Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Collin237 said:
If you don't require the fear to be rational, then women are also in danger from other women. All a woman has to do is walk past another woman at a close enough distance so one of their chests is in contact; it doesn't even have to be deliberate.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Collin237 said:
If you don't require the fear to be rational, then women are also in danger from other women. All a woman has to do is walk past another woman at a close enough distance so one of their chests is in contact; it doesn't even have to be deliberate.
Click to expand...

That's so ******* stupid, and you know it's stupid. You're being ridiculous, and you're doing it on purpose. You're trolling with talking points, because you seem to believe that this is a discussion amongst a bunch of anti-trans people. You think this because you are skimming said discussion.

In actuality, this discussion is, for the overwhelmingly most part, a bunch of people who CARE about equality and trans rights and all that, and who are trying to talk about the best ways for EVERYONE to have their rights protected (along with their wishes, insofar as that is reasonably possible). Arguments like yours do nothing to advance the discussion; they are just talking points designed to needle opponents. But we aren't actually your opponents (most of us, anyway), which you would know if you would only read a little bit more of the discussion.
 
TomB said:
Yes. I think that what she actually meant by that is that she considers her gender to be biologically determined as opposed to a "desire" or the result of some environmental factor.

The issue with that statement is not the position stated above, assuming I interpret her correctly, but that the statement violated what had been previously (mostly) agreed to terminology for the discussion: male/female referred to sex, man/woman referred to gender. She wished to claim both terms to refer to gender. Or perhaps its more accurate to say she did not want her sex referred to.
Further, and I may be mis-remembering this, I think she also considered her sex to be female. But I think that for her, gender overruled sex to the point that sex did not matter to her. Anyway, for whatever reason, she found being referred to as male to be offensive even when the reference was to her physical sex, not her gender.

This conversation is largely about sex and gender as separate (but linked) concepts. That separation of terminology is necessary. Unfortunately, when discussing the condition and experiences of a person participating in the conversation, it may be triggering because those same types of statements in other contexts have been weaponized.
Click to expand...

Good post. I particularly wanted to comment on the highlighted bit, as my trans friend said something very similar to this. (I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread somewhere.) She does not claim to be a biological female, but she also does not want to be referred to as any type of male. She finds it triggering and painful, and it gives her massive anxiety and crushing feelings of body negativity. I think that, ultimately, she thinks of herself as inhabiting a sort of philosophical grey area between the sexes.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Ye think???

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You don't agree?

I would say there are under 5 people who have posted that don't seem onboard, and that's throughout the whole megathread (the parts I've seen anyway).


ETA - Obviously the post right above yours is a pretty bad and ill-timed example. :(
 
Last edited:
I hate when someone implies that I've said something daft or awful but then won't answer me as to why it was wrong.
 
Butter! said:
That's so ******* stupid, and you know it's stupid. You're being ridiculous, and you're doing it on purpose. You're trolling with talking points, because you seem to believe that this is a discussion amongst a bunch of anti-trans people. You think this because you are skimming said discussion.

In actuality, this discussion is, for the overwhelmingly most part, a bunch of people who CARE about equality and trans rights and all that, and who are trying to talk about the best ways for EVERYONE to have their rights protected (along with their wishes, insofar as that is reasonably possible). Arguments like yours do nothing to advance the discussion; they are just talking points designed to needle opponents. But we aren't actually your opponents (most of us, anyway), which you would know if you would only read a little bit more of the discussion.
Click to expand...

It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that the only way to protect everyone's rights in a locker room -- including the basic right to privacy, as in the popular interpretation of the U.S.'s 4th Amendment -- is to provide a row of stalls for people to go in and change clothes. And that this is not a right predicated on sex or gender, but a human right applicable to everyone. This idea seems to be totally alien to everyone else here, and I'm trying to find a way to explain it.

ETA: And also stalls enclosing the showers.
 
Last edited:
In regards to the issue of bathrooms and changing rooms:

If the goal is privacy from lustful eyes, isn't the obvious solution, one that both provides privacy and doesn't deny the validity of trans people, to just build more individual privacy into these rooms?

Sex segregated communal changing rooms only protects from the hetero gaze anyway. If you're a man in an open changing room, there's nothing to stop another man from lustfully gazing at your naked body if they happen to be gay (other than good manners, I am not implying that gay men are perverts). The common acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bi people already dispels the notion of sex-segregated spaces to be free from any lustful eyes.

Seems that the communal aspect of many of these places are largely on the way out anyway. At least to my experience, shower rooms without individual stalls are becoming less common. Hell, they are even putting dividers in between urinals at this point.

Adding flimsy and cheap dividers for changing rooms seems like an easy solution. Even a curtain can go a long way.

Is anyone really going to mourn the group changing room? How many really enjoy being naked in front of strangers, even if you are reasonably sure they are taking no gratification in seeing your nude body?
 
Last edited:
Also, no offense to the original OP as I know what meaning he intended, but seriously - the title of this thread. It's awful. It's probably responsible for the fact that so many new people enter this discussion with the assumption that it's overtly hostile to trans rights. Can we change it?

How about this - if it spills over into a 6th installment, can we call THAT thread something else?
 
Collin237 said:
It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that the only way to protect everyone's rights in a locker room -- including the basic right to privacy, as in the U.S.'s 4th Amendment -- is to provide a row of stalls for people to go in and change clothes. And that this is not a right predicated on sex or gender, but a human right applicable to everyone. This idea seems to be totally alien to everyone else here, and I'm trying to find a way to explain it.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with locker rooms, so you're preaching to the choir. I think everyone should have the option to change in a private stall regardless of who else is in the room, so it shouldn't matter. I'd also personally be comfortable with changing on stage, or hell, on national TV. People who are a bit more modest aren't wrong, though. They're just different.

Stalls solves most of the problem for everyone involved. And I have to say, the last time I was in a gym locker room (pre-pandemic, obviously), 99% of the occupants were changing in stalls or huddled behind locker doors, facing walls, etc. No one was skipping around with her titties flopping in the breeze. I couldn't even tell you what sex anyone was, because I was too busy dreading the treadmill.
 
Last edited:
//Slight hijack for some context//

Are American bathroom stalls really as "open" in compared to other countries as I've been lead to believe? I frequently hear complaints/comments that American style bathroom stalls have too much gap at the bottom, top, and sides of the door.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Slight hijack for some context//

Are American bathroom stalls really as "open" in compared to other countries as I've been lead to believe? I frequently hear complaints/comments that American style bathroom stalls have too much gap at the bottom, top, and sides of the door.
Click to expand...

Yes, nearly every bathroom stall I've ever used in the US has fairly large gaps at every edge and a very large gap at the bottom.

Nobody likes it, and they are still built this way. Not sure why.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Slight hijack for some context//

Are American bathroom stalls really as "open" in compared to other countries as I've been lead to believe? I frequently hear complaints/comments that American style bathroom stalls have too much gap at the bottom, top, and sides of the door.
Click to expand...

I don't know what they're like elsewhere, but I have legitimately made (inadvertent) eye contact with passersby through the side-cracks of a stall door while parked on a public toilet. More than once...
 
Butter! said:
You don't agree?

I would say there are under 5 people who have posted that don't seem onboard, and that's throughout the whole megathread (the parts I've seen anyway).


ETA - Obviously the post right above yours is a pretty bad and ill-timed example. :(
Click to expand...

A fair number of people posting here reject or are sceptical of the fundamental tenets of gender identity ideology.

Transactivists label anything other than strict adherence to ideological orthodoxy (accepting the tenets of postmodern Queer Theory) as transphobia. Of course, they are rarely forthcoming about this as they know the majority of people are unaware of the nature of debates over these issues and would not readily accept ideological and policy disagreement as 'phobia' if they were aware. They rely on framing rejection of ideology or policies based on ideology as hatred or fear of trans people. To accomplish this, they usually just misrepresent or lie outright about the motives of critics or what they have said, relying on tropes such as comparison with homophobia.

So basically the reaction to your post reflects that most activists will never accept anything other than ideological orthodoxy as compatible with 'trans rights'.
 
Oh yeah I know how they are in America, I just wonder if they are all that more enclosed in other countries.

From my travels throughout Europe and the Middle East not really.
 
Butter! said:
You don't agree?

I would say there are under 5 people who have posted that don't seem onboard, and that's throughout the whole megathread (the parts I've seen anyway).
Click to expand...

I don't see that there is any train to board here. You said as much yourself, in one of the deleted posts.
 
Last edited:
Collin237 said:
I don't see that there is any train to board here. You said as much yourself, in one of the deleted posts.
Click to expand...

I don't know what this means.

The reason I deleted my post criticizing MisAndreG's post was because I used the phrase "Dude..." and I was afraid it would be misinterpreted as mocking gender instead of how I meant it (which was more akin to "Dude... come on, that's not cool"). I restated in a subsequent post that I disliked the misgendering comment, so i don't know what I'm being accused of here.

But what do you mean by there isn't any train to board here? I seriously have no clue.
 
Last edited:
Maybe sports participation could be decided on a case-by-case basis? Skills, hormone levels (both natural and medical), and whether or not the person went through biological puberty of their birth sex can all make for wildly different outcomes between different trans athletes. A one-size-fits-all policy probably wouldn't work.

Perhaps the fairest way to do it would involve special consideration in each case? What do you guys think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom