Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Manopolus]

In order to address the Chesterton's fence problem in this specific case, one ought to be able to articulate why the general rule "Keep males out of female spaces" arose in the first place and then explain why those reasons no longer obtain now that the "generation making all the noise" is old enough to wield political power.

My apologies to @Manopolus for the confusion earlier, and I sincerely hope they take up this challenge.

Okay, so you're using a eugenicist's argument against me, not comparing me to the eugenicist. Okay, I get it now. That's MUCH better. Sorry I misread. Do you really think I should feel the need to answer that? Did it work well in the eugenics argument it came from?

I may have to look at that again. Surely that isn't what you meant. Okay, nevermind. He was opposed to it on a second look. Sorry. It just seemed that the argument could be used for racial segregation, too.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, nevermind. He was opposed to it on a second look. Sorry.

I think I've seen this bit before.

 

[Manopolus]

I think I've seen this bit before.

Yeah.... I'm not that great at skimming. I think we've established that.

 

[Manopolus]

You're not from around here, I take it.

Well, I'm not going to sit here and dox myself (not famous, anyway, but still). But let's just say I've been quite a lot of places, but was born and raised right here in the Nowheresville USA. Didn't spend the first 20 years of my adult life here, but now I'm back. There's a lot more deviation even here than you might expect, though.

 

[d4m10n]

Okay, so you're using a eugenicist's argument against me, not comparing me to the eugenicist. Okay, I get it now. That's MUCH better. Sorry I misread. Do you really think I should feel the need to answer that? Did it work well in the eugenics argument it came from?

I didn't bring up eugenics at all; no self-identified skeptic should be easily sidetracked by an obvious red herring.

In order to address the Chesterton's fence problem in this specific case, one ought to be able to articulate why the general rule "Keep males out of female spaces" arose in the first place and then explain why those reasons no longer obtain now that the "generation making all the noise" is old enough to wield political power.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't bring up eugenics at all

In partial defense, Wikipedia section linking sometimes acts funny, and your link sometimes directed me to the section above about opposition to eugenics. So I see why he made the connection. But mistaking opposition to eugenics for support for eugenics, well, that one's all on him, though it sounds like he's finally figured it out now.

In any case, I think he should still read (NOT skim) the longer Chesterton quote available here. It's been brought up in this thread before because it's very relevant to this topic, but it's applicable to a lot of other issues as well. It's an idea that I think most people should be exposed to.

 

[Manopolus]

I didn't bring up eugenics at all; no self-identified skeptic should be easily sidetracked by an obvious red herring.

In order to address the Chesterton's fence problem in this specific case, one ought to be able to articulate why the general rule "Keep males out of female spaces" arose in the first place and then explain why those reasons no longer obtain now that the "generation making all the noise" is old enough to wield political power.

Well, segregating the unmarried sexes goes back quite a long way. If you look at the oldest literature, they were often blaming women for anything that might go wrong.

...but primarily to protect virginity in most cultures. That and keeping the dirty bleeding women away from pious men.

 

[theprestige]

And I would tend to say that this requires a full transition before it's applicable. Until then, they can just keep wanting it. That's the only way to fully screen out the pretenders.

I can think of a couple other ways. One is to uphold the current convention of no male access at all. The other is to allow access only to males who can show medical necessity via proper documentation.

Since you've already dismissed medical necessity, why not just uphold the current convention? There's nothing about a full transition that logically or morally entitles a male to such access, so why bother making any exceptions at all?

At that point, what problem are you even trying to solve?

 

[theprestige]

Nor you? Times change, man. It never stops. We'll both be dead before we find out just how much the younger generations change it. And it's not like this doesn't differ by culture somewhat already.

Ultimately, I think we're both too old to be the ones who decide.

I'm not really even pushing my vision of things, really... have no skin in the game anymore. I'm way beyond the age of participation in the industrial education system (and not a teacher). I very seldomly even use a public restroom. I'm just saying there are more than two options. The most obvious option is the one that the prudes are most squeamish about, yes. But if the older generations got to decide such things, we'd still think that an exposed ankle was sexy.

They'll figure it out... the same generation that brought it up. Trust them. They're the ones that have to live with it. Not you. Definitely not me. As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't require any new laws. It's a culture thing, not a law thing.

I mean, when exactly did outlawing the f-word do anybody any good? That's the sort of hypocrisy that mandating culture gets you. It doesn't work.

I say let 'em try it both ways... and in ways we've never thought of. Let one institution do it differently than another. I'm fine with that... as long as the people actually affected have a say. I'm not affected.

It's your society too. I assume it's a liberal democratic society. You have just as much a stake in how your society is ordered, and just as much responsibility to participate in the ordering of your society, as anyone else. Abdicating your responsibility to contribute to public policy doesn't solve or dismiss the problem you're struggling with.

 

[Manopolus]

I can think of a couple other ways. One is to uphold the current convention of no male access at all. The other is to allow access only to males who can show medical necessity via proper documentation.

Since you've already dismissed medical necessity, why not just uphold the current convention? There's nothing about a full transition that logically or morally entitles a male to such access, so why bother making any exceptions at all?

At that point, what problem are you even trying to solve?

The current convention is not putting it in legislation at all (other than various eavesdropping laws). I'm absolutely fine with that. Most won't see enough to prove their sex for certain, anyway, in a typical public bathroom.

I think it's more the locker room people are worried about, though. Showers, etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

...but primarily to protect virginity in most cultures.

Protect it from what?

 

[Manopolus]

Protect it from what?

Umm... from pretty much anything that makes them not a virgin anymore? I wouldn't say rape specifically... in Biblical accounts, for instance, they didn't much care whether it was consensual or not. An unmarried female needed to be a virgin whether she wanted to be or not. And she was absolutely ruined if she wasn't a virgin, regardless of how it happened. So yeah. Just to make sure they don't have sex until their parent sets them up with a marriage of the parent's choosing.

And yes, I do realize that there are some age issues involved. Not then, really (at least not in the same way), but now.

But they didn't just keep them separate in hygeine facilities. They kept them entirely separate in pretty much everything. Church, even.

 

[Ziggurat]

Umm... from pretty much anything that makes them not a virgin anymore?

You're dancing around the answer. The answer is from men who would rape them. Not from women (who cannot impregnate others), not from vague forces of nature, and not from accidents.

I wouldn't say rape specifically

I would. If a woman and a man both want to have sex (even socially unsanctioned sex), they don't need to do it in female-only spaces. Women have never had that hard a time arranging for willing trysts, and the social prohibition on males in female spaces never stopped that. That's not what it was for.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I'm not going to sit here and dox myself (not famous, anyway, but still). But let's just say I've been quite a lot of places, but was born and raised right here in the Nowheresville USA. Didn't spend the first 20 years of my adult life here, but now I'm back. There's a lot more deviation even here than you might expect, though.

Nowheresville is presumably considerably warmer than Scotland.

 

[Manopolus]

Nowheresville is presumably considerably warmer than Scotland.

Depends upon the time of year. Both a lot hotter and probably occasionally colder. Probably more wind chill. It actually feels colder than Germany ever did in winter, but at a higher average temperature.

On a yearly basis, it both gets above 95 f and below 0 f pretty much every year. The UK in general tends to have a lot less variance because of the ocean currents. I couldn't get too much further from an ocean if I wanted to. I could get further from the Gulf of Trumpy Renaming if I wanted to, and that's the closest, but it's not that much further to either ocean. The Gulf is 1,071 miles South, according to Google.

Fairly close to Ukraine's weather, probably (at least a good chunk of it). We grow the same crops (sunflowers, for instance... wheat, some corn, but that's mostly to the North and requires irrigation here. Lots of soy... more than there used to be. Alfalfa, Oats, Sourgum. But sunflowers are the most distinct that you'll find in both places. They're native to Kansas and a major crop in Ukraine. They still grow wild here).

 

[theprestige]

The current convention is not putting it in legislation at all (other than various eavesdropping laws). I'm absolutely fine with that. Most won't see enough to prove their sex for certain, anyway, in a typical public bathroom.

See, you can opine on public policy after all.

I think it's more the locker room people are worried about, though. Showers, etc.

Sure. I'm talking about access to all the things. Restrooms. Locker rooms. Shelters. Sports. Affinity associations. Recognitions of achievement. All of it.

Why, in your opinion, should any man be granted any exception to access any of those things?

 

[Manopolus]

Why, in your opinion, should any man be granted any exception to access any of those things?

Well, in my case only as a janitor, and that was summer job (long, long ago). I think it's quite okay in that case. Nobody was in there with me.

But the thing is... I'm flexible. I think that many different ways to organize a society exist, and I'm not particular about which way we go. I do prefer something functional, of course. But that takes care of itself to some degree. People adapt.

 

[Rolfe]

Depends upon the time of year. Both a lot hotter and probably occasionally colder. Probably more wind chill. It actually feels colder than Germany ever did in winter, but at a higher average temperature.

On a yearly basis, it both gets above 95 f and below 0 f pretty much every year. The UK in general tends to have a lot less variance because of the ocean currents. I couldn't get too much further from an ocean if I wanted to. I could get further from the Gulf of Trumpy Renaming if I wanted to, and that's the closest, but it's not that much further to either ocean. The Gulf is 1,071 miles South, according to Google.

Fairly close to Ukraine's weather, probably (at least a good chunk of it). We grow the same crops (sunflowers, for instance... wheat, some corn, but that's mostly to the North and requires irrigation here. Lots of soy... more than there used to be. Alfalfa, Oats, Sourgum. But sunflowers are the most distinct that you'll find in both places).

You might apply that to your preference for everyone routinely walking about unclothed.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, in my case only as a janitor, and that was summer job (long, long ago). I think it's quite okay in that case. Nobody was in there with me.

But the thing is... I'm flexible. I think that many different ways to organize a society exist, and I'm not particular about which way we go. I do prefer something functional, of course. But that takes care of itself to some degree. People adapt.

So, should the men who have decided to adopt a trans identity and demand access to women's spaces adapt to the fact that they're not permitted such access, or should women budge over and give men what they want?

 

[Manopolus]

So, should the men who have decided to adopt a trans identity and demand access to women's spaces adapt to the fact that they're not permitted such access, or should women budge over and give men what they want?

Sure, works for me. I don't put a lot of "shoulds" on other people. I'll leave them to it. If they want to make that commitment, great! Who am I to stop them? It's not me you have to convince. Convince those who are doing the thing you don't like.

Is there any reason we all have to do it the same way? I mean, yeah.... in a particular area we might, but one place does one thing, another place something else?

In the context of the US, the people most pushing against the issue would call this concept "state's rights" if it was about anything else.