• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
There were a lot of men only spaces that went this way. And honestly lavatories, are they really men only? At pretty much every place I've been to where there was a big queue for the ladies toilets, they just use the gents. Those signs on the door are much more to warn women that there may be a bunch of smelly guys in there with their junk out rather than to protect the guys. Are male prisons men only for the benefit of the men incarcerated there, or the women who aren't? Every male space that there has been any kind of demand from women to be given access to, they have been given access to and men have been told to suck it up because it's current year.

Every time women have asked for access to male spaces the answer has been "OK, we will completely abolish your [male]-only space then, that's the perfect outcome."

For myself, I'm for the existence of male only spaces and female only spaces. Having women around changes the dynamic, just as having men around does.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, it's a two-way street. But to imply that single-sex male spaces have been abolished in a way that single-sex female spaces have not is misleading.
 
shuttlt said:
One observation about unisex bathrooms and changing facilities. I worked at a company that moved offices and did this. There were cubicles that each had a little sink in. It was kind of cramped. The water came out of the sink with quite a bit of force and would often splash the toilet seat. Very soon there were labels on the doors of the cubicles saying which were for men and which were for women. Forget trans people, the amount of ill will and resentment that is going to generated amongst women and directed at men by having unisex toilets is going to be a lot. The future being advocated for involves women eternally finding the toilet seat left up and covered in pee stains.
Click to expand...


It's an awful lot easier to have the usual single-sex provisions and then a separate facility with just one or two single-occupancy cubicles that can be used by anyone who doesn't want to use the appropriate single-sex facility for any reason at all. In this arrangement these cubicles can be larger, more convenient and less oppressive.

The outcome of this in practice however is howls of outrage from the trans lobby, and by that I mean the male-to-female trans-advocates, insisting that this is discriminatory and they must have access as of right to the female single-sex facilities.

If nothing else, this tells us that the point is not "I'm not safe in the male facilities."
 
Rolfe said:
I agree with you, it's a two-way street. But to imply that single-sex male spaces have been abolished in a way that single-sex female spaces have not is misleading.
Click to expand...
There are all sorts of women's this and women's that. My company has a bunch of women's only clubs and women's only programmes. Those things would be viewed as in principle sexist if they were men's only clubs and men's only programmes. There really has been no widespread equivalent of feminism demanding male entry into the kinds of female only spaces. Trans-activism obviously changes that, but it is explicitly not demanding access to these spaces for all men in the way that feminism was for all women.
 
I agree with you in many ways, but fundamentally it's a different problem. For example, one of the problems with the old-style men's clubs was that so much politics and business was carried out there that their existence effectively excuded women from participation in the higher leagues of politics and business.
 
Rolfe said:
I agree with you in many ways, but fundamentally it's a different problem. For example, one of the problems with the old-style men's clubs was that so much politics and business was carried out there that their existence effectively excuded women from participation in the higher leagues of politics and business.
Click to expand...
OK, now you have established that freedom of association is is trumped by equity arguments, but you still want freedom of association to trump equity arguments in the ways that benefit you.
 
No, I was pointing out that the basis of the argument is different. I'm happy to let the boys have all the clubs they like, so long as they don't use them as a stratagem to sideline women in public life.
 
Rolfe said:
No, I was pointing out that the basis of the argument is different. I'm happy to let the boys have all the clubs they like, so long as they don't use them as a stratagem to sideline women in public life.
Click to expand...
You are in favour of equity and inclusion trumping the right to free association then?
 
Very much enjoyed the spectacle of Forstater getting shredded in court this past week. Couldn't have happened to a nicer specimen of humankind.
 
Meadmaker said:
In one of the previous continuations of the thread the story of the UK Home Office building was told, in which some of the toilet facilities were converted to unisex, in the way you described. The result was the women working near the unisex bathrooms ended up walking a long way to the nearest women's room.
Click to expand...
I'm not at all surprised. You end up with the women pissed off at the disgusting men and the men feeling unjustly maligned. It's like "How to sow division for fun and profit".
 
shuttlt said:
You are in favour of equity and inclusion trumping the right to free association then?
Click to expand...


Alexa, show me how to "Rule of so" without saying "so".

I'm pointing out a problem. If you don't think it's a problem then that says more about you than about me.
 
As usual, it seems that each side in the debate is interpreting events as a win for the side they support. Time will tell.
 
Rolfe said:
Alexa, show me how to "Rule of so" without saying "so".

I'm pointing out a problem. If you don't think it's a problem then that says more about you than about me.
Click to expand...
No, I'm trying to understand whether there are general principles underlying your thinking or if you are more particularist and outcome orientated? Generally liberal thinking is supposed to be about universal principles I think. It does seem to me that a bunch of arguments that were used in causes that now have almost universal liberal support are being used in cases that are still contentious. It makes me wonder, were the arguments always flawed, or is it that we get stuck in a particular era, progress leaves us behind and the people who oppose trans-women are women are just the old boy network of the 21st century not wanting to let in women.
 
You don't do nuance, do you? Or have much appreciation of the difference between punching up and punching down.
 
Rolfe said:
You don't do nuance, do you? Or have much appreciation of the difference between punching up and punching down.
Click to expand...
What I'm doing is trying to unpick your position. OK, are you saying that because you think women are marginalised by society in some way then freedom of association is trumped by equity issues in regard to allowing them into male spaces? In the case of trans-women they aren't marginalised, so this punching up/down argument doesn't trump women's freedom of association? It seems to me that the trans-activists are claiming that women are punching down in denying them access to womens spaces. If we are basing the argument on punching up/down, it feels like the same argument and the same claim. Is this just an argument about the ordering of the privilege stack?
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
As usual, it seems that each side in the debate is interpreting events as a win for the side they support. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems that way in this thread, it's a weird thread.

people seem to be worrying about 'gotchas', rather than with the reality of the thing itself, it's just a scoring tribal thing?

It prevents getting to the truth of the matter.
 
shuttlt said:
What I'm doing is trying to unpick your position. OK, are you saying that because you think women are marginalised by society in some way then freedom of association is trumped by equity issues in regard to allowing them into male spaces?
Click to expand...


Personally, I think it will be almost impossible to come up with a meaningful general principle that applies to both male only poker clubs, and male only locker rooms. The issues are just totally different.

Trans issues can be applicable in both cases, but deciding whether or not to allow a trans man to join "boys night out" at the pub is not the same as deciding whether or not to allow a trans man to use the men's locker room.



And, of course, in either case the men might shrug, even if they are somewhat uncomfortable or offended. Now, though, do the same thing with transwomen and the women's locker room and the issue becomes more serious.

In reality, I don't think there are any "equity issues" associated with locker rooms, although trans activists will try to cast it that way. There is an identity issue, which can be found in the thread title, which was written in 2019.
 
shuttlt said:
What I'm doing is trying to unpick your position.
Click to expand...
For me there's a huge difference between someone who says, this is what I think and why, and then asks questions and argues with others who think differently, and someone who never commits to what they think and why, and spends all their time trying to argue about what someone else thinks.

You have no opinion on any of these questions, but you're trying to argue someone else's opinion. You're hoping they'll meet you halfway, and feed you your talking points about their opinions.

Are transwomen women? When and where and why? You have no answer of your own to any of these questions. But you'll happily try to "unpick" Rolfe's answers ad absurdum. Why not do her the basic courtesy of telling her where you stand, same as she's done for you?
 
lionking said:
It looks to me that the appeal is not yet over. A pretty weird time for Londonjohn’s triumphalism.
Click to expand...

It's not an appeal. It's the continuation of her case against her former employer. She won her appeal, which established that gender critical beliefs are protected (meaning that people cannot be discriminated against simply on the basis of such beliefs). CGD decided not to appeal against that finding, so she is now proceeding to the main stage of the tribunal for wrongful dismissal. Regardless of the outcome, gender critical beliefs remain protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom