Thanks. Your argument is reasonably coherent and logical but unconvincing to me.
No surprises there. Let's see what might be said in response.
I am going to specifically focus on the case where there are facilities available that are non-gendered, but a transperson refuses to use them. Significantly, the transperson refusing is almost always a transwoman. Indeed, I have never heard of a case where a gender neutral facility was available and a transman insisted on using the male-gendered facility. The significance of that is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's not that the case where a gender neutral facility is most common, but it does illustrate the issues fairly well. It was also very influential in my thinking on the subject. Where it matters, I'll try to make the distinction.
I'll explain why.
1. I am not comfortable with the idea that we discriminate against a group X because group Y has fears of them.
I think there's a bit of question-begging going on by saying "discriminate against". In order to say that they are "discriminated against", you have to show that there is a distinction being made (discrimination), and that people on one side of that distinction are being treated unfairly. That's the "against" part of "discriminated against". I don't see that case as having been made.
2. It's not clear to me that the fears are rationally grounded and that would only exacerbated my concerns in 1. Plus if it is an irrational fear then exposure to transpeople will likely reduce the fear.
3. It's not clear to me that the fears are held by a majority of the group in question (and we get into a murky area here - if 10% of Group Y fear Group X is that enough to justify excluding Group X?)
Summarizing 1-3, you are discounting the fears, including questioning whether they exist.
Ok. Fair enough. A lot of people have told you that they do, but you aren't sure. As for whether or not they are rational, a lot of people have talked about actual attacks, but those are anecdotes, I'm told.
One way or another, this sense of "modesty" certainly exists. Some people think it's purely social conditioning, but I don't believe it. As I said, society might shape and mold it, but I don't think society creates it. And does it even matter? The emotion is real.
I think the solution of having the transwomen use a separate facility is a good one. It means the transwoman is not treated like a man. The women get their privacy. Everyone is safe. Everyone gets to use the pool.
The transwoman doesn't get everything she wants, if one of her desires is to be affirmed by society as being really and truly a woman, but "not getting what you want" is not the same as being "discriminated against".
Perhaps more on this subject later.
Also, be careful about the second half of part 2. I think you are likely to be correct, unless the presence of trans-women leads to a measurable increase in real harm, either being committed by the transwomen, or committed by men who use the transwoman rules to gain entrance to a space they clearly don't belong, and cause harm as a result. That harm might be an actual assault, or merely the sense of violation that occurs when a woman realizes she is being "peeped" on.
4. It's not clear to me that excluding trans people is the only solution to this problem.
Including trans people, i.e. including trans women in the set of people who can use female only spaces, causes the problem. It may be that there is some other solution to the problem, but in the absence of such a solution this one makes a lot of sense to me. I'm open to others, though.
5. It's not clear to me that the onus should be on transpeople to accommodate this fear, or whether the solution may be for example the people who have a problem with transpeople to find a separate space
I thought about this, and I think you are right. It isn't the transpeople's problem. if the facility operators are being thoughtful and considerate to all people, they will make sure that there are facilities for everyone that give access to the community asset (i.e. the gym, pool, whatever) in such a way that the safety and comfort of all users is protected.
So, some of the cis-women are indifferent to the presence of transwomen. Others are not. So, have one facility for men, one for cis-women and transwomen, and one for exclusively cis-women and trans-men. (The people who don't want to share a room with transwomen are generally indifferent to the presence of transmen.) Ideally, the facilities should be sized to accommodate the likely size of each of the groups. That would solve everything, wouldn't it?
6. It's not clear to me that it is a solution to the problem anyway. If a rapist wants to rape a woman then it seems there are ample opportunities, and access to women's facilities is going to make no statistical difference to the actual risk.
I'm not sure that telling a rape victim she is statistically insignificant is a good selling point, but we'll leave that aside for now. I want to illustrate why there's a problem with this line of thinking in the first place.
If rape were the problem, I have a partial solution, that has worked for reducing other forms of violent crime.
Surveillance cameras.
Of course, no one wants that and no one in our society, either US or UK, would accept it as a solution, nor should they. But, as an exercise, ask yourself why not. The problem is not rape as such. It's invasion of privacy. In my opinion, that sense of "privacy" or "modesty" or whatever you want to call it is related to fear of sexual assault, but it's the fear you are trying to avoid, regardless of whether or not that fear is due to an actual high probability in the specific circumstances. To put it differently, if the probability of rape was significant, it could be mitigated by a number of measures. You could use surveillance cameras. You could hire guards. Or....how about....exclude people who are capable of rape from the space?
That last suggestion would be doubly effective. It would not only lower the real, actual, rate of assault, but it would remove the source of the fear as well. The women wouldn't have to rely on some external savior, the guards or the people watching the cameras. They would just be safe, because there would be no source of fear.
(And....there are certain responses to that suggestion that will just provoke the eye-roll smiley. Let's see if anyone gives that a shot.)
7. There is also something missing from your argument - that being that if women having a fear of men is reason to exclude transpeople then you have to think that transwomen would have reason to fear men
I'm not following your reasoning. Yes, there are some scary men in the world, but when it comes to fear of rape, it's mostly a male on female thing. I know that theoretically, male on male rape is a real thing, (I know it better than most, but that's another story.) but I know that when I take my clothes off in front of another man in a locker room, I'm never worried about the possibility of rape. I don't think a transwoman would have any greater fear.
Transmen in the men's locker room would have reason to fear, and they do.
(and in fact men would have reason to fear other men also). Your argument doesn't seem to address the rights of other groups.
The last bit is important I think. Well it all is but the last bit I think gets to the heart of something that your logic doesn't address.
Your logic is :
1. Women fear men (whether it's justified or irrational)
2. These fears can be reasonably accommodated
3. Therefore these fears should be accommodated by segregating the sexes
Ok.....sort of. I might quibble, but the only real objection I have is with the way it is stated. There might be some other way of accommodating the fear. Let's see where this leads.
Until now I think we've largely got away with that because nobody lost anything. So step 2 was pretty much self-justifying. Women did their thing, men did their thing. The only men missing out are those who would want to be in a woman's space and why would they want to be in a woman's space other than for nefarious reasons? So we can ignore that group.
ok
But once you include transpeople the maths has to change. Now someone has a claim to be losing something by being denied access to women's spaces . So you have to revisit point 2. Is it reasonable that the wish to deny access trumps the wish to have access? And I don't think you've shown that.
What I've shown is that the denial of access addresses, and indeed solves, a real problem. It definitely does not solve every problem. It definitely leaves people wanting something they don't have. i.e. transwomen don't have access to female only spaces. They have access to functional spaces that allow them to access gyms and pools, but they don't have access to female only spaces.
So, any time someone is denied something they want, that's something of a down side.
I guess I would have to hear what you think is being lost by these people, as long as some provision is made that they can go swimming without significant inconvenience. I know they want something, but, knowing that not everyone is going to get exactly what they want, I'm not sure why I should come down on the side of transwomen wanting access to female only spaces.
Ultimately, almost all "clash of rights" situations comes down to a value judgement. Not everyone can be completely happy. A value judgement must be made. I come down on the side of protecting women's privacy ahead of the judgement that some males want to be affirmed by society as being women. That's what I think the clash of rights is all about.
