Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

That's an interesting situation. So, I'm picturing an open, traditional, locker room, which would have people of various states of undress in it, and there would also be separate changing stalls for anyone who cared to use them, that offered complete privacy.

In that case, would the transwomen need to use the privacy stalls? Logically, I can't think of a reason they ought to. I have said it's not about what they see, but rather what is seen. If a woman doesn't want to take her clothes off in the presence of a male, she can use the privacy stall. If a woman doesn't care, she doesn't have to. Either way, a woman might end up in the presence of a disrobed male, which is awkward, but, is it any worse than awkward?

Maybe it's a complete solution. Of course, not everyone will like it, but not everyone likes anything.

I'm curious what other people would say here. Assuming there are enough privacy stalls for everyone who wants them, is it problem solved?

At my "gut" level, I'm still suspicious of this solution. The presence of the disrobed male is still something that doesn't sit right with me, but I'm trying to be logical about it instead of going with a "gut" reaction.

A gym near me which I occasionally use also has a unisex changing facility: it has a whole load of private stalls which are lockable from the inside (some for single use, others for eg families with younger children), with a separate bank of lockers for storing street clothes and valuables, and individual shower stalls which also lock from the inside.

To me, this is a great system. But it requires the facility to have been planned and built this way from the very beginning - it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to retro-convert gyms etc with separate men's and women's changing areas into this sort of unisex facility: in addition to the fact that there's often topographical separation of men's and women's areas (making it hard to join them together), it requires significantly more floor space to build a single unisex space with all its separate closed stalls than it does to build two reasonably-communal men's and women's spaces.

So as I said in my previous post, for the forseeable future we're stuck with most gyms/pools/sports facilities having communal changing areas for three different categories: men, women and those with disabilities. And therefore the transgender issue must be considered in that light - regardless of what we might think of as the intrinsically better arrangement of changing areas.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not quite clear on what you're saying here. White girls on the bus would've (obviously) been more at risk from European American men sitting next to them than African American men.

Uhhhhh?

(And bear in mind that perceived risk is just as relevant as real risk)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As you once said, "I don't care" isn't very persuasive.

Nor is it meant to be. It's a value judgement. I said I don't care about the affirmation of a person's gender identity, and I don't. That's not intended to be a persuasive argument. It's a statement of my values. I want people to be able to live as they wish. That's a value of mine. I don't care that other people commend them for their choice, or approve of it, or affirm it. So, I want people to be able to go swimming, but if in the course of doing so they have to be reminded that they are not like the other girls, I'm pretty ok with that.

I value people's privacy. That's a value of mine. So, what we have in the case where a student is allowed to use a faculty room, or some other smaller, more private facility, I see a case where everyone gets the expected level of privacy, and the expected level of safety, and access to the facility, and that's where my caring ends. Yes, it means telling the transgirl, "You aren't like the other girls." and I am sure that some transgirls would not like that outcome. It's not that I don't understand that. It's that I don't care, or, more accurately, that I don't care enough to sacrifice any of the other things that I care about more.

I think perhaps a long term approach to the issue might be to be more supportive of trans people as trans people, as opposed to their gender. In other words, support a trans woman or a trans man as trans people, as opposed to pretending that a trans woman is really a woman. The Atheist often brings up that third polynesian gender that I can't spell, or the Thai ladyboys. I won't pretend to understand exactly how they are treated culturally, but as I understand it, no one would say that a Thai ladyboy is "really" a woman. They are their own sort of thing. I don't know how that translates into where they go to the bathroom or take a shower at a communal gym. I'm not up on my Thai cultural norms.

The statement 'i value people's privacy' is an odd one to me. I don't value other people's privacy. It literally has no value to me. But I respect that it has value to them. My view is that if you want privacy you should be able to have it. But then it's up to you to avail yourself of the privacy option... not to demand other people avail themselves of the option so you don't have to see them. So if you don't like changing with the transgirls.. YOU go use the faculty facility. That way everyone gets their privacy respected and nobody gets made to feel bad about not being like the other girls. How is that not better?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's an interesting situation. So, I'm picturing an open, traditional, locker room, which would have people of various states of undress in it, and there would also be separate changing stalls for anyone who cared to use them, that offered complete privacy.

In that case, would the transwomen need to use the privacy stalls? Logically, I can't think of a reason they ought to. I have said it's not about what they see, but rather what is seen. If a woman doesn't want to take her clothes off in the presence of a male, she can use the privacy stall. If a woman doesn't care, she doesn't have to. Either way, a woman might end up in the presence of a disrobed male, which is awkward, but, is it any worse than awkward?

Maybe it's a complete solution. Of course, not everyone will like it, but not everyone likes anything.

I'm curious what other people would say here. Assuming there are enough privacy stalls for everyone who wants them, is it problem solved?

At my "gut" level, I'm still suspicious of this solution. The presence of the disrobed male is still something that doesn't sit right with me, but I'm trying to be logical about it instead of going with a "gut" reaction.

I don't see any major problems with this solution but I also don't see it as being functionally any different from letting transwomen use the women's changing room from a privacy perspective (provided the women's changing rooms have the privacy booths, which I kind of assumed they did)

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't see any major problems with this solution but I also don't see it as being functionally any different from letting transwomen use the women's changing room from a privacy perspective (provided the women's changing rooms have the privacy booths, which I kind of assumed they did)

A typical American locker room has no privacy booths, although I suspect that more recent construction is more likely to have them than older construction, and I suspect women's locker rooms are more likely to have them than men's.

The last time I was in a girls locker room was ages ago when traveling to games as part of a school team. The visiting team used the girls' locker rooms. They looked like the boys' locker rooms, except there were no urinals, but that was back in the '70s. I can't say what they look like now.

 

[Meadmaker]

The statement 'i value people's privacy' is an odd one to me. I don't value other people's privacy. It literally has no value to me. But I respect that it has value to them. My view is that if you want privacy you should be able to have it. But then it's up to you to avail yourself of the privacy option... not to demand other people avail themselves of the option so you don't have to see them. So if you don't like changing with the transgirls.. YOU go use the faculty facility. That way everyone gets their privacy respected and nobody gets made to feel bad about not being like the other girls. How is that not better?

Well the opening part of your paragraph certainly explains a lot of your attitude on the question.

If there are enough privacy options for everyone who wants it, it seems better. Typically, there aren't enough, so it's not a practical solution.

 

[Meadmaker]

A gym near me which I occasionally use also has a unisex changing facility: it has a whole load of private stalls which are lockable from the inside (some for single use, others for eg families with younger children), with a separate bank of lockers for storing street clothes and valuables, and individual shower stalls which also lock from the inside.

To me, this is a great system. But it requires the facility to have been planned and built this way from the very beginning - it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) to retro-convert gyms etc with separate men's and women's changing areas into this sort of unisex facility: in addition to the fact that there's often topographical separation of men's and women's areas (making it hard to join them together), it requires significantly more floor space to build a single unisex space with all its separate closed stalls than it does to build two reasonably-communal men's and women's spaces.

So as I said in my previous post, for the forseeable future we're stuck with most gyms/pools/sports facilities having communal changing areas for three different categories: men, women and those with disabilities. And therefore the transgender issue must be considered in that light - regardless of what we might think of as the intrinsically better arrangement of changing areas.

The question wasn't directed specifically at me, but I'll give my answer.

Transwomen should use the disabilities room, or the men's room.

Exact answer might vary depending on the exact nature of the facility, and even such things as the demographics of the users. Certainly on a forum like this I'm not going to try to spell out in fine detail exactly the policy, but the general principle that would guide me is that the privacy rights of the women using the locker room is more important than affirming the gender identity of the trans woman, so use of the disabilities room guarantees privacy, safety, and access for all, and those are more significant than the desire of the trans woman to be affirmed as a woman.

Since she is a biological male, she also has the right to use the men's room. That's her choice.

 

[theprestige]

It does seem a bit like having your cake and eating it too. If a trans man thinks they should play in women's sport, and a trans woman also thinks they should play in women's sport, you're at a point where if you're trans you can decide whichever branch of sport you want. I get that people are non-binary, but sport, at the moment at least, is binary.

Sport is binary because sex is binary.

 

[Meadmaker]

It does seem a bit like having your cake and eating it too. If a trans man thinks they should play in women's sport, and a trans woman also thinks they should play in women's sport, you're at a point where if you're trans you can decide whichever branch of sport you want. I get that people are non-binary, but sport, at the moment at least, is binary.

I'm dead set against biological males competing in women's sports, no matter what they call themselves. A lot of sports federations have gone with a hormone level cap for women's sport, and I don't think that is a truly awful thing or a grave injustice, but if I made the rules it would just be "no".

But a biological female who identifies as a male in women's sport? I have no problem with it. No hormone treatments allowed, though. I was just curious how people who support the right of transwomen to play women's sports would feel in this case.

But as it turns out, maybe this case isn't the appropriate case to ask about, because perhaps this person doesn't identify as "male" but as "none of the above", or some other variation.

 

[Matthew Best]

Sport is binary because sex is binary.

Yeeees?

 

[d4m10n]

Oh well if there are decent unisex changing rooms, then the whole "changing rooms" issue disappears instantly.

ETA: Post #988 takes another view.

So in the real world where generally there is the absence of unisex changing rooms, what would your option be, out of a, b, c, or other?

Come now, I literally linked a photo from the real world of the solution I prefer and actually use in real life. All new facility builds should strive for something similar.

We therefore have to accept that the majority of these sorts of facilities will have men's, women's and disabled changing rooms for the forseeable future.

Is the "disabled" room lockable and unisex? If so, just change the label on the door.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And I'm sure it makes you feel so goddamn superior, doesn't it? To be able to gatekeep womanhood like that?

It's not "womanhood" that's at issue here. At least, it's not the inexplicable version of womanhood that keeps being brought up as an ephemeral internal feeling with no connection to reality.

And that's why I don't give a damn about how you feel.

Yes. I know. You've made it very clear that you don't give a damn about how females feel at all. Nor any damn at all about the issues and concerns of females. Nor about the ongoing discrimination and disadvantage that females face. You've made it clear that you're happy to do your part to enforce those disadvantages because they just aren't important to you at all. At least, not as important as your feeling of affirmation is.

We will continue to gain rights and be as equal to ciswomen as possible, and your irrational and hysterical views will be drowned out as people become more accepting of us and reject your biological determinist mindset. I don't care if you consider us threats or not, because just like every other civil rights movement, we will be victorious in the end.

Yeah. Unfortunately, you're probably right. It is how it's been throughout history. Male people dominate, intimidate, and oppress female people. Male people insist that female people are irrational, hysterical, and overreacting. Male people insist that they're not threats to female people, despite being responsible for 98% of all sexual violence that occurs.

People raised and conditioned as males, with male privilege and the male expectation of getting their way... well, they usually get their way. Especially when all it takes to get their way is to reiterate the same mantra that males have used throughout time: females are just overreacting and imaging it, it's not real, it's just in their heads, nobody needs to listen to females because it's probably their time of the month.

So yeah. You're right. You probably will be victorious at getting society to affirm your feelings as being more important that the reality that females face. Congratulations for reducing the rights of other people so you can feel better about yourself.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And Emily being hysterical and paranoid and irrational when it comes to us has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her fear of us.

Oh, that silly female, being all hysterical.

A lot of the things you say are very similar to things that MRAs say. They're NOT similar to things that females say.

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA: Post #988 takes another view. Come now, I literally linked a photo from the real world of the solution I prefer and actually use in real life. All new facility builds should strive for something similar.

Did you not notice that I wrote (my bolding) "in the real world, where generally there is the absence of unisex changing rooms"?

The important bit ("where generally...") was literally right next to the "in the real world" bit.


And I don't dispute for one moment the notion that new builds should strive for something similar to the example you gave.

But..... (and here it comes again, so look out for the full sentence this time).... in the real world, where it will take at least a couple of decades for even half of the current stock of sports centres/gyms/etc to be redeveloped or replaced, we are stuck with the majority of such facilities only offering men's, women's and disabled changing areas for the forseeable future.

Is the "disabled" room lockable and unisex? If so, just change the label on the door.

To what would you change the label on the door?

 

[LondonJohn]

The question wasn't directed specifically at me, but I'll give my answer.

Transwomen should use the disabilities room, or the men's room.

Exact answer might vary depending on the exact nature of the facility, and even such things as the demographics of the users. Certainly on a forum like this I'm not going to try to spell out in fine detail exactly the policy, but the general principle that would guide me is that the privacy rights of the women using the locker room is more important than affirming the gender identity of the trans woman, so use of the disabilities room guarantees privacy, safety, and access for all, and those are more significant than the desire of the trans woman to be affirmed as a woman.

Since she is a biological male, she also has the right to use the men's room. That's her choice.

Well, it's interesting to hear your view. But I disagree entirely with it.

As I've written many times before, it's entirely reasonable (IMO) for a negotiation to result in a mixture of a) a social contract, where (eg) trans women agree to take all reasonable efforts to avoid exposing genital areas in communal women's changing rooms, and b) some level of regulations around access in staffed facilities (eg registration at the front desk). And to then alter things - including laws if necessary - depending on how well things work in practice.

But trans woman should be able to use women's facilities (with any reasonable conditions attached, as outlined above). And if any facility tried to insist upon your system, they'd soon find themselves in court in countries such as the USA or UK (England & Wales). With good reason, IMO.

 

[TomB]

I haven't caught up with the thread yet today, so I don't know where the conversation is at the moment. But I thought it would be appropriate to post a link to this video I just watched by Kat Blaque.

I'm not sure how many of you know who Kat Blaque is, but she'a black trans-woman who has a youtube channel I occasionally go to because she articulates her perspective pretty well. Like anyone else, sometimes I agree with her and sometimes I don't. But she's one of the perspectives I often seek out on some issues.

The video is long (36 minutes) but it's worth watching. It involves an attack on some trans-women in Hollywood a few weeks back. It's an incident I first saw referenced in a Blaire White video. Kat analyzes the events and then talks about why there wasn't evidence of a hate crime (though it may be one). She then spends about 15 minutes talking about the event and how it fits into her world and society in general.

Again, it is long and doesn't directly address the topics of this thread, but it's related enough that I think it's worth a view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKkN5KH6zKo

 

[Meadmaker]

As I've written many times before, it's entirely reasonable (IMO) for a negotiation to result in a mixture of a) a social contract, where (eg) trans women agree to take all reasonable efforts to avoid exposing genital areas in communal women's changing rooms, and

It keeps coming up. Over and over and over.

It's never the main issue. I won't say it's completely irrelevant. It's just mostly irrelevant. It's a secondary issue.

"Can she put the towel over her eyes?"

Unless you understand that question, you'll never have a clue about the real issue here.

b) some level of regulations around access in staffed facilities (eg registration at the front desk).

I must have missed this part. What's the significance of this?

But trans woman should be able to use women's facilities (with any reasonable conditions attached, as outlined above). And if any facility tried to insist upon your system, they'd soon find themselves in court in countries such as the USA or UK (England & Wales). With good reason, IMO.

Not in the US. As far as I know, there are no states that demand trans access in private facilities. i.e. if I open a gym, and in my gym I put in a "No penises in the women's locker room" policy, I don't think there is any state where that would land me in court.

In some governmental facilities, state law might require access. In some states, the opposite is true. Allowing access in government facilities might land you in court.

On the federal level, during the Obama administration a policy was announced that schools subject to title IX, which is all government run schools, had to allow trans access to their gender identity facilities, but that policy was rescinded by the Trump administration, so whether or not a school principal ends up in court would be dependent on who wins the next election.

That was true during the last election as well. I happen to believe it provided the margin of victory for Trump. No way to prove that, though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A fine principle in theory, but it should not be used as a justification for not increasing civil rights for one of those groups. It should be used as a justification for trying to find ways to accommodate both.

I'm not trying to keep transgender people from getting civil rights. I would be absolutely thrilled to find a solution that accommodates both.

That, however, is not what Boudicca90 and other transallies in this thread are asking for. They are asking for a single solution - a solution that disadvantages females even more than we are already disadvantaged, a solution that reduces the civil rights gains of females, and that increases our risks and jeopardizes our safety.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not great wording to someone who IIRC identifies as an...





actuary.

I don't think Boudicca90 is an actuary. But I am!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think those are the two, or only 2 positions. There seems to be a position that transwomen are not women and should not be treated as such doing the rounds too...and variations of it.

There's also the 'it doesn't matter what transwomen are anyway this is about penises and we all know penis means potential rapist!' position

How about "Transwomen should be treated as women in most social situations, but should be treated as male in situations where sex-based protections are important, allowing for some exceptions in the case of full GRS."