Extraordinary that they don’t see it.
He will never be safe in a men’s toilet, he says, so his solution is for him to make women unsafe by using our toilets. And Channel 4 is too stupid or too ideological to point out this obvious flaw.
Special
Comments
13 responses to “Special”
-
Nobody in a men’s toilet is even going to meet your eyes, “Isabella.” This isn’t a complaint about a real hazard, it’s a projection of a sex fetish.
-
1. I think he’ll almost always be safe.
2. There is *some* risk, as men have been known to be violent toward other men. One factor in that violence is a tenet of toxic masculinity that punishes any male who is insufficiently masculine: geeks and gays have been targeted. A man who chooses “transgender woman” as an “identity” can conceivably run across men who would beat up “girly men.”
HOWEVER,
3. As a man, he has a much better chance of defending himself against another man than a woman would have of defending herself against a man.
4. The risks he runs are qualitatively different from those faced by women who are attacked by violent men.
5. The “trans rights” campaign has been very successful at normalizing their deviant behavior, so much so that armies of masked men who are *not* transgender show up at the drop of a hat to terrorize women who dare to speak about women’s rights. If you’re that afraid of violent men in the men’s room, send out your bat-signal to the hordes of Black Pampers ready to defend you. Take your own contingent of violent men into the bathroom with you. You’ll be safe enough with your bodyguards.
-
I wonder if “Isabella” really has been harassed or threatened in men’s toilets — if so, which ones? Possibly some club? A park in the middle of the night? A bar where he went to try to pick up guys? I suspect that part of his problem is that he has adopted a high-risk lifestyle. If he were really a woman he would have picked up some personal safety skills by now.
-
maddog:
If you’re that afraid of violent men in the men’s room, send out your bat-signal to the hordes of Black Pampers ready to defend you. Take your own contingent of violent men into the bathroom with you. You’ll be safe enough with your bodyguards.
Good advice for Isabella. Or, if he/she/it can’t afford such a backup team, and he/she/it lives in the US, he/she/it might consider getting tooled-up with something like a Beretta, Glock, SIG Sauer, Smith & Wesson, or a Ruger. Use of such is legal for self-defence when attacked.
I’m damned sure that’s what I’d do if I lived in any of the more trigger-happy parts of the US.
-
I’m damned sure that’s what I’d do if I lived in any of the more trigger-happy parts of the US.
Couldn’t more people carrying guns reach a tipping point?
-
@Omar
The point is to avoid as much violence as possible. Upping the ante with firearms only “solves” the problem with a higher risk of lethality. Black Pampers ftw.
-
Interesting that the clip didn’t show any footage of Isabella sitting next to the interviewer, Minnie Stephenson. They went with a split-screen when Isabella was speaking to Minnie (probably because Isabella towers over Minnie).
Still, at least Isabella would be happy to use a gender-neutral toilet. Normally when a trans woman is interviewed about this issue the trans woman insists that it’s the women’s toilet or nothing.
-
Peter N, the lengths (and darks) to which “Isabella” would have to go to actually be sexually harassed by a man remind me of an old joke:
A grandmother calls the police on her neighbors. They come up to her third-floor apartment and ask what the problem is. She says the neighbors are exhibitionists, they prance around naked all the time. A cop says “Which neighbors?” and the grandma walks out on the deck and says the ones over in that triple-decker, there, on the third floor. The cop looks and says “Over there? You can barely see in that window from here.” The grandma says “But if you climb up on the railing like this, you can see right in!”
-
maddog:
The point is to avoid as much violence as possible. Upping the ante with firearms only “solves” the problem with a higher risk of lethality.
True enough. Except that the history of Christianity shows that ‘turn the other cheek’ is an injunction honoured far more in the breach than in the observance, and Gandhi’s pacifism has long since been junked by India, nor was it the reason the British were forced out in 1947.
I used to be a member of the Australian CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament – long since gone.) Without nuclear weapons, and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) we would probably be up to World War 8 or 9 by now. They have kept the peace, though the world came damn close to MAD during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which I remember vividly.
We could set up a nuclear-bomb-free world, but we could never free ourselves of nuclear physics, or the knowledge of armaments that comes out of it. So, my own current practice and advocacy is to never entrust others to do the right thing if death or injury is the likely consequence of them not so doing. Which is why I practice defensive driving, and recommend it to others.
And if I was forced for whatever reason to live in the beautiful US state of Texas, my choice for ‘open carry’ would probably be a bazooka. ;-)
-
In all honesty, I feel some pity for Isabella.
I actually started using [the ladies’] only later on during my transition.
The thing is, he made the choice to become a “transgender woman” because he thought society was moving towards a genuine offer, that if he invested enough in a trans identity and body, that society would buy into it, and together they’d have made a successful bargain: he and the female population would be truly integrated.
He didn’t do any of this in a vacuum.
It was a tragic decision he made, and it wasn’t really just one decision, but a long series of steps strung out over time, as you can see here, when he says that at one point he was in some halfway state — at least visibly gender-bending but still using men’s toilets. He’s clearly moved further along the transgender tragectory since then.
This is where I save some blame for even the most well-intentioned sexologists and clinicians who participated in this game, including people I am personally acquainted with, who I’d almost consider friends.
The mistake these clinicians made was to perpetuate a sort of tango, a dance in steps, a pas-de-deux between the patients and the cultural environment they inhabited — between the individuals and the zeitgeist. One partner took a step forward, then the other in turn, and this was gently prodded along in no small part by the clinicians.
The clinical environment of “trans medicine” prodded its patients step-by-step, further and further towards “artificial womanhood”, and it matched that by prodding society, step-by-step, further and further towards accommodations for these artificial women. Those baby steps added up, and it went from teensy little exemptions to a wholesale collapse of women’s rights fairly quickly.
The ugly truth is, if these patients had been told flat-out, bluntly, upfront, that their future lives as “transwomen” did not come with a guarantee that society would continue to dance along to the transgender tune, that there was a distinct possibility that the music would stop and they’d be left to contend with the wreckage of their bodies all by themselves, most of them would never have ventured so far into the trans fantasy.
These male patients took these steps, one by one, because by themselves, each little step felt small enough for female society to absorb them. Each one was a quiet transaction, a small debit away from women’s rights, towards men’s. In many ways, it was the clinicians who told both sides that each of these little transactions, these little concessions — little debits — was too small to matter.
But, as anyone who’s wrestled with an ever-increasing monthly stack of media subscriptions can tell you, all those little debits add up to big money very quickly. In a sense, the trans movement undermined the women’s movement by nickels and dimes.
Here, Isabella is left holding the bag: he’s had all this cosmetic surgery and hormone surgery and psychological conditioning to help him imagine he’s a female, and now female society is saying, NO, we’re pulling out, we never agreed to any of this.
Well, that’s tough. But it’s also tragic. I don’t think he quite realized he never had a written deal with women. And it was probably his clinicians who glossed over that fact as they approved each successive step in his medical and psychological “transition”.
If you ask me, they (the clinicians) bear quite a lot of the blame. Even the so-called “good ones”, the pragmatists who never denied the reality of biological sex and who fully acknowledged the homosexual/autogynephile distinction.
-
It’s a delightful feeling which is all the more delightful because it starts out as a terrible one: that feeling when right after you press the “submit” button on your comment you instantly notice you’ve made some terrible spelling mistakes…
Oof, such a gut punch! That’s the terrible part.
But then: the site host quietly fixes them, no questions asked, before anyone even notices them — that’s the most delightful feeling, right there.
Ahh. Thank you!!!
-
Heh. Spotting little mistakes is my one talent.
-
Omar # 9 :
Without nuclear weapons, and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) we would probably be up to World War 8 or 9 by now. They have kept the peace, though the world came damn close to MAD during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which I remember vividly.
If you’re arguing that a country with a nuclear arsenal is less likely to be attacked in a conventional war, then I don’t buy that.
* In 1973, Syria and Egypt attacked Israel despite learning that that the Israelis had nuclear weapons beforehand.
* Argentina seized the Falkland Islands from the nuclear-armed UK in 1982, triggering a war.
* The nuclear-armed United States was attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists in 2001.
* Mostly importantly: India and Pakistan were both nuclear powers by 1999. They fought a war in that year, and another in 2025. They also had several armed clashes between these wars. The threat of MAD hung over both nations, and yet it didn’t keep the peace between them.
Nuclear arsenals threaten to make an already violent world more likely to permanently destroy itself.
Leave a Reply