Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[JoeMorgue]

I think the operative question (here) is whether human females ought to be allowed to have a male-free spaces at all, either in the legal or moral sense. The answer seems obvious to me, but then it also seems obvious to Boudicca—in the other direction.

Well that's where I've been at for about four threads now.

Option 1 - Emily or Rolfe yells at me because they are afraid they are gonna get raped because there's a penis in their restroom.
Option 2 - Someone tells me I'm a transphobe because I won't let just some of the penis's into the restroom and not all of them.
Option 3 - I just shut up and accept that only my narrow demographic (cis-males) is seen as inherently predatory enough as to be needed to be quarantined from the rest of society.

None of these are acceptable to me and two of them get the label of "bigot" applied to me so... spin the wheel.

 

[LondonJohn]

How can that happen when many turn up with nothing but the clothes they have on their backs?

There will have to be some sort of system worked out though - that much is entirely obvious. And I've already stated that it's not for me to figure out what that system should be, but that instead it's for the experts in this field.

I have no idea what the final negotiated settlement will be, and what the mechanisms will look like. But the one thing I'm sure of is that everyone seeking to enter a women's shelter will need to be screened and verified prior to entry, in order to minimise the chances of (eg) a jealous and abusive male ex-partner being able to walk in unchallenged (with potentially horrific consequences, as I'd hope everyone would be able to figure out).

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes.

A fuller answer would be handy, to me at least.

 

[abaddon]

Great. We are now contemplating genitalia inspectors at bathroom doors. Does nobody see how absurd this has become.

 

[abaddon]

There will have to be some sort of system worked out though - that much is entirely obvious. And I've already stated that it's not for me to figure out what that system should be, but that instead it's for the experts in this field.

I have no idea what the final negotiated settlement will be, and what the mechanisms will look like. But the one thing I'm sure of is that everyone seeking to enter a women's shelter will need to be screened and verified prior to entry, in order to minimise the chances of (eg) a jealous and abusive male ex-partner being able to walk in unchallenged (with potentially horrific consequences, as I'd hope everyone would be able to figure out).

That is not remotely how that system works.

 

[LondonJohn]

Great. We are now contemplating genitalia inspectors at bathroom doors. Does nobody see how absurd this has become.

Yes. Which is precisely why it's absurd. Which is precisely why the only workable and fair solution is that all trans women use the women's bathrooms, and all trans men use the men's bathrooms.

 

[Paul2]

We have had (still have?) outright self-confessed racists on this forum. I'm not interested in having a conversation with them once it becomes clear that their arguments are based on prejudice and bigotry. I don't need to test my ideas on whether black people are equal to white people. That matter is settled.

That one matter is settled does not mean that other issues directly related to that matter are settled. However, I'm not insisting that you talk with anyone you don't want to, for whatever reason. I am, though, arguing that it is very often a good idea.

That's not the same as saying I'm not interested in talking to someone who disagrees with me on these topics. If someone has something interesting or useful to say on either of these topics and can do it without reference to prejudice and bigotry then great. We have potential for an interesting conversation.

One complication I've seen on this thread, though, is that some positions are equated to bigotry, whether they have been discussed civilly or not.

I'm not interested in banging my head against a brick wall though.

I don't want to insist that you do, I'm merely trying to demonstrate that there can be a benefit.

And I'm not interested in trying to change the minds of bigots through reason. Others might be. In my experience that's not how change happens. Slave owners weren't persuaded by argument to give up their slaves.

Are you sure about that? Every slave owner? Do we know that? Also, such a decision need not be made merely on the influence of one identifiable factor. Discussion and argument need not even be the primary factor in such a decision, but could still be valuable if it played even a small but still necessary role.

I also find the whole concept of civility deeply problematic at times.

I'm only arguing for civility during a discussion in which both sides have agreed to talk with each other about an issue they disagree about.

Politely saying something awful is not civil. And I think we get those two things confused at times.

I agree that there is a distinction to be made there. But, as I said above, one could reasonably say that arguing for some other medical insurance system other than what one thinks is the best is awful because adopting the inferior one will truly mean the death of many people, and sometimes a horrible death with much suffering. I don't see a way around having to engage with people even if they hold an awful position: how else can it work - especially in a democracy in which they have a right to hold their position, and vote accordingly?

It's something that has been used in the past to keep minorities down - painting their righteous anger as incivility.

There is a place for civility and there is a place for anger, too.

So I'm always cautious of demands to respect positions which are inherently disrespectful to others.

I'm promoting for respecting the *person* enough to have a discussion with them - if you want to have a discussion. That's different from respecting their position.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is not remotely how that system works.

Firstly (as I've stated before) I'm using "unchallenged" as in "not being asked to prove one's gender". Not as in "not being challenged or checked in any capacity whatsoever".

And secondly, if you're going to tell me that that is not remotely how that system works, it'd be useful and equitable if you'd tell me how that system does work.

 

[Meadmaker]

A fuller answer would be handy, to me at least.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13141644#post13141644

And I don't want to speak for Emily's Cat here. That's not my purpose. What I hope to convey to you is that her position has been fairly clear for a long time, if you actually listen to what she says. The only reason there is confusion on the point is that so many people try to twist what she says into something else.


That includes you with your recent "looks like a man" comments. Her position isn't difficult to understand, unless you are trying to parse it with legal precision in the hope of finding some discrepancy you can exploit. EC believes that if you're out on the town in a dress and you need to pee, go to the ladies' room.

I mostly agree with her, but with some reluctance.

Did I get that right, EC?

 

[caveman1917]

Well that's where I've been at for about four threads now.

Option 1 - Emily or Rolfe yells at me because they are afraid they are gonna get raped because there's a penis in their restroom.
Option 2 - Someone tells me I'm a transphobe because I won't let some of the pensises but not all of them into the restroom.
Option 3 - I just shut up and accept that only my narrow demographic (cis-males) is seen as inherently predatory enough as to be needed to be quarantined from the rest of society.

None of these are acceptable to me and two of them get the label of "bigot" applied to me so... spin the wheel.

Option 4 - You just don't care about the results from option 1 and 2, and continue to argue whatever it is you want to argue.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you and Emily are not using the same definition (or same standards depending on how you want to look at it) of "obviously this gender or that gender."

Well, what I know is that Emily's Cat recently wrote these words:

"My approach for bathrooms for transmen and transwomen is the same: Use the bathroom that a random observer is most likely to assume you should be in."

And as far as I'm concerned, the meaning of those words is very clear: all those who "look" like women should use the women's bathrooms, and all those who "look" like men should use the men's bathrooms.


And this would seem to be in direct contradiction with EC's previously-stated position, which was along the lines that nobody with a penis should be allowed to enter or use the women's bathrooms.

Why are the two positions in contradiction with each other? Because it's obviously perfectly possible for a male to "look" like a woman - and thus gain the right to use the women's bathrooms (per the bolded quote of EC above) - while that male also remains in possession of a fully-functioning penis.

 

[LondonJohn]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13141644#post13141644

And I don't want to speak for Emily's Cat here. That's not my purpose. What I hope to convey to you is that her position has been fairly clear for a long time, if you actually listen to what she says. The only reason there is confusion on the point is that so many people try to twist what she says into something else.


That includes you with your recent "looks like a man" comments. Her position isn't difficult to understand, unless you are trying to parse it with legal precision in the hope of finding some discrepancy you can exploit. EC believes that if you're out on the town in a dress and you need to pee, go to the ladies' room.

I mostly agree with her, but with some reluctance.

Did I get that right, EC?

See my previous post for a response to this.

 

[d4m10n]

None of these are acceptable to me and two of them get the label of "bigot" applied to me so... spin the wheel.

Which of these three options most closely resembles the attached meme?

 

[Meadmaker]

And this would seem to be in direct contradiction with EC's previously-stated position, which was along the lines that nobody with a penis should be allowed to enter or use the women's bathrooms.

Just curious, but did you look at my post before you wrote that, or were you composing when I posted, so you hadn't seen it?

EC has never said that, and you should really examine your own thought process to see why you think she had.

 

[abaddon]

Firstly (as I've stated before) I'm using "unchallenged" as in "not being asked to prove one's gender". Not as in "not being challenged or checked in any capacity whatsoever".

And secondly, if you're going to tell me that that is not remotely how that system works, it'd be useful and equitable if you'd tell me how that system does work.

No problem, but I shall take it to PM if that is OK with you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think we need to address the elephant in the room of the "magically undetectable trans person who completely slips under everyone's radar because they are just so undetectable as someone of the other gender" thing sooner or later.

That's where this circle squares itself. It's where the "OMG we're talking about setting up genital checks!" thing falls apart.

No we're not. Because when a biological man puts on a dress and "identifies/presents as" a woman it doesn't magically make broad shoulders, Adams Apples, deep voices, average greater height, and the totally inability to strap down a cargo load without snapping the cargo straps and saying "Yep... that's not going anywhere", ya know all those traditional male traits, disappear.

I think there's a lot of disconnect here that we're all dancing around because we know the unpleasant hijack it could cause.

LondonJohn is probably learning more toward the image of a transperson who is passing as their identified gender so perfectly there's no reason, indeed no way, to question it. I'd wager Emily's Cat is not.

 

[abaddon]

I think we need to address the elephant in the room of the "magically undetectable trans person who completely slips under everyone's radar because they are just so undetectable as someone of the other gender" thing sooner or later.

That's where this circle squares itself. It's where the "OMG we're talking about setting up genital checks!" thing falls apart.

No we're not. Because when a biological man puts on a dress and "identifies/presents as" a woman it doesn't magically make broad shoulders, Adams Apples, deep voices, average greater height, and the totally inability to strap down a cargo load without snapping the cargo straps and saying "Yep... that's not going anywhere", ya know all those traditional male traits, disappear.

I think there's a lot of disconnect here that we're all dancing around because we know the unpleasant hijack it could cause.

LondonJohn is probably learning more toward the image of a transperson who is passing as their identified gender so perfectly there's no reason, indeed no way, to question it. I'd wager Emily's Cat is not.

Bet LJ responds to me next time he is online.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That there are downsides to socially enforced gender roles doesn't mean the alternatives on offer don't have downsides that are as bad or worse.

True. My comment wasn't intended as an argument, merely as an acknowledgement.

 

[Boudicca90]

Well, what I know is that Emily's Cat recently wrote these words:

"My approach for bathrooms for transmen and transwomen is the same: Use the bathroom that a random observer is most likely to assume you should be in."

And as far as I'm concerned, the meaning of those words is very clear: all those who "look" like women should use the women's bathrooms, and all those who "look" like men should use the men's bathrooms.


And this would seem to be in direct contradiction with EC's previously-stated position, which was along the lines that nobody with a penis should be allowed to enter or use the women's bathrooms.

Why are the two positions in contradiction with each other? Because it's obviously perfectly possible for a male to "look" like a woman - and thus gain the right to use the women's bathrooms (per the bolded quote of EC above) - while that male also remains in possession of a fully-functioning penis.

Yep, when I stated that based on her views of "penises shouldn't be allowed in women's facilities" that I shouldn't be allowed to enter restrooms, locker rooms, spas, etc. when I have for a few years now with no problem, she backtracked. Despite having a penis and having no intention right now of getting rid of it, she then clarified that as long as I look like I belong in there, then it is fine for me to be in there.

So Emily, which is it? How much importance do you place on such a trivial matter when it comes to gender?

Also there are plenty of people who unfortunately can't pass no matter how hard they try, or don't have the resources to successfully transition, should they be barred because they don't meet her personal definition of a woman?

 

[LondonJohn]

Just curious, but did you look at my post before you wrote that, or were you composing when I posted, so you hadn't seen it?

EC has never said that, and you should really examine your own thought process to see why you think she had.

Hmm really? Because here's Emily's Cat talking about how trans women with penises should not be allowed into women-only spaces:

Oh no, females can't be allowed to have safe private spaces where they aren't at risk of assault from men - that would be unfair to the males who identify as women even though they still have penises. They're not males despite the actual reality of their bodies, because, you know, they've made the decision that "male" doesn't mean anything.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13237621#post13237621

Transwoman with a penis? Not unless you can provide some extremely compelling evidence to support them being in a female ward and not representing any danger or increased risk to the women there.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13216541#post13216541

No, it's not. It's based on the statistical fact that most people with penises (including most transwomen, by the way) are attracted to women paired with the statistical fact that the vast majority of sexual crimes are committed by people who have or had penises!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13205311#post13205311

I actually don't care if it was "deliberate". She has a penis. And she was in the presence of underage females. Any sane, rational, and caring human would have had the presence of mind to be discrete and cover themselves so as to avoid any potential discomfort on the part of anyone involved.

Clearly, that did not happen. The police report indicates that at least two girls saw her male genitalia and complained about it - the police report does NOT indicate that the two girls were in the sauna at the time they witnessed said genitalia. The only source that makes that claim is the one you provided, and I would contend that it is unlikely to be an unbiased source.

On the other hand, reports at the time indicated that two girls at the time told their coach about it, but that once people started talking there were other girls who had previously seen her penis and scrotum too.

Now, here's something to think on, since the underlying assumption is that transwomen have the "minds" of women, and are women in nature internally.

A WOMAN who has a penis would not EVER have put young girls into that position, because a WOMAN would understand the inherent discomfort and risk of a 45-year-old penis being in the same environment as naked young females!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13204392#post13204392



And that's just a quick search.