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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

Which one did you mean? Actual objective differences or practical meaningful differences?

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

Given that men possess penises (and all of the other objective differences between the sexes) absolutely everywhere then obviously they are vulnerable absolutely everywhere if what you say is true.

If we need to sex-segregate public restrooms then I would think we would need to sex-segregate trains, offices and pretty much any place where a man and a woman could be alone together.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It is and it does.

It isn't and it doesn't. That was easy.

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.

No idea what you are talking about in the bold bit. I guess it's easier to strawman than actually discuss.

But hey, now we have failed with argument by assertion we are going for argument ad populum for the win?

I forgot that might makes right.

 

[Ziggurat]

No idea what you are talking about in the bold bit.

Why am I not surprised that you don't even understand the logic of your own position?

Your argument is a categorical argument against sex-segregated spaces. You have tried to invalidate any and all justification for them. And I don't recall you ever saying they are justified under any circumstances, let alone what those circumstances are.

You are free to prove me wrong on this point, if in fact I am wrong. Are sex segregated spaces ever justified? If so, when are they justified and what is the justification?

But if you think they never are, you should say so plainly. And in that case, the transgender issue is actually rather beside the point.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think there's any level of concern on women's behalf that would persuade Archie, but I'll just leave this one here.

Devious Aberdeen sex offender replaced toilets sign with unisex sticker to trick women

Transwomen demand entry into women's sanitary facilities. This poses an obvious problem of how to allow male-looking transwomen to use women's facilities unchallenged. We have the signs telling women they must not challenge or even look at anyone "who they think looks out of place" as one solution. But the other solution being adopted all over the place is simply to desegregate and allow any man to use the Ladies'.

This is such a gift to the creepy predator demographic that they're now (this is not the only case) unilaterally re-designating single-sex facilities using their own "Unisex" stickers to facilitate their predatory behaviour.

But it's all fine, nothing to worry about here folks.

 

[Strawberry]

Which one did you mean? Actual objective differences or practical meaningful differences?



Given that men possess penises (and all of the other objective differences between the sexes) absolutely everywhere then obviously they are vulnerable absolutely everywhere if what you say is true.

If we need to sex-segregate public restrooms then I would think we would need to sex-segregate trains, offices and pretty much any place where a man and a woman could be alone together.

Why this seems like the easiest question in the world. Places where nudity is to be expected and ok, like changing rooms, should be sex segregated and places where nudity is not to be expected and ok don't need to be.

As per post #1841.

 

[Ziggurat]

But it's all fine, nothing to worry about here folks.

 

[Rolfe]

This is well worth a read for those wondering how we got into this appalling mess.


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html


https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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

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.

Is a butch lesbian not a woman? Why to transgender people medically transition if gender is just social presentation? Why are we substituting gender for sex in instances like locker rooms and sport? Where is the self identity in this definition?

I don't think this definition fits.

 

[p0lka]

I don't think there's any level of concern on women's behalf that would persuade Archie, but I'll just leave this one here.

Devious Aberdeen sex offender replaced toilets sign with unisex sticker to trick women

Transwomen demand entry into women's sanitary facilities. This poses an obvious problem of how to allow male-looking transwomen to use women's facilities unchallenged. We have the signs telling women they must not challenge or even look at anyone "who they think looks out of place" as one solution. But the other solution being adopted all over the place is simply to desegregate and allow any man to use the Ladies'.

This is such a gift to the creepy predator demographic that they're now (this is not the only case) unilaterally re-designating single-sex facilities using their own "Unisex" stickers to facilitate their predatory behaviour.

But it's all fine, nothing to worry about here folks.

This below is interesting

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/08/15/phoenix-voyeur-sentenced-abrk/14125621/

 

[Rolfe]

So because 2% of people convicted of sexual crimes are women, the other 98% should just have free rein?

The world is crawling with creepy perverted men. Yes, #notallmen, but about 97% or 98% of sexual offenders are male. And there are a few women too. Even women prepared to make money out of doing the perverted men's snooping for them and selling the results (which is what that case seems to be about).

Tell me again why that means that women's struggles for sex-segregated spaces were a waste of time and we should just abandon them?

 

[Strawberry]

This below is interesting

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/08/15/phoenix-voyeur-sentenced-abrk/14125621/

What's really interesting about that is if I caught her at it I could, with a reasonable chance of winning, challenge her physicaly without having to call for a male to help.

If, however, she was really a he pretending to be a woman I would stand no chance. He would be able to punch me into unconsciousness before I could even reach the door to call for help.

 

[Rolfe]

What's also interesting is that she seems to have been doing it for money, to sell the results to perverted men. Highly unpleasant, but if you caught her she's not going to attack you, she has no interest in sexually assaulting you. She's going to run.

I think Polka is suggesting that because vanishingly rare cases like this occur it's not worth trying to police our spaces at all and we might as well just let them cut out the middle-man - or middle-woman in this case - and let the pervs take their own dirty photos.

 

[Earthborn]

Is a butch lesbian not a woman?

A butch lesbian is a woman, but she is not clearly signally that to the world and instead opts for a presentation that is gendered as more masculine.

Why to transgender people medically transition if gender is just social presentation?

Not all transgender people do. Only the ones who are transsexual.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm trying to articulate the case against the introduction of self-ID on the grounds that if will eliminate all women's rights to privacy, modesty, comfort, fair sporting competition, sex-specific awards and a whole bunch of other stuff. You are acting as if only one side of the debate has legitimate points to make and declaring that women who won't shut up and accept the abolition of their rights deserve to be excoriated as bigots.

Then I apologize. I mistakenly thought you posted a bunch of paranoia about men pretending to be women so they could "colonize" women's bathrooms in order to steal discarded used sanitary products from the trash. Because that would be a very bizarre thing for someone to have said, and might well have been evidence of bigotry.

I agree with you that Rolfe has made some statements about the motivations of trans people that are unlikely to be true anything more than a tiny minority and thus don't really have any meaningful part in this discussion. I take a few of those statements as evidence that Rolfe is upset enough about this issue that she has developed an unreasonable bias against trans people.

But the discussion isn't about Rolfe. And she has made many other reasonable statements* about the topic. The point of having a discussion about this topic seems to me not to be about finding out whether or not Rolfe has a bias, but to actually look at the issue itself. As such I think it would be nice to address the general argument that Rolfe has been making, rather than to suggest that because she has made a few statements that we both disagree with that we should from that conclude that her entire argument is wrong.

Do you think that's reasonable?

*You may not agree with those either, but there's a difference between the "trans women want to collect used tampons" and her other arguments for keeping sex-segregated spaces.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

The vast majority? I don't think that is true.

 

[Ziggurat]

The vast majority? I don't think that is true.

You don't think the vast majority of people want separate mens and womens changing rooms?

You don't think the vast majority of people think mens and womens prisons should be separate?

Where is this constituency that wants to completely abolish any sex-segregated space? Because I'm not seeing it.

 

[Earthborn]

You don't think the vast majority of people want separate mens and womens changing rooms?

I don't think the vast majority of trans people want separate mens and womens changing rooms. I was responding to a specific claim you made, which I quoted.

 

[Meadmaker]

It is very interesting how these conversations go round and round and round, covering the same ground over and over. To me, TragicMonkey hit the big question on the head yesterday, but if I think about it, I think it's the biggest question, but I don't think it's the only question. I see three that matter.

1. Should we have man/woman segregation for spaces and activities? (spaces. e.g. locker rooms. activities, e.g. sporting competitions.)
2. How do we decide if a person is a man or a woman?
3. If we have segregation, what exceptions, if any, should be made for unusual circumstances?

There's still a whole heck of a lot of room for disagreement on those issues, but in my opinion, if people would at least answer those questions honestly instead of ducking and weaving around the uncomfortable ones, it would be easier to either resolve the conflict, or identify areas where no compromise is possible.

Item number 3 in particular is very vague, and has lots of room for disagreement, but, once again in my opinion, the answer to that is so strongly influenced by items 1 and 2 that if people would be honest in their answers to those, the framework for understanding their position and/or resolving the conflict would just be so much easier.

In case anyone cares, my answers.
1. Yes.
2. If person A is capable of having sexual intercourse with person B, with the result that person B becomes pregnant, that is a sufficient condition to conclude that person A is a man and person B is a woman. If you don't understand the phrase "sufficient condition", look it up. I'm using it in the sense of formal logic, if p, then q.

(At this point I could extend the description to cover children and old people and medical conditions and injuries, but I won't. It's possible to do so, and you all know what the answers would be, so I won't play the games. There is an exception, and that is that there are a very, very, small number of people who are sufficiently intersexed that I might actually have difficulty making a decision. If this were real life, I would defer to an expert committee that has time to work out the fine points.)

3. I would allow exceptions to the default segregation rules in line with Darat's post from a couple of days ago. Once again, I will defer nitpicking about very specific details to the expert committee that would have to write the fine points for the actual legislators and/or rulemakers.




Note that it is my opinion that any answers to all three questions, and any combination of answers, could be given without hatred, bigotry, or any of the usual insults. I suppose some people would disagree. I suppose some people would say that anyone who, like me, says that men can't have babies is a bigot and a hater and whatever else they want to say. I can't change those minds, so I'll just say if this be bigotry, let's make the most of it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A butch lesbian is a woman, but she is not clearly signally that to the world and instead opts for a presentation that is gendered as more masculine.

If gender is what you signal, and she is not signaling woman but sending masculine signals, how is her gender "woman"?

Indeed, there might be a person who presents more feminine signals than her that says her gender is non-binary. I might send more feminine signals and I would say I am male.

Not all transgender people do. Only the ones who are transsexual.

Yes, that is what I am asking about. Saying gender is expression or role does not seem to fit. Unless such people are of a different sort or different condition altogether.

 

[Meadmaker]

It occurs to me that the three question framework also addresses quite nicely comparisons with racial segregation.

1. Should there be segregation between blacks and whites? No.
2. How do we decide who is black and who is white? A description of skin reflectiveness could be used, but there were be an awful lot of gray area. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, so why bother trying to work out the details?
3. What exception should be made to default segregation rules? Not applicable.