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

[Ziggurat]

I don't think the vast majority of trans people want separate mens and womens changing rooms.

Why wouldn't they? In most cases, trans people aren't trying to erase gender differences, they're trying to become the other gender. Gender differences have to be maintained in order for that change to mean anything.

 

[Roboramma]

Meadmaker, I like your three question framework (and my answers would be similar to yours), but I do think that after the first question is answered, if the answer is yes, then there is a follow up question which is "Which spaces and under what circumstances should that segregation occur?"

I think reasonable people will also disagree about those answers. For instance, I could be more easily convinced that there's no need to sex-segregate toilets than that we shouldn't segregate changing rooms.

But I do think you are right that it's important to answer those three questions first before getting into the details.

 

[Belz...]

I'd say gender is more like all the things you do to signal your sex to the world.

But then you end up with trans people being an exception again.

 

[Belz...]

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

I just answered the question in the post you responded to. The latter.

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.

Seriously, Archie, are you taking the piss? Do you seriously not understand context?

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, I like your three question framework (and my answers would be similar to yours), but I do think that after the first question is answered, if the answer is yes, then there is a follow up question which is "Which spaces and under what circumstances should that segregation occur?"

I think reasonable people will also disagree about those answers. For instance, I could be more easily convinced that there's no need to sex-segregate toilets than that we shouldn't segregate changing rooms.

But I do think you are right that it's important to answer those three questions first before getting into the details.

Yes. There's still plenty of room for disagreement, and each answer has plenty of room for answers that go beyond simple statements or binary judgements.


ETA: I actually gave this some more thought, and I considered whether or how to apply the framework to specific circumstances, but I won't elaborate at this time. Perhaps later. What it really is doing is asking, first, do we even care who is a man and who is a woman? Second, if we do care, how do we figure it out? Third, once we've figured it out, do we allow exceptions? Some people might see some conflict between questions 2 and 3 in some circumstances, but we'll go into it if interest develops.

 

[d4m10n]

But then you end up with trans people being an exception again.

Click the link, though.

 

[Belz...]

Click the link, though.

It's a Google search. What am I looking for?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I just answered the question in the post you responded to. The latter.

Then you are just asserting your conclusion that the differences you care about are meaningful and the differences you don't aren't

Seriously, Archie, are you taking the piss? Do you seriously not understand context?

I can only deal with the arguments you make, not the ones you think you made. If you want to talk about context then you are going to have to explain how possession of a penis is a major threat in a public bathroom but not on a subway train at night or in an office after hours or in any number of places where women and men can be isolated together.

You're in danger of getting into Taliban 'don't leave a woman unattended with a man who isn't her family' territory with this kind of thinking.

 

[d4m10n]

It's a Google search. What am I looking for?

The expanded defintion of gender role as a set of social signals. Must I fetch a spoon?

 

[Belz...]

Then you are just asserting your conclusion that the differences you care about are meaningful and the differences you don't aren't

Only if you ignore that time when I explained what the differences are.

I can only deal with the arguments you make

That's ironic, given the above.

If you want to talk about context then you are going to have to explain how possession of a penis is a major threat in a public bathroom but not on a subway train at night or in an office after hours or in any number of places where women and men can be isolated together.

Again: I don't believe for a second that you don't see the difference. I think you're just locked on your conclusion and that you can't afford to acknowledge that there are, actually, situations where women, being physically weaker to men, are more at risk and more vulnerable.

You're in danger of getting into Taliban 'don't leave a woman unattended with a man who isn't her family' territory with this kind of thinking.

Oh, well, I certainly wouldn't want to be compared unfavourably to a Taliban. I guess I better just agree with you.

Wait. How about you address the substance of my arguments rather than making these ridiculous attempts at playing with emotions?

 

[Belz...]

The expanded defintion of gender role as a set of social signals. Must I fetch a spoon?

Again: your link is a Google search. If you have a specific thing you want to show me, please do so. If you consider that spoon-feeding, so be it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

There is a world of difference between saying something lacks justification and saying it shouldn't exist.

I personally don't care about whether sex-segregated spaces exist, it doesn't bother me if I pee with men or women or anyone else. But if other people prefer it, it isn't doing me any harm so feel free to continue.

What I am arguing against is the exclusion of trans people from the bathroom which they would prefer to use based on their gender.

But the same logic could be used to argue cis-men should be allowed access? Well it maybe could be, but as a rule cis-men don't and there is no discrimination against cis-men to suggest there might be a need to do it. So it's not the same thing at all.

Because as I said earlier the goal is to treat people as they want to be treated as much as possible as long as it isn't harming others. As far as I can see excluding cis people from the facilities of the other sex isn't harming them at all. So if people prefer that setup it's fine by me.

 

[d4m10n]

Again: your link is a Google search. If you have a specific thing you want to show me, please do so. If you consider that spoon-feeding, so be it.

Where does the search take you, young internet padawan?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Nudity leads to increased risk of sexual assault?

Or have we moved the goalposts again?

 

[Belz...]

Where does the search take you, young internet padawan?

To 2,870 results.

Posting a link to an article is one thing. Posting it to a search of thousands of results is pointless.

Do you have a point to make or not? Is there a particular page you want me to read? Don't put the burden of your own argument on me.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

I'm not sure I buy this line, if someone is showing unreasonable bias then the likelihood of engaging with them successfully is limited, and only going to encourage them to make more disagreeable statements.

Plus when statements have been challenged with facts and the 'reasonable' arguments rebutted we just get more vitriol and anecdote in return.

If people want to discuss the issues, as some have here, then it's possible to discuss the issues in a sensible way. If people want an argument then they will get an argument too. And when people just want to spout nonsense laden with bigotry that will be called out.

You will notice how quick some people here are to throw themselves on the grenade and claim to have been accused of bigotry as if somehow that's a trump card. It's the exact parallel of what they CLAIM others are doing. Oh look you called me a bigot, I win and will just keep making my ridiculous claims.

 

[d4m10n]

To 2,870 results.



Posting a link to an article is one thing. Posting it to a search of thousands of results is pointless.



Do you have a point to make or not? Is there a particular page you want me to read? Don't put the burden of your own argument on me.

If you're not seeing Money's defintion of gender role, forget it. I'm out of spoons.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Meadmaker, I like your three question framework (and my answers would be similar to yours), but I do think that after the first question is answered, if the answer is yes, then there is a follow up question which is "Which spaces and under what circumstances should that segregation occur?"

I think reasonable people will also disagree about those answers. For instance, I could be more easily convinced that there's no need to sex-segregate toilets than that we shouldn't segregate changing rooms.

But I do think you are right that it's important to answer those three questions first before getting into the details.

I think the problem with the 3 questions is that the 1st question basically jumps straight to the conclusion but as you point out the key question is actually under which circumstances should we exclude people from spaces and with what justifications.

This is a complicated topic and seeing it repeatedly dismissed with gross oversimplifications doesn't help I think

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Again: I don't believe for a second that you don't see the difference. I think you're just locked on your conclusion and that you can't afford to acknowledge that there are, actually, situations where women, being physically weaker to men, are more at risk and more vulnerable.

Such as on a deserted late night subway train! Much more so than a shopping mall toilet certainly.

Talk about being locked on your conclusion!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Where does the search take you, young internet padawan?

I'm getting the hang of trying to second-guess what Belz is actually trying to say. I think he's doing a gotcha on the word 'sex' in your link. I have about a 1 in 4 success rate with my guesswork though.