Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's always a question of privacy from whom. When using a public toilet (ETA: that is, when inside the stall and actually using the toilet), you have privacy from everyone.

In the context of a changing room, privacy does not mean privacy from everyone (as if you had a personal changing stall). The traditional standard is that you have privacy from those of the other biological sex.

That traditional standard has changed now. You don't have privacy from transpeople necessarily. If that's a problem for someone then their right to privacy can be accommodated by giving them a separate private space, right?
 
"What should the law say?"

"Here's what the law currently says."

"Yes, but we're debating what it should say."

"I'm not interested in that."

Don't forget social norms. Typically these norms change first and then the legislators play catch-up after it has become clear where the public has moved.
 
No I still don't. Even if I accept your position that transwomen are men then I still don't know why you think it's so bleeding obvious that self-conscious women have a right to privacy from that particular group but not from other groups.

I have a horrible feeling you are going to say 'because men are a threat to women' as if somehow that has ANYTHING to do with the right to privacy that you are talking about here, but I won't put words in your mouth.

You have a right to reasonable privacy, you do not have a right to dictate who can be near you in a public space because you don't feel comfortable around them.

If you want to help me understand then I would really like to know why you believe a high-school girl has a right not to be looked at by a transwoman but no right not to be looked at by a lesbian, for example.

Preferably without bringing up things that are nothing to do with privacy.

All right, I'll take these questions at face value. So, you started with "even if I accept your position that transwomen are men"....That's important, so let's make sure we're on the same page. For the sake of argument, we will assume that transwomen are men.

For those following along, that doesn't mean that we are agreeing that transwomen are men, we are accepting it "for the sake of argument". That means we are looking at the implications of that statement. If that statement is true, what follows from that statement. We aren't agreeing it's true.

So, why do women have a right of privacy from "this particular group". I'm not sure if you meant that the group is transwomen, or the group is men. We'll do it both ways, just to be sure. I'll start by assuming that "this particular group" is men.

You go on:

I have a horrible feeling you are going to say 'because men are a threat to women' as if somehow that has ANYTHING to do with the right to privacy that you are talking about here, but I won't put words in your mouth.

You have a right to reasonable privacy, you do not have a right to dictate who can be near you in a public space because you don't feel comfortable around them.

There are two basic lines of argument. One is the one that gives you a horrible feeling. Women feel uncomfortable around men, and I do believe that it is related to women feeling threatened by men, whether that gives you a horrible feeling or not.

The other line of argument is just to simply note that there is no demand, and I do not even hear such a demand from you, that we end man/woman segregation of places where we are disrobed. The number of people who want to end it is very small. Perhaps it's not important, but almost all of those who want to end it are men. Trying to explain why that is would probably give you a horrible feeling, though.

So, what it comes down to, for me, is that women have a right to privacy with respect to "the particular group" of men because society has decided that they have that right. That's the status quo, and if you want to argue against maintaining that right of privacy with respect to men viewing women when the women are naked, be my guest. I haven't heard you make such an argument yet, but by all means proceed.

Personally, I wouldn't mind ending that segregation. In my youth, I certainly enjoyed "clothing optional" settings, and I would still enjoy them today, but I think the nature of my enjoyment actually holds the key to why so many people, especially women, would like to maintain separate spaces where there are no men present.

Summary: We honor the right of privacy of women with respect to men, because both men and women seem to want it that way. We think this is related to the fact that women feel threatened by men, but I won't try to prove that right now.

So, what if, instead, "this particular group" was transwomen?

The first and most obvious observation is that there is literally no one who thinks that there ought to be a right of privacy that is specific to transwomen. There are lots of people, like me, who think that transwomen are a subset of a class that ought to be excluded from women's private spaces, but no one who thinks that transwomen, specifically, should be excluded as a result of some characteristic that is unique to transwomen.

In other words, we think that women ought to have a right of privacy with respect to men, and we think transwomen are men.

And that's it, really. We don't think that there ought to be an exception made for one specific set of men. You think they aren't men, so you don't see it as an exception.

If you want to help me understand then I would really like to know why you believe a high-school girl has a right not to be looked at by a transwoman but no right not to be looked at by a lesbian, for example.

There's no simple answer, because your question seems to be based on some assumptions. One simple answer is practicality. How would you do it? How would you identify the lesbians? How would you accommodate two lesbians? It gets complicated.

More importantly, it's not really necessary. Let's unpack the assumption.

It seems to me that the assumption is that people feel uncomfortable undressing in the presence of someone who might be sexually attracted to them. That's correct. There is some discomfort there, isn't there?

However, when men are attracted to women, there's generally a sexual response to the visual stimulus of a naked woman. That's considerably less true for homosexual attraction. On the other hand, it's not completely absent, either. What I'm saying is that your assumption isn't ridiculous. The presence of gay people in a shared locker room is going to cause a little bit of discomfort. (I think that's why people younger than me are always covering themselves up in locker rooms. When I got into the habit of throwing my towel over my shoulder, it was in a world where we had heard of homosexuals, but certainly didn't think there were any in our locker room. The younger generation was more aware that yes, there were gay people, and suddenly felt compelled to wear a towel around their waist.)

So, got a solution to that? I don't. Eventually, we weigh the specific situation, and we decide that, realistically, there's no threat associated with being near a gay person of your own sex. Your discomfort is largely in your head, and there's nothing we can do about it, so deal with it.

You might think the same thing is true for a transwoman in a women's locker room, and I cannot say you are completely wrong.

And so, we're back at exactly the core problem. i say transwomen are men. I say it's reasonable for women to want privacy with respect to men. Lesbians aren't men, so it doesn't apply. Black women aren't men, so it doesn't apply.

Why should men be special? Biology. Pregnancy. Rape. Reproduction. We had all of those things before we had society. Society shapes them but doesn't invent them. (It occurs to me that eroticism isn't on the list, and it doesn't belong there.) However, if the majority of women say they don't mind the presence of transwomen, then things will change. For me, I decided some years back that I would support what women wanted. If that becomes trans-inclusion, then I'll eliminate my objections. Right now, I don't think that's what they want.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget social norms. Typically these norms change first and then the legislators play catch-up after it has become clear where the public has moved.

50/50 - sometimes the legislators are "ahead of the curve". In the UK (various laws, various places) contraceptives for the unwed, abortion legalised and homosexual decriminalised all happened before majority public opinion was in favour.
 
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.

That's for the marketers. Personally, better privacy wouldn't be a selling point to me, unless it could somehow come with no loss of convenience. I wouldn't be willing to pay for the extra cost. However, my concerns are not everyone's concerns and other people might be willing to pay for it, or as you say, they might make more revenue at the same price. Private enterprise should pursue the almighty dollar by providing whatever the market demands.

And you are right about gyms. It took me a while to catch on to the business models, and how they impacted business practices. During the sales pitch when I first signed up to Bally's, I thought it was cool that they were putting in new equipment. After a couple of years of watching frequent equipment changes, I realized it was a case of changing things out often enough that it involved removing someone's favorite piece of equipment so they wouldn't come back.

Now I work out at Planet Fitness. They have a different business model. Keep it so cheap that people who have stopped using the gym will still continue to pay the membership long after they stop using it. I'll bet there are people who have paid that $10/month for the last ten years without ever setting foot in the gym. But they'll start back soon.....


On cost, though, there are also considerations for taxpayer funded institutions, especially schools. To some extent, that's also a marketing issue. What do people demand for their kids? Are they willing to pay it?
 
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.

Not necessarily. I think there's an art to it. I mean, LondonJohn hasn't been labeled as anti-trans because he repeats the mantra "transwomen are women". Even though his actual policy views are not materially different than mine.

Perhaps I should just kowtow and say "transwomen are women" and accept that it's a completely meaningless phrase intended to stroke the egos of emotionally vulnerable people... and then state exactly my same views again.

Or, you know, it might also have to do with the fact that I'm female. Because I notice that Boudicca hasn't called you, or Damion, or Meadmaker, or Roboramma transphobes or TERFs or hysterical, despite several of the male posters having views more restrictive than my own.

I wonder why that is?
 
Maybe they get the definitions wrong themselves.
Or... you know... there's an intentional effort among some trangender activist groups to override sex altogether. How else are they going to rip through that cotton ceiling?

They most likely will. Trans people are -- pretty much by definition -- quite self-conscious about their bodies.

While I would like this to be true, I don't think it's as true as most reasonable people assume it to be. Or, perhaps, there are a small number of people who are not at all self-conscious, and feel it appropriate to flaunt their bodies in front of ciswomen in particular. I get that transgender people are people too, which means there are some good ones and some nasty ones. But it sure would be nice to see the nice transgender people make a point of saying that those people are nasty and don't represent them. More often, they seem to get supported by the trans community.
 
Don't forget social norms. Typically these norms change first and then the legislators play catch-up after it has become clear where the public has moved.


It has just been reaffirmed that the Equality Act exemptions (talking about UK legislation here), which have always been there and have not been repealed or superseded, allow single-sex services and provisions to be provided where this is required to achieve a reasonable objective. The example given is in respect of a rape crisis centre, where it is reasonable for women to be counselled and housed in a female-only environment, but this is not exclusive. It was indicated that any sanitary or sleeping provisions might fall within that context.

It is true that while the Westminster government has explicitly announced that this will not be changing (which is the context for the re-affirmation of the existing legal provisions) the Scottish government still seems hell-bent on overturning this. However it has not done so yet, so it is still correct to state that in all parts of the UK, at present, it is perfectly legal to exclude all biological males from female single-sex provisions where necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and that the right of women to perform sanitary functions and sleep in a single-sex environment, and to have intimate care functions performed by a woman, does indeed exist.

It has also been re-affirmed that this can also allow exclusion of transwomen who have gender recognition certificates from such facilities.

What we have seen in the past few years is lobby groups going ahead of a change in legislation they assumed was going to happen. Stonewall and Mermaids have been telling everyone in their "education" sessions they've been touting to organisations and authorities, that transwomen cannot, by law, be excluded from any single-sex space. Organisations running single-sex spaces have gone along with this, possibly under the impression that Stonewall was telling the truth, but also in some cases through fear of being stigmatised as transphobic if they tried to apply the existing provisions of the Equality Act.

We know Stonewall specifically lobbied for the right of women to recieve single-sex services to be removed from the Equality Act (and, astonishingly, to be replaced with a legal right for transwomen to demand to recieve intimate care or medical provisions from a transwoman provider), but this didn't happen and at least in England and Wales is not going to happen.

I don't think anyone can say what actual public opinion is on this, for sure. Stonewall have been pushing the notion that any objection to males being included in women's services is transphobic, and many people who answer surveys about this still think that "transwoman" means someone who has fully surgically transitioned. It's only when the question explicitly spells out what is meant that responses change, and then the survey is excoriated as being "transphobic". So if you've been told that it's transphobic to say that you're against a "transwoman" in women's single-sex provisions, and you believe that a transwoman is a man who has been castrated and had his penis removed, you might well say you're in favour. But it's probably not as simple as that.

In this case I think proposed changes in legislation have gone far further than the public is comfortable with, lobby groups have gone ahead of the actual law and have pushed for changes which were not yet passed into law, and we're now seeing a reaction to this as people wake up and see what's going on. It will be interesting to see how matters progress from here.

But it is still not true to state that women are not permitted to have privacy from transwomen. They most definitely are, and at least in England and Wales it appears that this is not going to change.
 
New UK government guidance published yesterday.

"You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material. "

Good guidance!
 
That traditional standard has changed now. You don't have privacy from transpeople necessarily. If that's a problem for someone then their right to privacy can be accommodated by giving them a separate private space, right?

It hasn't changed - it's exactly what is being discussed right now! Some people want it to change, many other people don't. You can't just assume that it's a done deal because you agree with it!
 
Let's re-frame this ...

Why do you feel that the privacy right of a person who wants privacy trumps the right of the person who wants to violate that privacy?

I would phrase it slightly differently, but still directed at Archie.

Why is it so important for a person to change clothes in the presence of people who match their gender identity? The cis-people want to avoid changing in the presence of the opposite sex. The trans people find it important to change in the presence of people who match their gender identity, but who do not match their biological sex. Why should we place one desire above the other?

(I would change the wording because I don't think that AGG recognizes a "right to privacy", so I don't think he would recognize a "violation of privacy" either.)
 
We know Stonewall specifically lobbied for the right of women to recieve single-sex services to be removed from the Equality Act (and, astonishingly, to be replaced with a legal right for transwomen to demand to recieve intimate care or medical provisions from a transwoman provider), but this didn't happen and at least in England and Wales is not going to happen.

I can't even wrap my head around that. They want to make it so that females are not allowed to request intimate care only from females... but that transwomen are allowed to demand intimate care only from other transwomen? WTF kind of sense does that make?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom