Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[stanfr]

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?

Well, I am gonna keep this brief cause she is free to join the forum. But basically she sees your line of questioning as a 'gotcha' when the real issue (to her) is trying to make feel this group feel more included rather than excluded, as 'outcasts' So in other words, try to accommodate and seek solutions rather than looking for potential problems to shut down the entire effort.
This is *her* response, so please no need to argue with me

 

[stanfr]

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.

Most definitely not. We are poor but proud

 

[stanfr]

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.

That's not what she said. You are prone to this style of putting word in others' mouths.
What she did say, and what you have not convincingly responded to, is seeking proof (not anecdotes) that this type of behavior will become significantly more widespread or worse as a result of these changes.

 

[stanfr]

California law is literally stopping them from forming it.

I'm not so sure about that. But time will tell!

 

[stanfr]

I call shenanigans. You sailed in here alleging "unnecessary bias" and offering to provide lists of examples. Now it's just some vague handwaving about stuff you can't be arsed to actually demonstrate. Please, put up or shut up about this "unnecessary bias" crap.

When it comes to actual biases actually being discussed, the only one on deck right now is bias against fiat self-ID, which you agree is "necessary".

I don't have time to go back through this whole thread and point out every Trumpist-like statement made, it's rife with it.

Rolfe just stated "male people seem to be extremely keen to get their dicks into women-only spaces, what a surprise." That indicates bias to me. Sorry if it doesn't to you. But I'm entitled to how I perceive comments, even the ones that come off as snarky or arrogant to me.

You're equivocating.

What I'm not allowed to? In a skeptics forum, god forbid I can't be 100% in one camp or the other? No wonder our nation is close to civil war....

The intent of the first legislation explicitly includes fiat self-ID as the law of the land.

The intent of the second legislation is to prohibit discrimination based on someone's trans identity (which can be fiat self-ID, per the first law). The second legislation includes the usual 'no discrimination in employment or housing' stuff that nobody here has a problem with. It also includes prohibitions against barring access to sex-segregated spaces.

And you're trying to minimize the harm already being done by these laws. Putting someone in the position of having to go to court simply because they are now required to accept fiat self-ID in sex-segregated spaces, is a harm. All their other guests or customers or clients who are affected by the law as it currently stands, pending the resolution of the court case(s), is a harm.

You say you're against fiat self-ID, but you also kinda seem to be for it, provisionally, at least until the courts say it's not allowed. Which they won't, since the law says it is allowed.

Well, if it is as huge a problem as you seem to believe, I'm sure this forum discussion aint gonna be needed to change the laws!

 

[stanfr]

I call shenanigans. You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence. Now you're trying to dismiss it as inconsequential and change the subject.


Mainstream progressivism has been ideologically captured by trans-activism. Also, your "wife", should she actually exist, is welcome to come here and participate in this conversation with her own voice, on her own terms. Meanwhile, own your own opinions and don't hide behind her skirts.

Wow...talk about condescending. Up til now I almost thought you were reasonable. Now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Seriously??

And yet there are documented cases of this harassment.

As I predicted, you have moved from "fiat self-ID isn't happening" to "it isn't really a problem if it's not a big problem".

It seems to me that the time to prevent or solve the problem is before it becomes big, before it becomes widespread.

At the very least, there's no harm in having a solution in mind early on, in case it's needed. But you seem intent on insisting that there is no problem to solve.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm asking for good evidence of the problem. You may feel your examples are outstanding and convincing, but I'm not convinced.
You may be correct with the problem solving aspect of it--I'm all for that!

It criminalizes anyone who challenges an exhibitionist. It criminalizes anyone who bars a man from entering a woman's shelter. It criminalizes any sports organization that bans males from competing in female divisions.

Seriously? You are the one who needs to put up or shut up.

 

[stanfr]

I think it's time for another run-through of why specifically women need to be able to keep men out of the communal hand-washing and hair-combing part of ladies' lavatories.

I'll mainly pass over the trivial things, such as the fact that quite a lot of fairly intimate stuff does happen in the communal areas which we don't want to do in front of a man, and the fact that sometimes a woman has to pee with the door open because she has a baby in a pram that won't go in the stall. Or even the fact that women miscarry in there, use the space to escape from importunate men, and so on. We also don't want men to be in there with their spy cameras and then find ourselves starring in the relevant section of PornHub.

The serious issue is the danger of assault. If men are not allowed in the communal space then we can police this and head off this danger. In the communal space we are clothed and not so vulnerable and in a position to see the guy off, call the attendant, whatever. We keep that space clear of men for a reason. The reason is that men have been known to bide their time until a woman is entering a stall alone, force their way in, and assault her.

This is the huge drawback to all the well-meaning suggestions about single-use unisex stalls, even those opening directly from a corridor. Unless the corridor is well lit and busy it's a predator's dream. Hang around, wait until a woman is going in and there's nobody else about, then push in behind her and lock that nice lockable door to the completely enclosed floor-to-ceiling space. If the space outside that lockable door is a man-free zone this danger is significantly reduced.

Now, cue the squeals about "so you're saying all transwomen are sexual predators who are entering women's lavatories to rape women?" No. I'm saying that there are men who will do that, and that these new laws which not only allow any man to identify as a woman but specifically bar anyone from checking whether any particular male has indeed gone through any form of "gender-change" in practice allow any man to enter and prevent us from policing the space.

This is irrespective of trans identity. Many studies have shown that male offending patterns are just the same in the trans-identified group as in non-trans-identifying males. Most are not predators but some are.

I think that is a reasonable statement so thanks for the summary. As I've said, I am not sure how I stand on the issue--that's why I'm here! But if I'm a accused of making stuff up for the sake of being a contrarian, I won't be here long. That is exactly why I brought up my short discussion with my wife, because obviously I don't have a lot of experience about women's spaces.

 

[stanfr]

Sorry to draw again from the same well, but this right here is the essence of your equivocating shenanigans.

Nobody claimed "tsunami". Nobody is restricting this discussion to developments in America. We're saying it's happening. You doubted it was happening, so we gave you proof. It's happening. It's happening in California. It's happening in Canada. Similar activist pushes are happening elsewhere.

Hopefully it doesn't become a tsunami. Hopefully you and others like you, who are against it but didn't realize it was happening, will step up and thwart the process before it becomes even more widespread. Before it becomes a tsunami.

You have (accidentally?) stumbled into a typical trans-activist dodge: Say you're against it, but that's okay because it's not happening. Then when you find out it is happening, say you're against it, but that's okay because it's only happening a little bit so what's the problem?

If you're against it, why are you okay with it happening at all? What good thing are you championing, that makes this trade-off worthwhile? I bet you don't even know. I bet neither you nor your wife have any clear idea of what benefit fiat self-ID brings, that we should accept even a little bit of abuse and harassment and criminalization in order to get it.

You should not gamble. You missed my point. I am not saying such legislation or propositions don't exist, I am saying I've seen no convincing evidence that there is significant harm coming from it. I know you disagree...

As for the benefit of self-ID, obviously that is what has led to the push to use it, the benefit is that it removes the burden of getting that' ID recognized. The analogy is voting rights: One view (championed by the right) is that we *need* voter ID to prevent fraudulent voting. The real reason of course it that the right knows it will exclude a ton of minority voters and help their cause. The inclusionary policy favored by the left tries to make voting easier for everyone, while still maintaining a degree of security to prevent those rare instances of abuse happening.

 

[lionking]

Well, I am gonna keep this brief cause she is free to join the forum. But basically she sees your line of questioning as a 'gotcha' when the real issue (to her) is trying to make feel this group feel more included rather than excluded, as 'outcasts' So in other words, try to accommodate and seek solutions rather than looking for potential problems to shut down the entire effort.
This is *her* response, so please no need to argue with me

Do you seriously not see the difference between toilets with cubicles and change rooms which mostly are open spaces where naked people congregate?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not so sure about that.

Have you seen what the spa actually said about why they couldn’t create a female-only space?

"Thus, California law prohibits discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people in business establishments," the spa's statement said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7.com/amp/wi-spa-protest-trans-rights-koreatown/10857589/

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I am gonna keep this brief cause she is free to join the forum. But basically she sees your line of questioning as a 'gotcha' when the real issue (to her) is trying to make feel this group feel more included rather than excluded, as 'outcasts' So in other words, try to accommodate and seek solutions rather than looking for potential problems to shut down the entire effort.
This is *her* response, so please no need to argue with me

Sigh. We come across this so often, and we've discussed it before. The propensity of many women to put women's interests aside and centre the desires and demands of men as the most important thing to be catered for. Yes, we know, it's socialised into us from infancy, but it's still depressing to see so many unable to shake it off.

Middle-aged white men are "outcasts"? The group having public policy changed across the board to eliminate single-sex spaces, the group having people sacked for tweeting things like "women are adult human females" or "no mammal can change sex", the group that has completely captured the police to the point that they have rebranded their vehicles and livery in their colours, is oppressed?

 

[theprestige]

That's not what she said. You are prone to this style of putting word in others' mouths.
What she did say, and what you have not convincingly responded to, is seeking proof (not anecdotes) that this type of behavior will become significantly more widespread or worse as a result of these changes.

It's a prediction based on available data. Data such as the deterrent effect of social norms that empower women to drive men out of their restrooms, leading to the prediction that predatory men will be less deterred if those norms are eroded. Leading also to the prediction that predatory men will be further encouraged by the criminalization of attempting to drive them out of women's restrooms.

Data such as the small increase in predatory behavior we're already seeing, with the small advances already being made with fiat self-ID.

Of course we expect these problems to get worse, as sex-based discrimination in sex-segregated spaces becomes more and more taboo, more and more criminalized.

Just as we expect there to be more male on female rape, as more men are housed in women's prisons on nothing more than their say-so. And just as we expect more women athletes to be marginalized and their careers prematurely ended, as giving men the option to compete in women's leagues becomes more normalized.

Can you think of any plausible reason to believe these problems would decrease, as the processes and policies that enable them are increased?

It is our fervent hope that we can halt this trend sooner rather than later, before they produce the increased "proof" - i.e., suffering and disenfranchisement - that you're so eager to see.

You say "anecdotes". I say "case studies" and "data points". And the trend is clear. How much more sexual harassment and abuse do you need, before you decide it's time to reverse it? How much more disenfranchisement of women would it take to satisfy you that fiat self-ID is a bad idea?

 

[theprestige]

Wow...talk about condescending. Up til now I almost thought you were reasonable. Now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Seriously??

Not seriously. Facetiously. I'm yanking your chain because the introduction of notional third parties who argue on your behalf through you peeves me.

The existence of your wife, her bona fides, her opinions, is entirely unverifiable and irrelevant. You might as well claim the words are your own. If someone claiming to be your wife joins this forum and speaks for herself, I'll take that at face value. From you, I take it as a mere rhetorical device.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm asking for good evidence of the problem. You may feel your examples are outstanding and convincing, but I'm not convinced.
You may be correct with the problem solving aspect of it--I'm all for that!

Cool. So how do you propose to solve the problem, assuming it exists?

Seriously? You are the one who needs to put up or shut up.

Click back.

 

[theprestige]

You should not gamble. You missed my point. I am not saying such legislation or propositions don't exist, I am saying I've seen no convincing evidence that there is significant harm coming from it. I know you disagree...

You've said both. You challenged the assertion that fiat self-ID was being pushed and was being implemented. We gave you evidence that both of those things were true. Now you're pretending you believed it all along.

 

[stanfr]

Have you seen what the spa actually said about why they couldn’t create a female-only space?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7.com/amp/wi-spa-protest-trans-rights-koreatown/10857589/

I don't care what the spa said, I care what the courts say. Try again.

 

[stanfr]

You've said both. You challenged the assertion that fiat self-ID was being pushed and was being implemented. We gave you evidence that both of those things were true. Now you're pretending you believed it all along.

Not quite, I said "if it were flat" It is not flat from what Ive seen you present.
Not one piece of 'evidence' you've given shows that a male can be considered a female simply by saying "I am female" That's 'flat id' as far as I'm concerned. If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

[Paul2]

. . . .
As for the benefit of self-ID, obviously that is what has led to the push to use it, the benefit is that it removes the burden of getting that' ID recognized. The analogy is voting rights: One view (championed by the right) is that we *need* voter ID to prevent fraudulent voting. The real reason of course it that the right knows it will exclude a ton of minority voters and help their cause. The inclusionary policy favored by the left tries to make voting easier for everyone, while still maintaining a degree of security to prevent those rare instances of abuse happening.

That's an excellent analogy, although it ultimately fails because we have many measures in place already, that are not in dispute, to prevent fraudulent voting - you have to register in the first place, mailed ballots have identifiers, etc. The main argument against voter ID is that we have measures already in place that prevent fraud really well.

But with self-ID, there are no measures that would prevent a bad actor from taking advantage of the situation.

 

[stanfr]

Sigh. We come across this so often, and we've discussed it before. The propensity of many women to put women's interests aside and centre the desires and demands of men as the most important thing to be catered for. Yes, we know, it's socialised into us from infancy, but it's still depressing to see so many unable to shake it off.

Middle-aged white men are "outcasts"? The group having public policy changed across the board to eliminate single-sex spaces, the group having people sacked for tweeting things like "women are adult human females" or "no mammal can change sex", the group that has completely captured the police to the point that they have rebranded their vehicles and livery in their colours, is oppressed?

Yeah, I think history clearly shows they are oppressed, and I get that this thread is about women but LGBTQ is the broader issue. Are women in that group vehemently opposed to these changes?

 

[stanfr]

That's an excellent analogy, although it ultimately fails because we have many measures in place already, that are not in dispute, to prevent fraudulent voting - you have to register in the first place, mailed ballots have identifiers, etc. The main argument against voter ID is that we have measures already in place that prevent fraud really well.

But with self-ID, there are no measures that would prevent a bad actor from taking advantage of the situation.

Thanks for your polite response. Perhaps there should be more measures to prevent the bad actors. I'm certainly open to that idea!

 

[theprestige]

I don't care what the spa said, I care what the courts say. Try again.

That's regressive. The spa has to read the law and try to comply with the law and try to avoid having to go to court at all.

Not every business owner can afford to just fire up a court challenge every time a new law imposes new constraints on their operation. If they're confronted with a lawsuit, harm is already being done.