Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[Meadmaker]

One's own medicine? So you CLEARLY support drug assisted suicide being forced on Transgender Teens.

 

[Belz...]

One's own medicine? So you CLEARLY support drug assisted suicide being forced on Transgender Teens.

Careful, I still have flashbacks to that incident!

 

[Venom]

So you're saying sexism is ok.

With due respect, how does that follow?

What spending too much time in the Community section can do to your reasoning.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What spending too much time in the CommunityHumor section can do to your reasoning.

Fixed it for you

 

[Horhang]

Just curious. Why were they assaulted in women's restrooms? i.e. were they (cis) females, assaulted by men who had snuck in? Or some other situation? For example, we've heard of cases of transwomen being assaulted for attempting to use the women's room, by people who called them men. Also, "being disciplined"? I know that some people look down on views that are not "politically correct", but I haven't heard of job actions being taken against people just for opposing a restroom policy. I suppose if they were sufficiently vociferous that it would constitute harassment, that might do it. i.e. the difference between, "I don't think trans people should use the ladies' room" versus, "Get out of the ladies' room, creep!"

Can you elaborate a bit?

As for the 1% rule, I think the way you stated it is a bit too broad. It sounds logical, for cases where you can't accommodate both the 99% and the 1%, but is that the case here? There are plenty of rules that only directly affect a small number of people. For example, handicapped access rules might only apply to a small number of people, directly. It depends on the impact that it might have on the 99%.

I think what trans activists would say is that the 99% ought to be doing the "right" thing anyway, so the only reason that there is a down side for anyone is that some among the 99% are behaving badly, and they should stop. Applying that in this case, they would say that a woman who doesn't want to take off her clothes in front of a transgender has a weird hangup and they need to get over their erroneous ideas about gender identity and stop discriminating against the minority of women who happen to have penises. Not sure I really buy into that, but that's what I think they would say.

Coworker has been assaulted by males in female restrooms. Given that all that is required to use the restroom of choice is a statement of identity, she feels less safe in a public restroom. These statements violate policies and actual state laws. I work in education and these statements were found to violate inclusion policies of the district I work in, as well as ca ed code on inclusion and gender identity.
This is what I mean by it being a bad idea to generally create policy based on 1% of the population rather than finding some form of accommodation.

 

[Meadmaker]

Coworker has been assaulted by males in female restrooms. Given that all that is required to use the restroom of choice is a statement of identity, she feels less safe in a public restroom. These statements violate policies and actual state laws. I work in education and these statements were found to violate inclusion policies of the district I work in, as well as ca ed code on inclusion and gender identity.
This is what I mean by it being a bad idea to generally create policy based on 1% of the population rather than finding some form of accommodation.

Got it. Government worker runs afoul of "inclusion policies", by speaking.

Yes, in that sense, I agree. I might express it differently, but the 1% rule makes sense there.

 

[Mycroft]

Obviously, by definition, your child does not have autogynaephilia.

Is that obvious? If so, how?

To me it seems as though the term was coined specifically to discredit trans women by relabeling gender dysphoria as a sexual fetish (and thus something to be ashamed of and dismissed) and as a pretext to dismiss the end result of gender transition by calling trans-women men with extreme body modification.

What criteria do you use to distinguish the daughter of Deadrose from ... perverts who want to invade women's spaces?

 

[Mycroft]

Coworker has been assaulted by males in female restrooms. Given that all that is required to use the restroom of choice is a statement of identity, she feels less safe in a public restroom. These statements violate policies and actual state laws. I work in education and these statements were found to violate inclusion policies of the district I work in, as well as ca ed code on inclusion and gender identity.
This is what I mean by it being a bad idea to generally create policy based on 1% of the population rather than finding some form of accommodation.

It seems like the best way to make these people feel secure in the bathroom is to arrest and charge the people who assaulted them. Assaulting people is not okay regardless of their gender identity or location.

Unless these men who assulted women in the women's bathroom were actually trans-women, then it's hard to see how this event should inform policy on trans-women. If they were trans-women, then it's still hard for me to understand how the event is different from an assault by a cis-gendered woman.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It seems like the best way to make these people feel secure in the bathroom is to arrest and charge the people who assaulted them. Assaulting people is not okay regardless of their gender identity or location.

I remember the Daily Show's segment when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed in the US Military and sound bites of the bog standard "Doom and Gloom" predictions from the talking heads about mass rapes in the communal showers and soldiers walking around in uniform wearing short shorts were paraded out.

"No turns out that shower rape is still illegal under military law. Turns out all rape... still illegal in the military. Oh and uniform regulations still require all short shorts to be ankle length. And be called pants."

 

[Meadmaker]

Yeah, well every high school has a Ronda Rousey and if a penis boy comes into her locker room she will beat the living **** out of him. He will be crying for mommy. After that happens a couple times there will be no more penis boys going into that locker room. The girls locker room.

Going back to this earlier point, just in case you were serious, the local "Ronda Rousey" would be charged with assault, and it would almost certainly be increased to a felony charge due to it being a hate crime.



This ain't the world you grew up in.

 

[Mycroft]

I remember the Daily Show's segment when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed in the US Military and sound bites of the bog standard "Doom and Gloom" predictions from the talking heads about mass rapes in the communal showers and soldiers walking around in uniform wearing short shorts were paraded out.

"No turns out that shower rape is still illegal under military law. Turns out all rape... still illegal in the military. Oh and uniform regulations still require all short shorts to be ankle length. And be called pants."

Exactly.

If there were a problem with cic-women being assaulted by trans-women, then this kind of story would make sense, but to the best of my knowlege trans-women are not running around assaulting cis-women in bathrooms or anywhere.

 

[shuttlt]

It seems like the best way to make these people feel secure in the bathroom is to arrest and charge the people who assaulted them. Assaulting people is not okay regardless of their gender identity or location.

Them getting arrested can only happen after the fact, and is not guaranteed (though currently they'd pretty much just have to prove he was in the women's toilet without a good reason). Why would that make anybody feel more secure, unless it is the particular person who has attacked them in the past who they fear? Also, its not an either/or thing... knowing that there may be legal consequences, and not having men in the bathroom would be a better way of making them feel secure than allowing men in the bathroom and making it harder to prove anything against the men if something happens.

Unless these men who assulted women in the women's bathroom were actually trans-women, then it's hard to see how this event should inform policy on trans-women. If they were trans-women, then it's still hard for me to understand how the event is different from an assault by a cis-gendered woman.

If you let the self identified trans women in, all men are let in. With a segregated toilet, if a man is in the women's toilets, he will stand out and there is a presumption that he has no business being there. If you go unisex, or self identified gender, then men can hang around the toilets this woman is going to all they want. Even if no trans people ever had any malicious intent, the push towards unisex toilets is clearly good news for predatory rapists.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Them getting arrested can only happen after the fact

Yes that is how the law works.

Even if no trans people ever had any malicious intent, the push towards unisex toilets is clearly good news for predatory rapists.

No more so then letting gay men and women into the bathroom with straight men and women.

"We can't include this group because X percent of them might be rapist" wasn't valid for gay people, it's not valid for trans people, it's not valid for refugees. Hell it's not valid for straight men despite popular opinions to the contrary.

You really think an unlocked bathroom door with a stick figure on it is what's stopping rapist now? That's there's actually rapists and molesters and peeping toms going "I really want to assault somebody... as soon as I have an excuse to be in the bathroom with them?"

This is turning into the old joke about the kid who wants to run away from home but can't because his mommy won't let him cross the street.

 

[William Parcher]

Going back to this earlier point, just in case you were serious, the local "Ronda Rousey" would be charged with assault, and it would almost certainly be increased to a felony charge due to it being a hate crime.

This ain't the world you grew up in.

Of course. But beatdowns still happen in schools. Probably on a daily basis. Kids.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes that is how the law works.



No more so then letting gay men and women into the bathroom with straight men and women.

"We can't include this group because X percent of them might be rapist" wasn't valid for gay people, it's not valid for trans people, it's not valid for refugees. Hell it's not valid for straight men despite popular opinions to the contrary.

You really think an unlocked bathroom door with a stick figure on it is what's stopping rapist now? That's there's actually rapists and molesters and peeping toms going "I really want to assault somebody... as soon as I have an excuse to be in the bathroom with them?"

This is turning into the old joke about the kid who wants to run away from home but can't because his mommy won't let him cross the street.

Even if one wanted to, its pretty hard to keep gay men out of men's toilets and lesbians out of the ladies. They look a lot like straight people of the same sex. Even in more homophobic times, there were never gay toilets (except maybe on Hampstead Heath, but that probably wasn't by design).

By weight of numbers, almost all predators we are talking about here are straight men. Assuming hypothetically that homosexual men and/or women were predatory at the same rate, their relative scarcity hugely reduces the number of predators.

The plan as I understand it is to put the largest group of sexual predators in shared toilet facilities with that groups preferred targets.

I'm trying to get numbers on the number of predatory men, but if its anything over 0.3% of men we are talking about a larger group being let in to the ladies toilets than the trans women.

This seems like an odd thing to be doing in the age of #metoo.

 

[d4m10n]

As I understand it there are 39 genders, but the number may in fact be in the thousands. By what scientific rubric is the philosophy of infinite genders achieved?

Why should we presuppose this to be a scientific sort of question?

Strikes me as a question for the linguists and compilers of language.

Check out the evolution of the definition over time:

Webster's 1828

Webster's 1913

Webster's 2018

Only the latest one speaks to our "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits" at least two of which are heavily culturally conditioned.

 

[shuttlt]

Even if one wanted to, its pretty hard to keep gay men out of men's toilets and lesbians out of the ladies. They look a lot like straight people of the same sex. Even in more homophobic times, there were never gay toilets (except maybe on Hampstead Heath, but that probably wasn't by design).

By weight of numbers, almost all predators we are talking about here are straight men. Assuming hypothetically that homosexual men and/or women were predatory at the same rate, their relative scarcity hugely reduces the number of predators.

The plan as I understand it is to put the largest group of sexual predators in shared toilet facilities with that groups preferred targets.

I'm trying to get numbers on the number of predatory men, but if its anything over 0.3% of men we are talking about a larger group being let in to the ladies toilets than the trans women.

This seems like an odd thing to be doing in the age of #metoo.

Incidentally, of course I could go in to the ladies toilets now, planning to look under the stalls, and maybe wait for a woman to be alone in there.

I'd better stay hidden though, because if somebody sees a man in the ladies toilets, they are likely to report it. If I get accused of doing something in a unisex toilet, its their word against mine.... If I get caught in the ladies toilet, I have to explain what I was doing in the ladies toilets. If I loiter in the ladies's toilets waiting for a lone woman, they can complain. If the same happens in a unisex toilet, they are a bigot.

The whole thing is easier with separate toilets.

 

[Mycroft]

Them getting arrested can only happen after the fact, and is not guaranteed (though currently they'd pretty much just have to prove he was in the women's toilet without a good reason). Why would that make anybody feel more secure, unless it is the particular person who has attacked them in the past who they fear? Also, its not an either/or thing... knowing that there may be legal consequences, and not having men in the bathroom would be a better way of making them feel secure than allowing men in the bathroom and making it harder to prove anything against the men if something happens.

How many occurances of cis-women being assaulted by trans-women in bathrooms have their been?

Assuming the number is ridiculously small, say less than one in one million uses of public women's bathrooms, why should making it difficult for trans-women to find a place to safely go to the bathroom benifit cis-women in any way?

If you let the self identified trans women in, all men are let in.

No. That's just dumb.

With a segregated toilet, if a man is in the women's toilets, he will stand out and there is a presumption that he has no business being there. If you go unisex, or self identified gender, then men can hang around the toilets this woman is going to all they want. Even if no trans people ever had any malicious intent, the push towards unisex toilets is clearly good news for predatory rapists.

Is there any evidence that this is happening anywhere?

 

[Cavemonster]

Incidentally, of course I could go in to the ladies toilets now, planning to look under the stalls, and maybe wait for a woman to be alone in there.

I'd better stay hidden though, because if somebody sees a man in the ladies toilets, they are likely to report it. If I get accused of doing something in a unisex toilet, its their word against mine.... If I get caught in the ladies toilet, I have to explain what I was doing in the ladies toilets. If I loiter in the ladies's toilets waiting for a lone woman, they can complain. If the same happens in a unisex toilet, they are a bigot.

The whole thing is easier with separate toilets.

We can test your risk assessment claims.

There are a number of businesses and localities which have declared their restrooms open to people by their declared gender.

If you are correct and such a policy represents a meaningfully increased risk of bathroom assault, we should see an uptick of restroom assaults in places with this policy.

Given how passionate about the issue people on both sides are, one would expect cases that prove the danger of inclusive policy to be pulled from local headlines and trumpeted in blogs and thinkpieces, not hard at all to find.

Now personally, the only legal incidents I've seen that pertain directly to trans bathroom access are a few cases of men entering women's bathrooms and causing trouble specifically to protest AGAINST trans access and a case or two or cis women who didn't look feminine enough being harassed as suspected biological males. Neither support your risk assessment. But I may have missed some. It's a bit too fresh an issue to have a clear statistical analysis, but surely if a real widespread danger exists, there should be at least a handful of relevant cases you could cite.

 

[shuttlt]

How many occurances of cis-women being assaulted by trans-women in bathrooms have their been?

Assuming the number is ridiculously small, say less than one in one million uses of public women's bathrooms, why should making it difficult for trans-women to find a place to safely go to the bathroom benifit cis-women in any way?



No. That's just dumb.




Is there any evidence that this is happening anywhere?

How many occurances of cis-women being assaulted by trans-women in bathrooms have their been?

Assuming the number is ridiculously small, say less than one in one million uses of public women's bathrooms, why should making it difficult for trans-women to find a place to safely go to the bathroom benifit cis-women in any way?

I'm sure it is very small.

No. That's just dumb.

I don't follow. Its dumb to let self identified trans women in? Or its dumb to think that if all you need to enter is to self identify as a woman, means any man has permission to enter? In a unisex toilet, clearly all men have permission to enter.

Is there any evidence that this is happening anywhere?

Not quite sure what you mean. I could, if inclined, spend a bunch of time in the gents without arousing too much suspicion. I could presumably do the same in a unisex toilet. It is clearly the case that at least some women have been attacked in single sex toilets. There are very few unisex toilets out there, so I don't see how evidence could exist.

To take a different tack.... a pedophile might perhaps get banned from going within a mile of the local scout groups camping ground. That's not because disregarding the ban is going to be an issue for somebody who wants to rape a child, but with the ban all you have to do is catch him hanging around the camping ground and its back to jail for him without waiting for him to attack anybody. By the same token, if a man is spending time hanging out in the women's toilets, you don't have to wait for him to attack somebody. These rules aren't there because people with I'll intent respect them, so much as because they mean you don't have to wait for them to do something terrible.

Since we haven't gone unisex, or self identified yet with toilets who knows? It will be an interesting experience.