Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Emily's Cat]

I don't believe it's trans people wanting us to ignore this, from what I've seen here and on twitter it's male 'woke bros' who like to pretend the patriarchy doesn't exist.

Actually, that's quite true. There are a lot of transsexual and transgender people who don't approve of this kind of thing. It usually seems to be the cis-male supporters who are most vociferous about transrights, especially when they overlap or conflict with the rights of females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The transphobes took a fat L on the Evergreen pool case, and that's just a preview of things to come.

Yep. All those age 6-18 girls who were so uncomfortable that they chose to take turns using a much smaller changing area. Total transphobes who deserve their L.

Such a huge WIN for the TransActivists to put those young girls in their place and make sure they know they're not as important as a male-born person.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's true for young women looking at grandmas with boobs whose nipples are looking at the floor too. But like you say, that discomfort is different - it's about the person looking at that person being uncomfortable on behalf of the perceived loss of attractiveness of the other person and the view of what the future holds for them. It's different in terms of object and subject than being discomfited because a person of the perceived opposite sex could be looking at you while you're naked.

I think it comes down to the same concepts involved in why "peeping toms" are considered socially unacceptable.

Being observed nude becomes uncomfortable if the person viewing seems to be receiving some sort of non-consensual sexual gratification from the viewing. Nobody is going to be relieved to realize the peeping tom up in the tree with binoculars is actually a lesbian.

Your description singles out opposite sex lustful gazing, but I think most people would be skeeved out by homosexual voyeurs if it were clear that they were viewing with sexual gratification in mind.

The assumption of heterosexuality in sex-segregated facilities is a faulty one. There is a significant minority of people who are not heteronormative, so being in single-sex company is no guarantee of freedom from lustful gazes. If the goal is protection from unwanted lustful eyes, then private stalls is the most direct solution, and it has the benefit of not treating entire classes of people as inherently dangerous.

This is obvious given the history of homosexual people, specifically gay men, being treated as presumed predators, and there were similar pushes to exclude them from parts of the public sphere in the name of safety.

 

[Meadmaker]

I assure you, those white kids in the first desegregated schools were sincerely and deeply uncomfortable with the presence of their black peers. The correct response was, and remains, "too bad".

The comfort of the majority is an anathema to the concept of individual human rights.

This comes up so often.

Once upon a time, group A was uncomfortable sharing all sorts of plumbing fixtures (bathrooms, locker rooms, water fountains) with group B. However, society decided that group A's discomfort was unwarranted, and so group A and group B were allowed, indeed compelled, to use the same facilities, whether group A, or group B, liked it or not.

Today, group C does not want to share facilities with group D. Since society once decided that A's discomfort was unwarranted, it must be the case that C's discomfort is also unwarranted.

Of course that is fallacious. We have to decide independently if C's discomfort is unwarranted.

If C is "women" and D is "men", almost everyone would say that C's discomfort is warranted. If C is "men" and D is "women", almost everyone would say C's discomfort is warranted, while noting that, in reality, C isn't all that discomforted.

The whole argument is what if C is "women" and D is "transwomen", because some people say that D is a subset of C, whereas other people say that this is already covered by the case of C="women" and D="men".


However fallacious, though, there is a connection. People note that those who fought for the rights of group A are now hailed as heroes, so people today want to be just like those people, and so they fight for group B, expecting to be hailed as heroes as well. And indeed, some people do hail transgender rights activists as heroes, which encourages them greatly, but not everyone does. In order to make the analogy fit, those of us who aren't real keen on complete and total integration of private spaces for women and transwomen have to be fit intp the pattern somehow, so we are the bigots, the KKK, the segregationists.

It's fallacious, but since when has that stopped a movement?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Corrective rape seems to be one of the solutions on Twitter to these transphobic lesbians who don't like the taste of girl dick

Even as a hetero person, I'm really appalled by the treatment of cis-women lesbians. It's just unconscionable to me.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Actually, that's quite true. There are a lot of transsexual and transgender people who don't approve of this kind of thing. It usually seems to be the cis-male supporters who are most vociferous about transrights, especially when they overlap or conflict with the rights of females.

I trust you have a citation for this claim.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think unisex is really that vital. Private changing rooms in the existing sex-segregated rooms seems adequate.

A moment ago you were saying that you thought unisex was the best option.

What's the best option now? Changing rooms segregated by binary gender norms, with private stalls?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A moment ago you were saying that you thought unisex was the best option.

Private stalls is the feature I find most important. I could see private stalls alleviating the entire need for sex segregated rooms, but that's just a second-tier effect. Personal privacy the is the key element.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The comfort of the majority is an anathema to the concept of individual human rights.

The rights of the few shouldn't trump the rights of the majority.

As I said earlier...

A WOMAN who has a penis would not EVER have put young girls into that position, because a WOMAN would understand the inherent discomfort and risk of a 45-year-old penis being in the same environment as naked young females!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seems that we have a natural experiment going on right now to really find out if civil rights for trans people is going to open the flood gates for sexual violence against women and children.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sex segregated communal locker rooms don't really provide adequate privacy without making some broad assumptions about sexuality that we know aren't true.

This is a red herring. It's not about sexuality. If Colleen Francis fancied men, I would still feel the same about her being naked in the ladies' locker room around a bunch of underage girls!

A lesbian very well might get a kick out of looking at naked women in the locker room. But I don't think a lesbian would generally get a kick out of other women looking at her and being uncomfortable as a result. There's no reason to expect that any other women looking at her would be uncomfortable. Most people are unlikely to know that she is a lesbian. And for most women, seeing other naked women is not discomfiting and there's no perceived potential risk.

Similarly, a gay man might get a kick out of looking at naked men in the locker room, but there's no reason to think that he would get a kick out of other men seeing him naked, as they would not be made uncomfortable by it. Most of the other men won't know he's gay (well, unless he's *really* getting a kick out of looking at them I suppose). And in general, it's not discomfiting to see other naked men in an area that is designed for the exclusive use of naked male people.

This is not the same. This is a naked male-bodied person in a room intended for naked female-bodied people. Any semi-rational person would expect that the sight of a naked male in a women's locker room is going to make those women uncomfortable and intimidated. Even if you don't think it's fair that it causes discomfort and a perceived threat, it does. Even more so given the dramatic age difference. A 45-yo person should be well aware that naked male genitalia in the presence of female minors is not socially acceptable.

 

[TomB]

I don't think unisex is really that vital. Private changing rooms in the existing sex-segregated rooms seems adequate.

This seems to be a sticking point.

Are they sex segregated or gender segregated?

It seems that one side is arguing that they are (or should be) sex segregated and the other seems to be arguing that they are (or should be) gender segregated.

It's possible to make arguments for either type, but I don't think the reasons would be exactly the same, so they may not be interchangeable.

And, of course, there is an argument to be made for unisex, but you would need to address both sets of concerns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My choices are get transphobe screamed at me from one side or rape enabler from the other. Which one do I choose?

Choose common sense and recognize that the people screaming insults at you are zealots lacking in either reason or compassion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's far enough. I don't think people actually want women to be raped - I just don't think they care that much

I don't think it's "people". I don't think it's that generalized. I personally think it's a relatively small collection of predominantly white cis-hetero-males who don't care about the safety and rights of cis-women as much as they care about the emotional affirmation of transwomen.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is a red herring. It's not about sexuality. If Colleen Francis fancied men, I would still feel the same about her being naked in the ladies' locker room around a bunch of underage girls!

The fear is based on the assumption that anyone with a penis is going to be sexually attracted to women, which is often, but not always, true.

There is no shortage of stories of people also being uncomfortable with obvious lesbians in these spaces. Here's someone writing into a advice columnist expressing discomfort with a lesbian couple being in a women's locker room. The common denominator is the fear of sexual attraction, not dicks.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/02/07/dear-abby-lesbians-dressing-room-uncomfortable/

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think unisex is really that vital. Private changing rooms in the existing sex-segregated rooms seems adequate.

Seriously, I'm not even that cheeses about private changing rooms. Is it too much to ask that a person with a penis keeps their genitalia covered when in the presence of females, in order to avoid causing concern?

Do you really think that the right of a very few people to feel emotionally affirmed about their internal feelings is more important than the right of a great many people to feel safe?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I trust you have a citation for this claim.

LOTS of experience.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This seems to be a sticking point.

Are they sex segregated or gender segregated?

It seems that one side is arguing that they are (or should be) sex segregated and the other seems to be arguing that they are (or should be) gender segregated.

It's possible to make arguments for either type, but I don't think the reasons would be exactly the same, so they may not be interchangeable.

And, of course, there is an argument to be made for unisex, but you would need to address both sets of concerns.

I am speaking sloppily, sorry. I think in most general contexts, there's not much value in focusing on sex. Gender identity is the much more useful variable.

Gender segregated facilities with private stalls is what I meant here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seriously, I'm not even that cheeses about private changing rooms. Is it too much to ask that a person with a penis keeps their genitalia covered when in the presence of females, in order to avoid causing concern?

Do you really think that the right of a very few people to feel emotionally affirmed about their internal feelings is more important than the right of a great many people to feel safe?

You and I are both aware that trans acceptance is about more than hurt feelings. Trans people are uniquely in danger of violence and mistreatment. If there's an argument for gender segregated spaces, trans women are the poster child for people needing protection.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seems that we have a natural experiment going on right now to really find out if civil rights for trans people is going to open the flood gates for sexual violence against women and children.

Seriously, you are casting this as a "right" to be naked around people with the opposite genitalia. You really think that's a right? The "right" to compete against materially physically weaker opponents in a sex-segregated sport is what you consider to be a "civil right"?

But somehow, the desire to NOT be subjected to a massive human experiment that puts women at risk, even though we have oodles of history demonstrating that women (and men) are at risk of assault by people who are born male? We have tons of information that show definitively that the vast majority of sexual assaults, as well as physical assaults are committed by males.

But in your zeal to give people a "right" to be naked around whoever they want to, and the "right" to compete against materially weaker opponents, you're quite happy to consider that the safety of women is NOT a "right".