Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not talking about bad-faith ones. I'm talking about ALL MALES.

I can't explain it in more simple terms, man.

that's a shame, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Belz...]

I love sentences like this. "treating trans people as valid human beings."

Especially when the poster knows that nobody here has questioned that validity. It's just another way to label disagreement as evil.

 

[Belz...]

that's a shame, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Dude, I've explained to you numerous times already that the "exclusionary" part of the "TERF" you keep bringing up in response to arguments here is not to trans people but TO MALES. Therefore, at best, you're talking about MERFs. Human females asking males not to come into their exclusive spaces. It has NOTHING to do with transgenderism.

Is that clearer?

 

[Joe Random]

Ahh yes, being trans in high school, a notably fun and easy social experience that people will endure for malicious purposes.

If there's one thing everyone knows about teenagers, they are very chill and polite to other teenagers about sensitive topics such as sexuality and gender presentation.

Odd. You quote my post, but your reply appears to have **** all to do with what I was saying.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Dude, I've explained to you numerous times already that the "exclusionary" part of the "TERF" you keep bringing up in response to arguments here is not to trans people but TO MALES. Therefore, at best, you're talking about MERFs. Human females asking males not to come into their exclusive spaces. It has NOTHING to do with transgenderism.

Is that clearer?

Sure, and the question is, do trans women count as "human females". Clearly we disagree.

What's your solution? Send the trans people off to tiny little broom closests set aside for the biological freaks? Send them into men's dressing room, saying their identity is invalid? Dress it up any way you like, the trans exclusion comes through quite clear.

 

[Belz...]

Sure, and the question is, do trans women count as "human females". Clearly we disagree.

Do they, according to you?

What's your solution?

Mine? I've suggested unisex restrooms before, and isolated showers and locker rooms, but all this could require more space, and I don't know how feasible that is. Since we're talking about tiny number of people, however, a different solution might be more economical and just as satisfactory, but I don't know what that is.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do they, according to you?

In every way that matters for ordinary social circumstances. Perhaps not for a doctor, but I'm not a trans person's doctor.

Mine? I've suggested unisex restrooms before, and isolated showers and locker rooms, but all this could require more space, and I don't know how feasible that is. Since we're talking about tiny number of people, however, a different solution might be more economical and just as satisfactory, but I don't know what that is.

The broom closet it is, then. We can be polite. The sign saying "freaks" will be implied, not actually nailed to the door.

Should trans women be excluded from women's domestic abuse shelters, or are you simply limiting exclusion to areas where people are undressed?

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure, and the question is, do trans women count as "human females". Clearly we disagree.

And....we're back to definitions again. It goes 'round and 'round. We know that they are "females", once we un-define the word "female". Note I don't say "redefine" female, because there's no definition for the word that actually fits.

What's your solution? Send the trans people off to tiny little broom closests set aside for the biological freaks? Send them into men's dressing room, saying their identity is invalid? Dress it up any way you like, the trans exclusion comes through quite clear.

In most high school situations, the first attempt at compromise usually involves sending them to the faculty restroom and the coaches' changing rooms. I think the teachers would be surprised to hear themselves described as 'biological freaks", although one or two of the coaches I had were certainly in the neighborhood.

I must admit, a complete solution is difficult, and it's impossible to make everyone completely happy.

 

[Belz...]

In every way that matters for ordinary social circumstances. Perhaps not for a doctor, but I'm not a trans person's doctor.

But biological sex is not a social aspect. How do you define "female" or "male", then?

The broom closet it is, then. We can be polite. The sign saying "freaks" will be implied, not actually nailed to the door.

Should trans women be excluded from women's domestic abuse shelters, or are you simply limiting exclusion to areas where people are undressed?

Did you even read what I wrote? I suggested unisex restrooms where everybody can go, and modifying locker rooms and showers so that they become also unisex. How is that exclusionary?

 

[Ziggurat]

In every way that matters for ordinary social circumstances.

Sex (as in the act) is a pretty ordinary social circumstance. And I assure you, transwomen are not equivalent to biological women when it comes to having sex.

Should trans women be excluded from women's domestic abuse shelters, or are you simply limiting exclusion to areas where people are undressed?

"Jessica" Yaniv should be. There are other trans women who probably shouldn't be.

 

[Rolfe]

I've suggested unisex restrooms before, and isolated showers and locker rooms, but all this could require more space, and I don't know how feasible that is. Since we're talking about tiny number of people, however, a different solution might be more economical and just as satisfactory, but I don't know what that is.

"Jessica" Yaniv should be. There are other trans women who probably shouldn't be.

Do you guys even listen to yourselves? You're decreeing that women must give up the single-sex spaces they value so highly, because you, a man, has decided this must happen in order to placate a bunch of other men.

One says all single-sex spaces must go, despite the high value women place on them, and the other graciously allows that they might remain but will allow carefully selected men to access them. Then the argument about how these men should be selected, what the criteria are and how the gatekeeping would be accomplished begins.

Guys, it's not up to you, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

 

[Belz...]

Do you guys even listen to yourselves? You're decreeing that women must give up the single-sex spaces they value so highly, because you, a man, has decided this must happen in order to placate a bunch of other men.

One says all single-sex spaces must go, despite the high value women place on them, and the other graciously allows that they might remain but will allow carefully selected men to access them. Then the argument about how these men should be selected, what the criteria are and how the gatekeeping would be accomplished begins.

Guys, it's not up to you, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

Calm down, Rolfe. I was asked what my solution would be, and I made a suggestion. No one's talking about giving up anything. If you have your own, individual locker space, is that giving up anything? Personally I'd prefer that over having to walk around other, naked men.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, it is giving up a lot. Men, don't advocate for other people to give up something they value, the value and utility of which you don't even understand.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it is giving up a lot.

What, the ability to look at other naked women? What are you giving up, exactly, by being even more isolated from unwanted interactions than before?

I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge that it was not a decree but a suggestion. Your reaction to my post is completely unwarranted, since I'm generally on your side here.

Men, don't advocate for other people to give up something they value

Perhaps this didn't register, but my proposal would affect everyone, not just women.

 

[Rolfe]

Suggestion, then. I fail to see the difference, really. We know you personally can't actually legislate for the abolition of single-sex spaces. You've indicated that you would if you could.

I've explained the value of women-only spaces to women several times earlier in the thread. Forgive me if I'm not going to type it all out again. It gets ignored anyway and within a couple of pages another bunch of men are smugly announcing that having no single-sex provisions is the answer to everything.

Not being a man, I don't know how much men value their single-sex spaces. If they want to keep them, they won't find me arguing about it.

 

[Belz...]

Suggestion, then. I fail to see the difference, really.

Well, a decree would be "here's what women should do!", while a suggestion is "how about we try this?".

Glad I could help.

I've explained the value of women-only spaces to women several times earlier in the thread. Forgive me if I'm not going to type it all out again. It gets ignored anyway and within a couple of pages another couple of men are smugly announcing that having no single-sex provisions is the answer to everything.

Speaking of ignoring arguments, you ignored mine. I said that each individual would be isolated. I am asking you what you would lose in this specific scenario.

Also, I would prefer if you refrained from sexist comments against men. This sort of civility goes both ways. You don't see me berating women.

Not being a man, I don't know how much men value their single-sex spaces.

I'm not asking you to, so I don't see the relevance.

 

[Meadmaker]

Suggestion, then. I fail to see the difference, really. We know you personally can't actually legislate for the abolition of single-sex spaces. You've indicated that you would if you could.

I've explained the value of women-only spaces to women several times earlier in the thread. Forgive me if I'm not going to type it all out again. It gets ignored anyway and within a couple of pages another bunch of men are smugly announcing that having no single-sex provisions is the answer to everything.

Not being a man, I don't know how much men value their single-sex spaces. If they want to keep them, they won't find me arguing about it.

Are you sure you got Belz' suggestion correct?

He's advocating for individual spaces. i.e. for spaces occupied by only one person at a time.

(He acknowledged that may not be practical due to increased space requirements.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you guys even listen to yourselves? You're decreeing that women must give up the single-sex spaces they value so highly, because you, a man, has decided this must happen in order to placate a bunch of other men.

Hold up there. If you have paid any attention to my posts in this thread, you'll see that I've defended the idea of sex-segregated spaces quite a lot. And I've argued at length for why women deserve to be protected from potentially predatory males who would abuse transgender status to access these spaces. So I'm really not doing what you're claiming I'm doing.

That being said, I'm not sure what the argument for keeping, say, a transwoman who has undergone a full sex change operation and is on hormone therapy from being in a woman's shelter. There are transwomen for whom the causal observer cannot even tell that they're transwomen and not simply women. And in those cases, they could probably be admitted to the shelter even if the policy was to exclude them because, again, you can't always tell. So in such cases, what's the argument for exclusion as policy when the policy won't even work to exclude them? That's the sort of case where I'm saying some transwomen should probably be allowed in. What's your argument against it in those cases?

Guys, it's not up to you, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

No, it's not up to me. Frankly, it isn't up to you either. It's up to whoever runs the shelter. But that doesn't mean we can't voice our opinions.

 

[Rolfe]

Are you sure you got Belz' suggestion correct?

He's advocating for individual spaces. i.e. for spaces occupied by only one person at a time.

(He acknowledged that may not be practical due to increased space requirements.)

Yes, I saw it. First as you say it's not practical. Second, it abolishes the women-only spaces that women value a great deal for a number of reasons. It removes spaces where women can meet and communicate in the absence of a male presence. It isolates women from each other and removes the opportunity for help, advice, and simple companionship.

I've heard that men don't look at each other in the gents, let alone speak to each other. I've heard that some transmen have initially made horrible gaffes because they didn't understand this. Women use their single-sex provision for everything from a quick chat through borrowing a safety pin to helping out with menstruation issues to rallying round when someone is having a miscarriage. Not to mention that it's the place to go to escape an importunate male, and if necessary recruit some assistance against that male.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Such intangible benefits were cited by the DoD in explaining why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Gays and lesbians were going to ruin the unit cohesion and morale. Turned out to be a load of **** as a pretext to perpetuate bigotry.

Seems relevant to arguments about protecting the sanctity of "female" only spaces.