Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[caveman1917]

How does that work exactly?

A male person performing such behaviour in the female changing room is reportable, for being male in the female changing room. Out of every 100 people who would perform such behaviour in the female changing room about 95 will be male and 5 will be female. By excluding the males (aka sex-segregated spaces) you stop 95% of it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What I'm saying is that inasmuch as transgenderism is a real thing, and I believe that it is, determining which cases are instances of it require more than a person's own word; not just because one may lie, but primarily because one may be mistaken. Especially very young people, who can be confused about a lot of things, with their hormones going off the scale, and who can be coaxed by similarily-confused, or misguided parents.

As for the legal requirement, I can't know exactly what it should be, but as I said, if we know the biological/neurological mechanism, then we can make an objective determination, and then medical professionals can certify a person's status much more reliably.

Thanks for that, this is helpful. I think the problem we are going to have here is that you are going to have to determine the objective reality of a subjective experience. Which I don't see how you do.

The question on Self-ID therefore is not about what trumps objective reality but whether we believe the subjective opinion of the person, or whether we rely on the subjective opinion of a doctor based on the self-reported subjective opinion of the patient. objective reality doesn't really enter into it as there is no way to determine the objective reality.

From my perspective I don't have a serious issue with requiring a medical report but it is not practical when there is a limited number of accredited doctors and/or high fees to obtain the certification.

If it could done by your own GP then it might not be so bad, but I have also seen people say that a doctors opinion is worthless anyway because they can be persuaded and/or intimidated. They will accused of transphobia if they refuse the cert, etc.

So where we are today is that:

1. We cannot rely on objective reality
2. We don't have a system that works for the current needs of the patients
3. An alternative is proposed that resolves (2)

So given the choice we only really have the status quo, self-ID or some possible as yet undefined third approach. So I think it's incumbent on those to oppose Self-ID to either say why they think the status quo is better or propose a third alternative that can be implemented that would be better than both.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A male person performing such behaviour in the female changing room is reportable, for being male in the female changing room.

Not according to CURRENT UK law they aren't.

Out of every 100 people who would perform such behaviour in the female changing room about 95 will be male and 5 will be female. By excluding the males (aka sex-segregated spaces) you stop 95% of it.

And about 0.6 of them will be transwomen. So it would be far more beneficial to allow transwomen into the changing rooms and ban lesbians. By your maths.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

YMMV is exactly it.

Do you have this? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/voyeuristic-disorder

I don't know. Would anyone believe me if I self-ID'd that I have?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's the difference between 'just saying the words' and 'making a legal declaration to the government to a specific set of criteria under pain of jail if you are dishonest about it'

What are the specific set of criteria here? There are none. Being transgender requires nothing other than declaring oneself to be transgender. There is no standard by which such a declaration can be declared wrong.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Possible jail time isn't a deterrent to the determined. Some people go to great lengths to peep :

This was just the first hit on the search I did, there are others. Not to say, of course, that all trans people are voyeurs. The point being made repeatedly is if the bar to being considered a woman is set to self ID only then you'll invariably get voyeurs doing their thing in the guise of being trans.

This is quite different than standing next to someone while they get changed. This behaviour would be illegal no matter what happens with Self ID. Self-ID would not allow someone access to occupied toilet cubicles or toilet bowls.

 

[caveman1917]

I think I have said before I just don't see it being anywhere like a significant issue. No doubt it will happen, but EVERYTHING happens once somewhere.

Data has been given up-thread showing a significantly higher incidence of such occurrences in uni-sex facilities than single-sex facilities in the UK - just "not seeing it" would be properly termed willful blindness.

And again, it's nothing to do with Self-ID, this situation is already the law here in the UK. Men can legally access women's lockerrooms if they are transgender.

But the self-ID being promoted is the removal of the requirement of gender dysphoria.

 

[Joe Random]

This is quite different than standing next to someone while they get changed. This behaviour would be illegal no matter what happens with Self ID. Self-ID would not allow someone access to occupied toilet cubicles or toilet bowls.

The point is you'd made the remark that you wouldn't risk jail time just to catch a glimpse of a naked woman. However there are a number of men who were willing to sit in human waste just to watch women/girls pee. So if you have people who are that driven to peep who are then given the option of simply self-IDing (if the law were to change as posited) as a woman to be given access to locker rooms, showers etc. I think their uptake rate on that would be rather high. "I was wiling to stand in human **** all day to catch a glimpse of bare ass, but now I can just say 'I'm a woman' and I get to shower next to them? Where do I sign?".

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What are the specific set of criteria here? There are none. Being transgender requires nothing other than declaring oneself to be transgender. There is no standard by which such a declaration can be declared wrong.

That's simply not true.

Look... I am transgender.... nothing happened. I am not magically transgender.
I did not become transgender by saying it.

There is a standard by which the declaration could be proved wrong. See Perjury Act 1911 Section 5. In other words if the judge decides you were lying you will be in the deep deep doo-doo.

 

[caveman1917]

Not according to CURRENT UK law they aren't.

Sure they are. Of the about 33 million male persons in the UK, only about 4000 have a GRC, so about 99.99% percent of male persons can definitely be reported and removed for being in a female-only single-sex space.

And about 0.6 of them will be transwomen. So it would be far more beneficial to allow transwomen into the changing rooms and ban lesbians. By your maths.

No, I double-checked and 95 is definitely bigger than 5.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Data has been given up-thread showing a significantly higher incidence of such occurrences in uni-sex facilities than single-sex facilities in the UK - just "not seeing it" would be properly termed willful blindness.

But the self-ID being promoted is the removal of the requirement of gender dysphoria.

Can you link to that data because I have been out of the thread until recently. Thanks.

Your second paragraph seems confused or confusing. Self ID has nothing to do with accessing locker rooms or toilets. Self ID is about getting a GRC to legally change sex.

 

[caveman1917]

Can you link to that data because I have been out of the thread until recently. Thanks.

It was in one of Rolfe's posts, I'm not going to look for it. It was discussed at one point.

Your second paragraph seems confused or confusing. Self ID has nothing to do with accessing locker rooms or toilets. Self ID is about getting a GRC to legally change sex.

Self ID is about getting a GRC without needing gender dysphoria to legally change sex, allowing one access to single-sex spaces of the other sex. The current law is about getting a GRC while needing gender dysphoria to legally change sex, allowing one access to single-sex spaces of the other sex.

Can you spot the difference between these two? Like I said, self ID is the removal of the requirement for gender dysphoria.

 

[TomB]

I think the idea of self-ID is doing away with the requirement for the medical reports, but the rest of this is accurate.

(I may be the one who misunderstands)

I think the 2 years was also reduced to 3 months.

 

[kellyb]

And shouldn't the risk of a male-bodied person leering be just another calculated risk as well then?

It would be. There's no should or should not in the situation. Do you accept that the calculations are different with and without male-bodies people being present? That the risk of something bad happening would be increased?

 

[Belz...]

I think the problem we are going to have here is that you are going to have to determine the objective reality of a subjective experience.

It's not easy, but we actually do it all the time. We can determine that someone is lying when they say one thing that is contradicted by reality, and which we know they are aware of. We can determine that a certain claim of pain is psychosomatic. We can determine that someone's opinion is mistaken, etc. Some of these might be more difficult to reliably determine than others, but it can be done, and given the stakes, here, I think it's worth looking into it.

The question on Self-ID therefore is not about what trumps objective reality but whether we believe the subjective opinion of the person, or whether we rely on the subjective opinion of a doctor based on the self-reported subjective opinion of the patient. objective reality doesn't really enter into it as there is no way to determine the objective reality.

I don't agree with that in any way, shape or form. In fact, I'd say this is probably the single statement I disagree with the most of any statement I've ever been exposed to.

If it could done by your own GP then it might not be so bad, but I have also seen people say that a doctors opinion is worthless anyway because they can be persuaded and/or intimidated.

Yeah, that can be an issue, but certainly a professional's opinion is more reliable than someone's untrained perspective. And I think that our gut feeling that we know ourselves better than others may is often misguided.

1. We cannot rely on objective reality
2. We don't have a system that works for the current needs of the patients
3. An alternative is proposed that resolves (2)

Well I disagree with your first premise to begin with.

So given the choice we only really have the status quo, self-ID or some possible as yet undefined third approach. So I think it's incumbent on those to oppose Self-ID to either say why they think the status quo is better or propose a third alternative that can be implemented that would be better than both.

Except that the proposed solution is not without consequence. Given that we're talking about tiny percentage of the population, the question right now should be whether the purported negative consequences are expected to outweigh the benefits to that segment of the population.

 

[Belz...]

That's simply not true.

Look... I am transgender.... nothing happened. I am not magically transgender.
I did not become transgender by saying it.

There is a standard by which the declaration could be proved wrong. See Perjury Act 1911 Section 5. In other words if the judge decides you were lying you will be in the deep deep doo-doo.

Yeah but say you go into a women's restroom and, upon being seen by a woman there, you're asked "what are you doing here?". You could just answer "how dare you question my gender? I'm a woman in every way that counts and I have every right to be here just as you do. Are you transphobic?" and what can she say to that, in this day and age? Are you expected to carry papers with you identifying you as trans?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If we've thrown "objective reality" out the window as a factor then this has stopped bordering on absurd and has fully invaded absurd, occupied absurd, and has set up a puppet government in absurd's capital city.

Like Belz said that isn't just wrong, it's the wrongest wronged that ever wronged a wrong.

And I get called a transphobe when I call it a "Gender Soul."

 

[Belz...]

If we've thrown "objective reality" out the window as a factor then this has stopped bordering on absurd and has fully invaded absurd, occupied absurd, and has set up a puppet government in absurd's capital city.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's simply not true.

Look... I am transgender.... nothing happened. I am not magically transgender.
I did not become transgender by saying it.

If you tell me you are transgender, how can I tell that you aren't?

There is a standard by which the declaration could be proved wrong. See Perjury Act 1911 Section 5. In other words if the judge decides you were lying you will be in the deep deep doo-doo.

If a judge decided you're lying but you're actually telling the truth, you're in deep deep doo-doo. So that doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that the legal system has power over you.

But how does a judge decide this? He has no method to do so. There are no rules, there is no precedent. If he invents a method himself, he risks being labelled transphobic.

 

[TomB]

I have ideas, but I can't provide you with chapter and verse so I would only be speculating. I imagine what would happen in practice if it was say a private gym is that if they had several complaints about the same person then the manager would speak to them about it. And if they continued they would probably be asked to leave the gym and not come back.

You would think. But would that be the end of it?

If you are a gym owner, I think you would think long and hard about asking a person who claimed to be transgender to leave. Not only due to the threat of legal action, but for PR reasons. The person you ask to leave gets first shot at making the issue public and therefore gets to frame the narrative.

Remember, it's getting so that just the act of questioning someone's gender or presence in gendered spaces can be framed as trans-phobic. And that is a problem.

I think it would have to go beyond just acting a bit odd to merit police involvement.

Well, yeah. And that's part of the problem. Behavior that makes other people uncomfortable but manages not to cross the line into criminal is a real problem even though it's hard to counter. I can sit on a park bench and stare at people in a way that makes them uncomfortable. The fact that the police can't do crap about it doesn't make me any less creepy.

Is it actually a calculated risk, or is it just something you give no thought to?
And shouldn't the risk of a male-bodied person leering be just another calculated risk as well then?

Oh, for....
Women deal with men leering all day in public spaces. The private spaces are kind of a refuge from that. Why do you seek to minimize this?

I think I have said before I just don't see it being anywhere like a significant issue. No doubt it will happen, but EVERYTHING happens once somewhere. And again, it's nothing to do with Self-ID, this situation is already the law here in the UK. Men can legally access women's lockerrooms if they are transgender.

I think part of the problem comes from the combination of lowering the bar combined with the concepts of gender fluidity and gender as a spectrum. (Concepts that I'm not positive are universally accepted by trans people, by the way.)

You have what is at least perceived to be the same movement saying it should be easier to change your legal gender also saying that some people are "gender fluid" and may be a different gender at different times.