Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TurkeysGhost]

I fail to see why the harm would depend on gender identity, when the events that transpired would be identical in both cases.

I understand why there would be a difference legally.

EDIT: DUPE

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I fail to see why the harm would depend on gender identity, when the events that transpired would be identical in both cases.

I understand why there would be a difference legally.

Much of criminal law hinges on intent, and I would same the same of harm as well.

 

[Matthew Best]

Much of criminal law hinges on intent, and I would same the same of harm as well.

You might same the same, but I would never same the same. I guess we are not the same.

 

[Olmstead]

Much of criminal law hinges on intent, and I would same the same of harm as well.

I wouldn't. There's a legal difference between getting hit by a drunk driver or a driver having a heart attack, but the harm to the pedestrian would be exactly the same. The same would apply to a lack of harm.

 

[TomB]

Yeah, that sounds about right. Assuming Merager is actually a transwoman and didn't engage in any lewd conduct, I don't see a harm and certainly not a crime.

What if that one variable were changed? In other words, assume that Merager is not actually a transwoman and didn't engage in any lewd conduct. Would there be harm then?

How is harm, as opposed to crime, related to gender?

Edit: I see Olmstead asked the same thing. But I'll leave this as ST did not actually answer the question.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What if that one variable were changed? In other words, assume that Merager is not actually a transwoman and didn't engage in any lewd conduct. Would there be harm then?

How is harm, as opposed to crime, related to gender?

Edit: I see Olmstead asked the same thing. But I'll leave this as ST did not actually answer the question.

For indecent exposure, one would have to argue there was a certain expectation of privacy regarding nudity that was breached. If the legally codified expectation is that only women (including trans women) would be using a certain space, violating that social barrier would be a breach of privacy, which is a harm.

If Merager was not breaching that privacy, because she is actually a transwoman as claimed, then there is no harm that I can find.

If the alleged victims in this case were expecting a level of privacy not promised by state laws or the establishment they were visiting, I don't see how that's anyone but their problem. Using a communal changing room means people, including trans people, will also be there naked.

If these people were unaware of the law and that transwomen might be using the women's room, I am sympathetic to their shock, but a misunderstanding on their part does not make Merager a criminal or in the wrong. If Merager was engaged in lewd behavior, or is lying about being a trans woman, that's a breach of privacy that is both unethical and criminal.

 

[Ziggurat]

For indecent exposure, one would have to argue there was a certain expectation of privacy regarding nudity that was breached. If the legally codified expectation is that only women (including trans women) would be using a certain space, violating that social barrier would be a breach of privacy, which is a harm.

If Merager was not breaching that privacy, because she is actually a transwoman as claimed, then there is no harm that I can find.

This is nonsense.

What you're essentially arguing, but perhaps don't even understand that you're arguing it, is that the prohibition on men in a women-only space is malum in prohibitum (bad because it's against the rules) and not malum in se (bad in and of itself).

Why do I say that? Because you're claiming that the harm done depends on factors that the women involve are not even aware of. They did not know whether Merager was "authentically" trans (whatever that even means, no standard of evaluation has ever been provided). Yet, according to you, whether or not they were harmed depends on that. So how can harm be done if the people who are harmed cannot even know whether or not they were harmed? That only makes even a little bit of sense if we use a very strange definition of harm, one which equates violations of malum in prohibitum law as harm. Which I suppose gets you to your contention that intent matters to harm, but it's really quite perverse, because such a definition basically says that if something isn't prohibited, it is therefore not harmful. And that is, quite frankly, a deeply immoral position to hold.

It doesn't actually seem like you've thought through your position in any depth. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have. That would be even worse.

 

[theprestige]

For indecent exposure, one would have to argue there was a certain expectation of privacy that was breached.

I don't see why. Indecent exposure is often public exposure, where there isn't an expectation of privacy. Public civility depends a lot on people keeping to themselves stuff that the general public doesn't want to see or be involved in. Your sex life, for example. Or your genitals. Or your spats with family members. Or you bowel movements, drug habits, etc.

"No expectation of privacy" does not equate to "so there's nothing wrong with flashing your junk to an audience that didn't expect or want your junk flashed at them".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't see why. Indecent exposure is often public exposure, where there isn't an expectation of privacy. Public civility depends a lot on people keeping to themselves stuff that the general public doesn't want to see or be involved in. Your sex life, for example. Or your genitals. Or your spats with family members. Or you bowel movements, drug habits, etc.

"No expectation of privacy" does not equate to "so there's nothing wrong with flashing your junk to an audience that didn't expect or want your junk flashed at them".

Perhaps I expressed this poorly. I mean to say, there's a general expectation of nudity in these places, so it's a bit odd to take offense to nudity. This is well understood, as people generally do not get arrested for stripping down in a locker room, while they would if they did the same on a street corner.

Let's do a thought experiment. Assume Merager is a trans woman, with official documents by the state and all. State law dictates that she may use the women's locker room. The policy of the spa is that trans women may use the women's facilities.

Is it a harm if she does so and others see her using it in the normal capacity? Anyone familiar with the law knows that, by walking into a communal locker room, they are signing up for perhaps seeing a trans person naked.

This establishment runs communal, naked spaces. Seeing other people naked is what you're explicitly agreeing to when you enter.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is nonsense.

What you're essentially arguing, but perhaps don't even understand that you're arguing it, is that the prohibition on men in a women-only space is malum in prohibitum (bad because it's against the rules) and not malum in se (bad in and of itself).

Why do I say that? Because you're claiming that the harm done depends on factors that the women involve are not even aware of. They did not know whether Merager was "authentically" trans (whatever that even means, no standard of evaluation has ever been provided). Yet, according to you, whether or not they were harmed depends on that. So how can harm be done if the people who are harmed cannot even know whether or not they were harmed? That only makes even a little bit of sense if we use a very strange definition of harm, one which equates violations of malum in prohibitum law as harm. Which I suppose gets you to your contention that intent matters to harm, but it's really quite perverse, because such a definition basically says that if something isn't prohibited, it is therefore not harmful. And that is, quite frankly, a deeply immoral position to hold.

It doesn't actually seem like you've thought through your position in any depth. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have. That would be even worse.

Yes, I'm arguing that seeing a trans woman naked in a place where they are explicitly allowed to be naked is not a harm. People who don't want to be seen naked or see other naked people should not agree to enter places where this occurs.

If the people in this case were unaware that is what they were agreeing to, I'm sympathetic, but their ignorance is not anyone else's fault.

On the same level, if Merager was breaking the communal agreement by lying about their gender, that's a breach of order. How anyone using the locker room would know is a good question, but I would presume erratic behavior would be something that arises suspicion.

 

[The Atheist]

What, positively, is a gender identity? Can you give the name of a gender or two and also state what the labels represent?

Start at LGBTQIA+_^P etc, and when you run out of letters, just do what the weather people do when they have more hurricanes than letters - make up some new ones.

I demand equal opportunity for people who identify as other species!

The real question is why ST is plying his trade here, instead of finding some properly soft-brained audience, who will be swayed by his charms and advance his cause.

Courage.

Only the feeble-minded go to echo-chambers of their views. The True Keyboard Warrior goes to the darkest corners of homo/trans/genderistphobic audience to hammer lesser minds with their awesomeness, ultimately swaying everyone with their tenacity.

(Plus, it's great for being to abuse the **** out of a group of people without sanction)

And, are we sure ST is a "he", or you assuming pronouns here?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The real question is why ST is plying his trade here, instead of finding some properly soft-brained audience, who will be swayed by his charms and advance his cause.

I assume some are persuadable. For example, I think some might find it instructive that one of the BBC's purveyors of anti-trans panic mongering would immediately turn around and reveal herself to be a homicidal bigot.

I don't think anyone should think too deeply why anyone here spends much time on a dying forum. Seems rude to point out our shared brain-worms.

 

[The Atheist]

I assume some are persuadable.

That's true!

You and Boudicca have persuaded me to see trans activism in the 21st century for what it actually is - thinly disguised misogyny.

A plan so cunning it's worthy of Baldrick. Imagine if you guys had been around a century ago, those bitches would still have no vote, husbands could rape - and physically punish - their wives and there wouldn't be any women in management.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's true!

You and Boudicca have persuaded me to see trans activism in the 21st century for what it actually is - thinly disguised misogyny.

A plan so cunning it's worthy of Baldrick. Imagine if you guys had been around a century ago, those bitches would still have no vote, husbands could rape - and physically punish - their wives and there wouldn't be any women in management.

that's a shame, I assume you were just so close to being an ally

 

[Cain]

Now, in one of the last exchanges with you, I discussed ways of lessening anxiety and overcoming the natural (in my opinion) unease associated with taking off clothes in the presence of the opposite sex, and specifically the natural fear that women may have with male nudity in situations where they are vulnerable.

I don't have complete answers, but I think the starting point has to be some sort of legal sex change, so that at the least, a male bodied person in a female space could demonstrate that the person is recognized as a woman in society. However, getting that legal recognition should not be as simple as declaring a desire. There has to be criteria established to prevent the scenario where someone is just kind of experimenting with sexuality and might like to say he's a woman for now.

I don't know what those criteria need to be. In my opinion, it shouldn't be available to anyone capable of functioning sexually as their birth sex. i.e. if you can get an erection, you would have to remain, legally, a man.

The particulars are not all that important for the purposes of this conversation. The point I am making is that women could probably overcome that natural anxiety if there was a process trans people could go through to "prove" that they are "really" women, despite appearances.

This seems like a common enough position. I don't think laws are especially more oppressive when they codify norms. There are good reasons to believe that a person exposing their penis in the female section of a spa is not authentically trans. Gender dysphoric people often report "hating" facets of their previous identity -- their voice, their name, their body.

A person who is comfortable enough to show their penis to women, and still think of themselves as a woman, possesses a black belt in self-confidence (or delusion). A far more understandable reaction would involve reading the terror on the faces of women in the room before storming away in tears.

This "they-feel-it-so-they're-trans" could just be part of the natural cycle of an oppressed minority group. I've heard Native Americans were proud to say so-and-so celebrity is Native because they have as much Cherokee blood as a Senator from Massachusetts, but that quickly changes when there's casino money at stake. I would just assume in the long run that trans people will lead the charge in feeling offended by sympathy-sponging trans fakers.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, I'm arguing that seeing a trans woman naked in a place where they are explicitly allowed to be naked is not a harm. People who don't want to be seen naked or see other naked people should not agree to enter places where this occurs.

If the people in this case were unaware that is what they were agreeing to, I'm sympathetic, but their ignorance is not anyone else's fault.

On the same level, if Merager was breaking the communal agreement by lying about their gender, that's a breach of order. How anyone using the locker room would know is a good question, but I would presume erratic behavior would be something that arises suspicion.

All very logical.

I would amend somewhat. They suffered harm, but that harm was brought upon them by their own ignorance of the law. They were unaware that the law had created a situation where the harm could occur. Had they understood the law, they could have avoided the harm by not frequenting the location where the communal nudity occurs.

(The implications of that law and the means of avoiding harm are left as an exercise for the reader.)

 

[TomB]

For indecent exposure, one would have to argue there was a certain expectation of privacy regarding nudity that was breached. If the legally codified expectation is that only women (including trans women) would be using a certain space, violating that social barrier would be a breach of privacy, which is a harm.

If Merager was not breaching that privacy, because she is actually a transwoman as claimed, then there is no harm that I can find.

If the alleged victims in this case were expecting a level of privacy not promised by state laws or the establishment they were visiting, I don't see how that's anyone but their problem. Using a communal changing room means people, including trans people, will also be there naked.

If these people were unaware of the law and that transwomen might be using the women's room, I am sympathetic to their shock, but a misunderstanding on their part does not make Merager a criminal or in the wrong. If Merager was engaged in lewd behavior, or is lying about being a trans woman, that's a breach of privacy that is both unethical and criminal.

You are still not answering the question that was asked. It has nothing to do with what is legal or illegal or what policy was or was not. If I call my wife a bitch, it's harmful, but it is not illegal. Legal/illegal and harmful/non-harmful are two different questions. Something you should know very well as it's the basis of a lot of your positions: You want to change laws to prohibiting trans-women from female facilities because you feel it's harmful. But such prohibition is not currently illegal in many places.

So, leaving legal matters aside because they are not relevant....

1. Is it harmful to women/girls for a man to be naked in a women's space?
2. Is it harmful to women/girls for a male appearing trans-woman to be naked in a women's space?
3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are different, why are they different?
4. If the answers to 1 and 2 are both "no," then isn't that really an argument that there is no need for segregated space rather than an argument to change the segregation criteria?

 

[Meadmaker]

Something you should know very well as it's the basis of a lot of your positions: You want to change laws to prohibiting trans-women from female facilities because you feel it's harmful.

That's a very good point.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You are still not answering the question that was asked. It has nothing to do with what is legal or illegal or what policy was or was not. If I call my wife a bitch, it's harmful, but it is not illegal. Legal/illegal and harmful/non-harmful are two different questions. Something you should know very well as it's the basis of a lot of your positions: You want to change laws to prohibiting trans-women from female facilities because you feel it's harmful. But such prohibition is not currently illegal in many places.

So, leaving legal matters aside because they are not relevant....

1. Is it harmful to women/girls for a man to be naked in a women's space?
2. Is it harmful to women/girls for a male appearing trans-woman to be naked in a women's space?
3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are different, why are they different?
4. If the answers to 1 and 2 are both "no," then isn't that really an argument that there is no need for segregated space rather than an argument to change the segregation criteria?

Breaching a common understanding is non-trivial to the harm. People enter these spaces under certain conditions they expect to be honored, and if they discover that isn't the case, that deception or breach is a serious cause of harm. Considering the harm being debated here is 100% mental, the conditions in which people consented to enter these spaces and become naked are not only relevant, they are pivotal.

So to your questions, the answer is it depends on what the common agreement is. In this case, the explicit policy and law is makes the conditions of entry quite clear.

 

[TomB]

Breaching a common understanding is non-trivial to the harm. People enter these spaces under certain conditions they expect to be honored, and if they discover that isn't the case, that deception or breach is a serious cause of harm. Considering the harm being debated here is 100% mental, the conditions in which people consented to enter these spaces and become naked are not only relevant, they are pivotal.

So to your questions, the answer is it depends on what the common agreement is. In this case, the explicit policy and law is makes the conditions of entry quite clear.

No. It doesn't.

You still are not answering the questions that are asked. Policy and law are irrelevant to the questions. Policy/laws are made for the prevention of harm. Murder is illegal because it harms people. Murder does not harm people because it's illegal. Murder would not become less harmful if it were legalized.

Now, I'm not saying that the existence of harm necessitates a law. Sometimes a law that prevents harm to one person could cause harm to another. So it can be complicated.

To be clear, if you say that the presence of naked males of either gender in female spaces could be harmful, I don't take that as concession that such should never be allowed. That's not my position either.

Edit: I will give you, however, that if the "agreement" were clearly and explicitly stated (did you read the EULA?) such harm is self-imposed. However, the laws you cite arguably cause harm in making people choose between harm and access to services.