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

[Meadmaker]

One more thing about the Colleen Francis incident that is incidental, but worthy of note.

There is something that isn't directly relevant, and yet it explains why this particular incident got so much more press than other cases. Colleen Francis, a 45 year old male, self identified as a lesbian, and had some sexually oriented online material in social media, and the parents were aware of it.

Legally, it means nothing, but anyone who can't see why that made the incident more significant isn't trying very hard.

 

[Belz...]

Anti-gay zealots, at the time when same sex marriage was a live issue, insisted that gay people were asking for special privileges, rather than insisting on basic equality under the law.

Yes and they were wrong. What does that have to do with the discussion here, since males have never had access to female spaces or sports?

Just because gays were a repressed minority and trans people were a repressed minority doesn't mean that everything about the two topics is equivalent. At best, you are using gays as a tool to browbeat your opponents into submission rather than making an argument about the actual topic.

 

[Belz...]

One more thing about the Colleen Francis incident that is incidental, but worthy of note.

There is something that isn't directly relevant, and yet it explains why this particular incident got so much more press than other cases. Colleen Francis, a 45 year old male, self identified as a lesbian, and had some sexually oriented online material in social media, and the parents were aware of it.

Legally, it means nothing, but anyone who can't see why that didn't make the incident more significant isn't trying very hard.

I think you put an extra negative in that last sentence because I can't parse it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Anti-gay zealots, at the time when same sex marriage was a live issue, insisted that gay people were asking for special privileges, rather than insisting on basic equality under the law. The argument was quite clear, gay people had the same rights as straight and the law, in it's equality, forbid all homosexual marriages for all people.

Okay let's break this down and see if you actually read it or just respond with a wordy way of going "You're wrong because I'm right because I say so and you're a bigot."

Here's the difference.

Gay marriage isn't an exception to something else.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No you're not. You never are. You have a terrible track record of following someone's logic.

People just hate to see the flaws in their argument illustrated by being reframed. I get it in your world gays have a right to a free kiddy show in the locker room a right no straight person has.

Well I guess confused minds think alike, because that's the same ridiculous argument Turkey just gave me.

What is 'getting gay married' if not gay marriage? You're not even trying to make sense.

And they had the same rights, but no that wasn't good enough for the gays they needed more rights than straights. That is a very common argument and was in the past. Of course making the same argument about trans people is totally different because of some vague assertion of yours.

Called it, didn't I? You cannot name a right that they don't have.

And there are no rights gays haven't ever had either what is your point. You will just make up some imagined right.

 

[ponderingturtle]

One more thing about the Colleen Francis incident that is incidental, but worthy of note.

There is something that isn't directly relevant, and yet it explains why this particular incident got so much more press than other cases. Colleen Francis, a 45 year old male, self identified as a lesbian, and had some sexually oriented online material in social media, and the parents were aware of it.

Legally, it means nothing, but anyone who can't see why that made the incident more significant isn't trying very hard.

See we need to keep the homosexuals out of the locker rooms, that is the real threat.

 

[Lithrael]

I’m confused by your confusion, Belz. Do you really not remember the argument that homosexuals wanting the right to get married to their partners was them asking for special rights nobody else had? Because nobody had the right to get married to someone or the same sex? And because homosexuals already had the right to get married to anyone of the opposite sex that would have them.

I guess a bunch of people ninjad this but y’all are saying that’s just different? How is it just different?

“As a man, you already have the right to marry a woman. You just want extra rights nobody ever had”
“As a man, you already have the right to use the mens’ room. You just want extra rights nobody ever had”

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay let's break this down and see if you actually read it or just respond with a wordy way of going "You're wrong because I'm right because I say so and you're a bigot."

Here's the difference.

Gay marriage isn't an exception to something else.

I haven't accused anyone here of being a bigot, and doing so would be a violation of the MA.

If anything, this attempt to personalize is a desperate attempt to derail the topic away from the clearly bigoted nature of the laws passing in the US, or a red herring attempt to avoid discussing the very real impact these trans-exclusionary policies have on trans people.

Keep fighting that strawman while states like Arkansas pass laws eliminating trans affirming medical care and criminalizing doctor's who provide trans youth with referrals to medical clinics. Glad you have your priorities straight.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes and they were wrong.

Not at all, it is not a factual issue just one of perspective, and no one on either side can be viewed as a bigot or wrong. Try to be consistent in this.

 

[sarge]

Like why the right to ogle people in the locker room is not a right that the gays have and why keeping them out is acceptable. I wonder if there are still any pink triangle arm bands laying around to make it easy who to be warry of them ogling you...

Yes, because being unwillingly nude in front of someone with the same genitalia as you is exactly the same as being unwillingly nude in front of someone with different genitalia.

You, LJ, and a handful of others have decided that because a segment of society has been unfairly denied actual rights, it is okay to demand they are granted anything they ask for even it what they are asking for is irrefutably not a right and even if granting their desire places people in real danger....and that anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot.

See, I understand (and reject) your argument perfectly. You do not have to repeat it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I’m confused by your confusion, Belz. Do you really not remember the argument that homosexuals wanting the right to get married to their partners was them asking for special rights nobody else had? Because nobody had the right to get married to someone or the same sex? And because homosexuals already had the right to get married to anyone of the opposite sex that would have them.

See he does not agree with them and so that makes them wrong and bigots, but does not agree with those who think having to out themselves as trans every time the go to the bathroom giving people ammunition to assault and harass them is of course not a right at all but something special because Belz the arbitrator of all fact says so.

Using the facilities for your gender, never a right at counter to all reasonable rights says Belz arbitrator of all things that are or are not rights.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, because being unwillingly nude in front of someone with the same genitalia as you is exactly the same as being unwillingly nude in front of someone with different genitalia.

You, LJ, and a handful of others have decided that because a segment of society has been unfairly denied actual rights, it is okay to demand they are granted anything they ask for even it what they are asking for is irrefutably not a right and even if granting their desire places people in real danger....and that anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot.

See, I understand (and reject) your argument perfectly. You do not have to repeat it.

Is there no other solution to the problem of people being uncomfortable undressing in locker rooms than the outright exclusion of trans people?

There is a complete lack of curiosity on how to find any solution to the problem of locker room privacy other than rigid enforcement of the status quo, despite it being abundantly clear that the status quo is very detrimental to trans people.

We hear how the presence of trans women in a women's locker room is an affront to dignity and safety simply too great to bear, yet very little concern that these trans women almost certainly face an even greater affront to their dignity and safety if forced to use the men's room.

Despite these lurid stories that try to smear trans people as perverts attempting to access women's locker rooms for the purposes of voyeurism and exhibitionism, these people are simply looking for the privacy and safety to change clothes and perform other basic bodily functions in peace.

The anti-trans warriors seem content to resign all trans people to a life of constantly being outed and facing harassment as a result of trans-exclusionary policies, and see this result as a non-problem worth addressing, or at least not a great enough problem to even consider modifying the status quo.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, because being unwillingly nude in front of someone with the same genitalia as you is exactly the same as being unwillingly nude in front of someone with different genitalia.

You, LJ, and a handful of others have decided that because a segment of society has been unfairly denied actual rights, it is okay to demand they are granted anything they ask for even it what they are asking for is irrefutably not a right and even if granting their desire places people in real danger....and that anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot.

See, I understand (and reject) your argument perfectly. You do not have to repeat it.

How should trans people be publicly marked to let everyone know that bearded guy going into the women's locker room is legally obligated too? He will clearly not make anyone in their uncomfortable at all in your world because of the genitals he has. Girls should be forced to strip naked in front of trans men in your view and if they have any complaints about that it is really them who are now the bigots' apparently.

Clearly no girl could ever reasonably feel uncomfortable being naked around a trans man right?

They should get used to being naked in front of guys like the ones in this article

https://montrealgazette.com/life/transmen-in-womens-bathrooms-get-used-to-it

 

[JoeMorgue]

I haven't accused anyone here of being a bigot, and doing so would be a violation of the MA.

If anything, this attempt to personalize is a desperate attempt to derail the topic away from the clearly bigoted nature of the laws passing in the US, or a red herring attempt to avoid discussing the very real impact these trans-exclusionary policies have on trans people.

Keep fighting that strawman while states like Arkansas pass laws eliminating trans affirming medical care and criminalizing doctor's who provide trans youth with referrals to medical clinics. Glad you have your priorities straight.

Wow nothing even close to an answer to anything I said. Just an unrelated rant.

Your ponderingturtle impression is on point.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Since we're stuck on "I'm right because I can compare it to a previous civil rights movement therefore I'm right oh and did I mention I'm right" what is being argued is "Let's keep the separate white and black water fountains, but if a black person says they identify as a white person they get to used to white fountain and *wipes hands* problem solved."

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wow nothing even close to an answer to anything I said. Just an unrelated rant.

Your ponderingturtle impression is on point.

Yes yes yes, no girl would ever feel legitimately uncomfortable sharing a locker room with the guys in the photos here

https://montrealgazette.com/life/transmen-in-womens-bathrooms-get-used-to-it

 

[Belz...]

I’m confused by your confusion, Belz. Do you really not remember the argument that homosexuals wanting the right to get married to their partners was them asking for special rights nobody else had?

You'll be less confused when you read what I actually wrote.

 

[Belz...]

Keep fighting that strawman while states like Arkansas pass laws eliminating trans affirming medical care and criminalizing doctor's who provide trans youth with referrals to medical clinics. Glad you have your priorities straight.

What does Arkansas have to do with what Joe is saying? Again you're lumping every single part of the discussion into a single binary: agree with me, or bigot.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So every time a woman goes "I don't feel comfortable sharing my safe space with a person with a penis just because they identify as a woman" the pro-trans side is either going to go "OH YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO TRANS PEOPLE?" (A point that literally nobody is denying happens or thinks is a good thing) or a picture of some ultra-feminine trans-woman as if that's an answer.

"Transpeople are often the subject of terrible harassments and even violence and that's horrible and needs to be stopped" and "They belong in women's restrooms" are not the same question nor is just pointing at one going "SEE! SEE!" an answer to the other.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So every time a woman goes "I don't feel comfortable sharing my safe space with a person with a penis just because they identify as a woman" the pro-trans side is either going to go "OH YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO TRANS PEOPLE?" (A point that literally nobody is denying happens or thinks is a good thing) or a picture of some ultra-feminine trans-woman as if that's an answer.

"Transpeople are often the subject of terrible harassments and even violence and that's horrible and needs to be stopped" and "They belong in women's restrooms" are not the same question nor is just pointing at one going "SEE! SEE!" an answer to the other.

What solutions do those that oppose trans inclusion have?

Take the example of the Canadian self-ID law. Plenty of pearl clutching in this thread about allowing trans women access to women's spaces, citing safety and dignity and so on.

What alternative, besides just throwing trans people to the wolves, do the people knee-jerking their opposition to trans inclusion propose?