• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

The question isn't what someone thinks is a racist idea, but what someone thinks is other people's business and not other people's business. For the reasons I discussed above, I think there is not a lot of traction in pressuring people to change their dating/sexual choices. It's not a big thing in matters of race now, it's unlikely to become a big thing in matters of gender and sex.
 
d4m10n said:
I think Wi spa has entire floors in which nudity is normalized, like most traditional Korean spas.

From their web page:
Click to expand...

Hmm, yeah if this is the case, then nudity is actually encouraged there. So there really shouldn't have been any problem. There would be no reason it would be illegal or wrong for her penis to be visible. Or mine for that matter, if I wasn't so self conscious about being nude in public.

I thought it was more like the spas I go to, where there is a changing area with both common and private sections and areas where you are expected to remain in a swimsuit and/or robe.
 
Ziggurat said:
But some of the cultural rules necessary to make something like a coed nude space safe require a kind of cultural uniformity and cohesion that, frankly, large multicultural countries like the US cannot achieve.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with the US or how large and multicultural it is. Other much smaller countries are also diverse and multicultural, with many people who would not want to be nude in front of others for various religious, philosophical or personal reasons. The solution should be obvious: don't have nude spaces except for those who specifically want them. Unless a space exists specifically for hanging out naked with other people and is specifically advertised as such, there should be individual private spaces.

Emily's Cat said:
I suggest talking about these with some real-life adult human females. Offices and Restaurants are just straight up silly to toss into this discussion.
Click to expand...
They exist in Saudi Arabia, and are claimed to be for the protection of women against men. You might argue that Arabian men should learn to behave respectfully toward women, but with the level of sexual harrassment many women in the West experience in the office, you'll have to admit that the Saudis kinda sorta have a point.

The problem is that segregation of men and women supposedly for the benefit of women, just ends up restricting women's freedom.
 
Myriad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay but then at that point the whole thing as turned into "Plausible penis deniability" and it is completely and utterly detached from reality.

To paraphrase Virgil Earp "I'm not saying women can't have a penis, I'm not saying you can't carry your penis into the locker room, I'm just saying you can't have your lady penis out in the women's locker room!"

At that point can agree we've reached absurdity?

Even ignoring that all that does is take us right back to the point that if we're going to do that what's the point is segregating the areas at all?

It's not like a in a public bathroom people are whipping their genitals out and drying them with the air dryers or trimming their pubs at the communal sink.

What are even doing at this point?

"You can possess a penis in the women's bathroom, but it can only be out in the stall for the time it takes to urinate, for no more visibility then it takes to urinate. You only allowed two shakes when you are done, past that it considered both playing with it and putting it on display."

When we reached the point in the debate where we are seriously putting on the table a discussion that boils down to "What is the exact amount of penis exposure a woman can be subjected to in order to expect them to maintain overall penile plausible deniability as graphed on Chart A6, please check your appendixes for further...."

It's a penis. It's not the graphite fragments on the roof of Chernobyl where you can measure exposure to it in milli-rapes. There's no "Well you were exposed to a penis, but don't worry the exposure was low, there shouldn't be any long term effects." Either it's in the room or it is not. I don't think "Well it's there but it's not out so don't worry about" is whether side is going to accept this going to.
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
Hmm, yeah if this is the case, then nudity is actually encouraged there. So there really shouldn't have been any problem. There would be no reason it would be illegal or wrong for her penis to be visible.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the interesting thing about this case. The legal answer depends on whether Darren is really a woman, and I would assume that all the people filing the charges understood that aspect of the law. Therefore, they must have concluded that she was actually a man.

I'm not sure how that gets resolved. How does either the prosecution or the defense prove that Darren is a man, or that Darren is a woman? I suppose whatever it says on their drivers license might be a good place to start, but I haven't seen any reporting on the subject.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...
If they filed a form DL-329 (Gender Designation Request) at the local DMV, then that's probably enough to show that they belonged in the women's floor at the spa. I'm not sure what other evidence may be adduced to show gender identity, but as you say, we'll find out.

Prediction: I expect the case will be quietly dismissed once the civil rights lawyers roll up to the table.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well, that's the interesting thing about this case. The legal answer depends on whether Darren is really a woman, and I would assume that all the people filing the charges understood that aspect of the law. Therefore, they must have concluded that she was actually a man.

I'm not sure how that gets resolved. How does either the prosecution or the defense prove that Darren is a man, or that Darren is a woman? I suppose whatever it says on their drivers license might be a good place to start, but I haven't seen any reporting on the subject.
Click to expand...

It's also true that her criminal history doesn't help the matter. I feel like that would be a factor regardless of gender in their decision.
 
Earthborn said:
The problem is that segregation of men and women supposedly for the benefit of women, just ends up restricting women's freedom.
Click to expand...

Sex segregated restrooms do not restrict women's freedom. You don't see even the most ardent feminists clamoring to be allowed into men's restrooms.
 
Because we are using the word "segregation" when we mean something more akin to "quarantine."

We aren't trying to keep the genders/sexes separate, we are trying to protect one from the other.

The base idea here is that humans with penises are inherently dangerous and predatory and that women need spaces where they are not at for protection.

So a lot of this is one subgroup trying to go "No I don't count because I'm special."

We can't pretend this discussion exists (or indeed would make sense) in any other context.

That's what a lot of people are dancing around.

How much of the pro-trans argument if functionally: "No you see okay I'm a man... but not like a man man. See it's a coded word meaning I'm not a threat." If you think about that's why they probably react so strongly to being assume to they are a rapist in waiting to the exact same degree it is perfectly socially acceptable to assume such of a cis-man. "I'm sorry did you hear me? I just said I was one of the good ones."

Basically, and I've said this before, it's like we are trying to define the three genders as woman, man but defines as a woman so she's one of the good ones, and rapist.

Seriously step back and realize how many of the pieces fall into place if you rerun this conversation and realize how many people are using man and rapist interchangeably.
 
Last edited:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58598186

Under-16s can take puberty blockers without parental consent, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The appeal was brought by the Tavistock Trust, which runs the UK's only youth gender identity clinic.

The decision reverses a 2020 ruling that under-16s lacked capacity to give informed consent to the treatment, which delays the onset of puberty.

The original case was brought by Keira Bell, who says the clinic should have challenged her more over transitioning.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because we are using the word "segregation" when we mean something more akin to "quarantine."

We aren't trying to keep the genders/sexes separate, we are trying to protect one from the other.

The base idea here is that humans with penises are inherently dangerous and predatory and that women need spaces where they are not at for protection.

So a lot of this is one subgroup trying to go "No I don't count because I'm special."

We can't pretend this discussion exists (or indeed would make sense) in any other context.

That's what a lot of people are dancing around.
Click to expand...

Is anyone dancing around that? If so, I don't know why they would. It's pretty basic.

At this point it is customary to say some variation of #notallmen, but in my opinion, it's really more like #notallthetime.

It's also exaggerated to say that we are all rapists in waiting, but women also want to avoid things that are sexually aggressive, but short of, usually far short of, rape. It may be as simple as an unwanted gaze or stare. Maybe a flirtatious comment. Maybe a violation of personal space in conversation. A lean. A touch.

And some of it is purely from the female side. If a man sees them, they tend to be very self conscious about their appearance. They usually want to look good, or maybe to look deliberately unattractive to avoid the gaze, or the flirtation, or whatever.

It's all rooted in sex, though. It includes, but is not limited to, awareness of rape.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is anyone dancing around that? If so, I don't know why they would. It's pretty basic.
Click to expand...

Well as in a lot of discussions now a days what people are "saying" and then what they turn around and argue for in the next breathe aren't exactly being similar.

If all agree that we're not separating the sexes/genders in the same way we separate the laundry but we're essentially creating quarantine zones where women can metaphorically let their hair down without keeping their rap-dar in active ping, then so much of this discussion makes absolutely no sense.

Again it goes back to my:

"Eeek a penis!"
"No you see it's a penis attached to a woman"
"Oh... whew I was worried there for a second"

: being this scenario we're actually to take seriously makes zero sense if we're actually protecting one demographic from another.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Eeek a penis!"
"No you see it's a penis attached to a woman"
"Oh... whew I was worried there for a second"
Click to expand...
:)

I think you really have hit the nail on the head there.

I think I understand what you meant by "dancing around" now.
 
Well yeah. That's why we are on page 9 of the 7th continuation of this debate and literally gotten nowhere with it.

"I have 5 fingers!"
"You have 4 fingers and a thumb!"
"Okay everyone stop and recount your fingers!"
"I got the same answer!"
"So did I!"
20 GOTO 10.

It's stupidly obvious that both sides agree you have 5 digits and are just arguing over the definition of finger, but for some reason both sides keep arguing against the other side using their definition as if they aren't aware the other definition exists, as if even acknowledging that it exists as a different opinion will dirty them.

You should be able to argue against someone who thinks/doesn't think a biological person with a penis can be a woman without either agreeing with them or pretending they aren't be clear on what they are saying.

That's been the entire discussion. Someone makes an argument using their definition of sex/gender/man/woman/male/female and someone else will go "Oh so you're saying THIS!" using their definition, all the way everyone pretending like the fact that its just two people using different definitions isn't hilariously obvious.

EmilyCat doesn't want cheeseburgers in her hamburger bathroom.
SuburbanTurkey is saying there are no cheeseburgers in her bathroom, just hamburgers with cheese. It's the hamburger bathroom, the hamburgers have every right to be there, cheese or no cheese.

And we never get beyond that.

And I'm just in the corner "Can you all stop so one of the stalls will open up? I really got to pee."
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
EmilyCat doesn't want cheeseburgers in her bathroom.
SurbanTurkey is saying there are no cheeseburgers in her bathroom, just hamburgers with cheese.

And we never get beyond that.
Click to expand...
This isn't an adequate summary of the discussion to date. Both EC & ST have stated the values and goals they intend to further with their preferred policies, e.g. safety, inclusion, etc.

It's not just a semantic debate, and we all know this. It's a debate about whose values and which stakeholders take precedence over others in a (nearly) zero sum policy game.
 
Last edited:
EmilyCat doesn't want penises in the Woman's Space.
SuburbanTurkey say having a penis doesn't stop you from being a woman.

Solve for X.
 
Matthew Best said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58598186

Under-16s can take puberty blockers without parental consent, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The appeal was brought by the Tavistock Trust, which runs the UK's only youth gender identity clinic.

The decision reverses a 2020 ruling that under-16s lacked capacity to give informed consent to the treatment, which delays the onset of puberty.

The original case was brought by Keira Bell, who says the clinic should have challenged her more over transitioning.
Click to expand...

Awesome news! This will be a relief to all the trans kids who have been negatively affected by this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom