Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Meadmaker]

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

I know you were being a bit tongue in cheek, but your solution, or variations on it, are actually common suggestions.

In other words, the solution is to tell women they shouldn't care about the things they care about.

And if you ever convince them, I'll go along.

 

[p0lka]

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.

This point could be solved by making everything unisex, everyone is informed, that is an easy solution.

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

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.

Your second point makes me think that my solution to your first point isn't as simple as I thought it was. I shall have another think.

 

[p0lka]

I know you were being a bit tongue in cheek, but your solution, or variations on it, are actually common suggestions.

In other words, the solution is to tell women they shouldn't care about the things they care about.

And if you ever convince them, I'll go along.

It wasn't directed at women, more that I think people shouldn't be offended or care about things that make no difference.

Being offended is basically allowing someone or something else to give you negative emotions, why would you give them that control?

 

[Meadmaker]

It wasn't directed at women, more that I think people shouldn't be offended or care about things that make no difference.

Being offended is basically allowing someone or something else to give you negative emotions, why would you give them that control?

It's not offended. It is anxious or nervous.

And why should that be? I have concluded that it is instinctive. It cannot be helped. There are plenty of aspects of human behavior that don't actually "make sense" as a rational, thought out, thing. Modesty, which is at the root of the anxiety, is one of those.

It has evolutionary origins, and makes sense in that context, but at this point in the evolution of human beings it is just an instinct, but instincts cannot just be erased. They are human nature.

So, I believe, people who say that we just shouldn't care about nudity are fighting human nature, and, specifically, fighting female emotions. When someone demands that a female explain herself and why she thinks that it's not ok for Darren to walk around naked, they are basically telling the female that they should ignore their humanity.

If I'm right, you will never convince the majority of females that frequent mixed sex nudity is something that ought to just be treated as no big deal. From what I have seen, cultures that have more common nudity in mixed sex situations only allow it in specific, somewhat ritualized, settings. I don't think that's coincidence.

 

[Louden Wilde]

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

As I noted earlier, people have pointed 3 basic positions:

1. Sex (male vs female) important factor;
Gender roles (stereotypes associated with those sexes) legitimate / should be reinforced

2. Sex not important (or even a social construct);
Gender roles (arising from brain only) legitimate / should be reinforced

3. Sex (male vs female) important factor;
Gender roles not legitimate/should be discouraged.

1. is typically the right wing/conservative/religious position - even in places like Iran, where it's preferable to be trans than same-sex attracted.

2. Is the trans-activist position - being pushed on the left (and increasingly adopted as official position) in the US, UK, NZ and other countries.

3. Is the feminist/gender-critical position

 

[Emily's Cat]

This point could be solved by making everything unisex, everyone is informed, that is an easy solution.

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


Your second point makes me think that my solution to your first point isn't as simple as I thought it was. I shall have another think.

Appreciated.

It wasn't directed at women, more that I think people shouldn't be offended or care about things that make no difference.

Not so much with respect to being offended as a generality... but sometimes thing that make no difference to you make a really big difference to someone else.

For an average height person, the grocery store shelves are of little import, they have no bearing on their lives. For a short person like me, the height of the shelves means I end up having to ask strangers to get things for me because I cannot reach them myself.

For average people, traffic lights being red, yellow, and green is not a problem, and has no bearing on their lives. For a color-blind person like my male parent, the fact that DoT adds extra blue to the green light so that they can tell the difference between red and green at night makes a MASSIVE difference.

Similarly, while there's lots of variation involved, it's also generally true that males have little concern about single-sex spaces, and the nudity of other people is of little concern to them. For heterosexual males, the possibility of female nudity is at the very worst a matter of some titillation. For females, even setting aside the potential of ending up serving as a titillating object against our will... there are practical concerns like menses involved as well, where having a male around when we're showering with blood running down our legs is just not all that enticing.

 

[Boudicca90]

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.

Despite SuburbanTurkey's cisgender status, he has done a good enough job representing us here that I'm willing to give him an honorary transhood, if he so desires.

 

[Boudicca90]

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?

Sex is also variable. There are configurations of chromosomes like XXY, XXX, X, XYY, and so forth. And other species use completely different non-XY sex-determining systems.

Here's a good video I watched recently explaining it: https://youtu.be/of7vrIIcTa0

Once again the platypus is a freak.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ah, so in your opinion, only ciswomen, transwomen and transmen are properly-qualified to formulate/hold/offer opinions on these sorts of matters? Anyone else is worthy of being "laughed" about?

Says it all, really. QED.

 

[p0lka]

It's not offended. It is anxious or nervous.

And why should that be? I have concluded that it is instinctive. It cannot be helped. There are plenty of aspects of human behavior that don't actually "make sense" as a rational, thought out, thing. Modesty, which is at the root of the anxiety, is one of those.

It has evolutionary origins, and makes sense in that context, but at this point in the evolution of human beings it is just an instinct, but instincts cannot just be erased. They are human nature.

So, I believe, people who say that we just shouldn't care about nudity are fighting human nature, and, specifically, fighting female emotions. When someone demands that a female explain herself and why she thinks that it's not ok for Darren to walk around naked, they are basically telling the female that they should ignore their humanity.

If I'm right, you will never convince the majority of females that frequent mixed sex nudity is something that ought to just be treated as no big deal. From what I have seen, cultures that have more common nudity in mixed sex situations only allow it in specific, somewhat ritualized, settings. I don't think that's coincidence.

I agree that a lot of emotional stuff is instinctive, which is my point. I don't agree that it cannot be helped though, which is also my point.

There are many societies, or if you will, places where people grow up with different rules about what offends or creates negative emotions in that place, not every human agrees on it.
If it was purely instinctive, with no ability to change anything, then why is there so much disagreement about what is ok or not?

 

[LondonJohn]

Similarly, while there's lots of variation involved, it's also generally true that males have little concern about single-sex spaces, and the nudity of other people is of little concern to them. For heterosexual males, the possibility of female nudity is at the very worst a matter of some titillation. For females, even setting aside the potential of ending up serving as a titillating object against our will... there are practical concerns like menses involved as well, where having a male around when we're showering with blood running down our legs is just not all that enticing.

Back to this anti-male trope again, I see.

It's really not surprising to me (by now) that you clearly consider no hetero cismen to be sufficiently a) well-informed, b) intelligent, and c) capable of competent analysis.... to be able to think with their brains rather than their penises.

Oh and once again: maybe pause and think for a moment about all the female legislators and justices who have significantly contributed to the creation and application of all these new trans-rights laws that you so despise and oppose. Do you perhaps think that some/all of these females were coerced (or worse) by their male colleagues (who, in your world, were all thinking with their penises too)? Or is it maybe just possible that they considered all the factors and all the evidence, and - together with their male colleagues - came to sensible and measured decisions?

*cue Round 7822004 of "Handwaving, dismissing and rationalisation Olympics", probably accompanied by wearily-predictable "Policy capture!" claims*

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not offended. It is anxious or nervous.

And why should that be? I have concluded that it is instinctive. It cannot be helped. There are plenty of aspects of human behavior that don't actually "make sense" as a rational, thought out, thing. Modesty, which is at the root of the anxiety, is one of those.

It has evolutionary origins, and makes sense in that context, but at this point in the evolution of human beings it is just an instinct, but instincts cannot just be erased. They are human nature.

So, I believe, people who say that we just shouldn't care about nudity are fighting human nature, and, specifically, fighting female emotions. When someone demands that a female explain herself and why she thinks that it's not ok for Darren to walk around naked, they are basically telling the female that they should ignore their humanity.

If I'm right, you will never convince the majority of females that frequent mixed sex nudity is something that ought to just be treated as no big deal. From what I have seen, cultures that have more common nudity in mixed sex situations only allow it in specific, somewhat ritualized, settings. I don't think that's coincidence.

So..... where should transwomen change/shower/etc in - say - a gym which has men's changing rooms, women's changing rooms, and a small disabled changing room?

There are only five possible options:

1) She should use the women's changing rooms
2) She should use the men's changing rooms
3) She should use the disabled changing rooms
4) She should have to turn up changed, and leave without changing/showering
5) She should not be allowed to use the gym at all.

You see a problem with (1). I invite you to examine options (2)-(5). You may perhaps figure out the issues arising from those other options (you may not though, of course).

 

[TomB]

So..... where should transwomen change/shower/etc in - say - a gym which has men's changing rooms, women's changing rooms, and a small disabled changing room?

There are only five possible options:

1) She should use the women's changing rooms
2) She should use the men's changing rooms
3) She should use the disabled changing rooms
4) She should have to turn up changed, and leave without changing/showering
5) She should not be allowed to use the gym at all.

You see a problem with (1). I invite you to examine options (2)-(5). You may perhaps figure out the issues arising from those other options (you may not though, of course).

There are problems with all five options you present. Which is an indicator that our current infrastructure is not designed in a way that can address the problem in a satisfactory manner.

Which leads me to the idea that instead of trying to fit square pegs into round holes we should be looking, in the long term, towards a new infrastructure that does address the issues. Yes, we have to make due in the short term, but regardless , each of those options (or some variant thereof) is only a stopgap.

 

[Graham2001]

FWIW, the Chinese seem to be reverting to 'older ideas' about gender/sex, but then as BIPOC they have the right to do it...

BEIJING — China's government banned effeminate men on TV and told broadcasters Thursday to promote "revolutionary culture," broadening a campaign to tighten control over business and society and enforce official morality.

President Xi Jinping has called for a "national rejuvenation," with tighter Communist Party control of business, education, culture and religion. Companies and the public are under increasing pressure to align with its vision for a more powerful China and healthier society.

The party has reduced children's access to online games and is trying to discourage what it sees as unhealthy attention to celebrities.

Broadcasters must "resolutely put an end to sissy men and other abnormal esthetics," the TV regulator said, using an insulting slang term for effeminate men — niang pao, or literally, "girlie guns."

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effeminate-men-tv-official-morality

 

[p0lka]

Sex is also variable. There are configurations of chromosomes like XXY, XXX, X, XYY, and so forth. And other species use completely different non-XY sex-determining systems.

Here's a good video I watched recently explaining it: https://youtu.be/of7vrIIcTa0

Once again the platypus is a freak.

Thanks for the vid, I enjoyed watching it.
It doesn't really say sex is a variable though?

It talks about the different ways various things have evolved a difference between male and female over time, life has a lot of variety.

But at each point the difference is a physical thing in that particular lifeform.

Temperature, for instance can influence sex in reptiles I think? But the fact that it can influence sex means there's a difference to be influenced.

Anyway, we are mammals so reptiles aren't that relevant.

platypus are freaks,
and that other thing called a kidney? enchilada? something like that?

give you nightmares.

 

[d4m10n]

So..... where should transwomen change/shower/etc in - say - a gym which has men's changing rooms, women's changing rooms, and a small disabled changing room?



There are only five possible options:



1) She should use the women's changing rooms

2) She should use the men's changing rooms

3) She should use the disabled changing rooms

4) She should have to turn up changed, and leave without changing/showering

5) She should not be allowed to use the gym at all.

Personally, I use the single-person unisex changing room. Why is that not the preferred solution here?

 

[p0lka]

Personally, I use the single-person unisex changing room. Why is that not the preferred solution here?

offtopic

/me puts on conspiracy hat
Think how much money companies could save by convincing everyone they don't need partitions in their changing areas, hmm.

/me removes conspiracy hat.

 

[p0lka]

As I noted earlier, people have pointed 3 basic positions:

1. Sex (male vs female) important factor;
Gender roles (stereotypes associated with those sexes) legitimate / should be reinforced

2. Sex not important (or even a social construct);
Gender roles (arising from brain only) legitimate / should be reinforced

3. Sex (male vs female) important factor;
Gender roles not legitimate/should be discouraged.

1. is typically the right wing/conservative/religious position - even in places like Iran, where it's preferable to be trans than same-sex attracted.

2. Is the trans-activist position - being pushed on the left (and increasingly adopted as official position) in the US, UK, NZ and other countries.

3. Is the feminist/gender-critical position

The list seems to miss certain positions. Is there a middle position between 'should be reinforced' and 'should be discouraged'?

 

[Meadmaker]

So..... where should transwomen change/shower/etc in - say - a gym which has men's changing rooms, women's changing rooms, and a small disabled changing room?

There are only five possible options:

1) She should use the women's changing rooms
2) She should use the men's changing rooms
3) She should use the disabled changing rooms
4) She should have to turn up changed, and leave without changing/showering
5) She should not be allowed to use the gym at all.

You see a problem with (1). I invite you to examine options (2)-(5). You may perhaps figure out the issues arising from those other options (you may not though, of course).

Asked and answered, but the thread has gone on so long it's quite understandable you don't remember.

3

 

[Meadmaker]

I agree that a lot of emotional stuff is instinctive, which is my point. I don't agree that it cannot be helped though, which is also my point.

There are many societies, or if you will, places where people grow up with different rules about what offends or creates negative emotions in that place, not every human agrees on it.
If it was purely instinctive, with no ability to change anything, then why is there so much disagreement about what is ok or not?

It's all shaped by culture, but as best I can tell, from what I've read, in every culture people wear clothes, and wearing fewer clothes than expected, especially being naked, is considered a signal of sexuality.