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

[kellyb]

Yes its a fair point on convictions vs reports but equally reports can be misleading without really seeing the data.

If we are talking about 150 reports or whatever then how many individuals are we talking about? If the same person is reported on average 2 or 3 times (and I have no idea what that number is in reality) what if one guy was reported 30 times or the same woman made 25 reports?

Or what if 100 of those reports were from 4 or 5 locations and the rest were absolutely in line with or even less than average?

I'm just urging a little bit of caution on jumping to conclusions based on 1 set of data.

No disagreement from me!

For what it's worth, this comedian explains my thoughts on the US controversies over bathroom bills, which are [or were? did they give up on that nonsense?] being promoted to ban transwomen from bathrooms.
He's from Tennessee, like me, but he's from a very rural area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov-ocQpQtrw

 

[Ziggurat]

Except of course for the women that you want to force into men's changing rooms because they are trans.

Presumably trans men want to use the men's changing room. But nothing I said indicates I want to force them to.

 

[kellyb]

Presumably trans men want to use the men's changing room. But nothing I said indicates I want to force them to.

Zig.
Man.
You know what he meant.

I'm promising you, this leads nowhere fruitful other than a convo about the meaning of the word meaning and how that means transwomen are women/not women.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig.
Man.
You know what he meant.

Actually, I don't think I do. It didn't occur to me until your post that he might have meant I'm trying to force transwomen into men's locker rooms. Of course, that's not really true either.

I'm promising you, this leads nowhere fruitful

That accurately describes every interaction with Archie in this thread. Maybe I'll learn one of these days.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sigh... Fine, you need a GRC to enter legally sex-separated facilities (ie facilities segregated by sex under the exceptions listed in the Equality Act 2010). That employers are not allowed to stop people, on the basis of their sex, from using whatever facilities they like has nothing to do with transgenderism but with that sex-segregated facilities for employees do not fall under the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010.

I love the way people keep moving the goalposts here and then acting like I am the one being dishonest.

You were talking about toilets and locker-rooms. I told you that you don't need a GRC and you argued the toss. Then when you are shown the evidence you act as if you were talking about something else.

Sigh indeed.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just interjecting that when we talk about "self ID", there are several different things in play.


There's the legal situation regarding current and proposed law in the UK. There is also the current situation the various jurisdictions of the United States and elsewhere. There is also the desired state among activists in the various places where this is being debated.

So, some posters might be referring to the state of current or future UK law, while other posters might be referring to the US, where there are no such things as Gender Recognition Certificates.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Just interjecting that when we talk about "self ID", there are several different things in play.


There's the legal situation regarding current and proposed law in the UK. There is also the current situation the various jurisdictions of the United States and elsewhere. There is also the desired state among activists in the various places where this is being debated.

So, some posters might be referring to the state of current or future UK law, while other posters might be referring to the US, where there are no such things as Gender Recognition Certificates.

It's incumbent on people who are posting to be clear about the legislation in their own area, and their own objections to the specific proposals.

But if you are objecting to something it should be something real rather than imagined.

 

[qayak]

I like the dude from Alberta, Canada who self identified as female on his government issued identification and saved $1,100.00 on her insurance. Male or female, they're smart.

 

[Belz...]

Ok ... if you disagree with the 1st premise can you tell me how, today, we can determine the objective reality of whether someone is transgender or lying/mistaken? Because I am unaware of any method to do that.

1) Were you only making that premise for this specific instance or in general?

2) I've already answered that. If we determine what transgender means and what it is in objective reality then we can determine if someone is trans.

You have a choice between A and B. Both have benefits and consequences. Your job is to explain why A is better than B, my job is to explain why B is better than A considering all of the benefits and consequences.

My job? No, I can just have the job of criticising A or B without shilling for the other.

 

[Belz...]

Except of course for the women that you want to force into men's changing rooms because they are trans.

I don't think Zig agrees that they're women at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think Zig agrees that they're women at all.

Because this is, always has been, always will be, and indeed never can be anything but a categorization problem.

It's ironic in the extreme that "Gender is fluid" side has been the one to bestow some inherent property to the concepts of male and female.

There's no... problem here.

If I treat Person A the way they want to be treated whether or not I literally internally conceptualize of them as this or that gender is the ultimate in "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" problems.

Newsflash. If you could snap your fingers and just magically make every transphobe literally think of a transwoman as a woman... they would still hate that person. They would just hate the woman who acts like they don't think a woman should act instead of the man who acts like a woman.

 

[Sherkeu]

I don't know and would have to look at the data further but I'm skeptical of claims based on reports rather than convictions.

If you want me to speculate there could be reasons including:

1. Women being much more likely to report the same behaviour from a 'man' as they do from a 'woman'
2. Women being jumpy and reporting things that don't warrant reporting because they are uncomfortable
3. People who don't like unisex facilities reporting things , or even inventing things, to get unisex facilities stopped.
4. It says that unisex facilities are a way to cut staff so it may be that these places are understaffed anyway.
5. There may be something else going on entirely that we don't know about, there could be a handful of bad locations which just happen to be unisex.

Or of course a genuine increase.

It's worth remembering that what we are discussing here is not unisex facilities, but accepting transwomen into women's facilities. So it's a different thing.

The reason is quite obvious to me:

Hidden cameras.

Look at the internet results for voyeurs being arrested and you will find plenty of examples. These men get pretty creative with how they try to get photos and videos of women/girls in those spaces.

It's only when someone spots the camera that the man is arrested (and as far as I can tell, it is always a man). Many, I assume are not caught since some have been found with hundreds or even thousands of videos/photos taken covertly over many years.

Trying to record in a women's-only space requires some stealth, but unisex spaces have no barriers.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

1) Were you only making that premise for this specific instance or in general?

2) I've already answered that. If we determine what transgender means and what it is in objective reality then we can determine if someone is trans.



My job? No, I can just have the job of criticising A or B without shilling for the other.

1) I am talking about what we are capable of actually doing in order to make the decisions that we need to do, not some theoretical future where we may have that info.

Your point 2 is something that can happen in the future. For now we have to decide what we do without that information.

All I am saying is that we can't rely on information we don't have, so we need to put that aside and work with what we do have. We can't obtain any objective truth currently (and I'm not sure we ever can) so we have to use the subjective information we have.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think Zig agrees that they're women at all.

I think you might be right. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion. And I will give it the appropriate weight in my considerations. Of course his opinion doesn't change anything about what is actually happening.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If I treat Person A the way they want to be treated whether or not I literally internally conceptualize of them as this or that gender .

If you treat Person A the way they want to be treated then they literally would not be able to tell whether you conceptualise them one way or another.

The problem is people using their internal conceptions to decree whether one person or another is sufficiently of one gender or another to allow them to be treated as they wish to be.

 

[kellyb]

The reason is quite obvious to me:

Hidden cameras.

Look at the internet results for voyeurs being arrested and you will find plenty of examples. These men get pretty creative with how they try to get photos and videos of women/girls in those spaces.

It's only when someone spots the camera that the man is arrested (and as far as I can tell, it is always a man). Many, I assume are not caught since some have been found with hundreds or even thousands of videos/photos taken covertly over many years.

Trying to record in a women's-only space requires some stealth, but unisex spaces have no barriers.

Well THAT just gave me a whole new thing to be paranoid about.

Ummm...thanks? lol

Jesus.

I have no idea what to make of that line of argument.

 

[Rolfe]

This was something I only became aware of recently. Apparently you can find these miniature "bathroom cameras" on sale all over the internet, disguised as coat hooks and things like that. I also believe there is a flourishing porn genre of images uploaded from these cameras of unsuspecting women performing intimate tasks in what they fondly imagine is privacy.

It something even normal single-use unisex toilets such as they have in small venues where there is only room for one toilet have found to be a problem. It has blown up in the new trend for designating all ladies loos "gender neutral" or "unisex" which actually means mixed sex. Staff say they have to check these places for cameras on a regular basis, and who knows if they catch the cleverly disguised ones.

With sex-segregated facilities it is more difficult for a man to gain entrance to plant the camera. Now all he has to do is to go in as if he has every right to be there (which he has), plant the camera, and wait.

And before anyone asks, no I never ever heard of a case of a woman planting a hidden camera to film men using gents' facilities.

 

[Meadmaker]

The naivete that surrounds some of these issues never ceases to amaze me. The good news, ladies, is that most men would not look forward to watching hidden camera footage filmed in a toilet stall. The bad news is that "most" still leaves an awful lot of exceptions.

And hidden camera footage in shower stalls? Different story.

When I read about the greater incidence of sexual assault, harassment, and voyeurism in unisex facilities, my only reaction was, "Yeah? Go figure." and also wondering what constitutes "voyeurism" in such a place. I certainly didn't assume that it was due to false reports by "jumpy" women.

 

[kellyb]

The naivete that surrounds some of these issues never ceases to amaze me. The good news, ladies, is that most men would not look forward to watching hidden camera footage filmed in a toilet stall. The bad news is that "most" still leaves an awful lot of exceptions.

And hidden camera footage in shower stalls? Different story.
When I read about the greater incidence of sexual assault, harassment, and voyeurism in unisex facilities, my only reaction was, "Yeah? Go figure." and also wondering what constitutes "voyeurism" in such a place. I certainly didn't assume that it was due to false reports by "jumpy" women.

I was thinking of the "family" changing rooms at the pool near me which I mentioned upthread. It really isn't a risky thing going on there in terms of likelihood of assaults.

I'll assuming workers regularly "sweep" for hidden cameras there, though.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Cis men will disguise themselves as women (rather than as cleaners, maintenance men, or just waiting for a quiet moment), to install secret genitalia cams does sound a teensy bit paranoid to my admittedly male ears...