• 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: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
What is the best justification for denying female humans the right to have (nude) spaces to themselves? I assume there must be a fairly strong argument here, something better than the usual facile comparison to racial segregation (which we've heard here time and again) because we're talking about disrupting services by and for the sex which has faced the most discrimination.
Click to expand...

Trans are at the very top of the progressive stack. They're sacred. Everyone else must bow.
 
d4m10n said:
What is the best justification for denying female humans the right to have (nude) spaces to themselves?
Click to expand...
Apparently that the law as currently written prevents it, although the process isn't done here yet.

It's a bit of head-scratcher from my point of view. If an exception to the general view that sex discrimination is impermissible is permitted in cases like these, I'm unclear on why a similar exception to the general view that gender identity discrimination is impermissible isn't also available. But that will ultimately come do to how the relevant laws are written.
 
Ziggurat said:
"Easier" is never a justification for segregation. Racial segregation is easy to implement. The difficulty of doing so isn't why we prohibit it.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about justifiying segregation--that's a different task. I'm saying that if segregation is justified, it will be easier to identify people on the basis of gender rather than sex outside of settings where physicals might be required.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
One obvious answer--it's a hell of a lot easier.
Click to expand...

I call shenanigans. Biological sex is readily observable in almost all cases, including pretty much every case where sex segregation is being challenged on gender grounds. In those rare cases where it's not readily observable, it is ultimately, objectively observable.

That's a lot easier than gender, which nobody can even define or explain why it matters... except in the context of sex.

Sex segregation is way easier than gender segregation. In fact, crossing segregation boundaries for gender reasons only works because the segregation is sex-based to begin with.
 
We're stuck in a loop.

1. Bathrooms (and similar) were divided by sex traditionally.
2. You were able to tell at a glance (in most cases) if the person in your "space" was man or woman because men and women used to dress a certain way and otherwise, for lack of a better term, present themselves a certain way. You didn't have to literally see the innie or the outie to know in 99% of cases which one was under there.
3. Now without that, again for lack of a better term, presentation being so consistent, we have the possibility that the other biological sex can be in the "space."
4. So now we can't separate the bathrooms (and other spaces) by sex because we can't set up like actual genital checkpoints because we all get that would just be horrible.
5. But some have jumped on this to retcon history into saying it was ALWAYS about separating the "genders" despite that not making sense in any context.
 
mumblethrax said:
It can. Which is fortunate, because there is no coherent definition of race.
Click to expand...
There is at least a statistically significant definition of race:
A group of researchers compared a broad sample of genes in over 3,600 individuals who self-identified as either African American, white, East Asian, or Hispanic. DNA analysis showed that these groups fell into genetic clusters, and there was a 99.84 percent match between which cluster someone fell into and their self-designated racial classification (Tang et al. 2005).
Click to expand...
Source: The Ideological Subversion of Science," by Jerry Coyne and Luana S. Majora, in Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, July/August 2023. Coyne has posted on his web site in the past about how race is not completely a social construct.
 
mumblethrax said:
I'm not talking about [/i]justifiying[/i] segregation--that's a different task. I'm saying that if segregation is justified, it will be easier to identify people on the basis of gender rather than sex outside of settings where physicals might be required.
Click to expand...

It's not a different task, it's a necessary part of this task. Justification is needed for the specific form of segregation you want to do. You can't substitute one form of segregation that's not justified for another that is justified simply because the former is easier. You can't borrow the justification of one form of segregation in order to implement a different form. You still need a justification for any form of segregation you do. And "easier" isn't a justification. So what's the justification for gender segregation? I have never seen anyone provide one, and you aren't providing one here.

In fact, it's quite astounding that nobody in the TRA movement ever argues about why we should have gender segregation at all.
 
Sorry I'm so late to this. Here's where we started:
Emily's Cat said:
This is muddling of meanings for "gender" versus "sex".

In legal parlance, "gender" is used as a euphemism for sex. It has never been intended to represent either 1) a person's internal feeling about themself or 2) the set of roles and behaviors that they're expected to perform in society. Neither of the recent meanings of the term "gender" is applicable to how the term has been used judicially and legally in the past.
Click to expand...

mumblethrax said:
Sex is a matter biological. Gender is all of the social, cultural, psychological attachments to sex.

Which side of that razor do you think "the law" falls on?
Click to expand...
Paul2 said:
Either. You yourself said that the law could be written such that it uses the biological/gamete definition of sex.

What else did/could you mean by which side of the razor?
Click to expand...
mumblethrax said:
I'm not talking about the content of the law. I mean the law itself.
Click to expand...
By further explanation,
mumblethrax said:
I really don't think there's anything difficult or profound about saying the law is a social institution.
Click to expand...
and
mumblethrax said:
Is the law itself a social arrangement, or a biological one?
Click to expand...

The law is a social arrangement, and so is gender, but does that fact necessitate anything about EC's point about how gender has been defined and used in the law? Especially since you took the content of the law off the table?
 
Paul2 said:
The law is a social arrangement, and so is gender, but does that fact necessitate anything about EC's point about how gender has been defined and used in the law? Especially since you took the content of the law off the table?
Click to expand...
I'm simply explaining that I am not muddling sex and gender, and it seems to me that anyone who thinks the nature of sex necessitates anything about what the law says is.
 
It's the impossible trifecta.

- We have to separate by biological sex because vagina owners have to be protected from penis owners.
- But we can't like... check for penises and vaginas at the door because that's just... all kinds of horrible.
- But we also can't go "Okay penis and vagina owners you have to do X (dress a certain way, act a certain way, whatever) so we know if you're a penis or vagina owner without checking what's in your pants."

And that's where we are stuck. All 3 of those can't be implemented in the functional real world at the same time.

The debate is which side of the triangle we get rid of. One of them has to go (or be heavily modified or deemphasized depending on how much of that hair has to be split.)

And you have to accept that, the impossibility of the whole triangle, even if you don't fully disagree with any side of it. There's arguments, logical sane arguments, for each side but they all 3 can't be "real world application" true at the same time. We can't make this not true.

And again I can lay out what the actual problem is without saying sex, gender, male, female, cis, or trans.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
It's not a different task, it's a necessary part of this task. Justification is needed for the specific form of segregation you want to do.
Click to expand...
The justification will be advanced on similar grounds to the justification for sex discrimination. Is a transwoman likely to be safe in the men's room? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
Lplus said:
What is the justification for writing a law that has the inevitable effect of denying single sex accomodations and services?
Click to expand...
The fact that such effects are not foreseeable.

Anti-sex-discrimination law might eventually be construed as barring sex segregated public bathrooms altogether. That doesn't seem like a good reason not to have such laws.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom