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

[JoeMorgue]

Part of the issue with domestic violence shelters is that their intention goes beyond the surface purpose of providing a refuge from the abuser. There is also a psychological component where they are trying to provide an environment where things like PTSD triggers are minimized.

It is arguable that discomfort around males may be overemphasized in the issues that the shelters design themselves around addressing, but there certainly is a demographic of abused women who will have difficulty coping in an environment where males are present.

My personal opinion is that shelters should get to decide what demographic they are meant (and are equipped) to serve. There are shelters that are specifically designed to address the issue Darat mentioned with the teenage son. Those shelters are less common because they require more space and privacy for "family" living units among other things. But they do exist.

When my wife worked at the Men's shelter, there were similar issues. Sometimes they were presented with a displaced family or there was a son under the age of 18. (The minimum age for the shelter was 18.) In those cases, my wife would make calls and referrals to the other shelters in the area to find housing for all. There were, as I recall, generally more resources for keeping women together with their children than there were for men.

The organization she worked for has since closed the physical shelter and instead works with local hotels to put clients up. This has the advantage of better facilitating family housing. I'm not sure it would work for an abuse shelter, however, as you lose the gatekeeping protection.

And the point that at this point I can't make any clearer is why only men?

"Domestic violence" isn't the only type of crime that people would benefit from not seeing anyone that even reminds them of it, but its the only where the default seems to be they are entitled to it.

And again I'd like an answer or at least discourse not the jaw dropping emoji and big pantomime of being shocked I would even say such a thing from someone.

 

[d4m10n]

Your question: "Can we safely assume the women at Boxfit studios disagree?"

If you want to know the answer to your question then you'll need to contact them.

I'm going to assume you were just making a broad generalization about women without fact checking with actual women on the ground.

It would be quite interesting to see whether UK women generally approve or disapprove of enterprises like Boxfit, but I'm not here to tell them which side they need to take.

 

[TomB]

And the point that at this point I can't make any clearer is why only men?

"Domestic violence" isn't the only type of crime that people would benefit from not seeing anyone that even reminds them of it, but its the only where the default seems to be they are entitled to it.

And again I'd like an answer or at least discourse not the jaw dropping and emoji and big pantomime of being shocked I would even say such a thing from someone.

This seems to be an argument that "we shouldn't address this if we don't also address that" argument. But I'll try to address it just the same.

First, for most other crimes, one's home and family are safe havens. For domestic violence victims those safe havens don't exist. If I'm a victim of a violent crime, my home is a safe space that I don't need help getting out of. Yes, there is trauma. But there is help available. (Therapy, support groups, etc.)

Second, most other crimes don't have perpetrators that are intent on repeating/continuing the crime/trauma.

Third, it's not "only men." There is abuse between lesbian couples. But given that most relationships are heterosexual, most relationship violence is between heterosexual couples. Services usually try to primarily target the larger demographic group.

Finally, men can be victims. There are not enough services for men, really. Again, the demand seems to be primarily for services for women, so men are underserved. At the same time, men are generally better able to defend themselves and less often need the physical protections abused women do. I think the PTSD from abuse comes mostly from a feeling of powerlessness. There are likely fewer men who find themselves in positions of powerlessness than women. At least from a physical standpoint. (I think women are just as or nearly as abusive, but are less effective at it physically.)

One last point....
Most other crimes are single instance transient events. It happens to you and then it's over. Not that there aren't scars and trauma, but they are related to single isolated events.

Domestic violence is generally not in that mold. It is ongoing. It's not an isolated event, the victim lives in that crime. It's not an intrusion on their world, it's part of their world.

Getting beat up by a thug is not similar. Maybe a long-term kidnapping might be.

 

[Darat]

I'm going to assume you were just making a broad generalization about women without fact checking with actual women on the ground.

And I will assume you were not interested in an answer to your question.

It would be quite interesting to see whether UK women generally approve or disapprove of enterprises like Boxfit, but I'm not here to tell them which side they need to take.

Might be interesting but of course would have nothing to do with anything I posted and you responded to.

 

[d4m10n]

Might be interesting but of course would have nothing to do with anything I posted and you responded to.

Places like Boxfit in London invalidate at least two of your claims upthread.

1) UK no longer sees fit "to allow sex segregated clubs"

2) Women are fighting to prevent such places from existing in the UK

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[smartcooky]

Ok, it's the same harm done by other forms of discrimination. I'll leave it an exercise for the reader to figure out what that means.

That's just another evasive answer. Sex segregation is NOT the same as race segregation.

Specifically, specifically, what harm does sex segregation do?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again I'm reminded of how we went back and forth for like two years on this topic with a bunch of people declaring themselves "The Lorax but for Transpeople" and then out of the blue an actual transperson came by, told us all we were bigots even the "No I can speak for the Transpeople" people, and were wrong about everything, completely pissed over the entire gender/sex distinction which was at that point the big point of debate, and then left.

Far too much of this discussion is by proxy.

I was under the impression that there were more than 1 trans people who were members of this forum, but it's pretty easy to imagine why more do not want to participate in this kind of discussion about whether they were just mentally ill perverts or actually deserved civil rights.

A single trans person who briefly commented before deciding there was nothing to gain by continuing to do so is hardly a representative sample of anything.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's just another evasive answer. Sex segregation is NOT the same as race segregation.

Specifically, specifically, what harm does sex segregation do?

What harm does race segregation do? I can do this all night, let's see who is more stubborn.

 

[Ziggurat]

What harm does race segregation do? I can do this all night, let's see who is more stubborn.

Stubbornness in being wrong isn't a virtue.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Specifically, specifically, what harm does sex segregation do?

We since we're not allowed to bring any other kind of segregation without you screeching we're kind of stuck here aren't we?

Prove to me anything ever has done any harm ever! I'll wait.

"What harm does it do!" is a big reversal of the burden of proof.

But anyway to pull this back to the topic we're only here because we gave up trying to prove or disprove whether or not penises attached to people with "the soul of a woman" were as harmful as standard everyday regularly issued common penises but after roughly 347,000 years of arguing that with no end in sight.

The idea that the separation of the sexes is just never going to come up when we're talking the definition of that separation seems a tad unreasonable to me.

So I'm done with having "WHAT HARM DOES IT DO FOR SOCIETY TO ASSUME YOUR DEFAULT MODE IS ALWAYS ON RAPIST?" screamed at me.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's just another evasive answer. Sex segregation is NOT the same as race segregation.

Specifically, specifically, what harm does sex segregation do?

He can't answer, because he doesn't actually know. It's just an assumed truth, and to even question it makes you a bad person.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm afraid many people think "discrimination" is a morally loaded term like "murder" rather than a morally neutral term like "homicide," but if so then I don't know what word to use for justifiable acts of discrimination such as exclusively offering IVF or abortion services to a specific subset of patients with uteri rather than offering it to anyone who asks.

Try "obvious commonsense"... like not having blind people driving cars, or not employing then as proof readers, or not employing totally deaf people as music critics.

"Separate but Equal" may have remained the law of the land except for the fact that it was clearly very unequal and imposed as a way of maintaining and enforcing white supremacy.

Seperate pools and locker rooms for women, is clearly not the same as Jim Crow. Its morally dishonest for people to argue so.

And there are a number of posters who are arguing so! Quelle surprise!

 

[JoeMorgue]

I do not think "women" (as being discussed in this context at this point in the discussion and Jesus ******* tap dancing Christ the fact that I have to clarify that just makes me want to give up) are the victims of crimes or the victims of crimes in some unique way TO THE POINT that this level of, for lack of a better term, quarantine is warranted.

Also this is a self defeating argument because the trans side argument is that they are even more of a potential victim then you mass produced women, so that puts us right back where we started, staring the "Victim Ranking Chart" while people fight for who's on top of it, again.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Try "obvious commonsense"... like not having blind people driving cars, or not employing then as proof readers, or not employing totally deaf people as music critics.

//Serious, no snark, no "setup" or "gotcha" attempt questions.//

You realize you're equating either be a man or a woman as a disability in this metaphor right?

Violence is an action. Being blind or deaf is not.

Also "deaf" and "blind" are defining terms that everyone who is deaf or blind, by definition, have. Not all men are rapists. I feel I shouldn't have to say that.

Like if you let a blind person drive... it's within a rounding error never going to go well. It's safe enough to assume "bad outcome" if you let a blind person behind the wheel and let them drive for any reasonable length of time.

If I accidently step into the women's room at Applebees, I'm not going to start raping anyone with anywhere near that level of certainty, believe me.

Blind people can't drive. Like they can't actually perform the action. It's not a matter of skill or willpower or self control or whatever.

Your comparison is saying that men simply can't NOT rape, or at least it has to say that to work.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I do not think "women" (as being discussed in this context at this point in the discussion and Jesus ******* tap dancing Christ the fact that I have to clarify that just makes me want to give up) are the victims of crimes or the victims of crimes in some unique way TO THE POINT that this level of, for lack of a better term, quarantine is warranted.

Also this is a self defeating argument because the trans side argument is that they are even more of a potential victim then you mass produced women, so that puts us right back where we started, staring the "Victim Ranking Chart" while people fight for who's on top of it, again.

I'm not downplaying the dire need that trans people often have for these social services like access to homeless and abuse shelters, but that's not the sole reason for trans inclusion.

Much of the argument against exclusion is for simple anti-discrimination purposes simply for the sake of anti-discrimination. Much of the requests for trans rights boil down to "the right not to be othered by society", more or less.

Separate but equal was never actually the case in practice, but even if it were, the discrimination itself is also a harm on its own.

 

[d4m10n]

Separate but equal was never actually the case in practice, but even if it were, the discrimination itself is also a harm on its own.

How can we know whether the highlighted phrase is actually true when we are talking about sex/gender segregated spaces such as toilets and changing rooms?

If true in such cases, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence.

If not, hard to see why it is applicable here.

 

[smartcooky]

What harm does race segregation do? I can do this all night, let's see who is more stubborn.

In the case of black people, they have been oppressed by being forced into slavery. Blacks, in particular, did not choose to be segregated away from others, it was forced upon them. The harm comes with the result of this segregation; they end up in lower lower socio-economic circumstances, and pegged as being of lower intelligence as consequence. Another result is the inability to get a fair trial if they are accused of a crime, the higher likelihood of being wrongfully convicted, and the longer sentences they get for the same crimes committed by others. As a result of being assumed to have nefarious intent, they are summarily killed by both law enforcement and the public at a far higher rate than others. Race segregation harms this historically oppressed racial group by continuing to to treat them as sub-human.

Your turn!

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Segregation never worked before, but I'd like to see your evidence that it won't work this time" is a bold stance.

You see this is just another one of those "Wow people on the internet really will argue anything" moments for me.

I assumed nobody thought sex segregation was a legit, inherent "good" thing, just a necessary one.

I just assumed "Hey making everyone safer is what we're really shooting for here, this is a stop-gap" was something we were all on the same page one.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Segregation never worked before, but I'd like to see your evidence that it won't work this time" is a bold stance.

Indeed, that's a very bold stance, because limited sex segregation has already worked very well prior to the last few years. And it's not being attacked now on the basis that it doesn't work.

I assumed nobody thought sex segregation was a legit, inherent "good" thing, just a necessary one.

It's good to the extent that it's better than the alternative.

I just assumed "Hey making everyone safer is what we're really shooting for here, this is a stop-gap" was something we were all on the same page one.

Why ever would you think that? Sex segregation in many sports (such as running) has nothing to do with safety, and nobody claims it does. Sex segregation in changing rooms isn't just about safety, it's also about dignity, which is why women aren't allowed in the men's changing room even though they don't pose a safety risk.

 

[smartcooky]

//Serious, no snark, no "setup" or "gotcha" attempt questions.//

OK

You realize you're equating either be a man or a woman as a disability in this metaphor right?

Yup, and females are disabled (or more like, disadvantaged) in this context (do not cherry-pick this comment out of its context!). Men are overall bigger, faster, and physically stronger. There is a reason why 96% of all domestic violence is committed by males.

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/inform...tic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/

"The majority of domestic homicide victims (killed by ex/partner or a family member) for the year ending March 2017 to the year ending March 2019 were female (77% or 274 victims) and most of the suspects were male (263 out of 274; 96%)"​

Violence is an action. Being blind or deaf is not.

Neither is being female

Also "deaf" and "blind" are defining terms that everyone who is deaf or blind, by definition, have. Not all men are rapists. I feel I shouldn't have to say that.

Like if you let a blind person drive... it's within a rounding error never going to go well. It's safe enough to assume "bad outcome" if you let a blind person behind the wheel and let them drive for any reasonable length of time.

None of that is relevant

If I accidently step into the women's room at Applebees, I'm not going to start raping anyone with anywhere near that level of certainty, believe me.

1. How do you know how the women will react?

2. Nonetheless, would you willingly do so?

Blind people can't drive. Like they can't actually perform the action. It's not a matter of skill or willpower or self control or whatever.

Your comparison is saying that men simply can't NOT rape, or at least it has to say that to work.

Its saying no such thing, and it is disingenuous of you to imply that it was.

It was merely pointing out that not all discrimination is bad - society does discriminate when it is necessary to do so for public protection, and the level of potential harm should be taken into consideration when deciding on whether to discriminate or not. Sure, not all men are rapists, but some are. Its that level of risk, and the need to make potential victims feel safe that should also be taken into consideration.

You are taking far to black and white a view of this - I say A = B, and you are saying that I must also be implying that C = D, when I am implying no such thing.