Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

I thought it was quite funny given the bizarre situation presented.

I did do some searches online and couldn't find anything like that happening. I.e., multiple people in a public shower complaining about another individual masturbating and the people making the complaint being accused of a crime.

I'm glad you think it's so funny. It's nice to know that the boundaries of females are something you find comedic.

On the other hand.. why don't you go do some searches for transwomen masturbating in female restrooms. I suggest you use incognito mode for it though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Tell us more. Were Jews involved somehow? It's always the Jews.

WTAF is wrong with you?

 

[theprestige]

That assumes additional females will be raped by violent sexual predators being allowed in female public toilets than are raped now by violent sexual predators in all locations. Why would this be the case? What is it about public toilets that offer significant protection against violent sexual predators? Isn't it just as likely a women using a unisex toilet might have the chance a man will help her out dealing with a violent sexual predator?

We've already seen it happen in prisons.

Why is it important to you to allow men to enter women's restrooms just because they say they want to?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fine, you don't want men in spaces that have been traditionally reserved for women because you don't feel comfortable with it. There's no need to pretend that this is anything more than a cultural norm.

Islam and gender segregation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

People really like to assume it's nothing more than a cultural norm. I'm not convinced that's entirely true. There are MANY species of mammals out there that separate by sex as their norm. Most deer and elk have female herds that include young, and the males are essentially solitary. The two sexes really only come together to mate. The same is true of elephants. An even larger number of species have predominantly female colonies with a single resident male who serves to protect and defend the females and young. Lions for example, as well as horses, and grackles on the avian side.

If you step out of your "everything is societal" bubble, there's an enormous amount of sexually dimorphic behavior in the animal world. Not just physical differences, but significant behavioral differences, and roles as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

That assumes additional females will be raped by violent sexual predators being allowed in female public toilets than are raped now by violent sexual predators in all locations.

No. It assumes that additional females will be raped by violent sexual predators being allowed in female public toilets than are raped now by violent sexual predators in female public toilets. Really, this is such a basic logic fail I can't imagine how you made it.

Why would this be the case? What is it about public toilets that offer significant protection against violent sexual predators?

Sex segregation in public toilets offers some protection because there's a social prohibition against males in female toilets, which alerts people to danger if a male enters a female toilet. With self ID, that protection vanishes.

Isn't it just as likely a women using a unisex toilet might have the chance a man will help her out dealing with a violent sexual predator?

First off, the TRA's aren't advocating for only unisex toilets, they're advocating for letting self-ID'd transwomen into female toilets. This means non-predatory males will mostly stay out of female toilets even with self-ID, so there will be no males around to help out.

Second, in a unisex toilet facility, a male predator will simply wait until there are no other males around before attacking a female. So even in a unisex facility, other males don't offer much protection. And this isn't the same as a single-sex facility without self-ID, because people are alerted to danger by the mere presence of a male in that space. They don't have to be in that space, and they don't have wait for an attack to know that there's a problem.

You really haven't thought about any of these issues at even the most rudimentary of levels.

 

[Ziggurat]

People really like to assume it's nothing more than a cultural norm. I'm not convinced that's entirely true.

Because it's not true. There are cultural aspects of how sex segregation is implemented. But as I'm sure you know but Ivor still struggles to understand, there are biological reasons for implementing some form of sex segregation. Because the sexes aren't the same. The biological realities of sex and reproduction are not symmetric. And those asymmetries have real-world consequences, some of which are negative. One can claim that trying to minimize the negative consequences is "cultural", but only at the level that the prohibition on murder is also cultural. And at that level, calling it cultural isn't an argument against it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That assumes additional females will be raped by violent sexual predators being allowed in female public toilets than are raped now by violent sexual predators in all locations. Why would this be the case? What is it about public toilets that offer significant protection against violent sexual predators? Isn't it just as likely a women using a unisex toilet might have the chance a man will help her out dealing with a violent sexual predator?

Current situation: Only specific adults who have been thoroughly vetted and trained are allowed to perform caregiver roles for young children.

Proposal: Let's stop verifying and vetting, and just let in any adult that says they're a safe caregiver, and they can work with young children if they want to.

Me and most rational people: No, that's a safeguarding risk - it would increase the risk of pedophiles gaining access to children.

You: Well, this just assumes that additional children will be harmed by pedophilic adults than are already harmed by pedophilic adults. Why would this be the case? What is it about limiting access that offers significant protection to children against pedos? Isn't it just as likely that kids in those groups might have the chance that one of those unvetted adults would help them out dealing with a predatory pedo?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Look, here's a hard and unsavory truth. Humans are opportunistic predators, and have been for hundreds of thousands of years. We're so damned opportunistic that we took steps in massively increase the opportunity available to us by inventing agriculture and animal husbandry!

Please stop pretending that humans are NOT predators, we are. And among humans, males are significantly more likely to be sexual predators than females. So use your brain, and at least pretend to give some thought to policies that increase the OPPORTUNITY for predation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it was probably the reverse. I.e., men didn't want women in their toilets / rooms / social clubs.

It all started to go wrong when women started flashing their ankles at us.

I'm going to generously assume that this was intended to be humorous. But perhaps you might want to read the room and consider that this is not the best venue for it.

Speaking for myself, this doesn't come across as light-hearted or funny, it comes across as profoundly careless and expresses no compassion toward females at all. You've essentially just declared that it's the fault of females that males sexually assault and rape us.

And given that most of the females who participate in this thread are victims of rape or sexual assault - myself and Pixel42 included - your comment is in poor taste.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's your position on trans men in the women's toilet? E.g., what if they were wearing really good "manface" but needed to use the tampon machine?

Transgender identified females are female. Just as with the vast majority of transgender identified males - they don't pass as well IRL as they do in carefully planned photo shoots. Most transgender identified females don't clock as males unless they grow a full beard - and even then, it rarely lasts through a second glance.

That said, I have two overarching comments on this.

First - it's easier for females to pass as male than the other way around. Partly this is because the secondary characteristics of males are easily visible, and we've evolved to see them - and to classify anyone who has them as male. Those secondary sex characteristics are prompted by testosterone, and testosterone is a one way street in humans - once it kicks of a particular physiological change, cessation of testosterone doesn't make it unwind. So when a female takes T, their voice box will thicken and enlarge and their voice will drop, they'll grow facial and body hair. When they stop taking T, their voice box doesn't slim back down, and their facial hair doesn't go away. Testosterone prompts permanent changes.

On the other hand, the changes prompted by estrogen are temporary. Most of the changes that females experience during puberty are related to a cycle of several hormones, and some of them are direct changes to reproductive anatomy - enlarging of the uterus, menarche, widening of the pelvic aperture, maturation of lactation glands, etc. You have to have female anatomy for that to happen. When a male takes exogenous estrogen, their skin gets softer and smoother, and their body stores fat in the breast region, as well as in the buttocks and hips. When they stop taking estrogen, however, their body reverts to its natural state because those effects are not permanent physiological changes.

Second - it's a question of who is taking the risk. When a female decides that they want to use male facilities, they are voluntarily taking risk on themselves. That female does not represent an increased risk to any of the males present, the likelihood of a female being able to overpower and assault a random male is extremely low. When a male decides they want to use female facilities, they are placing risk on all of the females in that facility while not taking on any additional risk themselves.

If a chicken decides it's a fox, and wanders into the fox's den... it's the chicken that is at risk, not the fox. When a fox decides it's a chicken and wanders into the chicken coop... it's still the chicken that is at risk, not the fox.

 

[Rolfe]

I remember joining this forum more than 20 years ago to debate homoeopathy. After the same ridiculous arguments were trotted out by the usual suspects and then by more of the deluded adherents who joined up to explain that shaken-up water really has medicinal properties, it got a bit boring. The twisting of language, the false assertions, the trotting out of deeply flawed studies, and the fringe resets when the original arguments that had been countered with facts, reason and references were simply trotted out again as if for the first time. Sometimes by new entrants, but often by the very same people who had already been all round the houses with them. The devotion to the cause superseded everything.

In the end I came to realise I was continuing the debate not in the hope of finding out anything new about homoeopathy or of persuading any of its adherents of the error of their ways, but because it was a fascinating study in human cognition to see how people utterly wedded to a completely unscientific and harmful practice could bat away real challenges and keep coming back with their twisted logic.

My interest in this thread is rapidly moving in the same direction.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So why does putting a sign on the door that reads "Women" make her any more safe?

I'm reminded of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the bad guys are riding through the desert and are slowed down by a toll booth in the middle of nowhere.

In the real world bad people are not going to be inhibited by signs on doors.

And there you have it friends: Females are already going to get sexually assaulted, what's a little more sexual assault tossed on top? In fact, it's such a foregone conclusion that females are going to be sexually assaulted that we really shouldn't even bother trying to prevent it. Let's just go ahead and remove whatever attempts we've made to mitigate that risk, it's totally not worth the effort anyway, and females can just suck it up and get sexually assaulted a bit more. It's totally not worth potentially risking some male's feelings getting hurt in order to try to reduce risk to females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nonsense. Predators want to isolate their victims. I don't think the additional jail time for being in a women's only space if the intent is to commit a sexual assault is going to deter anybody.

What makes individuals vulnerable is being alone. A women using a toilet in a deserted multi-story car park at night is no more vulnerable if the sign on the toilet door is unisex, male or female.

Why are male feelings so important to you that you aren't even willing to consider the mitigation of risk to females?

 

[Rolfe]

What makes male feelings so important to him that he won't even consider female feelings at all? Asking for all the women giving the "gender neutral" toilets a body swerve in what is probably one of the least likely places for them to be assaulted on the planet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I remember joining this forum more than 20 years ago to debate homoeopathy. After the same ridiculous arguments were trotted out by the usual suspects and then by more of the deluded adherents who joined up to explain that shaken-up water really has medicinal properties, it got a bit boring. The twisting of language, the false assertions, the trotting out of deeply flawed studies, and the fringe resets when the original arguments that had been countered with facts, reason and references were simply trotted out again as if for the first time. Sometimes by new entrants, but often by the very same people who had already been all round the houses with them. The devotion to the cause superseded everything.

In the end I came to realise I was continuing the debate not in the hope of finding out anything new about homoeopathy or of persuading any of its adherents of the error of their ways, but because it was a fascinating study in human cognition to see how people utterly wedded to a completely unscientific and harmful practice could bat away real challenges and keep coming back with their twisted logic.

My interest in this thread is rapidly moving in the same direction.

I do it for the lurkers.

At the end of the day, I know there are people who don't post in this thread, but who do read it. There are new members who might wander in. There are people who end up here as part of a derail. Someone has to stand up for objective reality - and for as long as I can manage it, I'll be one of those people.

 

[Rolfe]

I admire your tenacity and endurance. For me, seeing a post demanding statistics on whether trans-identifying men assault women more frequently than WOMEN assault women, just a page on from where I had given chapter and verse on the statistics that trans-identifying men are imprisoned for sexual offences five times as frequently as other men and five hundred and sixty six times as frequently as women was getting on for the last straw. (I recall even that was being brushed aside on grounds that were entirely unintelligable.)

Also the frequent return to the question of sexual assault as if this only includes rape and attempted rape, and voyeurism and exhibitionism suddenly don't count. Also the constant ignoring of women's pleas for privacy and dignity, as if these issues aren't even worth discussing when it comes to men with special feelz being given anything they want, and the implicit assumption that a few more women raped is OK (on top of many many women made to feel extremely uncomfortable and unsafe) in the pursuit of giving these men with special feelz everything they want, so long as it's not too many. The exact number that would be too many never being specified, but we can assume that it will always be a larger number than the actual number of incidents.

No, the interesting thing now is what is going on in the heads of these men who rock up and go to bat for the men in dresses, every time, without fail and without question, and who talk over and dismiss any protest from the women who are actually affected.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

People really like to assume it's nothing more than a cultural norm. I'm not convinced that's entirely true. There are MANY species of mammals out there that separate by sex as their norm. Most deer and elk have female herds that include young, and the males are essentially solitary. The two sexes really only come together to mate. The same is true of elephants. An even larger number of species have predominantly female colonies with a single resident male who serves to protect and defend the females and young. Lions for example, as well as horses, and grackles on the avian side.

If you step out of your "everything is societal" bubble, there's an enormous amount of sexually dimorphic behavior in the animal world. Not just physical differences, but significant behavioral differences, and roles as well.

Have you looked at the history of public toilets at all? Or just made up history to suit your prejudices?

The Weird History of Gender-Segregated Bathrooms

Gender-segregated bathrooms originally arose to allow women to travel more widely in public spaces.

www.livescience.com

 

[Ron Obvious]

Have you looked at the history of public toilets at all? Or just made up history to suit your prejudices?

The Weird History of Gender-Segregated Bathrooms

Gender-segregated bathrooms originally arose to allow women to travel more widely in public spaces.

www.livescience.com

Just reading the subtitle of your link directly gainsays your position that "gender"-segregated bathrooms arose because men didn't want women in their private spaces. It's exactly the opposite of the truth: women had to fight for the right to sex-segregated spaces. That's what at stake.

 

[Samson]

Nonsense. Predators want to isolate their victims. I don't think the additional jail time for being in a women's only space if the intent is to commit a sexual assault is going to deter anybody.

What makes individuals vulnerable is being alone. A women using a toilet in a deserted multi-story car park at night is no more vulnerable if the sign on the toilet door is unisex, male or female.

Prior to self ID laws other citizens could act on her behalf, but now they can't.
Check Smartcooky's daughter having to be personally prepared for an assault because fiat self ID has allowed the conditions. Prior to our law change fellow citizens could act before the assault took place.

 

[Manger Douse]

Have you looked at the history of public toilets at all? Or just made up history to suit your prejudices?

The Weird History of Gender-Segregated Bathrooms

Gender-segregated bathrooms originally arose to allow women to travel more widely in public spaces.

www.livescience.com

From your own link:

"This lack of female facilities reflected a notable attitude about women: that they should stay home. This "urinary leash" remains a problem in some developing nations,"

 

[d4m10n]

Which 'women'? The ones born with cervixes, or the ones born with prostates?

The ones for whom those facilities were originally built.