Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Okay. That's a fair criticism.

Why do you believe sex segregated spaces should remain so?

That's gonna depend on which ones we are talking about. A high school locker room has one set of reasons, and a public rest room another, and a prison yet a third.

Why do you believe transwomen should be entitled to transcend such sex segregation? On what basis?

I largely don't, and I believe I've beaten that to death at this point.

 

[theprestige]

That's gonna depend on which ones we are talking about. A high school locker room has one set of reasons, and a public rest room another, and a prison yet a third.

Sounds like you have three answers ready to go. Why are you stalling?

I largely don't, and I believe I've beaten that to death at this point.

"Largely". What are your exceptions, and why?

 

[Thermal]

Sounds like you have three answers ready to go. Why are you stalling?

Literally driving and it's dusk.

"Largely". What are your exceptions, and why?

Will get back to ya

 

[theprestige]

Literally driving and it's dusk.

Will get back to ya

Fair enough, but don't come crying about how you don't care enough about the topic to give it more of your attention and effort.

 

[Thermal]

Fair enough, but don't come crying about how you don't care enough about the topic to give it more of your attention and effort.

Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ serious dude? Have we met? The natives don't call me Thermal the Quiet Mealy Mouse Guy that Never Goes to the Mat over any Stupid Thing

 

[Rolfe]

For about five minutes in human history, we actually reached a situation where if women said "NO" to men, they were listened to. Then men found a whole new way to say, but we are the masters and we say "YES".

There is something both surreal and appallingly predictable about a bunch of men discussing which other men they will decide women have to tolerate in their single-sex spaces. It seems it was ever thus.

You know what? No genital inspections. None. I do not want to know what a man has in his pants, and if I ever find out, the situation has gone a long way in a direction I do not want it to go in at all. We can tell the difference between men and women perfectly well, with clothes on. The really, really easy way is, no men in women's spaces. None at all. Then we don't have to do any of that genital inspection thing, or even "papers please" (which would be forged anyway).

An assumption that men discussing this issue always make is that men will try to get in anyway, even if they're not legally allowed in. Funny thing though. Until about last Tuesday they generally didn't. Yes there were the so-called "true trans" LARPers trying it on, but there weren't many of these, and the point is that if they put so much as one size-13 foot wrong, they were in the wrong and the concerned women could challenge them and call for the attendant. Or even the cops. Lets try going back to that. It worked quite well. As opposed to the current situation where a man can do pretty much what he likes, and it's the woman who challenges him who gets called a transphobe and charged with a hate crime.

You are all making a bit too much of the danger of rape or sexual assault. Yes it happens and there are lists of "transwomen" who have attacked their victims in the women's toilets if you want them. Voyeurism is another issue of course. But the widespread, universal concerns are propriety, modesty and decency. These are particularly acute for women who have been the victims of severe sexual assault and women of certain religious groups, but they are issues for the majority of women. We don't want men in our intimate spaces because they're men, not primarily because we think they'll rape us.

As someone said on Twitter yesterday, "My husband and my two grown-up sons are absolutely lovely men who would never hurt any woman. I vouch for them. They should be allowed in women's single-sex spaces." Well we all know it doesn't work like that. Consent isn't transferable, and one women's belief that a certain man is "safe" doesn't need to be accepted by another woman on trust. And any man, no matter how nice, is a violation of what should be a women-only space.

Men with identity issues should not be women's problem to solve. Women's spaces are not therapy rooms for mentally ill men. Find another solution. We have got to the stage where if a certain class of men see any space at all that has "Women only" at the entrance, all he can think about is getting in there. Toilets, changing rooms, social media apps, rape crisis centres, a small boutique gym, the girls' swimming team. Doesn't matter how much provision there is that is open to men, including trans-identifying men, they want in the women's space. And if threats of violence don't work, he'll go to law. Maybe ask why. (The gym thing was just ridiculous. A woman set up a small gym in London just for women, and was immediately piled on by TRAs from all over the world insisting that this was transphobic and she MUST include men as well, and issuing all sorts of threats. There are plenty mixed gyms around, but their point is that there must not be any facility where they aren't allowed. Apparently it's fine to have trans-only facilities though.)

The very LAST men who should be allowed in women's single-sex facilities are the ones who want to be there. That should be fairly obvious.

It's probably true that some men will try to gain entry anyway. But they hardly ever pass, not in the flesh, a few feet away, and that goes double if they open their mouths. If the very occasional convincing ladyboy gets away with it because nobody notices, well, it's not ideal but that's life. Perfection is seldom attainable. What we need is to go back to the situation where these spaces were genuinely single-sex, and any man who thought he would go in anyway is putting himself in the position that someone may object to his presence, and she will be in the right.

 

[smartcooky]

This is the kind of thing I mean. You guys say things over and over that make no sense.

Those facts follow logically from the evidence provided. Why do you think they make no sense?

 

[Thermal]

Those facts follow logically from the evidence provided. Why do you think they make no sense?

Reading.

ETA: Try it! Take the blinders off for what you think you said, and just read the words as you composed them.

 

[Ziggurat]

If we are assuming rape by anyone born male, we have a lot of social restructuring to do beyond public sex segregated rooms.

We are assuming risk, and taking reasonable precautions to reduce that risk. Why is this a mystery? Seriously, do people not understand the reasons for sex segregation? Talk about a Chesterton’s fence.

 

[Thermal]

Sounds like you have three answers ready to go. Why are you stalling?

General disclosure: I've been thinking a lot lately about why we have sex segregated spaces, and I admit I'm not as sure as I thought I was, or it wasn't as self evident as I thought. With that broad caveat:

-High school lockers: modesty and basically preventing Animal House from being unleashed
-Public rest rooms: general privacy, safe feeling of camraderie in being out of sight of the opposite sex. Partial throwback to women believing they must never be anything but properly presentable and put together in front of men.
- Prisons: pure safety. Rape is a serious problem among prison populations, far more than the general population. In men's prison, guys who have been straight all their lives abruptly turn homosexual.

"Largely". What are your exceptions, and why?

As I've said... repeatedly now... I don't allow any exceptions, but in wrapping up and clearing off a job site, I tossed a safety qualifier on that puppy in case I forgot some offbeat exception. I don't recall any.

 

[Thermal]

We are assuming risk, and taking reasonable precautions to reduce that risk. Why is this a mystery? Seriously, do people not understand the reasons for sex segregation? Talk about a Chesterton’s fence.

OK. What are you basing your risk assumption on? I asked long ago for some stats on bathroom attackers, so we could start crunching numbers, at least broadly. I was chasised by several posters that those very numbers were presented a few pages previously. Then we checked, and all said chastising posters were found to be lying through their teeth.

So let's go. What kind of data are we dealing with? "I just know how those tranny freaks are" will not be considered data within this assessment.

Also, you said 'reduce the threat' above. If reducing the threat was the issue, there wouldn't be much discussion here. You want the possibility eliminated, at a degree that you do not advocate for any other area in society. You seem have an exceptional fear of transpeople, far beyond their actual prevalence in crime statistics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also, you said 'reduce the threat' above. If reducing the threat was the issue, there wouldn't be much discussion here. You want the possibility eliminated, at a degree that you do not advocate for any other area in society. You seem have an exceptional fear of transpeople, far beyond their actual prevalence in crime statistics.

This is a deeply dishonest representation. What I want is sex segregation, which we mostly already have, and which I note YOU ARE NOT CALLING FOR THE ABOLITION OF. Sex segregation doesn't prevent all problems, but it absolutely reduces the problems we have compared to what we would have, and you'd have to be a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiot to not understand why. I don't actually think you're a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiot, so stop pretending to be a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiot.

If you accept sex segregation, which pretty much EVERYONE does, including the trans activists, even when their arguments aren't intellectually compatible with it, the only question is under what conditions (if any) we should accept exceptions to sex segregation. It's not that I want transwomen treated like criminals, it's that by default I want them treated like males, because they are in fact males. If females want to allow exceptions for transwomen on a case-by-case basis, I'm OK with that, but 1) one group of females cannot consent on behalf of another group that doesn't, and 2) this is a privilege granted, not a right owed.

And if you don't accept sex segregation, then just say so and be done with it. Then I know I can just ignore everything you say.

Wanting to protect female spaces from the intrusion of males isn't transphobic. Hell, it's not even male phobic. It's a recognition of the realities of the differences between the sexes, and the fact that there are some bad people out there. I could rant about female pathologies at length, I'm not under any illusion that they're more moral than men, but they aren't a mirror image of male pathologies, and males don't need segregated spaces to protect themselves from female pathologies the same way females need segregated spaces to protect against male pathologies. None of that has ANYTHING to do with trans as such. It's just that trans people don't make that go away just because they're trans.

Seriously, you're starting to sound like Mycroft here.

 

[Ziggurat]

General disclosure: I've been thinking a lot lately about why we have sex segregated spaces, and I admit I'm not as sure as I thought I was, or it wasn't as self evident as I thought.

Then you still haven't thought about it enough.

"Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solutions and you get the problems back."

 

[Thermal]

This is a deeply dishonest representation. What I want is sex segregation, which we mostly already have, and which I note YOU ARE NOT CALLING FOR THE ABOLITION OF. Sex segregation doesn't prevent all problems, but it absolutely reduces the problems we have compared to what we would have, and you'd have to be a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiot to not understand why. I don't actually think you're a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiot, so stop pretending to be a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiot.

If you accept sex segregation, which pretty much EVERYONE does, including the trans activists, even when their arguments aren't intellectually compatible with it, the only question is under what conditions (if any) we should accept exceptions to sex segregation. It's not that I want transwomen treated like criminals, it's that by default I want them treated like males, because they are in fact males. If females want to allow exceptions for transwomen on a case-by-case basis, I'm OK with that, but 1) one group of females cannot consent on behalf of another group that doesn't, and 2) this is a privilege granted, not a right owed.

And if you don't accept sex segregation, then just say so and be done with it. Then I know I can just ignore everything you say.

Wanting to protect female spaces from the intrusion of males isn't transphobic. Hell, it's not even male phobic. It's a recognition of the realities of the differences between the sexes, and the fact that there are some bad people out there. I could rant about female pathologies at length, I'm not under any illusion that they're more moral than men, but they aren't a mirror image of male pathologies, and males don't need segregated spaces to protect themselves from female pathologies the same way females need segregated spaces to protect against male pathologies. None of that has ANYTHING to do with trans as such. It's just that trans people don't make that go away just because they're trans.

Seriously, you're starting to sound like Mycroft here.

We basically have the same position regarding sex segregated spaces. My argument is that all y'all's arguments suck moose cock, not that I disagree with the endgame. I'm asking you to trow these half-assed fig leaves aside and honestly say why you think transwomen should be denied everything including simple forms of address.

When I first got active here, I was assured that the issue was women being raped, assaulted, and indeed murdered by the tranny hordes. Since transgender access to restrooms has been accepted in many western countries, I asked about the stats, broad brush. Turned out that there was no increase in violent crimes.

Twitterers were posted making inane torturings of old scientific papers. I questioned these. Suddenly eveyone wanted to change the subject again.

After asking repeatedly for the data y'all repeatedly claimed to have, I was trearted to a fictional tv show as evidence of... something or other, I'm not sure what. Seems AGP was the real culprit, and I was treated to a ton of babbling about AGP being the source of all tranny evil, till you guys got called on it. Suddenly everyone got real quiet. What happened?

Finally the Holy Grail of this fountain of evidence is revealed: you boneheads are relying on the unstudied findings of Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw, renowned laughing stock.

Dude. I'm asking that either you make sense of these asinine arguments, or give the real ones. I think we should have sex segregated spaces, for dignity and (for at least the theoretical likelihood) safety. But I'm not making up goofy bull ◊◊◊◊ about it. I'm questioning, at this point, only the goofy bull ◊◊◊◊, and being met with ridiculous evasiveness.

 

[Thermal]

Then you still haven't thought about it enough.

"Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solutions and you get the problems back."

Sometimes. Sometimes the problems have actually gone away, or have been mitigated in other ways. Trite slogans, even put in quotes and everything, do not a convincing argument make.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sometimes. Sometimes the problems have actually gone away, or have been mitigated in other ways. Trite slogans, even put in quotes and everything, do not a convincing argument make.

Chesterton's fence. The fence wasn't made by accident, but for a purpose. If you don't know why the fence was put up, you have no business tearing it down.

You don't understand why we have sex segregation. You have no business calling for it to be dismantled.

 

[Ziggurat]

We basically have the same position regarding sex segregated spaces. My argument is that all y'all's arguments suck moose cock, not that I disagree with the endgame.

You don't even HAVE an argument except to insult people who disagree with you.

I'm asking you to trow these half-assed fig leaves aside and honestly say why you think transwomen should be denied everything including simple forms of address.

Stop with the straw men already. I don't grant ANYONE their preferred form of address as a right, transpeople aren't special in that regard. Nor am I denying transwomen anything that I'm not denying to men as well, because they are men. You have not presented any argument that I'm denying them anything they are entitled to.

When I first got active here, I was assured that the issue was women being raped, assaulted, and indeed murdered by the tranny hordes.

More straw men. As has been pointed out time and time again, and you keep ignoring,ale predators can, will, and already do exploit vulnerabilities created by "trans rights". That's a real thing that happens. For some reason you think it doesn't happen enough to warrant your concern.

I. Don't. Care.

 

[Thermal]

Chesterton's fence. The fence wasn't made by accident, but for a purpose. If you don't know why the fence was put up, you have no business tearing it down.

You don't understand why we have sex segregation. You have no business calling for it to be dismantled.

I am pointedly not. Learn to read.

 

[Thermal]

You don't even HAVE an argument except to insult people who disagree with you.

Asking for a straight answer without you retreating or changing the subject is insulting?

Stop with the straw men already. I don't grant ANYONE their preferred form of address as a right, transpeople aren't special in that regard. Nor am I denying transwomen anything that I'm not denying to men as well, because they are men. You have not presented any argument that I'm denying them anything they are entitled to.

More straw men. As has been pointed out time and time again, and you keep ignoring,ale predators can, will, and already do exploit vulnerabilities created by "trans rights". That's a real thing that happens. For some reason you think it doesn't happen enough to warrant your concern.

I. Don't. Care.

What you took the extra time to snip out is more revealing than what you respond to.

If a tweety is posted making statistical claims, and I criticize them, and everyone retreats, that ain't a 'me' thing. I'm asking for nothing but follow through FROM THE GODDAMNED PEOPLE WHO POSTED THE 'EVIDENCE' AND MAKE THE CLAIMS, BY PROXY OR DIRECTLY.

 

[Ziggurat]

Pretty sure actual rapists have been ignoring signs for generations untold.

The signs aren’t for the rapists. They are for everyone else. When a man walks into a bathroom labeled for women, everyone else knows they are in the wrong place. And can respond accordingly.

This is what I meant earlier about your side becoming unhinged. I have said adamantly that sex segregated spaces should remain so. You, like many here, are literally unable to hear otherwise.

And yet, the logic of your argument is that they shouldn’t. That’s why we don’t take this claim at face value.