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

[Garb]

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.

This is based on speculation, not any evidence that I have been presented with.

 

[theprestige]

This is based on speculation, not any evidence that I have been presented with.

I think it's a reasonable inference, based on what we know about the range of human behavior from good to bad. To the point where relaxing the social norms that mitigate against the risk is probably a bad idea.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's not a requirement, it's a guideline.

I don't think it's difficult to have some self-awareness here. If you're a transwoman who still pretty much looks like a man, then don't be surprised or offended if someone in the ladies room is intimidated and made very uncomfortable when you walk in. If you're a transman who still looks very feminine, don't be shocked when the guys at the urinal get edgy when you come breezing through on your way to a stall.

I don't think we need a law at all. I don't even think we need any additional social policing. It kind of pains me to say it, but if the handful of transpeople who cannot pass for their self-identified gender hadn't made such noise about it, I don't think it would be an issue at all. Because most people in society are polite in person. And most men aren't going to say anything if someone walks in who looks a bit more feminine than the average guy, because well, he might just be a really little guy. Most women aren't going to say something if a fairly masculine woman comes into the restroom, because well... some women are pretty butch, and it's impolite to make someone feel self conscious about their looks in that way.

It's been the handful of people who don't pass, who are still obviously their birth gender, and who are angry and upset that they can't use the bathroom of their choice who've drawn attention to it.

At the end of the day, I don't really care about public bathroom usage. It was a little uncomfortable for me going to the restroom with my niece when she first began transitioning, because she seriously could not pass. At the beginning, she couldn't even really pass as a guy in drag. It was just... awkward - for me, for her, and for the other people in the restroom. But nobody said anything, and it wasn't a big deal.

Where I do end up having some hesitation is when it comes to high school college, and gym locker rooms. We're simply not a unisex culture at the moment. Maybe we will be at some point, but we're not even all the way over our Puritan roots. And I just don't see how wedding tackle bouncing around a teenage locker room is going to be okay with most of the people there. Nor do I think it's a particular good idea to have boobies bobbing through the boys locker room with a bunch of testosterony high school boys. I don't think that's good for the natal or the trans boys.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

What would be the meaningful difference between Gendered-on-Paper bathrooms, which anyone can use... and Unisex bathroom which anyone can use? How do you expect that the Gendered-on-Paper bathrooms are going to limit access to only natal and trans people of the same gender? What mechanism will keep out those who mean harm?

I'm not being antagonistic here. If you have an idea of something that would work, I'm all for it. I just don't have any ideas of my own on this.

 

[Garb]

I think it's a reasonable inference, based on what we know about the range of human behavior from good to bad. To the point where relaxing the social norms that mitigate against the risk is probably a bad idea.

I provided links as to why I don't believe that argument is reasonable.

1. Cis women have been harassed for being in a women's bathroom due to restrictions against trans women from going to those bathrooms.
2. Studies thus far have shown no link between trans-inclusive protections (which is different from implementing unisex restrooms, something I do not agree with) and the safety of women in bathrooms.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Am I against more studies being made regarding this issue? No. But I think it is unfair to restrict the accommodations of trans people based on things we "suspect" and not things we can demonstrate.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

Nice try, but abject fail.

It has nothing to do with "friends" and less to do with being awake.

I asked what you have actually done for trans and their rights as opposed to sitting and typing a load of tripe on the internet.

Looks like you're confirming the answer I predicted: "Nothing".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 only truly bad behavior by transwomen I've seen has all been second-hand on the internet, so I take that with a grain of salt. The only questionable behavior I've seen IRL has been from my niece... and that wasn't so much bad as just very strange, and a bit off-putting. She just recently came out and started transitioning at age 21. Prior to that she had the lived experience of a male.

At a family get-together a while back, she kind of went off on a rant about "the evil patriarchy". My internal response was "wait, what would you know about this, you haven't been subjected to any of it!"... but that never came out of my mouth. What did come out was "Hey, that seems a bit extreme for a holiday dinner, how about we change to a different topic for a while?"

 

[Meadmaker]

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

One of the things that comes up over and over is that one side always wants to talk about bathrooms, and the other side always wants to talk about locker rooms.

As with other issues, public opinion isn't binary. There are some truly "anti-trans" people in the world, but not many in the United States or western Europe. For those of us opposed to allowing any biological male into a female safe space, the truth is that most of us would compromise on bathrooms. Locker rooms are a different story.



However, I know, from experience, that this will be brushed aside by most of the people who post here.

ETA: And as so often happens, I see that Emily's Cat got to this before me.

 

[Garb]

What would be the meaningful difference between Gendered-on-Paper bathrooms, which anyone can use... and Unisex bathroom which anyone can use? How do you expect that the Gendered-on-Paper bathrooms are going to limit access to only natal and trans people of the same gender? What mechanism will keep out those who mean harm?

I'm not being antagonistic here. If you have an idea of something that would work, I'm all for it. I just don't have any ideas of my own on this.

I am basing my position on what should be done based on what people have researched and studied. There has been a demonstration of the danger to women with large-scale implementation of unisex bathrooms. There so far has not been such a demonstration of the danger to women with protecting trans women from harassment in the bathroom of their chosen gender. Both have been examined. You may argue they have not been examined enough, but that in and of itself is not a justification for limiting the freedoms of trans people, in my opinion.

Is it possible that men will "pretend" to be women to access women's restrooms. Yes. But it is also possible now for men to enter those spaces and harass women (and get away with it), anyway. This also doesn't prevent people from harassing people of the same gender. I can sympathize with those who feel like this may lead them to being put in a position of being harassed. But keeping trans people from being protected not only puts them up for abuse, but it puts cis women who are not completely conforming to gender roles up for harassment as well.

I don't believe there is a perfect solution that will satisfy everyone.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 will openly admit that there is a limit to my understanding here. I struggle with transgender concepts as it is. I am at a loss as to how someone can "feel like a woman" or "feel like a man" without ever having experienced living as a woman or a man. I don't know what that means. I know what it means to me to feel like a woman... but it's almost impossible to separate it from biology. The small collection of things that I think of as being accessible "feel like" things, are also those things that I'm fighting against: gender bias and socially defined gender roles. Because "feeling like a woman" doesn't mean liking pink and wearing heels and gabbing about recipes with the other housewives - not to me anyway. So I struggle anyway to wrap my head around that concept. But I accept it, and I don't have any particular problem with it in general.

I do, however, really run out of brain when I run across someone who identifies as one gender or the other, but has no desire or intention of dressing like, behaving like, or presenting as that gender. I can totally get not wanting a full transition (because seriously, surgical alterations seem pretty extreme). But not even wanting to pass? I have to admit that I don't understand that. I don't even know who to begin to relate.

 

[Garb]

One of the things that comes up over and over is that one side always wants to talk about bathrooms, and the other side always wants to talk about locker rooms.

As with other issues, public opinion isn't binary. There are some truly "anti-trans" people in the world, but not many in the United States or western Europe. For those of us opposed to allowing any biological male into a female safe space, the truth is that most of us would compromise on bathrooms. Locker rooms are a different story.



However, I know, from experience, that this will be brushed aside by most of the people who post here.

ETA: And as so often happens, I see that Emily's Cat got to this before me.

Yes, locker rooms are different, and short of providing individual stalls for people to change I do not know the perfect solution.

 

[theprestige]

One of the things that comes up over and over is that one side always wants to talk about bathrooms, and the other side always wants to talk about locker rooms.

I think the basic concepts are equally scrutable and amenable to discussion regardless of which term is being used. People get bogged down in the terminology because they don't want to discuss the issue in good faith.

You could say "safe spaces for women", and people would still say "but what does that meeaan?"

You could say "battered women shelters", and people would still find an excuse to not engage with the actual dilemma.

Hell, Garb even goes so far as to claim we have no evidence that some men would behave badly under the proposed rule change. Lithrael still thinks it's about bad behavior from transwomen. I don't think ambiguous terminology is the problem, in this debate.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the basic concepts are equally scrutable and amenable to discussion regardless of which term is being used. People get bogged down in the terminology because they don't want to discuss the issue in good faith.

It's not a question of terminology. It's a question of function. I am much more willing to compromise on allowing males into a public restroom than I am in a public locker room, regardless of what term one uses to describe each of those two different sorts of rooms.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am basing my position on what should be done based on what people have researched and studied. There has been a demonstration of the danger to women with large-scale implementation of unisex bathrooms. There so far has not been such a demonstration of the danger to women with protecting trans women from harassment in the bathroom of their chosen gender. Both have been examined. You may argue they have not been examined enough, but that in and of itself is not a justification for limiting the freedoms of trans people, in my opinion.

Is it possible that men will "pretend" to be women to access women's restrooms. Yes. But it is also possible now for men to enter those spaces and harass women (and get away with it), anyway. This also doesn't prevent people from harassing people of the same gender. I can sympathize with those who feel like this may lead them to being put in a position of being harassed. But keeping trans people from being protected not only puts them up for abuse, but it puts cis women who are not completely conforming to gender roles up for harassment as well.

I don't believe there is a perfect solution that will satisfy everyone.

I skimmed the research you provided earlier, which was helpful. I have a question though, which I didn't see addressed in it (it might have been that I missed it though).

Why is there a difference between transinclusive gendered bathrooms and unisex bathrooms? I don't expect you to have a definitive answer here, I'm quite content to entertain speculation and hypothesis.

 

[Garb]

I skimmed the research you provided earlier, which was helpful. I have a question though, which I didn't see addressed in it (it might have been that I missed it though).

Why is there a difference between transinclusive gendered bathrooms and unisex bathrooms? I don't expect you to have a definitive answer here, I'm quite content to entertain speculation and hypothesis.

From what I have read "trans-inclusive" is a term used to provide protections for trans people to be able to use whichever bathroom they identify with without the fear of harassment or rebuke (and provide potential legal avenues to prevent this, should someone harass them thinking they are a pervert or something). I don't believe these can be used by cis-men who simply claim to be trans, which would be helpful for everyone involved who is acting in good-faith.

Unisex bathrooms is a possible solution to the problem of the whole womens/mens issue with regards to trans people, which takes things a step further from simply providing protections. But due to this a man doesn't have to pretend to be trans or anything, as there is no barrier at all (social or otherwise) that prevents him from entering the same space as other women. And from what the studies have shown, that appears to make things much worse. And frankly, I am not sure I would be comfortable in a unisex changing room with other women, either.

I'm not sure if that explains things properly, however.

 

[theprestige]

It's not a question of terminology. It's a question of function. I am much more willing to compromise on allowing males into a public restroom than I am in a public locker room, regardless of what term one uses to describe each of those two different sorts of rooms.

Point taken. I'm generally in agreement with you in terms of in-scope spaces.

What I'm saying is, regardless of which spaces you'd be gatekeeping, the real dilemma is how do you establish a gatekeeping rule that admits (trans)women, rejects cismen, and preserves the safety of the space for women.

Clarifying that you don't see restrooms as being in-scope... certainly clarifies that you don't see restrooms as being in-scope. It does not, however, do anything at all to answer the question actually being asked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

From what I have read "trans-inclusive" is a term used to provide protections for trans people to be able to use whichever bathroom they identify with without the fear of harassment or rebuke (and provide potential legal avenues to prevent this, should someone harass them thinking they are a pervert or something). I don't believe these can be used by cis-men who simply claim to be trans, which would be helpful for everyone involved who is acting in good-faith.

Unisex bathrooms is a possible solution to the problem of the whole womens/mens issue with regards to trans people, which takes things a step further from simply providing protections. But due to this a man doesn't have to pretend to be trans or anything, as there is no barrier at all (social or otherwise) that prevents him from entering the same space as other women. And from what the studies have shown, that appears to make things much worse. And frankly, I am not sure I would be comfortable in a unisex changing room with other women, either.

I'm not sure if that explains things properly, however.

Seems plausible, at least. The existence of social taboos would likely still prevail, at least for a while. I wonder how it will play out in the long run.

 

[Meadmaker]

What I'm saying is, regardless of which spaces you'd be gatekeeping, the real dilemma is how do you establish a gatekeeping rule that admits (trans)women, rejects cismen, and preserves the safety of the space for women.

You don't.

ETA: What I mean is you admit women into the women's locker room. See the title of this thread for my opinion on a related definitional matter.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, locker rooms are different, and short of providing individual stalls for people to change I do not know the perfect solution.

If only such things existed IRL.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't believe these can be used by cis-men who simply claim to be trans, which would be helpful for everyone involved who is acting in good-faith.

Biological men - sorry, I will not use the idiotic term "cis-" anything - are well known for their acting in good faith in matters to do with women.

This is why rape and sexual assault are unknown in our species.

I recall suggesting 5,112 pages ago that the simplest answer to the bathroom conundrum is to have another set marked "Other", "Unisex", "Non-binary" or whatever term makes the anti-TERFs happy.

Problem solved.