who confuse their own needs for “rights” to act upon those needs. Male needs are not the same as license regardless of what has been decided here. If you ask the KKK they will all advocate white supremacy. The principles are manifested on your agreement here. It’s meaningless.”

No, what is meaningless is not what I am saying but your spurious examples. You see Women too have the rights to act on their own needs. These rights are limited only where they interfere with another persons rights. These form the interpersonal boundary between people. A person owns their own body entirely and may do with it what they wish (where the heck do you think the ‘my body, my right, my choice’ chant came from Sandy! A philosophical principle springing from the acceptance of the premises of equality and freedom!) and a person owns their personal possessions and may do with them whatever they wish also. This is the ‘private sphere’. Anything anyone does that involves what is within another persons ‘private sphere’ or ‘personnal space’ requires their informed consent. Without that informed uncoereced consent it becomes wrong. This is the basic structure from which most modern ethics stems.

Say someone wants to murder someone else. They may only ethicly do so if the victim in fact desires to die and has given informed consent and is of sound mind. If all these conditions are granted it isn’t murder any more is it, no it’s assisted suicide. Are you starting to understand yet?

Now say someone wants to have sex with a child. They have to wait untill the child is old enough and mature enough to give consent. At which point they are above the age of consent and no longer a child. Get it yet?

Now say someone wants to dress in clothing mixing that which is usually sold to each sex, wear heavy dramatic makeup, lots of black, dark red, purple and occasionally touches of pink and silver jewelry with bats and spiders and skulls on them. This is called ‘goth’. Note that even when done in public it does not interfere with anybody elses ‘personal space’ or ‘private sphere’. People who do not share that style or taste or who do not find momento mori comfortable to witness may look away just like anyone else who dislikes anothers taste in clothing, jewelry, hairstyles etc.

Now say that someone wants to dress entirely as someone of a different sex, feels inside all their life that they are physicly the wrong sex and embarks on a slow progression of treatments and surgeries to get their physical body to conform as much as possible to that sex until they reach a point they are comfortable with. They will dress as that sex, act as that sex, interact as that sex and use the public facilities provided for the public that by tradition are segregated by sex as that sex. Again note that they are not in any way interfering with anything inside anybody elses ‘personal space’ or ‘private sphere’.

A robber invades that space. A rapist invades that space, a murderer invades that space, a child molester invades that space. Each of these involves one person taking control or possession of something from inside another persons ‘personal sphere’ their ‘private space’.

This is why there is a universe of difference between things you are unable to notice the difference between. This is why your comment is ignorant, offensive and stupid. Read some philosophy, learn enough so as to not sound and look really foolish and maybe you’ll have more than buckley’s chance in this or any similar discussion.

It’s not about male anything. It’s about cogent and time-tested philosophy versus a pile of nonsense where vastly different things are arbitrarily compared without the faintest understanding of their relative differences and distinctions.

As I said before post-modernism might have it’s uses when discussing literature but it’s rubbish as metaphysics or when involved in moral and ethical reasoning.

Clearly the very framework you must use to determine right from wrong must be utterly in shambles. I can’t bring in sophisticated ideas like social contracts and the writings of Hobbes, of the ethics of ideal versus the ethics of duty or any of the important sophisticated philosophy discussions that have been deeply influential on various feminist and civil rights struggles because you aren’t ready for it yet, you are still stuck on the basics.

You seem to still have trouble discerning the moral and ethical differences between someone who is different in their personal appearance and behaviour while harming no-one and someone who opperates under the notion that the amount of ultraviolet light shielding chemicals in the upper dermis should define who is smarter and stronger than others and that people should be murdered for disagreeing with them let alone the moral and ethical difference between someone who dresses and behaves differently while harming no-one and someone who rapes children!

See there is a difference between personal expression and baby-raping. The first one is governed by somatic sovereignty. It’s in the ‘personal space’ the ‘private sphere’ where the owner is the sole and undisputed tyrant no matter their sex. The second involves violating the personal space of a child.

Get it now?

And don’t give me any bulldust about a group having the same rights as the individual. That is the nonsense that some moron in a court once bought into that gave us the corporation, one of the greatest evils and oppressors of human history.

No, a group of people is a group of people with individual rights. The group is not a valid entity in itself. To accept that is to invalidate free equal individual rights and to validate the abusive power structure of corporate colonialism. The structure of the group (and yes I realise that this may be moving far too fast for you if you still haven’t figured that personal space thing out yet) exists for the mutual benefit of it’s constituents. the constituents do not exist for the groups benefit. They are not a gestalt. They are only a group of individuals gathered together under an arbitrary definition involving a high statistical corrolation amongst the constituents that the individuals within the group find of benefit to cooperate or associate together within.

‘Women’ ‘men’ ‘goth’ ‘rockabilly’ ‘mensa’ all are just groups of perhaps similar yet individually distinct people. The group may have it’s own internal systems and structures, most of which will be arbitrary and filled with exceptions. There will be people on the fringe, people who almost but don’t quite fit the definition. People who belong to more than one group. For example I know a self-identified Trans-man who was born with some degree of intersex condition who alternates between the goth and rockabilly communities and will mix both styles in music and clothing and who once belonged to Mensa but quit.

Now when you are ready we can start discussing societies (and cultural and sub-cultural groups) responsibilities to the individuals within it, social contracts between the person and the state, Whether individuals have obligations in order to get those benefits and a whole host of other important considerations that directly involve whether a public utility can and/or should be sex-segregated at all and what that might imply to the social obligation of providing safety and security while providing universal utilities for all equally. But there isn’t much point if you can only think simplisticly and reiterate the same thing over and over like a poor caged sulpher-crested cockatoo.

So please do some homwork. Care to debate the validity and conflicts of the various schools of ethics? Want to argue the trolley dillema and it’s use as an analogy to this? What about the one where the head of a genius is grafted onto your shoulder to save their life but without your permission while you are in hospital for a minor operation? That’s a good one with lots of ramifications directly pertinent to this discussion. Have an alternative system of defining right and wrong that no-one else has explored yet? Got the worlds greatest excuse to get you out of the deep pit you’ve dug for yourself? Fine. Try me. But please stop making yourself look bad by just reiterating the same stuff ad neuseum.

Let’s discuss the finer points, lets dig deep into the arguments on this issue. Lets examine the foundations of all the viewpoints, let’s test the predictions.

But please rise above the level of discussion I could get from my ex girlfriends parrot.

“But please rise above the level of discussion I could get from my ex girlfriends parrot.”

Maybe I should train one of my Amazons to say
“I’m Sandy and I hate penises”. It would sure get a rise out of some family members. Of course, they’re evil, hegemonous, misogynistic, men’s rights’ activist male Amazons, anyway.

Sandy/Rainsong/Bob/whomevertheheck has never
mentioned just how they intend to ban the penis from ladies rooms, or how they wish to enforce said law. Or how they would ensure that the sickos they’re most scared of wouldn’t become bathroom cops.

This has nothing to do with feminism; it has everything to do with the only “ism” that matters: pragmatism.

Sandy doesn’t answer questions, she side steps them.

I’m still exhausted after submitting my MA thesis so I might ramble a bit . . .
Sandy, and others who share her views, may be genuinely concerned about women’s safety in public places – fair enough, so am I.
What they are NOT concerned with is the safety of transgender persons. I am.
Now, the reason for the latter stance (they claim)is that trans people do not really exist; there are only Men and Women and only the former has a penis, no matter how they identify or present. Now, I have to assume from Sandy’s statement that she is a woman-born-woman that a) she is a natal woman, or intersex person assigned and raised as female from birth and who identifies as female who does not care about transpeople but feels compelled to visit a site run by them to talk about men in bathrooms. *shrug*
Or b)(what I feel is more likely) She was assigned male at birth, had a penis for quite some time and then transitioned to female with the aid of hormones and surgery and no longer has a penis. Now, as such surgery is never performed on someone under the age of 18, such a person will have had quite a few years of this “male privelege” Sandy harps on about. Maybe they were a sissy boy and bullied for it, but you can bet your life they were still read as male and allowed all that comes with that status. If they transitioned at, say, 35, then they will have enjoyed a damn sight more privelege for longer. I’d like to know Sandy’s age. If she is over 40 she will recall a time when women needed their husband’s permission to buy something on hire purchase, take the contraceptive pill, or have surgery. She will remember a time when men legally earned more than women for doing the identical job. She will remember a time when women were barred from certain professions. She will certainly remember a time when the idea of a female President would have seemed ludicrous. EVERY transwoman, no matter how effeminate as a child, how introverted as a teenager, how desperate and uncomfortable as a husband, has lived some time in the eyes of the world as a MALE. This will be a source of distress for many, but it is a fact. Just as I have lived most of my life as a nominal female. But, wait! Hey, I AM one of the people who worked for less than a man in the same job; I AM one of the people who was touched up in the street by strange men as a teen; I AM one of the people abused for standing up for women’s rights. I HAVE HAD all the woman-born-woman’s experience of oppression because, technically speaking, I AM one.
Now I come in here and say I am a transperson and proud to identify as such. I describe as FTM but I am not a natal male and do not regret not being socialized as one one bit. I look androgynous; I sign my name “Mr”(legally); I don’t have a penis; I menstruate from time to time. I say I am a transperson, then someone whom I’ve never met and who has probably lived years as a male has the nerve to tell me I don’t exist! WTF is that about?? I’ll be the one to say if I’m a man, a woman or something else entirely, thank you, Sandy. And I don’t need to look in my pants to establish that identity, either.

“Sandy, and others who share her views, may be genuinely concerned about women’s safety in public places – fair enough, so am I.”

I also care about women’s safety in public places.

But Sandy doesn’t care, or not so much that she is willing to work with me to get anywhere on the issue. she is condemned by her own words:

Me: “So Sandy, why don’t you join me in calling for safe toilets and showers without private communal space protected by cctv cameras and really protect women and children?”

Sandy’s response: “I’ll NEVER join you in anything. I promise.”

So Sandy is saying that her problem with me is more important than the women and children being abused. She then has the gall to bring up safety in her arguments knowing full well that the system I call for is far safer than the one she says should remain. She wants to keep the communal sex segregated spaces within which a teenage girl was gang-raped in Sydney and within which children have been molested and murdered.

By the evidence of her own words she is condemned. She clearly does not care much about women’s safety. She just wants an excuse to keep sex-non-conformists traped away in the closet or in hiding because she doesn’t want them to be able to go outside and pee in peace. And she wants to come over here and tell us that, repeatedly, without entering into anything faintly resembling honest dialogue. I guess she must get a kick out of it or something.

I mean just look at where she said she would call the police on me! That was hilarious. I’d have felt bad about posting the laughter but it could never have been as mocking of her as the quote regarding the law where I live was. If she tried such a stunt here she might be the one arrested.

Why would she make such a statement though? It smacks of the childish schoolyard arguments where someone caught out on the back foot and desperate to remain on top in an argument and trying to save some face makes an appeal to power and authority. Pity it turned right round and bit her though huh.

She will never win her arguments untill she can back them up. She needs evidence for claims, she needs logical statements, to drop all the logical fallacies and to have answers and adequate defences to counter points raised against her views rather than just pointing a finger and shouting ‘male’.

Those aren’t ‘male’ tactics. They do not discriminate against females in any way. Women are just as capable in that as men.

Every question she doesn’t answer lends it’s empty void as a mark against her. Her views and arguments look like swiss cheese. If her views cannot be defended they can’t be valid. It does not matter who points out the apparent flaw. It is the criticism itself that is valid or invalid no matter the gonads of the entity that communicates the criticism.

im a pre-op mtf and i want to know if a transsexual has no balls will that make her/him be less human . i guess that only makes me half a person and i can not use the womens or mens showers-on a personal note i only shower in womens showers that have stalls with doors and i have no wish for anyone to see me undressed