• 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.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
It seems to me that trans identity without distress needs about as much accommodation in public policy as fursonas. Either that, or we need to start pathologizing furies. Which... I am reluctant to do.

Without the dysphoria, the issue boils down to this question:

If a man says he identifies as a woman, should that be reason enough to let him into the women's restroom?
Click to expand...

For me, that's an easy 'No' but I am not sure I am on the 'right' side of history...
 
d4m10n said:
As exemplified in the Wi Spa kerfuffle:
This policy has lead to some striking results in places other than Wi Spa as well. These are examples from the real world, not a bogeyman conjured up to frighten the aforementioned young girls and women.

It may be that one can make an argument from self-i.d. which doesn't end up in the normalization of exposing young girls and women to male genitalia without their consent. If so, I'd be delighted to hear how that can be successfully operationalized in real life.
Click to expand...

There's probably gonna be more of that on the horizon, and the courts will have to sort it out. Given that apparently was a private establishment it probably isn't the best example. Depending on where you are, there are private establishments that offer prostitution. If you don't like that, you don't go there...pretty simple.
 
stanfr said:
There's probably gonna be more of that on the horizon, and the courts will have to sort it out. Given that apparently was a private establishment it probably isn't the best example.
Click to expand...
Legally speaking, Wi Spa is a public accommodationWP rather than a private club.

If you don't like that, you don't go there...pretty simple.
Click to expand...
What if instead of staying away from spas and pools (as you suggest) some females wanted to have an area or time just for themselves?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Legally speaking, Wi Spa is a public accommodationWP rather than a private club.

What if instead of staying away from spas and pools (as you suggest) some females wanted to have an area or time just for themselves?
Click to expand...

I'm not really suggesting anything, particularly since I am pretty much on the side of the p'd-off woman in that video. But the standard response is, if they want an area just for themselves there is no one stopping them from forming it. My point about the courts is that those cases seem to be inevitable, but for now off the top of my head I'm not aware of any in CA or elsewhere that have really addressed the issue (eg, a transwoman suing a spa for not letting them hang out in front of other women)
 
theprestige said:
Fair enough. It's "fiat", by the way, but I think you understand my meaning regardless.


Nobody here has claimed hordes, or arbitrary decisions. As for nefarious purposes, I think even a lot of autogynaephiliacs wouldn't understand what they're doing to be nefarious. I think you may be applying an unnecessary bias to my arguments.


Again with the conjuring! Find another verb.

And we don't have to conjure up images. We have living examples, in the flesh. But already you're moving the goalposts. A moment ago, you were against fiat self-ID in principle. Now you seem inclined to tolerate it, as long as the resulting harm is sufficiently small.


For now, let's stick with the original goalpost: Does the bill establish fiat self-ID as the legal requirement for transgender recognition in public policy? It's Rolfe's bill, I'll let her speak to it.

Meanwhile, here's California Senate Bill No. 179 (the Gender Recognition Act):

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB179

This bill explicitly deletes the extant requirement for a doctor's opinion, in order to change their gender identity for legal purposes. Here's a layman's summary of the bill's provisions, published by the Transgender Law Center. It confirms my interpretation of the bill's language:

https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/id/ca-sb179

I'll let you make your own determination of the TLC's bona fides.

Here's California's Assembly Bill No. 887 (the Gender Nondiscrimination Act):

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_887_bill_20111009_chaptered.pdf

This bill grants the legal right for a person to enter sex-segregated spaces based on their gender identity (which is established to be fiat self-ID by SB-179). Here's the TLC's FAQ for AB-887, confirming my interpretation of the bill's language, specifically with regard to sex-segregated restrooms and homeless shelters:

https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/know-your-rights/faq-the-gender-nondiscrimination-act

Both of these bills have been passed into law.

I think this more than satisfies the family of claims:

- Fiat self-ID is being advocated as public policy
- Advocates of fiat self-ID are changing and have changed public policy to establish fiat self-ID
- As a matter of California law, men may now enter (some) women's spaces in California on no other basis than because they say they want to.

I stipulate that you can reasonably quibble about whether a women's restroom or homeless shelter is gender-segregated or sex-segregated. And I stipulate that you can reasonably quibble that I have previously mentioned prisons and sports, but not cited them here in reference to these laws.

But I think that we can all agree that so far as fiat self-ID in public policy is concerned, it is in fact the case in California right now today.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links!
I'm not gonna quibble with any of that cause I don't care to play devil's advocate for the sake of same. My only beef--months ago when i left this thread after being chastised for not spending 3 hours a day keeping up with it--and now, same complaint--was what I see as over-reaching by some of the posters. One of them (not gonna dig it up) referred to transgender people as "freaks"--another consistently refers to them as "predators". Seems you're not in the camp--gpod! I see the dominant intent behind this legislation as geared toward protecting housing rights, civil unions, pensions, etc. I get the worries about restrooms and spas, and it will be interesting to see if those laws get either dropped, modified, or remain unchanged once the uproar reaches the courts. Seems to be very much in flux as far as I can tell.
 
theprestige said:
Because of the realities of sexual dimorphism in humans, there are some special concerns about transwomen having access to sex-segregated spaces for women. If you're wondering why I don't mention men or transmen below, that's why.

stanfr, when this thread started, the difficulty I had in mind was this: How do we let transwomen use women's restrooms while still blocking access to bad actors.

I thought then, and still think now, that bad actors, while rare, are a real problem, and that responsible public policy must provide some kind of mechanism or social norm for screening them out. I thought then, and still think now, that an "open door" policy would enable an increase in bad actions.

But a lot of my other thinking has changed.

I thought we were talking about people who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, who were trying to make a more complete social transition to help ameliorate their distress. I thought wrong. It turns out that diagnosis is off the table. Sure, you can seek a diagnosis if you want, and there's still some things that are gated by diagnosis of dysphoria. But as far as mainstream trans-activism is concerned, diagnosis is unnecessary, and access to women's spaces must be on fiat self-ID alone.

I thought the main concern was, how to accommodate these people humanely, without demanding to see their doctor's note or other papers, affirming their condition and justifying their access. I thought wrong. The mainstream of trans-activism rejects the idea of "papers". No medical diagnosis is necessary. The only humane accommodation in trans-activism, is to allow entry to anyone who says they want in, simply because they say they want in. No surgery is needed. No hormone treatments. They don't have to pass, or try to pass. They don't even have to express a gender norm or stereotype. All they have to say is, "(today) I am a woman, let me in".

I thought the progressive critical thinkers on this board would have some idea of rational solution for allowing transwomen to access women's spaces in a way that still barred men, without having to resort to "papers please". I thought wrong. There is no progressive critical thinking on this board, in favor of trans-inclusion. There is no science. There is no pragmatism. Just a growing disrespect for women, and dismissal of women's concerns, any time they come into conflict with trans accommodation.

I thought that nobody apart from the bad actors themselves really wanted an increase in bad actions. I thought wrong. It turns out that mainstream trans-activists are willing to accept an increase in harm, if it means they get trans access by fiat self-ID.

I don't know where you're at with your thinking, but so far it kind of seems like you're about where I was at when this thread began.

It also kind of seems like you're operating from the assumption that mainstream trans-activism today is on the right side of history. That it's reasonably well backed by science and medicine and sociology. That the objections to it must be mostly knee-jerk, products of "unnecessary bias". That what whatever problems are being called out, they are either phantoms, or too small to concern us, or easily solved by assuming the cause is just and the solution will sooner or later appear.

I don't know for sure if that's what you're thinking, and that's what your assumptions are. But that's how it seems to me. And that's how I expect your end of the conversation to progress. I'll be pleasantly surprised if you acknowledge, without hedging, that fiat self-ID is being pursued, and is being enacted as public policy. That would be a nice change of pace, and a good start.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Perhaps I see a bit more of complexity in the overall subject of gender ID, as to biological and environmental influences (and there are a couple other lonnnng threads addressing those issues), but I won't quibble with some of the dangers in enacting policy like this. I don't think one can point to CA as a sign of the tsunami of trans-activism sweeping America--I am more concerned with the destruction of womens' rights as exemplified by the overturn of Roe and the ensuing trigger laws and new legislation, along with a powerful minority of this country who seek to establish a theocracy here. That seems a lot more threatening to me than this sort of legislation.
 
Prestige,

To add a bit more perspective, my wife, who self-identifies as a feminist and who follows a gazillion feminist groups on social media, was looking over my shoulder as I typed that last response, and so I gave her the cliff-notes version of this thread. Her response (greatly paraphrased) was that she never sees the concerns brought up here discussed among her progressive friends, its just not the issue made out to be here.

As a specific example she said that the whole women's restroom thing is basically a red herring. In her thousands of trips to public restrooms, she says a handful of times she encountered men in dresses she simply smiled at them and went about her business. She sees zero opportunity for the sort of indecent exposure or harassment that seems to be the concern here, anymore than any bad actor can be a problem. So if the behavior is the behavior of a bad actor, treat it as such, regardless of whether they are trans or cis-gender.

This seems pretty close to what Vixen has said earlier, and I tended to agree with it then, and still tend to agree with it. How does flat-id make this specific 'threat' any worse?
 
stanfr said:
Prestige,

To add a bit more perspective, my wife, who self-identifies as a feminist and who follows a gazillion feminist groups on social media, was looking over my shoulder as I typed that last response, and so I gave her the cliff-notes version of this thread. Her response (greatly paraphrased) was that she never sees the concerns brought up here discussed among her progressive friends, its just not the issue made out to be here.

As a specific example she said that the whole women's restroom thing is basically a red herring. In her thousands of trips to public restrooms, she says a handful of times she encountered men in dresses she simply smiled at them and went about her business. She sees zero opportunity for the sort of indecent exposure or harassment that seems to be the concern here, anymore than any bad actor can be a problem. So if the behavior is the behavior of a bad actor, treat it as such, regardless of whether they are trans or cis-gender.

This seems pretty close to what Vixen has said earlier, and I tended to agree with it then, and still tend to agree with it. How does flat-id make this specific 'threat' any worse?
Click to expand...

What about change rooms? As has been pointed out countless times, retrofitting change rooms and showers to be cubicle only is unrealistic for size and funding issues. Lia Thomas, for one, is perfectly happy walking around naked in change rooms, and if any female complains they are threatened with being thrown off the swim team. What does your wife think of this?
 
stanfr said:
Prestige,

To add a bit more perspective, my wife, who self-identifies as a feminist and who follows a gazillion feminist groups on social media, was looking over my shoulder as I typed that last response, and so I gave her the cliff-notes version of this thread. Her response (greatly paraphrased) was that she never sees the concerns brought up here discussed among her progressive friends, its just not the issue made out to be here.

As a specific example she said that the whole women's restroom thing is basically a red herring. In her thousands of trips to public restrooms, she says a handful of times she encountered men in dresses she simply smiled at them and went about her business. She sees zero opportunity for the sort of indecent exposure or harassment that seems to be the concern here, anymore than any bad actor can be a problem. So if the behavior is the behavior of a bad actor, treat it as such, regardless of whether they are trans or cis-gender.

This seems pretty close to what Vixen has said earlier, and I tended to agree with it then, and still tend to agree with it. How does flat-id make this specific 'threat' any worse?
Click to expand...
Would one expect these events to be evenly distributed? To the best of my knowledge I have never been in a public toilet used for cottaging, yet I am informed that that goes on. Perhaps I'm hanging out in the wrong public toilets? The great majority of sexual assaults in public swimming pool changing rooms in the UK took place in unisex ones, yet I have never seen a sniff of any of this. I could flip it around and say that discrimination against trans people isn't an issue because my circle of friends haven't personally witnessed it.
 
stanfr said:
Prestige,

To add a bit more perspective, my wife, who self-identifies as a feminist and who follows a gazillion feminist groups on social media, was looking over my shoulder as I typed that last response, and so I gave her the cliff-notes version of this thread. Her response (greatly paraphrased) was that she never sees the concerns brought up here discussed among her progressive friends, its just not the issue made out to be here.
Click to expand...

Her circles are upper middle class, aren’t they?

Class plays into this too, in ways that upper middle class progressives are frequently not comfortable examining.
 
stanfr said:
Prestige,

To add a bit more perspective, my wife, who self-identifies as a feminist and who follows a gazillion feminist groups on social media, was looking over my shoulder as I typed that last response, and so I gave her the cliff-notes version of this thread. Her response (greatly paraphrased) was that she never sees the concerns brought up here discussed among her progressive friends, its just not the issue made out to be here.

As a specific example she said that the whole women's restroom thing is basically a red herring. In her thousands of trips to public restrooms, she says a handful of times she encountered men in dresses she simply smiled at them and went about her business. She sees zero opportunity for the sort of indecent exposure or harassment that seems to be the concern here, anymore than any bad actor can be a problem. So if the behavior is the behavior of a bad actor, treat it as such, regardless of whether they are trans or cis-gender.

This seems pretty close to what Vixen has said earlier, and I tended to agree with it then, and still tend to agree with it. How does flat-id make this specific 'threat' any worse?
Click to expand...


Ah, the good old "it's never happened to me so it isn't a problem" gambit. I'm sure we've had this several times over the course of this thread.
 
Myriad said:
Well, this clearly wasn't just a case of refusing to use preferred pronouns. It was also a case of an employee refusing to follow work rules, which is much more serious.

It has to be punished severely, or else the next thing you know, cashiers will start refusing to ask every customer to buy the store's ripoff extended warranty or sign up for the store's ripoff credit card. And then the economy would collapse. (Faster.)
Click to expand...

No, this guy Enoch* Burke was jailed for contempt of court.

*Perhaps his parents had a liking for a certain other Enoch.
 
stanfr said:
But the standard response is, if they want an area just for themselves there is no one stopping them from forming it.
Click to expand...
Other than California law, nothing is stopping them.

stanfr said:
My point about the courts is that those cases seem to be inevitable, but for now off the top of my head I'm not aware of any in CA or elsewhere that have really addressed the issue
Click to expand...
I'm fairly skeptical as to whether we'll see a test case anytime soon. Places like Wi Spa and Century Day and Night Spa in Los Angeles have already adopted the ACLU line on which policies are legally permissible regarding formerly sex-segregated spaces.
 
Last edited:
Women actually set up most of the women-only services currently being hijacked by the trans. Counselling sessions, self-help, all that sort of thing tends to have started as a woman-initiative project. Even female toilets were only instituted after a long campaign by women over 100 years ago.

So we have to abandon everything we created and start from scratch. What happens then? Why, the trans insist that they must be included or else it's "discriminatory". The women-only rape crisis centre in Vancouver has its funding removed for not being "inclusive", is spray-painted with anti-"terf" slogans and has a dead rat nailed to the door.

Look at what happened in Australia with the women-only social media app called "Giggle". Men tried to join, both normal creeps and trans-identified males. They were refused, or if they managed to fool the facial recognition software they were manually removed from the system. They were sued for discriminatory practices.

The effect of these laws declaring that "the person's gender becomes their acquired gender" is that there is no legal way of keeping male people out. And male people seem to be extremely keen to get their dicks into women-only spaces, what a surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom