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

[kellyb]

The young of today...

It's usually people age 50 and under in the US, from what I can tell.

All of it seem weird to me, too, though, but I'm not into selfies. They're just not my thing. Other people find it fun. I was told as a teen to never put any personally identifying information on the internet at all, ever, though.

 

[theprestige]

Darat had said:



There's no potential "ogling done" in a toilet stall.

My bad. I was using "toilets" as shorthand for "women's locker rooms and similar traditional safe spaces where women could expose themselves in a communal setting segregated from the male gaze". Which I think includes most public restrooms to one degree or another, but that's not central to my argument.

I'd really like to get beyond this pointless bickering about terminology. I think we already agree that there are women's safe spaces that are currently protected by social and legal barriers against abusive men. And I think we also agree that lifting such barriers to accommodate transwomen necessarily opens those spaces to abusive men as well, to a greater degree than before. Who cares what we mean by "toilets"? What we mean by this discussion is those safe spaces, and the pros and cons of different policies for access to them.

Bringing up spaces other than those spaces just adds confusion where before there was clarity.

 

[Darat]

Thanks!







This seems about as good as reasonably possible, but it does have some trade-offs that should probably be recognized.



For these trade-offs, I assume that transgender people are dealing with a legitimate and stressful personal issue. I also assume that one thing that helps them is to try to accommodate their gender self-construct as much as (reasonably) possible.



We have to draw the line somewhere, and this seems to be more or less the right place to draw it. But consider:



Requiring proof of medical transition at any stage is going to make acceptance at that stage a regressive policy. Only people who can afford the procedure can enjoy the entitlement. This is going to be hard on transpeople who can't afford the procedure.



Requiring proof of transition to enter a women's space is also going to be problematic. It upends some existing legal and social norms. If a woman in the locker room demands to see another woman's transition paperwork, is that legitimate? Is the transwoman required to produce it on demand?

Well in the UK (caveat healthcare cuts not withstanding) cost isn't an issue in regards to the medical diagnosis.

As for a request for "papers please" to use a particular toilet, should be down to the owners how they want to handle that but really can't see any need. Yes some people for whatever reasons will try to "cheat" the system but they should be dealt with the same way as we do today if a woman enters a male loo and vice a versa. Personally I think the loo side will not be an issue once us oldies die out.

As for changing rooms, again it will be quite obvious if someone with the opposite set of genitals to the changing room's designation (or equivalent if you want to get technical about creating the appearance of a particular sex's genitals). This would mean a woman like Rolfe would not be expected to have to shower alongside a trans man with a beard, bald head and meat & 2 veg and of course he would not be expected to have to shower with a woman. Again the current legal prohibitions and so could be used to deal with those that currently breach the laws etc.

 

[Darat]

The young of today...

My female friends in their 70s sending me loo selfies will be most pleased to know they are considered the "young of today".....

 

[Darat]

My bad. I was using "toilets" as shorthand for "women's locker rooms and similar traditional safe spaces where women could expose themselves in a communal setting segregated from the male gaze". Which I think includes most public restrooms to one degree or another, but that's not central to my argument.



I'd really like to get beyond this pointless bickering about terminology. I think we already agree that there are women's safe spaces that are currently protected by social and legal barriers against abusive men. And I think we also agree that lifting such barriers to accommodate transwomen necessarily opens those spaces to abusive men as well, to a greater degree than before. Who cares what we mean by "toilets"? What we mean by this discussion is those safe spaces, and the pros and cons of different policies for access to them.



Bringing up spaces other than those spaces just adds confusion where before there was clarity.

Disagree, what goes on in a certain location is often the reason for the separation of the sexes so you can't just hand wave it away and lump everything in together with each other.

 

[theprestige]

I wish I had ideas on what sort of laws are best in cases like this, but I don't.

This is one of those trans issues where I'm glad I'm not a policy-maker, so I can just deem the whole thing "above my paygrade". I guess if I had to make the laws, I'd defer to the parent following this.

In a democratic society, this seems like an abdication of your responsibility as a citizen. It's literally your job to evaluate policy and judge the policy-makers you elect.

 

[theprestige]

Disagree, what goes on in a certain location is often the reason for the separation of the sexes so you can't just hand wave it away and lump everything in together with each other.

Actually, I think we agree on this point. I think toilets are a red herring, though. Toilets are relatively easy. Changing rooms and communal showers are not. Let's talk about those, since your excellent post skipped over them completely.

 

[Rolfe]

"certain circles" meaning pretty much most people who take selfies.....

The young of today...

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually, I think we agree on this point. I think toilets are a red herring, though. Toilets are relatively easy. Changing rooms and communal showers are not. Let's talk about those, since your excellent post skipped over them completely.

No it didn't. One of his paragraphs started with "changing rooms". I assume the subsequent "such as" meant "including but not limited to".

 

[Meadmaker]

I can't understand any fuss about Darat's "official gender" proposal.

If I go back 20 years, a biological male discovered in the women's bathroom would be evicted/beaten up/arrested, or some combination thereof, with no recourse. There weren't guards or genital checkers or anything else. However, on incredibly rare occasions, someone accused someone of being the wrong sex for their location.

The only change Darat's proposal makes is that it gives the biological male a way to demonstrate that she has a legal right to use the space. That's a step up from days of yore.

The only alternative would be to just allow anyone to use any bathroom, with no possibility of challenging their presence. Some people might like that, but others do not.

 

[Rolfe]

Are you just going to give a certificate to any biological male who asks for it? Either by setting such a low bar that nobody can be excluded, or by pressurising whoever is responsible for issuing the certificates into not refusing anyone under pain of being smeared as a transphobe?

Because it that's the case it's not much good for women is it? You just gave away our rights again, because it's so much more important that a man who declares he's trans doesn't suffer any inconvenience or heaven forfend hurt feelings, than it is that women should feel comfortable and safe.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you just going to give a certificate to any biological male who asks for it? Either by setting such a low bar that nobody can be excluded, or by pressurising whoever is responsible for issuing the certificates into not refusing anyone under pain of being smeared as a transphobe?

Because it that's the case it's not much good for women is it? You just gave away our rights again, because it's so much more important that a man who declares he's trans doesn't suffer any inconvenience or heaven forfend hurt feelings, than it is that women should feel comfortable and safe.

Darat's proposal, which I agree with, imposes more conditions than that.

Yes, this still means that biological males can end up in the women's toilet, but the additional requirements should keep out the pretenders. The alternative would be to completely refuse to acknowledge transgender people. Some people may like that, but others do not.

 

[Earthborn]

As for a request for "papers please" to use a particular toilet, should be down to the owners how they want to handle that but really can't see any need. Yes some people for whatever reasons will try to "cheat" the system but they should be dealt with the same way as we do today if a woman enters a male loo and vice a versa.

Do you want it based on official gender or not? If you don't want anyone checking people's official gender and want to deal with it the same way we do now, the answer is "not".

 

[kellyb]

Are you just going to give a certificate to any biological male who asks for it? Either by setting such a low bar that nobody can be excluded, or by pressurising whoever is responsible for issuing the certificates into not refusing anyone under pain of being smeared as a transphobe?

Because it that's the case it's not much good for women is it? You just gave away our rights again, because it's so much more important that a man who declares he's trans doesn't suffer any inconvenience or heaven forfend hurt feelings, than it is that women should feel comfortable and safe.

Are doctors really worried about being smeared over following medical guidelines?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are doctors really worried about being smeared over following medical guidelines?

What are the guidelines?

And yes, I suspect they probably are worried about that. If the guidelines are subjective (and I don't know how they could be written otherwise at this point), then what they consider following the guidelines may not be what the mob considers following the guidelines. I bet there's intense pressure to use the guidelines as permissively as possible, or else risk the wrath of the activist mob.

 

[Earthborn]

The alternative would be to completely refuse to acknowledge transgender people.

Darat's proposal completely refuses to acknowledge transgender people. He argues that people should live fully as their preferred gender for 2 years before they can change their official gender, and he argues that they need a change in their official gender for an aspect of fully living as their preferred gender. A is a precondition to B, and B is a precondition to A.

 

[Darat]

Actually, I think we agree on this point. I think toilets are a red herring, though. Toilets are relatively easy. Changing rooms and communal showers are not. Let's talk about those, since your excellent post skipped over them completely.

I mentioned changing rooms.

 

[Darat]

Are you just going to give a certificate to any biological male who asks for it? Either by setting such a low bar that nobody can be excluded, or by pressurising whoever is responsible for issuing the certificates into not refusing anyone under pain of being smeared as a transphobe?

Because it that's the case it's not much good for women is it? You just gave away our rights again, because it's so much more important that a man who declares he's trans doesn't suffer any inconvenience or heaven forfend hurt feelings, than it is that women should feel comfortable and safe.

I've already said I favour medical diagnosis and a long period of living as the gender you wish to become. What's wrong with that approach?

 

[Darat]

Darat's proposal completely refuses to acknowledge transgender people. He argues that people should live fully as their preferred gender for 2 years before they can change their official gender, and he argues that they need a change in their official gender for an aspect of fully living as their preferred gender. A is a precondition to B, and B is a precondition to A.

No not quite. It would mean during the two years they wouldn't have the legal rights of those born as the gender they want to change to. This does of course mean they are in a grey "no person land" and will make some aspects of their lives difficult, but it is only for 2 years. Again this is not perfect and won't please either "side" but I think it is probably the only compromise that has a chance of working.

ETA: thinking about what you said about my ideas are refusing to acknowledge trans folk, that obviously can't be the case since my scheme gives trans folk a way to change their gender. On a more philosophical level in a way many trans folk do indeed want trans genderism to disappear, they don't want to be known as a transperson and be considered and treated as something different to being a the gender they wish to be. Sadly where society is at the moment we are long away from that being accepted.

 

[kellyb]

What are the guidelines?

And yes, I suspect they probably are worried about that. If the guidelines are subjective (and I don't know how they could be written otherwise at this point), then what they consider following the guidelines may not be what the mob considers following the guidelines. I bet there's intense pressure to use the guidelines as permissively as possible, or else risk the wrath of the activist mob.

Well, I think the doctors will be okay. It can't be much of the general population that will hate a doctor just for following medical guidelines. It's going to be most doctors who follow the guidelines, and the ones who deviate from the standard of care will face the greater judgment.