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

[TurkeysGhost]

It has?

I agree with your first paragraph. That is the more common discussion, but I think there are also safety concerns, and I'm not aware of any debunking that has happened.

I think the numbers involved are very small and it's rather difficult to get any statistics.



I think another way that transwomen might be outed is if they reveal their penises in a locker room.



Indeed, that is true, and it's one reason why an awful lot of people are willing to compromise on public toilet use. Not everyone is, but an awful lot of people are.

Moreover, there's no evidence that nondiscrimination laws — and other policies that also let trans people use the bathroom for their gender identity — lead to sexual assault in bathrooms and locker rooms. In two investigations, Media Matters confirmed with experts and officials in 12 states and 17 school districts with protections for trans people that they had no increases in sex crimes after they enacted their policies.

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11592908/transgender-bathroom-laws-rights

Whether or not a trans person feels comfortable getting undressed in common areas or seeks out more privacy (like a bathroom stall) allows them to exercise agency. Forbidding them from using facilities corresponding to their gender identity pretty much guarantees that others will be very much aware of their transgender status, and invites harassment and ostracization.

 

[caveman1917]

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11592908/transgender-bathroom-laws-rights

It's quite disingenuous to pretend to debunk the claim of generic sexual crimes (which are by and large regarding things such as exhibitionism or voyeurism) by solely asking about sexual assaults. The original article is even explicit about it, pretending to debunk claims about a "trans woman who went into a female changing room and exposed herself to all and sundry" by pointing out that none of the people they asked could give them examples of sexual assaults. Of course, even if we accept the claim of the non-existence of sexual assaults, that it no way entails the lack of exhibitionism or voyeurism or such.

 

[d4m10n]

It's hardly my claim, it's what the mainstream definitions (dictionary, wikipedia, and google) for the pronouns "he" and "she" are, ie as referring to male/female humans or other animals.

Wikipedia? No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Current_guideline

I dare say other well respected periodicals have adopted similar guidelines of late, using pronouns which reflect a subject's gender rather than sex at birth.

 

[caveman1917]

Wikipedia? No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Current_guideline

I dare say other well respected periodicals have adopted similar guidelines of late, using pronouns which reflect a subject's gender rather than sex at birth.

I don't think anybody said anything about their style guidelines. But you've got a point that "he" doesn't seem to be explicitly defined on wikipedia, it is on wiktionary though. And of course, like I said, google and such. Any chance we might get back to you actually addressing the actual rebuttal to your proposed definition? By now we're so far off on a tangent of a tangent we're not even discussing definitions of the term "he" but website style guidelines.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's quite disingenuous to pretend to debunk the claim of generic sexual crimes (which are by and large regarding things such as exhibitionism or voyeurism) by solely asking about sexual assaults. The original article is even explicit about it, pretending to debunk claims about a "trans woman who went into a female changing room and exposed herself to all and sundry" by pointing out that none of the people they asked could give them examples of sexual assaults. Of course, even if we accept the claim of the non-existence of sexual assaults, that it no way entails the lack of exhibitionism or voyeurism or such.

Is there any evidence of increased rates of voyeurism or exhibitionism?

Trans people existing and using the dressing rooms for their intended purposes is neither. Someone that sees a trans person naked in a place where nudity is expected is not a victim of a crime.

 

[Meadmaker]

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11592908/transgender-bathroom-laws-rights

Whether or not a trans person feels comfortable getting undressed in common areas or seeks out more privacy (like a bathroom stall) allows them to exercise agency. Forbidding them from using facilities corresponding to their gender identity pretty much guarantees that others will be very much aware of their transgender status, and invites harassment and ostracization.

That Vox article could be used in English class as a great demonstration of logical fallacies. However, the core claim that you cited seems reasonable enough, that crime rates measured after passing laws that allow trans people to use private spaces based on gender identity did not go up measurably. That doesn't surprise me.

Indeed, depending on how it is measured, it might even go down. I wouldn't expect any statistically significant change in sexual assault based crime, but we might see lower rates of voyeurism arrests, simply because some things that were illegal in the past would be perfectly legal after the law was enacted, and some things which are still illegal would be more difficult to detect or prove. In other words, 20 years ago, a biological male in a women's locker room would be, right away, an instance of voyeurism. Today, there would be a much higher bar to pass before a charge could be filed.


Regarding your paragraph above, there's something I want to bring up (again) related to "being outed". As has been noted before, if transwomen are capable of "passing", including by means you described above, no harm is done. As far as everyone involved knows, the person appears to be a woman, and no one knows differently, and everyone goes about their day. Where the biggest problems come in is when people make no attempt at passing. People like the one whom Sherkeu described in the Korean spa aren't even trying to pass. Those people really exist and, due to the non-discrimination laws, nothing can be done about them. This is a case very similar to the oft-cited Colleen Brenna example, who also made no effort to pass.

The other place where it is impossible to pass is that place which is the cause of so much controversy, the high school. In those situations, you are with the same people day in and day out. Everyone talks to each other. Moreover, in most cases, the person involved has been known by some of their fellow students since childhood, when they identified as a different gender. There's no way to keep the biological sex secret, so all users of the locker room are aware of the transgirl's biological sex, regardless of how much effort she goes to to conceal it.

 

[caveman1917]

Is there any evidence of increased rates of voyeurism or exhibitionism?

No idea. IIRC there was some statistical evidence given upthread for increased rates in unisex facilities versus single-sex facilities in the UK. There has also been anecdotal evidence given from the US, things like installing video cameras or the thing with the Korean spas, but the anecdotal evidence of course has the problem of not being able to tell whether it represents an increase or not.

Trans people existing and using the dressing rooms for their intended purposes is neither. Someone that sees a trans person naked in a place where nudity is expected is not a victim of a crime.

I suppose in a way voyeurism and exhibitionism are technically impossible in places where nudity is expected. Except voyeurism with things like cameras or such I guess.

 

[Meadmaker]

No idea. IIRC there was some statistical evidence given upthread for increased rates in unisex facilities versus single-sex facilities in the UK. There has also been anecdotal evidence given from the US, things like installing video cameras or the thing with the Korean spas, but the anecdotal evidence of course has the problem of not being able to tell whether it represents an increase or not.



I suppose in a way voyeurism and exhibitionism are technically impossible in places where nudity is expected. Except voyeurism with things like cameras or such I guess.

I wrote my previous post before seeing ST's question, but the Korean spa guy (and I do mean guy) is a good illustration of why voyeurism could go up, even though measured rates of voyeurism go down. It's pretty clear that the person in question was engaging in both voyeurism and exhibitionism. However, what they were doing was perfectly legal, so it's unlikely there was a police report, and there were certainly no charges filed. The incident will not be recorded in any statistics.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I wrote my previous post before seeing ST's question, but the Korean spa guy (and I do mean guy) is a good illustration of why voyeurism could go up, even though measured rates of voyeurism go down. It's pretty clear that the person in question was engaging in both voyeurism and exhibitionism. However, what they were doing was perfectly legal, so it's unlikely there was a police report, and there were certainly no charges filed. The incident will not be recorded in any statistics.

I think trying to measure would be very difficult anyway.

The number of trans people, even in trans accepting societies, is vanishingly small. Of that population, only a small fraction are going to be sexual predators.

I suspect it would be pretty difficult to even detect the incidents of trans voyeurs using trans acceptance as a method of perving on other people they previously may not have had access to.

It should point out that predatory behavior is still absolutely something that can be policed, and there's no reason why any predatory woman, trans or cis, need be tolerated in sensitive spaces. If a lesbian cis woman were leering at women or trying to solicit casual sex in the locker room, the remedy remains the same.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think anybody said anything about their style guidelines. But you've got a point that "he" doesn't seem to be explicitly defined on wikipedia, it is on wiktionary though. And of course, like I said, google and such. Any chance we might get back to you actually addressing the actual rebuttal to your proposed definition?

Soon, yes. I need you to see that I'm not just making up new rules for what he/she/they should be taken to mean these days. Major reference works and highly reputable periodicals have changed their style guides and I'm adjusting my own usage accordingly. You are free to continue to believe that pronouns are solely about biological sex (even in articles or discussion threads about transgender people) but that's not something you've convincingly demonstrated to be true.

 

[caveman1917]

I wrote my previous post before seeing ST's question, but the Korean spa guy (and I do mean guy) is a good illustration of why voyeurism could go up, even though measured rates of voyeurism go down. It's pretty clear that the person in question was engaging in both voyeurism and exhibitionism. However, what they were doing was perfectly legal, so it's unlikely there was a police report, and there were certainly no charges filed. The incident will not be recorded in any statistics.

Yes exactly, you can entirely eliminate voyeurism and exhibitionism in single-sex nude spaces by legally allowing anyone to use whatever facility they like. At least eliminate it legally. So the question is perhaps not "was there an increase in the rate of such crimes in those spaces?" but "was there a decrease in the rate of such crimes in those spaces?"

 

[theprestige]

Is there any evidence of increased rates of voyeurism or exhibitionism?

Around and around we go...

The argument isn't increased rates of voyeurism or exhibitionism.

The argument is that self-ID as the sole criteria greatly increases the risk of voyeurism and exhibitionism, by erasing all the social and legal safeguards that currently mitigate that risk.

Coming into this thread, even the TERFs and the reactionary conservatives assume, a priori, that most transwomen are going into the locker room for the same reason that most women are going into the locker room: To change clothes and wash up in a shared facility, away from prying eyes, and where everyone maintains the polite fiction that they're all in privacy and nobody is looking at anybody else.

Self-ID opens the door much wider to prying eyes, and undermines the polite fiction that makes locker rooms work as safe spaces.

And a huge part of the problem isn't even the rate increase itself, but the perception of increased risk on the part of people who use locker rooms. We shouldn't want women and transwomen to feel less safe about their safe spaces.

I think you and I both agree that transwomen should be able to use women's locker rooms, and that men should not.

I think maybe we don't agree on whether self-ID should be the sole criteria for access. But it's hard to tell because I've never seen you try to address the issue in these terms. It always seems to be a straw man or red herring or just insults.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Around and around we go...

The argument isn't increased rates of voyeurism or exhibitionism.

The argument is that self-ID as the sole criteria greatly increases the risk of voyeurism and exhibitionism, by erasing all the social and legal safeguards that currently mitigate that risk.

Coming into this thread, even the TERFs and the reactionary conservatives assume, a priori, that most transwomen are going into the locker room for the same reason that most women are going into the locker room: To change clothes and wash up in a shared facility, away from prying eyes, and where everyone maintains the polite fiction that they're all in privacy and nobody is looking at anybody else.

Self-ID opens the door much wider to prying eyes, and undermines the polite fiction that makes locker rooms work as safe spaces.

And a huge part of the problem isn't even the rate increase itself, but the perception of increased risk on the part of people who use locker rooms. We shouldn't want women and transwomen to feel less safe about their safe spaces.

I think you and I both agree that transwomen should be able to use women's locker rooms, and that men should not.

I think maybe we don't agree on whether self-ID should be the sole criteria for access. But it's hard to tell because I've never seen you try to address the issue in these terms. It always seems to be a straw man or red herring or just insults.

There's no need to be speculative at this point. Self ID is the law of land in some places.

Is there a rash of insincere men lying to the government in order to have their official ID's changed and get access to previously inaccessible victim pools? if not, why shouldn't this fear be dismissed as a claim without evidence?

Also, how much does this have to happen to justify denying trans people their rights? I mean, is a single instance of gender fraud enough? At what point is this enough of a problem that we just tell trans people "too bad? All systems can be gamed, and that doesn't mean there isn't any point in trying.

I'm sure that some people have taken advantage of legalized gay marriage in order to fraudulently gain in some way. Maybe two straight friends get married to lower their taxes or get health insurance or whatever. Is such fraudulent use of this civil right enough to justify keeping gay marriage illegal?

 

[theprestige]

I think trying to measure would be very difficult anyway.

The number of trans people, even in trans accepting societies, is vanishingly small. Of that population, only a small fraction are going to be sexual predators.

Straw man and red herring. The risk isn't from trans predators. The risk is from sexual predators masquerading as trans under the protection of self-ID laws.

If you're a (hetero cismale) looker or groper, it's hard to gain access to vulnerable women because of the strict sex segregation of vulnerable spaces, and the strong social and legal taboos against intruding on them. Self-ID would do away with the social and legal taboos, and the strictness of the segregation.

Obviously, even with the strict segregation and the taboos, female predators can still gain access to women's spaces. But at that point you've already cut down the risk population by a substantial amount. And you've cut down the ones with an average strength and aggression advantage over their victims. Self-ID undoes all of that gain.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Straw man and red herring. The risk isn't from trans predators. The risk is from sexual predators masquerading as trans under the protection of self-ID laws.

If you're a (hetero cismale) looker or groper, it's hard to gain access to vulnerable women because of the strict sex segregation of vulnerable spaces, and the strong social and legal taboos against intruding on them. Self-ID would do away with the social and legal taboos, and the strictness of the segregation.

Obviously, even with the strict segregation and the taboos, female predators can still gain access to women's spaces. But at that point you've already cut down the risk population by a substantial amount. And you've cut down the ones with an average strength and aggression advantage over their victims. Self-ID undoes all of that gain.

Is this the case in places with self-ID? Please cite evidence of this.

 

[caveman1917]

Soon, yes. I need you to see that I'm not just making up new rules for what he/she/they should be taken to mean these days. Major reference works and highly reputable periodicals have changed their style guides and I'm adjusting my own usage accordingly.

Let me know when they want to use "he" or "she" for other animals and get themselves all tied up in a knot trying to determine whether the animal is expected by the other animals to perform either animal-masculinity or animal-femininity. I'm in for a good laugh. Don't let me know when they decide to introduce an ad-hoc exception for non-human animals (which doesn't exist for the currently-mainstream definitions) because that'll probably just be boring rationalizations and not much of a laugh.

You are free to continue to believe that pronouns are solely about biological sex (even in articles or discussion threads about transgender people) but that's not something you've convincingly demonstrated to be true.

Other than directly providing the definition from several sources. But even if we accept it hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated, so what? It's your burden of proof to demonstrate your definition to be proper, and if that requires you to rely on some other lemma (such as that pronouns refer to gender and not sex) then that incurs the same burden of proof. But sure, I'll grant you for the sake of argument that we define "he" to refer to "performing masculinity" - just get on with it already, you've got a rebuttal to address.

 

[caveman1917]

There's no need to be speculative at this point. Self ID is the law of land in some places.

Is there a rash of insincere men lying to the government in order to have their official ID's changed and get access to previously inaccessible victim pools? if not, why shouldn't this fear be dismissed as a claim without evidence?

Because it is a priori reasonable. Transwomen are about 0.3% of males, and about 3% of males have voyeuristic or exhibitionistic disorder, of which 95% is heterosexual. So out of a random group of 10 males wanting to have easy access to female public nudity spaces you'd expect 1 to be a transwoman and 9 to be pervs.

 

[theprestige]

Is this the case in places with self-ID? Please cite evidence of this.

As far as I know, the risk hasn't manifested yet. It may never manifest.

Right now, I'm just trying to get some agreement from you to stick to the actual topic, instead of trying to twist it around into an accusation of transphobia.

I don't mind being told I'm wrong about the increased risk from self-ID.

I do mind being told that I think transwomen are sex predators. If you're going to debunk my claims, fine. But debunk my actual claims. Don't lie about my arguments and look for excuses to insult me.

 

[d4m10n]

Other than directly providing the definition from several sources.

The only source which you specifically named has a style guide which directly contradicts the claim that pronouns for human beings are strictly about sex.

But even if we accept it hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated, so what? It's your burden of proof to demonstrate your definition to be proper...

How many reputable style guides do I need to link here so as to demonstrate that common usage admits of pronouns which reference gender rather than sex?

Here's one more:
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/bias-free-language

 

[theprestige]

Also, I don't think self-ID is going to erase all the social taboos overnight. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect an immediate surge in cases, with the passage of these laws. As strict segregation becomes less of a norm, and self-ID becomes more of a norm, I wouldn't be surprised if the possibilities start to sink in. The generation of perverts who came up under the old norms are probably going to be more constrained than the next generation of perverts.

But we'll see.