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

[Emily's Cat]

For what it's worth I agree with your position as I understand it, and I thought your posts were sensible and worthwhile.

Thanks

That said, I don't see many men in this thread telling women how they should behave. Is there a specific argument you see being made here, that should be addressed on that basis?

I wasn't super serious, but it is an observation I've had multiple times on this topic. The most vocal arguers on either side tend to be men. I rarely see transwomen engaged in the argument (likely a result of simply statistics there), and the couple of times I have they've been very willing to engage respectfully and actually have a discussion. Cis-women who offer positions similar to mine often get labeled as TERFs and shouted down.

I think it's both funny and slightly annoying that the people most affected by this conflict of values and objectives - women (both trans and cis) - are the ones whose voices are least heard.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What have you done for them apart from internet warrioring?

I took my niece shopping and bought her three pairs of shoes (shoes for transwomen are incredibly expensive). Also worked with my mom and sister to get her a hair appointment and a makeover. Taught her what not to do when shaving her legs. Provided a shoulder to cry on when the estrogen kicked her butt... and shared stories from my adolescence so she understands that estrogen will completely screw your emotional hold on reality for a couple of years. Helped out with shopping for and fitting bras as she has grown breasts.

Does that count? Because that's the kind of thing I do.

 

[d4m10n]

I provided several on-topic posts yesterday which garnered almost no responses.

I'd provide for each post if that was doable.

 

[The Atheist]

I took my niece shopping and bought her three pairs of shoes (shoes for transwomen are incredibly expensive). Also worked with my mom and sister to get her a hair appointment and a makeover. Taught her what not to do when shaving her legs. Provided a shoulder to cry on when the estrogen kicked her butt... and shared stories from my adolescence so she understands that estrogen will completely screw your emotional hold on reality for a couple of years. Helped out with shopping for and fitting bras as she has grown breasts.

Does that count? Because that's the kind of thing I do.

I wasn't asking you, but sure, that counts.

I know about the shoes, funnily enough. I used to share a house with a hooker who had enormous feet for a woman and the trans girls were always trying to steal them.

 

[Roboramma]

I'd provide for each post if that was doable.

Ditto. Emily's Cat, I've found your posts well stated and very reasonable.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you want to call her later admission that it was "only tongue in cheek" that she had proposed more sexes than two an "excuse" then sure.

Dude, she's talking there about a piece she wrote in the 90s where she claimed there were 5 sexes. That's a really desperate stretch.

7 hours ago she re-tweeted this: https://twitter.com/sublunam/status/1271196163404898304

Kindness should never obviate the need for moral and intellectual critique: this isn’t about side-taking but understanding. The biologist @Fausto_Sterling has fantastic work on the insufficiency of the gender binary for giving an account of human bodies

Here's another article:

My feed lit up with people citing me as an authority in support of the tribunal judge’s decision and also with people furious because they felt that my ideas about sex as non-binary harmed “real, biological” women. Indeed, the tribunal quoted from an op-ed I published in the New York Times in 2018, arguing that biological sex is multilayered and complex, rather than simply dichotomous.

Oh and, even if that weren't a joke, that's still only one PhD vs let's call it dozens - your confirmation bias keeps showing.

Ah, this nonsense again. I can only assume that at this point you're deliberately choosing to miss the point.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've removed all the unnecessary answers to questions I didn't ask so we can focus on why you didn't answer the only question I did ask, and that you completely avoided, so I'll try again:



I'll hazard a guess that you didn't answer it, because the answer is "nothing".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I'm not going to gloss over the fact that you snipped out all the actual substantive conversation as "irrelevant" in favour of trying for a hollow "some of my best friends are trans" woke-off gotcha.

 

[Belz...]

I think it's both funny and slightly annoying that the people most affected by this conflict of values and objectives - women (both trans and cis) - are the ones whose voices are least heard.

That's probably also because of numbers. There seems to be far mroe men here than women, and men having an opinion on the topic is entirely legitimate.

 

[caveman1917]

Dude, she's talking there about a piece she wrote in the 90s where she claimed there were 5 sexes. That's a really desperate stretch.

That she openly, proudly even, admits to knowingly publishing false claims on this exact subject for ideological purposes is quite relevant.

7 hours ago she re-tweeted this: https://twitter.com/sublunam/status/1271196163404898304

That she re-tweets confused and incoherent claims (gender is not sex) is hardly a point in her favour.

Here's another article:

I'm sure she wrote many opinion pieces on various subjects. Your point?

Ah, this nonsense again. I can only assume that at this point you're deliberately choosing to miss the point.

What point? That there is one student and one dubious post-modern professor claiming that "sex is a spectrum" (while, of course, not bothering to actually define sex - they might as well be saying "sex is magic") and a bunch of experts and at least 1 textbook claiming that it is not (as well as providing an actual definition of sex)?

 

[zooterkin]

An open letter in response to Rawlings blog post from a trans woman, Professor Sophie-Grace Chappell (I could only find it on Facebook, I think the link will work even if you don’t have an account there).

https://www.facebook.com/100009182802430/posts/2560000527649349/

 

[lionking]

Use the bathroom of the gender for which you can pass. Regardless of how you identify, base bathroom selection on what strangers are going to assume. So if you're a transperson who has just come out, and hasn't yet made much progress in the visual aspect of transitioning, stick with the bathroom that matches your biological sex. Once you can reasonably pass, switch.

It doesn't seem like it should really be an issue. It really seems like anyone with some common sense would adopt this approach.

A sane and sensible position. Bravo.

 

[lionking]

Snark Warning

It's nice to see so many men arguing so strongly about what is and is not acceptable behavior for women.

Not snarky at all. Another bit of sanity amongst so many questionable contributions in this thread.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That she openly, proudly even, admits to knowingly publishing false claims on this exact subject for ideological purposes is quite relevant.



That she re-tweets confused and incoherent claims (gender is not sex) is hardly a point in her favour.



I'm sure she wrote many opinion pieces on various subjects. Your point?



What point? That there is one student and one dubious post-modern professor claiming that "sex is a spectrum" (while, of course, not bothering to actually define sex - they might as well be saying "sex is magic") and a bunch of experts and at least 1 textbook claiming that it is not (as well as providing an actual definition of sex)?

Well, if you were trying for being belligerently disingenuous long enough to get me to no longer think it's worth the effort of trying to have a conversation with you, then congratulations. If it's unintentional then...oh dear.

 

[Garb]

A sane and sensible position. Bravo.

As I said before (which she did not respond to), the issue with this as some kind of requirement is it gives those carte blanche to harass people who they suspect as not being cis or not "passing" to their acceptance.

https://www.newstimes.com/local/art...gender-harassed-in-7471666.php#photo-10075104

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news...es-dallas-woman-using-womens-restroom-8259104

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/pride...toilet-after-police-refuse-believe-shes-woman


I will concede that these aren't situations where they go based on the "just use the bathroom you pass as", but I do not know how the idea of "bathroom policing" will change if people are given the idea that they can determine who is and is not a predator based on their interpretation of if someone is "male/female" based on how they look.

Also is there any study that links trans-inclusive public restrooms with actual safety risk, or is this just concern based on the possibility of a risk that hasn't been demonstrated? As far as what I have been able to find, there has been no substantive link found between trans-inclusivity in bathrooms and danger to women. If someone can provide something that suggests otherwise I would be interested in checking it out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...-policies-bathroom-safety-study-finds-n911106

https://www.axios.com/study-transge...btq-9c149e23-26d9-47c0-bfb9-e9f44c847eb3.html

 

[Meadmaker]

Also is there any study that links trans-inclusive public restrooms with actual safety risk, or is this just concern based on the possibility of a risk that hasn't been demonstrated?

Earlier in this thread, or one of its predecessors, there was an analysis of UK incidents involving unisex changing rooms.

 

[Garb]

Earlier in this thread, or one of its predecessors, there was an analysis of UK incidents involving unisex changing rooms.

Unisex is different, as everyone has access, regardless of them being trans or not.

I'm talking specifically about gender-segregated bathrooms in which trans women and men would be allowed to go to the bathroom of their stated gender.

I do not agree with the unisex solution, and the fact there are studies that demonstrate the danger to women confirms that for me.

 

[Lithrael]

Peeking around the corner here to put a hand up as cis woman who hasn’t seen any objectionable behavior irl from any trans women.

Also agree that some people with middle of the road takes get called terf-y, and of course that water is muddied by the way some very, very terf-y take people also complain about being labeled that way. You end up with that poisoned well thing where you hear someone complain about their label and your prejudice is that they probably deserve it. It sounds like “I’m not racist but...” except that the actual correspondence is a lot lower than it is with that phrase.

IMO the difference shakes out in how a person responds to debate. Like, yes it’d be simplest if people could just use the restroom for the gender they pass best as. What about all the times that doesn’t work out? We’ve all seen examples of merely slightly butch ladies being harassed for going to the ladies’ room. And many of the people agitating for all this to be a visible problem in the first place are definitely not aiming for ‘sure, go for the bathroom where you pass.’

 

[theprestige]

Peeking around the corner here to put a hand up as cis woman who hasn’t seen any objectionable behavior irl from any trans women.

The point of debate isn't about objectionable behavior from trans women.

It's about reducing or eliminating the current social barriers to entry, for abusive men who would be inclined to exploit the "access by personal fiat" rule that is being proposed.

As a rule to accommodate transsexuals, it's a good idea. As a rule to simultaneously accommodate abusive men... The people proposing the rule need to stop hiding behind accusations of transphobia, and address this problem honestly and forthrightly.

As it stands right now, there is a strong social norm in place, that women have the right to eject men from women-only safe spaces.

Obviously, this rule causes problems for transwomen, "masculine" women, etc. That sucks. We should try to find some way to mitigate these problems. Especially if we're committed to normalizing transsexuality and making it much more accepted by society.

However.

Replacing this rule with a rule that says (trans)women do *not* have the right to eject a man from women-only safe spaces if that man says the magic words "but I'm a woman!" creates new and serious risks. Even if pervert men and abusive men are rare, they're not that rare. About 0.3% of the population is transgender. There are probably more cismale douchebags in the population than that.

Just the knowledge that a cismale douchebag can enter your safe space and you're no longer allowed to protest, makes it not a safe space.

I'm sure as a cis woman you've seen plenty of objectionable behavior from cis men irl. Are you excited about the idea of normalizing cis male access to women's restrooms and other such safe spaces for women? Are you happy about dismissing the concerns of all the women who do worry about men being allowed to enter those spaces?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There's also the assumption that every trans person wants to pass, and the question of who gets to be the arbiter of whether or not they do.

All in the name of ameliorating a threat that evidence suggests doesn't actually exist.

 

[theprestige]

There's also the assumption that every trans person wants to pass, and the question of who gets to be the arbiter of whether or not they do.

All in the name of ameliorating a threat that evidence suggests doesn't actually exist.

I would say the evidence very strongly suggests that if men are allowed to enter safe spaces for women by declaring "I'm a woman", and that women are no longer allowed to challenge this or object to it, then there will be too many men who take advantage of this.