Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[angrysoba]

Huh. Honestly haven't seen one of them since my high schools prison style showers, built around 1960. Even my kids' college dorms had individual stalls, and all the gyms I've seen have individuals. Surprising.

And yes, 100% of the women affected would be... you know, 100% of them. I just wasn't sure how many showers and users of them we were talking about. Like, if there were a few gyms that still had prison showers, requiring them to upgrade to normal single stalls (possibly just installing privacy dividers in the existing setup) doesn't seem.like that big a deal.

Eta: although to reiterate: I don't think.its a good idea. I'm just trying to determine the realistic risk assessment. Saying 100% of women would suddenly find themselves in jeopardy seems a little off.

I think the argument is that there is a taboo about going into women’s toilets that could at least make a man think twice about going in there unless he’s Tom Cruise from Top Gun. But similar incidents such as in saunas or in Brazilian waxing clinics when a guy can say “wax my balls!” in fact shift the taboo to anyone who objects (“I’m trans, you bigot!”) How is anyone to know who is genuinely trans and who is merely saying it as a ruse?

I think that we should be able to recognize that as a genuine area of concern. If it is not it makes a mockery of even sex-segregating such areas in the first place. And ultimately it makes a mockery of even talking about who is a man or woman if someone can claim one sex or another by fiat.

In some cases maybe gender-neutral toilets work well enough, but the objections are that more goes on in the communal areas of women’s toilets than most men realize related to menstruation, baby-minding etc…

 

[Thermal]

I think the argument is that there is a taboo about going into women’s toilets that could at least make a man think twice about going in there unless he’s Tom Cruise from Top Gun. But similar incidents such as in saunas or in Brazilian waxing clinics when a guy can say “wax my balls!” in fact shift the taboo to anyone who objects (“I’m trans, you bigot!”) How is anyone to know who is genuinely trans and who is merely saying it as a ruse?

I think that we should be able to recognize that as a genuine area of concern. If it is not it makes a mockery of even sex-segregating such areas in the first place. And ultimately it makes a mockery of even talking about who is a man or woman if someone can claim one sex or another by fiat.

In some cases maybe gender-neutral toilets work well enough, but the objections are that more goes on in the communal areas of women’s toilets than most men realize related to menstruation, baby-minding etc…

Oh, don't get me wrong- I'm still staunchly in favor of bio sex segregation for safe spaces. It's a simple safety and even a basic modesty concern, and a totally, inarguably valid one.

But at the same time, I am acquainted with one transwoman who is sincere as all hell, and I want the place to be just as non-exclusive to her as it is to anyone else. So I'm trying to work out if there even can be a middle ground.

If there can't, as Pixel42 seems to think, then I guess we have to defer to pure sex segregation. It's gotta be safety first. I would think a medically transitioned woman would be "ok" in a women's rest area though. Surely they are demonstrating sincerity and not just being freaks and pervs? It's no small commitment to the act, if it were an act.

 

[angrysoba]

Oh, don't get me wrong- I'm still staunchly in favor of bio sex segregation for safe spaces. It's a simple safety and even a basic modesty concern, and a totally, inarguably valid one.

But at the same time, I am acquainted with one transwoman who is sincere as all hell, and I want the place to be just as non-exclusive to her as it is to anyone else. So I'm trying to work out if there even can be a middle ground.

If there can't, as Pixel42 seems to think, then I guess we have to defer to pure sex segregation. It's gotta be safety first. I would think a medically transitioned woman would be "ok" in a women's rest area though. Surely they are demonstrating sincerity and not just being freaks and pervs? It's no small commitment to the act, if it were an act.

Yeah, I have raised that point too. There seems to be division on that one too. I suppose that there is a practical barrier of how somebody would know without genital inspection, but it may bring back the possibility of getting caught out.

But smartcooky has said that if he sees a non-passing transwomen going into a woman’s toilet (and insists that they are all non-passing - a case of the toupee fallacy?) then he will physically assault them (they will need wheelchairs once he is done with them).

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, I have raised that point too. There seems to be division on that one too. I suppose that there is a practical barrier of how somebody would know without genital inspection, but it may bring back the possibility of getting caught out.

Right... determining who has "fully" transitioned requires a fair bit of pervy indignity for all.

But smartcooky has said that if he sees a non-passing transwomen going into a woman’s toilet (and insists that they are all non-passing - a case of the toupee fallacy?) then he will physically assault them (they will need wheelchairs once he is done with them).

Well, advocating felonious assault and battery and crippling someone is of course the reasonable and intelligent response to some distracted guy who misread a sign, of course. I've done so once or twice (purely accidentally) and had women walk quite intentionally into a men's room at bars (long line waitting at women's room versus plenty of extra room in the mens). It seems like it would be a matter of indifference 99.9% of the time, and that .01% time that was criminal would happen with or without permission from a sign. Criminals are not big sign obeyers.

 

[Thermal]

They are ignoring the fact it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain that having SelfID laws for transgender men to identify as women as of right, will allow predators (and not necessarily transgender men) exploit this law because they will be able to enter safe spaces unchallenged and with impunity.

Let me ask you a serious question. Do you understand that rape and murder are very serious violent crimes, commited by attackers who would have no qualms whatsoever, right here and right now, of walking into the "safe space" no matter what the sign on the door says? Do you seriously think a freaking murderer would stop and say "damn, she's in the women's room. I can't go in there. Foiled again"?

And what if he walked in and a platoon of cops were in there? What are they going to charge him with? Unlawfully potty access? More than likely, the wannabe murderer would just say "whoops, my mistake, wrong door" and everyone goes about their day. A rapist or murderer doesn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ care I'd they are "allowed" to be in there. It makes no difference to those most violent of criminals. They are not freaking children thinking they gamed the system by self IDing.

That's why I asked about the assault stats in the here and now. I'm not thinking there's going to be some block of rapists that think "aha! Now I can get in!" with fiat ID. I think that those who want to commit such atrocities are indifferent to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ permissions.

Which is why I'd realistically be more concerned about simple modesty and comfort. I think a garden variety perv might need the extra justification to commit his more petty voyeuristic and exhibitionist crimes.

 

[d4m10n]

If there can't, as Pixel42 seems to think, then I guess we have to defer to pure sex segregation.

Pure sex segregation puts passing trans men (who look just like dudes) into women's spaces, and that isn't likely to increase their [ETA: biological women's] sense of modesty and comfort.

 

[Thermal]

Pure sex segregation puts passing trans men (who look just like dudes) into women's spaces, and that isn't likely to increase their sense of modesty and comfort.

That's the current state though. Has it been a problem?

Of course, passing transwomen have certainly been using women's rooms, and vice versa, for many years

 

[angrysoba]

Pure sex segregation puts passing trans men (who look just like dudes) into women's spaces, and that isn't likely to increase their sense of modesty and comfort.

The only time I have heard of a man objecting to transmen in male toilets has been one completely not made up story of a gay horse rider who was asked if he would be happy with it and declared, in a dramatic fashion, “◊◊◊◊ no!”

 

[angrysoba]

That's the current state though. Has it been a problem?

Of course, passing transwomen have certainly been using women's rooms, and vice versa, for many years

I think this is true, but in the last decade or so there have been a few incidents*. I think also that the number of people identifying as transwomen have increased alongside a more militant movement that has made demands that more and more women are uncomfortable with.

* I think smartcooky has said both of his daughters have had to pepper-spray transwomen who assaulted them in the women’s room.

 

[d4m10n]

That's the current state though.

Only in a handful of jurisdictions which require strict segregation by birth sex; I imagine trans men ignore those laws if they are confident they won't be clocked in the men's room.

The only time I have heard of a man objecting to transmen...

Yet another reason to allow men to make up the rules for men's spaces.

The more I think on this (it's been several years now) the more I'm leaning towards men allowing everyone into our spaces and leagues, assuming we get a chance to vote on it without women finding some way to interfere.

 

[angrysoba]

Only in a handful of jurisdictions which require strict segregation by birth sex; I imagine trans men ignore those laws if they are confident they won't be clocked in the men's room.

But again, clearly the trans men thing is not even an issue really, is it?

Recently during that whole meet a bear or a man in a forest online kerfuffle, a woman I know said she completely understood why some women would prefer to meet a bear rather than a man in a forest but then also said that if the man was a trans man she would be fine with that. Of course, this makes it clear that there is a big difference between men and trans men and suggests that she would also find a very meaningful distinction between women and trans women when it comes to threats to safety.

 

[d4m10n]

But again, clearly the trans men thing is not even an issue really, is it?

Not if we treat the issues of women's spaces and men's spaces separately instead of trying to write a general rule to cover both.

Recently during that whole meet a bear or a man in a forest online kerfuffle, a woman I know said she completely understood why some women would prefer to meet a bear rather than a man in a forest but then also said that if the man was a trans man she would be fine with that.

Whether a man or a trans man, they are each much more likely than bears (of any gender) to start a conversation when you're just trying to have a pleasant moment in the woods by yourself.

 

[angrysoba]

Not if we treat the issues of women's spaces and men's spaces separately instead of trying to write a general rule to cover both.

Whether a man or a trans man, they are each much more likely than bears (of any gender) to start a conversation when you're just trying to have a pleasant moment in the woods by yourself.

True. Far more likely to have all kinds of infuriating cognitive biases as well.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, don't get me wrong- I'm still staunchly in favor of bio sex segregation for safe spaces. It's a simple safety and even a basic modesty concern, and a totally, inarguably valid one.

But at the same time, I am acquainted with one transwoman who is sincere as all hell, and I want the place to be just as non-exclusive to her as it is to anyone else. So I'm trying to work out if there even can be a middle ground.

If there can't, as Pixel42 seems to think, then I guess we have to defer to pure sex segregation. It's gotta be safety first. I would think a medically transitioned woman would be "ok" in a women's rest area though. Surely they are demonstrating sincerity and not just being freaks and pervs? It's no small commitment to the act, if it were an act.

In terms of public policy, I think the middle ground is to let individual establishments set their own policies, and give them the legal backup to eject any man that doesn't meet their criteria.

 

[smartcooky]

Let me ask you a serious question. Do you understand that rape and murder are very serious violent crimes, commited by attackers who would have no qualms whatsoever, right here and right now, of walking into the "safe space" no matter what the sign on the door says? Do you seriously think a freaking murderer would stop and say "damn, she's in the women's room. I can't go in there. Foiled again"?

Oh well, they are going to break the law anyway, so why take any precautions, right? Go ahead, leave your house unlocked while you are at work, leave the windows open too, and leave all your valuable stuff so that its plainly visible from any window. While you're at it, leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition... and leave your wallet on the dash too. Or, leave your work vehcile unlocked with all your expensive tools in it.

Lets see how well that goes for you.

Sure there is a risk that a real violent criminal might ignore the signs, but there is ZERO doubt that others WILL exploit any SelfID law that gets legislated. Please explain to me, or more importantly, explain to the women on this forum, why they should just shut the **** up and accept any additional risk?

As for rest of your post I have not addressed any of it because its stupid, inane bollocks that is not worth my time!

 

[Pixel42]

If there can't, as Pixel42 seems to think, then I guess we have to defer to pure sex segregation. It's gotta be safety first. I would think a medically transitioned woman would be "ok" in a women's rest area though. Surely they are demonstrating sincerity and not just being freaks and pervs? It's no small commitment to the act, if it were an act.

As I have said many times: when it's someone the women know and trust, they may well be fine with giving them access. That was already happening, long before TRAs started making their strident demands. The point is it's their choice to make.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Not really. The endlessly troubled teen seemed less "together" then the entirely well-adjusted woman she grew up to be.

The problem with this is the false promise that's at the heart of this movement (& I think is often overlooked). Some same-sex attracted males like the idea of being a heterosexual woman better than a gay man, but (broadly speaking) they're never going to be accepted as such when looking for long-term partners.

 

[Rolfe]

In terms of public policy, I think the middle ground is to let individual establishments set their own policies, and give them the legal backup to eject any man that doesn't meet their criteria.

This is a problem. How do women know what the policy of a particular establishment is? Should every venue have a prominent notice on display advising patrons of their rules? Because if not, where do we stand?

The sign on the door says Ladies, or something to indicate that, and once inside I encounter Alex Drummond or Eddie Izzard or Dustin Hoffman in full costume and makeup as Tootsie. I register a protest, and the establishment informs me that they are fully inclusive and everyone is welcome to use the facilities where they're most comfortable. It's implied that I'm a bigot and have committed a hate crime.

That's a huge concern at the moment and I have felt it myself, in a theatre where I was waiting for a friend outside the Ladies and saw a six-foot-plus dude in a skimpy red dress, high heels and makeup stride confidently (or defiantly) inside. As I wasn't actually inside at the time I ignored it, but if I had been I would have been extremely uncomfortable. But could I have relied on the theatre staff to back me up if I had objected to his presence? I doubt it, and I imagine so did the women who were inside at the time.

Without some sort of uniformity of rules, men are simply going to go where they like and women are going to be too intimidated to challenge them.

 

[d4m10n]

Don't recall whether this write-up has been shared at some point in the last few years of this thread, but it's a new year so here goes:

Being Trans Is Not A Mental Illness - NeuroLogica Blog

On the current episode of the SGU, because it is pride month, we expressed our general support for the LGBTQ community. I also opined about how important it is to respect individual liberty, the freedom to simply live your authentic life as you choose, and how ironic it is that often the people...

theness.com

I'd be interested in hearing whether anyone finds Novella's take persuasive.

 

[Thermal]

Oh well, they are going to break the law anyway, so why take any precautions, right? Go ahead, leave your house unlocked while you are at work, leave the windows open too, and leave all your valuable stuff so that its plainly visible from any window. While you're at it, leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition... and leave your wallet on the dash too. Or, leave your work vehcile unlocked with all your expensive tools in it.

Lets see how well that goes for you.

Since you requested feedback, I happen to already have results handy.

I haven't locked my home's doors but maybe half a dozen times in the last decade, even when leaving the continent for over a week. Never at all on a routine day or night. Anyone attempting entry will have a canine to deal with who, like our last dog, really really doesn't like strangers.

My work truck's back door lock doesn't work, so, with literally thousands in easily hockable tools and goods in reach, it goes unlocked for all but a few times per year. And during the work day, my keys and wallet are in fact on the console (in fairness, not on the dashboard).

But to your somewhat vacuous point: locking a door is an actual positive stop, preventing all but determined thieves with tools. A sign on a restroom is literally nothing to stop anyone from doing anything. Rules about who goes in are not physically preventative to a violent criminal in the way a lock is; they do zero.

Sure there is a risk that a real violent criminal might ignore the signs, but there is ZERO doubt that others WILL exploit any SelfID law that gets legislated. Please explain to me, or more importantly, explain to the women on this forum, why they should just shut the **** up and accept any additional risk?

Since you snipped the part of the post that addressed that directly, I'll repeat it for you: the threat of the less violent voyeur/exhibitionist is still very real, and they probably would be encouraged or discouraged by the rules or a sign (unlike a violent attacker), so that needs to be dealt with, like I said, unlike your foolish assertion that I tell the women to STFU.

As for rest of your post I have not addressed any of it because its stupid, inane bollocks that is not worth my time!

Yes, you say that every time things get thorny for you.