Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

Yet you don't trust the statements of women in this thread that say they don't want males in the bathroom, and that this will make them unsafe.

I don't think you'll find many instances of me expressing skepticism to them on this point.

...congresswomen are not the primary users of those spaces.

I am skeptical of this claim, provided as it is without any evidence. The Capitol complex is fairly large, and it's a bit of a walk from the private offices (with their private bathrooms) to the legislative floor.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think you'll find many instances of me expressing skepticism to them on this point.

Sure, you’re just ignoring them.

I am skeptical of this claim, provided as it is without any evidence. The Capitol complex is fairly large, and it's a bit of a walk from the private offices (with their private bathrooms) to the legislative floor.

The size and complexity rather supports it. Staff significantly outnumber Congresspeople. So even ignoring the fact that congresspeople don’t spend much of their time on the floor, and assuming that they use public bathrooms as often as everyone else (which I doubt), the numbers are going to tilt use towards the larger population.

 

[Rolfe]

And that thing that never happens just happened again. In Scotland the law says not merely that boys and girls at school should be provided with separate, single-sex toilets, but that such provision should be the majority of the toilet provision in the school. Despite this many schools used the summer holidays to convert all the toilets to mixed-sex, without any consultation. Mothers have reported their daughters refusing to drink all day to avoid having to use these facilities.

Now look.



Many teenage boys are disgusting. Many adult men are disgusting, and by disgusting I don't just mean they pee on the seats and on the floor, but that they are perverts. Voyeurism, including hidden cameras, is a popular sport. This kid used a mobile phone which was spotted (eventually). However there are many devices available that look like screw-heads or normal things like that. If men are not permitted in women's toilets it's hard to plant these things. If they are, a child can do it. And they do.

Reason #7 why women do not want mixed-sex toilets.

 

[Pixel42]

The Gisèle Pelicot case is yet another reminder of what many men are willing to do, as long as they think there's a good chance they'll get away with it. See also Epstein, Saville et al. Men who don't understand why women believe sexual predators would take advantage of the opportunities offered if the demands of TRAs are met (usually because they wouldn't dream of doing such things themselves) need to take a long hard look at such cases.

 

[Rolfe]

We have had men in this thread who affected to be grossly offended by any prohibition on them going into female-only spaces, on the grounds that this was an insult, implying that they personally were predators. It's not hard to see the illogic of that. Men don't come with a handy tattoo on their foreheads saying "predator" or "nice guy" and the only way to keep the predators out is to keep all of them out. It's not a judgement on all men.

But here's the thing. Normal, decent men know this. They know what some other men are like. They also understand women's desire for simple privacy away from the opposite sex, because modesty and dignity. (They have similar desires themselves.) They don't want to go into women-only spaces. They're also prepared to help defend these spaces if necessary, because they know that men who do want to enter these spaces are wrong uns.

This is why I find any male assertion that women-only spaces should be abolished to be deeply suspect. Whether the reason given is that they identify as a woman, or that they prioritise the feelings of men who do over the desires of the women, or because the thought of being excluded from anywhere is offensive to them, it's a huge red flag. Any man who wants to be, or even to be allowed to be in women's single-sex spaces is precisely the man who needs to be excluded.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'd say that in turn is also a generalization. It's kind of like saying that all who are giving pro-war speeches actually want to go to war themselves. In practice, as anthropology will tell you, a lot of people just say whatever they think their group finds more acceptable. Kind of like why everyone says the local football club is going to win.

It's not even a modern echo-chamber phenomenon. It was observed since the 19'th century in Gustave Le Bon's "Psychology of Crowds", aka, the book that laid down the principles of populism and demagogy, and basically influenced both Marxism and Fascism. The relevant part here is that when one identifies themselves with a movement or group, they start espousing the ideas of the group. Even if they're not otherwise important to them personally or something they'd normally want or anything.

In this case, I'd say it's just that once some people start identifying as "progressive" (or for that matter "conservative", "libertarian", or anything else), they just have to parrot the ideas (they think are expected) of that group. No matter how much they have to ignore or twist reality to fit that ideology.

(True story, two decades ago I had the perfect example on Slashdot, where a self-proclaimed libertarian was arguing that the government should close the borders and no longer give green cards. Somehow he saw it as government intervention to let people in, while somehow all the policing to enforce closed borders would be less government. You can't make it up.)

Anyway, my impression is that some people don't care much about going into the women's showers themselves, but basically care even less about what the women, other men or even the transsexuals think about it. (As one trans once wrote, "we're not one of the teams in the game, we're the ball.") They just care about saying what they think the current set of ideas of their group is.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

FFS people, the world is turning to crap around you and the most important issue you can think to talk seemingly endlessly about is this?

Unisex toilets and biologically female only toilets. Everyone has a "safe space" to piss in. For prisons the rule should be not to put predators in the same space as their prey no matter what their biological sex is. Binary biological sex classification is a very good approximation to reality for many animals including humans. Mentally ill people should be tolerated and helped but not pandered to.

I suggest each of you write down a list of the problems in the world that affect you and then rank them in order of how much of your attention they deserve. If this issue is top of your list then consider yourself either one of the most fortunate people alive or one of the most stupid, no matter what level of education you have.

 

[smartcooky]

We have had men in this thread who affected to be grossly offended by any prohibition on them going into female-only spaces, on the grounds that this was an insult, implying that they personally were predators. It's not hard to see the illogic of that. Men don't come with a handy tattoo on their foreheads saying "predator" or "nice guy" and the only way to keep the predators out is to keep all of them out. It's not a judgement on all men.

But here's the thing. Normal, decent men know this. They know what some other men are like. They also understand women's desire for simple privacy away from the opposite sex, because modesty and dignity. (They have similar desires themselves.) They don't want to go into women-only spaces. They're also prepared to help defend these spaces if necessary, because they know that men who do want to enter these spaces are wrong uns.

This is why I find any male assertion that women-only spaces should be abolished to be deeply suspect. Whether the reason given is that they identify as a woman, or that they prioritise the feelings of men who do over the desires of the women, or because the thought of being excluded from anywhere is offensive to them, it's a huge red flag. Any man who wants to be, or even to be allowed to be in women's single-sex spaces is precisely the man who needs to be excluded.

Men who object to the idea of private safe spaces for women might not necessarily be potential predators themselves, but they are nonetheless part of the problem, in that they risk enabling those that are.

 

[smartcooky]

FFS people, the world is turning to crap around you and the most important issue you can think to talk seemingly endlessly about is this?

Unisex toilets and biologically female only toilets. Everyone has a "safe space" to piss in. For prisons the rule should be not to put predators in the same space as their prey no matter what their biological sex is. Binary biological sex classification is a very good approximation to reality for many animals including humans. Mentally ill people should be tolerated and helped but not pandered to.

I suggest each of you write down a list of the problems in the world that affect you and then rank them in order of how much of your attention they deserve. If this issue is top of your list then consider yourself either one of the most fortunate people alive or one of the most stupid, no matter what level of education you have.

Top of my list? The safety of my family... There is nothing I care about more than that!

 

[Rolfe]

I see we've fallen back on the "there are more important things to be concerned about in the world, therefore you should agree that my position is the right one" defence. Not biting.

 

[Pixel42]

Being retired, I have plenty of time to post about several different topics every day. I even occasionally post about things which are of no importance whatsoever, like TV shows.

Seriously, is that the best you can do Ivor?

 

[Rolfe]

It's not just that he thinks you shouldn't be posting about it, he thinks you should quit the field to leave him the victor. Which, given that you are defending the position which has been the status quo for a very long time, shows a pretty serious brass neck.

 

[HansMustermann]

I see we've fallen back on the "there are more important things to be concerned about in the world, therefore you should agree that my position is the right one" defence. Not biting.

As you should, because what you're answering to is a textbook fallacy. It's the "fallacy of relative privation" (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") aka the "there are starving children in Africa", which means dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems, not relevant to the issue or context of the argument being dismissed.

Which personally I would classify as a subclass of the false dichotomy fallacy. I'll explain.

That there are times when this argument is actually relevant, such as whether you care more about Britain's defence in WW2 or about the coffee rationing. There it kinda matters because you have to manage the same budget between two or more issues. It's a fallacy when, as Pixel aptly put it, you can care about both issues at the same time, because they're orthogonal or nearly so. There is not a single penny gained for, say, children in Africa, by allowing men in women's safe spaces or sports. Supporting either is not a net negative for the other.

 

[HansMustermann]

Men who object to the idea of private safe spaces for women might not necessarily be potential predators themselves, but they are nonetheless part of the problem, in that they risk enabling those that are.

Not just enabling, but basically running smoke screen for those who are the problem. Now suddenly it's not a red flag to want to go into the women's showers, but you're just another of those "stunning and brave" "progressive" guys.

 

[HansMustermann]

For prisons the rule should be not to put predators in the same space as their prey

The problem with that line of thinking is the reality that almost everyone who is in prison is a predator of some kind or another, and everyone is a potential prey to the others. Like, if you have 100 murderers in a prison, each of them are predators but also potential prey to the others.

We can do some mitigation, though, such as not enabling more chances to do evil. E.g., they can't drive around the prison, so they have no more chances to kill someone in a DWI accident.

In the case of men vs women, the problem is really more complicated than just not putting women together with the rapists. (Which, incidentally, has happened repeatedly.) It's also that, as I've said in the sports discussion, women are on average biologically weaker than men. It's not just muscle mass, but also, as I've pointed out before, slower muscle contraction speed, different composition of muscle fibres, weaker skeleton, etc. And resulting issues, like higher chance of a concussion or fracture for the woman if an average male were to fight an average woman. The fight-or-flight response is also well documented to be different, and supported by MRI studies.

Even if the woman takes testosterone or whatnot, that won't change.

The short version is that if you put a woman in a cell with a guy convicted of assault or worse yet murder, even if they're convicted of the same crime, the guy can dominate and abuse the woman six ways to Sunday without even being particularly buff. Even without him actually be convicted of a rape or such, the woman is put in a dangerous position.

 

[Rolfe]

As you should, because what you're answering to is a textbook fallacy. It's the "fallacy of relative privation" (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") aka the "there are starving children in Africa", which means dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems, not relevant to the issue or context of the argument being dismissed.

Which personally I would classify as a subclass of the false dichotomy fallacy. I'll explain.

That there are times when this argument is actually relevant, such as whether you care more about Britain's defence in WW2 or about the coffee rationing. There it kinda matters because you have to manage the same budget between two or more issues. It's a fallacy when, as Pixel aptly put it, you can care about both issues at the same time, because they're orthogonal or nearly so. There is not a single penny gained for, say, children in Africa, by allowing men in women's safe spaces or sports. Supporting either is not a net negative for the other.

Absolutely. But as I say, it's worse in Ivor's case, because he is campaigning to have women's protections removed, protections that have been in place for a very long time, then when the women protest he tells them that there are more important things they should be worrying about, and they ought simply to agree with his proposals and butt out.

The gall is actually breathtaking.

 

[HansMustermann]

Absolutely. But as I say, it's worse in Ivor's case, because he is campaigning to have women's protections removed, protections that have been in place for a very long time, then when the women protest he tells them that there are more important things they should be worrying about, and they ought simply to agree with his proposals and butt out.

The gall is actually breathtaking.

I fully agree with you. I was just pointing out the textbook fallacy that was thrown at you, and thus why it's absolutely right for you to reject it.

 

[Rolfe]

The problem with that line of thinking is the reality that almost everyone who is in prison is a predator of some kind or another, and everyone is a potential prey to the others. Like, if you have 100 murderers in a prison, each of them are predators but also potential prey to the others.

We can do some mitigation, though, such as not enabling more chances to do evil. E.g., they can't drive around the prison, so they have no more chances to kill someone in a DWI accident.

In the case of men vs women, the problem is really more complicated than just not putting women together with the rapists. (Which, incidentally, has happened repeatedly.) It's also that, as I've said in the sports discussion, women are on average biologically weaker than men. It's not just muscle mass, but also, as I've pointed out before, slower muscle contraction speed, different composition of muscle fibres, weaker skeleton, etc. And resulting issues, like higher chance of a concussion or fracture for the woman if an average male were to fight an average woman. The fight-or-flight response is also well documented to be different, and supported by MRI studies.

The short version is that if you put a woman in a cell with a guy convicted of assault or worse yet murder, even if they're convicted of the same crime, the guy can dominate and abuse the woman six ways to Sunday without even being particularly buff. Even without him actually be convicted of a rape or such, the woman is put in a dangerous position.

And it's not even just about that, important though it is. It's about vulnerable women being locked up with men to the detriment of their dignity, modesty and mental health. It's about the bullying that can occur without the man even laying a finger on the woman.

Elizabeth Fry campaigned for women to be held in women-only prisons for good reason. It's still considered to be a cruel and unusual punishment for women to be imprisoned with men. Just, somehow, if the man says the magic words, that doesn't count any more.

 

[Rolfe]

I fully agree with you. I was just pointing out the textbook fallacy that was thrown at you, and thus why it's absolutely right for you to reject it.

Indeed, much appreciated. And I didn't know the name of the fallacy!

 

[HansMustermann]

And it's not even just about that, important though it is. It's about vulnerable women being locked up with men to the detriment of their dignity, modesty and mental health. It's about the bullying that can occur without the man even laying a finger on the woman.

Elizabeth Fry campaigned for women to be held in women-only prisons for good reason. It's still considered to be a cruel and unusual punishment for women to be imprisoned with men. Just, somehow, if the man says the magic words, that doesn't count any more.

That too, in any case. Just having to shower with or undress/change, against your will, in front of someone with a penis is, I would imagine, mortifying. I was more focusing on the constant actual danger of being assaulted and defenceless against it, but, yes, as you say, it goes further than that.