What do existentialists think of homosexual/gender compulsions?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Should there be a referendum to allow convicted paedophiles to work with children? (not so far fetched any more. I mean, we are all DUTY BOUND to be INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J002rmZ5Acg

Funny, but becoming a reality. Did you know that they refer to themselves as 'MAPs', or 'Minor attracted persons'?
This is why the acronym just keeps getting longer and longer, with a + for good measure, just in case they miss someone out, or there is some new fetish that a man comes up with that no one had thought of before.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Plenty of women were against women getting the vote. It's always only a fearless minority who fight for their rights, and they usually pay dearly for them.
If there had been a referendum for women's voting rights (ironic when they weren't allowed to vote) then it's not a stretch to think that it could well have gone against women. People can be very easy to sway, especially when they are brain-washed into believing that they have to be 'kind' and 'inclusive' and that being otherwise means that they are 'nazis', 'fascists', 'transphobes' blah blah blah and could actually lose their job if they object.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

OOh, you don't want us in your toilets and changing rooms. You are GENOCIDING us, WAAAAHWAAAAAAH!!!!

Umm no, when you take off the dress, lipstick and ridiculous wig you are still alive dear.

[ThinkOfOne]

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are.

This is a common misrepresentation of the argument. The claim is that they shouldn't have to go against their nature any more than heterosexuals should have to go against their nature. NOT that they "do not have the freedom to choose their actions". Heterosexuals have the freedom to go against their nature just as well.

Not sure of misrepresentations of this sort are rooted in dimwittedness or willful ignorance.

[Flannel Jesus]

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are.

This is a common misrepresentation of the argument. The claim is that they shouldn't have to go against their nature any more than heterosexuals should have to go against their nature. NOT that "do not have the freedom to choose their actions". Heterosexuals have the freedom to go against their nature just as well.

Not sure of misrepresentations of this sort are rooted in dimwittedness or willful ignorance.

There was a good star trek episode where they came across a civilization where only homosexuality was permissible, and some of the central characters were these heterosexuals in hiding, fearing who knows what because they dared to be in love with someone of the opposite gender.

Every heterosexual who thinks it's appropriate to ban homosexuality ought to consider the moral implications of social power being on the other foot. Would you give up your sexuality if that's what your culture demanded?

[ThinkOfOne]

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are.

This is a common misrepresentation of the argument. The claim is that they shouldn't have to go against their nature any more than heterosexuals should have to go against their nature. NOT that "do not have the freedom to choose their actions". Heterosexuals have the freedom to go against their nature just as well.

Not sure of misrepresentations of this sort are rooted in dimwittedness or willful ignorance.

There was a good star trek episode where they came across a civilization where only homosexuality was permissible, and some of the central characters were these heterosexuals in hiding, fearing who knows what because they dared to be in love with someone of the opposite gender.

Every heterosexual who thinks it's appropriate to ban homosexuality ought to consider the moral implications of social power being on the other foot. Would you give up your sexuality if that's what your culture demanded?

Star Trek? The original series? Seems a bit early in the maturation of the US for that topic to have been addressed. A maturation that has been regressing in recent years. Perhaps one of the spin-off series?

The heart of the matter isn't about "social power". It's about discrimination. Irrational discrimination at that.

The original did address issues of its time. Have you seen the following?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7_A

It's disturbing that there are so many "adults" in the US with the emotional and intellectual maturity of a child: unable to analyze issues other than in the most simplistic way.

[Age]

Quite a lot of human beings care, and women have more reason than men to care.

WHY? And,

WHY?

That is; WHY do quite a LOT of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, CARE what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

After all, for MILLIONS OF YEARS, 'you', human beings, did NOT CARE AT ALL WHERE you went to the 'toilet' NOR WHERE 'you' 'changed', (if you did). So, WHY do 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, CARE?

Is 'this' a 'biological innate compulsion', OR just a 'learned behavior'.

Oh, and by the way, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF 'you' CARED, AT ALL, at one point. Which is FAR MORE than just a LOT of 'you'.

AND, what ARE the MORE reasons women have to care than men do.

The safety issues of allowing men access to areas where there are women in various states of undress are surely obvious.

ONLY IN 'that world' in which 'you', adult human beings, HAVE CREATED, in the days when this is being written.

And, so what 'you' are ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS, 'men', like 'you', "harbal", can NOT be TRUSTED.

So, now, WHY can 'you' NOT be TRUSTED being near women is various states of undress?

Is that 'society' that 'you' live IN so 'FUCKED UP and TWISTED' (for lack of better wording here) that 'you', people, can NOT CONTROL "yourselves" BECAUSE 'you' have BECOME so ACCUSTOMED to 'bits of cloth' on the human body that when 'you' SEE 'bits of cloth' in so-called 'various states of undress' that 'you' BECOME UNCONTROLLABLE 'animals' (again for lack of a better word here).

THINK ABOUT just how ILL 'human society' HAS BECOME when 'you', "harbal", can NOT be TRUSTED, and 'you' even USE the EXCUSE that BECAUSE 'you' are 'male' that 'you' can NOT BE TRUSTED, AT ALL.

And, what is WORST OF ALL is that 'you' SAID the ABOVE like 'it' IS ACTUALLY NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.

'you' ACTUALLY SAID and STATED,
'The safety issues of allowing 'men' access to areas where there are 'women' in 'various states of undress' are, SURELY, OBVIOUS'.

like 'this' is HOW 'human society' has been FOREVER, or, that 'this' is SOMEHOW NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE, LOL.

ALSO, how MANY times have 'you' walked into a 'male toilet' and SEEN 'male bodies' in 'various states of undress'? AND, let us NOT FORGET that in
'women's toilets', unlike 'men's toilets', that is IF 'you' have ever been in one, USUALLY has CLOSED booths or cubicles to 'go to the toilet' in. Where NO one can SEE 'them' in 'various states of undress', like where 'men' hang out their genitals where "others" could SEE if 'they' were inclined to LOOK.

Oh, and by the way, how do you KNOW 'women' are in 'various states of undress' in 'toilets'?

There is also the matter of privacy; many people are uncomfortable about undressing in front of members of the opposite sex.

THIS WAS MY MAIN POINT, which 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, can NOT SEEM TO NOTICE NOR FATHOM, is that the ONLY REASON WHY 'you' have BECOME SO UNCOMFORTABLE 'undressing' in front of member of ANY so-called 'sex' is BECAUSE 'you' have LEARNED that being NAKED IS TO BE UNNATURAL and/or UNCOMFORTABLE. Which ALL of 'you' NEVER once 'felt' NOR 'thought' BEFORE but END UP 'feeling' AND 'thinking', BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN, this is ANOTHER LEARNED MISBEHAVIOR.

'Feeling' UNCOMFORTABLE when NAKED, and/or 'thinking', being NAKED is UNNATURAL, as an adult, is a LEARNED BEHAVIOR and A TOTALLY Wrongly LEARNED MISBEHAVIOR.

Humans have not been around for millions of years, btw; I believe it is something like 300,000 years.

Do you REGULARLY BELIEVE 'things' to be true, which could end up being False, or partly false?

LOOK I KNOW when 'you' said the 'believe' word here that 'your' INTENTION WAS that 'you' are NOT SURE, EXACTLY, if human beings have been around for something like 300,000 years, or so, but consider what the word 'believe' ACTUALLY MEANS and REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

Now, BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, have such VASTLY DIFFERENT and VARYING VIEWS of 'things', what can be VERY QUICKLY FOUND is that SOME of 'you' SAY and CLAIM that 'you', human beings, have been existing for something like 300,000 years, SOME SAY and CLAIM human beings have been around for something like two or three million years or so, while SOME SAY and CLAIM that human beings, and the REST OF ALL Existence have been around for something like 10,000 years or so.

So, whatever one ANY one of 'you' WANTS TO BELIEVE is true is PERFECTLY FINE with me, BUT 'you', human beings, HAVE BEEN LIVING with NO CLOTHES a LOT LONGER than WITH CLOTHES.

Which is still a long time, and although we spent most of it without separate toilets and changing rooms, that is not a reason to continue doing so if we would rather not.

But MY QUESTIONING is ASKING, 'But WHY would ONLY 'you', adult human beings, RATHER NOT?'

'you' ALL STARTED OUT NOT CARING BEFORE. And, I am REFERRING TO EACH and EVERY one of 'you' who HAS ENDED UP CARING.

THINK ABOUT WHY 'you' CARE as an adult but NEVER DID as a child?

In other words, AND BACK TO the OPENING POST, 'you' have LEARNED 'these kind of behaviors' and 'thinking'. 'They' were and are NEVER 'biological innate compulsions'.

ABSOLUTELY NO one is born with 'these kind of desires or attractions'. ALL of 'them' ARE LEARNED, along the way.

SEE, once 'you' can DECIPHER between what IS ACTUALLY LEARNED from what IS ACTUALLY INNATE, then LEARNING and DISCOVERING what IS ACTUALLY Right and what IS ACTUALLY Wrong, in Life, BECOMES Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO DO, and DONE ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY I will add.

Why we would rather not is unimportant.

FAIR ENOUGH. But, WHY ALL of 'you', previously and BEGAN, 'RATHER NOTING', but CHANGED to 'REALLY CARING, and WORRYING', IS VERY, VERY, IMPORTANT here.

But, SADLY, some of 'you' find it ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to LOOK BACK on 'your' OWN lives to RECOGNIZE and SEE that HOW 'you' have ALL EXACTLY CHANGED, for the WORSE, I will add. And the REASON WHY SOME of 'you' can NOT SEE the ACTUAL CHANGE that ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE is BECAUSE those ones BELIEVE that 'they' WERE BORN 'THAT WAY'.

Which IS, if I MUST BE TOTALLY Honest, about the MOST ONE OF THE MOST ABSURDEST CONCLUSIONS ANY of 'you' could COME TO.

We have also spent the vast majority of that 300,000 years

I WOULD CHECK UP on THAT 'figure' if 'I' was 'you'.

And, IF 'you' DID, then what 'you' MIGHT FIND is just HOW LARGE a DIFFERENCE 'that figure' is 'REPORTED TO BE', AMONG 'you', adult human beings.

without indoor plumbing, and other modern conveniences, but we would take badly to having to give it up just because our ancestors managed without it.

'THIS PATH', which 'this one' HAS JUST TAKEN 'us' DOWN here, is 'one' a LOT of adult human beings would USE, in the days when this being written.

It is AN UNCONSCIOUSLY USED 'path' ATTEMPTING TO "justify" or "rationalize" THE Wrong, being DONE, but which is UNCONSCIOUSLY or SUBCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, but NOT YET FULLY RECOGNIZED NOR FULLY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.

LOOK, absolutely NO one has TALKED ABOUT NOR SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOUT GOING 'BACK TO' ANY SORT OF 'WAY' of living.

I was just ASKING QUESTIONS, and IF, and WHEN, THOSE QUESTIONS EVER GET ANSWERED, properly AND correctly, then WHAT WILL BE FOUND OUT is what ARE ACTUALLY LEARNED and TAUGHT 'behaviors' and what ARE ACTUALLY 'biological innate compulsions'.

If 'these people', back in 'those OLDEN DAYS', had just STUCK WITH 'the discussion' here, and thus JUST ANSWERED the QUESTION I posed and ASKED here, OPENLY and Honestly, then what HAS, EVENTUALLY, COME ABOUT, WOULD HAVE COME ABOUT a LOT EARLIER.

[Age]

Existentialists like Sartre taught that "existence precedes essence"- meaning that people do not really have an essence, or true nature; that we are free to make any decisions we wish at any time. Such freedom is so radical that many of us don't want to face it. It gives us a "sense of vertigo" when in those rare moments we see the full extent of that freedom. Anyone who makes any claims that some option is not open to them because of appeals to some supposed inner essence or nature is acting in "bad faith". It is just an excuse.

"What is vertigo for Sartre? Vertigo is the realization of the totality of our freedom. And the realization of the totality of our freedom is necessarily related to the recognition of the fragility of our freedom. In other words, at any second I could decide to end my own existence. I have the absolute freedom to do so if I so wanted. And that is what makes the vertigo moment so unhinging. I realize I am in complete control of my life. That also means I can choose to end my life at any moment. Freedom includes the freedom to end freedom."
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com
Sartre: Vertigo (On the Fragility of Freedom)
One of the most famous sections in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is his commentary over the moment of vertigo—dramatized with a person on the edge of cliffside looking down to his death below or h…
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com hesiodscorner.wordpress.com

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are. To use existentialist terminology, their essence precedes their existence.

Is this, from an existentialist's perspective, acting in a sort of Sartrian "bad faith"? Any existentialists out there? How would Sartre, or any existentialist, respond to that claim by the homosexual?

How can one talk about existence without essence, or essence without existence?

In MANY WAYS, but ALL of 'those ways' would be Untrue, Wrong, or Incorrect.

One cannot be without the other. "Free to make decisions" would be the essence of one's existence.

'What' SEPARATES human beings from ALL of the OTHER animals on earth is that human beings have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'. This 'ability' IS 'the essence' of being a 'human being', and what 'separates' 'them' from EVERY 'thing' "else".

Being free does not mean you lack essence. It means that one essence of your existence is freedom, as there are lifeforms that have no freedom which would be part of the essence of their existence. And in talking about essences, you are talking about things that exist by default. It's non-sensical to talk as if they are separate.

It could NOT get MORE SIMPLER and EASIER than 'this'.

Dumb-dumb dualism. Monism is the way.

But 'dualism', which happens in the 'conceptual sense' ONLY, WAS ACTUALLY NEEDED in order for human beings to WORK OUT and UNDERSTAND FULLY the One and ONLY 'Thing', and thus COME-TO-KNOW thy 'Self'.

The diversity of behavior of human beings does not equate to one's freedom to determine one's identity. We are human beings regardless if some human claims to be a giraffe or a dolphin. I am not your father, even if I claim to be your father. I'm not Darth Vader either, even if I claim to be the Dark Lord of the Sith. The same goes for being a man or a woman. There are existences/essences that you cannot chose, and there are some that you can, which stems from the diversity of human behavior and the cultures we find ourselves in. You can choose to be a teacher, a car mechanic, an astronaut, or a veterinarian. You can also choose to be a mother/father, but ironically cannot choose to be a son/daughter, or the family you are born into. We are all sons/daughters but not necessarily fathers/mothers.

Which relates back to what I was saying about 'children' do NOT have THE CHOICES, like ALL 'adults' do.

Other species engage in homosexual behaviors but this stems from their instincts to do what feels good in the moment.

I would suggest that maybe it is ONLY human beings who USE 'sex' to make one 'feel good, or better', whereas other animals use sexual behavior to just do what IS 'instinctual' to ALL species, and that is to just PROCREATE.

That 'sex' 'feels good, in the moment' or not, for non human animals, would be some 'thing' that further discussion and research would be needed.

They're merely responding to their sexual impulses in the moment.

I agree.

Homosexual men tend to be more promiscuous and they are simply responding to their sexual impulses to seek pleasure, no matter what sex the other person is.

WHERE, EXACTLY, is the CONFIRMED DATA or KNOWLEDGE that so-called "homosexual men" tend to be MORE 'promiscuous'?

And, do NOT ALL human beings simple respond to their sexual impulses to seek pleasure? Which, by the way, I would rephrase as, ALL old enough human beings end up having 'sexual impulses', but that 'sexual impulses' are NOT necessarily to 'feel good', although one can tend to 'feel good' during or after a 'sexual encounter' but one can get 'this feeling' just through hug and/or touch, and that 'sexual impulses' is NOT 'seek pleasure' but IS what a LOT of adult human beings end up USING 'sexual encounters' TO GET. But this is ONLY BECAUSE of what they are MISSING OUT one, anyway.

As a matter of fact, many homosexuals are actually bisexuals, as they have had sex with both sexes at some point in their lives.

LOL Well then 'they' are NOT "homosexuals" AT ALL.

It's just that women are less promiscuous so it's easier to find other males to engage in sexual acts than other women.

And what country do you live in, EXACTLY?

Do you usually USE just what you observe ALONE to obtain 'your' knowledge?

If no, then WHERE did you get 'this claim' FROM, EXACTLY?

It's easier to go home with someone from a gay bar than a primarily heterosexual bar.

Obviously, that would all depend on the 'tendency' one has LEARNED and/or OBTAINED, EXACTLY.

So it's not something they choose.

So, then 'it', (whatever the 'it' is here, exactly) is then INNATE, and INSTINCTUAL.

Sexual promiscuity comes in degrees throughout the human population.

OBVIOUSLY.

Those that are more promiscuous tend to engage in riskier sexual behaviors,

Well that would logically follow.

while those that rarely engage in sex contribute less, or maybe not at all, to the gene pool,

It has been claimed that a LOT of 'women' who become "mothers" end up rarely, or less, engaging in sex, compared to say 'other women', and I am pretty sure that the "mothers" have contributed MORE to the 'gene pool' than "the others" here.

and there are the majority of us in between.

[Age]

The safety issues of allowing men access to areas where there are women in various states of undress are surely obvious. There is also the matter of privacy; many people are uncomfortable about undressing in front of members of the opposite sex.

Humans have not been around for millions of years, btw; I believe it is something like 300,000 years. Which is still a long time, and although we spent most of it without separate toilets and changing rooms, that is not a reason to continue doing so if we would rather not. Why we would rather not is unimportant. We have also spent the vast majority of that 300,000 years without indoor plumbing, and other modern conveniences, but we would take badly to having to give it up just because our ancestors managed without it.

Considering women are the ones who have the most to lose here,

Supposedly HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

according to what you're saying, do you think it should be women who choose? Should women choose if transgender people can be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing? If not, why not?

WHY do SO MANY topics of discussion end up in these Truly SILLY and STUPID 'debates'?

WHY NOT just STICK WITH, 'Which so-called 'compulsions' ARE 'learned' and which ones are INNATE?', instead?

[Age]

The safety issues of allowing men access to areas where there are women in various states of undress are surely obvious. There is also the matter of privacy; many people are uncomfortable about undressing in front of members of the opposite sex.

Humans have not been around for millions of years, btw; I believe it is something like 300,000 years. Which is still a long time, and although we spent most of it without separate toilets and changing rooms, that is not a reason to continue doing so if we would rather not. Why we would rather not is unimportant. We have also spent the vast majority of that 300,000 years without indoor plumbing, and other modern conveniences, but we would take badly to having to give it up just because our ancestors managed without it.

I think this whole part of the debate is complete bogus.
Trans women do not attack women in toilets. Women have far more to fear from straight men.
Seriously what are you going to do. Have guards at every toilet doing penis checks??
Toilets do not have to be gendered. Toilets to not have to have common areas.
We do not have gendered toilets in our homes and there is no reason we need them in public.

That's because they ARE straight men, idiot. Men can now simply say they 'identify' as a woman just to access women's and children's spaces. There's no such thing as a 'transwoman' anyway. They are just men with a fetish.

If one WANTS TO MAKE 'this CLAIM' here, then HOW, EXACTLY, do does 'that one' DIFFERENTIATE between 'man' or 'women' (or 'men' and 'women').

We AWAIT your ANSWER here "vegetariantaxidermy".

Autogynephiles.

What does this word MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, "vegetariantaxidermy"?

How the fuck would they know what being a woman 'feels like'?

1. By ASKING a so-called 'woman', What does it 'feel like' being a 'woman', EXACTLY, "vegetariantaxidermy"?

2. ASKING, and having ANSWERS TO, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is HOW "others" come to LEARN and UNDERSTAND 'things', from "another's" perspective.

Oh, and by the way, while 'we' are WAITING, some of 'us' are contemplating HOW 'you' could ANSWER and RESPOND here considering that besides the sexual organs or genitals on the physical body HOW ELSE could one ACTUALLY DIFFERENTIATE between 'being' a 'man' and a 'woman'.

So they get turned on wearing 'women's clothes'. So what?

YES, SO TRUE. So what?

REALLY, who does CARE on HOW 'they' or even 'you' get 'turned on' by "vegetariantaxidermy". I would SAY absolutely NO one here. But I might be Wrong, AGAIN, and someone WILL inform us that they CARE or WONDER ABOUT what turns "vegetariantaxidermy" ON.

A lot of actual women don't like wearing 'women's clothes'.

HOPEFULLY, 'you' INFORMED the rest of 'us', above, about what an ACTUAL 'woman' IS, EXACTLY?

And, 'what' are so-called 'woman's clothes', EXACTLY?

Women are more than 'clothes and stereotypes'.

YET here 'you' ARE talking ABOUT 'actual woman' and 'woman's clothes', which sounds VERY 'stereotyping', well to me anyway.

Someone made a good point that if so-called 'transpersons' get their own designated spaces, then the number of 'transwomen' will suddenly drop off dramatically because the whole point of 'identifying' as a woman was to access their toilets and changing rooms.

REALLY, so the WHOLE POINT of 'identifying' as 'a woman' is to just access 'woman's toilets and changing rooms', I NEVER KNEW 'this'.

WHO was the one who SHOWED and HIGHLIGHTED 'this fact'?

[Age]

Men are donning latex 'women suits' and I'M the crazy one??

Are you TELLING us or ASKING us?

It was written as A STATEMENT, but it has two question marks at the end.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Get help. Your medication isn't working. Perhaps cannabis?

[Age]

The safety issues of allowing men access to areas where there are women in various states of undress are surely obvious. There is also the matter of privacy; many people are uncomfortable about undressing in front of members of the opposite sex.

Humans have not been around for millions of years, btw; I believe it is something like 300,000 years. Which is still a long time, and although we spent most of it without separate toilets and changing rooms, that is not a reason to continue doing so if we would rather not. Why we would rather not is unimportant. We have also spent the vast majority of that 300,000 years without indoor plumbing, and other modern conveniences, but we would take badly to having to give it up just because our ancestors managed without it.

I think this whole part of the debate is complete bogus.
Trans women do not attack women in toilets. Women have far more to fear from straight men.
Seriously what are you going to do. Have guards at every toilet doing penis checks??
Toilets do not have to be gendered. Toilets to not have to have common areas.
We do not have gendered toilets in our homes and there is no reason we need them in public.

You really are deranged when it comes to this topic. Why don't you just be honest and say why? You are seriously comparing the bathroom in someone's private residence to PUBLIC toilets and changing rooms that women and children use?? What the fuck is wrong with you? The only explanation is that you are one of those creeps. Women do NOT want men in their spaces. What on earth does that have to do with you??

I thought 'this topic' was more about, What is LEARNED and what is INNATE, ESSENCE, or INSTINCTUAL.

Also, I thought some, or maybe a lot of 'woman' want 'men' not just 'IN their spaces' but even 'IN their vaginas'. How much CLOSER do 'these women' want 'men' IN 'their, literal, spaces'?

Ironically, since the introduction of the absolutely bat-shit bonkers 'self-ID' laws, it's probably safer to have completely neutral toilets and changing rooms, since the only possible reason for these perverts to WANT to use women's spaces is to gain access to woman and children in the places where they are the most vulnerable. It's a shame, because women fought for women-only spaces FOR A REASON, and the law has effectively made them obsolete.

So, SOME people WANT EQUALITY, but, REALLY, 'they' do NOT WANT ACTUAL EQUALITY, correct?

Oh, and by the way, WHY do SO MANY discussions about 'topics' like the one STARTED here about LEARNED and INNATE behavior, END UP in Truly SILLY and STUPID 'debates' about what type of cloth is put over the body and what 'toilets and/or change rooms' one should or should not use?

[Age]

Getting back to sport. A 'transwoman' (i.e. a man) just won a major cycling race and took home over 35K US in prize money. 'Becoming a woman' has been very lucrative for him.

BUT WHY BRING BACK to 'this', WHEN the TOPIC STARTED OUT BEING more or less ABOUT, What is LEARNED, and what is INNATE?

3 men won the women's 800m race at the 2016 Olympics. Gold, silver, and bronze. Three men on the podium. There's an American swimmer, a man called 'Lia Thomas' who is winning major swimming events in the US. It's rather comical to see him on the podium, a huge man dwarfing the the others. Apparently he's enjoying the 'freedom' of getting naked in front of 'other women' in the changing rooms.

''Athletics Canada’s former head coach has come forward to reveal that he was threatened by the Canadian Olympic Committee lawyers after expressing discontent with the results of the women’s 800m at the 2016 Olympic Games. The competition saw three biological males take the top spots, displacing the female Canadian bid to fourth place.

Peter Eriksson, the record-making former head coach for the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic program, spoke about what happened at the 2016 session in Rio, and the consequences he faced if he spoke out on behalf of Canadian athlete Melissa Bishop. Bishop placed fourth after three males competed in the female division.

In the 800m women’s race, Caster Semenya of South Africa took home gold, with Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi placing silver and Margaret Nyairera Wambui of Kenya finishing with bronze. All three of the athletes have Differences of Sexual Development (DSD) and while they are recognized as “female” legally, they possess XY chromosomes and are biologically male.

…
, former Athletics Canada head coach Peter Eriksson says that he was outraged at the results of the 2016 women’s 800m, and had wanted to speak out against the injustice on behalf of Melissa Bishop, the Canadian female runner who would have come in first place if not for the three male athletes.

“I was the first one to see Melissa after the race and what do you even say in that scenario? ‘You’re the best woman in the race?’ You don’t get a medal for that,” Eriksson says. “This was such an injustice I wanted to speak out, and then I got a call from the Canadian Olympic Committee’s lawyer saying that if I opened my mouth, I would be banned for life in sport.”

Isn’t that interesting. Three men cheat three women out of medals, and the Canadian Olympic Committee’s lawyer threatens a coach into shutting up about it.

Eriksson explained that, at the time, World Athletics claimed there was a lack of evidence on the advantage possessed by DSD athletes, but that there had been no confusion on the ground about what Semenya and the others were.

“Everybody knew Caster Semenya, for example, was a male. Everybody was aware of it, but I think that World Athletics didn’t want to do anything,” Eriksson says.''



man in women's shower.jpg

[vegetariantaxidermy]