Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
For example, I think that something like 95% of the prisoners claiming to be transgender right now are doing it so that either a) they get moved to a less dangerous-to-them ward or b) to gain access to victims.
Click to expand...


Based on what, exactly?

(Let me guess: based entirely on your own blinkered and biassed hunch, with not even the tiniest piece of appropriate supporting evidence. Amirite?)
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
For me, when I began talking about transgender issues on this board some 12 years ago, I didn't even know what the condition was. I thought transgender was synonymous with transexual (i.e. surgically altered).
Click to expand...


For a start, "transexual" has never meant "surgically altered", nor does it today. And I'm interested that you began "talking about transgender issues on this board" without even knowing what it was you were actually talking about. Explains a lot. You still don't seem to know what it really is yet either, and/or why appropriate (and proportionate, and with certain conditions & safeguards) rights for transgender people are important and just.



I've learned a lot since then.
Click to expand...


The above shows that you have a lot more to learn, unfortunately.
 
Earthborn said:
... or anyone else who values modesty.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

People who are ideologically opposed to transgender people being able to use changing rooms matching their gender - on the (spurious and unsupported) grounds that predatory hetero cismen might institutionally start to falsely declare themselves transwomen in order to prey on females in their changing rooms - are unable to process or explain the (equally likely, or unlikely) problem of well-built predatory gay men preying on young, slightly-built men and boys in the men's changing rooms; or the problem of "butch" gay women preying on young, slightly-built women and girls in the women's changing rooms. "Ahhhh, but that's different!" they'll claim. :rolleyes:

As you correctly point out: in a circumstance where it's either difficult or impossible to fully preserve personal modesty - eg in a gym or pool with communal changing/showering areas for women and men - there are going to be situations where people will have to see the partially- or fully-naked bodies of other people, and where people may have to at least partially expose their body to others.

When I - a hetero cisman - go to such a facility, I don't worry in the slightest about the possibility of a gay man seeing my partially-naked body (and possibly getting sexually aroused by it....). Likewise, ciswomen deal every day with the same possibility in the women's changing rooms. And that simply is the case, unless/until these sorts of facilities radically alter their changing/showering facilities to have individual lockable cubicles and individual lockable showers.

And for places with communal changing/showering facilities (which is, of course, most of them at present), there obviously needs to be a proper level of safeguarding and monitoring in place, in case (for example) a transwoman in the women's changing rooms behaves inappropriately or criminally. Or, for that matter, in case a gay man in the men's changing rooms behaves inappropriately or criminally. Or, for that matter, in case a gay woman in the women's changing rooms behaves inappropriately or criminally.
 
Olmstead said:
What exactly is the rationale for changing rooms being segregated by gender?
Click to expand...


Because it's the optimal, "least bad" option, in the absence of unisex changing facilities with individual lockable cubicles and shower stalls.

Or do you think that, for example, transmen should be made to change/shower in the women's changing rooms? Or do you think that that they should be made to use the disabled changing rooms? Or do you think that they should not be allowed to use any of the changing rooms? What would be your optimal solution?
 
d4m10n said:
This is a conversation about which policies/norms ought to be in place for the sake of trans inclusion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should clarify that you're making a hypothetical, because the events you're describing does not seem to have happened. Considering wild speculation about trans perpetrators and bathroom policies are core to this incident, it would be wise to clarify.

"Challenging" people who appear to be using toilets for their intended function sounds a lot more likely to cause harm than prevent. The data around the bathroom panic demonstrates this pretty convincingly.

Two people entering the same stall strikes me as much more suspicious than speculating about people's genitalia. Maybe they can "spot" that.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Perhaps you should clarify that you're making a hypothetical, because the events you're describing does not seem to have happened.

"Challenging" people who appear to be using toilets for their intended function sounds a lot more likely to cause harm than prevent. The data around the bathroom panic demonstrates this pretty convincingly.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

Some sections of society obviously haven't learned anything about fake moral panic. These people probably ought to watch (or re-watch) "Reefer Madness" to remind themselves about the unjustly invidious nature of this sort of phoney hyperbole.
 
LondonJohn said:
"Boys in skirts"
Click to expand...
Would you prefer the phrase gender nonconforming?

LondonJohn said:
Some sections of society obviously haven't learned anything about fake moral panic.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing girls aren't actually sexually assaulted by gender nonconforming boys who've recently been given a free pass to be in spaces hitherto reserved for females, otherwise the panic might not be fake.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Perhaps you should clarify that you're making a hypothetical, because the events you're describing does not seem to have happened.
Click to expand...
We've no way of knowing whether this particular boy was challenged or not while wearing a skirt in places where boys aren't (or weren't) generally allowed.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Because it's the optimal, "least bad" option, in the absence of unisex changing facilities with individual lockable cubicles and shower stalls.

Or do you think that, for example, transmen should be made to change/shower in the women's changing rooms? Or do you think that that they should be made to use the disabled changing rooms? Or do you think that they should not be allowed to use any of the changing rooms? What would be your optimal solution?
Click to expand...

Well, if we're not willing to make everything unisex without any alterations, we should analyse why that is, and then act accordingly.

Is it because women don't want to ses male genitals? In that case, either forbid the display of male genitals in women's changing rooms, or tell women that they are wrong and make everything unisex.

Personally I would simply make changing rooms and bathrooms unisex without any alterations, but then, I'm not a woman.
 
d4m10n said:
We've no way of knowing whether this particular boy was challenged or not while wearing a skirt in places where boys aren't (or weren't) generally allowed.
Click to expand...

Yes, anything is possible when you make up stories. What's that have to do with this case?

ETA: Back to the "trans menace of the gaps" theory. Any story of harm where the details aren't exactly known is a place where the assumption of blame for trans people or pro-trans policies is assumed.
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
I googled agenderist as I didn't know the term, cool. My opinion is '**** gender, be yourself'. **** Ideology it never helps.
This idea of labelling is not conducive to anything, just be yourself and be contented.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree. I don't think we should attach undue SIGNIFICANCE to gender or orientation labels. However, creating a name for a shared trait is a perfectly valid way to discuss it and for people to understand each other without having to describe it from scratch in every new conversation. Just for example, there is the interesting term "demisexual"--someone for whom sexual attraction does not occur outside an emotional bond. Since I've learned the word, someone can describe themselves that way in a single word instead of writing it out.

Not much different from having names for different flavors of fandom, or ideologies one advocates, or any other way in which we describe ourselves.

We need more detail when there is ambiguity, certainly, if a term is used differently by different people.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
What's that have to do with this case?
Click to expand...
You seem to be arguing that this boy oughtn't've been challenged when he entered the girls' room (prior to becoming an alleged perpetrator of sex crimes) and that schools should adopt a policy that GNC kids can use whichever room feels right to them on the day. Am I wrong to conclude this is your preferred policy outcome?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
You seem to be arguing that this boy oughtn't've been challenged when he entered the girls' room (prior to becoming an alleged perpetrator of sex crimes) and that schools should adopt a policy that GNC kids can use whichever rooms feels right to them on the day. Am I wrong to conclude this is your preferred policy outcome?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's impossible to challenge someone sneaking into a bathroom for a clandestine liaison if nobody sees them doing so.

What does trans inclusion in bathrooms have to do with this case, other than the active imaginations of those who's first assumption is to blame trans people?

Kinda seems like another trans boogieman made up out of whole cloth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom