Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Emily's Cat]

Assuming there was no deliberately lewd or harassing behavior on the part of Ms. Francis, I see no reason why she should not be able to use the women's facilities.

snip for focus

Do you see any reason why an adult cisman should not be able to use the women's facilities during the same times that the female high-school swim team was using them, assuming he doesn't engage in any deliberately lewd or harassing behavior?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do you see any reason why an adult cisman should not be able to use the women's facilities during the same times that the female high-school swim team was using them, assuming he doesn't engage in any deliberately lewd or harassing behavior?

Someone who does not sincerely identify as a woman should be denied entry. I admit that this could be tricky to nail down in practice.

I suppose someone could try to take advantage of this, as people can take advantage of anything.

Despite fearmongering, i see no evidence that these things actually happen frequently enough to justify blanket exclusion of trans women. And this example shows that the fear is not the disingenuous men that are often suggested, but ordinary trans women like Ms. Francis.

It would probably be wise for laws to be changed such that trans people can have their official gender ID changed easily, in order to protect against the hypothetical gender grifter.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Someone who does not sincerely identify as a woman should be denied entry.

Why? What is your reasoning for this position?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Why? What is your reasoning for this position?

That's a good question. Perhaps sex-segregated facilities have run their course. The baseline assumptions in establishing them are certainly falling short of modern reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a good question. Perhaps sex-segregated facilities have run their course. The baseline assumptions in establishing them are certainly falling short of modern reality.

I'm interested in getting an answer to my good question, if you don't mind.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm interested in getting an answer to my good question, if you don't mind.

That is my answer. Sex segregated facilities assumes that separating the sexes guarantees a lust-free environment, which we know isn't true. Your line of inquiry has me questing the assumption that there even should be sex segregated facilities.

I think there is legitimate interest in privacy in places of undress. Perhaps these facilities should be modified to provide real privacy instead of sex segregated communal rooms. At least, privacy stalls for dressing, with communal facilities for less sensitive behavior.

The dorms in my college had private shower stalls. There was no need for people walking around naked.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm not sure you read Rolfe's post. Or perhaps you didn't follow the intent. She said "Not because some of them are trans, but because all of them are male." Yes, it seeks to exclude tanswomen. Not because they are trans, but because they are males. It's not "trans-exclusionary", it's male-exclusionary.

His accusations of anti-trans bigotry and "TERFs" have been demonstrated again and again to be groundless at best and plain false at worst yet he simply repeats them ad nauseam. If the rape shelter in question was run by "trans-exclusionists" who are driven by "anti-trans bigotry" we would see the following:

1. If a cisgender male and a transgender male show up, only the transgender male would be refused entry because the cisgender male isn't trans. Yet we clearly see that cisgender males are refused too.

2. If a cisgender female and a transgender female show up, the transgender female would be refused entry and the cisgender wouldn't. Yet we clearly see that the transgender females are not refused entry.

It's patently obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the property on which the exclusion criterion is based is not transgender identity but sex, as if that wasn't obvious already from the "single-sex service" description. So either SuburbanTurkey does not have a functioning brain or he is arguing in bad faith.

Which is all the more surprising given how easy it is to test his claims, so one wonders why he doesn't just do so and present the results. Here is but one test: He could send an email to the shelter telling them that he is male and ask whether he can use their services. If his claim is correct the response should be something like: "We do not have enough information to answer your question, could you tell us your gender identity first?" If his claim is wrong then the response would be a simple: "No our services are not available to males."

Of course, again, anyone with a functioning brain will already know that the response will be the latter and not the former, but since this seems to come so difficult to some people perhaps he should just put his claims to the test.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

His accusations of anti-trans bigotry and "TERFs" have been demonstrated again and again to be groundless at best and plain false at worst yet he simply repeats them ad nauseam. If the rape shelter in question was run by "trans-exclusionists" who are driven by "anti-trans bigotry" we would see the following:

1. If a cisgender male and a transgender male show up, only the transgender male would be refused entry because the cisgender male isn't trans. Yet we clearly see that cisgender males are refused too.

2. If a cisgender female and a transgender female show up, the transgender female would be refused entry and the cisgender wouldn't. Yet we clearly see that the transgender females are not refused entry.
It's patently obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the property on which the exclusion criterion is based is not transgender identity but sex, as if that wasn't obvious already from the "single-sex service" description. So either SuburbanTurkey does not have a functioning brain or he is arguing in bad faith.

Which is all the more surprising given how easy it is to test his claims, so one wonders why he doesn't just do so and present the results. Here is but one test: He could send an email to the shelter telling them that he is male and ask whether he can use their services. If his claim is correct the response should be something like: "We do not have enough information to answer your question, could you tell us your gender identity first?" If his claim is wrong then the response would be a simple: "No our services are not available to males."

Of course, again, anyone with a functioning brain will already know that the response will be the latter and not the former, but since this seems to come so difficult to some people perhaps he should just put his claims to the test.

The Vancouver Rape Relief center did not provide aid to transwomen. Did you miss that part?

You are aware that your view of men and women, as defined through strictly biological terms, is not how many view the matter of gender and gender discrimination right? Is the entire nation of Canada brain damaged or engaged in bad faith?

 

[Meadmaker]

Assuming there was no deliberately lewd or harassing behavior on the part of Ms. Francis, I see no reason why she should not be able to use the women's facilities. Whether or not the reaction of the people calling the police was rooted in bigotry or ignorance is unclear to me.

I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt given that it is only recently the existence and legal acceptance of trans people is becoming common knowledge.

All right. So, they might have been bigoted, or they might have been ignorant. You are willing to "extend the benefit of the doubt" to them, and assume that it was ignorance, based on the time at which the incident described occurred.

I'm guessing that more recent incidents, such as the case I frequently refer to in Palatine, Illinois, from just a couple of years ago, could only be explained by bigotry. (That was the case where the 17 year old asked, "Can she put the towel over her eyes?") After all, it was much more recent, and since it involved a controversy over an extended period of time, a discussion at a school board meeting, and an actual lawsuit, there can be no doubt that the position of the school board was explained sufficiently that there could be no excuse for continued ignorance.

To my way of thinking, a high school girl who didn't want to take off her clothes when the person next to her has a visible prick might be more accurately described as "normal".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

All right. So, they might have been bigoted, or they might have been ignorant. You are willing to "extend the benefit of the doubt" to them, and assume that it was ignorance, based on the time at which the incident described occurred.

I'm guessing that more recent incidents, such as the case I frequently refer to in Palatine, Illinois, from just a couple of years ago, could only be explained by bigotry. (That was the case where the 17 year old asked, "Can she put the towel over her eyes?") After all, it was much more recent, and since it involved a controversy over an extended period of time, a discussion at a school board meeting, and an actual lawsuit, there can be no doubt that the position of the school board was explained sufficiently that there could be no excuse for continued ignorance.

To my way of thinking, a high school girl who didn't want to take off her clothes when the person next to her has a visible prick might be more accurately described as "normal".

I am sympathetic to this. I just don't think excluding trans women is a morally or practically acceptable option. There are plenty of sincere trans women who have not and have no intention to surgically transition. Some trans women have dicks, and throwing them into men's rooms or some other room doesn't strike me as acceptable.

the more I think about this, the more I think it's time to do away with communal sex-segregated undressing areas.

Ordinary bathrooms could remain the same, since stalls provide privacy already. i don't see how this is an issue with women's shelters, unless there's some element of communal nakedness there I'm not aware of.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To my way of thinking, a high school girl who didn't want to take off her clothes when the person next to her has a visible prick might be more accurately described as "normal".

And when it is a high school boy for the gay man next to him? No one wants homosexuals in the locker rooms, yet saying that is taken as some crazy kind of discrimination for no logical reason.

 

[caveman1917]

The Vancouver Rape Relief center did not provide aid to transwomen. Did you miss that part?

And yet you choose to highlight point 2 of my post, which does not deal with transwomen, but with cisgender and transgender females. The point which deals with transwomen is point 1, which deals with cisgender and transgender males. Did you miss that part?

You are aware that your view of men and women, as defined through strictly biological terms, is not how many view the matter of gender and gender discrimination right?

And yet I did not use the terms "men" or "women" but "male" and "female" - you know, biological terms with actual proper definitions. Your ad populum is of course rejected out of hand: many people believe all sorts of dumb crap, as if the fact that many people share a certain belief somehow makes that belief more correct.

Is the entire nation of Canada brain damaged or engaged in bad faith?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Your apparent inability to even highlight the correct point which deals with transwomen in my post (that would be point 1 and not point 2) can tell us something about your claims though. And yes, you are the one making claims about that rape shelter being "trans-exclusionary" or driven by "anti-trans bigotry" so it is up to you to demonstrate them and it is up to you to defend your claims against criticism. Criticism which has been leveled again and again in this thread by multiple people. Simply ignoring criticism and counterargument and just repeating your claims ad nauseam does not an argument make.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And yet you choose to highlight point 2 of my post, which does not deal with transwomen, but with cisgender and transgender females. The point which deals with transwomen is point 1, which deals with cisgender and transgender males. Did you miss that part?



And yet I did not use the terms "men" or "women" but "male" and "female" - you know, biological terms with actual proper definitions. Your ad populum is of course rejected out of hand: many people believe all sorts of dumb crap, as if the fact that many people share a certain belief somehow makes that belief more correct.



Perhaps, perhaps not. Your apparent inability to even highlight the correct point which deals with transwomen in my post (that would be point 1 and not point 2) can tell us something about your claims though. And yes, you are the one making claims about that rape shelter being "trans-exclusionary" or driven by "anti-trans bigotry" so it is up to you to demonstrate them and it is up to you to defend your claims against criticism. Criticism which has been leveled again and again in this thread by multiple people. Simply ignoring criticism and counterargument and just repeating your claims ad nauseam does not an argument make.

it would literally kill you to just call them trans women, wouldn't it?

Yes, I'm being the unreasonable one here, please do tell.

The rape shelter is trans exclusionary in the plainly understood way that TERFs are. TERFs deny the validity of gender transition. To them, transwomen are men (thus ineligible for entry) and trans men are women (thus welcome).

No one has claimed here that TERFs exclude all trans people as a separate 3rd class. This is an incredibly tedious straw man.

 

[Elaedith]

I am sympathetic to this. I just don't think excluding trans women is a morally or practically acceptable option. There are plenty of sincere trans women who have not and have no intention to surgically transition. Some trans women have dicks, and throwing them into men's rooms or some other room doesn't strike me as acceptable.

the more I think about this, the more I think it's time to do away with communal sex-segregated undressing areas.

Ordinary bathrooms could remain the same, since stalls provide privacy already. i don't see how this is an issue with women's shelters, unless there's some element of communal nakedness there I'm not aware of.

Should a trans man who has not medically transitioned (but has previously identified as a man) be denied access to a woman's shelter on the grounds of being a man?

Should a trans man prisoner who has not medically transitioned be placed in a men's prison on the grounds of being a man?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The Vancouver Rape Relief center did not provide aid to transwomen.

It's pretty clear in the example given that a transgender female is a transman. Person who is female bodied and identifies as a man by gender.

You are aware that your view of men and women, as defined through strictly biological terms, is not how many view the matter of gender and gender discrimination right? Is the entire nation of Canada brain damaged or engaged in bad faith?

No... he's viewing male and female through biological terms, not gender. Gender is not sex, sex is not gender, remember?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Should a trans man who has not medically transitioned (but has previously identified as a man) be denied access to a woman's shelter on the grounds of being a man?

Should a trans man who has not medically transitioned be placed in a men's prison on the grounds of being a man?

I would say yes to both unless there was evidence showing that doing so placed these people in unusual danger, which I assume might be a serious problem.

The fact that men's prisons have rampant sexual violence that society just treats as par for course is a disgrace. Likewise for the lack of social services for men fleeing domestic abuse situations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is my answer. Sex segregated facilities assumes that separating the sexes guarantees a lust-free environment, which we know isn't true. Your line of inquiry has me questing the assumption that there even should be sex segregated facilities.

I think there is legitimate interest in privacy in places of undress. Perhaps these facilities should be modified to provide real privacy instead of sex segregated communal rooms. At least, privacy stalls for dressing, with communal facilities for less sensitive behavior.

The dorms in my college had private shower stalls. There was no need for people walking around naked.

I'll mark you down as being in support of adult males being allowed into the locker rooms of underage females.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'll mark you down as being in support of adult males being allowed into the locker rooms of underage females.

Yes, mark me down as treating trans women as women.

Should I mark you down as one of the people avoiding public resources because you can't bear to share it with transwomen?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am sympathetic to this. I just don't think excluding trans women is a morally or practically acceptable option. There are plenty of sincere trans women who have not and have no intention to surgically transition. Some trans women have dicks, and throwing them into men's rooms or some other room doesn't strike me as acceptable.

It would seem a lot more sympathetic if your responses didn't so often include insinuations of bigotry and hate.

I am very genuinely curious about something. I tried to get some clarity from Squeegee, but he never did answer. So I'm looking for your perspective, your personal view on this.

I have no objection to a person who hasn't yet surgically transitioned.
I have no objection to a person who would like to surgically transition but can't afford it.
I can even give some leeway to a person who doesn't want to surgically transition because it's awfully permanent and invasive and any surgery has risks.

But there are also people who have said that they don't want to transition at all, in any way. They are content to continue having a full beard, masculine appearance, and unquestionably masculine body... but who want to be considered women. They view themselves as being transwomen, and want everyone else to recognize them and treat them as they would any other woman.

What does the term "transwoman" even mean for a person who has no intention or desire to appear feminine in any way at all?

What does the term "woman" mean when it includes people who are clearly and incontrovertibly male in every way that any other human can tell?

 

[caveman1917]

it would literally kill you to just call them trans women, wouldn't it?

Oh please, as you can easily see I've called them transwomen many times in this thread. In this case I decided to use precise language to distinguish gender from sex, because that's the entire point: that the exclusion criterion is sex and not gender identity. But that's all you do, right? Making groundless accusations and when called out on it just making up a bunch more. Leading me to believe that in your case it is bad faith and not just the result of postmodern brain rot.

Yes, I'm being the unreasonable one here, please do tell.

You object to precise language making the distinction between gender and sex so yeah, you're the one being unreasonable.

The rape shelter is trans exclusionary in the plainly understood way that TERFs are. TERFs deny the validity of gender transition. To them, transwomen are men (thus ineligible for entry) and trans men are women (thus welcome).

Define "validity." Oh right, you can't, because it means jack ****. And don't think that your attempt to substitute gender (the "validity of gender transition") for sex is going unnoticed. Transwomen are male (thus ineligible for entry in a female single-sex service) and transmen are female (thus welcome in a female single-sex service).

No one has claimed here that TERFs exclude all trans people as a separate 3rd class. This is an incredibly tedious straw man.

So they're not TERFs (trans-exclusionary) but MERFs (male-exclusionary) and the exclusion criterion is sex and not transgender status. Glad we cleared that up, I look forward to your usage of MERFs instead of TERFs henceforth.