Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[p0lka]

As also I do feel the need to do one of my periodic moments where I stop and do remind everyone that I do sort of get it.

Society has done a **** job of actually getting rid of stupid, unreasonable, unnecessary expectations put upon people because of their sex/gender. And it sucks. It is inexcusable that it's gone on this long for a lot of it.
But the fact we as a culture haven't gotten rid of "Women should be quiet and subservient" and "Men shouldn't show feelings" and every other stupid thing we're told we're have to do because we're this or that does not mean "Screw it, everyone just gets to choose which team they are on that will solve everything" is really a good answer.

re the highlighted: Yes I completely agree.
Oh I'm supposed to act a certain way cos society says I should? bollocks.

There has to be a way to get out of it though, maybe splitting gender and sex is better than doing nothing?

 

[Paul2]

Oops, I responded to the wrong post. Please ignore.

Real talk.

Is that answer any different from anyone exposing any genital to anyone?

I'm a dude and I don't want to see random dicks. I'm sure some broad whipping her vagina out at you on the bus isn't high on the list of things that will make your day better.

Can "Hey just don't show anyone your genitals until they buy you dinner" be the rule?

Do you acknowledge a relevant-to-this-discussion difference between a dick showing itself to a someone with a vagina versus a disk showing itself to a someone with a dick, or a vagina showing it self to a someone with a vagina, etc.?

 

[Graham2001]

Good point.
Our traditional definitions and structures are being left behind by the faster changes over time that happen with words and meaning, due to the internet.

how to accept that progression, or whether you should, is interesting.

The progression seems to have gone:


1. Gender Roles are Social Constructs


to


2. Gender is a Social Construct



ending at


Biological Sex is a Social Construct

 

[Emily's Cat]

In what circumstances would you say it is appropriate and acceptable for any female to expose their genitals to males and children who do not wish to see those genitals?

1) Medical and sexual interactions where the exposure is expected for well understood reasons (sometimes a doctor may not want to see a particular bit of genitalia, but might still need to do so in order to do their job )
2) Shared spaces where it is understood by all parties that exposure may occur due to the nature of the space such as unisex or mixed sex toilets, showers, lockers; mixed sex saunas; nude beaches, etc. (Again, some people may not want to see those bits, but the nature of the space makes it likely, and by entering that space, all parties implicitly consent to the exposure)

I flipped the sex, do you feel the same?

Yes, I do. I also notice that you didn't answer. So, your turn.

 

[p0lka]

The progression seems to have gone:


1. Gender Roles are Social Constructs


to


2. Gender is a Social Construct



ending at


Biological Sex is a Social Construct

That bit is where I get stuck, it's denying physical reality.

If physical male and female are social constructs, then what is everyone disagreeing over?

 

[Meadmaker]

In what circumstances would you say it is appropriate and acceptable for any female to expose their genitals to males and children who do not wish to see those genitals?

I flipped the sex, do you feel the same?

I always figure someone isn't getting it when they flip the sexes and think that they are somehow showing something about something.

The sexes can't really be flipped. That's actually closely related to the problem itself. So, of course it is not appropriate for a female to exposer her genitals to males and children who do not wish to see them. However...

1) It isn't going to happen
2) In the rare event that it does happen, it might go into the "bizarre situations" thread, but I wouldn't be frightened.

If we stick to males exposing to females

1) It could happen
2) There's an implied threat if it does happen.

The end result is that for a guy seeing a naked woman, it probably won't happen but, if it does....uhhhh......cool. Whatever.

For a woman seeing a naked man, that's a real warning signal and get the hell away to a safe spot, unless there is something about the circumstances that makes it all ok. (e.g. a streaker at a baseball game isn't a real threat. It's a comedic performance. A flasher at the bus stop is a big red flag event.)

So, it's inappropriate regardless of gender, but when you flip the genders you change the issue.


(And I just realized I slipped into standard English there, instead of special wokespeak. Oh well. Im not feeling like editing.)

 

[p0lka]

1) Medical and sexual interactions where the exposure is expected for well understood reasons (sometimes a doctor may not want to see a particular bit of genitalia, but might still need to do so in order to do their job )
2) Shared spaces where it is understood by all parties that exposure may occur due to the nature of the space such as unisex or mixed sex toilets, showers, lockers; mixed sex saunas; nude beaches, etc. (Again, some people may not want to see those bits, but the nature of the space makes it likely, and by entering that space, all parties implicitly consent to the exposure)


Yes, I do. I also notice that you didn't answer. So, your turn.

I was more interested in the flip than the question to be honest, but yes I basically agree with what you posted.

There are certain spaces where all parties implicitly consent to exposure, especially the examples you have given.

There seems to be a problem with seeing genitals in those very spaces you mentioned though, what's that about?

 

[p0lka]

I always figure someone isn't getting it when they flip the sexes and think that they are somehow showing something about something.

The sexes can't really be flipped. That's actually closely related to the problem itself. So, of course it is not appropriate for a female to exposer her genitals to males and children who do not wish to see them. However...

1) It isn't going to happen
2) In the rare event that it does happen, it might go into the "bizarre situations" thread, but I wouldn't be frightened.

If we stick to males exposing to females

1) It could happen
2) There's an implied threat if it does happen.

The end result is that for a guy seeing a naked woman, it probably won't happen but, if it does....uhhhh......cool. Whatever.

For a woman seeing a naked man, that's a real warning signal and get the hell away to a safe spot, unless there is something about the circumstances that makes it all ok. (e.g. a streaker at a baseball game isn't a real threat. It's a comedic performance. A flasher at the bus stop is a big red flag event.)

So, it's inappropriate regardless of gender, but when you flip the genders you change the issue.


(And I just realized I slipped into standard English there, instead of special wokespeak. Oh well. Im not feeling like editing.)

I had a group of females in bikinis walk past me about a month or so ago, it was when the UK hit 33 degrees so a hotter than normal day and one of them had no bottoms on at all. I chuckled. It does happen.

But yes, I think if it was a male then observers reactions might have been different.

Is it more of a threat though? or is it just perceived as more of a threat?

I personally do not care about nudity, don't see why it's an issue. I'm not religious and don't really have an ideology regarding it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it more of a threat though? or is it just perceived as more of a threat?
.

Depends on circumstances. If someone is flouting convention, they are behaving anti-socially. Someone behaving anti-socially in a sexualized manner is a perceived threat, because such behavior may very well be associated with an actual attack. A flasher is probably just a flasher, but might be a rapist.

 

[Paul2]

I personally do not care about nudity, don't see why it's an issue. I'm not religious and don't really have an ideology regarding it.

Do you know that others - many others - see it is an issue for them?

 

[Graham2001]

That bit is where I get stuck, it's denying physical reality.

If physical male and female are social constructs, then what is everyone disagreeing over?

Because they are not social constructs, but this idea that they are underlies the entire edifice of 'gender self-identification' that all anyone needs to do to change sex is to simply say that they are the opposite to what they physcially appear to be.


The key point is that gender and sex do have different meanings, like conspiracy theorists, critical theorists like to twist the meanings pf words to confuse the general populace.

 

[p0lka]

Do you know that others - many others - see it is an issue for them?

There are many others that have an issue with showing shoulders, bare bellies, arms, ankles, hair, or even faces.
I do know that many people have issues with that stuff, that is their issue. Maybe they shouldn't try and get everyone else to conform to their issues.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is it more of a threat though? or is it just perceived as more of a threat?

Risk is a better description than threat, but yes, inappropriate male nudity is definitely more indicative of elevated risk than inappropriate female nudity. The reasons should be obvious, starting with the fact that violent sexual assaults are primarily committed by males, not females. Plus, of course, males are stronger than females. And antisocial male behavior (which ignoring social conventions is a risk indicator for) is more often associated with violence than female antisocial behavior.

Males and females are not equivalent. They do not act the same. A superficial similarity (inappropriate nudity) does not hold the same significance when done by a male and when done by a female. There is no actual mystery here, to believe otherwise requires indoctrination.

 

[TomB]

re the highlighted: Yes I completely agree.
Oh I'm supposed to act a certain way cos society says I should? bollocks.

There has to be a way to get out of it though, maybe splitting gender and sex is better than doing nothing?

I don't really care about separating sex and gender. I'm fine with that.

But it doesn't follow that things that were previously segregated by the formerly combined sex/gender default to being segregated by gender rather than sex. Or vice versa, to be honest.

So, for me, it comes down to examining the reasons for each case where something is segregated. I expect that in some cases there will be multiple reasons, some of which suggest gender and some that suggest sex.

For example, sports. Women's sports leagues exist, to my understanding, for two reasons:

1. It was previously held that athletics (such as marathon running) were inappropriate pursuits for women. (This is a social reason, which suggests gender to me.)
2. Due to biological differences, women are rarely competitive when competing against men. This suggests sex, to me.

If I examine those reasons, the first is no longer applicable as social norms have changed to the extent that it is acceptable for people of either gender to compete in athletics. The second, however, remains true as humanity has not evolved to a point where the physical disparity in athletic ability between the sexes has disappeared. Nor do I expect this to happen in the near future.

I would suggest examining reasons for other areas of segregation and attempting to address them when making changes, rather than just deciding that one reason is more important than another.

 

[Boudicca90]

I just want to clear some things up, since I've been brought back up in conversation again.

I've never thought SuburbanTurkey is a transphobe. In fact, he's one of the few true allies we trans people have on this board. Along with Archie, LondonJohn, Earthborn, and a couple others. They aren't always perfect in their views, but they are sure a hell of a lot more accepting and tolerant than most on here.

Secondly when it comes to the 'biological female' thing, while I do see myself as female and always refer to myself as such when I'm asked, I DON'T see myself as exactly the same as a cis female. Obviously I lack a female reproductive system and I have a Y chromosome, but ultimately I don't see that as mattering. I won't be referred to as a male. And my penis isn't a 'female penis', it's just a penis, so I don't know what people are talking about there.

If Wi Spa is correct in their claim that the California law which “prohibits discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people in business establishments” required them to allow Merager (who is reportedly legally female) into the women's side of the spa, then there is nothing you can do about it other than repealing that law.

This is correct. From what I understand of the situation, she was in a changing area when this happened. I live in California and occasionally have a spa day, and it would be perfectly fine for me to fully disrobe in them. I don't, because I don't like to be naked around strangers in public, so I opt for a private changing room instead. And I keep my penis to myself, so I don't make anyone uncomfortable. In my case I pass well enough that I blend in with everyone else, I don't know about her situation.

 

[Graham2001]

I found this on Spiked (usual warnings apply)...

Judith Butler’s name evokes adoration in some corners of academia. Not even her critics – and there are plenty of those – would dispute that Butler is among the most influential theorists in the world.

Her original claim to fame was her work on the ‘performativity’ of gender. This has influenced university departments the world over – it has even been deployed to analyse maths. Butler has been most influential on Gender Studies and Women’s Studies. Arguably her ideas on gender have relegated Women’s Studies to the sidelines.


...

‘The anti-gender ideology movement insists that sex is biological and real… [it] is not opposing a specific account of gender, but seeking to eradicate gender as a concept or discourse, a field of study, an approach to social power. The anti-gender movement circulates a spectre of gender as a source of destruction, but they never actually read any works in Gender Studies.’

(Italics as per original)


https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/16/how-judith-butlers-gender-theories-sidelined-women/


And here is the link to the Guardian interview:


https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender

 

[d4m10n]

This is correct. From what I understand of the situation, she was in a changing area when this happened.

I think Wi spa has entire floors in which nudity is normalized, like most traditional Korean spas.

From their web page:

Our men’s and women’s floors are designed expressly for your comfort, and each features its own distinct luxurious decor. Here you will find hot and cold tubs, dry and steam saunas, treatment stations, showers, and all of the beauty and grooming facilities you would expect of a world class destination spa. Our co-ed floor, or jimjilbang is home to our not-to-be missed specialty mineral saunas, which we invite you to experience in sequence for optimal results.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you acknowledge a relevant-to-this-discussion difference between a dick showing itself to a someone with a vagina versus a disk showing itself to a someone with a dick, or a vagina showing it self to a someone with a vagina, etc.?

Not really.

Again women don't "own" sexual victimhood.

At the very least I don't think the dick or vagina being attacked to someone who identifies as a woman or identifies as a man makes any difference.

Again that's right back to where we are at, started at, and can't leave.

We're being told that this:

*EmilyCat walks into women's dressing room at the gym and sees a penis.*
EmilyCat: "Get that penis out of here! This is the women's dressing room!"
Transperson: "No you see this I am a woman and this is my lady penis."
EmilyCat: "Oh I see. Well that totally changes things. That absolutely changes the fundamental reality of your penis being out in the women's dressing room."

Makes perfect sense and is how things are supposed to go.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think Wi spa has entire floors in which nudity is normalized, like most traditional Korean spas.

From their web page:

I'm pretty sure the nudity at Wi Spa wasn't in a changing room. One of the things that makes Darren's story absurd is "her" claim that the women are lying. She says no one saw her naked because she was in a hot tub with water covering her up to her chest. Even if that were true, how did she get in and out? Did she only disrobe after entering the water?

I think far more likely is that her claim that the women are lying is the childish style claims that often come from narcissists. Whenever people accuse them of anything, they immediately all the accusers liars. It's just a knee jerk reaction.

Very little has been published since the filing of charges. Maybe Darren really lives as a woman consistently, and so has every legal right to parade around naked in the presence of women and girls, or should I say "other" women and girls. I guess we'll find out. I doubt it, though, because I'm fairly sure some people at the LAPD and/or prosecutor's office that filed those charges understands the law, and they took two months to decide that Darren had broken it. I'm guessing they spent some of that time investigating whether Darren was "really" a woman.

What we know for sure is that an awful lot of women and girls in southern California have seen Darren's penis when "she" was not concealed in a hot tub. We also know that all of her arrest records call her Darren.

I'm strongly leaning toward creep on this one, but maybe more evidence will come out later.

 

[Myriad]

Not really.

Again women don't "own" sexual victimhood.

At the very least I don't think the dick or vagina being attacked to someone who identifies as a woman or identifies as a man makes any difference.

Again that's right back to where we are at, started at, and can't leave.

We're being told that this:

*EmilyCat walks into women's dressing room at the gym and sees a penis.*
EmilyCat: "Get that penis out of here! This is the women's dressing room!"
Transperson: "No you see this I am a woman and this is my lady penis."
EmilyCat: "Oh I see. Well that totally changes things. That absolutely changes the fundamental reality of your penis being out in the women's dressing room."

Makes perfect sense and is how things are supposed to go.

The "this is where we can't leave" aspect is why I've been saying that where this will likely end up is that showing (not merely having) a penis in the common areas of a women's changing room will be what's not permitted. It's not as though cis women would have been accepted flaunting strap-ons or prosthetic penises (whether anatomically realistic or not) in those facilities in the past. No one has ever had a penis-showing privilege there, that others are being denied.

This would of course making using those facilities somewhat less convenient for most trans women, for no fault of their own. Just like using those same facilities is somewhat less convenient for women who require wheelchairs for mobility, or who are too short to easily reach the top locker shelves, or who have impaired vision, or who have arthritis that makes it painful to manipulate the locker mechanisms, for no fault of their own.

Any other solution is either too complex or expensive (e.g. separate facilities for everyone), or throws one interest under the bus for minor gains by the other.