Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's a really peculiar conspiracy theory. Instead of a small subset of bad men posing a real threat to women, men in general have brainwashed women into believing in a nonexistent threat.
[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Drevil_million_dollars.jpg[/qimg]
Why didn't I get the memo so I could do my part?

Trying hard to parse this lunacy but struggling.

Genuinely no idea.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I consider the fears and concerns mostly hysterical exaggerations or completely made up... by men. To keep women down. It is completely in the interest of the patriarchy for women to be afraid. I consider those fears to be internalised oppression.

They shouldn't. Those "male-born persons who declare themselves to be women" don't ask them to. Extending their rights and their privacy and their safety, and their dignity to "male-born persons who declare themselves to be women" doesn't mean surrendering them.

Where women (of all biological sexes) lack rights, privacy, safety or dignity, they should demand rights, privacy, safety or dignity. Not deny them to others, and not accept mere 'stick figures with skirts' on doors as a replacement.

Thank You. This is what I've obviously badly been trying to say. Extending rights to others is not denying them to yourself.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It does not, correct. I am not suggesting that bigotry is just a matter of fiat. But again I have yet to hear a better argument for your "side" (again I hate using that term in a discussion with as much nuance as this, but sometimes it is unavoidable) then from any other side.

Emily Cat's fear is as valid to me as a transperson's identity. They are both completely internal and therefore unprovable. I can not with good mental conscious dismiss one but consider the other sacrosanct.

You don't feel that you should refer to the objective fact of whether the risk is real?

 

[LondonJohn]

yeah the thing is I've been in situation 1 and there isn't generally someone around when you need them. In the end it got solved by saying 'go in and look again' but if the result of that had been 'i can't see it' then I don't know what I would have done. Vice versa it seems to be the rule that women shout 'woman coming in' and then do whatever they want. But so be it.

But yeah on the second one. Of course, there are no female perverts. So that problem is moot. Or something.

Ha yeah (in response to your final two sentences)! It was certainly interesting to read - courtesy of the link which Emily's Cat provided earlier - that there'd been 124 sex attacks by cis women prisoners against other women prisoners within England's women's prisons over the past 8 years. And heaven knows how many non-sexual physical assaults were carried out by cis women inmates upon other cis women inmates over the same time period.

Incidentally - and related to your original point - I think it's common practive in many (even most) public facilities such as gyms/pools/sports centres etc allow parents/guardians to take young (under 4 years of age, maybe?) children into the same changing rooms as themselves, even if the child(ren) is of a different gender. So, for example, a male adult parent would be permitted to take his young daughter into the men's changing rooms with him.

And I'm not sure of how many documented instances there are of (eg) 3-year-old girls - having been taken into the men's changing rooms by their fathers - having been subjected to sexual assaults or other displays of deviancy from any of the depraved men within the men's changing rooms (but I can't offhand recall any such incidents...)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Person A holds view X, and thinks X is not bigoted. Person B thinks view X is bigoted (and, bigoted against person B). They both want to discuss their disagreement about view X. Is it uncivil for person B to insult person A in their discussion?

I think there must be some space in which any idea can and should be discussed civilly. Otherwise, nothing (or very little) can be discussed. Consider some discussion about whether racism exists, and where, and how, in which a call for incivility against those seen as racists is justified by the idea that such discussion, and implicit endorsement of racist ideas, causes harm. That standard, though - the standard that a discussion should be shut down, or that incivility is called for - when consistently applied, would prevent discussion about which health insurance model should be adopted, because all insurance models except the best one will actually kill more people than the best one (and which is the best one is exactly the issue under discussion). Now that's some harm, and it's real and undeniable. Are we to shut down civil discussion about health care insurance?

Is it incivil to call a bigot a bigot? Or should we just defer to every awful idea and be polite to the people who hold it? Because I'm pretty sure for example if i was to say something awful about all Paul2's here I'd get in trouble. But apparently if I say all people called Paul deserve to be shot in the head its OK.

Edited by Agatha: 

Do not discuss moderation outside FMF

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ha yeah (in response to your final two sentences)! It was certainly interesting to read - courtesy of the link which Emily's Cat provided earlier - that there'd been 124 sex attacks by cis women prisoners against other women prisoners within England's women's prisons over the past 8 years. And heaven knows how many non-sexual physical assaults were carried out by cis women inmates upon other cis women inmates over the same time period.

Incidentally - and related to your original point - I think it's common practive in many (even most) public facilities such as gyms/pools/sports centres etc allow parents/guardians to take young (under 4 years of age, maybe?) children into the same changing rooms as themselves, even if the child(ren) is of a different gender. So, for example, a male adult parent would be permitted to take his young daughter into the men's changing rooms with him.

And I'm not sure of how many documented instances there are of (eg) 3-year-old girls - having been taken into the men's changing rooms by their fathers - having been subjected to sexual assaults or other displays of deviancy from any of the depraved men within the men's changing rooms (but I can't offhand recall any such incidents...)

Taking the second one first..... when its swimming class at my place you have a communal area with cubicles that are gender free... and a mans area and womans area. But there aren't enough changing cubicles... and mums being mums (yeah it's 99% mums!)they claim them for the who time their little Timmy is in swimming class.

So there aint' enough spaces to go round because your Emily's shoes are more important than my Sally's changing. So then it becomes a free for all at changing time and I have to send my 8 year old into the woman's room unaccompanied where every pervert woman can do whatever they want to her. And if she comes out and say's 'that bad woman touched me in the privates' i can't go in and say anything. And if she leaves her mobile phone in there, presumably i just have to leave it and accept that a woman deserves it now. Because my eyes are weapons.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That sounds right.

People should generally be allowed to live how they please unless there is good reason to deny it.

I'd say that "how they prefer" has darn little value when we're talking about prisoners, just on the whole. I'd bet they prefer to live not in jail.

That aside... I still rather think that there IS good reason to deny people with penises being housed in the same confined space as people with vaginas. That statement has nothing at all to do with how any of those people identify.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And one (well maybe more than one) poster attacks men for having an opinion on the matter. Then claims to not be sexist.

You're welcome to have an opinion.

I am, however, inclined to point out when males are making opinions about what is best for females, as well as when males are deciding that things important to females aren't a big deal or that those females are overreacting and hysterical.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Appreciate I'm cutting a lot her but I want to address this. This seems to assume a LOT. It's almost a thought crime.

If a cis-male goes into the locker room with his 8 year old daughter to find her towel and tries his best not to look at anyone is he violating the privacy of the people there?

Yes, he is invading the privacy of every female in there, because they have the expectation to be free from MALES in that space.

If a ciswoman lesbian goes in there to check out the racks of everyone in the place is she respecting the privacy of everyone in there?

She's not necessarily respecting the privacy of others, but neither is she violating it. Because the privacy in question is the expectation to be private from MALES in that space.

Or is the social contract based on going into the place and acting in a generally acceptable manner?

There's an expectation to act in an acceptable manner, yes. But there is also an expectation that females will not be exposed to males, that females have privacy from males in that space.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'd say that "how they prefer" has darn little value when we're talking about prisoners, just on the whole. I'd bet they prefer to live not in jail.

That aside... I still rather think that there IS good reason to deny people with penises being housed in the same confined space as people with vaginas. That statement has nothing at all to do with how any of those people identify.

But then (on top of the issue already being discussed wrt trans women in women's prisons) there's an obvious other question to be asked:

Where should trans women prisoners be housed, if not within women's prisons?


There would appear (to me, at least) to be only two other options: 1) solitary confinement, or 2) men's prisons.

I'd hope we can all discount (1) immediately.

But regarding (2), I don't think it should be all that difficult to figure out that a biologically-male prisoner identifying as a woman, who is placed into a men's prison, would clearly be in potentially great danger of all sorts of assault - from verbal assault, up to physical assault and sexual assault - from men inmates, especially since it's also not hard to see how groups/gangs of men inmates might conduct joint attacks upon the trans woman.

In fact, if we want to use the risk of physical harm as an arbiter here, I'd suggest that there's a very considerably higher risk of a trans woman inmate being severely attacked by men inmates (including groups of men) in a men's prison, than there is of women prisoners being severely attacked by a trans woman inmate in a women's prison.

So...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thank You. This is what I've obviously badly been trying to say. Extending rights to others is not denying them to yourself.

You do know that pretending things don't exist doesn't actually make them nonexistent, right?

Transgender Activists are asking us to surrender the right to female-only spaces.
Transgender Activists are asking us to surrender our privacy from males.
Transgender Activists are asking us to be denied the right to ask for cisgender female practitioners to perform intimate procedures on female patients.
Transgender Activists are asking that the word "women" be replaced by dehumanizing reductions to reproductive capacity like "menstruators" and "cervix havers" and "people with uteruses" in materials relevant to women's health.
Transgender Activists are asking that females relinquish short-list positions and recognitions for female honors to male people who identify as women.
Transgender Activists are asking that females open their sex-segregated sporting events to male-bodied people.
Transgender Activists are lobbying to replace sex-based protections in civil rights with gender identity protections instead, which effectively removes sex as a protected category.

Transgender Activists are demanding that females surrender all of those things, not on the basis of a genuine medical condition diagnosed by an impartial doctor providing necessary medical care and treatment... but on the basis of self-declaration alone.

But females aren't giving up anything at all. Nope, nothing important anyway. I'm sure we hysterical females are just overreacting.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't feel that you should refer to the objective fact of whether the risk is real?

Agon... just pretending that something doesn't exist doesn't actually make it nonexistent.

1 in 3 females have been sexually assaulted
1 in 6 females have been the victim of attempted or completed rape
90% of the victims of sexual crimes are female
98% of sexual crimes are perpetrated by males.

Just the imagination of we females though. We're being hysterical, I'm sure. There's not actually a real risk. Nope. None at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But then (on top of the issue already being discussed wrt trans women in women's prisons) there's an obvious other question to be asked:

Where should trans women prisoners be housed, if not within women's prisons?


There would appear (to me, at least) to be only two other options: 1) solitary confinement, or 2) men's prisons.

I'd hope we can all discount (1) immediately.

But regarding (2), I don't think it should be all that difficult to figure out that a biologically-male prisoner identifying as a woman, who is placed into a men's prison, would clearly be in potentially great danger of all sorts of assault - from verbal assault, up to physical assault and sexual assault - from men inmates, especially since it's also not hard to see how groups/gangs of men inmates might conduct joint attacks upon the trans woman.

In fact, if we want to use the risk of physical harm as an arbiter here, I'd suggest that there's a very considerably higher risk of a trans woman inmate being severely attacked by men inmates (including groups of men) in a men's prison, than there is of women prisoners being severely attacked by a trans woman inmate in a women's prison.

So...

How about you try to come up with some other solution?

Or, you know, we can just go with the solution apparently preferred by transgender activists: females just aren't important, and their safety is not a big deal. It's worth it to the transgender activists to sacrifice the safety of females so that males who identify as women get things made better for them.

Why don't you put them in the Juvenile holding? Surely the transwomen would be less at risk from minors? Even less so than if they were put in with females?

 

[Meadmaker]

Appreciate I'm cutting a lot her but I want to address this. This seems to assume a LOT. It's almost a thought crime.

If a cis-male goes into the locker room with his 8 year old daughter to find her towel and tries his best not to look at anyone is he violating the privacy of the people there? If a ciswoman lesbian goes in there to check out the racks of everyone in the place is she respecting the privacy of everyone in there?

Or is the social contract based on going into the place and acting in a generally acceptable manner?

Damn. I don't know if you saw my response before I edited it and replaced it with this one, but my previous response was based on the idea that you could not possibly be asking an honest, serious question. However, I see based on other replies, you were.


So I will give an honest, serious answer. Yes. No. No. The social contract is based on being in the place, not on how one behaves while one is there. If, in a very unusual circumstance, there is some need for a man to actually enter that space while in use, then the social contract requires obtaining permission before entry. i.e. yelling "Does anyone mind if I come in to get a towel for my eight year old daughter!" At which point the ladies inside will wonder what the hell is wrong with you and they will think of course they mind you idiot, but instead of saying that, they will offer to help her find her towel.

As for the lesbian rack-checker.....Is that a thing lesbians do? Well, regardless, how would anyone know that's why she was there? Unless she was literally wandering around making close examinations. No, on second thought, if that part was an honest, serious, question, it shouldn't have been. It's some silly word game trying to come up with some circumstance where something might not be true....and....it gets tedious.

Men. Stay in the men's room. Women. Stay in the women's room. Under bizarre circumstances, work it out on a case by case basis but it doesn't invalidate the general rule. As for males who identify as women? Well, that's what all the fuss is about, but based on one definition of "men", they are men, and as long as the majority of the ladies object, I'll side with the ladies.

 

[LondonJohn]

How about you try to come up with some other solution?

Or, you know, we can just go with the solution apparently preferred by transgender activists: females just aren't important, and their safety is not a big deal. It's worth it to the transgender activists to sacrifice the safety of females so that males who identify as women get things made better for them.

Why don't you put them in the Juvenile holding? Surely the transwomen would be less at risk from minors? Even less so than if they were put in with females?

I don't think there are any other viable solutions.

Do you? If so, what are they? Because trans women prisoners need to be housed somewhere within the prison stock.

(And obviously I disregard your final paragraph out of hand)

 

[Joe Random]

In any discussion, once the concept "the penis isn't inherently a male organ" gets thrown out then things are well and truly through the looking glass. And not in the cool "Thief / System Shock" way.

 

[cullennz]

I don't think there are any other viable solutions.

Do you? If so, what are they? Because trans women prisoners need to be housed somewhere within the prison stock.

(And obviously I disregard your final paragraph out of hand)

Can't you just have a separate block all the trans women go to.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You don't feel that you should refer to the objective fact of whether the risk is real?

I think if we bring "objective facts" into this this discussion isn't going to go the way you want it to.

"That penis could rape me, I don't want it in my bathroom/locker room just because it's attached to someone who 'identifies' as a female" is a lot closer to objective reality than "I have a penis but I still want to be a woman."

And for the record I'm the guy who thinks the first statement is unacceptably insane.

"What is going on my head is all that matters" is the only level your side of the argument even gets off the ground. You can't deny other people using it without sinking the whole boat.

So to answer your question yes the objective fact of the risk should factor, but you can let that and only that objective fact into the discussion. "Objective facts" are an all or nothing proposition.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well the requirement is either valuable or not. It can't be both.

But that's just it: you keep talking as if this were one thing, but there's more than one possible requirement here. The requirement that a doctor actually diagnose a condition based on definite criteria is different than the requirement that a doctor rubber stamp a request. Which goes back to my question: on what basis can a doctor refuse a diagnosis? If there is no basis, then the diagnosis is just a rubber stamp.

So which is it? I still don't have an answer.

 

[Paul2]

Is it incivil to call a bigot a bigot?

Not at all. In fact, that has to be assumed, given how I set up the situation. Discussing the issue, it is clear that one side thinks X is bigoted, so person A who holds X is a bigot, by definition. But there’s other ways of being uncivil. Have we seen some in this thread?

Or should we just defer to every awful idea and be polite to the people who hold it?

Maybe not all the time, but if the point of the interaction is to discuss an issue that the parties disagree about, then you pretty much have to assume civility. How else will a conversation work?