[continued from previous message] 
  
 It is a serious question. If it is sometimes acceptable to misgender 
 someone then the issue is not whether it is always acceptable or never 
 acceptable but where the line should be drawn. 
  
 > 
 >It is rude and insensitive to misgender a trans person. 
  
 The usual interpretation of that would be to imply 'always' before 
 'rude'. Just to be clear, did you mean 'always' there? 
  
 > 
 >A sociopath or sex offender brandishing a penis with intent to harass or 
 >intimidate does not deserve any level of politeness or consideration, so 
 >I'd call that person a male. 
  
 Do you think the newspaper was wrong to describe the offender as a woman 
 and use 'herself' and 'her'? 
  
 The offender obviously has male genitalia and in that respect is male 
 but is 'she' a 'woman'? 
  
 > 
 >If you now ask whether that is some sort of reliable statement of the 
 >law, I have to say you might be mistaking me for a law-maker. It is not 
 >currently unlawful to misgender anyone. If a sex offender takes offence 
 >at being misgendered he has no recourse to any remedy. 
  
 What remedy should someone have if they are not a sex offender and are 
 misgendered? 
  
 What level of politeness and consideration should be given to somone who 
 is ostentatiously a trans itentifying man who enters the female 
 restrooms at a theme park intended to be attractive to children and 
 takes selfies and posts them online to prove that they have exercised 
 their right to be there? Does it make a difference if there is a woman 
 clearly visible and identifiable in the background who has not given 
 permission to be photographed in the restroom? 
  
 > 
 > 
 >> 
 >>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>> This also raises the issue that it is the measures put in place for the 
 >>>> benefit of men who identify as transgender women that are the threat to 
 >>>> real women. 
 >>>> 
 >>> 
 >>> A much exaggerated and over-hyped threat. 
 >> 
 >> We have several examples of people who self-identify as transgender 
 >> being a real threat so I do not agree that it is exaggerated. 
 > 
 >We have far more examples of people who identify as males being a real 
 >threat, so yes, the threat from transgender people is exaggerated and 
 >overhyped. 
 > 
 > 
 >> 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Obviously we know that there are many "flashers", men who display their 
 >>>>> penises to women or young girls, and it is sometimes said that very few 
 >>>>> women get through life without being "flashed" at in that way. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> That does not make flashing acceptable. 
 >>> 
 >>> Well, heavens above, does anyone, anywhere, suggest that flashing is 
 >>> acceptable? 
 >>> 
 >>> It is often a gateway to far more serious offending such as rape and 
 >>> even murder. 
 >> 
 >> What was the point of saying that few women get through life without 
 >> being "flashed" at unless it was to dismiss it as unimportant or 
 >> something women should put up with? 
 > 
 >I repeat. 
 >We have far more examples of people who identify as males being a real 
 >threat, so yes, the threat from transgender people is exaggerated and 
 >overhyped. 
 > 
 >If you still don't understand that point, read it again. And again. 
 >Until it sinks in. 
  
 Until I know who you include under 'transgender people' there is no way 
 to assess its validity. 
  
 > 
 >> 
 >>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> No need to say that all men are flashers, or all men are rapists. Or to 
 >>>>> believe that if you are alone in a train carriage with a man, you 
 should 
 >>>>> be afraid of what he is likely to do to you. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I would rather hear from real women on that point. The reports I have 
 seen 
 >>>> suggest that real women are wary in such circumstances and tend to be 
 able 
 >>>> to assess the level of threat. Being alone in a train carriage with 
 someone 
 >>>> pretending to be something they are not seems to me to be a factor in 
 that 
 >>>> assessment. 
 >>>> 
 >>> 
 >>> I would agree that depending on the past experience that the woman has 
 >>> had, and the time of day or night, being alone in a train carriage with 
 >>> a man might be a worrying experience.  And walking along a pavement at 
 >>> night and noticing that there is a man walking behind you can also be 
 >>> alarming. You don't know if he intends to assault you or is just rudely 
 >>> trying to overtake you because he's in a hurry. 
 >>> 
 >>> It is exceedingly unlikely that the "man" would ever, actually, be a 
 >>> trans woman. But everyone knows that. 
 >> 
 >> Why 'actually'? Is this another example of denying people the right to 
 >> self-identify? 
 >> 
 > 
 >I assume this is your way of mocking trans people. I'm not amused. 
  
 This comes back to the issue of who you include under your definition of 
 'transgender people'. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)