Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TurkeysGhost]

I must admit that I was among those who thought there would be a lot more voyeurism following the liberalization of trans access laws. I thought a lot more men would be caught dressing up as women to gain access for peeping. Some of that has, indeed, happened, but not much.

A much bigger problem has been in cases where institutions have introduced unisex facilities, with minimal individual private spaces.

Be that as it may, I think it's wrong to say, or imply, that there is no harm if there is no crime. I think the loss of modesty/privacy constitutes harm in and of itself.

The degree of harm is debatable. I think there are a lot more people willing to compromise on bathroom access than changing rooms due to the perception that the degree of privacy lost is smaller.

I imagine that many, if not most, would opt for personal privacy over communal single sex/gender arrangements if that were actually an option. I recall my years taking high school gym that only had large communal showers. Since showering was not mandatory, I do not recall a single instance in which they were ever used. Students preferred leaving the class sweaty rather than bathe in front of their peers.

Generally speaking, we would probably be better off if more effort was made to accommodate the desire for individual bodily autonomy and privacy.

That's a long way of saying I recognize the desire for modesty is a valid concern worth respecting, but I don't see how sex segregated communal spaces are a good way to accomplish this.

 

[Distracted1]

Ah there you go again with "rebranding". You don't believe that transmen are experiencing a valid condition, do you?

And, by the way, my answer is: as a hetero cisman I would have no problem whatsoever with a transman using a men-only space in my presence. I would expect the transman in question to take as much care as possible to show consideration - eg to have a towel round genital areas when changing and walking around, to use the end shower cubicle if at all possible, and so on. And I would without doubt report the transman to the management of the facility if he was behaving in an inconsiderate/provocative/inappropriate manner wrt his transgender identity. Otherwise, absolutely fine.


ETA: Oh I see - in your original post, where you wrote "...to a woman or girl whom I do not know", you meant to write "...to a transman or transboy whom I do not know". Right?

Your 'ETA" indicates that you completely agree that it is "rebranding".

As to whether or not you are comfortable with women and girls sharing your shower space. Is that the most compelling argument you have for insisting that I do so?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Outside of "branding" being a scare word and "identity" being a sacrosanct inarguable fact, what's the goddamn difference?

 

[Meadmaker]

I recall my years taking high school gym that only had large communal showers. Since showering was not mandatory, I do not recall a single instance in which they were ever used. Students preferred leaving the class sweaty rather than bathe in front of their peers.

This has come up many times, but it still leaves me saying, "Kids these days. "

(Just in case there's someone who hasn't heard it a billion times, we had the same showers and the same rules, and we all took showers after gym class.)

 

[theprestige]

Why not Women-only elevators, offices, restaurants, alleyways, etc...?
The arguments, as ST points out, are based upon the same logic.

No. Don't fall for the trickery. As I said in the previous installment:

Men's and women's restrooms have been separate and equal just fine, for a long time now. Men's and women's sports leagues have been separate and equal just fine. There's lots of gender segregation that's been separate and equal just fine for almost everyone.

And even today you're not saying that the segregation should be abolished. Rather, the trans petition is that the segregation be upheld, but that they should be permitted to transcend it if they wish.

So I think your concerns about separate but equal are a red herring.

Too, not all prejudice is inherently bad. Not all prejudice needs to be prejudicially dismissed. We are rightly* prejudiced against the idea of men and women in the same sports leagues. Separate but equal sports leagues for the two sexes is in fact the right way to "appease" that prejudice. And it has the track record to prove it.

The problem with transwomen in women's sports leagues is that their claim to separation is contrafactual. A man claiming to be a woman does not change any of the underlying biological and physical facts of their existence. None of the reasons that justify the prejudice against this go away just because the transwoman says they'd rather compete as a woman.

"We segregate blacks because they're subhuman." Well, that turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women at the polling booth and in the board room because they're subhuman." Well, that also turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women in sports because of the significant biological disparity between the two genders. This has economic and safety implications that are impossible to ignore. Segregation along gender lines is in fact the optimal solution for all parties." Well, that turns out to be entirely correct.​

The analogy to racial segregation is introduced because of the apparently insurmountable difficulty in arguing against sex-based segregation on its own terms. There are biological realities of sex that are not analogous to anything in race-based discrimination or gender-based (misogynistic) discrimination.

Don't be fooled by ST's attempt at analogy. The two things aren't actually analogous.

And really, you should probably have suspected as much the moment you saw an analogy being deployed, rather than an argument about the thing as such.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The other issue is despite so many attempts at retcons the truth is man/male and woman/female were synonyms for most the history we're talking about. And male/female were always the more clinic term so we tended to call things on a day to day level "a woman's bathroom" instead of a "female bathroom" and "woman's basketball" instead of "female basketball."

So now we get the "Well I define as a woman, not a female, ergo I use the women's bathroom" thing. No it's the woman/female bathroom because those words meant the same thing in that context when that term was created.

 

[Distracted1]

No. Don't fall for the trickery. As I said in the previous installment:

Men's and women's restrooms have been separate and equal just fine, for a long time now. Men's and women's sports leagues have been separate and equal just fine. There's lots of gender segregation that's been separate and equal just fine for almost everyone.

And even today you're not saying that the segregation should be abolished. Rather, the trans petition is that the segregation be upheld, but that they should be permitted to transcend it if they wish.

So I think your concerns about separate but equal are a red herring.

Too, not all prejudice is inherently bad. Not all prejudice needs to be prejudicially dismissed. We are rightly* prejudiced against the idea of men and women in the same sports leagues. Separate but equal sports leagues for the two sexes is in fact the right way to "appease" that prejudice. And it has the track record to prove it.

The problem with transwomen in women's sports leagues is that their claim to separation is contrafactual. A man claiming to be a woman does not change any of the underlying biological and physical facts of their existence. None of the reasons that justify the prejudice against this go away just because the transwoman says they'd rather compete as a woman.

"We segregate blacks because they're subhuman." Well, that turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women at the polling booth and in the board room because they're subhuman." Well, that also turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women in sports because of the significant biological disparity between the two genders. This has economic and safety implications that are impossible to ignore. Segregation along gender lines is in fact the optimal solution for all parties." Well, that turns out to be entirely correct.​

The analogy to racial segregation is introduced because of the apparently insurmountable difficulty in arguing against sex-based segregation on its own terms. There are biological realities of sex that are not analogous to anything in race-based discrimination or gender-based (misogynistic) discrimination.

Don't be fooled by ST's attempt at analogy. The two things aren't actually analogous.

And really, you should probably have suspected as much the moment you saw an analogy being deployed, rather than an argument about the thing as such.

I was addressing only a slice of the issue. And doing so in a manner which- I thought- was blatantly sarcastic.

Arguments that rely on the "safety" of women who might find themselves alone with Men all are based upon the same premise. Which is why I reject that argument as a fundament for maintaining separate Womens' and Mens' changing facilities.
I support segregating the areas, however, based upon privacy concerns.

 

[Elaedith]

And really, you should probably have suspected as much the moment you saw an analogy being deployed, rather than an argument about the thing as such.

An analogy would be, activists demand that black males or gay males are allowed into women's facilities, women object, and activists scream that this is because they are being racist or homophobic. I don't believe that anyone really thinks that the objection is due to trans people rather than male people. It's just a lazy and dishonest slur to bully women into submission.

Of course, the objection really comes down to refusing to accept that being male has no more relevance to being a woman than does being black or gay, that is, to act as though sex is entirely erased by self identity. This is a contested philosophical/ideological position, but this fact can't be admitted because the analogy rides on assuming the truth of what is contested.

 

[dann]

This is an easy one. I don't even have to tell you about the bedroom. You're about to tell me.

I am?! I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Consider these propositions, and tell me whether you agree or disagree:

Your gender identity is determined not by how you perceive yourself, but by how others perceive you.

I have no idea. I am a man. That's how I perceive myself and how others perceive me.

For example, sexual attraction ("in the bedroom"): If you are sexually attracted to women, it doesn't matter if your prospective partner tells you they're a woman. If you perceive them to be a man, and are therefore not sexually attracted to them, this is the determining factor.

I am sexually attracted to (some) women and to no men - not even George Clooney. It doesn't change anything if a woman I am not sexually attracted to tells me that she is a woman. It doesn't suddenly make her attractive to me. In other words, I can find a woman unattractive and perceive her to be a woman. I don't have to perceive her to be a man in order to find her unattractive, so no, I don't see how this is the determining factor.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am?! I still have no idea what you are talking about.




I have no idea. I am a man. That's how I perceive myself and how others perceive me.




I am sexually attracted to (some) women and to no men - not even George Clooney. It doesn't change anything if a woman I am not sexually attracted to tells me that she is a woman. It doesn't suddenly make her attractive to me. In other words, I can find a woman unattractive and perceive her to be a woman. I don't have to perceive her to be a man in order to find her unattractive, so no, I don't see how this is the determining factor.

Ooooh no no no dann! You must obey the weird rules set out by your interlocutors. You're required to be attracted to a) all ciswomen, b) no transwomen, and c) no ciswomen who don't, erm, "look" like ciswomen.

And may the Lord have mercy on your dark soul if you ever have the misfortune to glance at a woman in a bar and find her very attractive, then subsequently learn that she is a transwoman. I dunno, maybe the "rules" require you to self-flagellate if that catastrophe should befall you, not to mention berating the transwoman for misleading you in such a disgraceful manner.

 

[gnome]

This is an easy one. I don't even have to tell you about the bedroom. You're about to tell me. Consider these propositions, and tell me whether you agree or disagree:

Your gender identity is determined not by how you perceive yourself, but by how others perceive you.

For example, sexual attraction ("in the bedroom"): If you are sexually attracted to women, it doesn't matter if your prospective partner tells you they're a woman. If you perceive them to be a man, and are therefore not sexually attracted to them, this is the determining factor.

Do you know why I don't think we'll see significant pressure about bedroom choices? I'll explain exactly why I don't think the slope is that slippery--there are two big factors that are likely to keep it from sliding in that direction.

First, segregated spaces are assigned, by their nature, to a group of people--for example, where there are only two kinds of facilities available. Sexual partners are chosen individually. If every restroom were for individual use only, there would be no argument about who belonged there. While that is often impractical for restrooms, it is inherent in relationships.

Secondly, I think there is significant resistance across the board against cultural pressure interfering with choice of partner, let alone any kind of coercion. It's got little possibility of traction unless suddenly nobody cares about consent anymore, in which case we've got bigger problems.

Granted, this is just reasoning, not practice. I think we have an easy real-world analogue to contemplate. The acceptability of mixed race relationships and marriages is almost complete in the US. I wish I could say entirely, but that's another discussion. So has that led to harassing people over who they choose not to date? I won't say the amount is zero--you can find people grinding an axe on any topic. But for the most part I think it can be said that diminishing the significance of race has not pushed into people's bedrooms.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you know why I don't think we'll see significant pressure about bedroom choices? I'll explain exactly why I don't think the slope is that slippery--there are two big factors that are likely to keep it from sliding in that direction.

First, segregated spaces are assigned, by their nature, to a group of people--for example, where there are only two kinds of facilities available. Sexual partners are chosen individually. If every restroom were for individual use only, there would be no argument about who belonged there. While that is often impractical for restrooms, it is inherent in relationships.

Secondly, I think there is significant resistance across the board against cultural pressure interfering with choice of partner, let alone any kind of coercion. It's got little possibility of traction unless suddenly nobody cares about consent anymore, in which case we've got bigger problems.

Granted, this is just reasoning, not practice. I think we have an easy real-world analogue to contemplate. The acceptability of mixed race relationships and marriages is almost complete in the US. I wish I could say entirely, but that's another discussion. So has that led to harassing people over who they choose not to date? I won't say the amount is zero--you can find people grinding an axe on any topic. But for the most part I think it can be said that diminishing the significance of race has not pushed into people's bedrooms.

Indeed. This "into the bedroom" nonsense is just more projection and scaremongering based entirely on biassed "domesday" predictions.

Humans in the 21st century fall along an extremely broad spectrum of attractions, permissions and consents. Frankly, all that matters (or should matter) is that 1) all parties to any given hookup (whether that's two or more than two) should have given informed and free consent to it, and 2) it all takes place in privacy (or in the reasonable expectation of privacy).

Look: I've worked and lived in the Far East over several years. A few of the people I've worked with have, for reasons I haven't asked them about (because it's none of my business), had hookups with Thai ladyboys. Personally, I have zero attraction to ladyboys, but I'm sure as heck not judging anyone else who does. So here we have ostensibly hetero cismen, who are capable of being sexually attracted to people who actually look (when clothed) like beautiful statuesque women, but who are in fact in possession of a penis. Some of these people identify as women; some of them identify as transvestite gay men. Again - that's entirely their choice. And the cismen who hook up with them are (almost always) under no illusion that the person with whom they're about to engage in sexual activity possesses a penis and not a vagina.

I just love the way that so many people - especially, it would appear, so many hetero cismen - automatically assume that what they find attractive (and unattractive) is pretty much the default that "normal" people ought to find attractive/unattractive.

 

[Meadmaker]

No one is going to tell you who you ought to sleep with, except some idiots writing in academic journals, and a few pervert pretendbians with their "cotton ceiling" stupidity.



It's a pity that those people aren't universally condemned for spouting idiocy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Some of you have a LOT more faith in this idea that there are separate "public" and "private" standards (and that those standards will forever be separate) then I do.

Again show me a Venn diagram of people who think "Blacks should use a separate water fountain is a racist idea" AND "I won't date a black woman is a racist idea" that isn't a perfect circle. Because it is a circle. If you think one and not the other you're not making sense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In Canada? I don't recall any of note. Refresh my memory.

Of course you don't.

Like I said:

ST: That would never happen!
EC: It happened here <link>
ST: That's just an anecdote, it doesn't count
EC: It disproves your claim that it never happens, and here are several other instances <multiple links>
ST Canned Response 1: The plural of ancedote isn't data
ST Canned Response 2: A couple of outliers doesn't make it true for the generality
ST Canned Response 3: That's from a biased source so it doesn't count
~~~ Time Passes ~~~

ST: That never happens! I haven't seen any evidence of it!

[Repeat ad nauseum]

 

[Olmstead]

Well, there's always the question of disclosure and whether it should be necessary in a physical relationship.

 

[Emily's Cat]

About the only context in which the primacy of gender over sex has not been asserted has been in the bedroom. And even there, I think that some are already asserting it.

That one has been asserted too, within the context of sexual orientation being "redefined" as gender-identity orientation, and the fiction that people in general are attracted to and sexually interested in people's internal subjective sense of how well they conform to a stereotype, and has nothing at all to do with actual objective sex class.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This has come up many times, but it still leaves me saying, "Kids these days. "

(Just in case there's someone who hasn't heard it a billion times, we had the same showers and the same rules, and we all took showers after gym class.)

The times, they are a-changin'.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The times, they are a-changin'.

That doesn't make the person on side of "change" always right.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That doesn't make the person on side of "change" always right.

Deleted, confused you for someone else.