Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

No. It will always be possible for such men to deceive women, if they're prepared to go against all the rules and go where they're not entitled to be and not wanted. And maybe they'll get away with it, at least sometimes.

But they should have no legal right to be there. We can't have men mounting the defence that they "can pass successfully in a well-lit ladies' room" as proof that they're doing nothing wrong and should be allowed to continue doing it. You can't surely want to make the ability and desire to mount a successful deception into some sort of free pass.

I think we're in agreement. I just expressed a more lenient version of the same principle. If you got away with it, you got away with it. If you tried to get away with it and failed, the law is very much not on your side. That's the way I think it should be.

 

[Rolfe]

I think we're in agreement. I just expressed a more lenient version of the same principle. If you got away with it, you got away with it. If you tried to get away with it and failed, the law is very much not on your side. That's the way I think it should be.

Yeah, it's a paradox in a way. If someone sets out to deceive and succeeds, they got away with it. Doesn't mean that we're OK with it, doesn't mean that they're absolved in retrospect though. Just means they're a scumbag with no respect for women, who got away with it.

 

[Rolfe]

I agree. The individual concerned does attempt to pass it seems to me, has no history of abuse and has probably been using women’s toilets for some time.

I thought I'd return to this. Yes, he "attempts" to pass. He's wearing "woman" as a costume. But most of the men playing that game will assert that they are attempting to pass. Remember "It's Ma'am!!" raging at the shop assistant that he was wearing pink so was obviously a woman? There was another one on TikTok bewailing that he was being addressed as "Sir" despite carrying a gold lamé handbag. The two charmers I highlighted above would doubtless claim they are attempting to pass ("I use she/her pronouns!"), even the second complete lunatic could be said to be attempting to pass with the wig and the stockings. So I don't think "attempting" to pass cuts any ice here.

Does he pass successfully? Not on a bet. Just look a that photo I posted, which doesn't seem to be filtered as most of the ones available are. I also believe he's over six feet tall, with hands and feet and shoulders to match. This is a return to the paradox, that in theory someone whose womanface is good enough may carry off a successful deception, but why should that lead to the conclusion that successful deception is allowed, rather than being what it is, getting away with flouting the rules.

Not only that, but he's "out". Everybody in the place knows he's a man. He could be as convincing as Dustin Hoffman as Tootsie, everyone still knows he's a man. This is not a situation where he's trying to fly under the radar in the hope that women won't realise. He wants to be able to use the women's facilities in the full knowledge that every woman in there knows exactly who he is.

He has probably been using women's toilets for some time. Indeed. You know, "he's been flouting social norms and women's boundaries for some time, so he should be permitted to go on doing it" isn't the killer argument you may think it is. This is what needs to stop. He doesn't pass. They never do, at close quarters, for more than a minute or two. Women know they're men, and are terrified of complaining. Terrified of the narcissistic rage these men are capable of flying into if they're crossed, and terrified of the accusations of transphobia and hate crime that may be levelled at them.

This needs to stop. Men in particular need to stop saying, this one looks OK to me, I'll give him permission to make free with your private spaces, ladies. Because it should never be OK.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why do we segregate toilet facilities?

Do more sexual assaults happen in places with unisex toilets?

 

[GlennB]

Why do we segregate toilet facilities?

Do more sexual assaults happen in places with unisex toilets?

Back when I was taking part in this discussion I looked around the UK press for an answer to this. An example:

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

Not exactly what you're asking about, but pretty similar.

 

[Rolfe]

If they get their jollies listening to women tinkle in the adjoining stall while they do the same, fine. I'm sure there are lots of women who do the same.

Actually, no. I really do not think there are "lots" of women who become sexually aroused by listening to other women pee in an adjoining cubicle. I don't think there are any, actually.

 

[Rolfe]

Why do we segregate toilet facilities?

Do more sexual assaults happen in places with unisex toilets?

Privacy, modesty, decency. Also, for women, the ability to deal with feminine emergencies that require washing facilities without men standing beside them. Women deal with all sorts of menstrual accidents in the communal washing space of ladies toilets, and may even seek help or supplies from other women there. They don't want to do any of that in the presence of men. (In fact, one of the fetishes on display from trans-identifying men is a menstrual fetish, which often involves a desire to "help a girl out" by supplying sanitary products. Some boast that they carry tampons in their bags in the hope of being able to offer them to a woman.)

I would also point out that there are religions where it is forbidden for women to share toilet facilities outside the home with men. In particular, Islamic women must perform some ritual washing before praying, which cannot be done in a mixed-sex facility. As the praying is obligatory, if there are no single-sex washing facilities available, they just have to stay home.

You may disapprove of this, you may deride it, but not everyone is you.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858740268494737689

 

[theprestige]

Actually, no. I really do not think there are "lots" of women who become sexually aroused by listening to other women pee in an adjoining cubicle. I don't think there are any, actually.

Okay, fair enough. I admit I haven't gotten around to cataloguing every single extant kink, and crossing out the ones nobody has.

But look here: People are weird. Lesbians are real. There's bound to be some weird lesbians in the restroom from time to time. Just like there's bound to be some weird gay men in the restroom from time to time. As long as their kink stays in their head, I don't see the problem. Like, literally.

 

[Rolfe]

These types of fetish are overwhelmingly a male thing. Women just don't have them, irrespective of sexuality. Now perhaps you might find an exception somewhere, but really, it's men who get aroused by non-sexual things.

 

[Rolfe]

This looks like good news.



That second-last paragraph is important. I hadn't realised that Members had private toilet facilities in their own offices, until someone pointed out that female members had had to get by with these alone for 94 years until they finally got round to installing women's lavatories in the building. And now we discover there are unisex facilities as well. But STILL "Sarah" McBride wants women to be respectful of his fetish and tolerate him in the women's facilities.

He is obviously not short of places to pee even if he doesn't want to go into the men's bathrooms. Make of that what you will.

 

[Sherkeu]

^^^^ Transgender bathroom BAN!!!! ....will most of what is reported. So tragic!!!! Congresswoman NOT allowed to Pee!

But it isnt a bathroom ban at all. It is a confirmation that Capitol restrooms that are designated men and women are "single sex" spaces...male and female.

I do wish they would just start saying male and female in every statement.
"Transwonen ARE Female" as the rebuttal makes the decision so much clearer

10 family restrooms there on the grounds. Most dad's out with their babies, toddlers, who still need help in the toilet, are well aware of these.

 

[Ziggurat]

This looks like good news.

Diplomatically stated for a position which is pretty firm. Well done on Johnson's part. Facilities are available so that someone like McBride doesn't have to use the public men's room, but still doesn't get to use the public women's room. I think the majority of Americans will be satisfied with this outcome.

 

[Rolfe]

I saw an amusing suggestion from a senior woman politician. Instead of constructing trans bathrooms, they should have Republican women's bathrooms and Democrat women's bathrooms. Men would be free to use the Democrat women's bathrooms, as these women have no problem with this, the men would be happy because they have a nominally "women's" space to invade, and women who aren't prepared to share with men have the Republican women's bathrooms.

Sounds good to me.

ETA: The replies to this are an absolute laugh a minute.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859286515286712361

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is so much disagreement on this topic because when "pro-trans" people say trans they mean surgically trans.

Why do you think this is the case? It certainly doesn't jive with what I've observed and directly experienced. In fact, it flies in the face of some of the most fundamental aspects of the trans activist platform.

Most of you just think they mean a man in a dress, a transvestite.

So some of you sound tolerant of those who've had surgery, some sound hateful.

Everybody speaks a different language.

I'm not at all hateful of those who have had surgery. I'm not even hateful at those who are simply cross-dressers.

What I do very strongly dislike is the notion that either or those (or anything in between) are in some fashion comparable to a female human.

Look, let's be very honest here. If I didn't know who they were, and I ran into Blair White out in the world, there's a reasonably high chance that I wouldn't clock them as male. But me not being able to immediately tell that they're male doesn't make them female, and it doesn't mean they should be granted access to female single-sex spaces over the objections of females.

I have a bowl of very convincing, high quality fake fruit sitting in my entryway.
Don't use my fake apples in your pie.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A "man" with all those changes deserves safe space too.

Why does that safe space have to be the female space? Why do you think it's acceptable collateral damage to increase the risk and danger to females so that some few males can feel safe from other males?

Seriously, I find it baffling that so very many people have bottomless compassion for males who are in danger from other males... and absolutely no compassion at all for females being placed in danger as a result of their bottomless compassion for males.

 

[stanfr]

Here's an example. How do you allow one man in womanface into the women's room, against what will undoubtedly be the wishes of at least some of the women there, and then exclude another?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859045224053698992

He's entitled, he's narcissistic, and he has male aggression coming out of his ears, imperfectly cloaked in "poor me" crybullying. It's all about him, only he matters. These are two identical single use cubicles, one for men and one women, but he only "feels safe" in the one designated for women. He has obviously made the woman who objected, and her children, feel pretty unsafe.

It would be just the same if there were regular men's and women's rooms, it's just that the arrangement here highlights how dishonest this "I only feel safe here" shtick is. He's mentally ill. But he's a man, and men need to step up and deal with these men, not pity-shame women into taking on the job.

The main point, however, is that once you've made a ruling that the man who has made a supreme effort to look feminine in a head and shoulders shot is allowed in, despite women's objections, you can't keep this guy out of anywhere. The principle has been conceded.

I'm pretty much done with this thread, mainly cause I don't have time or motivation to participate, and since I don't feel strongly about the issue it isn't a fight I'm willing to engage in. But your first example triggered me, and I want to explain why. It is taken from 'Libs of Tim Tok' who are notoriously hard right propagandists. There is zero verification of this video. If you have seen even a small handful of videos on social media, and you have belonged to this or any skeptics group for more than a week, you would know the foolishness if not outright stupidity of posting this to make a point. It *may* be a legit video, but it is equally likely that is a staged video, meant to make people angry. And this is what has made millions of voters angry, to the point of voting a lunatic felon to head our nation. A mass disinformation campaign, driven by emotionally-charged propaganda. The left is guilty as well, but honestly most of the worst of it has come from the right. It has no place on a skeptical forum in my opinion.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Back when I was taking part in this discussion I looked around the UK press for an answer to this. An example:

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

Not exactly what you're asking about, but pretty similar.

I found that too. I can accept that unisex changing rooms are more likely to trigger sexual assaults. I'm struggling to understand why a transsexual occasionally being in the communal space of women's toilets with women is such a risk or the thin edge of the wedge.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've heard this argument over and over from the right (not saying you are right) and sure, on the surface it seems reasonable.
But on what scientific or statistical basis do you arrive at the conclusion? There are laws on the books that forbid the behavior you describe, and they aint going anywhere.

How about on the basis of reason and basic logic?

What's the difference between a male going into a female single-sex intimate space and exposing themselves, thus committing a sexual offense... and a male going into a female single-sex intimate space and exposing themselves and thus just being a transwoman getting naked with the other ladies?

Yes, there are laws on the books. But by overriding what sex means, and replacing it with gender identity, you effectively legalize voyeurism and exhibitionism as long as the perpetrator says the magic words. You make it unenforceable.

There are never gonna be security guards standing at the entrance to every 'female space' asking people what sex they are. So how exactly are self-id laws (or whatever you are implying the TRAs want by a 'few magic words') gonna change things? How are they gonna make the behavior you describe significantly more likely to occur? I've seen the presentation of supposed examples of this happening in practice, and on a case-by-case basis the vast majority don't hold up.

It shifts the burden.

When the law (or previously, the well understood and accepted social convention) granted authority to the females. If a male entered a female single-sex space, the females in that space had the right and authority to complain about their presence. Managers of those spaces were expected to act on behalf of the complaining female unless extremely compelling counter-evidence was presented. In some cases, those females were completely within their rights to call the police and demand removal of the transgressing male and cops were expected to act in defense of the females.

Self-ID alters that relationship completely. It creates a situation in which females do NOT have the right and authority to complain, and females are expected to assume that any male in those single-sex spaces must be transgender identifying. We no longer have the authority to complain to facilities personnel and have them take our side - we've explicitly been told several times now that the transgender identifying male has the right to be there, and there's nothing we can do about it. So much so that females have been called bigots and transphobes for objecting to a fully intact tumescent male being naked in front of them and their children, and the females were chided that they shouldn't be looking at "her penis" in the first place. Young females were told that if they were uncomfortable having a fully intact naked male in their showers with them, they should find a different place to change after swim practice. High school females were told by a judge that they have no right to expect visual privacy from males when changing after gym.

Self-ID gives males the legal right to expose themselves to females without consent, and to ogle females without their consent... as long as they say the magic phrase.

 

[Rolfe]

I found that too. I can accept that unisex changing rooms are more likely to trigger sexual assaults. I'm struggling to understand why a transsexual occasionally being in the communal space of women's toilets with women is such a risk or the thin edge of the wedge.

Then you have no idea of either the nature or the scale of this problem. But then, you've never been thirteen and had to rinse out your blood-soaked panties in the communal wash-basin area of the Ladies, because you'd only just started menstruation and didn't know how to cope. You probably haven't had to pee a few weeks after giving birth, and had to do it with the door open because the baby buggy wouldn't fit in the cubicle. You think girls and women are happy to have men around when they do this?

ETA: I've been reminded that a siginficant proportion of early miscarriages happen in public toilets - often in the evening in pub toilets. Sometimes the woman hasn't even been aware that she was pregnant, sometimes it's the loss of a dearly-wanted child. Either way, it's excruciatingly painful and hugely embarrassing. Many women have accounts of this either happening to them and being helped by other women, or of being one of the women who has stepped in to help. The absolute last thing any woman in this position wants are random men walking in on the incident.

It's not only or even primarily about sexual assaults. It's about common decency, privacy and modesty. It's about not wanting men watching you when you have to do intimate female things. It's about voyeurism and occasionally exhibitionism. (There are multiple accounts of men peeing in a cubicle in the women's bathroom with the door open and everything on display, and when challenged announcing that they identify as a woman so it's their human right to be there.) It's most particularly about not wanting the sort of man who wants to be in women's lavatories in that space with you, because we know these are the men with the fetishes who go there to be sexually aroused by the proximity of women peeing and changing tampons and sanitary towels.

The male-free communal space in the women's bathroom is an essential defensive space against predatory men. It's way too easy for a man to barge into a cubicle before a woman has had time to lock the door, and lock it behind him. If men are allowed to be in the communal space it's much harder to prevent this. The predator just has to hang around waiting for the right moment. Conversely, if men hanging around the communal space isn't allowed, he has to get a lot more sneaky. (This is probably the main reason for the statistics about sexual assault in unisex toilets.)

Good men stay out of women's private spaces, and the ones who go in are not good men.

 

[Samson]

In about an hour the New Zealand prime minister and minister of mental health Matt Doocey come out with a decision on puberty blockers.
Matt Doocey worked for Tavistock in some capacity, and said in a speech a while ago he looked forward to discovering his children's gender identities as they grew up.
The appointment was a disgrace of course, so many more children have been sterilized since the Cass review, and prior to that NZ was prescribing Lupron at 10 times the UK rate.
At last count we had nearly a thousand lupron victims amongst youth.
Dame Susan Bagshaw has 60% of her pediatric patients on Lupron.

Recently a girl attempted a self double mastectomy learned from Tictok, then half way through the first one she admitted herself to hospital. Such is the horrifying culture in health NZ they completed the first breast and removed the other one.