Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I think it would be persuasive to people who only consider it shallowly.

Perhaps the largest gap in Novella's take is that they're discussing mental illness solely from the perspective of whether it causes challenges to the individual. It's all about whether being trans in and of itself causes the trans identifying person distress or difficulty.

In reality, however, most diagnoses include a clause relating to the illness representing a problem for other people as well. For example, yes my sister's bipolar disorder has caused a lot of hardship for my sister - it's made it difficult for them to have a healthy relationship, or a good job, and it's strained their relationship with their children. But it also has caused problems for other people. It's caused problems for me when my sister was in the midst of an episode and wouldn't stop calling me at work, sent me 40 texts, and started accusing me of conspiring behind their back

An even more extreme illustration can be made when we talk about psychopaths. Being psychopathic doesn't actually cause the psychopath any meaningful distress or challenges... but it represents a significant risk to everyone else around them.

 

[Thermal]

This is a fallacy.

I get where you're coming from, but you're failing to understand that most criminals are opportunistic predators. Murders choose locations where the likelihood of getting caught is very, very low. So do rapists. The only ones who don't are the actual psychotics who are delusional and lack a solid grasp of reality. All the rest of them actually do consider the location and the chance of apprehension.

Just try a bit of an intellectual exercise here. Compare two scenarios for a would-be rapist.

In the first scenario, the female restroom is considered off-limits. It is understood that if a male enters the restroom, and females raise a cry, someone will come to the female's aid and evict the male.

In the second scenario, the female restroom is available for anyone who says they're a 'woman', regardless of what their actual sex is. There's no requirement to pass, there's not even a strong expectation that they dress in female-typical attire. Pretty much all they have to do is throw on some lipstick and say out-loud words "I'm a transwoman"... and they're deemed to be allowed into the female restroom on the basis of their professed gender identity. Not only are they allowed, but now it's understood that if a female complains, that female is being a bigot and will face social repercussion - maybe even legal ones.

Which of those two scenarios is going to be preferred by an opportunistic rapist?

Honest answer: as I keep saying, I don't think they would give the slightest ◊◊◊◊. A rapist is the most violent of criminals. It's like asking what color shoes they would prefer, as if it would make a difference in whether or not they would rape. It's literally not even on their radar.

{Eta: if they are going in a safe space to literally rape, making justifications for the trip between the entrance door and the raping area is really not a realistic concern}

Now let's take it a step further, and instead of a rapist we're talking about a voyeur or an exhibitionist - a peeper or a flasher. Which scenario do you think they will prefer?

This one is definitely encouraged by the "easy out", agreed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I would direct you to McNally Official and Lockpicking Lawyer. Picking the lock on a standard house door is crazy easy. The vast majority of combination of keyed locks are virtually no barrier to even an amateur with a $10 set of tools, and most of the best tools aren't picks. My government issued spousal unit got some rakes and bypass tools, and defeated our front door lock in less than ten minutes on their first try.

Turns out that locks aren't an effective barrier, they're an inconvenience. And the overwhelming majority of thieves are opportunistic. If the door is locked, they just move on. If it's unlocked, they'll come in and steal your stuff.

When it comes to single-sex spaces, there's no physical inconvenience... but there has (until the last decade) been a very, very strong social inconvenience. And while that inconvenience won't stop the determined offender... it will prevent the opportunistic offender from transgressing female boundaries.

Removal of that social barrier increases the opportunity for sexual offenders to transgress. And if all you're thinking about is rapists... you're missing the volume of voyeurs and exhibititionists involved with this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously: why, in a presumably crowded area, would you feel threatened by an open transwoman publicly walking into a restroom and using the stall next to you?

Because Rolfe, Pixel, Sherkeu, Jihad Jane, Elaedith, and several other females I'm forgetting at the moment have ALL been exposed to self-posted videos of transgender identified males filming themselves jerking off in the female restroom, with females in the background, and getting off on making those females uncomfortable. We've all seen videos posted by those self-styled transwomen where they're intentionally intimidating females with their size and their aggression. We've read the posts those trans people have made about how much of a turn-on it is for them to root through the pad and tampon bins to find used feminine hygiene product that they will use as sexual aids for their masturbation. We've seen far too many reddit discussions among transgender identified males sharing with each other how hard they get when they hear the female next to them peeing, and how much of a turn on it is to be able to impose on females for their own titillation.

And also because we saw the video of a whole pack of transgender identifying males - who didn't at all pass - feeling entitled to take over a female restroom at the capitol and post it all over the internet celebrating their willingness to ignore single-sex rules because they want to use SPECIFICALLY female restrooms despite there being multiple unisex facilities available on the grounds.

And we've seen over and over and over again, groups of transgender identifying males physically attacking females who gather to *talk* about the conflict of rights involved, we've seen them show up with t-shirts and signs calling for the rape or death of females who disagree with them having carte blanche access to female spaces. We've seen them vandalize rape shelters and nail rats to the door and spray paint threats all over it because that shelter didn't allow obviously male transgender identified males to use their space. We've watched them harass multiple muslim aestheticians and sue them for discrimination when those females refused to wax their scrotum.

We've seen significant increases in the number of incarcerated males who have just recently magically identified their true gender identities, and then get transfer to the female prison wing where they intimidate, assault, and rape the female prisoners. We watched the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ACLE ferchirstsakes BLOCK a freedom of information request in order to keep the public from knowing how many completely intact males were being housed with female inmates without the consent of those females at all. We've seen over and over sexual offenders and violent murderers get off with minimal or deferred sentences because somehow the judge felt that them saying they're transgender is tough enough that they shouldn't have to go to jail for what they did. And we've seen female rape victims chastised by the judge and denied compensation because they referred to their male attacker as "he" after he professed that they're actually a "woman" because they say so.

I dunno. Given the stats, I think we're well within reason to be skeptical and leery of ANY male who appropriates our single-sex spaces without consent... and even more so when they're blatantly violating our boundaries with the full weight of social censure behind them.

 

[Thermal]

I would direct you to McNally Official and Lockpicking Lawyer. Picking the lock on a standard house door is crazy easy. The vast majority of combination of keyed locks are virtually no barrier to even an amateur with a $10 set of tools, and most of the best tools aren't picks. My government issued spousal unit got some rakes and bypass tools, and defeated our front door lock in less than ten minutes on their first try.

Preaching to the choir. I'm a contractor, and have my own well-worn tension wrench, scrub and hook, as well as a full set of bump keys (you need to be through that lock in abt 15 seconds, btw).

Turns out that locks aren't an effective barrier, they're an inconvenience. And the overwhelming majority of thieves are opportunistic. If the door is locked, they just move on. If it's unlocked, they'll come in and steal your stuff.

Right. Locks are for punks and drunks, which are 95% of your problems. To an actual thief, a minor nuisance.

That's what I keep saying here. Locks (rules) will stop Beavis and Butthead. They will not stop a violent criminal, who kicks the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ door down with not a passing thought about the rules.

When it comes to single-sex spaces, there's no physical inconvenience... but there has (until the last decade) been a very, very strong social inconvenience. And while that inconvenience won't stop the determined offender... it will prevent the opportunistic offender from transgressing female boundaries.

Removal of that social barrier increases the opportunity for sexual offenders to transgress. And if all you're thinking about is rapists... you're missing the volume of voyeurs and exhibititionists involved with this.

EC, I've said it a dozen times, now. I have two groups I'm concerned about. The rules will affect one and not thr other, so I'm focusing on the group rhat rules will actually impact.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You think you pose tough questions, but mostly, you pose stupid ones - questions that have already been answered multiple times in your absence from this dicussion.

I get where you're coming from, but Thermal is being civil and respectful. There's no need to be intentionally mean, smartcooky.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How do you raise the alarm in a way that is different from the existing ways of raising the alarm, if say a male rapist or murderer walked in to a womens rest room and attacked? Who is going to come running, that wouldn't have come running for a regular male attacker?

Betty: "This male is ogling me, staring at my breasts, and rubbing their crotch, they're clearly a voyeur and I need you to evict them right the ◊◊◊◊ now"

Pat: "No, no, I'm transgender, and I was just adjusting, I totally wasn't doing anything wrong you evil bigoted transphobic TERF!"

Manager: "We're fully inclusive here, and transgender people have the right to use whatever space they identify with, so Betty, you have no grounds to complain."

For support of my illustration see...
Darren Merager and WiSpa
Colleen Francis and Evergreen Community College
Northern District of Illinois and female students have no right to visual privacy

There was also a recent one where a transgender identified male student was given the right to use the female showers, during which they would stare at the female students while rubbing their crotch... and the school is inclined to defend the little perv over all of the females involved.

 

[Thermal]

I dunno. Given the stats, I think we're well within reason to be skeptical and leery of ANY male who appropriates our single-sex spaces without consent... and even more so when they're blatantly violating our boundaries with the full weight of social censure behind them.

Then I'll deploy the nuclear argument:

Black people can be shown statistically to be a very violent group. Like, undeniably so.

Do you feel you are "well within reason to be skeptical and leery of ANY black person, given the stats"?

It's quite literally the same argument. You can't treat an entire group as suspect because you saw a YouTube video of its worst actors.

Eta: and I'm not dropping that to be inflammatory. It's just where the argument lands. Us civilized folk are supposed to be accommodating and not biased against groups.

 

[Brainster]

That's what I am arguing. There are violent attackers, and pervs. I don't think there would be any difference regarding violence, but pervs would be having a field day.

Most here seem to agree straight self ID is unworkable. I agree. What I'm trying to work out is whether accommodations can be reasonably made for trans women who aren't Hannibal Lechter. I am confident they exist. Some here aren't.

Single-occupancy, unisex toilets.

 

[Thermal]

Single-occupancy, unisex toilets.

Home Depot is snarling at you, with 75 people now waiting in line. Doesn't solve the problem of locker rooms either, where people are getting changed.

 

[Thermal]

There's attacks, and then there's harrassment, verbal abuse, indecent exposure, groping, voyeurism ... a whole range of offences which some men like to inflict upon women. Anything less than an attack which causes injury and those offences can be hard to prove, because it's usually just "he said, she said" - except if they occur in a female only safe spaces, where the man has no excuse to be at all. That's why they are the only places where females are safe from such ... attentions. When any man can enter such spaces, commit such offences, and then say "She's lying, I'm trans and she's a transphobe" when she complains, there will no longer be any such thing as female safe spaces.

Yes, and again, that's why I am separating the two different threats.

Against murderers and rapists, the signs on the door are doing nothing. They are violent criminals bent on far greater harm than inappropriate rest room occupancy.

Against Beavis and Butthead, the sign on the door is very effective. They don't want to get in trouble and will rely on the plausible deniability of the rules.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right, I get that. What I'm arguing is that the murderer/rapist fear of trans woman access to safe spaces is maybe not realistic, or at least any more than it is right now. But the perv angle is easily (and very likely) going to be exploited.

Most of us are very angry about the perv side of it... but we also recognize that it increases the risk of more severe assaults even if such risk is low.

And let's be candid here. You're a red-blooded heterosexual male, you work in construction so you're surrounded by pretty bog-standard males. I'm married to a pretty typical heterosexual male. Males *like* to see naked females, most males *like* boobs. And if there were an opportunity to see a whole bunch of boobs without risk, they'd take it. It's kind of in the wiring. But most males also understand that it makes females uncomfortable to be ogled like that, so they don't go around staring at everyone's breasts all the time. And they get that being peeped at really creeps females out, so they don't do that either. Most males respect females enough to try to avoid making us feel intimidated or violated.

But you know good and well that there are a LOT of males out there who are a bit skeezy... and if they were given an opportunity to perv on females without any consequences, they would. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Not all males, hell probably not even half of males... but enough that it would cause some problems for females.

Turns out, most females don't like being perved on. We don't like being unwilling, nonconsenting participants in someone else's sexual play.

 

[Thermal]

Most of us are very angry about the perv side of it... but we also recognize that it increases the risk of more severe assaults even if such risk is low.

And let's be candid here. You're a red-blooded heterosexual male, you work in construction so you're surrounded by pretty bog-standard males. I'm married to a pretty typical heterosexual male. Males *like* to see naked females, most males *like* boobs. And if there were an opportunity to see a whole bunch of boobs without risk, they'd take it. It's kind of in the wiring. But most males also understand that it makes females uncomfortable to be ogled like that, so they don't go around staring at everyone's breasts all the time. And they get that being peeped at really creeps females out, so they don't do that either. Most males respect females enough to try to avoid making us feel intimidated or violated.

But you know good and well that there are a LOT of males out there who are a bit skeezy... and if they were given an opportunity to perv on females without any consequences, they would. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Not all males, hell probably not even half of males... but enough that it would cause some problems for females.

Turns out, most females don't like being perved on. We don't like being unwilling, nonconsenting participants in someone else's sexual play.

I've been saying the same for quite some postings now.

Although I'd argue that most of us (if I may presume) have enough respect for women and indeed ourselves to never, ever, not even once, act on such an opportunity, and would... how do I say this...gently reprimand a fellow male that we know to have taken said advantage. With a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ baseball bat.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right, and they are fair questions. My knee jerk is to say use the same standard we use everywhere else. How do you know the UPS guy at the door is not a predator, or the cop pulling you over? You assume people are normal until you have good reason to believe otherwise.

Mmm... this might be a situation where you, as a sizable strong male, doesn't give this as much thought as I, a short and weak female, does. I currently live in a very safe neighborhood, a good ways outside of town - solid outlying suburbia. And even so... I am always aware that the UPS guy *could* be a danger, even though I don't *assume* that they are. It's not like it's a constant stress or anything, but it's definitely an awareness of my own vulnerability if I'm home alone and I have to open the door to an unexpected stranger.

But on the flip, there's just no way every Beavis and Butthead nitwit in the country is not going to exploit this for jollies.

I don't have the answers, but I lean strongly towards the bio line. Innies in one space, outies in the other. If you get medically transitioned, maybe you should qualify as the reverse of what you were born as?

Meh. It's a nice ideal... but I don't think it's practical. If the fully surgically altered male is 5'8", small statured, and passes well, then sure - because nobody is going to notice. On the other hand... if Henry Cavill gets the wedding tackle removed, they're still going to be perceived as a male by every female that runs across them. I mean, Dwayne Johnson is just never, ever, ever going to pass.

I don't want to do pants inspections, and I don't think that females should be expected to do so - if the person is obviously male, then they're obviously male, regardless of whether they're intact or not.

Eta: also, I'm squirming a little at framing this as "how can WE tell?" It sounds like everyone is declaring themselves an enforcer, and all trans people are guilty till proven innocent. No one demands my papers to prove I'm not a rapist in any other situation.

Sorry to say this, but it's not "all trans people", it's "all males". And it's not "any other situation", it's very specifically "situations and spaces where females are naked or particularly vulnerable".

And yeah - situational awareness, my friend. Nobody demands your papers... but I guarantee that if you're out on a dark street at night and see a female walking alone - that female is hyper aware of your presence, how close you are, and what their exit strategy is. There's a high likelihood that they'll be "on the phone" if you're within hearing distance. We don't assume that all males are rapists... but we are very reasonably aware that any male could be one, and we take minimally invasive steps to ensure our own safety as much as we can.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What I'm trying to work out is whether accommodations can be reasonably made for trans women who aren't Hannibal Lechter. I am confident they exist. Some here aren't.

I think generally we agree that not all transgender identified males aren't serial killers. Hell, I think it's reasonable to say that most of them aren't horrific rapist/murderers.

The problem is that over the course of several years, none of us have been able to come up with a way that filters the safe ones from the unsafe ones... and over the last decade we've learned that a whole lot more of them are pervs than we initially thought.

If there were a really, really, really good way to figure out which are true trans with purely benign intentions and which are not... several of us might be willing to consider accommodations. But until someone comes up with a way that makes sense and is reasonable, many of us simply don't think we should be obligated to increase our risk exposure in order to avoid potentially hurting the feelings of some very few.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Honest answer: as I keep saying, I don't think they would give the slightest ◊◊◊◊. A rapist is the most violent of criminals.

I don't think most people would classify the two males who tried to rape me as the most violent of criminals. They were arguably less violent overall than many other non-rapey males that I know.

But both of them were opportunistic, and one of them argued that they didn't do anything wrong by pinning me down in their dorm room when we were supposed to be working on a class project and trying to force their hands into my pants and prevent me from getting up until I hit them in the throat. The other merely thought I was passed out drunk (I was just tired at a friend's party) and figured it would be a great time to go explore the back door without having to bother to ask first.

 

[Brainster]

Home Depot is snarling at you, with 75 people now waiting in line. Doesn't solve the problem of locker rooms either, where people are getting changed.

You don't have to make every toilet single-occupancy, just a few. As for locker rooms, individuals should go into the room they present as when naked.

 

[d4m10n]

You don't have to make every toilet single-occupancy, just a few. As for locker rooms, individuals should go into the room they present as when naked.

Even in the men's locker room, people are more apt to walk around shirtless with a towel than fully nude.

(Except Boomers, for some reason.)

Anyhow, that's going to confuse the ◊◊◊◊ out of people when someone with tiddies and covered wedding tackle does it.

"What the hell is this chick doing in our safe space?" won't even need to be said aloud, every lifted eyebrow will carry the same meaning.

 

[Brainster]

Even in the men's locker room, people are more apt to walk around shirtless with a towel than fully nude.

(Except Boomers, for some reason.)

Anyhow, that's going to confuse the ◊◊◊◊ out of people when someone with tiddies and covered wedding tackle does it.

Maybe for awhile, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the best solution. You want to go in the women's locker room, you have to commit yourself to appearing as woman-like as possible.

 

[d4m10n]

Maybe for awhile, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the best solution.

Man doesn't object to surprise tiddies; news at 11.