• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
That was the point. d4m1on thought you could not be charged with indecent exposure if you had a right to be naked where you were.
Click to expand...
To me it seems like you're equivocating. You have a right to be naked in the privacy of your own home. You don't have a right to be naked in public. You're conflating the two principles in a scenario where it's clearly the second principle that applies, and trying to handwave it as an exception to the first principle. Which it isn't.

Anyway, instead of arguing about whether or not your analogy is apt, maybe try arguing the actual scenario under discussion in its own terms.
Thermal said:
I pointed out he knew damn right well that was well established to not be the case.

I think it is. It's one of those 'your right to punch stops at my nose' kind of things.
Click to expand...
Inane banalities, bleurgh.

Why is it sexual harassment? Is the transwoman not a woman, with all the same rights to women-only beautician services as any other woman? Isn't that explicitly your view?
 
Hercules56 said:
Ok cause most people mean sex.
Click to expand...
If we were starting from square one on the first day of this thread, that would be a valid point. We are not. It is not. And asking for clarification every time the word 'woman' comes up in a thread deicated to the concept of gender would get mind numbingly tedious, so most of us here are acknowledging the crystal clear context involved.
 
theprestige said:
To me it seems like you're equivocating. You have a right to be naked in the privacy of your own home. You don't have a right to be naked in public. You're conflating the two principles in a scenario where it's clearly the second principle that applies, and trying to handwave it as an exception to the first principle. Which it isn't.

Anyway, instead of arguing about whether or not your analogy is apt, maybe try arguing the actual scenario under discussion in its own terms.

Inane banalities, bleurgh.

Why is it sexual harassment? Is the transwoman not a woman, with all the same rights to women-only beautician services as any other woman? Isn't that explicitly your view?
Click to expand...
It is not. I don't espouse your absolutist approach. I believe you can be a woman (socially), yet still need to get a prostrate exam (physically) that females do not require.

I'm entirely ok with someone being a 'woman' with an aterisk, as annoying as that must be to your view. That's why the transwoman who plops a schlong on the table has a requirement to disclose the aterisk before crossing the physical Rubicon with someone else.
 
Thermal said:
You may have not noticed while you were taking the extra time to literally snip it out.
Click to expand...
Either that or I missed your edit, but hey why not assume the worst? /s

When you are busy "sussing out what exactly those rights should be" are you thinking of moral rights (how people ought to behave) or legal rights (how we should structure society to limit their behavior)?

ETA: As a gesture of good faith, have I missed any questions which you asked earlier?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
d4m1on thought you could not be charged with indecent exposure if you had a right to be naked where you were.
Click to expand...
This is literally the defendant's defense, as well as the spa's public position on how they were legally required to interact with Merager, as well as the stated position of some trans pride advocates. We've yet to see this principle tested in the CA appeals courts, but I think defense counsel has a better chance than usual at beating a criminal rap on civil rights grounds.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Dunno. I don't really have requirements that others must meet. How about you?
Click to expand...
I think that when gender is decoupled from sex, it becomes functionally meaningless. There is no distinguishing characteristic of womanhood that doesn't map to biological sex in some way.

I think that for all practical purposes, the question of trans rights in public policy boils down to a question of sex segregation. And I do very much have a requirement for access to a sex-segregated space, activity, or category: You must be the appropriate sex. That's my requirement.

Any time biological sex is not a requirement, gender identity is meaningless. Any time sex is a requirement, gender identity is irrelevant. It's all very straightforward and clear to me. I'm curious why it becomes more vague and uncertain for you, the more we try to clarify your position.
 
d4m10n said:
Either that or I missed your edit, but hey why not assume the worst? /s
Click to expand...
I assume nothing. You were literally quoting from the edit itself, carefully taking the extra time to remove the direct answer.
d4m10n said:
When you are busy "sussing out what exactly those rights should be" are you thinking of moral rights (how people ought to behave) or legal rights (how we should structure society to limit their behavior)?
Click to expand...
As I've said, I don't think of it as a rights issue, at least not yet. I think of it as a practicality issue, largely fueled by the imprecision in the use of 'gender', that has slid into the language. It's a matter of dealing fairly with 'women*'
d4m10n said:
ETA: As a gesture of good faith, have I missed any questions which you asked earlier?
Click to expand...
I have a mental asterisk after your name, indicating 'poster who does not respond', so going back years, it's likely a rather long list.

Most recently, for example, you asked pointedly about the right of someone being naked, and that they could not be charged with indecent exposure when acting with the right to be nude where they were. I pointed out that was not the case, and you didn't respond, so I don't know how that one left off, or where you were going with it, or if anything was resolved.
 
d4m10n said:
This is literally the defendant's defense, as well as the spa's public position on how they were legally required to interact with Merager, as well as the stated position of some trans pride advocates. We've yet to see this principle tested in the CA appeals courts, but I think defense counsel has a better chance than usual at beating a criminal rap on civil rights grounds.
Click to expand...
And I counter this with the right to be free of unwanted genital exposure by the other patrons. I think the others had a reasonable expectation of the spa being female sex only. That's where the transwoman's asterisk comes in, with an obligation to accomidate that.

How the trans-friendly Wi Spa disclosed and dealt with their trans clientele has not been disclosed, AFAIK.
 
theprestige said:
I think that when gender is decoupled from sex, it becomes functionally meaningless. There is no distinguishing characteristic of womanhood that doesn't map to biological sex in some way.

I think that for all practical purposes, the question of trans rights in public policy boils down to a question of sex segregation. And I do very much have a requirement for access to a sex-segregated space, activity, or category: You must be the appropriate sex. That's my requirement.

Any time biological sex is not a requirement, gender identity is meaningless. Any time sex is a requirement, gender identity is irrelevant. It's all very straightforward and clear to me. I'm curious why it becomes more vague and uncertain for you, the more we try to clarify your position.
Click to expand...
Because the wider culture disagrees with your sex-strict definition, and acknowledges gender expression as a little to the side. It's not 'decoupled'. 99.5% of the time, sex and gender jibe. We have half a percent of edge cases, needing special treatment. I don't think the well-accepted concept of edge cases should be summarily excluded in this issue.
 
Thermal said:
And I counter this with the right to be free of unwanted genital exposure by the other patrons.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the service is that the genital exposure is wanted. It's intended. It's necessary. It's welcomed, even, by the proprietor. The proprietor makes her living by inviting people to expose their genitals to her, and to pay her for the privilege.

The only caveat is that the people exposing their genitals must be women. You believe that transwomen are women. So, how can a woman exposing her genitals upon request, for legal commerce, be committing sexual assault. If a vagina-having woman presented her genitals to the beautician for waxing, would *that* be sexual assault in your book? Or is it only the penis-having women (as you say) that can be capable of committing this offense?
 
Thermal said:
Because the wider culture disagrees with your sex-strict definition, and acknowledges gender expression as a little to the side. It's not 'decoupled'. 99.5% of the time, sex and gender jibe. We have half a percent of edge cases, needing special treatment.
Click to expand...
What special treatment do they need, in your opinion? What is the nature of this need?
Thermal said:
I don't think the well-accepted concept of edge cases should be summarily excluded in this issue.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about excluding the edge case. We're talking about how it should be addressed in public policy.

And no, the wider culture does not disagree with my "sex-strict" definition. The wider culture is in fact mostly on board with gender identity not being sufficient reason to transcend sex segregation. It's actually a small but vocal minority that insists otherwise.
 
theprestige said:
The whole point of the service is that the genital exposure is wanted. It's intended. It's necessary. It's welcomed, even, by the proprietor. The proprietor makes her living by inviting people to expose their genitals to her, and to pay her for the privilege.
Click to expand...
It is not. Nudity in a Korean spa has been traditionally sex-segregated, and that would be the reasonable expectation of their clientele. If it was not sex segregated, they would not have the distinction, and it would be one big ol' happy nudist bath romp.
theprestige said:
The only caveat is that the people exposing their genitals must be women. You believe that transwomen are women.
Click to expand...
With a very significant asterisk.
theprestige said:
So, how can a woman exposing her genitals upon request, for legal commerce, be committing sexual assault. If a vagina-having woman presented her genitals to the beautician for waxing, would *that* be sexual assault in your book? Or is it only the penis-having women (as you say) that can be capable of committing this offense?
Click to expand...
Again, reasonable expectation and reasonable representation of services. The gender crew has us all screwed up on this point, and it's exactly what we are trying to work out.
 
theprestige said:
What special treatment do they need, in your opinion? What is the nature of this need?
Click to expand...
Same as I keep saying. I have a right to bear arms. Not everywhere, all the time. Same with speech. Same with any right. There are reasonable restrictions. A transwoman sometimes creates an unreasonable condition for others, like a gynelogical exam. The asterisk kicks in anytime physicality with others comes front and center.
theprestige said:
We're not talking about excluding the edge case. We're talking about how it should be addressed in public policy.
Click to expand...
Public policy always has to take into consideration the edge case, and yes, the whole thread is a discussion of this.
theprestige said:
And no, the wider culture does not disagree with my "sex-strict" definition. The wider culture is in fact mostly on board with gender identity not being sufficient reason to transcend sex segregation. It's actually a small but vocal minority that insists otherwise.
Click to expand...
It does not. At my last reading, sex segregated rest rooms are broadly illegal in the States, in the sense that gender discrimination for access is punishable by law.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Same as I keep saying. I have a right to bear arms. Not everywhere, all the time. Same with speech. Same with any right. There are reasonable restrictions. A transwoman sometimes creates an unreasonable condition for others, like a gynelogical exam. The asterisk kicks in anytime physicality with others comes front and center.

Public policy always has to take into consideration the edge case.

It does not. At my last reading, sex segregated rest rooms are broadly illegal in the States, in the sense that gender discrimination for access is punishable by law.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

There are many bathrooms in the USA that are clearly for men or women, only.

We like it that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom