Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[TurkeysGhost]

And that's the dodge.

Also, why is legally mandated architectural changes across the entire country the right solution for a problem that only affects a tiny number of people, for whom the problem is entirely voluntary to begin with?

This isn't like the ADA, where handicapped parking spots and wheelchair ramps and other accessibility features are actually necessary to support and include people who are otherwise physically marginalized.

That's really the rub when you get down to the issue, it's just straight up trans denialism.

 

[The Atheist]

Sure.... but only if you choose to break it down like that. We can arbitrarily choose to break it down any way we like. Even to take your point about trans-women, I bet you you could break that demographic apart. Are we concerned about some slight little post-op trans-woman that looks like Quentin Crisp, or the "It's Maam!!!" GameStop type? One can always argue that it should be broken down more or differently. Since not all trans-women pose a remotely equal risk, and some women pose a risk.... the argument becomes that it should be based on individualised risk.

No, you're being absurd, deliberately.

There is only one distinction - all of the sexual assaults were carried out by people with a penis who say they're female.

By your look, we'd have jails like weight classes - white 90-lb weaklings in this jail, hispanic jockeys here, 200 kg muscle beach guys here...

Build separate prisons for trans. How hard would that be? Even separate wings would be fine - I'm sure American jails are like the others in the world, where different gangs are kept in different wings so there isn't a constant riot.

 

[TomB]

It strikes me that advocating for the building privacy dividers is a readily achievable solution.

That's a long term solution. The architecture of most of these places is not conducive to this as an easy modification. Unless you are suggesting making just a few cubicles where those shy freaks can go change separate from the normal people. I consider that unacceptable. It has to be privacy for all. (Making either party go to a separate area is othering them and making them into freaks.)

Anyway, plumbing layouts, locker spaces and several other things would have to be changed.

I'm all for this for new construction. It has the advantage of allowing the teaching staff to supervise the locker areas without having to have half your gym teachers of each sex, for one thing.

For another, if there were private showers, kids might actually take showers after gym class. When I was in high school in the 80s, no one used the showers. Ever. No one got completely undressed either. Ever. It was always (as quickly as possible) drop jeans and get gym shorts on. And the reverse after class. I never once saw one of my classmates naked in four years. When my daughter was in high school, she didn't use the showers either. Again, no one did.

Maybe privacy will encourage this to change. So that's an added benefit.

But it's only really practical to implement during new construction or a major remodel.

 

[theprestige]

That's really the rub when you get down to the issue, it's just straight up trans denialism.

I'm open to the argument that trans identity is an involuntary condition, for which medical treatment is indicated and certain accommodations in public policy should be made. But so far that argument has not been made - certainly not in the context of trans access to sex-segregated spaces.

This would be a very different conversation if we were talking about transwomen presenting a doctor's note saying that it's necessary for their mental health to be allowed to change in the women's locker room. But last time I checked, self-ID was still the standard, and total accommodation was still the demand. Even paraplegics don't get total accommodation, and they're not even disadvantaging anyone else by the accommodations they do get.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

For another, if there were private showers, kids might actually take showers after gym class. When I was in high school in the 80s, no one used the showers. Ever. No one got completely undressed either. Ever. It was always (as quickly as possible) drop jeans and get gym shorts on. And the reverse after class. I never once saw one of my classmates naked in four years. When my daughter was in high school, she didn't use the showers either. Again, no one did.

Maybe privacy will encourage this to change. So that's an added benefit.

But it's only really practical to implement during new construction or a major remodel.

It's worth pointing out that these facilities already fail for their intended purpose, totally outside the greater debate of trans inclusion, exactly as you describe. Unless you're going to coerce these kids to use these kinds of facilities, building them without personal privacy is a waste of money because they won't be used. Like you say, nobody in my classes ever used the showers. They only changed into gym clothes in the open because otherwise you'd fail the course. I'm not aware of anyone changing their underwear, which is absolutely nasty in retrospect.

I am sympathetic to people who claim they do not wish to be naked in these open rooms in front of trans people. I am also sympathetic to people who say the same thing about being naked in front of their cis gendered peers. The common theme of unused showers shows that this is a near universal complaint. It's not shocking that school age children are apprehensive about being nude in front of their peers, who, if we're being honest, can be nasty little turds about such things.

In general, I think it's worthwhile to take complaints about lack of personal bodily privacy seriously, and not just when it comes to trans kids.

 

[Meadmaker]

It strikes me that advocating for the building privacy dividers is a readily achievable solution.

Certainly not by the girl, although they could lobby for change.

As noted many times previously, I also think your are underestimating the difficulty of that solution, both in terms of cost and in terms of utility, but that has come up many times before.

In the real world with these real girls in a real building, there's a choice to be made, and someone will not get what they want. I'm asking people who should win and who should lose, because someone has to.

In the real world, the cisgirl lost. I don't know what she did in response.

 

[Meadmaker]

Lawsuits aren't fast. I really doubt this lawsuit was going to provide anyone a speedy resolution.

It's hard to comment because Meadmaker never bothered to provide any link so it's all second hand.

I provided a link before. I'm pretty sure you even watched it. Maybe I'll look that up.

 

[p0lka]

To my way of thinking, what you are seeing here in this dialog between Tesla and others is something that happens often in this thread and in this debate. Each side wants to use the example that suits them best, and dismiss the others. acbytesla wants to talk of fairly close to private bathroom stalls where anonymous strangers pass some water behind closed doors, and go on their way. Others want to talk about rapes and sexual assaults when men and women are forced together.

Those cases matter, but I think they also distort by picking up the extreme examples.

A couple of months ago, or maybe more, or maybe less, I posted a video made by the legal team of a 15 year old girl in Pennsylvania. I won't bother looking for it. It's easy enough to find for anyone interested. It's just the girl telling her story, and her lawyer elaborating on some of the legal issues. The 15 year old (cis) girl is a central character, as is a 15 year old transgirl. In the telling, I will use "she" for the cis girl and "they" for the transgirl.

The girl is getting ready for gym class. She takes off her street clothes, and is now in her underwear. She hears a male voice behind her. Surprised, she turns, and sees a male looking at her. The male is wearing women's underwear, but it cannot conceal their penis and testicles. The video didn't say what happened immediately, i.e. who said what to whom right at that moment. We know that the girl complained of the situation and was informed that if she did not want to be seen by the transgirl, she could wait in the hall until the transgirl had left the locker room.

That's it. No rape. No sexual assault. No masturbation. No lewd behavior. Nothing. On the other hand, no locked doors, no partial concealment behind stall partitions. Just two teenagers, one male, one female, both identifying as girls, standing in their underwear, as one does when changing from street clothes to gym clothes and back again after gym class.

And that's it. The girl didn't think she should have to be seen by a guy (as she perceived the transgirl) while she was in her underwear. The transgirl didn't think they should have to dress in a private location. There's no way for both of them to get what they want.

That's the normal situation. That's what the fuss is about. Yes, there are rare cases where other things happen. There are sexual assaults, but not many. There are men who pretend to be transwomen for voyeuristic purposes, but not many. (I have remarked before that that surprised me. I would have expected a lot more cases, but there haven't been.) However, this scenario that I just described would be normal in the America the trans rights activists want.

So whose side are you on? Do you side with the cis girl or the trans girl? One of them has to lose.

There are all sorts of dodges that get thrown in to avoid answering the question. One dodge is to ignore this situation and bring up a more extreme situation. Another dodge is to blame the locker room itself, for not being sufficiently private. Those are just dodges. The fact is that this is a real case involving real people in a real locker room that cannot be transformed right away into some ideal gender-neutral but completely private facility. This is the real world and there are two kids in their underwear, and one of them isn't happy about it and wants the other to leave. Whose side are you on?
I'm in the (cis) girl's side, and I will be until I'm convinced that the majority of those girls don't mind, or actively supoort, the presence of the trans girl.

In this real world in the real state of Pennsylvania, she lost her lawsuit.

Re:hilited Without context I would be on the side of the person that is getting vibes that they should leave, rather than from the person that wants them to leave.

Wanting others to leave rather than leave oneself seems like bullying to me.

 

[shuttlt]

I've been reading quite a bit lately about the origins of liberalism. One of the things that comes out of that is that there are pre-liberal and liberal meanings of freedom. Pre-liberal, you have to be taught good morality and to master yourself in order to be free. In liberalism, freedom is being able to act on your desires.

It seems to me that pre-liberalism this question answers itself. The men who think they are women are confused and need to be helped. This issue stems entirely from the notion of freedom in liberalism

 

[shuttlt]

Re:hilited Without context I would be on the side of the person that is getting vibes that they should leave, rather than from the person that wants them to leave.

Wanting others to leave rather than leave oneself seems like bullying to me.

Why? Often the person who wants the other person to leave is justified.

 

[The Atheist]

This isn't like the ADA, where handicapped parking spots and wheelchair ramps and other accessibility features are actually necessary to support and include people who are otherwise physically marginalized.

No, it's exactly the same as the ADA.

They don't feel ..................... (insert emotive language here)............... using men's toilets, being sent to men's prisons, or competing in women's sport. They are mentally marginalised, and feels is as important as physical issues, so it should be approached in exactly the same manner.

Was there an outcry from the disabled when they were given separate toilets? Did they demand to be able to use toilets suiting their gender?

 

[theprestige]

Re:hilited Without context I would be on the side of the person that is getting vibes that they should leave, rather than from the person that wants them to leave.

Wanting others to leave rather than leave oneself seems like bullying to me.

"Sir, this is a battered women's shelter. You need to leave."

"You're bullying me!"

---

"Ma'am, this is a high school boy's locker room. You need to leave."

"You're bullying me!"

---

"These people are telling me they're having a private conversation, and it really gives me vibes they want me to leave, but I'm pretty sure that just means they're bullies."

 

[Meadmaker]

Re:hilited Without context I would be on the side of the person that is getting vibes that they should leave, rather than from the person that wants them to leave.

Wanting others to leave rather than leave oneself seems like bullying to me.

Intruding into someone's private space and refusing to leave seems like bullying to me.

There are all sorts of ways to frame this that could be called bullying, on either side, but, really, that's all a load of hooey.

The two people, the cis girl and the trans girl, each want something, and their wishes are completely incompatible. You have to pick a side. Either way, you end up telling someone else, "I don't care what you want. This is what's happening." That sounds almost like bullying. So, decide who you want to bully. Or....maybe bullying isn't really the correct word. Maybe it's about whose wishes you respect.

 

[Paul2]

I've been reading quite a bit lately about the origins of liberalism. One of the things that comes out of that is that there are pre-liberal and liberal meanings of freedom. Pre-liberal, you have to be taught good morality and to master yourself in order to be free. In liberalism, freedom is being able to act on your desires.

It seems to me that pre-liberalism this question answers itself. The men who think they are women are confused and need to be helped. This issue stems entirely from the notion of freedom in liberalism

Out of curiosity, what exactly have you been reading? I might want to check it out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I started out just a few years ago being much more accommodating than I am now. I'm less so than in the past partly because virtually everything I was told would never happen has happened, and more than once.

And while my hypothetical position "in an ideal world" would still be that restrooms don't matter... the reality has been that they really are the thin end of a wedge.

I still support the right of transgender people - and anybody for that matter - to dress and express themselves however they please. I still completely support bans against discrimination in employment and housing, and I support fair treatment under the law.

And to be honest, if we could back away from self-declaration as the basis for public policy, I'd have significantly less objection to a whole lot of things.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rolfe already covered it, but I'll rephrase it in a slightly different way.

If you have seen porn of cis-women doing that, what you have seen is a performance created for the enjoyment of men.

That's not what Rolfe was talking about, and I'm almost 100% certain that it wasn't what EC was talking about, either. What they were talking about was exhibitionist males acting out their fantasies for an unwilling audience, and you don't see cis-women, or trans-men, doing that.

Yes, exactly that. Rolfe described it pretty well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have no idea how rare or common it is. Nothing even resembling a falsifiable claim has been made. I suspect Rolfe or anyone else here knows either. Much like previous assertions of the Public Toilet Trans Menace, proof is conspicuously absent.

People engaging in sex acts surreptitiously in public is something that is hard to know, assuming they intend to remain undetected. I assume some are occasionally caught, either intentionally or because of carelessness.

As far as I know, there have been dudes jerking off in every adjacent public toilet I've ever used in my life and I just didn't notice. I'm not willing to make sweeping generalizations about whole categories of people based on some vague fear that I can't even begin to approximate.

ETA: I presume a variety of unsavory behaviors have happened in public toilets I would not approve of. People probably have engaged in sex, used illicit drugs, bought cryptocurrency, and done all manner of other unsavory acts. I guess I'm just glad there's divider walls to separate us all in these situations.

So... are they doing those unsavory things outside of the stalls, in full view of anybody who comes in?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The real question is whether it is numerically significant.

So... According to you - a male - it's okay if some females get raped and sexually assaulted, as long as you - a male - have decided that it's not "too many"?

How many, in your oh-so-vaunted male opinion, would be "too many" females being raped and sexually assaulted? What's your very male threshold for when you, a male, would decide that enough females have suffered that you might be bothered to take action?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not tolerant of rape or murder. Those individuals should be punished. But you're suggesting making legislation not against those crimes, but against a class of people.

Your position is essentially that all males should be able to access any female space they wish. And well, if they rape a female while they're there, they can be punished after the fact.

Let's just gloss right over the deplorably low rate of rapes even being charged, let alone going to trial, let alone again even being found guilty.

And let's just tap-dance right past the fact that all of this hypothetical punishment occurs AFTER SOMEONE HAS ALREADY BEEN RAPED!

 

[Emily's Cat]

In this real world in the real state of Pennsylvania, she lost her lawsuit.

Even more telling is that the judge opined that the young female had no right to visual privacy from the opposite sex while mostly naked in a single-sex restroom.

No right to visual privacy.

The consent of the young female was deemed irrelevant when it came to the feelings of the young male.