• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


Whenever I read the claim that a non-trans man wouldn't go through the hassle of dressing up like a woman and claiming to be trans just to pull of some nefarious act in a bathroom or locker room I'm reminded of the news articles where men have snuck into the lower parts of outhouses/porta-johns (with everything that entails) just to get a peep in. Suddenly saying "I"m trans" doesn't seem that intimidating a barrier for a non-trans pervert to overcome.
 
Last edited:
I know that sometimes we play devil's advocate to test out the strength of ideas in a forum like this, but for once I'd be interested in a very straight answer. Does anyone think rolling back specific legal protections for transfolks is okay?

https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/1271597925056086019

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

The short answer is "yes".

Longer answer:
You referenced a specific law in your twitter link. I've read about that law and, as described in the articles I have read, including the twitter link, I would say that that particular rollback is not one I would support. On the other hand, I know that when dealing with legal subtleties, the media often gets the story completely wrong. In other words, I strongly suspect that the Trump administration didn't do what the news stories said it did. Since I don't know what the Trump administration action actually did, I don't know whether or not I would support it.
 
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.
The "battered women shelters " argument is an interesting one. They are for women who have been subject to assaults and terrible abuse and the like. Any transwoman seeking refuge will have also been assaulted and so on, if they hadn't they wouldn't be in the shelter.

With that in mind if you object to transwomen being given sanctuary in such shelters were should they seek safety from assault and abuse?
 
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.

And in fact we've discussed on the forum instances of men taking advantage of this sort of thing. Remember the ball-wax guy?
 
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".

You are free to make whatever assumptions you like, as you avoid addressing what I have actually said.
 
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.

You're conflating some unrelated concepts there with passing. Passing is simply seeming enough like your gender as opposed to your biological sex that people believe you to be cis, rather than believing you to be trans.
 
...I strongly suspect that the Trump administration didn't do what the news stories said it did. Since I don't know what the Trump administration action actually did, I don't know whether or not I would support it.

Your skepticism is warranted, because the news articles don't do a particularly good job of summing up the legal state of play. Wikipedia does, though:

Since 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has explicitly interpreted the word "sex" in the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557) to recognize and include transgender people, entitling them to the same services to which everyone else is entitled, although a federal court injunction on Dec. 31, 2016 prevented HHS from enforcing its nondiscrimination rule. Under the Trump administration, HHS lawyers began working on permanently reversing the rule, and on May 24, 2019, the proposed reversal was formally announced. On October 15, 2019, federal judge Reed O’Connor vacated the nondiscrimination rule, saying that it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His ruling meant that federally-funded healthcare insurers and providers may deny treatment or coverage based on sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy, even if the services are medically necessary. On November 1, 2019, HHS announced that, effective immediately, recipients of taxpayer-funded grants from HHS are permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, as it will no longer enforce the 2016 rule known as 81 F.R. 89393. This change affects "HIV and STI prevention programs, opioid programs, youth homelessness services, health professional training, substance use recovery programs, and many other life-saving services," according to the National Center for Transgender Equality. In April 2020, HHS acknowledged that the pending rule to replace Section 1557 (which was then under review by the Justice Department) followed the federal court order that "vacated the gender identity provisions" of Section 1557. The replacement rule was revealed on June 12, 2020.

tl;dr - The new rule will allow "federally-funded healthcare insurers and providers [to] deny treatment or coverage based on sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy" as a matter of federal administrative policy, rather than merely a vacatur of the rule from a federal district court (which could yet be overturned in the Fifth Circuit or SCOTUS).
 
Last edited:
The "battered women shelters " argument is an interesting one. They are for women who have been subject to assaults and terrible abuse and the like. Any transwoman seeking refuge will have also been assaulted and so on, if they hadn't they wouldn't be in the shelter.

With that in mind if you object to transwomen being given sanctuary in such shelters were should they seek safety from assault and abuse?

I don't.
I object to an abuser being able to enter the women's shelters where women are sheltering from them, simply by declaring they are a woman and entitled to entry. That's what the proposed rule change seems to allow
 
I don't.
I object to an abuser being able to enter the women's shelters where women are sheltering from them, simply by declaring they are a woman and entitled to entry. That's what the proposed rule change seems to allow


But they would only be allowed to enter if they had been a victim of assault and/or abuse.
 
*English government


Sadly, the Scottish government is currently doubling down on the woke, despite their lethal insistence that coronavirus had to be tackled in "lockstep" with the murderous strategy devised by Westminster.
 
*English government


Sadly, the Scottish government is currently doubling down on the woke, despite their lethal insistence that coronavirus had to be tackled in "lockstep" with the murderous strategy devised by Westminster.

Well, there's a first - England has done something smarter than the Scots.

I'll just go and check that my compass still points north.
 
many different ways as there are many different shelters run by different organisations. Is it an important fact?
Following on from ThePrestige's point about who is allowed access to these shelters, yes I think it's very important
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom