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

[IsThisTheLife]

Or more accurately less tolerant of intolerance, hatred and so on.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Ziggurat]

They actually are, you know.

You can't actually be this clueless, can you?

Let's suppose you want to rape someone. Let's suppose that person is fully clothed. What do you need to do in order to rape them? Well, one of the things you need to do is remove some of their clothes. They will likely resist. This makes it harder to rape them than if they did not have clothes on to begin with.

Criminals of every stripe are opportunistic. They are more likely to commit crimes when those crimes are easier to commit. Make rape easier to commit, and rapists are more likely to rape. Naked females are also sexually arousing to many males. A rapist is more likely to rape if they are sexually aroused.

I don't know what bizarre theory of sex you're operating under, but if you can't recognize how being naked makes females more vulnerable, you've got no conception of how the world actually works.

 

[Belz...]

You can't actually be this clueless, can you?

That's where you see ideology overwriting common sense and reason. See, people shouldn't think anything of nudity, and therefore there is no reason whatsoever for them to think something of it.

 

[Meadmaker]

You can't actually be this clueless, can you?

[snip]

I don't know what bizarre theory of sex you're operating under, but if you can't recognize how being naked makes females more vulnerable, you've got no conception of how the world actually works.

Men can have babies. Or so I'm told.

 

[Lithrael]

I think Archie’s got a point actually, I am literally way more vulnerable waiting for the subway in a station with one shady guy in it, than in any other situation I actually end up in. Having clothes on isn’t any kind of significant barrier really. It’s a hurdle yes but a very small one. It feels fake to me to handwave that type of situation in favor of worrying about trans women in the common area of a locker room etc. even if there does have to be some kind of code to make sure such trans women are trying hard enough that you can’t mistake just predatory guys in disguise, for trans.

And it’ll also be nice whenever there’s good ways to effectively resolve or sidestep the problem of anyone in locker rooms that makes things gross for everyone else as those exist before you let in trans folks as well.

 

[Belz...]

I think Archie’s got a point actually, I am literally way more vulnerable waiting for the subway in a station with one shady guy in it, than in any other situation I actually end up in. Having clothes on isn’t any kind of significant barrier really. It’s a hurdle yes but a very small one.

If it's a hurdle it's a barrier. No one said it was impassable. They're also a public setting, which helps. But yes, it's a point of vulnerability. But not so much as one where you have no way out, and no clothes. I'm sure most normal people can understand why a woman would feel particularily vulerable in the latter scenario, even with no one around.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think Archie’s got a point actually, I am literally way more vulnerable waiting for the subway in a station with one shady guy in it, than in any other situation I actually end up in.

But the relevant comparison isn't to situations you currently end up in. It's to a situation you could end up in, if standards change. How would you feel getting naked alone in a changing room with one shady guy in it? Would you really feel better in that scenario than being alone in a subway station with the same shady guy?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Behaviors expected of a class are absolutely fluid, though in that sense it might be proper to liken them to molasses or raw tree sap. Although a river analogy also works in the sense of how hard it is to swim away from the main flow and that usually it takes some sort of flooding event to result in a change of just one or two small sections of flow around a particular feature.

A lot of our behaviors are taken from the perspective of an individual lifetime and thus we see a lot of people use terms like "hard-wired" or attributing it to genetics. But expanding out even across just a handful of the last few generations, certainly by the time you get to a window of 150-200 years, no. This is where we find memetics. This is cultural transmission, not genetic transmission. Behaviors are encouraged or discouraged, reinforced or diminished through society-scale carrots and sticks. Yes the main flow of expected behavior is hard to break out of, yes it takes a massive flood of opinions and attitudes to change the flow around a feature.

So again, until the attitudes and perspectives of what is and is not acceptable behavior from a class (males) -including attempts to dismiss it as a permanent feature- are resolved, whole swathes of social issues get pulled into the orbit of the problems those behaviors intersect with.

Among them is the myth that men get tempted beyond a point where it's safe. The very existence of that concept sits in a dangerous place. It really troubles me how we introduce this concept as a warning, but it's a complicated double-edged sword. I think we miss the part where we also instruct the young that it is a myth and a weak excuse. Nobody "loses control", you decide not to stop yourself and that active decision requires punishment and then another area where we fail is we have to actually properly punish that stuff so that society's carrots and sticks reinforce the words rather than people treating them like a "yeah, but then actually..."

 

[Meadmaker]

Behaviors expected of a class are absolutely fluid, though in that sense it might be proper to liken them to molasses or raw tree sap. Although a river analogy also works in the sense of how hard it is to swim away from the main flow and that usually it takes some sort of flooding event to result in a change of just one or two small sections of flow around a particular feature.

A lot of our behaviors are taken from the perspective of an individual lifetime and thus we see a lot of people use terms like "hard-wired" or attributing it to genetics. But expanding out even across just a handful of the last few generations, certainly by the time you get to a window of 150-200 years, no. This is where we find memetics. This is cultural transmission, not genetic transmission. Behaviors are encouraged or discouraged, reinforced or diminished through society-scale carrots and sticks. Yes the main flow of expected behavior is hard to break out of, yes it takes a massive flood of opinions and attitudes to change the flow around a feature.

So again, until the attitudes and perspectives of what is and is not acceptable behavior from a class (males) -including attempts to dismiss it as a permanent feature- are resolved, whole swathes of social issues get pulled into the orbit of the problems those behaviors intersect with.

Among them is the myth that men get tempted beyond a point where it's safe. The very existence of that concept sits in a dangerous place. It really troubles me how we introduce this concept as a warning, but it's a complicated double-edged sword. I think we miss the part where we also instruct the young that it is a myth and a weak excuse. Nobody "loses control", you decide not to stop yourself and that active decision requires punishment and then another area where we fail is we have to actually properly punish that stuff so that society's carrots and sticks reinforce the words rather than people treating them like a "yeah, but then actually..."

I would agree, to a point, but would you say that all behavior is memetically determined, as opposed to genetically determined? Are there behaviors that are natural based on our DNA and the product of evolution, as opposed to culturally determined?

When we ate the apple, became like gods, and gained the knowledge of good and evil, did we lose all of the genetic influence of our recent ancestors?

Genesis commentary in a spoiler because it's pretty marginal to the topic:

I never liked the Genesis story until I read it with atheist eyes. It's almost always presented as a simple "disobedience of God" story, and it never made sense that God would put a tree in there that people weren't supposed to eat. The Sunday School teachers never talked about what it was that was supposed to remain untouched. They never really touched on the idea that the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. It did occur to me, though, that if they had no knowledge of good and evil, how was it that they ought to have known it was evil to disobey God? As an atheist, I reread it, and saw it as a myth to discuss what separated man from the animals, and as a recognition that we were in many ways like animals, but had taken on aspects of gods, with our ability to reason and, indeed, to know good and evil. Unlike the animals, we were expected to do good, even when our impulses led us to evil. This was a great curse, because we couldn't just do what we want, living for the moment and only doing what our impulses told us to do.

 

[Rolfe]

Um.

That's what it's supposed to mean to Christians too. Your Sunday School teachers were incompetent. There is also the point that the tree is in the garden, and implicitly intended to be eaten at some point. The tree of life is also in the garden and also intended to be eaten at some point or it wouldn't be there. It's an extremely complex allegory, and presenting it to kids as a simple story then never discussing the deeper meanings with them as they grow up is pretty daft.

 

[Roboramma]

But the relevant comparison isn't to situations you currently end up in. It's to a situation you could end up in, if standards change. How would you feel getting naked alone in a changing room with one shady guy in it? Would you really feel better in that scenario than being alone in a subway station with the same shady guy?

There are also practical concerns. Some safety issues are easier to ameliorate than others. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to segregate subway stations according to sex, but doing so with locker rooms isn't impractical.

 

[Meadmaker]

Um.

That's what it's supposed to mean to Christians too. Your Sunday School teachers were incompetent. There is also the point that the tree is in the garden, and implicitly intended to be eaten at some point. The tree of life is also in the garden and also intended to be eaten at some point or it wouldn't be there. It's an extremely complex allegory, and presenting it to kids as a simple story then never discussing the deeper meanings with them as they grow up is pretty daft.

Interesting. No. It was never presented that way in my Catholic upbringing. It was all about disobedience. Maybe if I had continued to a more advanced class or read some more commentaries as an adult....

But, why did I bring it up in the first place?

It was in response to Delphic Oracle's post, talking about how people don't actually "lose control", but instead make choices to do bad things, by which he presumably meant to include sexual assault, and how certain behaviors are culturally determined.

It's not that I disagree with him completely, but neither do I agree completely. In terms of justice, I think we have to assume that we have free will and make choices, and so people who do bad things have to be punished as if they had complete responsibility for their choices. However, in reality, I think it's a bit more subtle. I think behavior is strongly influenced by instinctive drives. Those drives can be shaped by culture and by socialization to some extent, but they can't be eliminated.

To believe that we are completely capable of making our choices struck me as something akin to a religious belief, as if by eating the apple, suddenly we became fully aware of what was good and what was evil and, although we may be tempted, we always had a choice to do the right thing.

Here in the world where knowledge does not grow on trees, things are a bit more complex.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

We could parse out which is which for ages.

In the context of this discussion, I specifically refute the "I got too aroused and lost control" thing being attributed to some reptilian mating drive.

Not saying anyone claims this, but it is a social folkways that is sadly widely understood.

 

[Meadmaker]

We could parse out which is which for ages.

In the context of this discussion, I specifically refute the "I got too aroused and lost control" thing being attributed to some reptilian mating drive.

Not saying anyone claims this, but it is a social folkways that is sadly widely understood.

Got it. Makes sense.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You can't actually be this clueless, can you?

Let's suppose you want to rape someone. Let's suppose that person is fully clothed. What do you need to do in order to rape them? Well, one of the things you need to do is remove some of their clothes. They will likely resist. This makes it harder to rape them than if they did not have clothes on to begin with.

Criminals of every stripe are opportunistic. They are more likely to commit crimes when those crimes are easier to commit. Make rape easier to commit, and rapists are more likely to rape. Naked females are also sexually arousing to many males. A rapist is more likely to rape if they are sexually aroused.

I don't know what bizarre theory of sex you're operating under, but if you can't recognize how being naked makes females more vulnerable, you've got no conception of how the world actually works.

Cool story bro. Got any actual data?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think Archie’s got a point actually,.

Thank you. For actually taking the time to read what I wrote and consider what it meant. That's cool. I'm great with people disagreeing with me and even greater with people who show me where I am wrong but when people just hurl **** at you without engaging with what you are saying it's tiresome.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But the relevant comparison isn't to situations you currently end up in. It's to a situation you could end up in, if standards change. How would you feel getting naked alone in a changing room with one shady guy in it? Would you really feel better in that scenario than being alone in a subway station with the same shady guy?

Are we back to 'feelz'? Or are we talking about actual objective risk?

Assuming we are talking about the latter, because that was what was being discussed...

If you are alone in a changing room with a rapist who wants to rape you or alone in a subway car with a rapist who wants to rape you I would think you should be OBJECTIVELY equally concerned. Because I think the chances of getting raped are equal.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I would argue that if anything the subway car is more vulnerable because there is no way out between stops and less likelihood of anyone entering unannounced. But it might be a trivial difference. You would need to run the numbers to decide what incidences are more likely, but intuitively I feel like there are likely to be more incidences of a rapist and a woman alone in a subway train than a rapist and a woman alone in a woman's changing room open to transmen.

Your only argument is around nudity, but I don't believe that nudity is any kind of factor here. I don't think someone who doesn't want to rape you would be suddenly pushed over the edge into wanting to rape you by seeing you naked. In fact the prevailing wisdom is rape is a crime of power and control and not one of sex.

So it seems to me that if you are genuinely concerned about the objective safety of women then you would need to advocate sex segregation in all places that are as vulnerable as changing rooms.

And you can take the same logic and expand it. If you are genuinely concerned about the threat of allowing trans-women into women's prisons then you should be more concerned about allowing male prison officers in women's prisons because they are actually committing the majority of sexual assaults right now!

If I google 'male prison officers should be banned from female prisons' the first link i get is to a trans article. the next is asking should women be allowed to guard in mens prisons. I don't see any movement saying men shouldn't guard in womens prisons.

What's your view on that? Should men be allowed access to vulnerable women in prison?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Behaviors expected of a class are absolutely fluid, though in that sense it might be proper to liken them to molasses or raw tree sap. Although a river analogy also works in the sense of how hard it is to swim away from the main flow and that usually it takes some sort of flooding event to result in a change of just one or two small sections of flow around a particular feature.

A lot of our behaviors are taken from the perspective of an individual lifetime and thus we see a lot of people use terms like "hard-wired" or attributing it to genetics. But expanding out even across just a handful of the last few generations, certainly by the time you get to a window of 150-200 years, no. This is where we find memetics. This is cultural transmission, not genetic transmission. Behaviors are encouraged or discouraged, reinforced or diminished through society-scale carrots and sticks. Yes the main flow of expected behavior is hard to break out of, yes it takes a massive flood of opinions and attitudes to change the flow around a feature.

So again, until the attitudes and perspectives of what is and is not acceptable behavior from a class (males) -including attempts to dismiss it as a permanent feature- are resolved, whole swathes of social issues get pulled into the orbit of the problems those behaviors intersect with.

Among them is the myth that men get tempted beyond a point where it's safe. The very existence of that concept sits in a dangerous place. It really troubles me how we introduce this concept as a warning, but it's a complicated double-edged sword. I think we miss the part where we also instruct the young that it is a myth and a weak excuse. Nobody "loses control", you decide not to stop yourself and that active decision requires punishment and then another area where we fail is we have to actually properly punish that stuff so that society's carrots and sticks reinforce the words rather than people treating them like a "yeah, but then actually..."

I think this is a really interesting post. Not sure if I agree or disagree or somewhere in between but it is definitely thought provoking.

My immediate thoughts are that the 'lost control' narrative is possibly the corollary to the 'asking for it narrative' - i.e. that there is something a woman can do that makes a man want to rape her.

I'm genuinely trying to see the other side here. To understand what is the pressing need that means we absolutely have to exclude trans people from women's spaces but I really am not seeing it.

If it's just a 'im not comfortable' or 'ick' then ok...but i'm not comfortable seeing another man's penis in the changing rooms either, and I feel 'ick' when a man is taking a dump next to me. What i don't think is that this is a good reason to exclude them. This is my issue.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There are also practical concerns. Some safety issues are easier to ameliorate than others. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to segregate subway stations according to sex, but doing so with locker rooms isn't impractical.

My point was about subway cars. They can be segregated.

I reckon subway platforms could be segregated. Actually thinking about it I saw this in Manila. There were separate routes for women and men and they pointed to different ends of the platforms.

It was only signs and ropes. But hey.. that's a rope more than toilets and changing rooms.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Interesting. No. It was never presented that way in my Catholic upbringing. It was all about disobedience. Maybe if I had continued to a more advanced class or read some more commentaries as an adult....

But, why did I bring it up in the first place?

It was in response to Delphic Oracle's post, talking about how people don't actually "lose control", but instead make choices to do bad things, by which he presumably meant to include sexual assault, and how certain behaviors are culturally determined.

It's not that I disagree with him completely, but neither do I agree completely. In terms of justice, I think we have to assume that we have free will and make choices, and so people who do bad things have to be punished as if they had complete responsibility for their choices. However, in reality, I think it's a bit more subtle. I think behavior is strongly influenced by instinctive drives. Those drives can be shaped by culture and by socialization to some extent, but they can't be eliminated.

To believe that we are completely capable of making our choices struck me as something akin to a religious belief, as if by eating the apple, suddenly we became fully aware of what was good and what was evil and, although we may be tempted, we always had a choice to do the right thing.

Here in the world where knowledge does not grow on trees, things are a bit more complex.

Yeah but we also have to consider how people change.

If you put a gun in the hand of someone who wouldn't murder and tell him the enemy is inhuman, out to kill him and deserves to die. Will some people kill?

If you put a non-rapist in a room with a woman and tell him rape is bad and wrong and he is a bad person if he rapes someone. is seeing a woman naked going to suddenly turn him?