Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[theprestige]

In the US, there is rarely a separate "disabled" room, either in bathrooms or changing rooms. Wheelchair usable facilities are provided in the regular restrooms and changing rooms.

In recent construction, there is frequently a "family" or "unisex" room. This was extremely uncommon in my youth, but is fairly standard in large buildings today. i.e. a shopping mall or sports venue is almost certain to have one, but a McDonalds might not.

Many years ago, I attended a baseball game. At some point I went to the men's room, where there was a short line. When I got to the front of the line, I noticed the wheelchair-accessible stall was open, so I stepped in and did my business.

When I stepped out again, there was a man* in a wheelchair waiting, and he was quite upset with me. He felt very strongly that I should have waited for one of the non-ADA stalls, so that "his" stall would be immediately available to him when he arrived.

It was a very awkward scene.

Anyway, as I see it, a disabled person is entitled to skip the wait/line/queue and go straight to the ADA stall. But they are not entitled to have it kept abled-free at all times in case they need it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And I've also said previously that another part of the social contract would be that trans women would take all reasonable steps not to make other women/girls feel uncomfortable (eg by looking in the direction of those women/girls as they were getting naked).


The solution is not to ban trans women from the women's changing rooms (and it's not a lawful way to proceed anyhow). The solution is to ensure that there is a way of allowing trans women to use the women's changing rooms in a way which - as far as is reasonably possible - preseves the dignity and safety of all parties.

Okay. Assuming there is widespread adoption of this as the social contract - unaltered transwomen keep themselves covered, and take pains to not make anyone uncomfortable...

How do you determine whether a given person is a transwoman, who as a transwoman, has been granted full access to female-only spaces?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Anyway, as I see it, a disabled person is entitled to skip the wait/line/queue and go straight to the ADA stall. But they are not entitled to have it kept abled-free at all times in case they need it.

That's always been my assumption with respect to disabled stalls. In the women's room, there's often long lines as it is - at a minimum, we end up with fewer spots, because we can't use standing facilities, and it generally takes us longer to pee than it does men, compliments of both biology and clothing.

Generally, you look around and make sure there's nobody who seems to be disabled in line, then you go ahead and use it.

Not the same for disabled parking spots though, as shopping generally takes a lot longer than using the restroom.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can say with total confidence that I would NEVER use a disabled toilet/restroom purely on account of there being a long queue for the men's toilet/restroom (unless, perhaps, I had a genuine emergency where I needed to use bathroom facilities right away).

There's a reason why so many disabled toilets/restrooms - in the UK at least - are either locked (but of course are unlocked on request by disabled patrons) or use something called (IIRC) a RADAR key, which is a universal key that opens all RADAR doors (and which disabled people can acquire and keep on them for use unlocking those toilet doors).

But for those disabled toilets which are accessible: if people start to think they're entitled to use disabled toilets purely on account of there being a queue for the men's (or women's) toilets, then where does that entitlement logically end? Well, it logically ends with the disabled toilets effectively becoming a free-for-all anyone-can-use-it facility - but with the rider that an actual disabled person can jump the line for the disabled toilets.

I'm not at all surprised that the disabled man glared at theprestige as he (theprestige) exited the disabled toilet. I would have glared too, had I been waiting in line to use the men's toilet. I consider it to be wrong on a fair few levels. As, presumably, did the authorities who started limiting access to disabled toilets - presumably on account of the increasing number of entitled dicks who thought the disabled toilet was a convenient (and usually cleaner...) shortcut when the toilets they should actually have been using were busy.

 

[d4m10n]

what do you have in common with women that all humans don’t that doesn’t revolve to a sex stereotype?

Where on earth did you get the idea that this is all about where we fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe?

 

[Meadmaker]

I can say with total confidence that I would NEVER use a disabled toilet/restroom purely on account of there being a long queue for the men's toilet/restroom (unless, perhaps, I had a genuine emergency where I needed to use bathroom facilities right away).

There's a reason why so many disabled toilets/restrooms - in the UK at least - are either locked (but of course are unlocked on request by disabled patrons) or use something called (IIRC) a RADAR key, which is a universal key that opens all RADAR doors (and which disabled people can acquire and keep on them for use unlocking those toilet doors).

But for those disabled toilets which are accessible: if people start to think they're entitled to use disabled toilets purely on account of there being a queue for the men's (or women's) toilets, then where does that entitlement logically end? Well, it logically ends with the disabled toilets effectively becoming a free-for-all anyone-can-use-it facility - but with the rider that an actual disabled person can jump the line for the disabled toilets.

I'm not at all surprised that the disabled man glared at theprestige as he (theprestige) exited the disabled toilet. I would have glared too, had I been waiting in line to use the men's toilet. I consider it to be wrong on a fair few levels. As, presumably, did the authorities who started limiting access to disabled toilets - presumably on account of the increasing number of entitled dicks who thought the disabled toilet was a convenient (and usually cleaner...) shortcut when the toilets they should actually have been using were busy.

In the US, the stalls are not labelled as "disabled only". At least, I've never seen one like that. theprestige was not breaking any rules, regulations, or customs.

 

[theprestige]

I can say with total confidence that I would NEVER use a disabled toilet/restroom purely on account of there being a long queue for the men's toilet/restroom (unless, perhaps, I had a genuine emergency where I needed to use bathroom facilities right away).

Is that a thing that happens in the UK? There's a long line for the loo, and one of the three stalls is large enough to accommodate a wheelchair, but everybody just queues up for the other two stalls and nobody uses the third?

 

[Boudicca90]

I thought Boudicca90 expressed that opinion* about your views, not "the views of females". Correct me if I'm wrong in that though - because I'm not saying for sure that I'm right.


ETA: * I don't recall her ever referring to your views (let alone those of "all females") as "not important" though - again, I might be wrong in that, so please let me know if that's the case.

Yep, that is correct. Emily seems to think she speaks for all or most women, or at least all cisgender women, and so she mistakenly attributed my analysis of her to all or most women.

I was talking about her and others with her views. When the fact is her views are still a minority and are only becoming more noticed because they are getting louder and have new celebrity endorsements like JK Rowling.

We are not a threat, but if someone keeps treating us like we are, why should I care if we do threaten them? I get to the point where I realize I'm not getting through to anybody so what is the point of trying to be empathic to someone who shows no empathy for us. Hell, even the way she talks about and treats her niece shows even having trans family won't soften her views any.

 

[d4m10n]

When the fact is her views are still a minority and are only becoming more noticed because they are getting louder and have new celebrity endorsements like JK Rowling.

Which of her views, specifically? What survey data should we be looking at?

 

[Meadmaker]

Is that a thing that happens in the UK? There's a long line for the loo, and one of the three stalls is large enough to accommodate a wheelchair, but everybody just queues up for the other two stalls and nobody uses the third?

From other descriptions posted here, I get the impression that the customary practice in the UK is to have a completely separate room for the handicapped to use.

 

[Meadmaker]

I was talking about her and others with her views. When the fact is her views are still a minority....

You might want to peek your head outside the bubble.

ETA: And I don't know exactly which views are a held by what percentage of people. Survey data on the subject are notoriously manipulated either in the way the questions are asked, or the way the results are tabulated. A lot of people still don't know that "transgender" is not the same thing as the previously used term "transsexual", and they assume it has to do with people who have had operations. My impression of EC's views are that she is left of center on the issue. My own position is probably about center. (I think I'm somewhat to the right of EC on the subject.)

And of course age has a lot to do with it. It may very well be that young people have pulled the needle far to the left. The young generation has grown up with a lot more awareness of transgender issues than any generation before it, but I don't know if they overwhelmingly support trans access to locker rooms, or do so with a minority. I really don't know.

I know that the stories that get the most news coverage occur when a high school transgirl wants to use the girls' locker room, and there are an awful lot of girls trying to get the school board to say "no". It seems that if the support was overwhelming, there wouldn't be the protests.

 

[Roboramma]

Well based on my opinion she is. Why should I listen to her own opinion on something about how she feels or thinks? Why should that matter?

I hope you see the parallels being drawn.

The problem is that a lot of people are relying on their view of what is 'actually true' but failing to acknowledge that other people see things differently.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying you should listen to her opinion about whether or not she's anti-trans. I'm saying being "anti-trans" is a summation of her views on the subject. And it's an incorrect summation. Her views on the subject are not anti-trans, and I'm not basing that on the fact that she says she's not anti trans, I'm basing it on the views on the subject that she has expressed in this thread.

 

[lionking]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying you should listen to her opinion about whether or not she's anti-trans. I'm saying being "anti-trans" is a summation of her views on the subject. And it's an incorrect summation. Her views on the subject are not anti-trans, and I'm not basing that on the fact that she says she's not anti trans, I'm basing it on the views on the subject that she has expressed in this thread.

Views she has expressed many times.

But this thread shows that to some, even if you diverge from the trans activist line by just a millimetre you are automatically anti-trans, a TERF and a bigot.

I learnt as a young child that when you start name calling you have lost the argument. I'm seeing a lot of name calling.

 

[Boudicca90]

Which of her views, specifically? What survey data should we be looking at?

Here is a good study showing how support of us and our rights have been increasing over time, especially recently: https://www.prri.org/research/americas-growing-support-for-transgender-rights/

You might want to peek your head outside the bubble.

ETA: And I don't know exactly which views are a held by what percentage of people. Survey data on the subject are notoriously manipulated either in the way the questions are asked, or the way the results are tabulated. A lot of people still don't know that "transgender" is not the same thing as the previously used term "transsexual", and they assume it has to do with people who have had operations. My impression of EC's views are that she is left of center on the issue. My own position is probably about center. (I think I'm somewhat to the right of EC on the subject.)

And of course age has a lot to do with it. It may very well be that young people have pulled the needle far to the left. The young generation has grown up with a lot more awareness of transgender issues than any generation before it, but I don't know if they overwhelmingly support trans access to locker rooms, or do so with a minority. I really don't know.

I know that the stories that get the most news coverage occur when a high school transgirl wants to use the girls' locker room, and there are an awful lot of girls trying to get the school board to say "no". It seems that if the support was overwhelming, there wouldn't be the protests.

I think for the most part is has been Millenials and Gen Z who have been leading the way when it comes to LGBTQ+ acceptance in general, and not just trans issues. Anecdotal I know, but I am 35 and most people I know my age or younger are entirely supportive of us. That's why JK Rowling's transphobia is so devastating to us, because we were the generations who grew up with Harry Potter and the themes found in the books appealed to LGBTQ+ people in particular, so her books have a large gay and trans following that she said screw you to. We are now struggling with trying to divorce her from her creation, or just leave the Wizarding World fandom altogether.

So I do think there is a generational component there since we are less beholden to how things were done in the past. We know now that things like gender and sexuality are far more complex than we assumed in the past and appeals to tradition don't get far among us because of that.

 

[Roboramma]

Do I need to point out the difference? Or show why that construction can be contradictory?

My point is simply that it's not necessarily contradictory. I thought that was your point, that it's necessarily contradictory?

It's possible that there's some contradiction there, but if so, you'll have to show it, as it's not implied by the construction.

 

[Roboramma]

This is absolutely incomparable. (For reasons which ought to be obvious)

It's not obvious to me, but I should point out, I wasn't trying to say the two cases are identical. I was simply saying that the construction "support X rights" and "think X and Y should be separate" aren't necessarily contradictory.

But just as a thought experiment, do you think that trans women (of any level of transition, right up to medical and surgical intervention) should be made to use the men's changing rooms?

Or would your rule perhaps be: "Trans women should be made to use the men's changing rooms if they've had no surgical intervention and only minor medical intervention; all other trans women (ie those with significant medical or surgical intervention) have to change in the disabled toilet"? And if so, how (and by whom) would that determination be made?

Or would your rule perhaps be: "Trans women of any variety should not be permitted to use either the men's or the women's changing rooms. They all have to use the disabled toilet"?


I'm interested as to what your preferred outcome might be in the case of (eg) public gender-segregated changing rooms.

I think in general if there is some option available (like disabled toilets), that should be open to trans women as they may be more comfortable with it, but they should also be allowed to use the male changing room, since they are male.

Whether or not they should have access to the women's changing rooms is another question. I think in general no, but I'm open to the idea that at least in some cases it makes sense.

 

[Earthborn]

As much as I dislike having to witness the ravages of age unmitigated by so much as a single stitch of clothing, this seems like quite an extreme position to take.

You think that is an extreme position? You haven't even heard what I think should happen to the people who run facilities with open plan locker rooms.

Our newly constructed YMCA has open plan locker rooms and also has completely private changing rooms for those who require more modesty.

Those private changing rooms certainly look nice.

"Transwoman with a uterus"? Just when I think I've got the definitions down....

Maybe they get the definitions wrong themselves. I have heard many male footie players say dumb things.

I don't think anyone would object to greater privacy, but it's a matter of cost.

I don't think cost needs to be too much of a factor. If a business offers better privacy it may attract more customers, offsetting the cost with more revenue.

Of course, gyms being the scam that they are, are not actually in the business of making people feel comfortable returning, they are in the business of getting people year-long subscriptions so the poor privacy in the changing rooms may be a deliberate attempt at making people feel uncomfortable actually going.

That's why it just needs to be banned.

In that case, would the transwomen need to use the privacy stalls? Logically, I can't think of a reason they ought to.

They most likely will. Trans people are -- pretty much by definition -- quite self-conscious about their bodies. It should also be noted that the places we're talking about here -- gyms, swimming pools -- are not places where transwomen are very likely to go, unless they look very convincing.

The last time I was in a girls locker room was ages ago when traveling to games as part of a school team.

According to some people in this thread, you should have had surgery first.

... they don't have the ability to convert to them because of the need for the sheer number of individual cubicles required in the availble space.

I'm not convinced it would take up so much more space. In the absence of clear dividing lines, people tend to do their best to stake out a bit of territory for themselves. If they are in a intimitate situation with strangers, they are likely to try to keep others at a distance. With clear dividers, it may be possible that people feel comfortable closer together than they otherwise would.

 

[Aber]

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

Yes I know.

It was intended to convey surprise that anyone would suggest actuaries were irrational

(having been ninja'd on the "women are hysterical" part).

 

[bluesjnr]

No, it’s not. I’ll continue my explanation by responding to the rest of your post.


Here is where you make your mistake. You assume that the alternative to “women” is “men who think they are women” and that’s not true, even though a few of your opponents have used that phrase. Leaving aside the word woman, trans people are not claiming to be biologically female. They are claiming to share the social identity commonly associated with females.

What is important is not the word, but the meaning. So instead of the word you define as the typically female social identity (women), we can use another term, say “group A” instead. “Trans women are group A” now means the same thing as your concept of @trans women are women” with your definition of woman.

However, historically women has not meant “the social identity commonly associated with women.” It has been a synonym of female, or as some have posited “adult human female”. In order for “ trans women are women” to be true, the term woman has to be redefined. But the concept can be true without redefining woman. If we don’t redefine woman, “Tran women are group A” can still be true.

Group A would be made up of trans women and cud women just as you would say women is made up of trans women and cis women. You will note I used the term cis women here. I did so for a different reason than usual. If we don’t redefine woman, then trans men are still women but they are women who share the identity group B with men.

The redefinition of the term woman is an area of dispute. But the concept represented is less controversial. It is possible to support the concept but not the terminology.

Now obviously, we aren’t going to say group A or group B. I’ve used the term “people who identify as women” which isn’t really accurate either. Maybe a more accurate phrase without redefinition would be trans woman and women share a female identity. Or something. It’s not as cool a phrase, but it doesn’t change the meaning of things like “Women’s health Center” either.



As I illustrated above, it’s possible to separate gender and sex without separating women from female. In order separate woman from female, though, you have to redefine woman in terms of gender instead of sex.

There is, obviously resistance to this. You may interpret this resistance as anti-trans. And in some cases you would be correct. But not necessarily. It is also possible to support the concept of a shared gender identity without offering up “woman” as the name for that gender identity.

As I’ve said “woman” is a word that holds a lot of meaning for people on both sides. The power human adult females invest in the word has nothing to do with how they feel about trans women.


The term bigot is thrown around a lot. And yes a bigot might suggest that homosexuality is the result of a psychiatric or genetic disorder. But a scientist investigating the cause of homosexuality might also put forward those hypotheses without being a bigot.

Also, terminology for medical and psychological issues changes. Sometimes not for technical reasons. Terms that are descriptive enter the common lexicon and become insults. Retarded is a case in point. Disorder is not a bad word.

This, with genuine respect to you, seems like an exercise in gerrymandering (if you can excuse my imperfect use pf that word, it seems to fit my point best) .

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not convinced it would take up so much more space. In the absence of clear dividing lines, people tend to do their best to stake out a bit of territory for themselves. If they are in a intimitate situation with strangers, they are likely to try to keep others at a distance. With clear dividers, it may be possible that people feel comfortable closer together than they otherwise would.

My belief is that people will not, in general, accept the concept - and usage - of unisex changing areas unless those areas have enclosable partitioned areas within which either individuals or small groups (typically couples or families) can remove their clothing.

Therefore I don't, for example, think that open-plan communal unisex changing areas would ever be deemed acceptable - most notably in countries such as the US or UK (but I suppose just possibly in some Scandinavian countries for example).

So as far as I'm concerned, it would take an awful lot more than (saY) taking down the signs saying "men's" and "women's" and replacing them with "unisex" and "unisex". In every single gym/pool/sports facility I've ever been in (all over the world, incidentally) where there are men's and women's changing areas*, each of those areas has a) been fairly small, and b) contained communal space in the middle where people get naked etc in the presence of all the other people in there.

And since my firm belief is that any proposed conversion from men's/women's changing areas to unisex changing areas would require the presence of a large number of the sort of partitioned-off private enclosures which people use to actually get naked, it's also therefore my belief that very few (if any) existing men's/women's areas - even when combined - would be able to accommodate the number of private enclosures required of a unisex changing area**



* and every single gym/pool/sports facility I've ever been in (all over the world) - except one - has had men's and women's changing areas.....

** In the one sport centre which I have been to where there is a unisex changing area, the floor space of that unisex area - including the large number of partitioned-off enclosures with lockable doors within which people get changed - is way greater than (say) double the floor space of the men's changing area of any comparable-sized sports centre.