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

[angrysoba]

Darts are projectiles in motion; males are better at judging that than females because they have so much experience aiming their urine at the toilet.

I'm guessing this is a joke.

In snooker height does matter to a point and then becomes a problem again.

I doubt it matters to a point where women would be consistently disadvantaged. It is sometimes thought that their boobs get in the way, but that shouldn't be a problem for women with small boobs.

I think it is likely that there are fewer tall women, with smaller boobs who spend an inordinate time around a snooker table. But I doubt that there are insurmountable physical problems.

On chess, I know people hate hearing it but Lawrence Summers was right; one of the consequences of males having greater standard deviations in their intelligence is that they tend to be clustered at the top end of intellectual endeavors, whether we're talking about the faculty at Harvard or chess grandmasters or the final table at the World Series of Poker.

Meh! Again, it might be that there are fewer players, but not an insurmounatable difference. I don't think that we are going to get to the point where we have to conclude that men and women's brains are so fundamentally different.

However, if we do, then that DOES raise an interesting question.

Do you believe there is a male brain and a female brain?

If so, let's follow the logic with a thought experiment.

Could there be a male brain in a female body? We are not relying here on sex organs, but on the claimed reason why men and women cannot play chess together, because fundamentally they have different brains.

If so, this may indeed be what transgenderism is. A male brain in a female body and vice versa.

But you are right. Many people hate hearing the idea that men and women have different brains, and they tend to be on the left.

On the other hand, many people hate the idea that men genuinely believe that they are women and not only that but claim that they actually are women. They tend to be on the right.

So my proposal is that we accept a simple proposition that will piss off the left and right but may be correct.

Find out what makes a brain male and .... well, assign each person with that trait male regardless of sex organs.

AND

Find out what makes a brain female and assign each person with that trait female, again regardless of sex organs.

AND whatever is left and doesn't have either trait we'll call non-binary.

Good! I've sorted it.

We can now close the thread and everyone caan go home pissed off.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Reactionary bigots in 1923: "Anyone who organizes a females-only club should be thrown in jail."

Progressive bigots in 2023: "Anyone who organizes a females-only club should be thrown in jail."

Of course, places like "Curves" only exist as a refuge from co-ed gyms where harassment is allowed to occur. The entire business model is based on the perception (and often fact) that women are de-facto discriminated against in non-segregated gyms in the form of unchecked sexual harassment.

Rather than throwing in the towel and "letting boys be boys", the more appropriate response is to demand that men behave better in public and demand that these businesses uphold their duty to provide a harassment free environment.

Generally speaking, creating segregated spaces rather than addressing the root issues is not something to celebrate. I don't consider countries that decide that men will always behave like pigs (with implicit permission from the state) and that segregated public spaces is the solution as particularly progressive. The "women's only" train car is nothing to aspire to, it's a sign of failure.

 

[d4m10n]

Boo hoo, the AG told me I can't run my discriminatory business anymore without getting sued into dust.

Females never get to have their own spaces (e.g. dating apps, nude spas, locker rooms, etc.) because that would be unfair to aggrieved males who demand validation from females under any and all circumstances.

For great justice!

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Females never get to have their own spaces (e.g. dating apps, nude spas, locker rooms, etc.) because that would be unfair to aggrieved males who demand validation from females under any and all circumstances.

For great justice!

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

What can I say, segregation has had its day in the court of public opinion and lost.

Nothing stops these people from forming their own private, discriminatory clubs and associations (at least in the US), but if you want to open a business to the public you become burdened the public's laws. Sucks to suck.

 

[d4m10n]

What can I say, segregation has had its day in the court of public opinion and lost.

What can I say, except that sex is real and race is an arbitrary construct? There is no good reason to have a separate Negro League, but there are perfectly good reasons to have separate record books and locker rooms for women swimmers and weightlifters.

Sent from my Albany Primo using Tapatalk

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What can I say, except that sex is real and race is an arbitrary construct? There is no good reason to have a separate Negro League, but there are perfectly good reasons to have separate record books and locker rooms for women swimmers and weightlifters.

Sent from my Albany Primo using Tapatalk

Motte and bailey.

We were talking about women's only gyms and public accommodations, not sport.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again we're back the impossible triangle.

1. The people with the penises must be kept separate from the people with the vaginas in some cases for the safety/privacy/competitiveness/etc of the people with vaginas.
2. We can't check for penis and vaginas at the literal or metaphorical door because we all agree that would just be horrible and putting it on the honor system would be pointless.
3. We've removed everything external that identifies a person with a penis or a person with a vagina. People with specific genitals are not expected or required to look, act, identity, present, code, etc in any specific way.

And again this is not about what anyone thinks about any one of the tent polls. You just have, HAVE, ******* HAVE to accept that all 3 of them can't be meaningfully, functionally true on a societal level at the same time.

At least one of them has to go, or at least be minimized or changed to a radical way.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've largely avoided taking a stance because I'm not at all familiar with Australian law, which seems like necessary knowledge.

Even in US law, I'm not really sure how exactly these kinds of seemingly discriminatory businesses are allowed, such as the women's only gym "Curves" in the US.

Generally speaking I do support laws that criminalize discrimination of this kind in public accommodations.

Why should that be criminalized? What harm does a female-only gym do?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Same as a white only gym.

 

[Ziggurat]

Same as a white only gym.

No. Sex and race are not equivalent. If you want to argue against sex-based segregation in gyms, you need to be able to do it on its own merits without appealing to race. If you can't, then you don't have an argument against it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No. Sex and race are not equivalent. If you want to argue against sex-based segregation in gyms, you need to be able to do it on its own merits without appealing to race. If you can't, then you don't have an argument against it.

Right because 99% of the racists opposed to integration of the races in the Civil Rights movement weren't hiding behind "We're not racists, we just want to protect the white women from getting raped by black men."

Black men just stopped being the rapist hiding in every shadow and it became all men.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right because 99% of the racists opposed to integration of the races in the Civil Rights movement weren't hiding behind "We're not racists, we just want to protect the white women from getting raped by black men."

Black men just stopped being the rapist hiding in every shadow and it became all men.

Complain all you want to, but sex and race aren't the same, and you have failed to form an actual argument against sex segregated gyms.

 

[lionking]

We were talking about women's only gyms and public accommodations, not sport.

Speak for yourself. Sport is central to this thread.

 

[lionking]

Same as a white only gym.

What nonsense. When people bring up points like this you know they have nothing of substance to add.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In the context of this discussion the only difference is that it's not socially acceptable enough to be a racists anymore to hid "I just want to be feel safe" behind it.

I remember when men were bigots because they don't want gay men in locker rooms because they might rape them.

Apparently cis-straight men are the only rapists.

I've said before at times this discussion almost gets to the point where people are trying to make "rapist" a gender, like how "Colonizer" gets used for white person.

 

[Lplus]

And again we're back the impossible triangle.

1. The people with the penises must be kept separate from the people with the vaginas in some cases for the safety/privacy/competitiveness/etc of the people with vaginas.
2. We can't check for penis and vaginas at the literal or metaphorical door because we all agree that would just be horrible and putting it on the honor system would be pointless.
3. We've removed everything external that identifies a person with a penis or a person with a vagina. People with specific genitals are not expected or required to look, act, identity, present, code, etc in any specific way.

And again this is not about what anyone thinks about any one of the tent polls. You just have, HAVE, ******* HAVE to accept that all 3 of them can't be meaningfully, functionally true on a societal level at the same time.

At least one of them has to go, or at least be minimized or changed to a radical way.

Item 2 seems ripe for modification. Sure we can't check for penises at the door, but ensuring anyone with a penis who decides to intrude on the space reserved for those with vaginas and exhibit their penis, either intentionally or not, is removed smartly and punished would no doubt go a long way to minimising the likelyhood of such occurences.

I seem to have heard of something like that situation exisiting before....

 

[Darat]

And again we're back the impossible triangle.

1. The people with the penises must be kept separate from the people with the vaginas in some cases for the safety/privacy/competitiveness/etc of the people with vaginas.
2. We can't check for penis and vaginas at the literal or metaphorical door because we all agree that would just be horrible and putting it on the honor system would be pointless.
3. We've removed everything external that identifies a person with a penis or a person with a vagina. People with specific genitals are not expected or required to look, act, identity, present, code, etc in any specific way.

And again this is not about what anyone thinks about any one of the tent polls. You just have, HAVE, ******* HAVE to accept that all 3 of them can't be meaningfully, functionally true on a societal level at the same time.

At least one of them has to go, or at least be minimized or changed to a radical way.

Or we just accept that logic doesn't work very well when used to try and describe society.

In the following- I am using "sex" to mean the biological sex, the XX and XY thing. I am using "female" to mean biological women, male to mean biological men.


At the moment we have two groups that want incompatible "rights". Those two groups are those that want the current sex segregation in some areas be maintained, and those that want the current sex segregation in some areas to be removed.

There is no way to square the circle, but there are some compromises we could look at, which as ever will not please anyone, that we could introduce.

The "changing rooms" - in those areas where we still see each other naked we can say in the female spaces that no one with male looking genitalia can use those even if their gender has been officially changed. This would allow trans women who have undergone genital surgery to use such areas. Some extreme trans activists won't like that and the answer to that is when you get down to it "tough". It may not please extremist "female only" activists, who don't want anyone of the male sex regardless of any treatment they have had to use female sex segregated places. In my view however the surgery does help to allay one of the legitimate concerns of the female-only activists, the sexual assault of females by males.

As to how do we "police" these types of compromises - I think our current systems work well, a person undressing in a female sex-segregated space who has male genitalia is committing an offence in most countries, probably something akin to "exposure" in the UK.

 

[Ziggurat]

In the context of this discussion the only difference is that it's not socially acceptable enough to be a racists anymore to hid "I just want to be feel safe" behind it.

First, no, that is not the only difference. Not by a long shot.

Second, I asked what harm female-only gyms do. Your sarcastic comments about men being rapists suggest (but don't actually make) an argument against the necessity of female-only gyms. But that wasn't my question. Even if they aren't necessary, that doesn't mean they do any harm.

Third, fear of rape isn't the only possible reason women might want to have female-only gyms.

Fourth, you still can't make an argument without appealing to race. One of the notable things about this consistent failure is that even if race and sex were equivalent (they aren't), you should still be able to make an argument about the harm done without reference to race if they actually did harm. But... you can't. And your insistence that they are the same isn't a substitute for an argument that harm is done by female-only gyms.

I've said before at times this discussion almost gets to the point where people are trying to make "rapist" a gender, like how "Colonizer" gets used for white person.

I'd like for the conversation to get to the point where people talk about directly about the actual subject of discussion, rather than appealing to other things as if they can substitute other debates for this one. And note, I've never brought up rape in our exchange here, only you have.

 

[theprestige]

A privately run gym is a public accommodation? If US laws hold this to be true they are even more stupid than I originally thought. And I originally thought them monumentally stupid.

For the most part, US law holds that if you provide services to the general public, you cannot deny service based on race, religion, sex, or age. There are some limited loopholes, and some specific exceptions, but in general, that's how it is.

You can have a women-only gym, that's open to women of all races, for example.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fourth, you still can't make an argument without appealing to race.

I'm not obligated to stop making arguments because they make your argument look bad. Shove your "oH uR juST plAYing Da rAce Card!"

"I want to be kept separate from THE OTHER because I'm scared of them or don't like being around them" is the core argument for both women only gyms and white only water fountains. Deal with it or die made about it.