Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[d4m10n]

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.

Even if they carefully side-stepped all the disagreements about language, she'd still want a penis-free space for people born without penises and he'd still be arguing against it on grounds of inclusion.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just for the record, it should be stated that the two people identified are representatives, not special. I'm pretty sure EC and I are almost identical in substance, differing primarily in style.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Even if they carefully side-stepped all the disagreements about language, she'd still want a penis-free space for people born without penises and he'd still be arguing against it on grounds of inclusion.

I didn't say there is no further argument.

I said there is no further argument anyone is really trying to have. Or knows how to have. Or whatever. A little of both probably.

Again we all know were we stand. Just nobody knows how to get to anywhere else.

"Are penises attached to women less of a threat than penises attached to men and if so how do we adjust the THREATCON levels of women's rest rooms to accommodate that" is where we are out and Lord Jesus is sounds so absurd you just say like that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

The problem in those spaces is in seeing genitals of the opposite sex.

When a male goes to a "men's shower", there is an implicit acknowledgement that they may see the genitalia of other males. It's part and parcel of the space itself, where multiple people being nude while bathing is a fundamental element of the area's functionality. So those males who make use of the shower are aware ahead of time that there are likely to be other males in there who are likely to be nude. By using the facility, there is an implicit consent to 1) seeing the genitalia of other males, even if they don't really want to and 2) having their genitalia seen by other males, even if they don't want to. As individuals, they have the ability to avert their own eyes if they don't wish to see another male's wedding tackle, and there's always the option of themself with a towel if they really don't want their bits seen. But by and large, there's a fundamental agreement that this is a space where other males are likely to be naked as well, and that such nudity is appropriate in that setting.

It's a bit different, however, when the facility changes the rules without the consent of the customers. If that same shower facility unilaterally decided that the "men's showers" are available to all sexes, that changes the dynamic.

If all of the males who are used to using that facility are fully informed of the change, and fully acknowledge that this is now a unisex facility, then they can make a decision about whether or not to use that facility. They can make a decision about whether they are comfortable seeing naked females in that space, as well as whether they are comfortable being seen while naked by females.

But if they aren't fully informed, and suddenly there's a naked female walking through the area... that's likely to cause some concerns. If the male customers are told that the female is entitled to use that space because they 'identify as a man' that's also likely to cause some discomfort. It breaks the pre-existing social agreement with respect to the expected dynamic in that space.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'll also add that regardless of the "feminazi" caricature, virtually all feminists and non-feminist females understand and fully acknowledge that males and females are NOT physically and biologically equal. There are objective and real differences in the anatomy of males and females. Males are larger, stronger, and more aggressive. One might question how much of the aggression is socially instilled, but at least some of it is a direct result of testosterone acting on the body and brain. Testosterone is a steroid; steroids increase aggression. It is known.

So the swapping of sexes may still lead to the same principle of where it is and is not appropriate to see other people naked, as well as which sexes are appropriate in which scenarios. But the actual impact on males and females is different.

Males have a higher rate of violence and sexual aggression. They commit more violent crimes, perpetrate more domestic violence, and engage in more sexual assaults and rapes than females do. Not all males by any means, not even most males. But significantly more than would be found among females.

So if you take any random set of strangers, one male and one female, they will represent different levels of risk. A male will have a higher likelihood of being a danger than a female will. When you add the physical disparity into the mix, it ends up being quite unequal.

A female has a low likelihood of assaulting another female, but if that female does assault them, given that they are of relatively comparable size and strength, the victim has a reasonable likelihood of being able to fight off their attacker and defend themselves.

A female has a low likelihood of assaulting a male, but if that female does assault them, given that the disparity in relative size and strength, the victim has a very high likelihood of being able to fight off their attacker and defend themselves.

A male has a moderate likelihood of assaulting another male, but if that male does assault them, given that they are of relatively comparable size and strength, the victim has a reasonable likelihood of being able to fight off their attacker and defend themselves.

A male has a moderate likelihood of assaulting a female, but if that male does assault them, given that the disparity in relative size and strength, the victim has a very low likelihood of being able to fight off their attacker and defend themselves.

Think about it like Pit Bulls and Papillions. They have unequal levels of innate aggressiveness, as well as unequal levels of strength. The likelihood of a Pit Bull being an aggressor is much higher than the likelihood of a Papillion being an aggressor. But in the event that they do start something, two Pit Bulls have an even chance against each other, two Papillions have an even chance against each other... but in a fight between a Pit Bull and a Papillion, the smart bet is that the Papillion is going down pretty fast.

 

[d4m10n]

"Are penises attached to women less of a threat than penises attached to men..."

I'd say the answer is probably "Yes," assuming HRT lowers free testosterone levels sufficiently.

(I've just finished up this book about how testosterone effects mammals, so that probably plays a significant role in my thinking here.)

That said, I stand by my earlier claim that the people for whom the spaces were set aside should be the ones who decide when to open them up. It's sort of ridiculous to see majority male legislatures making decisions about spaces they've never used and don't really understand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Both. It's definitely perceived as more of a threat, but that perception isn't based on nothing at all. It's based on eons of experience that indicates that males are significantly more likely to be flashers and peeping toms, they're more likely to try to intimidate females with the implied threat of coercive or forced sexual intimacy, they're more likely to sexually assault or rape a female.

Given that they've already exposed themselves in a situation where it isn't generally acceptable, it suggests an increased level of risk.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you discounting Mary Anne Case? She definitely sees a problem with keeping the men's rooms separate.

ETA: Found the full PDF.

Her biggest complaint seems to be inadequate facilities for women (which I'll definitely grant is valid), and her preferred solution seems individual restrooms that segregate down to the level of the individual (also makes sense, if cost isn't an obstacle). Yeah, she seems to be opposed to sex segregation on principle, but it seems... kind of half-hearted, to be honest. And I doubt it's very widely shared.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

To be fair, there are a WHOLE LOT of situations where if the transwoman is even moderately passing and their penis is not visible, I am okay with saying there's nothing to worry about.

It's when the penis is visible in spaces that are supposed to be for females that it's a problem. And when said penis is attached to a person who looks like a regular male - even if they've grown some boobs - that it's a big problem. At that point, females are being asked to allow any and all penis-havers into their spaces because there is no way to disambiguate a transwoman from any other male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Walk it back from "rapist" to "creeper" and you're pretty much on point.

And by "creeper" I mean a person who is highly likely to view females as objects for their sexual titillation, and to believe that them viewing females in general as objects for sexual ideation and fantasy and for leering at and skeezing on is perfectly fine, regardless of whether those females want to be viewed in that way or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even if they carefully side-stepped all the disagreements about language, she'd still want a penis-free space for people born without penises and he'd still be arguing against it on grounds of inclusion.

Not exactly though. ST is arguing for "special treatment" for some penis-bearers, while accepting the general exclusion of penises from the penis-free space.

The problem is that the special treatment is based on nothing but some magic words. And by allowing those magic words to grant special treatment for some penis-bearers, it effectively allows ALL penis-bearers to get into the penis-free zone, because the magic words aren't actually magic, they're just words, and they don't have any binding power.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just for the record, it should be stated that the two people identified are representatives, not special. I'm pretty sure EC and I are almost identical in substance, differing primarily in style.

Yeah, I get that. For all intents, in this discussion, I've been the most consistent representative of the female perspective, and ST has been the most steadfast banner-bearer for the activist side.

Part of me still laughs at that, given that ST is neither female nor transgender, so really doesn't speak for either side in this conflict.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Are penises attached to women less of a threat than penises attached to men and if so how do we adjust the THREATCON levels of women's rest rooms to accommodate that" is where we are out and Lord Jesus is sounds so absurd you just say like that.

Also, how do we determine whether a given penis is attached to a man or a woman in the first place, so we can prevent our THREATCON level from getting hacked?

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd say the answer is probably "Yes," assuming HRT lowers free testosterone levels sufficiently.

And that of course raises the problem that "transwoman" is used for such a broad range of people, including those who simply declare themselves to be women.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well that takes us back to "People are saying one thing but arguing for another" problem.

"Nobody is saying that you can just say you're a woman and walk into the women's room.... but I will argue against any functional way a determination could be made."

So it's yet another thing that nobody is saying but a lot of people are "saying."

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd say the answer is probably "Yes," assuming HRT lowers free testosterone levels sufficiently.

(I've just finished up this book about how testosterone effects mammals, so that probably plays a significant role in my thinking here.)

That said, I stand by my earlier claim that the people for whom the spaces were set aside should be the ones who decide when to open them up. It's sort of ridiculous to see majority male legislatures making decisions about spaces they've never used and don't really understand.

I'd say ONLY in the case that the "woman" penis-bearer in question has taken sufficient amounts of testosterone blockers to have a material affect.

That said, a high number of transgender identified males do not take testosterone blockers, they only add estrogen so they can grow boobs and redistribute fat. Generally speaking, transgender identified males commit violent and sexual crimes at the same rate as any other males.

I would say that the Blanchard categorizations, while not perfect, are useful here. Generally speaking, there's little to no risk from HSTS transgender identified males, but the risk from AGP transgender identified males is pretty much the same as the risk from males in general. The gender identification has no impact on their behavior. Indeed, AGP males may arguably present a higher risk, given that paraphilias often cluster, and AGP tends to be comorbid with NPD.

For the record, based on what they have disclosed about themself, Boudicca is HSTS. And as I've said before, I don't have any objection to Boudicca being in female spaces - they have expressed compassion and concern for females, they have expressed the same worries about some transwomen who wish to have access to female spaces.

If we were able to take the policy aspect out of this discussion, I doubt that Boudicca would have any trouble being generally accepted by females as a fellow woman, in pretty much all situations.

 

[TomB]

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.

Her criminal history does undermine her credibility and give more credence to the people who complained about her. But it still boils down to a he said/she said (or maybe more accurately she said/she said) situation.

This situation, regardless of the result, illustrates a real world problem.

When this first came to light, people took sides. Some, including some here, immediately wrote the people who complained off as trans-phobic. Others, also including some here, immediately assumed that this was a man exploiting a loophole and/or a person behaving inappropriately.

Neither of these positions was based on any material evidence. Without some sort of verifiable evidence we can't really say for certain what did or did not happen. But given the nature of the location where this occurred, such evidence is unlikely to exist. It would probably actually be a crime to create such evidence to document what happened as it would involve taking video of naked people without consent. If nothing else, the presence of cameras would have a ruinous effect on the spa's business.

So lets say this person was doing nothing wrong. While she doesn't have to prove that in court, she now has a reputation because many people will believe the person who complained.

If she was doing something wrong: perhaps she is really an exhibitionist man, what can you do about it? You can't document anything that they did wrong, you can only complain. And if you do that, you are likely to be labeled as a bigot.

The point is that, even if LondonJohn is right and there are vanishingly few men who will exploit the situation, enforcing the access rules becomes very difficult to impossible.

If a rule can't be enforced, then it is pointless. Which leads me to the conclusion that if segregation of some spaces by sex is deemed unacceptable, the only option is complete desegregation. I say this because gender segregation, in my opinion, can't be enforced.

So I find myself forced into agreement with Earthborn that the future is individual private spaces. Which doesn't really bother me, but, as Meadmaker points out, my Planet Fitness membership probably wouldn't stay at $10/month.

 

[d4m10n]

If she was doing something wrong: perhaps she is really an exhibitionist man, what can you do about it?

She could be 100% trans in every diagnostic and legal sense and also be an exhibitionist, in which case exhibitionist titillation would be legally protected in Los Angeles spas.

 

[Meadmaker]

If she was doing something wrong:

No one alleges that Darren was doing anything other than being naked and, more importantly I think, seeing naked women, which would be perfectly normal if Darren is a woman.


It goes to something that comes up over and over again. Female privacy advocates say they don't want any males in the female naked spaces. Trans inclusives say that it doesn't matter as long as they behave acceptably. The two positions are irreconcilable. *To the female privacy advocates (including me) the issue isn't behavior, it's biological sex. They don't want to be naked in the presence of a male.

"Can she put the towel over her eyes?

*Eta:. Although there is some willingness to compromise. That's different.

 

[p0lka]

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.

... snip.

As I've posted, I am happy to treat people according to how they want to be treated, gender is a variable so whatever makes you feel good in yourself is good.
It's the denying reality that I get stuck with.

XX and XY to define sex isn't just a thing we came up with for humans, it's all over the animal kingdom.

Do you want to redefine that?
I don't see how that would make any logical sense as what would you use to redefine it? What constants are there that you could use as a base?

 

[p0lka]

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

haha, it does seem a bit inconsistent.
I'd have thought in that context the solution would be not to be bothered by nakedness.