Trans Women are not Women

[JoeMorgue]

Then it should be super easy to come up with a specific example of a transwoman rejecting the third bathroom option.

You're missing the point. I'm saying if there isn't, that's raising some questions as well.

Either they aren't going to be okay with this solution or they aren't being honest as to what the actual problem is.

 

[TragicMonkey]

TM has brought up things like actively transitioning in a medical sense, but that goes completely against the "gender identity" thing and takes right back to "You're not an X, you just want to be" and if that's where we are at AGAIN IS THE PROBLEM?

I was asked for my personal opinion and I gave it. I do not suggest using that opinion as the basis for any public policy. I'm not very interested in the question of who fits into what category, I'd rather people got comfortable with not belonging to categories.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I was asked for my personal opinion and I gave it. I do not suggest using that opinion as the basis for any public policy. I'm not very interested in the question of who fits into what category, I'd rather people got comfortable with not belonging to categories.

I agree. I've been arguing the "There's no gender differences outside of pure biology so none of this makes any kind of sense" and getting "Transphobe!" yelled at me for it this entire thread.

I'm just saying we can't pretend like "My literal argument is I belong to this category without modifiers" isn't the point the other side is making.

 

[d4m10n]

Either they aren't going to be okay with this solution or they aren't being honest as to what the actual problem is.

One of the problems with this thread (and discourse on gender issues more generally) is that we only really hear from people on one side of the debate. If there aren't any transwomen to explain where they're coming from, we're stuck with speculation like this, or (at best) quotes from public activists.

 

[theprestige]

I think that in order to use those rooms an individual should have made actual real steps to transition. Someone who hasn't taken hormones, who doesn't dress appropriate to the sex they declare, who isn't living like that sex doesn't strike me as being genuine in their transness. Declarations alone don't demonstrate reality. Changing sex requires an enormous amount of work. If someone's not going to do any of the work why should they be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the labor?

Which incidentally is a very Catholic POV: "faith alone" is just thinking nice thoughts. You've got to do something for it to count.

But that's all just my personal opinion, I have neither the means or the desire to make other people abide by it.

Fair enough.

That raises a lot of problems, though, for which there are no solutions currently on the table.

What does it mean to dress like a woman? Who gets to decide if you're femme enough to use the women's bathroom?

Who gets to see your medical records, proving a sufficient degree of transitional effort?

Why should a pre-op transsexual be barred from the bathroom their condition calls for, simply because they haven't yet had the good fortune to be two or three years farther along in their transition? Etc.

Part of the reason "just take them at their word" is being proposed is because these are very difficult questions to answer. Most of the answers end up being either intolerably intrusive, or putting too much power in the hands of the mob, or both.

On the other hand, "just take them at their word" undermines the social norms and expectations that underpin the current honor system for bathroom access. Right now, today, a woman can stand at the door of the ladies' room and legitimately block access to anyone who looks like a dude. And for the most part, if the dude tries to go in anyway, she can legitimately use force to keep him out. He can be arrested for trespassing, harassment, and probably some kind of hate crime.

"Take them at their word" does away with that. The woman in this scenario goes from being an important social gatekeeper to being the actual hate criminal. The risk, raised by Rolfe and others, is that predatory men who were previously deterred by this social gatekeeping will be emboldened to ignore the honor system and make their moves.

The risk alone is sufficient for me to conclude that we should hesitate before implementing "take them at their word". But none of the alternatives seem particularly workable either.

Your third bathroom has some advantages, in that it gives femme transwomen a safe place to go, without opening the "who gatekeeps the ladies' room" can of worms. But it's not always a practical solution (cost of retrofitting, opportunity costs for that floor space, etc.). And it's still a compromise WRT trans-identity, which doesn't really seem fair to transpeople.

As solutions go, your compromise seems like a bit of a compromise. It's not a meeting in the middle kind of solution. It's more of a stopgap while we try to figure out the more difficult problems as a society over time. It eases a bit of the pain for a little while, but the real problems are still there, and still need to be solved somehow.

 

[Francesca R]

Then it should be super easy to come up with a specific example of a transwoman rejecting the third bathroom option.

It is super easy. A substantial part of the trans lobby calls for access to female (and presumably male) bathrooms based on trans-identity and rejects gender-neutral or third options as not a solution for them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

One of the problems with this thread (and discourse on gender issues more generally) is that we only really hear from people on one side of the debate. If there aren't any transwomen to explain where they're coming from, we're stuck with speculation like this, or (at best) quotes from public activists.

Well I don't what you expect out of any of us when we have no data to work with, yet we're still somehow transphobes for not agreeing with the opinions that apparently nobody actually has.

Here we go. I give absolutely no cares about who's in the bathroom stall next to me. I don't care if it's a man, a woman, a woman who identifies as a man, a man who identifies as a woman, a person 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% in the process of transitioning from X to Y or vice versa, if they are in jeans or a skirt... I... don't... care. Just wash your hands when you're done.

That's as good as I can give right now. If that's not good enough, I give up.

 

[Steve]

This thread is interesting to me because it sheds light on a world that I, my family, and my friends have apparently never experienced.

I have never seen or known of anyone harassed or assaulted in a public restroom of dressing room based on what they were wearing.

I have never noticed anyone loitering in a public restroom or dressing room with the apparent purpose of scoping out the other users.

I have, on rare occasions, seen women use a men's room at a public venue when the women's room lineups were outrageous. This was accepted good naturedly by the men present at the time. No harassment or crude remarks.

I have never had reason to feel uncomfortable in public facility due to the gender and/or sexual identity of any other person present.

My wife, in her 60's, and our daughter, age 17, say they have never seen a man dressed in male clothing enter or use a public designated female washroom or change room.

They both concede that they may have seen males dressed as women in public washrooms designated as female. They both say that they "may have" because they generally pay only cursory attention to the other occupants.

They say that the have never had any issues with a person, regardless of their appearance and clothing, harassing or assaulting another restroom user.

They have never noticed another restroom user loitering in the room for the apparent purpose of scoping out the other users.

They have never had cause to feel uncomfortable, due to the gender and/or sexual identity, of any other user/occupant of a public female facility.

I have never had a friend or acquaintance come out of a washroom at a bar or similar venue and say "there was this weird thing happening in the washroom....." that would suggest issues of the type being discussed here.

I accept at face value the experiences described by posters in this thread. Posters are basing their opinions on their own life experiences and this is totally valid to me. I am sure these type of things do happen and I think it is reasonable to seek a solution.

I do wonder if there are particular locations/areas of a city, country, the world where these experiences occur with enough frequency that specific accommodation is required to alter the status quo and reduce or eliminate the frequency. Some of the more prolific posters in this thread seem to be located in the UK. Is it possible that this is a bigger issue there than North America?

I am not really looking for responses to this post. I just thought it might be interesting for some here to read a different personal view.

 

[Steve]

Well I don't what you expect out of any of us when we have no data to work with, yet we're still somehow transphobes for not agreeing with the opinions that apparently nobody actually has.

Here we go. I give absolutely no cares about who's in the bathroom stall next to me. I don't care if it's a man, a woman, a woman who identifies as a man, a man who identifies as a woman, a person 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% in the process of transitioning from X to Y or vice versa, if they are in jeans or a skirt... I... don't... care. Just wash your hands when you're done.
That's as good as I can give right now. If that's not good enough, I give up.

My position exactly. Unfortunately there are some to whom it does matter. Sexual predators are frequently raised as an argument to retain segregation. On that topic there is come interesting info here (may have been linked before but I will not search through 3,000 posts to check):

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...-guide-debunked-bathroom-predator-myth/210200

 

[Meadmaker]

Then it should be super easy to come up with a specific example of a transwoman rejecting the third bathroom option.

Lila Perry.
Colleen Brenna.

(Several others that have filed lawsuits, or been the subject of lawsuits, but whose names I don't remember.)

 

[Darat]

And that's fine in some perfect fantasy world, but here in the real world that solution is taken off the table when the group in question is granted "victim" status.

No it isn't. Unfortunately nutters these days can grab the headlines because it generates more revenue than the non extremists having a discussion but so far, at least here in the UK we certainly do tell some people "this is what you are going to get". Noise is often mistaken as meaning something in its self.

 

[Darat]

The idea of a compromise isn't really letting one side win and the other side lose. That's . . . .letting one side win and the other side lose.



The floated idea is seeking to "compromise" an issue which is not the conflict of objectives.

No it isn't. You have two groups , one who says they don't want to use the male toilets *because* they no longer consider themselves male and want to use the female toilets. The other side is saying doesn't matter what you think you are we don't want you in with us.

So TM's idea is to help deal with the "because".

Not ideal but is better than the current status for those that want to now use female toilets.

 

[Darat]

Apparently you refer to women who oppose natal males having unfettered access to female-only space as extremists.

But you also apparently endorse a proposal that fully accedes to their demand.

I assure you that you are going to satisfy this ("extremist") group with this third way.

Why wouldn't you be happy with TM's compromise, the people you don't want in your toilets won't be in your toilets?. In terms of "victory" I'd say your side is more victorious than the other side.

 

[theprestige]

No it isn't. You have two groups , one who says they don't want to use the male toilets *because* they no longer consider themselves male and want to use the female toilets. The other side is saying doesn't matter what you think you are we don't want you in with us.

So TM's idea is to help deal with the "because".

Not ideal but is better than the current status for those that want to now use female toilets.

You've got it wrong, though. It's not that they don't want to use male toilets. It's that they do want to use female toilets.

The proper formulation is:

You have two groups , one who says they want to use the female toilets *because* they now consider themselves female and want to use the female toilets. The other side is saying doesn't matter what you think you are we don't want you in with us.

So TM's idea doesn't really deal with the "because" at all.

It's a subtle distinction, but a very important one.

 

[Darat]

But that's my point. "Defining womanhood" (or similar related concepts like gender identity) isn't some minor side issue, it's the discussion. Take that away and there's no debate to have that we need to compromise over.

Your solution doesn't "work" because if you could implement the compromise you suggest, the debate we're having by definition wouldn't exist in the first place.

It's like if you have a group of people arguing over whether to have burgers or pizza for dinner and your solution is to make a third group; "Not hungry."

If you're not hungry you're already not arguing over if you want to eat pizza or burgers.

The people who don't have some valid interest in defining womanhood (again or some similar topic perhaps conceptualized a different way) already aren't in this discussion.

But we often finds rights, social changes are a consequence of many small steps , many small changes, not everything is solved with a single leap. You can see for both sides toilets are a huge issue therefore this tackles that particular issue in a pragmatic way. The next problem may be another small step and so on.

 

[caveman1917]

Why wouldn't you be happy with TM's compromise, the people you don't want in your toilets won't be in your toilets?. In terms of "victory" I'd say your side is more victorious than the other side.

I think you misunderstood what she said, she said that you would satisfy their demand with that proposal.

 

[Darat]

They already have one!



I mean, if you can't get the basics of the topic straight, how can you hope to discuss it?







More lies. You know for a fact that this isn't what's being discussed. Hell, you can't even get the concept of compromise right.

Nope one of the groups states they don't have a toilet that is the trans people this gives them a toilet.

 

[Francesca R]

Why wouldn't you be happy with TM's compromise, the people you don't want in your toilets won't be in your toilets?. In terms of "victory" I'd say your side is more victorious than the other side.

I already said I would be. Nobody has identified any (non trans) woman who would not be. I would say my "side" is completely victorious. In fact that is what I did say. Meanwhile the transwomen who want to use the female toilet (and not a third toilet because they reject that as a solution) would be completely denied. I said that too.

That's why it isn't a compromise. Me saying it is not a compromise does not indicate I do not support it and I dunno why it appears otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

Nope one of the groups states they don't have a toilet that is the trans people this gives them a toilet.

Nobody says they don't have a toilet. They're saying they'd rather use the other one. Either way they have one.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Who gets to use what toilet" has reached the law and court level here in the states.

"People aren't going to be happy using the toilet of their non-preferred gender" isn't some strawman we've made up.