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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What to tell the children, like my 11yo daughter and her teammates who uses the showers after swim practice? Adult women use it too as it's a city facility.

She knows that a naked man exposing himself outside this space is illegal and meant to scare her. I tell her "Please run away and report it to an adult so he can be arrested".

But...in this space, these showers and lockers, I should say "a male exposing himself might be ok because he might be actually a woman. So please don't upset this person."
??

How will these young girls know when it's ok to be calmly inclusive and welcoming of the adult male bodied person, and when to be cautious and report it? Even the adults don't know.

Either way, they aren't going to shower there if it happens!!

This seems like the easiest question in the world. Nudity in changing rooms is expected and OK. Nudity outside changing rooms not so much. Acting inappropriately not ok. Surely you would say the same regardless of genitals?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I've touched upon the reasons already,k but given that Darat tried to dismiss my post without any explanation, I don't think he really deserved any more in response.

But OK, let's go into this a bit more. Race is pretty superficial. Outside of some pretty narrow circumstances (for example, Julia Roberts shouldn't play Harriet Tubman), race shouldn't matter at all.

But sex isn't equivalent. Sex matters. Sex determines, well, sex. The biological category is inseparable from the act. And I don't mean that males can or should only have sex with females and vice versa. I mean that sexual orientation matters. As Andrew Sullivan said, "But if a gay man doesn’t want to have sex with someone who has a vagina and a lesbian doesn’t want to have sex with someone who has a dick, they are not being transphobic. They’re being — how shall I put this? — gay." The dangly bits you have determine what kind of sex you can have with other people. And since people have preferences about what kind of dangly bits they want their dangly bits to dangle together with, preferences which are not superficial but very deep seated, this ends up affecting our interactions with each other in deep and personal ways.

There are contexts in which these differences aren't supposed to matter, where our sexual desires aren't supposed to come into play. I shouldn't be considering sexual desires when hiring a cashier. But there are other contexts, particularly ones involving a state of undress, where it's going to matter, where you can't simply pretend the issue of sex (both the category and the act) is irrelevant. This is also an asymmetric situation, since sexual desires manifest differently in men and women. On average, males are more easily sexually aroused than females, they pay a lower opportunity cost for having sex, and they have significantly more strength. These factors combine to make the risk of sexual assault from men against women particularly pronounced in situations where women are undressed around unfamiliar men, such as coed changing rooms. That is why we segregate based on sex.

There is no equivalent dynamic with race.

Sorry but I don't think this is accurate at all.

Race may be superficial to you, but some others don't agree. Some people genuinely feel intimidated or uncomfortable around people of different races. I don't think they should, but they do. And if the argument is that cis-women are going to feel uncomfortable around transwomen then that's a pretty direct analogy.

You say sex isn't equivalent, because it's not equivalent to you. But you haven't done much of a job of justifying it other than a bit of a prudish appeal to 'dangly bits' and then a slightly odd implication that people with penises can't be trusted to control themselves.

And the risk of sexual assault is NOT why we segregate on sex. It's simply a historical and cultural norm that at times has been the case and at others not been. In modern times, providing women's facilities AT ALL is a relatively recent development.

 

[Belz...]

Race may be superficial to you, but some others don't agree.

I think the point is that race is an actual spectrum, and that there is no indication of significant objective differences between the instances, which is not the case for sex. The two are only superficially comparable, which makes Darat's point suspect.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry but I don't think this is accurate at all.

Race may be superficial to you, but some others don't agree.

So what? They are wrong. You have neither argued that race isn’t superficial nor that sex is. You have tried to imply the latter without actually having to support it, because you can’t.

You say sex isn't equivalent, because it's not equivalent to you. But you haven't done much of a job of justifying it other than a bit of a prudish appeal to 'dangly bits' and then a slightly odd implication that people with penises can't be trusted to control themselves.

Statistics to back up my assertion have already been provided.

And the risk of sexual assault is NOT why we segregate on sex. It's simply a historical and cultural norm that at times has been the case and at others not been. In modern times, providing women's facilities AT ALL is a relatively recent development.

These are all nonsequitors. Historical and cultural norms don’t appear randomly, they develop for a reason. And the prior lack of women’s facilities doesn’t prove what you think it proves.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think the point is that race is an actual spectrum, and that there is no indication of significant objective differences between the instances, which is not the case for sex. The two are only superficially comparable, which makes Darat's point suspect.

There clearly are objective differences between races although it is messy to try to delineate, as it is with sex/gender also at times.

The question is whether the differences are meaningful or superficial in the given situation.

If the argument is around feeling comfortable with one set of people or another then the two arguments are analogous.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So what? They are wrong. You have neither argued that race isn’t superficial nor that sex is. You have tried to imply the latter without actually having to support it, because you can’t.

Of course sex is totally superficial when going to the toilet for example. You go in, pee and leave. Nobody ever knows what kind of genitals you have.

Is it superficial in a changing room? Well if the extent of your interaction with someone is seeing them and that makes you uncomfortable then how it could be anything else?

Statistics to back up my assertion have already been provided.

I have missed those then

These are all nonsequitors. Historical and cultural norms don’t appear randomly, they develop for a reason. And the prior lack of women’s facilities doesn’t prove what you think it proves.

No, your assertion that we have segregated facilities because of the risk of sexual assault is simply an unsupported one. You are simply joining the dots on two things because you find it convenient.

 

[Belz...]

There clearly are objective differences between races although it is messy to try to delineate

Such as?

The question is whether the differences are meaningful or superficial in the given situation.

I think that the act of sex is pretty damned meaningful in contexts where women are vulnerable to it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Such as?

Well for example, black people have darker skin than white people.

I think that the act of sex is pretty damned meaningful in contexts where women are vulnerable to it.

Then you should be in favour of sex-segregating every single space.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course sex is totally superficial when going to the toilet for example. You go in, pee and leave. Nobody ever knows what kind of genitals you have.

Is it superficial in a changing room? Well if the extent of your interaction with someone is seeing them and that makes you uncomfortable then how it could be anything else?

But that's not the extent of it, which is the entire point. The elevated risk is real. The discomfort is a response to real elevated risk, but the elevated risk would remain even if it didn't make people uncomfortable.

I have missed those then

No you didn't. You forgot them:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12893428#post12893428

No, your assertion that we have segregated facilities because of the risk of sexual assault is simply an unsupported one. You are simply joining the dots on two things because you find it convenient.

No. It doesn't actually matter for my argument what the original reason was. What matters is whether it justifies sex segregation in that context now. And it does. Other than accusing people of bigotry, you have no counter-argument.

 

[Belz...]

Well for example, black people have darker skin than white people.

Sorry, I meant actual differences. Differences that have practical applications.

Then you should be in favour of sex-segregating every single space.

That's only true if you think women are vulnerable absolutely everywhere.

 

[Belz...]

Other than accusing people of bigotry, you have no counter-argument.

I'd say that accusations are not arguments, actually.

 

[Earthborn]

I'm not sure I believe there's a difference between sex and gender.

It is not that complicated. Consider Barbie en Ken dolls. They don't have a biological sex, but they are clearly gendered.

 

[Earthborn]

It may have been a mistake to lump transsexuals together with the sexual attraction categories. LGBQ makes sense. LGBTQ, perhaps not. LGBQ is about preferences in sexual attraction to other people. T is about gender-construct self-identity.

Q(ueer) also stands for a gender-identity. A non-binary in this case. Sometimes A(sexual) and I(ntersex) are also included. Asexual doesn't refer to what one is sexually attracted to, but how strong that attraction is. Intersex is a physical deformity.

It is a strange accident of history that all those people are lumped together, not because of similarities between them but because of similarities on how others treat them because they belong to a sexual/gender minority. Perhaps we should change the acronym to [A-Z] and be done with it.

Non-alphabetical people are clearly an affront to Nature

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is not that complicated. Consider Barbie en Ken dolls. They don't have a biological sex, but they are clearly gendered.

That's not really that helpful. I'm reading that to mean gender is "possesses sufficient characteristics of a particular sex to be identified as that sex, whether or not it is correct to do so". Which shorthands to "gender is the sex you are perceived to be". Is that it? That doesn't seem like a thing that is distinct enough from sex to merit a separate term.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Q(ueer) also stands for a gender-identity. A non-binary in this case. Sometimes A(sexual) and I(ntersex) are also included. Asexual doesn't refer to what one is sexually attracted to, but how strong that attraction is. Intersex is a physical deformity.

Queer is a rejection of labels so can refer to either sexuality or gender.

 

[d4m10n]

That's not really that helpful. I'm reading that to mean gender is "possesses sufficient characteristics of a particular sex to be identified as that sex, whether or not it is correct to do so". Which shorthands to "gender is the sex you are perceived to be". Is that it?

I'd say gender is more like all the things you do to signal your sex to the world. Instead of putting on a skirt, I put on trousers. Instead of growing my hair long, I shave it off. Instead of shaving my beard, I grow it out. Instead of demurely crossing my legs, I manspread^WP whenever possible.

 

[theprestige]

Q(ueer) also stands for a gender-identity. A non-binary in this case. Sometimes A(sexual) and I(ntersex) are also included. Asexual doesn't refer to what one is sexually attracted to, but how strong that attraction is. Intersex is a physical deformity.

Yes.

It is a strange accident of history that all those people are lumped together, not because of similarities between them but because of similarities on how others treat them because they belong to a sexual/gender minority.

When you put it that way, it doesn't seem strange at all. It actually makes a lot of sense that it would have developed that way.

But there are limits to this approach. When you're fighting for more tolerance across the board for a wide range of oppressed or ignored minorities, grouping them all together under the single aegis of More Tolerance for Minorities makes sense.

But not all minorities are the same. As tolerance becomes more mainstream across the board, you will start to run into differences between the various minorities. Aside from issues of basic social acceptance, men who are sexually attracted to other men are not very similar to men who are psychologically self-identifying as women. Accommodations that make sense for the first group don't necessarily make sense for the second group. Ultimately, the LGBTQ construct starts to get in the way of further progress. It becomes just one more brick in the wall of ambiguous and obfuscatory terminology.

There were transsexuals at Stonewall. Good. A rising tide lifts all boats. But there's more to boats than just going up and down with the tide. Transsexuals are not the same as homosexuals. There's only so far they can be helped by a one-size-fits-all social policy -- especially a policy designed primarily with homosexuals in mind.

---

Ambiguous and obfuscatory terminology. We can't even discuss the issues properly, because we can't even figure out what words to use. Sex? Gender? Queer? Is the sex in homosexual attraction the same as the sex in biological sex? If "queer" is a rejection of labels, then is actually helpful at all to include it in discussion. It's literally designed to defeat meaning.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But that's not the extent of it, which is the entire point. The elevated risk is real. The discomfort is a response to real elevated risk, but the elevated risk would remain even if it didn't make people uncomfortable.

No the discomfort is there for a multitude of reasons. The question is whether the elevated risk is real and whether it justifies excluding people from spaces.

No you didn't. You forgot them:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12893428#post12893428

Sorry I thought you were referring to stats that actually demonstrate what you are saying. My mistake

No. It doesn't actually matter for my argument what the original reason was. What matters is whether it justifies sex segregation in that context now. And it does. Other than accusing people of bigotry, you have no counter-argument.

Oh FFS. When you say the reason we have something is X and actually it is Y of course it matters.

The bit in bold is the bit you haven't yet demonstrated.

There have been multiple counter-arguments the problem is that you can't get them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'd say gender is more like all the things you do to signal your sex to the world. Instead of putting on a skirt, I put on trousers. Instead of growing my hair long, I shave it off. Instead of shaving my beard, I grow it out. Instead of demurely crossing my legs, I manspread^WP whenever possible.

Thanks, that sounds workable.

 

[Ziggurat]

No the discomfort is there for a multitude of reasons. The question is whether the elevated risk is real and whether it justifies excluding people from spaces.

It is and it does.

Ultimately, though, none of your arguments matter. Your entire position doesn't admit sex-segregated spaces at all, regardless of where you want to fit trans people within those spaces. And the public is just never going to go for that. Even the vast majority of trans people are never going to go for that. They want sex-segregated spaces, just with exceptions made for them. You can lament that reality all you want to, but that is the reality, and the only way you would ever get that to change is with a dictatorial government forcing it upon an unwilling population.