• 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.
TomB said:
Do you believe that bathrooms and locker rooms that segregate by sex or gender should be legal? Regardless of whether it's by sex or gender, both discriminate.
Click to expand...
TG has already answered this in the negative with respect to sex, saying that women should be sued (or otherwise sanctioned) for attempting to create all female accommodations.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
Do you believe that bathrooms and locker rooms that segregate by sex or gender should be legal? Regardless of whether it's by sex or gender, both discriminate.

ETA: Note, that's not a question of what you think the law is, but rather what you think the law should be.
Click to expand...

This has already been covered, but I can briefly summarize my stance on this:

The demand for modesty in this sensitive places is worth respecting, though the assumptions of heteronormativity inherent in using sex/gender segregation are obviously not true.

Personal privacy seems the obviously superior way to approach these problems, but if that's not on offer, then gender segregated places should not be permitted to discriminate against trans people.
 
d4m10n said:
...but it's ok to segregate by gender identity?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not what I would prefer. Segregating by gender assumes that all potential for sexual desire is eliminated when men and women are not sharing the same space, which we all know simply isn't true.

Meaningful personal privacy would be a better approach instead of just foisting this status quo on people.
 
d4m10n said:
If you're going to bring up the racial segregation analogy, you're going to have to deal with all the implications of the analogy. That includes sports leagues as well as public accommodations.

Either way, when you run this analogy you are confusing groups which are meaningfully different (e.g. males and females) with groups that are not (e.g. African Americans and European Americans).

Black men do not require different bathroom facilities than white men, but black men do want different facilities than black women, because urinals are quick and convenient. Similarly, women want a bin for feminine hygiene products, but men do not.
Click to expand...

Don't play dumb.

Surely you can see there is a meaningful difference in the claim that the differences in sexes in certain physical ways has serious fairness concerns in competitive sport, but what exactly does that have to do with whether men or women can use the same public gym?

These two issues are only somewhat related. Sports is a concern about physical ability and fairness in competition, sharing public spaces is about modesty or concerns about safety.

hence my motte and bailey comment. When this discussion veers a bit too close to revealing that at least some of the aversion to trans people, specifically trans women, is rooted in animus towards trans women (and cismen), you retreat back to the wedge issue of sports competition.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Meaningful personal privacy would be a better approach instead of just foisting this status quo on people.
Click to expand...

This is not an option in many cases. When it's not an option, what would you prefer? Segregation by sex or by gender identity?
 
Ziggurat said:
This is not an option in many cases. When it's not an option, what would you prefer? Segregation by sex or by gender identity?
Click to expand...

Why isn't it an option? A significant part of this country moved mountains to make segregation a reality, seems trivial to improve the personal privacy of bathrooms and changing rooms if this is something society cares about.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
"it's too expensive to not discriminate" is generally not considered an acceptable answer in other contexts.
Click to expand...

You're playing dumb.

What's too expensive in some cases is personal privacy. Where personal privacy cannot be achieved, we can either not discriminate at all, we can discriminate based on sex, we can discriminate based on gender identity, or we can even discriminate based on some other variable of your choice. What's your preference? Don't play dumb and answer the question.

And actually, sometimes it absolutely is OK to discriminate if it's too expensive not to. For example, accommodations for the handicapped need only be "reasonable", and if it's too expensive to accommodate the handicapped, then such and accommodation is no longer reasonable, and you don't have to do it. So you can discriminate against them when you can't afford to accommodate them.
 
Ziggurat said:
You're playing dumb.

What's too expensive in some cases is personal privacy. Where personal privacy cannot be achieved, we can either not discriminate at all, we can discriminate based on sex, we can discriminate based on gender identity, or we can even discriminate based on some other variable of your choice. What's your preference? Don't play dumb and answer the question.

And actually, sometimes it absolutely is OK to discriminate if it's too expensive not to. For example, accommodations for the handicapped need only be "reasonable", and if it's too expensive to accommodate the handicapped, then such and accommodation is no longer reasonable, and you don't have to do it. So you can discriminate against them when you can't afford to accommodate them.
Click to expand...

I dispute how frequently it is the case that improving personal privacy is unreasonable.

In the case of schools, building gang showers is probably more wasteful than not building any showers at all, because absent being compelled to use them (which comes with obvious legal liability), students are opting not to use showers that don't provide personal privacy.

New California middle and high schools are required by law to build showers. Districts typically try to build as few as possible, although individual stalls - unlike the "gang" showers of the past - are becoming popular.

If high schools can find money to build huge stadiums, Corbin adds, they can manage to afford more appealing locker rooms. Some schools are following Corbin's advice and making their gym facilities more user-friendly.
Click to expand...

https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0203/p12s01-legn.html

I can't remember the last time I saw a private gym that didn't have personal shower stalls, including a few examples where existing gang showers where retrofitted for privacy.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Not 100% - you're overreaching. But most certainly in the same ballpark, no matter how many people in this thread reflexively try to insist that it's not. What a ******** this thread still is.
Click to expand...
Trans rights activists want sex segregation. As you know and as has been pointed out ad nauseam.

According to you (and JoeMorgue) trans rights activists are racists and homophobes.

Or just maybe your pathetic reflexive insistent arguments have shot themselves in the foot. What toxic bile indeed.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I dispute how frequently it is the case that improving personal privacy is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Stop playing dumb. The exact frequency isn't relevant. It will be the case sometimes.

You're awfully desperate to avoid answering a very simple question.
 
Ziggurat said:
Stop playing dumb. The exact frequency isn't relevant. It will be the case sometimes.

You're awfully desperate to avoid answering a very simple question.
Click to expand...

I don't accept your prior assumption. You can call that playing dumb, but I am being quite sincere when I say I don't accept that improving bathrooms and such is prohibitively expensive.

In fact, I would not be surprised if that's exactly what happens as a direct reaction to laws preventing transgender discrimination in these places. If discrimination is no longer an option, suddenly these insurmountable barriers will no longer seem that insurmountable.
 
Francesca R said:
According to you (and JoeMorgue) trans rights activists are racists and homophobes.
Click to expand...

....
...
..

It's **** like this that makes it REAL hard to stay on some people's side.

If you'd start actually reading for comprehension and not just waiting to hit the "I'M OFFENDED" button.

I compared not wanting a trans person with a penis in your vagina only space as the exact same as not wanting a gay male's penis in my space (Jesus there's a turn of phrase I super hope gets taken out of context) and I certainly didn't mean it as a positive by an sane reading of it.

I'm saying "OMG THERE'S A PENIS IN MY SPACE" jumping straight to "IT'S GONNA RAPE ME!" is unreasonable and have been like... super clear on it.

My issue is why a straight cis-male penis in a vagina owner's safe spaces is the only one we're allowed to be worried about.

Straight cis-women don't deserve "safe from penis" spaces more (or less) than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Surely you can see there is a meaningful difference in the claim that the differences in sexes in certain physical ways has serious fairness concerns in competitive sport, but what exactly does that have to do with whether men or women can use the same public gym?
Click to expand...
The question was and remains whether females (an historically oppressed group) should be legally allowed to have their own music festivals or schools or gymnasia or dating apps or sports leagues or what-have-you, setting their own criteria for entry therein. You have answered that question in the negative for all of these situations based on a broad analogy to racial segregation. I would point out that racial segregation was never about providing an historically oppressed group with the right to self-determination in spaces which they manage for themselves, but I assume you must already know this and somehow consider it unimportant.

TurkeysGhost said:
Sports is a concern about physical ability and fairness in competition, sharing public spaces is about modesty or concerns about safety.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness there are a few good men here to instruct females in which of these various concerns should really matter to them, whenever they attempt to carve out spaces for themselves. A sort of benevolent patriarchy, if you will, lifting the burden of decision making from women who thought they could do it themselves.

TurkeysGhost said:
When this discussion veers a bit too close to revealing that at least some of the aversion to trans people, specifically trans women, is rooted in animus towards trans women (and cismen), you retreat back to the wedge issue of sports competition.
Click to expand...
You have yet to show why your racial segregation analogy only applies to human pursuits other than sports; don't expect interlocutors to fill in the gaps for you.

It might also be helpful to know that "wedge issue" is usually used to describe attempts to incrementally change public policy. In this case, the policy used to be sex segregation (in various and sundry spaces) and the people hoping to change the policy are progressive reformers. Sometimes this is a manifestly good thing, as when C-suites and doctors lounges stopped being all-male enclaves. At other times it was not a manifestly good thing, as when a Penn swimmer felt compelled to change clothes in a broom cupboard rather than the women's locker room. That last example conflates both sports and modesty, but either way, it "sucks to suck," as the kids say these days.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I dispute how frequently it is the case that improving personal privacy is unreasonable.

In the case of schools, building gang showers is probably more wasteful than not building any showers at all, because absent being compelled to use them (which comes with obvious legal liability), students are opting not to use showers that don't provide personal privacy.



https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0203/p12s01-legn.html

I can't remember the last time I saw a private gym that didn't have personal shower stalls, including a few examples where existing gang showers where retrofitted for privacy.
Click to expand...

My gym has curtains for showers. But not for the lockers. If someone really wanted privacy, they could change in a shower stall. That is not SOP though.
 
The only, only issue I have is the double standard of:

"Hold there! This is a vagina only space! What genitalis doth you posses?"
"I'm a man. I have a penis."
"BEGONE! You cannot enter this place!"

and

"Hold there! This is a vagina only space! What genitalis doth you posses?"
"I'm a woman. I have a penis, but it's a lady penis."
"Well then please come."

I reject the notion that a transwoman's penis is less threatening then mine, as if gender identify reduces a person's threat vector for sex crimes. If

Nope if you've got a schlong you're either on or off the "Gonna going on a raping spree the first chance you get" threat chart.

And this is the exact same argument as "Eeeww gay men. They can't be in here, what if they try something?"

My only demand is the "threat vectors" of the penises stay the same.
 
d4m10n said:
The question was and remains whether females (an historically oppressed group) should be legally allowed to have their own music festivals or schools or gymnasia or dating apps or sports leagues or what-have-you, setting their own criteria for entry therein. You have answered that question in the negative for all of these situations based on a broad analogy to racial segregation. I would point out that racial segregation was never about providing an historically oppressed group with the right to self-determination in spaces which they manage for themselves, but I assume you must already know this and somehow consider it unimportant.
Click to expand...

The anti-discrimination knife cuts in all directions. A "gays only" gym or "black's only" gym would have the same problems, even if they are the historically oppressed group.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom