Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

As I've said, I don't think of it as a rights issue, at least not yet.

You brought up rights at #4,532 and I (wrongly?) assumed you wanted to frame this argument in terms of rights going forward.

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...

No, you asserted that it was not the case by way of faulty analogy; I pointed out that the applicability of state anti-discrimination law as a defense in situations like this one remains an open question until Merager's case reaches the appeals courts.

And I counter this with the right to be free of unwanted genital exposure by the other patrons.

Again, we've yet to see whether this (legal) right has to make way for trans rights, given that they are both codified in CA law.

You were literally quoting from the edit itself, carefully taking the extra time to remove the direct answer.

Nope; I didn't see the ETA at all.

 

[theprestige]

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.

With a very significant asterisk.

Why have any asterisks at all? The concept of sex segregation is both useful and straightforward. There's no demonstrable need to burden it with asterisks.

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.

Unscrewing the gender-essentialist propaganda that's got you all twisted is probably a good first step.

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.

Why have any asterisks at all? Sex segregation is already confined to specific context where physicality come front and center. Saying "transwomen are female* (*except when they're not)" is totally unnecessary. They're already not female in any scenario where being female matters.

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

I disagree, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. Public policy very much does have to take into consideration the edge case of men who demand the right of access to women's spaces any time they want.

and yes, the whole thread is a discussion of this.

Yes, exactly.

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.

Law isn't public opinion. And it's not just bathrooms. It's locker rooms. It's gyno exams. It's sports. It's shelters. It's recognition and representation.

Something like 70% of Democrats agree that men should not be entitled to compete in women's sports.

 

[Thermal]

You brought up rights at #4,532 and I (wrongly?) assumed you wanted to frame this argument in terms of rights going forward.

Gotcha. No, I was not reframing it. It was just mentioned in passing.

No, you asserted that it was not the case by way of faulty analogy; I pointed out that the applicability of state anti-discrimination law as a defense in situations like this one remains an open question until Merager's case reaches the appeals courts.

I don't see how the analogy was faulty, nor did I hear you comment along those lines. Did I overlook it?

Again, we've yet to see whether this (legal) right has to make way for trans rights, given that they are both codified in CA law.

Agreed, which is again why I was not specifically opining on whose rights were whose, even in generalities. I am litterally wotking on that. While they have obvious rights, I feel confident that the rights of the majority should prevail in this conflict, although the stated policy of the spa regarding trans people will weigh heavily on that.

Nope; I didn't see the ETA at all.

OK. It was a short post, and the forum software shortens long posts from clogging up the screen anyway, so maybe just don't snippety-do-dah so much and things might be easier, yeah?

 

[Thermal]

Why have any asterisks at all? The concept of sex segregation is both useful and straightforward. There's no demonstrable need to burden it with asterisks.

Because we understand that not everybody fits on the m/w binary anymore. It's a thing, and we are theoretically not big on '◊◊◊◊ off tranny' as policy.

Unscrewing the gender-essentialist propaganda that's got you all twisted is probably a good first step.

Thinking and challenging assumptions is not what I consider 'screwed up'.

Why have any asterisks at all? Sex segregation is already confined to specific context where physicality come front and center. Saying "transwomen are female* (*except when they're not)" is totally unnecessary. They're already not female in any scenario where being female matters.

To you. They don't think the same.

I disagree, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. Public policy very much does have to take into consideration the edge case of men who demand the right of access to women's spaces any time they want.

I don't think they have that right, nor should they.

Law isn't public opinion.

I certainly hope not. Public opinion can be highly irrational and hateful. Law can too, but it at least in theory is rigorous.

And it's not just bathrooms. It's locker rooms. It's gyno exams. It's sports. It's shelters. It's recognition and representation.

Right. All the things you mentioned are governed by law.

Something like 70% of Democrats agree that men should not be entitled to compete in women's sports.

As do I, unless the sport opens itself to unisex competitions.

 

[theprestige]

Because we understand that not everybody fits on the m/w binary anymore. It's a thing, and we are theoretically not big on '◊◊◊◊ off tranny' as policy.

But we still do understand that everyone fits on the male/female binary. And we should understand (though some people refuse to) that the male/female binary is the only thing that really matters for practical purposes.

There is no practical application of gender identity or the gender spectrum, in public policy, except in relation to the male/female binary and sex segregation.

Thinking and challenging assumptions is not what I consider 'screwed up'.

What assumption are you challenging? That biological sex is binary? That gender identity is irrelevant to sex segregation?

To you. They don't think the same.

Yeah. And that's a huge problem. A huge, delusional, anti-social, misogynistic problem.

I don't think they have that right, nor should they.

Then you're in the majority public opinion.

I certainly hope not. Public opinion can be highly irrational and hateful. Law can too, but it at least in theory is rigorous.

You don't think men should be entitled to transcend sex segregation any time they want. So clearly this public opinion we're discussing is not irrational and hateful, in your opinion.

I would argue that a corollary of this is that the laws that grant this right are highly irrational and hateful. Rigorously so.

Right. All the things you mentioned are governed by law.

I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about public opinion. Marijuana use is also governed by law. Federal law says it's illegal. Would you say the public is against legalization on that basis? I wouldn't.

As do I, unless the sport opens itself to unisex competitions.

I apologize for confusing you. When I said "entitled to" I meant, "have a legally established and enforced right to".

Also, a lot of what we consider men's sports leagues are actually open leagues. There's no rule preventing a woman from competing in the NFL or the NBA. There's no rule prohibiting women from entering official chess matches against male grand masters.

The whole reason we have women's divisions and women's leagues is because men overwhelmingly dominate open leagues and divisions, for reasons which should be abundantly clear by now.

 

[Matthew Best]

Nope, but neither would I expect to.

I bet you have Google. Maybe you can find what I couldn't.

It really wasn't that difficult:

Here's a story from February 2023: https://lamag.com/news/wi-spa-indecent-exposure-case-can-go-forward-judge-rules

And another from December : https://wehotimes.com/trans-wi-spa-suspect-arrested-again-adding-to-long-criminal-history/

 

[d4m10n]

I don't see how the analogy was faulty, nor did I hear you comment along those lines. Did I overlook it?

You don't see how an analogy from nudity in a space where people fully expect to see other people nude (the spa) to nudity in a space where people don't expect to see other people nude (the sidewalk) fails at a key point when the issue under discussion was kicked off by people being offended about unexpectedly seeing certain people nude?

While they have obvious rights, I feel confident that the rights of the majority should prevail in this conflict, although the stated policy of the spa regarding trans people will weigh heavily on that.

It is worth reiterating that the trans-rights position on the spa incident has been concisely stated by Jae Red Rose and that Wi Spa followed along with their rights-based approach at least in their initial statements to the media. The opposite policy position would be something like "we have reserved one floor for bepenised individuals and another floor for everyone else, without running afoul of state antidiscrimination laws."

 

[Thermal]

You don't see how an analogy from nudity in a space where people fully expect to see other people nude (the spa) to nudity in a space where people don't expect to see other people nude (the sidewalk) fails at a key point when the issue under discussion was kicked off by people being offended about unexpectedly seeing certain people nude?

Which is not what we were talking about. See goalposts, moving the. You said broadly, non-specific to the story:

If you have a right to be nude in a place, you cannot be criminally indecent just by being nude in that place.

And I responded:

You sure? Can I be nude in my home, alone, on my private property? I think we could agree on that.

Now can I pull the window blinds open and throw the lights on at night in front of a busy sidewalk?

So no, the specifics of the Wi spa were not at issue on the wider point. I was showing that just as there can be an exception to the home nudity rule, the WI spa sitch might have its own.

It is worth reiterating that the trans-rights position on the spa incident has been concisely stated by Jae Red Rose and that Wi Spa followed along with their rights-based approach at least in their initial statements to the media. The opposite policy position would be something like "we have reserved one floor for bepenised individuals and another floor for everyone else, without running afoul of state antidiscrimination laws."

Paywalled source, so I didn't catch whatever it says. Does it say which space other trans people normally occupy? Is it required they be in one, or optional?

 

[smartcooky]

So. What are the distinctive, practical features of womanhood as a gender, without reference to biological sex?

You will never get an honest answer to this from him. He will dodge.

Dunno. I don't really have requirements that others must meet. How about you?

See what I mean?

 

[Thermal]

You will never get an honest answer to this from him. He will dodge.


See what I mean?

There's nothing to dodge. It's a meaningless question.

How you feel about your ID is internal. It's not a list of external traits to be met with your approval. It's as empty a question as asking what exactly about green do I think is prettier than orange. I couldn't tell you.

 

[theprestige]

While they have obvious rights,

What obvious rights do you believe transwomen have, that are not currently recognized and protected by law?

 

[theprestige]

There's nothing to dodge. It's a meaningless question.

It's only meaningless in the sense that gender identity has no practical applications in public policy, except as it relates to sex and sex segregation.

How you feel about your ID is internal. It's not a list of external traits to be met with your approval. It's as empty a question as asking what exactly about green do I think is prettier than orange. I couldn't tell you.

Exactly. Thus, gender identity is irrelevant to the question of trans rights in public policy.

 

[Thermal]

What obvious rights do you believe transwomen have, that are not currently recognized and protected by law?

Same as cis people (which were included in my "they" anyway), but without knowing what Wi Spa disclosed/advised to its patrons about its transgender guests, I'm not sure what rights were observed or trampled on or were impossible to mutually respect.

 

[Thermal]

It's only meaningless in the sense that gender identity has no practical applications in public policy, except as it relates to sex and sex segregation.

Exactly. Thus, gender identity is irrelevant to the question of trans rights in public policy.

Sez you, for your intellectual comfort. Trans people and their allies broadly disagree.

 

[theprestige]

What obvious rights do you believe transwomen have, that are not currently recognized and protected by law?

Same as cis people (which were included in my "they" anyway),

Okay, so what obvious rights do you believe cis people have, that are not currently recognized and protected by law?

 

[theprestige]

Sez you, for your intellectual comfort. Trans people and their allies broadly disagree.

But you agree. You yourself say gender identity is meaningless.

In what way do you think gender identity leads to a right to transcend sex segregation?

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither is discriminating against transpeople.

In what way are they discriminated against? In the same way as other males.

As I said before, the logic of your argument does not permit any sex segregation.

 

[Thermal]

But you agree. You yourself say gender identity is meaningless.

I do not, and this shoving words in my mouth thing is getting tedious.

You asked about distinct features of womanhood. I couldn't tell you, much as I couldn't list distinct features of manhood. The question doesn't mean anything, not the concept of gender identity.

In what way do you think gender identity leads to a right to transcend sex segregation?

None springs to mind. I think the concept of sex segregation is the part that could use some work, since that seems to be the problem area.

Eta: since you have said repeatedly that you are settled on the issue, why don't you drop the Socratic leading and just spit it out? What point are you driving at that you keep pretzel twisting my posts around to try and convince me I already agree with?

 

[theprestige]

I do not, and this shoving words in my mouth thing is getting tedious.

You asked about distinct features of womanhood. I couldn't tell you, much as I couldn't list distinct features of manhood. The question doesn't mean anything, not the concept of gender identity.

None springs to mind. I think the concept of sex segregation is the part that could use some work, since that seems to be the problem area.

How is sex segregation a problem area? It's really a solution. The problem is men who believe they should be allowed to override it whenever they want.

 

[Thermal]

How is sex segregation a problem area? It's really a solution. The problem is men who believe they should be allowed to override it whenever they want.

It's a solution that works swimmingly for the majority. Now we recognize a minority that it doesn't work for.

Sort of like if we decided you don't quite fit the concept of a man, so you had to use the women's rest room. Think you might feel a bit off put?