Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

It's not me you have to convince. Convince those who are doing the thing you don't like.

That's... not how it works.

"You don't have to convince me not to steal cars, convince the people stealing cars."

Or, you know, make a rule against stealing cars and enforce that rule whether the people stealing cars like it or not.

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?

Globally? No, there's no reason rules all have to be the same. And they generally aren't. Uniformity of rules within a polity has significant advantages, though.

Not seeing an argument for why to actually allow it where you are, though. "I'm not bothered by it" isn't a reason. It's a statement of privilege.

 

[Rolfe]

It never ceases to amaze me, the number of men who hear that women are distressed that perverted men are being given unlimited, legal right of access to their single-sex spaces, and who then respond with "well, I'm not bothered by it". Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised.

 

[Manopolus]

That's... not how it works.

"You don't have to convince me not to steal cars, convince the people stealing cars."

Or, you know, make a rule against stealing cars and enforce that rule whether the people stealing cars like it or not.

Globally? No, there's no reason rules all have to be the same. And they generally aren't. Uniformity of rules within a polity has significant advantages, though.

Not seeing an argument for why to actually allow it where you are, though. "I'm not bothered by it" isn't a reason. It's a statement of privilege.

It's quite simply not an issue here that I know of. That said, I wouldn't necessarily know about it, either. I know a few gay people around (distantly related to one of them), but don't know of any trans.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure Kansas will go right along with your view, regardless of my own. Even more so, the 80% of the people who voted for Trump in the immediate area. There's not even a threat of that issue here. No one would dare. Oh, they're pretty laid back most of the time... until they aren't.

...which is why I wasn't entirely sure it was even a thing anywhere but FOX News and San Francisco earlier in the thread. I generally advocate for letting California be California, though. It's one of the few political ideas I can get my neighbors to eventually agree with me on with a little prompting.

 

[Rolfe]

It seems to me that the people dismissing this article with "It's only one or two people and they weren't even trans themselves" are missing the point. It's about the culture of acceptance of paedophiles within the T part of the laughingly-named LGBTQ+++ "community" (which is all about the T and the Q, and which vilifies the L part). That dodgy guys are not checked up on for a dodgy past, that their dodgy activities are at best ignored, and that when they're finally brought to book, the organisations they founded show not the slightest degree of self-reflection, and no sign at all that they intend to improve their child safeguarding procedures. The offenders are simply erased, and it's business as usual.

LGBTQ+ has a paedophile problem | The Critic Magazine

The question of whether predators are hiding in plain sight, in a movement graced by an unexplained plus sign, has always struck me as clinically naive

thecritic.co.uk

When these organisations, and the organisations that support them - like the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and indeed the SNP - start taking this situation seriously and calling for a root-and-branch reform to ensure that there are no more of the same still in the fold and that no more will be able to join, when they start ensuring that everyone in contact with children is thoroughly vetted and DBS checked, when they start pro-actively promoting safeguarding and react with due horror to any atrocity that nevertheless happens, I might stop saying, burn the lot of them. That time is not yet.

 

[d4m10n]

I generally advocate for letting California be California, though. It's one of the few political ideas I can get my neighbors to eventually agree with me on with a little prompting.

Suppose Kansas says it's legal to segregate by sex (rather than gender identity) when operating a nude spa and California says it's illegal gender-based discrimination to do so. Does either approach strike you as more sensible?

 

[smartcooky]

It may not have been in that particular segment, but I'm pretty sure I made it clear that it'd be the generation making all the noise about it on both sides.

What "generation"?

I'm a nearly 70 year old male. On this issue I'm on the exact same page as my adult daughters and my teenage granddaughters.

This issue runs across all current generations... my 16 year-old grandaughter doesn't want boys being allowed to enter the girl's toilets and changing rooms any more than I do.

 

[Manopolus]

Suppose Kansas says it's legal to segregate by sex (rather than gender identity) when operating a nude spa and California says it's illegal gender-based discrimination to do so. Does either approach strike you as more sensible?

I'm not sure I've parsed out all that language properly. But overall, change is disruptive in the short term, and people adapt social conventions to shore up the issues in the long term. It often doesn't require law to intercede either way.

It's not so much that I don't understand the disruption and the bad behavior caused by anything new. It's just that all those problems fade with time, and I'm confident that a society could exist taking either position. I don't know that. But I suspect it. When a convention changes, other behaviors eventually shift to fill in any gaps. The biggest problem involves people thinking they can suddenly get away with things that long term simply just won't work. We know how to tell if you're just perving out. There may be some innocents that just don't know yet, but it doesn't take very long to figure that out.

Probably the best protection from bad behavior would be other boys that aren't okay with that. One guy alone in a girl's space is actually worse than many... assuming they aren't in cahoots with each other.

Yeah, I could see how it can work. But the disruption is in the change. It's not in the situation, itself.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not so much that I don't understand the disruption and the bad behavior caused by anything new. It's just that all those problems fade with time, and I'm confident that a society could exist taking either position.

Sure. You can have a society where women just don't go to nude baths. That's a solution, of sorts.

Is it a better solution than one where men are excluded from women's nude baths?

 

[Manopolus]

Sure. You can have a society where women just don't go to nude baths. That's a solution, of sorts.

It depends upon what becomes normalized in the society, and yes, this is a possible outcome. That's fine. Somebody learned something, and I suspect the whole thing reverts at that point. There are other possible outcomes, though. It honestly depends entirely upon the people involved and their interactions with each other.

Is it a better solution than one where men are excluded from women's nude baths?

The default. Boring. Typical. Not much going on here. Some perv is probably trying to peek in from a hidey hole now and then, so it's not exactly as sanitary as advertised. They even portray that in Japanese Anime with a fair amount of frequency, so that's also a bit of a cultural tradition.

The former would be more interesting for literally anybody involved (including females, if they're still willing to participate), but interesting isn't always what you want. It requires a bit of bravery... and not just for the girls.

Is it better if the guy isn't hiding? You tell me. Assuming he can minimally control himself up close, of course. Women can hold their own pretty well socially. They usually greatly outclass the guy, as a matter of fact. Typically, people prefer bold over furtive, particularly in males. It's actually more respectful.

Don't get me wrong. Starting with the lie of being trans if you aren't kind of ruins that. But you asked about men, not trannies.

 

[Rolfe]

There's a cartoon that goes the rounds. Three men, clad in nothing but bad wigs and garish lipstick, are standing in a changing room marked women. Nobody else is there. They're looking at each other suspiciously, and the caption is "Well, this sucks!"

It's funny, but it's also serious. Where are the women? Not there. They have excluded themselves because they don't want to be in a space with naked men in it. Then what happens? It's likely that the business offering the women-only service will shut up shop, either because they're no longer viable, or because they're not interested in offering a service to men in wigs and lipstick. Women have lost their facility.

Then, someone else decides to open a women-only facility, and the women come back again. Until the men in wigs and lipstick go to court insisting that they should be allowed in. Rinse and repeat.

I'm struggling to see why simply allowing the business to exclude men isn't a viable option here.

 

[Rolfe]

Some perv is probably trying to peek in from a hidey hole now and then, ...

Not any more. He doesn't need to. He only has to say the magic words "I'm trans" and he gets to go right in without any obstruction.

You demand that women exhibit bravery, and "hold their own socially", when forced to be in a room with a naked man. Excluding naked men isn't an option, why?

 

[Manopolus]

Not any more. He doesn't need to. He only has to say the magic words "I'm trans" and he gets to go right in without any obstruction.

You demand that women exhibit bravery, and "hold their own socially", when forced to be in a room with a naked man. Excluding naked men isn't an option, why?

No. I demand nothing of them. I'm simply suggesting what could be a reasonable course of action. Take it or leave it. And I do realize that emotions won't allow for it in some situations. Trust those. Guys have those, too. If you're not somewhat ready for it emotionally, don't do it.

 

[Matthew Best]

There is a photo of Eddie Izzard (not a selfie) actually masturbating in the queue for the ladies' toilets.

I don't believe this - I'm pretty sure I would have come across it if existed.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, he has his hand under his rucked-up dress in exactly the position, shall we say. And the woman behind him in the queue is looking at him like he just crawled out from under a rock. Sometimes things are exactly what they look like. Maybe he was just adjusting his jock-strap. Couldn't wait till he got into the cubicle I suppose.

 

[d4m10n]

It often doesn't require law to intercede either way.

There are at least three possible approaches to the problem of (formerly) sex-segregated spaces in public accommodations such as Korean spas or locker rooms at the municipal pools.

1. Laws requiring segregation by sex at birth rather than personal identity.
2. Laws requiring segregation by gender identity rather than sex.
3. Laws which permit businesses and localities to choose either approach based on the needs/values of the relevant community.

Most of the policy debates I've seen (here at ISF & elsewhere) are polarized between the first two options, with fairly few ◊◊◊◊◊ given about the third possibility.

 

[Manopolus]

There are at least three possible approaches to the problem of (formerly) sex-segregated spaces in public accommodations such as Korean spas or locker rooms at the municipal pools.

1. Laws requiring segregation by sex at birth rather than personal identity.
2. Laws requiring segregation by gender identity rather than sex.
3. Laws which permit businesses and localities to choose either approach based on the needs/values of the relevant community.

Most of the policy debates I've seen (here at ISF & elsewhere) are polarized between the first two options, with fairly few ◊◊◊◊◊ given about the third possibility.

Well, you're not going to bandwagon me. I'm all for #3. All approaches can exist in different venues. Or even in the same venue on different days... say... cycling on a weekly basis. There was a certain swimming pool/spa in Germany that did just that (or they did in the 1990s) with which sex gets to use their only sauna, with a day or two for both at once. It had nothing to do with trans, though. Pretty common there.

And there's no incentive to lie in that situation. I prefer the option that doesn't incentivize lying. That'd be a completely optional mixed population.

 

[Rolfe]

That's absolutely fine. The problem is that the trans lobby will not tolerate any segregation by actual sex. Not at all, not ever. It doesn't matter how many trans-allowed or even trans-only sessions you put on for them, they MUST have access to anything that's advertised for actual women only.

This is the core of the difficulty. Women are being prevented from organising anything at all that excludes men who want to be there.

To clarify. Suppose a venue had separate sessions as follows, or indeed there were actual toilets and changing rooms designated for these various groups. (And any other group you want to add.)

• Mixed (anyone at all)
• Men only
• Women only
• Women plus trans-identifying men
• Men plus trans-identifying women

The trans-identifying men would absolutely definitely object to the women-only sessions (or accommodation), would attempt to attend regardless, and if prevented from entering would make a huge fuss, scream about transphobia and hate, call the cops, and take the venue to court to gain access to the sessions. In very many countries they would be successful. Look at what Sal Grover is going through at the moment in Australia, having a court ruling against her that she is not permitted to run a social media site for women only and must pay a large sum in damages to a man who tried to join but was turned down. It's much the same in Canada. The choice to have a women-only space is not allowed, by law, even if women want it and providers are prepared to provide it.

 

[theprestige]

There are at least three possible approaches to the problem of (formerly) sex-segregated spaces in public accommodations such as Korean spas or locker rooms at the municipal pools.

1. Laws requiring segregation by sex at birth rather than personal identity.
2. Laws requiring segregation by gender identity rather than sex.
3. Laws which permit businesses and localities to choose either approach based on the needs/values of the relevant community.

Most of the policy debates I've seen (here at ISF & elsewhere) are polarized between the first two options, with fairly few ◊◊◊◊◊ given about the third possibility.

Well, you're not going to bandwagon me. I'm all for #3. All approaches can exist in different venues. Or even in the same venue on different days... say... cycling on a weekly basis. There was a certain swimming pool/spa in Germany that did just that (or they did in the 1990s) with which sex gets to use their only sauna, with a day or two for both at once. It had nothing to do with trans, though. Pretty common there.

And there's no incentive to lie in that situation. I prefer the option that doesn't incentivize lying. That'd be a completely optional mixed population.

Damion is usually a lot better about accurately describing the state of play.

1 and 2 actually don't come up much in debate. What actually gets debated is whether:

1. Lawfully segregated venues must by law treat males as females if that's what the males want; or
2. Lawfully segregated venues may treat males as males regardless of what they want.

I.e., it's all about approach #3, and whether it should be a legal approach.

Also, if you're all for #3, then you've already settled on the exact approach that you're afraid of being bandwagoned into accepting: Nobody should be legally required to treat transwomen as females. All of your resistance to argumentation has been for naught. You already agree with the conclusion you've been trying to dodge.

Which raises the question, what exactly did you think we've been trying to tell you this whole time?

 

[Ziggurat]

Which raises the question, what exactly did you think we've been trying to tell you this whole time?

That Chesterton was a eugenicist?

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, he has his hand under his rucked-up dress in exactly the position, shall we say. And the woman behind him in the queue is looking at him like he just crawled out from under a rock. Sometimes things are exactly what they look like. Maybe he was just adjusting his jock-strap. Couldn't wait till he got into the cubicle I suppose.

Well, it's a queue - so by definition there were several other people there standing right next to him, as well as the person taking the photo. How many of them have come forward and said he was masturbating?