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

[TomB]

Same reason Jessica Yanniv went to small immigrant parlors. Misogyny and racism go hand in hand. It's also practically handy as they're less likely to be able to mount good legal defenses if it came to that.

Bringing Jessica Yanniv up with regards to the spa debate brings this to mind.

The argument that the spa owners have the power to shut down undesired activities at the spa is technically true. However, defending oneself against allegations of discrimination can be expensive and many small businesses can't afford to do so. So they might be afraid to attempt to enforce a behavior code against some demographics unless they have rock solid proof that no one can dispute. Complaints from another customer do not qualify in this manner.

Jessica Yanniv, I believe attempted to weaponize anti-discrimination law against a minority she did not like. Did she succeed? She lost in court and was ordered to pay recompense ($6000 split between three businesses). But at least two of her victims were forced out of business by the complaints. (And apparently, she is suing the ones who won their case against her.)

So yes, Jessica Yanniv is an example of why someone might be hesitant to try to enforce standards. It's not just this type of thing where this applies to. Kroger didn't want it's managers to push too hard enforcing mask policies for similar reasons.

Even if you win in court, you can lose. Reputation can be damaged by social media complaints that never go to court.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Which is totally why nobody gets a bit tense when an adult male with no children is hanging about at the park where the toddlers are playing, right?

You think the phenomena of random men being harangued in public is a good thing?

Stranger danger is largely a myth. It's not some guy taking in the sunshine at a public park that parents should be worried about, it's the kid's soccer coach or nanny. Children are overwhelmingly abused by people known to the family.

 

[Ron Obvious]

People being willing to say and hear many different viewpoints is supposed to be the virtue of open-mindedness that Skeptics are promoting.

Anyway, since when do you say we all disagree with each other? I thought the line was that we're all in lock-step with ideology?

I already said where you disagree.

A colour-blind person can be convinced by people who can see colour if they are always consistent in their identification. Trans-advocates are all over the map when you try to pin them down to a consistent and coherent point of view and definitions of the basics.

N-Rays, canals on Mars, homeopathy, multiple-personality-disorder, repressed memories of Satanic abuse. All investigated and dismissed after investigation by open-minded sceptics.

 

[Emily's Cat]

By the standards of liberal society, someone who is "extremely obviously male" would not be considered a trans woman. If you're going by extremists on either side, rather than ordinary liberals, YMMV, but don't pretend that's a legitimate interpretation of this thread.

Well, except that this is really actually happening.

This is a transwoman holding office in NY where that position used to be one reserved for females. I'm going with "extremely obviously male", despite the dress.

https://thevelvetchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Screenshot-emilia-decaudin-1.jpeg
https://thevelvetchronicle.com/ny-democrats-quietly-dismantle-1-male-1-female-rule/

Alex Drummond of Wales is a transwoman, recognized as such, and "extremely obviously male" despite having rather good taste in attire.
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6100661.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Alex-Drummond.jpg
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/transgender-woman-who-kept-beard-6101242

And damion with have to find the link for Seani, the bearded completely untransitioned transwoman who is a moderator for a women's only travel thing somewhere or other.

Edited by Agatha: 

edited for rule 5. Please do not hotlink unless expressly permitted by the originating site.

 

[theprestige]

That's fair, assuming your plans are consistent with anti-discrimination laws which, in the near future, may not allow trans discrimination that is being advocated in this thread.

I didn't ask you what you thought may or may not be allowed in the future.

I asked you what you thought should or should not be allowed in the future.

As a matter of scale, the trans menace has always been a tempest in a tea pot. The number of trans people is still quite small, and even in a world that is more trans accepting, there really are never going to be that many trans people.

You'd think these incidents are extremely common, but the anti-trans panic mongers have to search high and low for incidents to elevate to a fevered discourse.

Outside of certain specific contexts, trans acceptance is going to have a barely noticeable impact for the vast majority of people. Transphobic people will probably find it pretty easy to totally exclude trans people from their social circles and may never have to interact with a trans person in any meaningful way.

This is somewhat true for homophobes and will only be more so with transphobes.

I would suspect that changing rooms and saunas are probably among the most sensitive (given the nudity) and high volume places, so there's likely bound to be someone who might prefer a bit more privacy than what is offered by an open changing area.

What do you think should or should not be allowed in the future, when it comes to building more privacy into communal nudity spaces?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm probably the only one who thinks that was supposed to be the meaning of trans rights all along, and both sides are to blame for screwing it up.

Here's the deal... I think most females were supportive of that general concept, when it was understood that those transpeople were 1) diagnosed with gender dysphoria after a lengthy and thorough evaluation and 2) post-surgical or int he process of attain complete sex reassignment surgeries.

There's a lot less support when that shifted to self-id with no diagnosis, and with no expectation of surgery at all. Such that any male-bodied person who declares themselves to be a woman must be entitled to recognition as a woman in all aspects of life - including sex-segregated spaces, political and executive positions, sports, etc.

Take away the self-id and no transition element, and you'll have a massive amount less objection.

 

[caveman1917]

I have said that the aversion to being naked around the opposite sex is instinctive. In saying that, I'm basically saying that "modesty" is more than just a cultural phenomenon. Obviously, it is influenced by culture, but is it more than just purely cultural?

From admittedly a single anecdote I think it is just cultural. The anecdote being someone I know who was raised in a setting where communal nudity was common and accepted (a hippie commune) who, even now in adulthood, has no qualms whatsoever about being naked around anyone of any sex - she, to the contrary, finds it weird that other people do.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I didn't ask you what you thought may or may not be allowed in the future.

I asked you what you thought should or should not be allowed in the future.


What do you think should or should not be allowed in the future, when it comes to building more privacy into communal nudity spaces?

I see no reason why the way locker rooms are built now must change, even in a society that prohibits anti-trans discrimination by law.

so long as trans women are able to use women's facilities, and trans men use the men's, nothing about these rooms really need to change.

I think the general trend is that everyone, even outside this trans debate, prefers more privacy in these places, and that the general trend will be to build facilities that offer more personal privacy for showering and changing clothes. I suspect this will continue to happen by itself, and no law will or even should be placed to make it happen.

To my limited understanding, this is essentially the case now in Canada.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Unless emily cat has some evidence beyond this BBC article, this smear against trans people seems entirely rooted in animus and completely lacks substantiation.

The under reporting of sex abusers generally, and female sex offenders specifically, is a well known phenomena.

See my earlier post on this.

What we know is: males commit many more sex crimes than females.
The police there now record gender, rather than sex.
The stats indicate a sudden jump in "women" committing sexual abuse.

Moreover, there is no consensus that TWs commit sex crimes at a lower rate than other males.

Yes, we can't know for certain- by definition if they're not recording sex. Though a retrospective study is possible if they're collecting DNA.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

See my earlier post on this.

What we know is: males commit many more sex crimes than females.
The police there now record gender, rather than sex.
The stats indicate a sudden jump in "women" committing sexual abuse.

Moreover, there is no consensus that TWs commit sex crimes at a lower rate than other males.

Yes, we can't know for certain- by definition if they're not recording sex. Though a retrospective study is possible if they're collecting DNA.

So there's no reason to believe this jump in crime stats is attributable to trans women other than gut feeling, yes?

The article itself makes the very reasonable suggestion that people feel more comfortable reporting women for sex crimes. Underreporting of sex crimes is a known problem and likely completely dwarfs any other contributing factor.

 

[Ron Obvious]

There are varied positions from people on both sides. The existence of nuanced positions is never a reason to dismiss a side of an argument.

It is when it they can't even agree on their side of the argument. The "other side" merely have different positions on policy, not on the science and the very basics of what transgenderism even "is".

 

[JihadJane]

I see no reason why the way locker rooms are built now must change, even in a society that prohibits anti-trans discrimination by law.

so long as trans women are able to use women's facilities, and trans men use the men's, nothing about these rooms really need to change.

I think the general trend is that everyone, even outside this trans debate, prefers more privacy in these places, and that the general trend will be to build facilities that offer more personal privacy for showering and changing clothes. I suspect this will continue to happen by itself, and no law will or even should be placed to make it happen.

To my limited understanding, this is essentially the case now in Canada.

What if women don't want to share facilities with transwomen?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay, so it's a little insulting to us males and you take it personally. So what? Where are you going with this?

Is it your preference to amend the insult by doing away with sex-segregated spaces altogether? And if so, do you regard access rights for self-declared fully male-bodied transwomen to female segregated spaces as a useful step in bringing that about? The tip of the spear, so to speak?

I'm curious because, if that's not what you're getting at, I don't see how you feeling insulted is relevant to trans rights questions. And if it is, then much earlier in the thread, some correspondents were claiming that agenda was in play, and I have to admit I didn't believe them.

I really don't know how else to put it.

I simply can't image why so many people are shocked, simply shocked I say, that an entire 1/2 of the population, the vast majority of whom are perfectly decent people who have no predatory intent on anyone, aren't just willing to go along with being treated like we're on permanent parole or under permanent rehabilitation with a smile on our faces and a skip in our step.

 

[theprestige]

I think the general trend is that everyone, even outside this trans debate, prefers more privacy in these places, and that the general trend will be to build facilities that offer more personal privacy for showering and changing clothes. I suspect this will continue to happen by itself, and no law will or even should be placed to make it happen.

If it doesn't happen by itself, do you think a law should be placed in that case?

Do you think a law should be placed to address people who buck the trend and don't do it?

 

[Collin237]

Trans-advocates are all over the map when you try to pin them down to a consistent and coherent point of view and definitions of the basics.

That's because we're not actually one group. The only thing we have in common is being objects of your derision.

N-Rays, canals on Mars, homeopathy, multiple-personality-disorder, repressed memories of Satanic abuse. All investigated and dismissed after investigation by open-minded sceptics.

Funny you should mention "canals on Mars". Mars does actually have long narrow valleys that are colloquially called canals. And trans women who pass as women are colloquially called women.

 

[caveman1917]

If we accept the Eddie Izzard/gender-fluid model, the answer may be because you ID as a woman that particular day.

Why restrict to a particular day? It's even easier to fill equal-representation quota when you can ID as a woman from the start of each board meeting to the end of each board meeting.

 

[d4m10n]

Do you think a law should be placed to address people who buck the trend...

I think it's worth noting that some number of people would rather see the bathrooms/changing rooms issues play out in a relatively free marketplace of ideas and services rather than locking in the current understanding and values of our local/state level legislators.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't live in total fear. But it IS a reality.

We've covered this bit earlier in these threads, but nearly every female poster in this thread has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape, or the victim of a sexual assault, of the victim of sexual harassment many, many times throughout their life. It's so frequent that many females don't even bother counting the unsolicited boob and butt grabs in crowded spaces as "sexual assaults" because they happen so often, and they pale in comparison to the more egregious acts that we're subjected to.

There are a few men who have, once or twice in their lives, been groped by a female at a bar. And a couple who have been subjected to significant childhood sexual trauma.

The numbers and the frequency are staggeringly different.

For most women, this isn't a case of cowering in fear for our poor widdle selves or whatever derogatory and dismissive framing you keep using. It's basic common sense. It's wearing our seatbelts. It's not carrying a wad of cash in our hands when we're walking down a dark alley in a rough part of town. It's something that we are aware of as a potential hazard of life. Because for the vast majority of women, it IS a potential hazard of life.

This topic and the policies put forth are ones that REMOVE the safety of the very, very few spaces in our lives where we are free to set aside that wariness and that attention to our surroundings. These are some of the very few spaces outside of our homes (and not even all of those), where we don't need to have that hazard in our awareness and we can just ******* relax.

Honestly, you getting so wound up about this as some kind of personal affront that hurts your male ego is off-putting. It is yet another case of males insisting that their desires and their feelings should be centered at a higher priority than the needs and safety of females.

FFS, you're not even the person asking to come into the changing rooms! You're getting offended as a male on behalf of other ******* people! And you present this as if your second-hand discomfort is justification for females not having a right to sex-segregated spaces!

This.

 

[Meadmaker]

I really don't know how else to put it.

I simply can't image why so many people are shocked, simply shocked I say, that an entire 1/2 of the population, the vast majority of whom are perfectly decent people who have no predatory intent on anyone, aren't just willing to go along with being treated like we're on permanent parole or under permanent rehabilitation with a smile on our faces and a skip in our step.

To be honest, I'm not sure why it bothers you that we are.

It provides an opportunity for us to prove that we aren't the bad sort of man, always looking out to get laid, and the ladies appreciate that.

And we can use that to our advantage and get laid.


Well, I vaguely remember that was the way it used to work. Being old, fat, and married has changed that dynamic a bit.

 

[theprestige]

Funny you should mention "canals on Mars". Mars does actually have long narrow valleys that are colloquially called canals. And trans women who pass as women are colloquially called women.

Which valleys would these be? According to Wikipedia, the canals we're talking about never existed:

Around the turn of the century there was even speculation that they were engineering works, irrigation canals constructed by a civilization of intelligent aliens indigenous to Mars. By the early 20th century, improved astronomical observations revealed the "canals" to be an optical illusion, and modern high-resolution mapping of the Martian surface by spacecraft shows no such features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal#Spacecraft_evidence​