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

[Emily's Cat]

Why isn't a penis, especially a gay penis the same kind of existential threat to teenage male humans? It is clearly very threatening but why is its threat so focused?

Because over 90% of the victims of sexual assault and rape are female, and over 98% of the perpetrators of sexual assault and rape are male.

Yes, gay penises are a threat to other males... but to a materially lower degree.

No matter how we cut it up... penises are dangerous, and they're especially dangerous to vulvas.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've quite lost which comment this is meant to refer to. Feel free to repeat, or at least point me in the right direction.

Dude really? Bob-level sealioning?

You quoted the comment you didn't response to in your response. Don't you goddamn dare sit there from your "I'm moral and perfect" high ground and ask me to waste time showing it to you again.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Dude really? Bob-level sealioning?

You quoted the comment you didn't response to. Don't you goddamn dare sit there from your "I'm moral and perfect" high ground and ask me to waste time showing it to you again.

I do all my posting from a ladder, that way I'm always above all you other peons. Maybe one day I'll have the moral clarity of pearl-clutching centrists deciding how much civil rights they, in their infinite wisdom, deign to pass out.

If I quoted your post and didn't give you a satisfactory answer the first time, I doubt a second pass would help.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because over 90% of the victims of sexual assault and rape are female, and over 98% of the perpetrators of sexual assault and rape are male.

Seriously then why let men exist in society at all? Confine us to a gulag in the Arctic and harvest our sperm when necessary to continue the species.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

That is so completely untrue and wrong I barely know where to start!

NOBODY thinks it's okay for males to be sexually assaulted! Not even a little bit! But I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to intentionally increase the risk of sexual assault for a population already has a ridiculously high level of assaults! It's an idiotic thing to do!

Males are dangerous and they rape people. That's bad. the overwhelming majority of the people they rape are female people... but they also rape some other male people, and some of those male people that they rape are transgender males that identify as women.

Here's a brilliant idea! Let's make a policy that makes it way, way, way easier for males to get access to vulnerable females! Why would we do this, you might ask? Well, because... it might reduce the risk to the very few male people who identity as women! And that's a good thing. And well, if more females get raped as a result, well, it's no big deal. They get raped all the time, they're used to it!

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, males could put some effort into getting other males to stop raping ANYONE at all, hey? How's that for a thought?

 

[Myriad]

No. You've thoroughly thrashed that strawman, well done.

I asked a question. Thank you for answering it.

If gender identity were considered a protected class by the SCOTUS, policies that were specifically discriminatory to people of that protected class would not be lawful. It's a fairly simple point, and one I suspect you understand quite well.

In my state, gender identity is considered a protected class by the state supreme court, so policies that are specifically discriminatory to people of that protected class are not lawful.

There was a public referendum on that law, the only one ever to take place anywhere. I voted with the majority to uphold it. That means I personally have done more than anyone here, unless they're a legislator or litigator involved with the issue or perhaps a very prominent activist, to affirm trans rights. You're welcome.

However, accommodation for a protected class only has to go so far. I can visualize a design for a urinal that a person in a wheelchair could use. It would be rather large, elaborate, and expensive, but it would remove the necessity to shift from the wheelchair to a toilet seat, which can be quite difficult (believe me, I have professional experience in the care of intellectually disabled wheelchair-bound adults). If I can visualize the basic design, I'm sure a good engineer could perfect it. (They might even already exist.) But I've never seen one in any public men's room. Why? Because it is not necessary to use a urinal to make the full intended use of the facilities. The toilet is sufficient, even if it's less convenient than some hypothetical ideal solution for wheelchair users. Nor does the lack of such equipment in the rest room constitute license for wheelchair-bound men to wiz on the floor instead.

Now, whether or not showing a penis in a women's changing room has now been specifically established as a right here has not been tested in court. In the absence of any previously established carry-over right to do so, it could be argued either way, and the "no" argument would be that just as for using urinals in mens rooms, it's not necessary to show ones lady penis in a changing room to make use of the facilities for their intended purposes. The court might not agree that not having a special dispensation to do so is an excessive burden, even if it makes some people unhappy. (I've also noticed that some store shelves are built quite high and difficult for a disproportionate percentage of women to reach, with nary a discrimination lawsuit in sight.)

There have been very few troublesome cases of that nature in our court system as a result of the trans rights law, by the way. It's almost as though people who feel more secure in their basic rights are more likely to be considerate about exercising them.

 

[xjx388]

Seriously then why let men exist in society at all? Confine us to a gulag in the Arctic and harvest our sperm when necessary to continue the species.

I too must object. My penis is quite docile and has harmed zero vulvas.

I don’t entirely buy the narrative that men are inherently dangerous; but I do buy the narrative that women have to be careful around males given their experiences collectively.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don’t entirely buy the narrative that men are inherently dangerous; but I do buy the narrative that women have to be careful around males given their experiences collectively.

Potato, Po-tah-to.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's old is new. Arkansas is also passing into law the right for doctor's to refuse care, even medically necessary care, for "moral or religious" reasons.



https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people

Still trying to figure out what rights trans people don't have that straight people do. I just can't find them anywhere!

That's a bad law, and that is something that actually does represent a lack of rights.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't see how the example of a state government is nutpicking. The opinions of these bigots is extremely relevant, as they wield considerable power and are using that power to enable making the lives of trans people worse.

I agree with your assessment in this case.

Do you agree with my assessment that there are government entities (the Biden administration eg) who are using their power to enable making the lives of female people worse?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's a bad law, and that is something that actually does represent a lack of rights.

It's the transphobes conundrum. Such a law is almost certainly going to negatively impact trans people, but such broad "ethical" objections will likely mean negative impact on cis people too. I can easily see a doctor refusing to provide unmarried women with an IUD, for example, or treat all manner of sexual health issues for wicked and promiscuous men and women not living the Bible truth.

Given the relative numbers of the populations, this law animated by sticking it to trans people is probably going to impact more people, by sheer count, that aren't trans. It's almost as if the push to vilify trans people is generally corrosive to the civil rights that we all hold dear, but what do I know.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We'll just argue this point until one day one trans-woman rapes another trans-woman inside of a women's rest room... and then reality will just collapse because there's be no possible way for any of the sides to make an actual argument.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

We'll just argue this point until one day one trans-woman rapes another trans-woman inside of a women's rest room... and then reality will just collapse because there's be no possible way for any of the sides to make an actual argument.

Hey, one day you'll get the perfect scare monger story, and it'll make all the trans suicides and harassment and system-wide oppression worth it. Keep your chin up, bud, it'll happen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

There is implied consent, but it's implied with the full knowledge that the other people in the room are of the same sex as you.

If tomorrow society shifted 90 degrees, and made all locker rooms and bathrooms unisex, that knowledge would be changed, and we would all understand that those rooms could contain people of either sex. Then, when using those services, we would be implicitly consenting to be naked in front of people of the opposite sex, and to have opposite sex people be naked in front of us. I wouldn't particularly enjoy that shift, and I believe that a fair number of female humans would be uncomfortable with that... but we would know what the score is. Then it's our choice whether or not to use those services, with the full knowledge of our implied consent.

That's not what's going on here though, and that's the problem. This is a situation where we, as a society, have given implicit consent to be naked around people of the same sex... and some people are insisting that they should have the right to violate that social agreement because they view themselves as being of the same gender as the people who use those rooms. Those people think that their perception of their internal gender feeling is more important than sex, and that their desire to be with people of the same gender should override consent to be in the presence of naked people of the same sex.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hey, one day you'll get the perfect scare monger story, and it'll make all the trans suicides and harassment and system-wide oppression worth it. Keep your chin up, bud, it'll happen.

You like being self righteously angry, don't you?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You like being self righteously angry, don't you?

It passes the time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Undoubtedly, that knowledge would make the parents of young male humans uncomfortable too. It's not rational in any way.

There is a sex-based bias in this, where young females are viewed as being more vulnerable to sexual exploitation by adults than young males are. I personally think that's dumb. Children are vulnerable, regardless of their sex, and regardless of the sex of the perpetrator.

 

[caveman1917]

Obviously it is difficult to present evidence of what is going to happen to each individual child in the future.

There's nothing difficult about gathering the required evidence that the selection method is effective, it simply takes a controlled study just like for any other medical intervention. Any reason there is such resistance to this most basic aspect of evidence-based medicine, ie controlled studies? I'm starting to think some are opposed to gathering evidence because they know it won't show what they want.

In the Dutch Approach, puberty blockers aren't randomly prescribed. They are only prescribed if forcing a child with an apparently stabile gender identity to go through puberty just to prove that they might turn gay is cruel experimentation.

No evidence? Random it is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

...

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.

I would be just fine with that suggestion. As has previously been pointed out, that has actually been how it worked for quite some time. Transwomen used the female restrooms, showers, etc. Female humans knew they were there, but they weren't overtly and blatantly male, and they were discreet and respectful. So we engaged in the polite fiction that they were women, and allowed them into our spaces without objection.

It's only bee the recent shift in trans advocacy that has presented a problem. And that's only because the stress is on self-declaration with no medical diagnosis, and they demand access as a right.

 

[TomB]

Sure. I don't presume to speak for trans people broadly. EC repeatedly gives the impression that all women are standing back aghast as the trans menace approaches over the horizon, which is absolutely not the case.

Feminists, generally speaking, are firm allies of trans people. Such is the case that the TERFs have to be splinter groups from mainstream feminism. Those claiming that trans rights comes at the expense of hard won victories by feminists are not speaking for the majority.

Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that it's unclear that those speaking on either side represent the views of the majority of the people they advocate for.

I'm not sure the majority is speaking.