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

[Emily's Cat]

Sure it is you are being forced to undress in front of people who make you feel uncomfortable, be they trans , black or gay. It is all cultural which ones you say are a big deal and which ones are not. Gay is clearly a bigger deal as they are going to find you sexually attractive after all. With trans you simply don't know if they are gay or straight and so have no guide if they would find you attractive or not.

Are you supportive of adult male humans having the right to hang around minor female children, without the consent of the female children or their parents?

Are you advocating that adult humans should have the right to force unwilling people to look at them naked?

Are you suggesting that adult humans should have the right to view naked people against the will and consent of those being viewed?

 

[Meadmaker]

Seems to me you'd need a really strong reason to know someone was being insincere to challenge their expressed gender identity. I would no sooner challenge someone saying they're trans than I'd challenge someone claiming they're gay. I'm in no position to know their own mind better than they themselves, unless I had really good evidence they were being duplicitous for some gain.

Despite all the doom-saying about self-ID, the places that have implemented these policies seem to be doing fine. Canada still stands, last I checked.

An alternative way to address Joe's question would be.....


to answer Joe's question.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you advocating that adult humans should have the right to force unwilling people to look at them naked?

Are you suggesting that adult humans should have the right to view naked people against the will and consent of those being viewed?

Well... maybe. Sorta. Kinda.

(This is going to get complicated, so bear with me, savvy?)

I mean... if you are in public changing room is the dynamic really that you get to pick and choose who sees you naked beyond the people allowed into the room?

I mean you wouldn't get to go into a public changing room and go "I only consent to the 0+ blood types to gaze upon my nakedness, the AB-'s must avert their eyes!"

I sort of think that going into a public changing room is sort the implied consent of everyone else who gets to go into the same changing room.

You don't get to aid your own layer of consent on top of that, or at least the idea doesn't make that much sense.

So no nobody who's allowed in the changing room has to doubly ask your personal permission to "view" you.

Again the question is only who's allowed in the room. I think "consent" is weird to think of it.

 

[Distracted1]

what this discussion really belies is how many people are comfortable with sexual harassment and assault, so long as it is strictly quarantined to male populations. The underlying assertion of much of these conversations is that men are inevitably prolific sexual violators, but it's not really a problem so long as it only effects men.

Sure, young boys, men, and trans women may get thrown into the lion's den, but as long as we keep "them" out of the women's room, it's not a problem.

I don't see that at all. Assault, and sexual assault as a subset, are serious considerations. That Women are less able to defend themselves from assaults from men (on the aggregate, of course) is a subtext of this discussion- but it does not diminish the idea of assault as a problem for anyone.

Personally, I find the assault angle one of the weaker ones for maintaining sex segregation.

 

[Distracted1]

We can go around the internet and nutpick examples all we want. To what end and what purpose?

What actually gets us closer to a solution that might be expectable to both sides?

In order for a solution to be proposed, should not the problem be spelled out clearly?

 

[JoeMorgue]

In order for a solution to be proposed, should not the problem be spelled out clearly?

Yeah but if anyone is in this discussion operating a definition of "win" that is "I can scour the internet and find no examples of anyone who disagrees with me" I'd love to know what the point is.

 

[Belz...]

Homophobes at the time absolutely claimed that allowing gay marriage to be lawful would cheapen the value of heterosexual marriage, thus causing direct loss for heterosexual people.

No one's disputing that. What I'm disputing is that stupid arguments made my people about group X don't prove that different arguments made today about group Y are equally stupid. It's a complete non sequitur.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And people wonder why bigots think comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or marrying your dog is so goddamn clever, because so often we argue for rights for groups we just go "Well they are minority and asking for rights, so they have to be right."

 

[ponderingturtle]

No one's disputing that. What I'm disputing is that stupid arguments made my people about group X don't prove that different arguments made today about group Y are equally stupid. It's a complete non sequitur.

Congradulations on defining being able to pee in a public bathroom as a special right for trans people. Clearly trans men need to be in the women's room because otherwise they get a special privilege's and that is not allowed. And not having to constantly out yourself is of course a right only cis people have.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Oooh, I know what it's trying to say!

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

Legally, the fact that Brenna had sexually-oriented material in a completely different context has no bearing on the events in the locker room.

Not stated explicitly*: The knowledge that an adult male human who is sexually attracted to female humans has been in the presence of naked underage females multiple times has an emotional effect on the parents of the female human students in question.

Some people in this thread would presumably insist that the combination of Brenna's sex and orientation are not significant to the responses of the parents. Those people are doing a very poor job of understanding human nature and parental drives toward protecting their children.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oooh, I know what it's trying to say!



Legally, the fact that Brenna had sexually-oriented material in a completely different context has no bearing on the events in the locker room.

Not stated explicitly*: The knowledge that an adult male human who is sexually attracted to female humans has been in the presence of naked underage females multiple times has an emotional effect on the parents of the female human students in question.

Some people in this thread would presumably insist that the combination of Brenna's sex and orientation are not significant to the responses of the parents. Those people are doing a very poor job of understanding human nature and parental drives toward protecting their children.

As it should if it is an adult human male who has been in the presence of naked underage males if the adult is sexually attracted to males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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”

Yes, that argument was used. I do, however, think that there's a difference that keeps getting overlooked.

Transwomen want the right to be naked in spaces where human females are naked.
Males do not have the right to be naked in spaces where human females are naked.
Transwomen are male.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transwomen want the right for a special subset of males to have the right to be naked in spaces where females are naked, but want to deny that right to other males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is false. Other suggestions have been made. They have been rejected by transgender people and their allies.

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.

The hypocrisy of this position blows my mind.

Why would transwomen be subjected to an affront to their dignity and safety in the men's room? Because they might be attacked by males. Because males might look at their bodies in ways they don't like. I assume you view this as a legitimate concern on the part of transwomen, that should be considered with compassion by all of society, right?

Now... Let's think about how self-declaration of gender identity plays into this. The current advocate position is that being considered transgender should 1) require no diagnosis from a medical practitioner, 2) require no medical or hormonal transition at all, 3) not require a person to live as the opposite sex for any length of time, and 4) require no legal documentation. Do I have that position correct?

Assuming that I do have it correct... this means that Belz... for example, could wake up tomorrow, declare themselves to be a transwoman, and go out in jeans and a t-shirt, with a beard... and becaues Belz... has declared themself to be a transwoman, they would now have a *right* to go get naked in front of nonconsenting females, and to view naked females against their will.

Is there any way that Belz...'s claim to be a transwoman can be challenged? I don't see that there is. Therefore, in order to meet the demand of transgender advocates, Belz... must be allowed into the female locker room no questions asked.

Moving on from this... Where does this leave females? You have now created a situation in which any male person can use the ladies' locker room, view naked females, and be naked in front of females - all without their consent or willingness - solely on the basis of a declaration of their unverifiable internal identity.

I submit that having males in spaces where females are naked makes females generally feel unsafe, places them in danger, and denies them basic dignity.

Question: Why is the safety and dignity of male-bodied people who identify as women more important than the safety and dignity of female people?


@Belz... - sorry to use you as the example here, but I trust that you have the mental and emotional fortitude to bear it

 

[JoeMorgue]

Congradulations on defining being able to pee in a public bathroom as a special right for trans people. Clearly trans men need to be in the women's room because otherwise they get a special privilege's and that is not allowed. And not having to constantly out yourself is of course a right only cis people have.

I can't pee in the women's room and it's not some grand civil rights violation for me.

Again "trans" just defines itself as being correct by defining itself as the answer to its own question.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can't pee in the women's room and it's not some grand civil rights violation for me.

Again "trans" just defines itself as being correct by defining itself as the answer to its own question.

and of course outing yourself as cis is never a problem why should outing themselves as trans be an issue?

 

[Myriad]

I think where the changing room issue is going to end up (maybe a long time from now, after all the extremists have worn one another out) is that trans women will be permitted to use women's changing facilities, but not permitted to show a penis.

If that restriction makes it a bit more difficult for the trans woman to use the facilities, forcing her to use a stall or don a covering skirt while changing undies or wear an extra garment in the shower, then that's regrettable, but all kinds of things are more or less difficult for all kinds of people. Short people have more trouble reaching items on high store shelves, sometimes forcing them to use a step ladder or a reaching tool or ask for assistance. We don't consider that a gross injustice or a failure of the system (unless the needed assistance is unavailable).

It's important to note that no one in recent times (up until trans rights became a public issue and the rules became haphazard) has had the right to show a penis in women's rooms. It's not equivalent to the "gay men have the same right to marry a woman as straight men have" argument, because no one in our society, male or female, has ever had the right in question. If you think women might somehow have had the "assumed" right to show a penis in the changing room, consider the likely reaction, throughout the past century, to a cis woman wearing a realistic prosthetic penis visibly in a women's changing room. Or a visible strap-on dildo. Or just taking out a photograph of a penis and saying, "hey, look at this!" Or quietly taping such a photograph to the wall. Would the other women present, or the authorities, answer any objections with, "she's a woman so she has the right to do that"? Of course not. If the woman doing so were to persist after objections, such actions would be addressed as indecency, or disturbing the peace, or creating a public nuisance. And that's not even for a real present functioning penis.

I don't expect either of the main sides in this argument to like this solution. Some will call it transphobic (how dare I expect trans women to meet an extra requirement in a women's room), others misogynistic (how dare I expect females to tolerate male bodies in the changing room, however discreetly presented), and still others just too conventional (what, I'm holding onto the archaic notion of gender separated facilities?). A good compromise leaves nobody happy, but everyone able to muddle through.

Questions concerning women's sports, prisons, shelters, etc. will need their own solutions, of course.

 

[xjx388]

So let's focus on solutions. I don't think there are easy solutions to the problem that will satisfy all the stakeholders.

Bathrooms and Other Traditionally Sex-Segregated Facilities
The best and most effective solution is to build private restrooms and changing facilities/locker rooms open to anyone. This is actually already pretty common on the restroom side. Many restaurants in my city have two or three restrooms that are unisex, individual stalls. My office has 4 restrooms for patient use that are unisex. It can be done, especially in new builds. Current locker rooms are huge; that space can be divided into the equivalent of separate dressing rooms with showers.

The biggest obstacle to all this is the cost of building private unisex facilities sufficient to meet the needs of the business' clientele. Maybe the government can incentivize this construction by providing tax credits and/or grants towards it? I think it's doable and the best way to eliminate the whole problem.

Sports
This is much harder to address. There are very clear advantages that having a male body confers in athletics. There isn't a good way to mitigate those advantages enough to allow male bodies to compete against female bodies. Especially at the elite levels like professional sports, the Olympics and such. Thinking of it strictly in the sense of having a level playing field for all participants, there simply is no way to do it other than to segregate by sex at every level. Not everyone can be an athlete, that's just a reality, no matter how much they might aspire to a career in sports. I wanted to be a baseball player and I just wasn't good enough. But I'll bet you I would have been at least a decent player if I was allowed to compete against the girls in softball. It's just inherently unfair to females to allow males to compete against them and I don't think the scales are balanced by the fact that trans people get more participation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think where the changing room issue is going to end up (maybe a long time from now, after all the extremists have worn one another out) is that trans women will be permitted to use women's changing facilities, but not permitted to show a penis.

Sorry many here are clear its mere existence is a threat. No need to see anything.

 

[JoeMorgue]

and of course outing yourself as cis is never a problem why should outing themselves as trans be an issue?

And being a woman in a room with a man with a penis is a problem according to the "Safe spaces for women" side. Why should I appease you and not them?

 

[ponderingturtle]

And being a woman in a room with a man with a penis is a problem according to the "Safe spaces for women" side. Why should I appease you and not them?

Because you can't make everyone happy. When has any civil rights battle been won by making everyone happy?