Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[sphenisc]

I find that line of argument more logically compelling than the "danger=men" one.

I don't. The presence of three-year-old males in women's changing rooms contradicts the privacy argument.

 

[Distracted1]

I don't. The presence of three-year-old males in women's changing rooms contradicts the privacy argument.

Are women known to widely feel that the presence of a three year old boy accompanied by his Mother to be an invasion of their privacy?
Does that three year old boy have another option for where to pee? (assuming that a male escort is unavailable)

 

[Rolfe]

I replied to theprestiges statement

and flipped some terms.
Male female? easy flip,
testes lips, yeah they're both outside, easy flip,
"producing sperm" oh that's biological stuff, I'll pick lubrication/drip.

At no point was it sexual, I was thinking about body ooze. That might be on you.

By this time I have no idea what you were thinking. I initially speculated urinary incontinence, or simply dripping shower water. "Lubrication" in the female, to the extent it would ever drip from the vulva, is absolutely undoubtedly beyond question a feature of extreme sexual arousal.

I am beyond tired of this constant attempt to "flip", to try to argue as if typical male and typical female behaviour are interchangeable, and this time actually trying to argue that the externalised genitalia of the male are somehow no different to the almost entirely internal genitalia of the female,

This is NOT a symmetrical problem. The issue impacts males and females in different ways. Specious, contrived "flips" do more to tell us the poster in question has minimal understanding of women and their behavior than anything else.

 

[Rolfe]

Are women known to widely feel that the presence of a three year old boy accompanied by his Mother to be an invasion of their privacy?
Does that three year old boy have another option for where to pee? (assuming that a male escort is unavailable)

Women are not in the slightest bit concerned by the presence of a three-year-old boy, even a naked one. They will probably coo-chee-coo a bit and maybe offer to look after the kid while the mother goes in to pee.

The age it starts to get creepy is about the age boys start to get interested in looking at female bodies as something other than a source of milk or cuddles. That tends to be a bit before puberty but certainly not as young as three. (I seem to remember the cut-off age was eight, in the swimming pool changing room when I was a kid.)

 

[p0lka]

By this time I have no idea what you were thinking. I initially speculated urinary incontinence, or simply dripping shower water. "Lubrication" in the female, to the extent it would ever drip from the vulva, is absolutely undoubtedly beyond question a feature of extreme sexual arousal.

I've already explained it, I equated 'producing sperm' with a female equivalent then swapped it, it was nothing to do with sexual arousal, more what comes out of us all.

Edit:
Meadmakers post and the rest of your post clarified some things thx. There's like an implicit bias, it's justified but margin is too narrow to contain n all that.

 

[Rolfe]

"Lubrication" doesn't drip out of females unless they are aroused. I have no idea what drips out of you.

You know, if your analogy breaks down that comprehensively, maybe give it up?

 

[theprestige]

I've already explained it, I equated 'producing sperm' with a female equivalent then swapped it

The female equivalent of 'producing sperm' is 'producing eggs'. Not 'dripping from the labia'.

 

[p0lka]

The female equivalent of 'producing sperm' is 'producing eggs'. Not 'dripping from the labia'.

I know how it works but you said

Male genitals are easy to see. The testes are out there in the open, producing sperm in front of god and everybody

which was implying an external thing, so if we are not sticking to real biology I went for an external thing too.

 

[Distracted1]

The female equivalent of 'producing sperm' is 'producing eggs'. Not 'dripping from the labia'.

This is a truly entertaining derail.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's the thing I was trying to emphasize. Some people in this thread have said there's no issue, because sexual assaults did not increase in a statistically significant manner as "bathroom policies" were liberalized. I object to that analysis.

Several years ago, when I was introduced to the topic, I gave it some thought and decided that as long as teenage girls objected to taking off their clothes in the presence of transgirls, I would side with them. I still feel that way. I have been convinced that the risk of assault is not as extreme as I thought it would be. I have been convinced that there are fewer peepting Toms than I expected who would pretend to be transwomen for voyeuristic purposes.

However, I have also been convinced that those things do happen, if rarely, but moreover, even if they didn't happen in numbers that could be measured, it wouldn't matter to me. I have been convinced that "modesty" is a real thing, and it should be respected.

As for the contrast between that feeling of modesty around the opposite sex as it applies to men versus women, and so to the question of transmen in the men's locker room, I would stick to the same position. If the teenage boys object to transgirls in their private spaces, I'll support them. I just don't think the objections would be as loud.

This whole detour through quantifying how external male vs female sex organs are was baffling to me.

Obviously modesty is the driving factor.

I would again point out that comfort in sex-segregated spaces is not some law of nature. School children routinely express an unambiguous preference for personal privacy vs sex-segregated privacy. Students refuse to use sex-segregated spaces unless compelled to, as the examples of unused shower rooms in schools show.

I likewise agree that protecting modesty concerns is a valid social goal. Generally speaking, we should be respectful of people's bodily autonomy. People ought to have full veto power over who gets to see them naked, which is not something achieved by assuming sex-segregated communal spaces are good enough. Personal privacy remains the gold standard.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Some surprising candor from one of the bigots supporting an anti-trans bill in Idaho:

Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, said, “I see this conversation as an extension of the pro-life argument. ... We are not talking about the life of the child, but we are talking about the potential to give life to another generation. So in that sense, there is a nexus on this issue. I don’t see it as a contradiction.”

https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/house-passes-anti-trans-youth-treatment-bill/article_ebb0623c-6df9-5a94-8beb-16d5c7688834.html

Sentiments like this are probably why TERFism hasn't really caught on here in the US. It's pretty obvious that the attitudes backing anti-trans legislation in the US do not bode well for anyone who feels like they have the right to control their own bodies rather than being merely vehicles for procreation like these fundie freaks believe. Anyone with any sincerely held feminist or secular values can smell the rat.

 

[Rolfe]

Guilt by association, now? Any more fallacies you still haven't tried?

 

[Emily's Cat]

At no point was it sexual, I was thinking about body ooze.

I'm circling back to my "have you ever actually interacted with a female?" position.

Seriously - are you somehow under the impression that vulvas "ooze"? If we're menstruating, there's some perhaps... but outside of that if a female's vulva or vaginal canal is oozing, they have a medical condition and need to see a doctor.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does that not also apply then to elevators, conference rooms, stairwells, taxicabs, libraries, and alleyways ?

Marginally, yes. But the effect is massively diminished when everyone is clothed.

If anyone is naked in an elevator, conference room, stairwell, library, or alleyway, there's already a serious problem regardless of sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't. The presence of three-year-old males in women's changing rooms contradicts the privacy argument.

Because three year old males are so well known for their voyeuristic behavior and being sexually titillated by the sight of naked females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is NOT a symmetrical problem. The issue impacts males and females in different ways. Specious, contrived "flips" do more to tell us the poster in question has minimal understanding of women and their behavior than anything else.

Or even fairly straightforward anatomy and biology.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I know how it works but you said

Clearly.

which was implying an external thing, so if we are not sticking to real biology I went for an external thing too.

So you went from what actually happens - sperm being produced by the body in testes, which are in scrotum, which are visible on naked males - to something that doesn't happen in some effort at a gotcha?

FFS, why not just go full steam ahead and "flip" a male with a visible erection to a female with "erect labia" or some other nonsense that demonstrates your ignorance of the female body?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is a truly entertaining derail.

It's both entertaining and a bit sad. I've ended up in several discussions about female anatomy and function over the last few months... and I'm constantly amazed by the number of males who seem to know nothing at all about it. It's been... disturbing. I've seen comments ranging from the idea that females produce ova in their uterus to the idea that menstrual blood exits the body through the urethra to the idea that gender dysphoric males taking estrogen have periods for really reals.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Guilt by association, now? Any more fallacies you still haven't tried?

Not really. This is Suburban Turkey's go-to. They really don't have anything more compelling than the threat of smearing people (particularly females) with a label, as if that sort of shaming and bullying would cow us into backing down and submissively relinquishing our rights and dignity.

I'm rather enamored of Birdy Rose's newest design...

 

[Meadmaker]

This whole detour through quantifying how external male vs female sex organs are was baffling to me.

Obviously modesty is the driving factor.

I would again point out that comfort in sex-segregated spaces is not some law of nature. School children routinely express an unambiguous preference for personal privacy vs sex-segregated privacy. Students refuse to use sex-segregated spaces unless compelled to, as the examples of unused shower rooms in schools show.

I likewise agree that protecting modesty concerns is a valid social goal. Generally speaking, we should be respectful of people's bodily autonomy. People ought to have full veto power over who gets to see them naked, which is not something achieved by assuming sex-segregated communal spaces are good enough. Personal privacy remains the gold standard.

It still seems like a bit of a dodge to me. Let's avoid the question of who gets access to which sex-segregated spaces by saying that there shouldn't be sex segregated spaces.