Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Ziggurat]

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.

Why would a muscular bearded trans man use the women's locker room? Why wouldn't he use the men's room? The men likely won't mind, and if he's gone to the trouble of getting muscular and bearded, it seems like that's where he'd be more comfortable anyways.

 

[Rolfe]

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

To a large extent this is a men's rights movement. Show these uppity women who's boss, think they have any agency to make decisions for themselves do they? We'll see about that! Menz feelz trump any argument or evidence any woman might presume to put forward, especially if it's about women's feelz.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Because they typically use the mens room and only were forced there by bathroom bills. But if it was consistent bearded men in women's locker rooms would be no big deal, as long as they lack a penis.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/meredithtalusan/when-trans-selfies-in-bathrooms-go-viral

Though it seems like the real thing that they want it a locker room for cis women only and one for men, trans women, intersex individuals who have too phallic a clitoris and so on.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why would a muscular bearded trans man use the women's locker room? Why wouldn't he use the men's room? The men likely won't mind, and if he's gone to the trouble of getting muscular and bearded, it seems like that's where he'd be more comfortable anyways.

The logic is we are organizing by genitals so they should be required to use them like the bathroom bill demanded. Using the mens locker room is a crime after all for them.

 

[lionking]

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

One day you will make a relevant, on topic post. I live in hope.....

 

[Meadmaker]

Because they typically use the mens room and only were forced there by bathroom bills. But if it was consistent bearded men in women's locker rooms would be no big deal, as long as they lack a penis.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/meredithtalusan/when-trans-selfies-in-bathrooms-go-viral

Though it seems like the real thing that they want it a locker room for cis women only and one for men, trans women, intersex individuals who have too phallic a clitoris and so on.

So, in other words, you got nothin'.

I mean, if the dude with the beard from your link showed up in the ladies room, you bet your sweet bippy the ladies would complain. Until "he" said, "Actually, I'm female. I'm transgender. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to pee."

At least, that's what real women tell me would happen. If you have any evidence at all that that is not the case, feel free to share it with us so that we might all learn.

 

[Ziggurat]

The logic is we are organizing by genitals so they should be required to use them like the bathroom bill demanded. Using the mens locker room is a crime after all for them.

No, that is not really the logic in play here. The logic is that females need female-exclusive spaces for certain purposes, for reasons already discussed at length in this thread. This is a particularly female concern, not a particularly male concern. Setting aside both male and female exclusive spaces is convenient and socially acceptable way to accomplish this, but the need for male-exclusive spaces is not the same. So allowing biological females into spaces which are nominally male exclusive simply doesn't pose the same kinds of problems. It just isn't much of an issue, let alone an equivalent one, and your attempts to make it an issue to justify a particular position regarding biological male presence female-exclusive spaces isn't going to work.

 

[Lithrael]

Just making my semi annual post in here to represent cis women who are not in favor of a blanket ban on peeners, and who have never felt bullied by the trans community. Nobody wants uncivil behavior but there’s a better compromise to be made than ‘penis=no.’ Again maybe it’s different other places but where I’m at trans women in general seem as well behaved as anyone, and I’m not convinced by the argument that allowing trans women is inseperable from opening the floodgates for regular male pervs.

And no this does not mean I think nobody who is a trans woman can ever be a gross or dangerous person. I just don’t think the best way to deal with bad actors is to make rules for the whole cohort they belong to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, in other words, you got nothin'.

I mean, if the dude with the beard from your link showed up in the ladies room, you bet your sweet bippy the ladies would complain. Until "he" said, "Actually, I'm female. I'm transgender. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to pee."

At least, that's what real women tell me would happen. If you have any evidence at all that that is not the case, feel free to share it with us so that we might all learn.

But he doesn't have a penis so he is required to use the womens room. That is the case with all of the bathroom bills. It is a crime for him to use the mens room after all. That is exactly what people here want.

Or do all trans people have to use the mens locker room regardless of personal biology?

They have been clear, it is the penis that makes them uncomfortable not anything like beards so teenage girls should be forced to change in front of trans men, it is only logical.

Seems like they just reject all trans people. But no that would make them transphobic and they have been clear it is not about that.

 

[d4m10n]

I just don’t think the best way to deal with bad actors is to make rules for the whole cohort they belong to.

Isn't the fear of bad actors—at least in large part—the rationale for separating the male cohort from the female cohort in the first place?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, that is not really the logic in play here. The logic is that females need female-exclusive spaces for certain purposes, for reasons already discussed at length in this thread. This is a particularly female concern, not a particularly male concern. Setting aside both male and female exclusive spaces is convenient and socially acceptable way to accomplish this, but the need for male-exclusive spaces is not the same. So allowing biological females into spaces which are nominally male exclusive simply doesn't pose the same kinds of problems. It just isn't much of an issue, let alone an equivalent one, and your attempts to make it an issue to justify a particular position regarding biological male presence female-exclusive spaces isn't going to work.

Except that the laws are not written to treat men and women differently, they right the laws so that everyone has to use the locker room from the gender assigned to them at birth. So unless you are advocating a criminal act trans men need to use the women's locker room.

 

[Lithrael]

Isn't the fear of bad actors—at least in large part—the rationale for separating the male cohort from the female cohort in the first place?

You’ll have to ask some cultural anthropologists. But wasn’t there a time when using the bathroom was on the long list of things classy women were not supposed to ever do outside the home? Like access to the post office and the phone, it represented stuff women were doing without the supervision of their husbands. Internet says 1887 was the first time a business in the US employing women was required to have somewhere they could go to the bathroom.

“Victorian-era Americans were segregated by gender in many spaces, Molotch said. There were ladies-only waiting rooms in train stations, and female-only reading rooms in libraries. As sex segregation has fallen to the wayside in other public spaces, bathrooms remain the last holdout, he said.”

Unsupervised gender mixing was terrifying in general! Was it more about safety or more about the image of propriety? A little of both...

 

[Darat]

You’ll have to ask some cultural anthropologists. But wasn’t there a time when using the bathroom was on the long list of things classy women were not supposed to ever do outside the home? Like access to the post office and the phone, it represented stuff women were doing without the supervision of their husbands. Internet says 1887 was the first time a business in the US employing women was required to have somewhere they could go to the bathroom.



“Victorian-era Americans were segregated by gender in many spaces, Molotch said. There were ladies-only waiting rooms in train stations, and female-only reading rooms in libraries. As sex segregation has fallen to the wayside in other public spaces, bathrooms remain the last holdout, he said.”



Unsupervised gender mixing was terrifying in general! Was it more about safety or more about the image of propriety? A little of both...

In England the reason why there are queues in female toilets to this day is down to women being treated less like second rate citizens. Laws had to be passed that forced developers to provide equal space for female toilets as they did for male. The law did indeed work and women could then find the public toilets, the unforseen consequences is that today female and male toilets will occupy the same sized floorspace whereas to provide the same number of toilet visits for men and women would mean that female toilets should be bigger in terms of floorspace.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except that the laws are not written to treat men and women differently, they right the laws so that everyone has to use the locker room from the gender assigned to them at birth. So unless you are advocating a criminal act trans men need to use the women's locker room.

What laws are you talking about? Which restroom or locker room you can use is mostly determined by the rules of the property owner, not by laws.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What laws are you talking about? Which restroom or locker room you can use is mostly determined by the rules of the property owner, not by laws.

Have you really forgotten all the push for bathroom laws? Here is a relevant court case as well. Involving forcing a trans male student to use the girls bathrooms and locker rooms.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/politics/gavin-grimm-appeals-court-win-transgender-bathrooms/index.html

 

[8enotto]

In more modern facilities in the US, at least where I lived a female area had double the stalls of a men's room, as there was a row of urinals on the wall. Still as much floor but laid out different.



I have eaten at one restaurant with two facilities, one stall each and no specific gender indicated. There were never issues that I seen. Use the empty one, done.

 

[Ziggurat]

Have you really forgotten all the push for bathroom laws?

No, I haven't. But that push only happened in a few places, and it existed because in general laws didn't cover who had to use which toilet. There wouldn't have been a push for new laws if that had been how the laws already worked. Laws which specify which bathroom you have to use are the exception, not the rule.

Here is a relevant court case as well.

I don't think you understand that case. The school was the property owner, they had their own policies. The court ruled that those policies violated Title IX. But Title IX doesn't specifically address bathrooms, and it only applies to schools receiving federal funds. So the case hardly contradicts what I said.

 

[Meadmaker]

You’ll have to ask some cultural anthropologists. But wasn’t there a time when using the bathroom was on the long list of things classy women were not supposed to ever do outside the home?

I think the reason this was the case in the 19th century was that there was no place to do it where men weren't watching.

In urban areas, having segregated toilets was what allowed women to leave the home for extended periods of time without having men watch them pee. It was a major victory for women's rights.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, I haven't. But that push only happened in a few places, and it existed because in general laws didn't cover who had to use which toilet. There wouldn't have been a push for new laws if that had been how the laws already worked. Laws which specify which bathroom you have to use are the exception, not the rule.



I don't think you understand that case. The school was the property owner, they had their own policies. The court ruled that those policies violated Title IX. But Title IX doesn't specifically address bathrooms, and it only applies to schools receiving federal funds. So the case hardly contradicts what I said.

I think this is a misinterpretation. In my youth, a man going into the ladies' room or into a women's locker room may very well have been arrested. It rarely came to that in the rare cases where it happened, for a variety of reasons. The simplest explanation for the paucity of arrests in that period was that there was a greater tolerance for casual violence. A man violating the accepted social norms on bathroom use would generally be subject to extrajudicial enforcement of those norms, and the law was almost never applied to someone engaging in such enforcement.

(Just in case anyone doesn't get the pseudo-legalisms above, in my youth a guy in the ladies' room would probably get punched in the mouth, and no jury in the country would convict the puncher.)

In other words, the law already demanded segregation. It was just so obvious to everyone that no one actually bothered to write it down.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think this is a misinterpretation. In my youth, a man going into the ladies' room or into a women's locker room may very well have been arrested.

Quite possibly, but I think the charge would have been trespassing. The law can enforce private rules, but that doesn't make those private rules law.