[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[LondonJohn]

Handwaving is not an explanation.

There HAVE been people claiming to be black that weren't, or Napoleon that weren't. I don't give a toss whether it's a harmful stereotype to you. It's still a genuine question and you can't just toss it away because it hurts someone's feelings.

And you somehow forgot to establish what's different about gender identity, which was my question. How could you possibly think not doing what I was asking would be doing what I was asking?

The crux of the discussion about gender is whether mere self-identification is enough. If you think it is, then attack helicopters, Napoleons and trans-blacks are absolutely something you should consider.

Unless, that is, you consider gender to be binary...

I am at a loss as to why you yourself apparently cannot understand why there's a fundamental difference.

BTW, for you to ask "what's different about (trans)gender identity" - compared with a person identifying as Napoleon or as an attack helicopter - is in many ways the same as you asking "what's different about a person identifying as someone who prefers solitude to gregarious mixing", or "what's different about a person identifying as being in love with a certain other person", or "what's different about a person who identifies as bisexual". All of these are valid human conditions: they fall within the purview of the range of normalised human mental states as we currently understand them to be. Identifying as Napoleon, or identifying as an attack helicopter, do not.

 

[sarge]

So your answer to my question is this: your opinion is that transwomen should be made to use the men's changing rooms.

And you can't foresee any issues around that?

Also, to take the reverse situation, would I be correct in assuming your opinion to be that transmen should be made to use the women's changing rooms? (If not, why not?)

And if that's the case, it might be worth taking a look at post #1135 above...

There are far, far fewer issues with a trans woman with a penis sharing space with other persons with a penis than there are forcing women to be nude I. Front of them. This is true.

Transwomen have no right to share privacy spaces with biological females against the will of the females. Continue to assign privacy spaces according to sex, not gender. This is the best answer. You are attempting to turn a desire into a right.

 

[LondonJohn]

There are far, far fewer issues with a trans woman with a penis sharing space with other persons with a penis than there are forcing women to be nude I. Front of them. This is true.

Transwomen have no right to share privacy spaces with biological females against the will of the females. Continue to assign privacy spaces according to sex, not gender. This is the best answer. You are attempting to turn a desire into a right.

I'm not at all trying to do that.

You say: "Transwomen have no right to share privacy spaces with biological females against the will of the females"

(And presumably you would also say: "Transmen have no right to share privacy spaces with biological males against the will of the males"?)

And you go on to say that the "best answer" is to assign the changing rooms on a sex basis, and for transwomen to use the male facilities, with transmen using the female facilities.


I don't think this is the best answer. And I don't think it's the right answer. It increasingly appears that legislators* - having listened to experts in this field, and having consulted with interested parties - don't think it's the right answer either.


* And at the risk of repeating myself - but I think it bears repeating (unfortunately, because that shouldn't have to be the case) - those legislative bodies, the expert groups who advise them, and the external groups whom they consult, all will contain a healthy representative proportion of females and males alike. Just in case any "females are sick of males telling them what to do" claims turn up.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: did you take a look at any of those photos I recommended to you in my earlier post? Photos of people who, in your opinion, should be made to use the female changing facilities?

 

[TomB]

Well..... I disagree with pretty much every single part of this. Among many other things, I take issue with your claim that people (eg customers of a gym) might be unable to be "convinced" that a) such a system could/would ever work in the first place, and b) that (for some reason) the terms and conditions might change to their disadvantage on a near-daily basis.

I dunno: maybe it's that I have a different outlook to taking what I'm told about things like this, in an official capacity, as a reasonable default position; and that I'd want to see actual evidence that it wasn't working as described before I questioned that default position. And maybe I have a different outlook towards people accepting that the huge potential benefits to their personal safety (coupled with their desire to use (eg) a gym) rather strongly outweigh any (unsubstantiated) preconceptions about the risk of such a system not working entirely as described.

Perhaps this might help you understand why cameras in bathrooms/changing rooms won't fly.

First, think about who they are being asked to trust. It's not the police. It's not the government or some government agency. Nor is it some certified professional security firm etc. In other words, it's not similar to aircraft black boxes at all.

The people you are expecting them to trust are:
1) gas station/convenience store owners and staff
2) bar/nightclub owners and staff
3) Fitness/athletyic club owners and staff
4) clothing store owners and staff
5) School staff

All of these from the level of national chain all the way down to privately owned dives.

Now, there is a history of illicit surveillance in all of these:
1)https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/woman-claims-she-found-hidden-camera-inside-west-houston-gas-station-bathroom/285-edd84028-f22f-4d4f-8cb7-b5a6fba7b72e
2)https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/kenosha-dj-accused-of-putting-hidden-camera-in-womens-bathroom
3)https://www.cbs17.com/news/south/hidden-camera-found-inside-girls-changing-room-at-tennessee-cheer-studio-police-say/
4)https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d416a4e3159444e/share_p.html
5) https://abcnews.go.com/US/hidden-camera-found-boys-bathroom-elementary-school-food/story?id=67191566

Given that there are already illicit cameras, you are asking them to accept a system where they can trust that the cameras they see are legitimate and secure because...well...there's a sign that says they are.

The reality is that the existence of legitimate cameras provides cover and camouflage for illegitimate cameras. And someone planting the cameras won't be caught by reviewing the tape because we are assuring people that the tape is not being reviewed unless an incident happens.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps this might help you understand why cameras in bathrooms/changing rooms won't fly.

First, think about who they are being asked to trust. It's not the police. It's not the government or some government agency. Nor is it some certified professional security firm etc. In other words, it's not similar to aircraft black boxes at all.

The people you are expecting them to trust are:
1) gas station/convenience store owners and staff
2) bar/nightclub owners and staff
3) Fitness/athletyic club owners and staff
4) clothing store owners and staff
5) School staff

All of these from the level of national chain all the way down to privately owned dives.

Now, there is a history of illicit surveillance in all of these:
1)https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/woman-claims-she-found-hidden-camera-inside-west-houston-gas-station-bathroom/285-edd84028-f22f-4d4f-8cb7-b5a6fba7b72e
2)https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/kenosha-dj-accused-of-putting-hidden-camera-in-womens-bathroom
3)https://www.cbs17.com/news/south/hidden-camera-found-inside-girls-changing-room-at-tennessee-cheer-studio-police-say/
4)https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d416a4e3159444e/share_p.html
5) https://abcnews.go.com/US/hidden-camera-found-boys-bathroom-elementary-school-food/story?id=67191566

Given that there are already illicit cameras, you are asking them to accept a system where they can trust that the cameras they see are legitimate and secure because...well...there's a sign that says they are.

The reality is that the existence of legitimate cameras provides cover and camouflage for illegitimate cameras. And someone planting the cameras won't be caught by reviewing the tape because we are assuring people that the tape is not being reviewed unless an incident happens.

I've floated it as one possibility.

Personally, I don't think it's anywhere near as cut-and-dried as you present it. I was proposing it as something to be considered; and I've already said that, quite obviously, there would be a very large number of steps (including consultations) that would have to be undertaken before this ever became a concrete implementation.

There are potentially other possibilities. For example, swipe card entry, with the card tied to the individual (this would potentially make identification much easier, and would therefore also have a deterrent effect). And another possibility is an amendment to sentencing guidelines to act as a further deterrent (and punishment).


The point I have which underpins all of this is as follows: in my opinion (and, I suspect, that of govts and legislators in the years ahead), it is not appropriate to pre-emptively and automatically deny Group A civil rights on the basis that it may impinge upon Group B's civil rights. The appropriate course of action (again, IMO) is first to look to find all reasonable measures to eliminate (or near-eliminate) the risk to Group B's civil rights. And only if this proves impossible should the position re Group A's civil rights be reconsidered.

 

[Collin237]

* And at the risk of repeating myself - but I think it bears repeating (unfortunately, because that shouldn't have to be the case) - those legislative bodies, the expert groups who advise them, and the external groups whom they consult, all will contain a healthy representative proportion of females and males alike. Just in case any "females are sick of males telling them what to do" claims turn up.

There has not yet been any trend toward equal female and male employment in any office.

 

[LondonJohn]

There has not yet been any trend toward equal female and male employment in any office.

I'm very unsure about what you mean here. Would you be able to explain further?

 

[Matthew Best]

BTW, for you to ask "what's different about (trans)gender identity" - compared with a person identifying as Napoleon or as an attack helicopter - is in many ways the same as you asking "what's different about a person identifying as someone who prefers solitude to gregarious mixing", or "what's different about a person identifying as being in love with a certain other person", or "what's different about a person who identifies as bisexual". All of these are valid human conditions: they fall within the purview of the range of normalised human mental states as we currently understand them to be. Identifying as Napoleon, or identifying as an attack helicopter, do not.

But being black is a valid human condition. So why shouldn't someone identify as black even if they aren't actually black?

 

[Collin237]

But being black is a valid human condition. So why shouldn't someone identify as black even if they aren't actually black?

Being black is not a condition, because it has a provenance (viz the excuse for slavery).

 

[Matthew Best]

As usual, I have no idea what that means.

 

[d4m10n]

But being black is a valid human condition. So why shouldn't someone identify as black even if they aren't actually black?

My biological father could've passed as Black (around 60% Euro by ancestry) but he didn't have the relevant upbringing and adult experiences to be part of the African American community. Without those formative experiences, it would seem a bit dishonest and distasteful to cosplay at it, even if he could totally get away with it.

(Another problem is that the phrase "actually black" is really a bit fuzzy. I've implicitly defined it above wrt one's place in a community, but I'm sure other people would use definitions based on ancestry or phenotype. As it happens, race is actually a colorful and multifarious spectrum, unlike sex which nearly always falls into the categories of those born with ova and those born without.)

 

[Matthew Best]

My biological father could've passed as Black (around 60% Euro by ancestry) but he didn't have the relevant upbringing and adult experiences to be part of the African American community. Without those formative experiences, it would seem a bit dishonest and distasteful to cosplay at it, even if he could totally get away with it.

(Another problem is that the phrase "actually black" is really a bit fuzzy. I've implicitly defined it above wrt one's place in a community, but I'm sure other people would use definitions based on ancestry or phenotype. As it happens, race is actually a colorful and multifarious spectrum, unlike sex which nearly always falls into the categories of those born with ova and those born without.)

Wouldn't all that make being trans-racial more valid than being trans-gender, not less? I don't know why, it's probably the same reason that black-face is considered offensive, while drag is still not. I'm not sure I can make much sense of it myself, though.

 

[Collin237]

Wouldn't all that make being trans-racial more valid than being trans-gender, not less? I don't know why, it's probably the same reason that black-face is considered offensive, while drag is still not. I'm not sure I can make much sense of it myself, though.

Being trans-racial is always cosplay. Being trans-gender, when it is valid (if you'll excuse the circular logic ), is not. There is something non-cultural going on, something trans-gender people are born with and can't stop being.

 

[Earthborn]

Transwomen have no right to share privacy spaces with biological females against the will of the females.

A place that people have to share with other people are by definition not "privacy places". Places where people want and expect privacy should offer privacy, not segregation instead of privacy. That is the best answer.

 

[Aber]

It's not my job to ask women what they want. I'm just expressing my opinion on an internet forum.

And those opinions are misogynistic.

 

[Aber]

I'm very unsure about what you mean here. Would you be able to explain further?

https://www.lawcareers.net/Explore/Features/08032021-International-Womens-Day-what-does-the-legal-profession-look-like-for

Taking the firm’s partners out of the equation, the firm’s report highlighted that, on a mean basis, women were paid on average 20% less than men in 2019 – a 1.8% improvement.

 

[Darat]

A quick note - you may find CCTV in UK changing rooms or toilets, that is not against the law. There are some rules/guidelines that have to be followed as with all CCTVs not in the home, including signage that such cameras are present.

For a changing room or toilet they would be expected to be for a specific purpose and not for general surveillance and to be focussed on that specific purpose. For instance if there was a vending machine that kept being broken - CCTV could be used that monitored that location even if it meant that it also captured views of naked people. There are very strict laws about the retention and use of any footage from any CCTV and people are prosecuted and jailed for breaking such laws - for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-jailed-footballer-cardiff-city-a9117506.html

 

[Aber]

To try to summarise the discussions and positions both here and in the nonbinary thread:

Sex = biology; binary
Gender = something else

1 - Gender and sex are binary and the same, and there should be segregation in certain areas based on sex - Traditionalists

2 - Gender and sex are binary, but not always the same, and there should be segregation based on gender - Transrights activists

3 - Gender is a spectrum and not linked to sex, and there should not be segregation - Radicals

4 - Gender is a spectrum and not linked to sex, and there should be segregation based on sex - ?

Have I missed anything?

 

[Collin237]

To try to summarise the discussions and positions both here and in the nonbinary thread:

Sex = biology; binary
Gender = something else

1 - Gender and sex are binary and the same, and there should be segregation in certain areas based on sex - Traditionalists

2 - Gender and sex are binary, but not always the same, and there should be segregation based on gender - Transrights activists

3 - Gender is a spectrum and not linked to sex, and there should not be segregation - Radicals

4 - Gender is a spectrum and not linked to sex, and there should be segregation based on sex - ?

Have I missed anything?

Let me re-word #4:

4 - Gender is a spectrum and not linked to sex, and there may be de-facto segregation based on sex, but it should not be enforced through the expedience of legal fiat - Neoliberals