Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[p0lka]

It wouldn't make anyone happy. The females who value single-sex spaces would be unhappy, and the males who get their kicks from "exisiting" in female-only spaces would also be unhappy. They absolutely don't want unisex facilities, they want segregated facilities so that they can glory in being in the wrong one. Look at the reaction if a third unisex space is suggested. They don't "just want to pee", they want to be in the female spaces as of right and a unisex space doesn't satisfy them.

It wouldn't make the people at either extreme happy, i'll shed a tear.
everyone else might be cool with it though,

compromisation is key.

 

[Rolfe]

Who else are you doing it for but the people at one extreme end? Everyone else is cool with it the way it is.

 

[Manger Douse]

Can't make an omelette without raping a few eggs

 

[p0lka]

Who else are you doing it for but the people at one extreme end? Everyone else is cool with it the way it is.

I wouldn't say it's one, in fact I did say it's either.
edit:
you should do the quote thing if you're replying, that way people can follow the train of thought.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, most people can figure it out when the post being replied to is the previous one.

Your side wants to drive a coach and horses through established systems, turn everything upside down and upset a hell of a lot of people, to pander to the maybe 0.5% of the population who identify as trans and for whom occupying the single-sex spaces of the opposite sex is an important objective. If that's not acting for the people at one extreme end of the debate, I don't know what is.

 

[p0lka]

Well, most people can figure it out when the post being replied to is the previous one.

Your side wants to drive a coach and horses through established systems, turn everything upside down and upset a hell of a lot of people, to pander to the maybe 0.5% of the population who identify as trans and for whom occupying the single-sex spaces of the opposite sex is an important objective. If that's not acting for the people at one extreme end of the debate, I don't know what is.

re: the highlighted
I'm not on a side, did you not read my post that you replied to.

It wouldn't make the people at either extreme happy, i'll shed a tear.
everyone else might be cool with it though,

compromisation is key.

There are two extremes/outliers here, not one.
Being part of one extreme doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't exist so you can point and shout at the other extreme.

No, the solution is to compromise and both extremes get to cry about it, tough.

 

[theprestige]

re: the highlighted
I'm not on a side, did you not read my post that you replied to.

There are two extremes/outliers here, not one.
Being part of one extreme doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't exist so you can point and shout at the other extreme.

No, the solution is to compromise and both extremes get to cry about it, tough.

What's the compromise solution, then? What real problems does it solve? What real problems does it not solve? What makes it the best trade-off?

 

[Meadmaker]

re: the highlighted
I'm not on a side, did you not read my post that you replied to.

There are two extremes/outliers here, not one.
Being part of one extreme doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't exist so you can point and shout at the other extreme.

No, the solution is to compromise and both extremes get to cry about it, tough.

So. what is the extremist position that is opposite yours, because I can't see anyone here espousing extremism on the "anti-trans" side?


On the underlying philosophical issue, there is the question about whether transwomen are really women. If you are labelling everyone who says no as an extremist, then I guess there are an awful lot of extremists in the world. Aside from the question of how the majority can be extremists, what it seems you have done is just create a label for everyone who disagrees with you, so you can ignore them. Argument by name-calling can be very effective in gathering popular support, but it isn't logical.

In terms of transgirl participation in women's sports, lots of us say no, but I don't think that's extremist. Is there any position short of allowing complete and unrestricted participation by transgirls that is not extremist? What I'm getting at is it just seems that the goal is to label people extremist and then declare victory.


In terms of access to women's spaces, there are a variety of opinions. Some of us are willing to compromise a little bit. Some are willing to compromise a lot more. Some are not willing to compromise at all. Rolfe has spoken up against compromise using very well supported arguments about why compromise is letting the camel's nose under the tent. It's not like this is some slippery slope fallacy. She is arguing that what has already happened, will happen. So, even the most strident arguments here are well founded and well inside the mainstream of society at large. I don't think it is extremist.


We might have had some occasional input from some people that are just a flat out "no", but not many and not from the regular participants. Again, I ask if there any position other than free and unrestricted access to women's spaces by transwomen that is not extremist? What would a non-extreme position be that is not, "Trans women are women, and should be treated exactly like every other women in every other circumstance, and they should not have to operate under any restriction not imposed on any other woman?" Because, to me, that position seems pretty extreme.

 

[Sherkeu]

It seems to me impossible that there is not some other forum that has persons with logical common sense.
Of the non-religious type.
That place is not here, not now. And as person that does not want to be subjected to the 'marketing' of social media....I feel I have no place to go. The 'dumb' and 'troll' is too large a percentage. I do not read or participate. But I do see the effects.
Idiots. And growing......and growing

Mongolia? Siberia? Can women go there these days? A Yurt sounds good. Climate changes soon right?

(eta: and when I refer to 'women' I do mean those person NOT born with a penis and/or testes. Any other weird intermediate strangeness of development is fine by me.)

 

[Rolfe]

Have we really come to the place where asserting that people born with a normal 46XY karyotype, with a penis and testicles and a prostate gland, are male, are men, and that it is inappropriate for them to demand entry into female single-sex spaces, is deemed to be an "extremist position"?

Yes, I suppose we have. What is perhaps even more surprising is that people on an ostensibly rational forum, who pride themselves on rational thought, are vocally defending this nonsense.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is perhaps even more surprising is that people on an ostensibly rational forum, who pride themselves on rational thought, are vocally defending this nonsense.

Unfortunately it shouldn't be surprising. Educated people often fancy themselves to be skeptics, but there are certain forms of nonsense that you have to be educated into believing.

 

[Rolfe]

That's an interesting point. It reminds me of some of the judicial reasoning we observe in the Trials and Errors subforum. I once commented, about a particularly specious piece of circular reasoning, "you have to go to the best law schools to be able to come up with something like that."

 

[ponderingturtle]

I mean ...

I think women who have something against transwomen in female spaces would actually be fine with that. I believe the term is "transmisogyny".

Of course, from a practical perspective, they probably couldn't know, but they would feel comfortable again once they found out. It's funny when you start thinking about these things.

But then, it's easy to come up with cases that will muddy the waters with regards to this topic. What about cis-women that naturally look like men? Cis-men that look like women? Androgyny is a thing. What about post-op transwomen who embrace their masculine looks? Etc., etc.

My larger point was that this separation exists for a reason, and it isn't because female spaces are somewhat intrinsic to the concept of femininity. The reason might be silly, it might be soaked in religious or cultural hang-ups, but the reason has never been "people whose gender identity matches are allowed to undress together".

What it comes down to is this:

Is a woman that refuses to undress in front of a cis-man but is okay with undressing in front of cis-women bigoted?

Is a woman that refuses to undress in front of a transwoman but is okay with undressing in front of cis-women bigoted?

Should the answer to these two questions really be different?

And they would clearly be comfortable with trans men in the women's locker room.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I actually don't care if it was "deliberate". She has a penis. And she was in the presence of underage females. Any sane, rational, and caring human would have had the presence of mind to be discrete and cover themselves so as to avoid any potential discomfort on the part of anyone involved.

Which is why detailed genital inspections before entrance are needed. After all if you see some guy using it he could be a trans guy and then wouldn't you have egg on your face making an issue of him using the womens locker room as he doesn't have a penis.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The grasping at straws is trying to justify a biological male lesbian with a penis using a locker room in front of underage girls.

The real world exists outside your imaginary one.

Yet if one is outraged when homosexual male gay men use the locker room with young boys suddenly you are a homophobe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

As I said earlier...

Now some muscular guy with a beard is of course comforting to the naked young girls because he doesn't have a penis. No way they would take issue with a trans man in their locker room, just like you would never dream to take issue with him walking into the locker room.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I actually think co-ed locker rooms and showers this would actually fix a lot of issues. I know it'd be a major change and I don't see it happening any time soon, but one can dream.

I'm not intending to draw a generality here, or to pigeon hole you. I do think it's worth considering though that a lot of men think unisex services would fix a lot of things, whereas a lot of women don't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It seems to me impossible that there is not some other forum that has persons with logical common sense.

Some of us have common sense It just seems like we also have civility, so we're not quite as vituperative as some others are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Have we really come to the place where asserting that people born with a normal 46XY karyotype, with a penis and testicles and a prostate gland, are male, are men, and that it is inappropriate for them to demand entry into female single-sex spaces, is deemed to be an "extremist position"?

Yes, I suppose we have. What is perhaps even more surprising is that people on an ostensibly rational forum, who pride themselves on rational thought, are vocally defending this nonsense.

Even more interesting is that the vocal defenders are not themselves trans.

 

[Meadmaker]

Now some muscular guy with a beard is of course comforting to the naked young girls because he doesn't have a penis. No way they would take issue with a trans man in their locker room, just like you would never dream to take issue with him walking into the locker room.

I don't know about "never", but I have never seen any news story about women objecting to a trans man in the women's locker room.


Maybe it happens. I've just never seen it.


I know that people who participate in this thread have insisted that they would be perfectly ok with transmen in their locker room. Perhaps you have evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, about it happening.