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

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

"She was asking for it" does stem from "tempted beyond forebearance" because if such temptation exists, then by extension women "accept that risk" when they go around looking all desireable (i.e. by existing).

But again, this is all in the vein of saying it's hard to have almost any discussion that touches on gender and sexuality with these constructs floating around.

 

[Sherkeu]

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.

I have no issue with transwomen in the ladies room....ones in actual medical transition. They aren't the only ones who want to use the ladies room. The crossdressers feel safer there too, so do the androgynous, and even many trans men who arent confident in passing.
Women's space = Safe space

So why are many of these non-conforming persons so afraid of being harmed in the men's space, even if they would go there otherwise? They often will state a genuine fear of harassment, assault, and rape.
For them it's the choice between making women uncomfortable or potential bodily harm. Is the men's room really that dangerous?

Is anyone reaching out to the men to stop their bathroom violence against these people? Or, if it's not quite true, assure them that it isn't really so dangerous after all?

 

[p0lka]

I have never been attacked in a male bathroom, I've been chatted up a couple of times but that's not violence.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

I'm not interested in going around in circles with your denial of the significance of nudity in human behavior. But this last sentence is worth addressing, because it's completely wrong. That isn't the prevailing wisdom. That's the prevailing dogma among radical feminists. It originates from Susan Brownmiller's book Against Our Will. This is the central thesis of the book:

From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.​

The book is not science, it is not psychology, it is not history. It is a political screed. The claim that rape is about power not sex is a politically useful claim, but it has no foundation in any empirical data, and in fact is refuted by actual data. That you think this bit of long-discredited dogma is wisdom speaks volumes.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

Nobody claims it will. But rapists don't spend every hour trying to rape people. They pick and choose when to attempt it. Is it really so strange to think they might be more likely to choose to do so if their potential victim is already naked?

 

[Sherkeu]

I have never been attacked in a male bathroom, I've been chatted up a couple of times but that's not violence.

Me either. And I used to do it often enough at sporting events, concerts, nightclubs, etc.... The women's line can be ridiculous. When you gotta go, you gotta go!!

I did have a habit of announcing myself (or a guy going in would offer to do it) and seeing if there was a stall for me, then going in quickly promising 'not to peek!" with a hand over one side of my face like a blinder. Then a quick "Thanks so much guys!" and back to ladies room to use sink and mirror. I tried to be considerate! Never felt unsafe. No predator is staking out for women in a place she isn't supposed to go.

(Knowing the men's room norms now I bet they thought "Why is she talking so much?!!" haha)

Even if I was not considerate and was acting all invasive in their space, I doubt very much I'd be in any danger of anything more than being called a 'crazy bitch' and escorted out. They'd be annoyed, maybe even angry, but I wouldn't be considered a threat.

So what exactly is happening in there when a trans woman/man gets beat up? What ignites the violence?

 

[Meadmaker]

So what exactly is happening in there when a trans woman/man gets beat up? What ignites the violence?

In the not too distant past, there was a lot more casual violence accepted than there is today. In my youth (1970s)I strongly suspect that a guy in a dress using a public men's room would at least be threatened, and probably pushed around, possibly punched. As long as you didn't actually do anything that required medical treatment, prosecution would have been unlikely. "That queer was checking out my package." Would probably be an adequate defense.

Today, things are different, but I can understand why anyone with visibly unconventional sex or gender characteristics might not want to take a chance.

 

[Darat]

In the not too distant past, there was a lot more casual violence accepted than there is today. In my youth (1970s)I strongly suspect that a guy in a dress using a public men's room would at least be threatened, and probably pushed around, possibly punched. As long as you didn't actually do anything that required medical treatment, prosecution would have been unlikely. "That queer was checking out my package." Would probably be an adequate defense.

Today, things are different, but I can understand why anyone with visibly unconventional sex or gender characteristics might not want to take a chance.

Not even in a dress, if they "looked like a queer" that was enough.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you. For actually taking the time to read what I wrote and consider what it meant.

What makes you think they did, and nobody else? Do you think the rest of us disagree because we didn't read or consider what you said?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm not interested in going around in circles with your denial of the significance of nudity in human behavior. But this last sentence is worth addressing, because it's completely wrong. That isn't the prevailing wisdom. That's the prevailing dogma among radical feminists. It originates from Susan Brownmiller's book Against Our Will. This is the central thesis of the book:

From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.​

The book is not science, it is not psychology, it is not history. It is a political screed. The claim that rape is about power not sex is a politically useful claim, but it has no foundation in any empirical data, and in fact is refuted by actual data. That you think this bit of long-discredited dogma is wisdom speaks volumes.

Is it discredited?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...nplugged/201711/sexual-assault-is-about-power

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/rape-about-power-not-sex

https://www.sarsas.org.uk/myths-about-rape/

https://sapac.umich.edu/article/sexual-assault-misconceptions

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nobody claims it will. But rapists don't spend every hour trying to rape people. They pick and choose when to attempt it. Is it really so strange to think they might be more likely to choose to do so if their potential victim is already naked?

Yes. Absolutely yes. It's very strange.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What ignites the violence?

Bigotry.

 

[Belz...]

Is it discredited?

Rape certainly isn't just about sex, but it isn't just about power, either. Besides, it's silly and short-sighted to just conclude that all rapists, or almost all of them, have the same motivation and incentives to act.

 

[Roboramma]

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

They can be. Some trains in india are segregated according to sex (Or, at least, I think there's a women's only car available, but there are also unisex cars that anyone can use).

But it would affect the efficiency of the system. You'd need more cars to move the same number of people, on average, if you segregated them, because for instance sometime the men's cars would all be full but the women's wouldn't. The extra men would have to wait for the next train where in an unsegregated system they could just get on one of the less full cars.

Should it be done? I don't know, but the costs/benefits are different from those relating to changing rooms.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They can be. Some trains in india are segregated according to sex (Or, at least, I think there's a women's only car available, but there are also unisex cars that anyone can use).

But it would affect the efficiency of the system. You'd need more cars to move the same number of people, on average, if you segregated them, because for instance sometime the men's cars would all be full but the women's wouldn't. The extra men would have to wait for the next train where in an unsegregated system they could just get on one of the less full cars.

Should it be done? I don't know, but the costs/benefits are different from those relating to changing rooms.

By the way I wasn't seriously arguing for subway cars to be segregated just merely pointing out that if the concern is the safety of women then there are a host more things to look at than toilets and changing rooms.

I think your arguments on efficiency must also hold for toilets and changing rooms incidentally.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is it discredited?

Yes.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...nplugged/201711/sexual-assault-is-about-power

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/rape-about-power-not-sex

https://www.sarsas.org.uk/myths-about-rape/

https://sapac.umich.edu/article/sexual-assault-misconceptions

Congratulations, you've just proved a lot of people still cling to a discredited idea. None of these links demonstrates the idea is true, they all basically just declare it to be so. Your last link even gives the game away:

X Misconception

Sexual assault is sex.

✔ Truth

Sexual assault is an act of violence, not sex. This is an important distinction because by framing sexualized violence as about sex and not about violence we focus on the perpetrator’s narrative and not the survivor’s. Focusing on the perpetrator’s narrative leads society to blame the victim and to not hold the perpetrator accountable for their actions.​

Note that the argument they are making for why to call sexual assault violence and NOT sex is explicitly not based on the reality of the situation, but on the usefulness of the framing for the narrative they want to create.

 

[Belz...]

By the way I wasn't seriously arguing for subway cars to be segregated just merely pointing out that if the concern is the safety of women then there are a host more things to look at than toilets and changing rooms.

Which is absolutely not an argument for or against segregating toilets and changing rooms. It's a distraction, just like cars and swimming pools in gun discussions.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes.

Congratulations, you've just proved a lot of people still cling to a discredited idea. None of these links demonstrates the idea is true, they all basically just declare it to be so. Your last link even gives the game away:

X Misconception

Sexual assault is sex.

✔ Truth

Sexual assault is an act of violence, not sex. This is an important distinction because by framing sexualized violence as about sex and not about violence we focus on the perpetrator’s narrative and not the survivor’s. Focusing on the perpetrator’s narrative leads society to blame the victim and to not hold the perpetrator accountable for their actions.​

Note that the argument they are making for why to call sexual assault violence and NOT sex is explicitly not based on the reality of the situation, but on the usefulness of the framing for the narrative they want to create.

You know you could just link to the information that supports what you are saying? Because I am much more likely to take the word of these 4 sources than yours.

I also cannot find anything which supports your idea that nudity leads to an increased prevalence of sexual assault, do you have anything?

I can find a paper that claims provocative clothing is not linked to sexual assault which seems to be in the right ball park. but nothing on nudity.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which is absolutely not an argument for or against segregating toilets and changing rooms. It's a distraction, just like cars and swimming pools in gun discussions.

Good analogy.

Eta:. Deleted rest of post. Decided against going down well worn ground.

 

[cullennz]

Not even in a dress, if they "looked like a queer" that was enough.

Not sure where you live, but I can assure it is an odd place.

Sent from my SM-J111M using Tapatalk