Trans Women are not Women

[TragicMonkey]

If the need outranks the desire, then the simplest solution is to tell transwomen to set aside their desire, butch up, and pass as men so they can use the existing men's bathroom.

Or perhaps tell the violent bathroom attackers to set aside their desires and just be nice people instead.

I don't believe either of those suggestions logically follows from what I said.

 

[theprestige]

We can dismiss the example of the media as they want your attention to sell you things so they can meet their own needs.

I'm pretty sure most people competing for eyeballs in the news and entertainment industry are beyond mere meeting of needs, especially by global and historical standards. They're well into sustaining and "improving" their preferred lifestyle. They're into that sense of satisfaction and achievement and social approval from their peers. The people that do the marketing for Netflix aren't groveling for subsistence.

I don't think we can dismiss this example at all. It illustrates clearly how human attention is limited, and if you want it, you have to compete for it, and it ends up being a commodity.

 

[TragicMonkey]

When did we have only one bathroom, exactly? Back in the outhouse days?

And even if we did, that does not nullify my point.

We are willing to spend twice the cost of a bathroom to accommodate a social need. If there is a social need that justifies a third bathroom then is the objection to the cost the only thing preventing implementation? If so, what is the cut off on cost where it becomes unacceptable? If X is the cost of one bathroom and we currently have two it means 2X is acceptable. But if 3X is too much, then where's the line? 2.5X? Have third bathrooms but not as frequently as having just two?

 

[theprestige]

I don't believe either of those suggestions logically follows from what I said.

Fair enough.

Do you at least agree that the central problem of transwomen in bathrooms is that their needs cannot be met by having a separate bathroom?

 

[Belz...]

We are willing to spend twice the cost of a bathroom to accommodate a social need.

Twice than what? We've separated bathrooms since forever.

If there is a social need that justifies a third bathroom then is the objection to the cost the only thing preventing implementation?

Yes. Any additional cost has to be justified. This isn't some ad hoc excuse. We've always done that.

If so, what is the cut off on cost where it becomes unacceptable?

Who said anything about it being unacceptable? I'm saying that the cost might be prohibitive. I don't think you could make it happen across the board.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Could you clarify?

This thread. Some women don't want transwomen to use the same bathroom. One of the reasons suggested to justify this position was the possibility of attack.

 

[Belz...]

This thread. Some women don't want transwomen to use the same bathroom. One of the reasons suggested to justify this position was the possibility of attack.

Ok I still don't see what the sentence meant.

In any case it would help quite a bit if we could establish that these attacks happen with any sort of regularity and are not isolated incidents. Regardless, personally I don't mind unisex bathrooms but I'm not sure that a significant number of people would agree, and their agreement is kind of a requirement for this to happen.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"People who don't care" isn't a "third category". It's a behavior. It doesn't hinge on bodily states but personal action; or more precisely personal inaction. The "don't care" bathroom is for those who mind their own business and won't cause a fuss over anybody else using that bathroom.

I don't disagree, I just don't get what "win" you think a third category is. We haven't solved or even addressed the initial debate.

"Yeah will some people don't care" is true of everything.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Fair enough.

Do you at least agree that the central problem of transwomen in bathrooms is that their needs cannot be met by having a separate bathroom?

That doesn't sound quite right. The need is access to bathrooms. Their desire is to have access to the bathrooms designated for particular sexes. The desire of some others is for them not to have access to those particular bathrooms. Hence my suggested compromise would allow access to a bathroom that doesn't depend on sex and therefore accommodates each individual's personal ideas about their own nature; specifically a transperson could use the "don't care" bathroom without it being an admission or claim of being either sex. While at the same time the uptight of both sexes can access their segregated bathrooms. Presumably they can burn crosses in there, who cares.

 

[theprestige]

This thread. Some women don't want transwomen to use the same bathroom. One of the reasons suggested to justify this position was the possibility of attack.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Rolfe, for example, has made it clear that her objection is not with transwomen in the women's bathroom as such.

Rather, her objection is that if we decide that any man may enter a women's bathroom simply by declaring that he is a woman, this weakens the social guard rails that help keep predatory men out of what have traditionally been safe(r) spaces for women.

I don't know if the risk is as great as Rolfe seems to believe it is, but as a philosophical conservative, I'm content to appeal to Chesterton's Fence. Which is to say, we should assume the risk is much greater than we realize, and we should go carefully and by slow degrees in changing this social norm.

Since Rolfe is arguing that we should not at this time consider dispensing entirely with the norm, she and I are in broad agreement on solutions, even if we don't necessarily agree on the severity of the problem.

 

[JoeMorgue]

ETA: Thread moved too fast, adding quote for clarity to what I'm responding to.

That doesn't sound quite right. The need is access to bathrooms. Their desire is to have access to the bathrooms designated for particular sexes. The desire of some others is for them not to have access to those particular bathrooms. Hence my suggested compromise would allow access to a bathroom that doesn't depend on sex and therefore accommodates each individual's personal ideas about their own nature; specifically a transperson could use the "don't care" bathroom without it being an admission or claim of being either sex. While at the same time the uptight of both sexes can access their segregated bathrooms. Presumably they can burn crosses in there, who cares.

You're creating a special category for a group that is defining itself as not being a special category but one of the two already special categories. You're solution will not be acceptable.

It's like fixing segregated bathrooms by keeping the white only and black only bathrooms and adding a third "Not hung up about race" bathroom and going "Well that's settled then" *wipes hands.*

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't disagree, I just don't get what "win" you think a third category is. We haven't solved or even addressed the initial debate.

"Yeah will some people don't care" is true of everything.

"Uncategorized" isn't really a "third category". The "win" is that everyone who wants access to a bathroom can have it.

 

[theprestige]

That doesn't sound quite right. The need is access to bathrooms. Their desire is to have access to the bathrooms designated for particular sexes.

I disagree that this is a desire and not a need.

Here's my basic argument:
- Transsexuality - gender disphoria - is a psychological infirmity.
- Currently the best course of treatment appears to be treating the transsexual as if they were truly a member of the social category opposite their biological gender.
- Therefore, access to opposite-sex bathrooms, as if a biological and social member of that gender, is a need to be met, not a desire to be fulfilled.

A cancer patient certainly desires treatment. But you still consider chemotherapy a need, not a desire.

 

[qayak]

Sounds good on principle, but the cost of adding a third type of restroom everywhere sounds prohibitive.

It isn't just cost, it's also space. Most places have a finite space with no ability to expand. A restaurant being required to remove 4 tables to make space for another bathroom would be unreasonable. Changing the signs would be simplest but there was a reason they seperated men's and women's bathrooms, going back would be good for men, not so good for women.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're creating a special category for a group that is defining itself as not being a special category but one of the two already special categories. You're solution will not be acceptable.

It's like fixing segregated bathrooms by making keeping the white only and black only bathrooms and adding a third "Not hung up about race" bathroom.

And eventually the demand for special categories would diminish to the point where there's only one bathroom, which being uncategorized is more useful than the two specific bathrooms.

 

[theprestige]

"Uncategorized" isn't really a "third category". The "win" is that everyone who wants access to a bathroom can have it.

Not actually a win. Some people want access to a women's bathroom even though they aren't women, arising not from some casual "nice to have" desire, but from a psychological condition that this access is supposed to treat.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And eventually the demand for special categories would diminish to the point where there's only one bathroom, which being uncategorized is more useful than the two specific bathrooms.

Hey you're preaching to the choir here. I've been advocating a Gordian Knot solution of "Just get rid of separate bathrooms entirely and be done with it" since the 1st page of the thread three threads ago we had about this subject.

Just not sure if it's as viable as your or I want it to be. Philosophical purity and consistancy is great and all, but we live in world where imperfect solutions are required more often then not.

 

[theprestige]

And eventually the demand for special categories would diminish to the point where there's only one bathroom, which being uncategorized is more useful than the two specific bathrooms.

I don't see any evidence that this is a realistic eventuality. I think of gender disphoria as being a kind of allergic reaction to the social construct of gender. And I don't think you'll be able to get away from the social construct of gender, without abolishing gender altogether. Which, maybe someday, but not right now. Solutions that are viable today have to take humanity and society as they are today, not as you wish them to be or plan them to be at a future date.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I disagree that this is a desire and not a need.

Here's my basic argument:
- Transsexuality - gender disphoria - is a psychological infirmity.
- Currently the best course of treatment appears to be treating the transsexual as if they were truly a member of the social category opposite their biological gender.
- Therefore, access to opposite-sex bathrooms, as if a biological and social member of that gender, is a need to be met, not a desire to be fulfilled.

A cancer patient certainly desires treatment. But you still consider chemotherapy a need, not a desire.

Would you argue that a transwoman in a society that practiced FGM or footbinding or forced marriage should undergo those things because it would reinforce her femaleness? If we had unisex bathrooms then the choice of bathrooms wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be required to make anybody feel any sex at all. My compromise of having an uncategorized bathroom available to anyone allows a non-sexual choice. Using it wouldn't boost a transwoman's womanliness, true, but neither would it detract from it. A neutral outcome, what could be a better compromise?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Would you argue that a transwoman in a society that practiced FGM or footbinding or forced marriage should undergo those things because it would reinforce her femaleness? If we had unisex bathrooms then the choice of bathrooms wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be required to make anybody feel any sex at all. My compromise of having an uncategorized bathroom available to anyone allows a non-sexual choice. Using it wouldn't boost a transwoman's womanliness, true, but neither would it detract from it. A neutral outcome, what could be a better compromise?

Because we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room and at least put the possibility that "I want to be a special exception to an established standard so this won't work unless not only is there a rule in a place but I'm allowed to break it" is a factor in at least some of this on the table.

Lisa Simpson only wanting to play on the football team when she thought girls weren't allowed is... a factor in some of this.