Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[d4m10n]

You think Merager was arrested simply for being nude?

Have a look at California Penal Code Section 314.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Have a look at California Penal Code Section 314.

I really have no interest in discussing this until more information about the case is available. Speculating about how exactly what law was broken is a level of tediousness even I'm not willing to entertain.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Isn't this the whole complaint about the Wi Spa thing or the Canada women's shelter?

There are places where it's legal for trans women to use women's restrooms or other women's facilities. This is not a controversial statement for ****'s sake, why are you being so obtuse about this?

Okay. But let's be clear on this - all of those spaces have historically been separated on the basis of sex. And the majority of females wish them to remain separated on the basis of sex.

Some activists are trying to force us to change that so that they're separated on the basis of magical gender soul feels.

So what's going on is that a group of males and their allies are campaigning (often with violence, threats, and intimidation) to FORCE females to accept males into their historically single-sex spaces... and we object to that.

You are effectively pretending that they've always been separated on the basis of magical internal feelings about what stereotypes a person likes best, and then using that pretense, you support making it a *right of law* for males to transgress female boundaries at their whim

In reality, none of those spaces were ever INTENDED to be separated on the basis of magical feelings. Just because you and your fellow male rights activists are loudly proclaiming that you WANT to change the underlying meaning of words, and then retroactively shove them down the throats of nonconsenting females doesn't mean it makes sense, nor does it actually change how those spaces were designed.

Short version: You and your ilk humpty-dumptying the meaning of key words and then hollering loudly that females are bigots if they don't submit to the whim of some males to invade their spaces doesn't actually make it so.

It's linguistic terrorism.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Group showers, even sex segregated ones, aren't exactly the most comfortable thing either. Last time around I pointed out numerous local news articles discussing how students, in the absence of any authority figure demanding it, would simply opt not to shower after gym class rather than use the gang type showers. You may as well not build these showers if you're not going to put in private stalls.

Increasing personal privacy is probably worth the cost because it directly provides people with what they actually want, which is individual bodily autonomy.

None of this is an argument in support of intimate spaces being separated on the basis of magical gendery feels. None of this supports your position that some special males should have the right to violate female boundaries based on a magical formula uttered out loud.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Historically speaking, there was no policy of self ID. There's plenty of evidence that predators are now taking advantage of self ID, some of which other posters here have provided. If you can't see why self ID would lead to predators exploiting it, you don't understand human nature. There's no mystery here.

It's always a bit of a conundrum: Do those who gloss over and hand-wave away the tendency of some males to be exploitative predators a matter of sheer ignorance... or do they just not give a **** about females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The reasoning for separate facilities are rooted in desires for modesty. People generally don't want to be leered at with lusty eyes while in states of undress or other position of vulnerability. Sex segregation makes sense if you discount the existence of trans people or of homosexuality, but us modern people have to grapple with the existence of both. Personal privacy seems a decent solution that attacks the root of the issue without having to make sweeping assumptions about heteronormativity.

1) Transgender people are still the sex they developed as in utero. Transgender identified males are still males. There's no need to "discount" them when discussing SEX separated spaces.
2) Females who are same-sex attracted don't tend to leer at other females with lustful gazes while in female-only spaces... because they are females and they understand the discomfort it causes. It's exceedingly rare. Additionally, even if a fellow female WERE to leer at a female, the subject of their lustful gaze is highly unlikely to feel physically intimidated by them or to have a fear of sexual assault and rape from another female. The odds are vanishingly small.

Separation of sporting is more about the athletic ability differences of the sexes, an entirely different concern. There are legitimate concerns about fairness in competition (but these are not the only concerns, especially in educational contexts), which is why certain restrictions for trans people are often seen as reasonable.

Sports is a special case and is not actually that closely linked to the other concerns, despite efforts by transphobes who try to use it as a wedge issue to justify sweeping trans exclusion.

It's completely related. All of the objections that you so casually dismiss as bigoted are rooted in sexual dimorphism, the material reality of our sex, the differences in physicality and aggression and strength, AND the risk that males present to females on the whole.

Just because you have decided that female rights, safety, and dignity are unimportant doesn't make it so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What I understand is that some people posting here have no regard for women’s sports.

I think your sentence is one word to long.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

2) Females who are same-sex attracted don't tend to leer at other females with lustful gazes while in female-only spaces... because they are females and they understand the discomfort it causes. It's exceedingly rare. Additionally, even if a fellow female WERE to leer at a female, the subject of their lustful gaze is highly unlikely to feel physically intimidated by them or to have a fear of sexual assault and rape from another female. The odds are vanishingly small.

Source: I made it up

 

[d4m10n]

I really have no interest in discussing this until more information about the case is available. Speculating about how exactly what law was broken is a level of tediousness even I'm not willing to entertain.

Tip: Don't ask someone why they think an arrest happened if you're not into discussing the elements of the crime.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a strange view of this situation that these segregated spaces only exist to protect women's interests.

Females had to FIGHT to get sex-separated intimate spaces. We had to FIGHT to get female-only restrooms, showers, and locker rooms.

WHO and UN routinely emphasize the importance of single-sex spaces being made available to females in developing countries... because it turns out that the education of females, and female participation in society and culture, is the single greatest means by which a country can advance economically and politically.

Those spaces DO exist to protect females. They protect us females from you males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You may not care about trans men, but I would not be so comfortable assuming your blase attitude about them is universally shared. Even among the broader group of transphobes, the narrow focus on women only seems to mostly be a preoccupation of TERFs.

BECAUSE TRANSGENDER IDENTIFIED FEMALES ARE STILL FEMALES!

FFS, the entire basis of this is not exclusion of transgender identified people as a whole. It's exclusion of MALES REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY IDENTIFY.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The two issues are inextricably linked whether TERFs care to admit it or not.

And yet you continue to just stick your fingers in your ears and holler "la la la I can't hear you!" when the reason that these situations are materially and meaningfully different is explained to you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well yeah, it's not a mystery. My point is that TERFism is just one of many voices on this issue, and in the US they aren't an especially important one. Their laser focus on only women's issues should not constrain the broader conversation on this topic.

Holy ******* christ on a dildo.

The conflict with female rights, safety, and dignity is the ONLY objection that the vast majority of females and rational males have on this topic.

It's the only one that matters.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So far as I can tell, there are basically two camps in opposition to the trans activist project (i.e. deprecation of biological sex in favor of gender identity) when it comes to sorting people out on those rare occasions when we do not generally prefer a fully co-ed environment: radfems and tradcons. These two groups agree that males and females are genuinely different and deserve their own spaces, leagues, record books, etc. but they disagree fairly strongly on why this is should be so. In the U.S. the radical feminists have almost no influence, presumably because American feminists are losing a rear-guard action for basic bodily autonomy against traditionalist conservatives who would force them to bear children against their will, among other indignities.

As to the broader conversation, most people just don't care that much. Men are not generally threatened by trans men (or non-binary females) in their leagues or locker rooms, for reasons which should be fairly obvious.

It's not radfems. This is a bit og linguistic terrorism being foisted on the world.

It's pretty much all females who aren't libfems... and a chunk of libfems as well. The overwhelming majority of females who are critical of this faith-based activism aren't radical feminists, most don't even know what that means. I'm not a radical feminist. I bear more in common with 2nd wave feminism, but even so I'm most definitely NOT a radical feminist. I'm just a common sense feminist. Most of my fellow female travelers don't even consider themselves feminists at all, they're simply females who have more brains that the male-rights activists who have hijacked trans issues give us credit for.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Probably worth mentioning that not all women share the TERF doom-and-gloom perspective on transwomen either.

TERF itself was coined as a term to distinguish this particular niche of women and feminists from those that aren't obsessed with excluding trans women.

It was coined by a group of lesbian radical feminists who, from the very beginning, observed that transgender identified males are still males. Then it was appropriated by male rights activists in order to demean and insult females - specifically females - under the guise of "progress". It gets used, predominantly by males fighting to increase the privileges of males, to put those uppity females in their place.

It gets used to intimidate, threaten, and attack females who don't submit to the desires and whims of males.

 

[Ziggurat]

Source: I made it up

It's not made up. She left out a pretty important reason: there's plenty of scientific evidence that males get sexually aroused more than females by visual stimulus. And if you know anything about humans, you shouldn't need a scientific study to tell you that either. So it's not an equivalent situation at all.

Plus, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, patterns of female sexual predation don't match patterns of male sexual predation. And even if they did (but they don't), as Emily's Cat pointed out, the threat isn't the same. And she underplayed that too: female-on-female sexual assault can't produce pregnancy and is much less likely to transmit STD's.

 

[Elaedith]

BECAUSE TRANSGENDER IDENTIFIED FEMALES ARE STILL FEMALES!

FFS, the entire basis of this is not exclusion of transgender identified people as a whole. It's exclusion of MALES REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY IDENTIFY.

The problem is you can't have a concept of 'males regardless of how they identify' when 'male' and 'females' have been redefined as identities. That's why this 'win by changing the meaning of words' is so seductive to those with a fundamentalist mindset.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Absolutely. There's a major class component to this as well. In particular, upper class women are at much less risk from male sexual predators than lower class women. They don't face the same potential consequences from the adoption of self ID. As a rather obvious example, they see no personal risk in allowing trans women in women's prisons, because they're never going to end up in prison. So it's no surprise that many upper class women in particular are on board with the trans activist agenda. But that doesn't really prove anything about the merits of anyone's position.

Spot on.

A whole lot of middle and upper class females are happy to be liberal feminists, because they are not at all affected by the policies proposed. All they see is that it makes a particular group of males happy, and well... they don't see the downside because it doesn't happen to them. They are also overwhelmingly white - which is inextricably tied into the class aspect of this.

Most of those middle+ class white females are happy to go along with the religious catechisms that "transwomen are women" and "sex work is work". They aren't going to end up in prison, so they don't bother to think about the impact of females in prison - and besides, most of those females in prison are various shades of brown, and to a whole lot of middle-class white progressives, brown people are only of interest if they can be used to further the agendas of a white person. They don't know any prostitutes, they've never been exposed to anyone who has worked in prostitution. They mostly don't even know any females who have worked in pornography. They walk around with rose-colored glasses on, and only allow themselves to see what they want to see. They think "sex work" is the very few females who are successful on Only Fans. They think "sex work" is the small number of professional females involved in professionally produced pornography. They turn a blind eye to the huge numbers of females who are forced into prostitution, who are trafficked, who are physically abused, who are turned into drug addicts and exploited by males. Those females don't exist to them, and they can't be bothered to learn about it. They live on the shores of the deep lake, and only ever dip their toes in the water... and then they falsely believe that nobody could ever drown out there because it's only an inch deep.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I trust you have very compelling data to show this is true. Surely it is easy to demonstrate this considering that trans inclusion has been policy/law in places for years now.

Every time this comes up, you say "show me the proof". Then when you are shown proof, you hand wave it away as "oh that's just an outlier, it's an exception". When you're shown more, you say "oh, that's a biased source it doesn't count". And then you go silent and drop out of the thread for a bit and pretend it never happened.

Then you come back and repeat the whole process.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've seen anecdotes. What that's phrase skeptics say about anecdotes again?

This might shock you, but sex crimes existed before the recent controversy about trans people. Sharing anecdotes about predators attacking women in toilets or whatever isn't showing a cause-effect relationship between trans inclusive policy and women's safety.

See - "Oh that's just an anecdote, it's just an outlier"

What's your threshold? How many females have to be violated before you consider it worth taking seriously? How many females need to be assaulted or raped before you decide it's important enough for you to consider?

What's the number of females that you think is an acceptable cost in order to give males the right to violate female boundaries?