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

[JoeMorgue]

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

I do love how quickly people get to "You can't make everyone happy" but have such trouble getting to "But sometimes that person is you."

So I'm trading the civil rights and happiness of 50% of the population for the civil rights and happiness of statistically none?

Again the women are arguing it's a civil rights issue (and therefore they are right by fiat) too. You have zero moral, argumentative, or logical high ground that is higher than theirs.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

You are correct. The version that you quoted was before I made a new edit, and removed the extra negative.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

Working on solutions is a pointless hypothetical unless there's an accepted standard on what is or is not permissible discrimination based on gender identity.

Taking the US, for example. In many conservative areas, nothing is going to be done to accommodate trans people unless it's crammed down their throat by a SCOTUS decision. Hell, even with gay rights, which are less controversial, there would likely still be many anti-gay holdout states had the SCOTUS not resolved the matter by declaring discrimination against gay people a constitutional violation.

There's a snowflake chance in hell there's ever an outcome reached in this country based on good-faith negotiation between the stakeholders. The courts will either rule that anti-trans discrimination is unlawful, forcing a nation-wide standard, or there'll be a patchwork of pro and anti-trans states and localities throughout the country.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I do love how quickly people get to "You can't make everyone happy" but have such trouble getting to "But sometimes that person is you."

So I'm trading the civil rights and happiness of 50% of the population for the civil rights and happiness of statistically none?

Again the women are arguing it's a civil rights issue (and therefore they are right by fiat) too. You have zero moral, argumentative, or logical high ground that is higher than theirs.

Got it it is simple majority rules and any minority is always wrong.

Goes back nicely to gay marriage, why upset the 95% of the population for who real marriage works to please a statistical none? That is why gay marriage was a farce and immorally crammed down American throats by any consistent beliefs of yours.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

Private spaces for everyone.
Let them eat cake!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Got it it is simple majority rules and any minority is always wrong.

It's too bad being insufferable is a minority so you're a protected class.

 

[Myriad]

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

For some, yes. On the other hand, I imagine that compliance with the "no show" rule on the part of the penis-haver would be somewhat reassuring, whilst noncompliance would be grounds for a valid complaint or alarm. Those feeling threatened would be better off in that regard than if complaints or alarm were treated as a crime on their part, which is what some trans activists vocally advocate and which has been put into effect in some places.

And, the trans women would have a place to change that's safer for them than the men's room.

So now that you've told me how you expect "many here" to react to the suggestion, what is your own reaction?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's too bad being insufferable is a minority so you're a protect class.

It is clear, gays are a statistical nothing and as such their so called rights pale to insignificance to straight rights. That makes it clear who the villain's in the whole thing have been.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

FFS, also plenty of actual cases of trans women who gained that access actually causing harm to females in Canada!

But you'll just ignore this again... because... why?

Why is it that actual real harm that has actually really occurred to females doesn't matter to you, but potential discomfort of transwomen is vitally important?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

For some, yes. On the other hand, I imagine that compliance with the "no show" rule on the part of the penis-haver would be somewhat reassuring, whilst noncompliance would be grounds for a valid complaint or alarm. Those feeling threatened would be better off in that regard than if complaints or alarm were treated as a crime on their part, which is what some trans activists vocally advocate and which has been put into effect in some places.

And, the trans women would have a place to change that's safer than the men's room.

So now that you've told me how you expect "many here" to react to the suggestion, what is your own reaction?

I'm failing to see how such requirements would not be inherently rooted in animus unless such modesty requirements also applied to everyone else in the locker room.

If it's not too much of a burden to require privacy in these rooms for trans women, surely it's not too much of a burden to likewise require cis women to also not expose their genitalia, under penalty of the law, of course.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

This addresses only a very small part of the issue. And one that is for many probably not as objectionable as others.

You ignore the expectation of many to not be viewed by members of the opposite sex under certain conditions (such as those of a segregated changing area)

It is uncomfortable enough to use these facilities at all for many of us, even more so if I am expected to be nude next to a teenaged girl (even if she is a young Elliot Page).

 

[ponderingturtle]

FFS, also plenty of actual cases of trans women who gained that access actually causing harm to females in Canada!

Please show your work. I mean you are clear saving one homosexual from detransitioning is worth forcing all trans people to go through puberty because trans people don't matter.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

FFS, also plenty of actual cases of trans women who gained that access actually causing harm to females in Canada!

But you'll just ignore this again... because... why?

Why is it that actual real harm that has actually really occurred to females doesn't matter to you, but potential discomfort of transwomen is vitally important?

Surely you have some data rather than just spamming trans-panic anecdotes.

For example, the consequences of banning social transition for trans people is very well documented by extremely high rates of mental health problems and suicide risk.

 

[sarge]

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

Your posts are .............

Never mind. I received a PM that I should have heeded.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Or the simple observation that trans men exist, and totally get ignored by all this so called pro trans positions.

They don't get ignored. But it's also not really a comparable situation.

Earlier I presented an analogy of male humans as pitbulls and female humans as pugs. Both are capable of being aggressive and dangerous, and in both cases, they usually are neither aggressive nor dangerous. Most dogs - both pitbulls and pugs - are great, loving, caring, sweetie-pies. But even so, there are two things that are still true. 1) Statistically, pitbulls are more likely to be aggressive than are pugs. They've been bread for fighting, and that is part of their innate behavioral tendency. 2) In a situation where both a pitbull and a pug are equally aggressive, the pitbull is extremely likely to do more actual damage and harm. Therefore, regardless of the fact that dangerous pitbulls are rare, pitbulls still represent a materially larger risk than do pugs.

Now... with respect to transmen and transwomen, and the potential for assault in semi-private spaces where people are vulnerable. Transmen are female. They are pugs. Transwomen are male. They are pitbulls. Transmen might be very muscular pugs that are larger than the average pug, but they're still pubs. Transwomen might be weak pitbulls that are smaller than the average pitbull, but they are still pitbulls.

If a pug makes the decision to go into a park full of nothing but pitbulls, that pug is making the decision to place themselves at increased risk.

If a pitbull makes the decision to go into a park full of nothing but pugs, that pitbull is making the decision to place everyone else at increased risk.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

In an unusual development, ponderingturtle is correct, and is accurately characterizing a common position held by many in this thread, including me.

The problem is not the visibility of the penis. The problem with seeing the penis is that many females, upon seeing a penis, react as if there were a man attached to it, and they do this even if they cannot actually see the penis.

Displaying the penis does add a small level to the anxiety of the females who do not wish to be seen naked, because it is a more overt display of sexuality and, frankly, just harder to ignore, but it isn't the primary issue.

"Can she put the towel over her eyes?"

Please show your work. I mean you are clear saving one homosexual from detransitioning is worth forcing all trans people to go through puberty because trans people don't matter.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled ponderingturtle.

 

[Myriad]

I'm failing to see how such requirements would not be inherently rooted in animus unless such modesty requirements also applied to everyone else in the locker room.

If it's not too much of a burden to require privacy in these rooms for trans women, surely it's not too much of a burden to likewise require cis women to also not expose their genitalia, under penalty of the law, of course.

This addresses only a very small part of the issue. And one that is for many probably not as objectionable as others.

You ignore the expectation of many to not be viewed by members of the opposite sex under certain conditions (such as those of a segregated changing area)

I'm scoring these as one on the "how dare I expect compromise from trans women" side of the slate, and one on the "how dare I expect compromise from females" side.

 

[Paul2]

I agree with this. So how do you explain the concept of a "female penis" or a "pregnant man?" Boudicca was pretty adamant that her male parts were actually female parts. That sounds something like secular transsubstantiation -a magical change in biology.

Not all the world's accredited experts. But yes, it has become the prevailing view.



I understand that this is the prevailing view. The man who thinks he is a baby is delusional. The man who thinks he is a woman is not. The fundamental question is: Why aren't these outwardly similar beliefs about the self that don't correspond with biological reality both considered the same thing, either delusional or not delusional? What is the actual "crucial difference," developmentally, psychologically, biologically or whatever? Because absent any clear bright-line distinction, it seems to me like the "world's accredited experts" are engaging in some magical thinking -"it is so because we declare it so!"- to keep the activists off their backs.

I mentioned this up-thread: it's at least plausible because we know sexual development is a very complex interplay of nature and nurture, of hormones and the brain during fetal development and development outside the womb, and sometimes things can go in different directions. A person with the conviction that they are of a sex that doesn't match their anatomy is plausible in a way that a person thinking they are baby isn't because there is no known developmental, hormonal, nor brain-al phenomenon that could plausibly produce that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm scoring these as one on the "how dare I expect concession from trans women" side of the slate, and one on the "how dare I expect compromise from females" side.

It's a valid critique, because such a solution is likely not going to be lawful if SCOTUS rules that gender identity discrimination is unconstitutional.

Requiring special concessions from trans people is likely not a viable solution if this is a constitutional issue, which it likely will be.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They don't get ignored. But it's also not really a comparable situation.

Earlier I presented an analogy of male humans as pitbulls and female humans as pugs. Both are capable of being aggressive and dangerous, and in both cases, they usually are neither aggressive nor dangerous. Most dogs - both pitbulls and pugs - are great, loving, caring, sweetie-pies. But even so, there are two things that are still true. 1) Statistically, pitbulls are more likely to be aggressive than are pugs. They've been bread for fighting, and that is part of their innate behavioral tendency. 2) In a situation where both a pitbull and a pug are equally aggressive, the pitbull is extremely likely to do more actual damage and harm. Therefore, regardless of the fact that dangerous pitbulls are rare, pitbulls still represent a materially larger risk than do pugs.

Now... with respect to transmen and transwomen, and the potential for assault in semi-private spaces where people are vulnerable. Transmen are female. They are pugs. Transwomen are male. They are pitbulls. Transmen might be very muscular pugs that are larger than the average pug, but they're still pubs. Transwomen might be weak pitbulls that are smaller than the average pitbull, but they are still pitbulls.

If a pug makes the decision to go into a park full of nothing but pitbulls, that pug is making the decision to place themselves at increased risk.

If a pitbull makes the decision to go into a park full of nothing but pugs, that pitbull is making the decision to place everyone else at increased risk.

Lol, doing a feminism by generalizing all women as helpless victims that must be protected by big daddy government.