Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[TomB]

There's a shocking amount of porn covering almost every conceivable sexual act and a lot of acts you may not have ever thought about.

People seem to try just about anything.

Or, more accurately, watch just about anything. People watch acts in porn that they would really have no desire to participate in.

It's kind of like Jackass.

 

[Meadmaker]

There's a shocking amount of porn covering almost every conceivable sexual act and a lot of acts you may not have ever thought about.

People seem to try just about anything.

I might be wrong, but I think EC was referring to something a bit more specific.

In the thread, there have been references to specific cases where self identified transgender males (i.e. transwomen....or people pretending to be transwomen) have entered women's public restrooms and taken selfies of themselves performing lewd acts.

I think that's what she's talking about.

So, it isn't just people acting out a fantasy for the benefit of their audience, as a porn actor might do, but, actually, exhibitionists invading female spaces to conduct lewd acts for their own pleasure. EC referred to a shocking amount of this, but it seems to me that I have seen very few examples actually cited.

However, I could see how the existence of those people, even in small numbers, would freak people out, especially female people, in whose restrooms the selfies were taken.

 

[acbytesla]

I might be wrong, but I think EC was referring to something a bit more specific.

I think

Edited by jimbob: 

she

was too.

I was saying that the amount of porn depicting a specific act tells us little about whether there is an actual problem that is pervasive.

 

[acbytesla]

Or, more accurately, watch just about anything. People watch acts in porn that they would really have no desire to participate in.

It's kind of like Jackass.

I think there is that too. But as i have grown older, I've discovered there are lots of sexual acts I can't conceive of doing that others do and enjoy regularly. Such as BDSM.

I've given up trying to separate theatrics and sexual kinks that others have. I've decided that whatever floats their boat as long as the adult parties involved consent it is fine with me. Just don't tell me about it.

 

[lionking]

For those who maintain that it is only conservatives who who criticise TRA positions:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...e-rights-of-other-groups-20220405-p5aaus.html

The Greens in Australia (and probably everywhere) is a progressive, left leaning group. One of it's up and coming politician Robert Leppert, who is gay, expressed concern about the direction of the state I live in, Victoria. As the article puts it:

But he worries an “affirmation only” approach will see too many gender-questioning young people undergo medical transition through puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery only to regret it later. He cites the example of a friend he said had managed to “escape” transition “after realising they were more comfortable living as a lesbian woman”.

And

“Many others in my age bracket … experienced gender dysphoria when puberty hit before discovering that they were lesbians much later,” he wrote. “All genuinely worry that girls in a similar situation today are being told they are trans.”

My opinion is that Mr Leppert's rise in the Greens is going to halt right now.

Finally, a good point from the author, echoing the thoughts of Rolfe, Emily's Cat and others.

A hierarchy of victimhood operates; transgender people are considered to have less power than gays and lesbians. As a result, some people struggle to comprehend the idea that granting rights to a less powerful group, transgender people, might disenfranchise a relatively more powerful group.

 

[Darat]

I might be wrong, but I think EC was referring to something a bit more specific.

In the thread, there have been references to specific cases where self identified transgender males (i.e. transwomen....or people pretending to be transwomen) have entered women's public restrooms and taken selfies of themselves performing lewd acts.

I think that's what she's talking about.

So, it isn't just people acting out a fantasy for the benefit of their audience, as a porn actor might do, but, actually, exhibitionists invading female spaces to conduct lewd acts for their own pleasure. EC referred to a shocking amount of this, but it seems to me that I have seen very few examples actually cited.

However, I could see how the existence of those people, even in small numbers, would freak people out, especially female people, in whose restrooms the selfies were taken.

Those types of activity are already illegal (if as described in some of the examples) and changing who can use a particular toilet won't affect that. I know people argue that it will make that easier and therefore more likely to happen. In regards to such behaviour being illegal, there have been cases in the UK of people who have made pornographic material in public places being prosecuted because of the videos they uploaded, so such laws are upheld.

I am sure that no one believes that such people form the majority or even a significant minority of trans folk and this is an area where I think in the UK the new guidelines make it clear that providers of toilets can make them single-sex spaces on grounds of safety.

I have changed my mind about this from a few years ago, back then I didn't think it was really such a big deal - people go into a cubicle and do their business in private so there is no "mixing" of sexes. However it's now blatantly clear to me how widespread the issue of women being victimised by men is and I think given that there are grounds for single sex toilets.

Generalisations coming up: I think there are a couple of things that will happen in parallel over the coming decades, first that design of facilities such as toilets will focus much more on privacy for everyone so sexing of toilets will slowly die out and alongside that the youngsters of today have a very different view of gender and sex (sex in both meanings) than past generations (talking about under 25s) and they won't see the issues we consider important in regards to sex and gender.

 

[shuttlt]

Finally, a good point from the author, echoing the thoughts of Rolfe, Emily's Cat and others.

A hierarchy of victimhood operates; transgender people are considered to have less power than gays and lesbians. As a result, some people struggle to comprehend the idea that granting rights to a less powerful group, transgender people, might disenfranchise a relatively more powerful group.

This seems really important to me. I think a lot of the moral conviction, and moral simplicity on the left comes from an assumption that the world divides up into oppressed and oppressor, and that if you can just stop the oppression you return to some kind of state of nature in which everybody can be happy. If only everybody would just be nice to one another!

Once you start thinking of things in terms of tradeoffs that must necessarily feel unfair to someone, then everything gets complicated and the moral certainty goes away.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

(This may be because younger people are less concerned with privacy in general, but that would take more research.)

...snip...

My personal experience of working with 16 to 25 year olds (mostly working class) over the past few years is that they are more concerned with privacy, or perhaps a better way of putting it is that they have a different conceptualism of privacy to previous generations. For instance they are much more likely to share private personal information and won't use shared changing rooms at the gym.

 

[Rolfe]

A few points.

What's the problem with men who have had full genital surgery (that is, they have no penis or testicles) using the ladies'? Two problems, which are interlinked. One is that pretty much always, women still "read" them as male. They still appear to us as males invading our space, and this by itself is triggering to a greater or lesser degree. The other is the "thin end of the wedge" issue. For many years women assumed that, if they saw a male person in more-or-less female clothing in a female-only space, that he had had that surgery. They were therefore prepared to suppress that triggering reaction and "be kind", as instructed. But now we know that even then not all of these men were post-operative, and now very very few of them are. Allowing one small group to be accepted has - as was probably inevitable - led to a hell of a lot of mission creep, and now we have men of all presentations including conventionally masculine declaring themselves to be trans or non-binary, marching into our single-sex spaces, and crying "transphobia!" and "bigotry" if anyone objects.

It's as I said before, if there was some fool-proof way to ensure that only the discreet, considerate, self-effacing trans-identified males would attempt to enter women's facilities, well we could talk about that. But it's not possible. Are you really proposing "genital inspections" for men who show up at the door of the ladies' room? It has now become all or nothing.

In addition men seem to have no concept of how women use the communal grooming space in ladies' faciities, despite this being explained many times. All these proposals to have "privacy for everyone" with no space that is female-only (as opposed to "me-only") will destroy that. Men want to take this away from us because they don't understand how much we value it, and I do not share Darat's expectation that it will just be quietly phased out without a struggle. And in a related issue, having the same space used serially by males and females vastly facilitates the placing of cameras by the Peeping Tom brigade, which is a real problem.

And once again we encounter Polka responding to a complaint about male bad behaviour with "but what about all the women who do exactly the same thing?" Except that women do not do that, not at all.

There's a shocking amount of females masturbating in the ladies restroom porn out there too if that's what you search for, and are easily shocked.

We are not talking about porn. What people stage for the titillation of men isn't the point. We are talking about the enormous number of images on Twitter and elsewhere posted by fetishistic men of themselves masturbating or otherwise exposing themselves in actual real women's toilets, often with women in the background who don't know where to look or what to do. These men are invariably obviously male even if we weren't able to see the male genitalia on display, but they're also invariably dressed in some sort of pornified fantasy of female clothing.

Now it may be that a woman might occasionally masturbate in the ladies' toilets. If she has to do that, that's probably going to be the best place to go for privacy. It's a proper use of the space, rather than an improper one. But she'll do it in a locked cubicle and try very hard indeed to make sure nobody else realises what she's doing. If anyone can find pictures of women openly masturbating in an exhibitionist manner in women's toilets - well they won't. Nor will they find pictures of women dressed up like male porn stars openly masturbating in gents' toilets, with embarrassed men at the urinals in the background not knowing how to react. That would be the equivalent to what's happening in female single-sex spaces, and it doesn't happen.

Men and women do not exhibit similar behaviour patterns in this respect. And we would like men to keep that particular behaviour pattern out of our spaces, please.

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting angle brought up by Sarah Symington in her letter about trans-identifying men in women's cycling. She makes the point that it is inherently unfair in that it gives men two bites at the cherry.

We believe that the rule is discriminatory in that it advantages only biological male athletes by providing them greater opportunity to compete and enjoy the rewards of sport at its highest level.

They can compete in male events and reach the top if they're good enough. Then this trans rule gives them the additional opportunity to compete in female events and reach the top (if they're good enough, and there's an excellent chance they will be). This is not an opportinity extended to women, as it's not possible for a woman to transition and have any hope of reaching the top in male events.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I really don't care what bathroom facilities anyone uses. It's not that the bathroom becomes some kind of sexual experience other than a very minor few. If a male who has undergone surgical reassignment uses the women's bathroom, why should anyone care?

My only issue with transgendered individuals is the idea of a born male participating as a female in women's sports after reassignment. The physical advantage creates an unfair proposition.

And thankfully trans men don't exist because then you would have females with beards having to use the women's restroom. That would just be crazy. Like this pregnant "man" got what he had coming to "him"

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/23/baby-died-doctors-told-mother-man/

Thankfully the baby died and doesn't have to be raised by a freak.

Edited by sarge: 

edited to remove uncivil comment

 

[ponderingturtle]

I might be wrong, but I think EC was referring to something a bit more specific.

In the thread, there have been references to specific cases where self identified transgender males (i.e. transwomen....or people pretending to be transwomen) have entered women's public restrooms and taken selfies of themselves performing lewd acts.

I have seen more porn of cis women doing that, and think that in scale they are a far larger problem.

 

[shuttlt]

A few points.

What's the problem with men who have had full genital surgery (that is, they have no penis or testicles) using the ladies'? Two problems, which are interlinked. One is that pretty much always, women still "read" them as male. They still appear to us as males invading our space, and this by itself is triggering to a greater or lesser degree. The other is the "thin end of the wedge" issue. For many years women assumed that, if they saw a male person in more-or-less female clothing in a female-only space, that he had had that surgery. They were therefore prepared to suppress that triggering reaction and "be kind", as instructed. But now we know that even then not all of these men were post-operative, and now very very few of them are. Allowing one small group to be accepted has - as was probably inevitable - led to a hell of a lot of mission creep, and now we have men of all presentations including conventionally masculine declaring themselves to be trans or non-binary, marching into our single-sex spaces, and crying "transphobia!" and "bigotry" if anyone objects.

Honestly, if all you have to do is claim to identify as a woman, I don't see what the issue is with me using the ladies toilets if it's closer.

In addition men seem to have no concept of how women use the communal grooming space in ladies' faciities, despite this being explained many times.

I'm pretty sure we do. It's the kind of thing that even subtle works like Married With Children would make jokes about.

All these proposals to have "privacy for everyone" with no space that is female-only (as opposed to "me-only") will destroy that.

Cultural institutions like this have always been sacrificed in favour of inclusion.

Men want to take this away from us because they don't understand how much we value it, and I do not share Darat's expectation that it will just be quietly phased out without a struggle.

I don't like this "men want to". Men are more against this than women are. There is no shortage of senior female politicians who support this.

 

[Rolfe]

I see no reason to accept a valued facility being sacrificed in the name of "inclusion" without putting up a fight.

All right, "some" men want to. And there have always been women whose primary motivation is to pander to men's wishes.

 

[shuttlt]

I see no reason to accept a valued facility being sacrificed in the name of "inclusion" without putting up a fight.

Oh, I agree with you.

All right, "some" men want to. And there have always been women whose primary motivation is to pander to men's wishes.

I really think pandering to mens wishes isn't why Ketanji Brown Jackson or Jo Swinson pretended they didn't know what women were. Trans-women are lower down on the privilege stack than women, so they are in the right, yet women are lower in the privilege stack than men, so they are in the right.

 

[Rolfe]

Believing that transwomen, the group that has captured public policy across the western world and has had large swathes of law written to its dictation (and is the safest demographic of all as regards being victims of violence), is lower in the privilege stack than women, is a classic example of pandering to the wishes of men.

 

[shuttlt]

Believing that transwomen, the group that has captured public policy across the western world and has had large swathes of law written to its dictation (and is the safest demographic of all as regards being victims of violence), is lower in the privilege stack than women, is a classic example of pandering to the wishes of men.

This is how the privilege stack works. The groups that are notionally at the bottom always have large swathes of law written to their dictation. That's why there is a competition to be seen as the most oppressed.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have changed my mind about this from a few years ago, back then I didn't think it was really such a big deal - people go into a cubicle and do their business in private so there is no "mixing" of sexes. However it's now blatantly clear to me how widespread the issue of women being victimised by men is and I think given that there are grounds for single sex toilets.

Generalisations coming up: I think there are a couple of things that will happen in parallel over the coming decades, first that design of facilities such as toilets will focus much more on privacy for everyone so sexing of toilets will slowly die out and alongside that the youngsters of today have a very different view of gender and sex (sex in both meanings) than past generations (talking about under 25s) and they won't see the issues we consider important in regards to sex and gender.

I think a lot of people have followed a similar trajectory. Idealism has been replaced by reality for a lot of people as they see what really goes on. As for your prediction, that is a possibility. The other possibility is that people will continue on the same path that led you to decide that single sex toilets were justified by the degree of victimization that is happening.

My prediction is that people will continue to try and "fix" the problem by improving privacy for all, but it will turn out that the mixed gender toilets and locker rooms will either be insufficiently private, or prohibitively expensive to build and maintain. Eventually, people will say, "enough is enough", and go back to where we were in 2010 or so, where the vast majority of public toilets and locker rooms were segregated by sex, but architects generally ensured that there were smaller, private, facilities available for people who, for whatever reason, were not comfortable in the large, sex-segregated ones.

I call it a prediction, but I'm not confident in that prediction. Which way it goes will indeed depend on the attitudes of young people.

One thing I've seen very little coverage of, but which I would like to see, is the attitude of young people who have been affected by this push, and, even more so, their attitude five years later. There are American high schools who are experimenting with gender neutral locker rooms with enhanced privacy for individuals. I would like to hear from the students at those facilities, and then I would like to hear what they say about those facilities when they get together for their five year reunion. Even more importantly, some ten and fifteen year reunions, as they have kids of their own. When people who used the more "modern" facilities have kids of their own, will they go to their school board and PTA meetings and argue that that's how all locker rooms should be built for their kids, or will they say that their experience was awful, and demand a return to traditional spaces. As it is, all I see are media stories that present "both sides", so they inevitably say that some people are ok with it and some people don't like it, but there's not enough information to get a sense of the overall sentiment.

Sometimes, I see polls on the subject, but I rarely see polls of people under 18, which would be the people who actually use those facilities. Also, polls tell you only so much. What I would really like to see is an analysis of usage patterns. I was in a high school a couple of weeks ago that had a gender-neutral restroom right on the main hallway, usable by either sex. I don't know what it looked like on the inside, but I know it had multiple stalls inside. (I was there for an event, and someone posted a note on the door that referred to "stalls".) What I wonder is who uses it during regular school hours? Is it a case, like the UK Home Office, where they put in gender neutral restrooms, and the women end up walking farther to avoid them?

 

[Rolfe]

Lookie here. Suddenly, "the right side of history" as it likes to style itself, isn't looking as inevitable as all that.

[imgw=800]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPpQ6o6XsAMNWPw?format=jpg&name=small[/imgw]

As this is a local council election, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that I will give the Tory candidate(s) a ranking on the basis of this, although I hate the party with a fiery passion on many other counts.

 

[crazycat]

And thankfully trans men don't exist because then you would have females with beards having to use the women's restroom. That would just be crazy. Like this pregnant "man" got what he had coming to "him"

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/23/baby-died-doctors-told-mother-man/

Thankfully the baby died and doesn't have to be raised by a freak.

Edited by sarge: 

edited to remove uncivil comment

That statement is disgusting and inaccurate.