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

[Manger Douse]

What are you basing that on?

Because all men (not trans women - men) are a potential threat to women (and trans women) - this is why I believe these shelters discriminate in the first place.

Where are these places that already have self ID and where is the data?

 

[caveman1917]

Because a) there is zero evidence that it has happened anywhere where there is a self-identification law,

Oh please, there is plenty of evidence of this happening. Here's just the first google result for "self-id predator rape shelter":

CA — Toronto, Ontario. Though born male, Christopher Hambrook was permitted to stay at several women’s shelters in Montreal and Toronto. A serial sexual predator with a history of raping girls as young as five as well as women with disabilities, the man who calls himself Jessica used residency at women’s shelters as an opportunity to subject female residents to voyeurism, sexual harassment and attempted rape.

{...}

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think most are disputing this. It's also an unambiguous fact that trans people are an especially vulnerable group and need access to these facilities.

"Too bad" isn't an acceptable response.

I don't know much about what women's shelters look like, or what goes on there. I have no firsthand experience with either the shelters or the people who have used them.

I do have some experience with people who have worked at them, and I know that they are the sort of people who if a transwoman showed up needing shelter, and they learned that the person was a transwoman, they would look around, talk softly, and say some variation of "Let's keep this between us....Here's what you need to do." And that would be fine. Problem solved, for anyone except the activists.

The problems that would arise if the caretakers are given no discretion in deciding which males get to enter the shelter are left as an exercise for the reader.

And, lest we forget, the issues of women's shelters are different from the issues of locker rooms, which are different from the issues of bathrooms, which are different from women's athletics.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because all men (not trans women - men) are a potential threat to women (and trans women) - this is why I believe these shelters discriminate in the first place.

Firstly, what you're saying here is that you have a feeling that it'll be a problem, but no evidence that it actually is. Secondly, as a rule shelters don't discriminate.

Where are these places that already have self ID and where is the data?

Try reading the last couple of pages of this thread.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh please, there is plenty of evidence of this happening. Here's just the first google result for "self-id predator rape shelter":

Okay, I take it back - it's happened once, in all the years, and in all the countries that trans women have been admitted to women's shelters. That's more than zero, but far from compelling.

 

[Belz...]

The battered women's shelter has an obvious solution, don't let an abused person's abuser enter the shelter.

I don't think what was being discussed was that specific person, though.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problems that would arise if the caretakers are given no discretion in deciding which males get to enter the shelter are left as an exercise for the reader.

Since that's not the proposal, it seems irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

Because all men (not trans women - men) are a potential threat to women (and trans women)

Only in the sense that all humans can be a threat to any other human.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

OK, so what are the consequences? And what actions or circumstances would trigger those consequences?

This is the relevant section of the Irish law. Each country will have their own law, but it's thought that the English law would likely have followed the Irish one fairly closely.

So, up to €2,500 in fines, and up to 6 months in prison.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, I take it back - it's happened once, in all the years, and in all the countries that trans women have been admitted to women's shelters. That's more than zero, but far from compelling.

Why do you post something like this? Now that you've been provided with an example of something you claimed didn't exist, why not assume that there must be more of these incidents, and simply seek to find out if they are sufficiently numerous to be an issue, rather than pretend to believe that the single incident that was mentioned must be the only one in existence -- something that you're far too smart to be posting seriously?

 

[theprestige]

NVM

 

[Ziggurat]

This is the relevant section of the Irish law. Each country will have their own law, but it's thought that the English law would likely have followed the Irish one fairly closely.

So, up to €2,500 in fines, and up to 6 months in prison.

That's half my question. What about the other half: what triggers those consequences?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's half my question. What about the other half: what triggers those consequences?

Try reading the link. It's literally 4 lines.

 

[Rolfe]

Why do you post something like this? Now that you've been provided with an example of something you claimed didn't exist, why not assume that there must be more of these incidents, and simply seek to find out if they are sufficiently numerous to be an issue, rather than pretend to believe that the single incident that was mentioned must be the only one in existence -- something that you're far too smart to be posting seriously?

I read an article this morning (sorry, can't find the link, I was on my phone) about just this situation in Canada, which had a number of examples and statistics. I'll post it if I find the link. There are also several twitter threads where people have gathered together reports of individual cases. There are rather a lot.

 

[d4m10n]

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules

https://www.nytimes.com./2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html

SCOTUS states it is no longer lawful for employers to discriminate against gay or transgender employees anywhere in the USA.

This is fantastic news, IMO.

(Haven't caught up w/ the thread yet, but surely there will be no reasonable objections.)

 

[The Atheist]

She's a cisgender woman, but is the first to admit that she's often mistaken for being trans, or for being a man in drag. Should she be excluded from women's shelters on that basis?

Confirming internet warrior status by coming with an absurd proposition?

Check.

Why wouldn't a self ID law allow that?

It does, and now proven to be true.

Won't stop the vociferous from bleating about it.

Men are dangerous to women. Is that a mean thing to say?

1,000,000 years of human history says no.

In fact, men are dangerous to other men as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I haven't decided. I haven't been able to find an objective read of how the law was intended, and the reason for the roll-back. At the moment, I think it's a mixed bag.

On the one hand, there have been a few cases where transpeople were denied relevant medical care, and there is allegation that the care was denied because of religious beliefs on the part of the doctor. I can recall one incident where a surgeon refused to perform a hysterectomy for a transman who was transitioning.

On the other hand, there've also been a few cases where transwomen have sought medicare that just doesn't make sense. I recall a case where an intact transwoman was outraged when she was turned away from a gynecologist... even though she didn't have a vagina or any lady parts that would merit such a visit.

I think it really comes down to specifics. I don't think that transpeople should be discriminated against by the medical community, but I also think that biological sex is an absolutely relevant element of medicine. Transwomen will still need prostate exams and are still at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. Transmen still need to be monitored and checked for osteoporosis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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'm confused - I know what passing is, and I'm not sure what you think I'm conflating. Can you elaborate please?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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:



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).

Yeah, okay, I'm not a fan of that at all. It invalidates my prior wall of text above.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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'm on the fence and I don't have a good solution. I think that women merit a man-free zone... which includes people who look like men or who have penises. But I also think that battered people of any sort merit a safe space.

Where do battered men go? Is there a gender-neutral option available?