Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[TurkeysGhost]

It already is obvious. It's just that whenever the cases of male prisoners who self-declare as "women" being placed in female prisons and proceeding to rape and assault the female prisoners... you handwave it away and dismiss it as "anecdote".

You keep pretending that nothing at all is going wrong, and you do that by willfully ignoring any evidence that counters your belief.... while simultaneously denigrating and insulting those who provide the information as well as the victims.

I'm going to feel awfully sheepish once someone finally produces the data revealing what an awful position I've supported. Won't I look the fool.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I'm going to feel awfully sheepish once someone finally produces the data revealing what an awful position I've supported. Won't I look the fool.

There never will be any "data" to be produced to refute your position, as your position was never based on "data" to begin with.

If you don't care about policies that will destroy female spaces, ignore actual physical biology, and eradicate female institutions they spent years trying to get , that's fine.

Just don't pretend it has anything to do with "right" or "wrong," you just don't give a **** about women, period. Own the sentiment, and move on.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm going to feel awfully sheepish once someone finally produces the data revealing what an awful position I've supported. Won't I look the fool.

By "data" what you are referring to, based on past writings, is statistics.

So as long as the number of trans people is statistically insignificant, the problems will never show up in the statistics.

So Darren Merager made a handful of women uncomfortable? Who cares? There's no statistical significance. Hannah Tubbs groped a 10 year old girl? I can't find that in the statistics. Selina Soule is a person, but statistically, she doesn't exist.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, seems like the perfect opportunity for the self-ID doomsayers to test their theory. There's a whole country going off the deep end, if you believe their side of things. Surely it will be obvious soon, right?

If the CBA lobbying succeeds, I'd expect forcible penile-vaginal intercourse to go up quite a bit in the relevant institutions.

Do you expect it to remain the same?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

By "data" what you are referring to, based on past writings, is statistics.

So as long as the number of trans people is statistically insignificant, the problems will never show up in the statistics.

So Darren Merager made a handful of women uncomfortable? Who cares? There's no statistical significance. Hannah Tubbs groped a 10 year old girl? I can't find that in the statistics. Selina Soule is a person, but statistically, she doesn't exist.

You mention Merager, a person who was committing very similar crimes before the law was enacted. It's almost as if the law itself had very little impact on that criminal decision making process.

I have not denied that trans people commit crimes. You will have no trouble finding example of such crimes from time to time. I am simply asking, again and again, for the bathroom warriors to demonstrate their claim that changing this policy would increase such crimes. I suspect the anti-trans bathroom freakout side will have all kinds of excuses for why they continue to be unable to do so.

The harm done to trans people by these discriminatory laws is very measurable, despite their small numbers.

 

[Ziggurat]

The harm done to trans people by these discriminatory laws is very measurable, despite their small numbers.

No, actually it isn’t. The stats on harm to the trans community that have been presented have all been generalized (things like suicide rates, assault rates, etc.) and cannot be attributed specifically to bathroom and locker room laws.

 

[d4m10n]

I am simply asking, again and again, for the bathroom warriors to demonstrate their claim that changing this policy would increase such crimes.

Decriminalization of presenting one's genitals to the opposite sex in changing rooms and spas would predictably decrease the incidence rate of indecent exposure, since people are now assumed to have constructively consented to seeing individuals of both sexes in the nude in such settings.

The number of exposures would go up (since there is no longer any legal or social disincentive) but the number of crimes would not.

 

[Distracted1]

And once more you reinforce that you think females are undeserving of basic human rights, dignity, and safety.

You are arguing that human rights include a "right to exclude". I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, but I am aware that the last century has seen many notable defeats of "right to exclude" assertions (and rightly so). That history taints the argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are arguing that human rights include a "right to exclude". I am not necessarily disagreeing with that, but I am aware that the last century has seen many notable defeats of "right to exclude" assertions (and rightly so). That history taints the argument.

I disagree. Sex is fundamentally different from all those other categories. So much so that trans activists aren't even arguing for the abolishment of the right to exclude. There is no push to allow cismen into women-only space. So the right to exclude isn't actually being challenged. It's being dishonestly undermined instead.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay... (and this is 100% serious) this might actually be a vein we could hit here.

Step back from this exact example as best we can.

Is the question being asked "Who gets to define a 'safe space?' Is it the people inside, the overall society, or both?"

 

[digger]

I don't care and I definitely don't want to know when or where you go to the bathroom. Holy ****.

Unisex public bathrooms with stalls you can't see through. Problem solved.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't care and I definitely don't want to know when or where you go to the bathroom. Holy ****.

Unisex public bathrooms with stalls you can't see through. Problem solved.

That solution was rejected for... reasons about 7 thread continuations ago.

 

[Distracted1]

I disagree. Sex is fundamentally different from all those other categories. So much so that trans activists aren't even arguing for the abolishment of the right to exclude. There is no push to allow cismen into women-only space. So the right to exclude isn't actually being challenged. It's being dishonestly undermined instead.

All what other categories?
Exclusion based on sex has gone down to defeat time and time again over the past hundred years, largely to the sound of applause.
I am not asserting that sex-segregated bathrooms should be next, just pointing out that retaining them that way is bucking the trend.

 

[Ziggurat]

All what other categories?

Race, religion, nationality, etc.

Exclusion based on sex has gone down to defeat time and time again over the past hundred years, largely to the sound of applause.
I am not asserting that sex-segregated bathrooms should be next, just pointing out that retaining them that way is bucking the trend.

Again, there's a fundamental difference. Even leaving aside the justification for such segregation, that's apparent just from the fact that the group which WANTS that segregation is the one which has in every other case been the one trying to break down sex segregation. So no, I don't think it's bucking the trend. I think it's not part of the trend at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again this entire argument isn't about inclusion and it is horribly dishonest to pretend it is.

It's about one group demanding the exclusion remain (hell even that it be strengthened) but that they be granted an exception to it.

And before anyone says it "Well yeah but that kind of exclusion is just obvious" isn't an answer.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay... (and this is 100% serious) this might actually be a vein we could hit here.

Step back from this exact example as best we can.

Is the question being asked "Who gets to define a 'safe space?' Is it the people inside, the overall society, or both?"

Interesting way of putting the question. I'll take a stab at it.

Because we are talking about law and policy, I think the answer has to be the overall society. In making the definition, though, society, through its policy making representatives, should pay most attention to the people who are requesting the safe space. (I think those people are "the people on the inside" in your question.) The policy makers must evaluate whether the desire for the safe space is actually worthy of concern, and whether the proposed policy will actually create the safety that is desired, and whether the proposed solution will have other negative effects that make it unaccpetable.

To illustrate, if a person says he needs a safe space where no tall people are allowed, because tall people intimidate him, society would probably tell him that his fears are unreasonable, and say that his desire for a safe space is not worthy of concern. If the proposal is to outlaw the use of the safe space by basketball players, society would decide that the proposal did not address the real problem. If the proposal was to remove the legs of anyone measuring over six feet two inches, society would decide that it had negative effects.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay... (and this is 100% serious) this might actually be a vein we could hit here.

Step back from this exact example as best we can.

Is the question being asked "Who gets to define a 'safe space?' Is it the people inside, the overall society, or both?"

It's probably a mix, depending on what sort of space it is.

For example, if the space is privately controlled by a private group with already exclusive membership, society at large should have much less say than if it's part of a commercial space otherwise open to the general public.

 

[d4m10n]

Exclusion based on sex has gone down to defeat time and time again over the past hundred years, largely to the sound of applause.

The rise of women's sport in the U.S. largely took place after the passage of Title IX^WP, leading to all manner of sex-segregated spaces and leagues.

 

[pgwenthold]

Here's my question

Which bathroom should these people use? Men's room or ladies room?

And which people should these people use? Men's room or ladies room?

Is the argument really that women are uncomfortable with those in the top picture in the ladies' room, but not with those in the bottom picture?

Consider the transwomen in the top picture. Who is at bigger risk? The cis women in the ladies' room when they come in? Or the transwoman who goes into the men's room?

 

[Distracted1]

Again this entire argument isn't about inclusion and it is horribly dishonest to pretend it is.

It's about one group demanding the exclusion remain (hell even that it be strengthened) but that they be granted an exception to it.

And before anyone says it "Well yeah but that kind of exclusion is just obvious" isn't an answer.

It is all about inclusion.
A group that has never been included in the category of "women" before is pressing for inclusion into that group.

The preponderance (assumed) of that group is pushing back, essentially exhorting that they have a "right" to exclude.

I am not convinced that anyone has a "right" to a private space in a public area, however, I am also not convinced that anyone has a "right" to use any public space they wish either.