Hello

[Brian Peacock]

Stealman it and we'll find out.

I did.

No you didn't - you passed a general judgment by comparison in order to avoid honestly reflect what I've actually been saying on the matter. That's not a stealman.

Your 'definition' does not exclude any human. How then is it different?

If there is a qualifier (such as persistent identity) that you can't explain, then you might as well just leave it at 'any human'. If you do want to exclude some people from your definition, you haven't said who, or how they are excluded.

This is exactly why I've invited you to steelman my position - because at the moment your just-so stories don't actually reflect what I actually think, let alone what I've said. Please try again.

[Cunt]

This is exactly why I've invited you to steelman my position - because at the moment your just-so stories don't actually reflect what I actually think, let alone what I've said. Please try again.

Look, for this board, I'm sticking with rainbows definition being the acceptable standard.

If you want to convince me yours is different, feel free, but I'm not going to guess at it. You either exclude some people, and face follow up questions about how, or you don't.

It's really quite simple, no matter how hard you try to make it sound more complex.

I have all the 'definition' I need here, until someone presents something with comparable clarity and succinctness. Rainbow has you all beat. Don't be mad.

[pErvinalia]

My definition was exceedingly simple. You ignored it, as you weren't able to disagree with it. And as we can see clearly, you need to disagree to maintain your shtick.

[Brian Peacock]

This is exactly why I've invited you to steelman my position - because at the moment your just-so stories don't actually reflect what I actually think, let alone what I've said. Please try again.

Look, for this board, I'm sticking with rainbows definition being the acceptable standard.

If you want to convince me yours is different, feel free, but I'm not going to guess at it. You either exclude some people, and face follow up questions about how, or you don't.

It's really quite simple, no matter how hard you try to make it sound more complex.

I have all the 'definition' I need here, until someone presents something with comparable clarity and succinctness. Rainbow has you all beat. Don't be mad.

You're aàttributing a position to me which I do not hold. I don't think you can steelman me that way, coz that's literally the opposite of a steelman: a strawman.

[Cunt]

No need. I have a good definition I can use here. If you want me to take your different one, it's up to you to make it as clear, succinct and honest as rainbows.

[Cunt]

So why not have a go at crafting suitable language for a lady to object to cocks in her and her daughters change rooms?

I understand it to be near impossible, under the current rules, but maybe I lack empathy. Brian hasn't tried, and is also good with language and empathy.

Why is this situation so hard to write for?

JimC (or BP) since it's clear you won't/can't craft suitable language, can you at least comment on how weird it is that even you cannot craft such language for a woman to express concern about her safety in change rooms/rest rooms etc.?

[Brian Peacock]

Why? You'll just ignore it, claim I said something different to what I actually said, repeat snide insinuations, ask a completely unrelated question, or just pretend to be confused in order to avoid engaging. You don't even try to clearly outline your own views, preferring instead to erect silly cinditions on the remarks of others - as if the failure of others to jump through your irrelevant hoops somehow validates views you're not even prepared to articulate.

[rasetsu]

I'm reminded of an anecdote from newscasting. If memory serves, the story involved a baby being dropped from a balcony as a result of a building fire. The reporter on the scene asked a bystander for her reaction to witnessing such a horrific event. The bystander told the reporter that she had been looking away at the time and didn't actually see it happen. Whereupon the reporter asked her what she thought her reaction would have been if she had in fact seen it.

[Joe]

Why? You'll just ignore it, claim I said something different to what I actually said, repeat snide insinuations, ask a completely unrelated question, or just pretend to be confused in order to avoid engaging. You don't even try to clearly outline your own views, preferring instead to erect silly cinditions on the remarks of others - as if the failure of others to jump through your irrelevant hoops somehow validates views you're not even prepared to articulate.

That, and why isn't what women say sufficient?

[Cunt]

Why? You'll just ignore it, claim I said something different to what I actually said, repeat snide insinuations, ask a completely unrelated question, or just pretend to be confused in order to avoid engaging. You don't even try to clearly outline your own views, preferring instead to erect silly cinditions on the remarks of others - as if the failure of others to jump through your irrelevant hoops somehow validates views you're not even prepared to articulate.

Again, not saying how a woman could fairly express such a concern, without being ruined in the media.

Or the Human Rights Tribunal.

I'm reminded of the trans person who famously sued businesses who refused to shave her balls. It's easy to laugh at such a clearly insane person (as every video and bit of writing I've seen reflects) but try to empathize with the women who were trying to work at their chosen business, and attacked by the BC Human Rights commission for 'their bigotry'.

Of course, the trans person had their case dismissed, but if vulnerable immigrant women who are self-built business owners can't object, maybe it IS important to point out that you ALSO have no language to express such a concern, however valid.

[JimC]

The whole "cocks in change rooms" thing is a red herring. Whatever issues may (rarely) occur has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of transexual people.

[Cunt]

The whole "cocks in change rooms" thing is a red herring. Whatever issues may (rarely) occur has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of transexual people.

While I may disagree about that, you've missed my point.

You cannot (I cannot, BP cannot) or will not say what such a victim could say, that would not be attacked as bigotry.

Deny the people who have complained all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that no complaint could be composed. It's almost like the targeted group is oppressed or something.

[pErvinalia]

Deny the people who have complained all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that no complaint could be composed.

Hypotheticals are fact now?

[JimC]

Who is going to attack a victim (if they truly were a victim, not just vaguely uncomfortable) of bigotry? Not me!

A straw man might, of course...

[Cunt]

Who is going to attack a victim (if they truly were a victim, not just vaguely uncomfortable) of bigotry? Not me!

A straw man might, of course...

You haven't attacked anyone.

But the victims of the 'shave my balls' trans activist in BC (and their BC Human Rights Commision) all agree that it was a frivolous and damaging accusationby the trans activist.

You have, as has everyone, failed to provide a simple bit of language for voicing their valid complaint.

Because the language doesn't exist. No opposition can be accepted, by such a religious fervor.