Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[d4m10n]

I do think I came around someone like that in one of my trans groups once, but we kicked her out for not respecting the rest of us. And then I found out she was kicked out of another trans group I used to be a part of for the same reason. So I do know people like that exist, but they have no real voice among us.

I find this rather surprising, but only because every public activist I've ever read affirms that trans women should be treated exactly like women in spaces such as changing rooms, which implies there ought not be any expectations put upon them to cover up in a way cisgender women would not.

 

[LondonJohn]

Point of information.

"Criteria" is plural. The singular is "criterion".

I considered pointing this out, but I decided to err on the side of not being a pedant (and this is not me being critical of you having pointed it out!).

I also see people fairly often making a similar mistake over phenomenon/phenomena. Oh and because I do yoga, I've lost track of the number of instructors I've had over the years who confuse "vertebra/vertebrae"


Though interestingly, "data" has now passed into common usage in the collective-singular form (eg: "the data shows that we're now in a recession"), when of course "data" is the plural form of "datum". I write plenty of market intelligence strategy reports, and they're always - by definition - packed full of data (from which the conclusions and the strategic choices/recommendations are drawn). But I always (correctly) use "data" in the plural - I guess it's one of my little quirks. Plus, if anyone who reads my work ever gets back to me to "correct" me, it's fun to correct them straight back

 

[Boudicca90]

You don't have a right to be there, though. That's the whole point.

Or if you do have a right to be there, you haven't articulated it clearly yet.

Do all males have a right to be in women's locker rooms? You say no.

Is there a definite criteria that determines which males have the right? You say no.

What happens when it's the person in charge who says you don't have a right to be there?

You keep talking like this is all just supposed to work the way you want. But you never actually explain how or why. And without addressing the problem of other people wanting it to work differently than you want it to work.

I absolutely do have the right to be in there, as I am a woman.

I live in California and I am legally a woman, where the law is that I do have the right to be in there. And the sky isn't falling here or anywhere else that has such protections and laws.

Here is the relevant legal info (which I agree with and support): https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1ac6ffa8-6ebd-4185-bfae-7ad54e005780

 

[theprestige]

"Legally a woman" sounds like a definite criteria to me.

ETA: Ah, but I see from your cited reference that it's just Personal Fiat Womanhood. Any male who says they want access gets access.

The actual definite criteria is simply "because I want to".

 

[LondonJohn]

I find this rather surprising, but only because every public activist I've ever read affirms that trans women should be treated exactly like women in spaces such as changing rooms, which implies there ought not be any expectations put upon them to cover up in a way cisgender women would not.

I guess the thing is that, by their very nature, activists (on any issue) tend to adopt positions towards the more extreme end of the spectrum. And they often tend to see things in terms of a binary choice - "black or white".

And on this particular issue, I think this is exactly what we're seeing. In some respects though, having extremist activists is no bad thing - whether for the group on whose behalf those activists are campaigning, or indeed for the wider public as a whole. And that's because, by setting out extremist demands, anything less extreme by way of settlement is viewed as a compromise (while in fact it's likely to be an equitable solution).

It's a little like haggling over something like the price of a car. If the dealer says the price is (say) $30,000, the buyer's best counter-strategy is NOT to offer what he/she feels is a reasonable price (say, $27,000). Rather, the buyer's best strategy is to offer something extreme like $22,000. Then, when the buyer and the dealer finally settle on $27,500, it appears like a compromise - when in fact the buyer has ended up paying what he/she considered to be a fair price all along.

 

[Boudicca90]

I guess the thing is that, by their very nature, activists (on any issue) tend to adopt positions towards the more extreme end of the spectrum. And they often tend to see things in terms of a binary choice - "black or white".

And on this particular issue, I think this is exactly what we're seeing. In some respects though, having extremist activists is no bad thing - whether for the group on whose behalf those activists are campaigning, or indeed for the wider public as a whole. And that's because, by setting out extremist demands, anything less extreme by way of settlement is viewed as a compromise (while in fact it's likely to be an equitable solution).

It's a little like haggling over something like the price of a car. If the dealer says the price is (say) $30,000, the buyer's best counter-strategy is NOT to offer what he/she feels is a reasonable price (say, $27,000). Rather, the buyer's best strategy is to offer something extreme like $22,000. Then, when the buyer and the dealer finally settle on $27,500, it appears like a compromise - when in fact the buyer has ended up paying what he/she considered to be a fair price all along.

It's also a problem when we are all painted as extremists.

I consider the laws here in California to be well in-line with my views, and the views of every trans or non-binary person I've come across (more specific non-binary protections were added later.) But the TERFs in this thread think these laws are extreme in themselves, therefore by just supporting the law as it is, we are "extremists."

And i'm sure there are people who disagree with the laws and believe everybody should mix, and perhaps we will one day get there as a society, but that view is a minority among us.

 

[The Atheist]

Men ARE more dangerous than women. I don’t see a problem with saying that.

Not only saying it, but I find it ******* absurd that it needs to be said in 2020.

Violent offences are overwhelmingly committed by males, and violence against women is overwhelmingly committed by males.

Some men seem to have missed that.

I've never seen women protesting about laws preventing them from physically assaulting or raping their husbands, but I've sure as hell seen men protesting laws against assaulting their wives.

I've still yet to hear of a women's militia gang-raping villagers and captives in any war in history, too.

I completely agree with all of this.

*to the tune of "Ebony and Ivory"*: "With a dick, or penis-free; live together in perfect harmony; Side by side in the women's facilities, oh Buddha; Why can't weeeeeeeee"

See above.

We know for certain some men will abuse the privilege.

Yes, that will be a very small subset of people claiming to be trans.

What it boils down to is whether the inalienable right of trans women to share facilities with women is worth any decrease in women's safety.

I say no, others say yes.

When the world is shutting down entire cities and spending trillions fighting a disease that kills 0.5% of people at worst, reducing harm for a small number of women seems pretty reasonable - hurt feelings or a raped woman? Simple bet for me.

 

[Mycroft]

Not even remotely. It's an axiom: Biological males are men.

Biological males are men, except when they are trans-women. Then they're women.

Do you not agree with that? Well, that makes the point disputed. I believe trans-women are women and trans-men are men. A good chunk of the medical community agrees with me.

So by definition, when the premise of a statement assumes a conclusion, that's what we call begging the question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not only saying it, but I find it ******* absurd that it needs to be said in 2020.

Violent offences are overwhelmingly committed by males, and violence against women is overwhelmingly committed by males.

Some men seem to have missed that.

I've never seen women protesting about laws preventing them from physically assaulting or raping their husbands, but I've sure as hell seen men protesting laws against assaulting their wives.

I've still yet to hear of a women's militia gang-raping villagers and captives in any war in history, too.



See above.

We know for certain some men will abuse the privilege.

Yes, that will be a very small subset of people claiming to be trans.

What it boils down to is whether the inalienable right of trans women to share facilities with women is worth any decrease in women's safety.

I say no, others say yes.

When the world is shutting down entire cities and spending trillions fighting a disease that kills 0.5% of people at worst, reducing harm for a small number of women seems pretty reasonable - hurt feelings or a raped woman? Simple bet for me.

Woah - hold on a moment!

Are you suggesting that a valid - and real - risk to allowing trans women to use the women's facilities...

... is of trans women (or, in your view I suspect, "regular" men deviously posing as trans women) raping other women within the changing room environment???

(And if that is what you're suggesting, then how do you suggest we similarly protect women from, say, being confronted and raped while walking to their car in the gym car park alone after dark? Or, for that matter, how do we protect women from being confronted and raped in the self-same changing rooms by men with an appetite for rape who simply walk straight into the open-door women's changing facilities without even needing to claim that they're trans women?)

 

[LondonJohn]

Biological males are men, except when they are trans-women. Then they're women.

Do you not agree with that? Well, that makes the point disputed. I believe trans-women are women and trans-men are men. A good chunk of the medical community agrees with me.

So by definition, when the premise of a statement assumes a conclusion, that's what we call begging the question.

Yes, and yes.

 

[Mycroft]

Most of the women I know don’t want dudes sharing a bathroom with them.

Except we're not talking about dudes, we're talking about trans-women.

I bet there is polling on this, and I’d bet most women don’t want men sharing bathrooms with them, when, you know, they’re very vulnerable.

Again, not men. Trans-women.

Men ARE more dangerous than women. I don’t see a problem with saying that.

Again, not men. Trans-women.

Everything you say is predicated on misgendering trans-women as men.

And you know that, so what's the point?

 

[Boudicca90]

Not only saying it, but I find it ******* absurd that it needs to be said in 2020.

Violent offences are overwhelmingly committed by males, and violence against women is overwhelmingly committed by males.

Some men seem to have missed that.

I've never seen women protesting about laws preventing them from physically assaulting or raping their husbands, but I've sure as hell seen men protesting laws against assaulting their wives.

I've still yet to hear of a women's militia gang-raping villagers and captives in any war in history, too.



See above.

We know for certain some men will abuse the privilege.

Yes, that will be a very small subset of people claiming to be trans.

What it boils down to is whether the inalienable right of trans women to share facilities with women is worth any decrease in women's safety.

I say no, others say yes.

When the world is shutting down entire cities and spending trillions fighting a disease that kills 0.5% of people at worst, reducing harm for a small number of women seems pretty reasonable - hurt feelings or a raped woman? Simple bet for me.

Segregationists in the United States tried to use similar arguments to keep Black and white people from mixing, claiming that the higher rate of violence among Blacks justified segregation to protect them from brutalizing "innocent white women".

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

 

[LondonJohn]

Except we're not talking about dudes, we're talking about trans-women.



Again, not men. Trans-women.



Again, not men. Trans-women.

Everything you say is predicated on misgendering trans-women as men.

And you know that, so what's the point?

I'm guessing that a reading of that poster's screen name might give a fairly big clue as to what (s)he (probably "she" though) feels about males in general, and why (s)he might believe in particular that men could end up taking advantage by deceptively posing as trans women in order to inflict various levels of abuse against the other women in the changing room......

 

[Boudicca90]

Woah - hold on a moment!

Are you suggesting that a valid - and real - risk to allowing trans women to use the women's facilities...

... is of trans women (or, in your view I suspect, "regular" men deviously posing as trans women) raping other women within the changing room environment???

(And if that is what you're suggesting, then how do you suggest we similarly protect women from, say, being confronted and raped while walking to their car in the gym car park alone after dark? Or, for that matter, how do we protect women from being confronted and raped in the self-same changing rooms by men with an appetite for rape who simply walk straight into the open-door women's changing facilities without even needing to claim that they're trans women?)

Yep, that's what these arguments have all been about. They see us as men who will rape and assault women in the restrooms and locker rooms and want us banned from those kinds of areas.

It's absolutely absurd and paranoid.

 

[Mycroft]

You don't have a right to be there, though. That's the whole point.

Or if you do have a right to be there, you haven't articulated it clearly yet.

Do all males have a right to be in women's locker rooms? You say no.

Is there a definite criteria that determines which males have the right? You say no.

What happens when it's the person in charge who says you don't have a right to be there?

You keep talking like this is all just supposed to work the way you want. But you never actually explain how or why. And without addressing the problem of other people wanting it to work differently than you want it to work.

Working out the details is pretty easy.

Bathrooms: people don't really expose themselves to each other in bathrooms. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone's genitals in a men's room, and women's rooms are similar. Everyone gets their own stall.

Changing rooms: this fiction that going into a changing room means everyone sees your genitals and you get to see everyone else's genitals is silly. I've never seen a changing room that didn't have private stalls with either doors or curtains. If there is a changing room out there that doesn't have them, then that changing room needs to be updated.

Claiming we can't do it this way because it's hard to articulate common sense rules or because we can make up fantasy scenarios where it doesn't work doesn't serve any purpose. The alternative, which is denying millions of people a safe place to go to the bathroom or change their clothes doesn't work either.

 

[Mycroft]

(And if that is what you're suggesting, then how do you suggest we similarly protect women from, say, being confronted and raped while walking to their car in the gym car park alone after dark? Or, for that matter, how do we protect women from being confronted and raped in the self-same changing rooms by men with an appetite for rape who simply walk straight into the open-door women's changing facilities without even needing to claim that they're trans women?)

Ironically, these very same people who want to assume trans-men are rapists or maybe just pretending to be trans so that they can rape will squawk about the inherent sexism of men not being trusted around children because anyone taking care of a child who is not a woman must be a pedophile.

 

[The Atheist]

They see us as men who will rape and assault women in the restrooms and locker rooms and want us banned from those kinds of areas.

Nice little strawman you've constructed there - nobody has said that at any stage.

Are you suggesting that a valid - and real - risk to allowing trans women to use the women's facilities...

Same error as above by the looks of it.

No.

... is of trans women (or, in your view I suspect, "regular" men deviously posing as trans women)

Yes, you did miss the point.

There is no "my view" about it, it's a fact that some men will pose as women for the sole purpose of being able to enter women's spaces.

The exact same applies to women's refuges. I'd be prepared to bet the life of all my children that there are men sick enough to pose as trans women to gain access to those facilities.

Maybe you come from a different planet, where 98.9% of rapes aren't committed by women?

It's well within my lifetime that the charge of rape in marriage was made a crime, after millennia of women being a male's chattel. It took women several thousand years to enact that, yet people want to open slather on women in their protected spaces so as to not hurt a few feelings.

Or, for that matter, how do we protect women from being confronted and raped in the self-same changing rooms by men with an appetite for rape who simply walk straight into the open-door women's changing facilities without even needing to claim that they're trans women?

That's some glorious non-sequitur going on there.

"It already happens, so who cares if it's a few more."

 

[Mycroft]

Nice little strawman you've constructed there - nobody has said that at any stage.

Are you kidding? That's literally the foundation of many of these arguments. Starting with the people who misgender trans-women as men, then going on to state that men are more dangerous than women.

There is no "my view" about it, it's a fact that some men will pose as women for the sole purpose of being able to enter women's spaces.

So where is this flood of men doing this? You can find a small number of anecdotes, and that's all.

It really seems absurd to me that anyone is going to make a big fuss of claiming to be a woman in order to commit a felony. Getting access to a woman's bathroom isn't what's stopping people from going in there to rape. They can already walk in there if they want.

Maybe you come from a different planet, where 98.9% of rapes aren't committed by women?

Very few of them by strangers.

That's some glorious non-sequitur going on there.

"It already happens, so who cares if it's a few more."

It's not a non-sequitur at all.

Someone who is so bold that they would publicly proclaim themselves a woman just to get access to a bathroom or changing room is bold enough to just walk in there and do what he wants without proclaiming himself a woman. He'd be less likely to be caught that way.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nice little strawman you've constructed there - nobody has said that at any stage.



Same error as above by the looks of it.

No.



Yes, you did miss the point.

There is no "my view" about it, it's a fact that some men will pose as women for the sole purpose of being able to enter women's spaces.

The exact same applies to women's refuges. I'd be prepared to bet the life of all my children that there are men sick enough to pose as trans women to gain access to those facilities.

Maybe you come from a different planet, where 98.9% of rapes aren't committed by women?

It's well within my lifetime that the charge of rape in marriage was made a crime, after millennia of women being a male's chattel. It took women several thousand years to enact that, yet people want to open slather on women in their protected spaces so as to not hurt a few feelings.



That's some glorious non-sequitur going on there.

"It already happens, so who cares if it's a few more."

Fortunately, I suspect that people with this sort of trenchant, blinkered worldview will be marginalised in favour of those who are sensible, sensitive (to ALL views) and measured, when it comes to trying to codify these sorts of things.

 

[Roboramma]

The alternative, which is denying millions of people a safe place to go to the bathroom or change their clothes doesn't work either.

No alternative denies anyone a safe place to go to the bathroom or change their clothes.