Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

You probably can - but part of the exercise is actually going through each of the steps, the logical premise for each one builds on that prior. If we skip ahead, we end up unable to identify the actual point of diversion in our views.

Sure, vast majority in the first category, smaller in the latter two. I'm perhaps not as optimistic as you that it's well over 90%, but it's hard to pin down. And in the second category (no wish to physically harm, but less concerned about females feeling endangered) includes males who blatantly ogle females, who make comments about our bodies when we're just going about our day, who cop a feel in a crowded venue, cat-calls, etc. Perhaps a lot of males don't understand how this makes most females feel, how intimidating and violating it can be... but it really sucks for us pretty regularly

Ok, I was thinking of 'not/hurting' as being more physically violent. I see your use here as more 'doing damage', but not necessarily in terms of broken bones?

There's nothing quite like being a 12 year old who's already self-conscious about our changing bodies and then realizing that a 50 year old is staring at your boobs.

Understood. Confessional: I live in a beach town, where world class stunners are dime a dozen. While I don't 'ogle' by any standard, I have discretely admired a young lady, only to have her turn her face to show a kid with braces. It makes me want to get therapy. I mean, wtf is wrong with me, that's a kid? But a guy might not realize he is admiring out a minor till it is too late. Not making excuses, because we prob shouldn't be doing it at all, but it's often instinctive, not realizing how young the person is.

Anyway...

Some portion of males are "safe" all the way around; some portion of males will cause discomfort and/or harm to females - let's call them "risky". Is there a way for females to discern which males are safe and which are risky?

This starts, as I'm sure you are aware, the Gray Area. Any guy might be perceived as a potential threat to any woman, in the same way that no guy is a threat to me (not because I'm the biggest and baddest, but because I'm big enough to put up a fight, thus making me a poor candidate for an easy victim. I'm saying this to let you know I'm hip to that distinction).

That said, I still think you need a more substantial reason to fear someone beyond a vague characteristic, like being 'male' or 'black' (for the same reason). On guard is fine. Hell, I'm on guard 24/7, and ain't nobody ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with me. But not 'in fear'; that's a next-level attitude that needs to be justified by a live threat.

So...risky? That's a situational call that needs a reason to distinguish the hound dog from the guard dog.

 

[Thermal]

Gotcha. Clearly your views on this matter are on the extreme leftfield of the trans rights spectrum. No transition necessary, just self ID. Dress like a man but wanna pee with the chicks? Go ahead!!

Jesus christ what is wrong with you?

 

[Rolfe]

I think they said no minimum level of transition should be required to be considered a (trans)woman, and since we were talking about bathroom access at the time we (somewhat hastily) made the leap.

If Thermal is only talking about his criterion for how he treats/addresses trans-identifying men personally, I can't see any issue. We can all have different criteria for that, of course.

However, I am linking this to his firm insistence that TWAW. He has said that several times, that this is an absolute hard line for him. He has also accused me of being mean to my fellow women for not wanting them (that is, trans-identified men) in the women's room.

So I don't think this leap is hasty at all. I think it's exactly what he means. That women should be entitled to single-sex spaces, but that the class of "women" also includes trans-identifying men. A number of politicians in Scotland have been pulling exactly the same semantic trick, so we're quite wise to it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thank you. Thermal has said repeatedly that no minimum level of transition should be required for transwomen to use the ladies room. All that matters, HE says, is what between their ears.

I know this is a nuance that's hard to keep track of, it's a struggle for me too. I'm about 90% sure that Thermal has said no transition is required for a person to identify as a transwoman - what they think of themselves, how they perceive and identify themselves doesn't need any particular effort because it's an internal state. But allowing for a person to self-identify however they please as a matter of self-perception doesn't translate to everyone else having to grant them access to single-sex spaces.

The line gets blurred, it's fairly fuzzy. And it gets fuzzier when there are a dozen of us all piling on to every post they make. I've been on the receiving end of a pile on where every post gets picked apart by many different people, and it's almost impossible to keep every single response perfectly consistent to every permutation of attack.

Plus... I've had a lot of interactions with Thermal over the years, and I trust that they're acting in good faith and not trying to be a dick about it. I'm willing, based on several years of observation and conversation, to have their back and try to stay focused on one thing at a time. I don't extend that same courtesy to everyone, because not every poster here has earned the same level of respect from me. There are some that I simply don't engage with at all. There are some that I keep trying with because I had many years of good interactions with that have gone to hell over the past few. There are a few that I like so much that I doubt I'll ever tap out.

 

[Thermal]

Its a bit hyperbolic but Im trying to make a point. However.....yeah sure I shall pull back.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are making it with the wrong poster. I do not share the views that your imaginary adversary desperately needs to have in order for your point to work. The sooner you wrap your head around this basic mistake you are making (as EC and theprestige have patiently explained to you as well as myself), the sooner we can move forward to legitimate discussion points.

 

[Hercules56]

I know this is a nuance that's hard to keep track of, it's a struggle for me too. I'm about 90% sure that Thermal has said no transition is required for a person to identify as a transwoman - what they think of themselves, how they perceive and identify themselves doesn't need any particular effort because it's an internal state. But allowing for a person to self-identify however they please as a matter of self-perception doesn't translate to everyone else having to grant them access to single-sex spaces.

The line gets blurred, it's fairly fuzzy. And it gets fuzzier when there are a dozen of us all piling on to every post they make. I've been on the receiving end of a pile on where every post gets picked apart by many different people, and it's almost impossible to keep every single response perfectly consistent to every permutation of attack.

Plus... I've had a lot of interactions with Thermal over the years, and I trust that they're acting in good faith and not trying to be a dick about it. I'm willing, based on several years of observation and conversation, to have their back and try to stay focused on one thing at a time. I don't extend that same courtesy to everyone, because not every poster here has earned the same level of respect from me. There are some that I simply don't engage with at all. There are some that I keep trying with because I had many years of good interactions with that have gone to hell over the past few. There are a few that I like so much that I doubt I'll ever tap out.

See above post.

Seems even when I'm 100% honest and respectful, its not good enough.

 

[Rolfe]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are making it with the wrong poster. I do not share the views that your imaginary adversary desperately needs to have in order for your point to work. The sooner you wrap your head around this basic mistake you are making (as EC and theprestige have patiently explained to you as well as myself), the sooner we can move forward to legitimate discussion points.

It would be good if you could make yourself clear. You say that no change in body or appearance is needed for a man to be a transwoman in your eyes. That's certainly an opinion you're entitled to, if all you mean by that is that you personally will think of that person as a woman, and use their preferred pronouns and so on.

However, you have also insisted that in your world-view transwomen are women, with no caveats, and you have berated me for not accepting what you described as my people, or something like that, into women's spaces. My view that they are not women and so have no right to be in women's spaces was not one you appeared to be prepared to tolerate. If only I would agree with you that these men are really women, we wouldn't have a disagreement, you said.

So forgive me, but putting that all together it seemed quite plain to me that your proposal was that anyone who was a transwoman by your judgement (that is anyone who says he is, no alteration in presentation required) should be allowed in women's spaces. If that wasn't what you meant, I think you should spell it out, as a number of people have obviously reached the same conclusion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, I was thinking of 'not/hurting' as being more physically violent. I see your use here as more 'doing damage', but not necessarily in terms of broken bones?

I'm shortcutting. I started with three categories, and I'm now clustering the last two into one as we move forward. Realistically, there's still a massive difference in impact between "hurt" and "injured" (Letterkenney reference). There's a whole lot that hurts females, but doesn't injure us. But for the moment, I'm grouping them together, mostly to be able to more clearly distinguish between those who are safe, and those who are in some fashion or other not safe.

Understood. Confessional: I live in a beach town, where world class stunners are dime a dozen. While I don't 'ogle' by any standard, I have discretely admired a young lady, only to have her turn her face to show a kid with braces. It makes me want to get therapy. I mean, wtf is wrong with me, that's a kid? But a guy might not realize he is admiring out a minor till it is too late. Not making excuses, because we prob shouldn't be doing it at all, but it's often instinctive, not realizing how young the person is.

Mother nature is an unholy bitch. We're all cavemen with fancy accessories at heart.

This starts, as I'm sure you are aware, the Gray Area. Any guy might be perceived as a potential threat to any woman, in the same way that no guy is a threat to me (not because I'm the biggest and baddest, but because I'm big enough to put up a fight, thus making me a poor candidate for an easy victim. I'm saying this to let you know I'm hip to that distinction).

That said, I still think you need a more substantial reason to fear someone beyond a vague characteristic, like being 'male' or 'black' (for the same reason). On guard is fine. Hell, I'm on guard 24/7, and ain't nobody ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with me. But not 'in fear'; that's a next-level attitude that needs to be justified by a live threat.

So...risky? That's a situational call that needs a reason to distinguish the hound dog from the guard dog.

I'm not suggesting that females fear all males, nor that we should. But your reference to dogs is a good one. Some dogs are dangerous, most are not. Lots of people have been seriously injured by pit bulls. On the other hand, every pitty I've ever known has been an absolute sweetheart and gentle as you could imagine.

When I encounter a strange pitbull with whom I haven't interacted before, I'm going to be on guard - just as you note. Not necessarily fearful, but aware that this unknown dog has the potential to injure me, to do me harm. If you were to lock me in a room with an unknown dog, my level of guardedness is going to be escalated because not only is this an animal that could potentially injure me, but because my ability to get away from them is constrained.

Most females aren't constantly walking around in a state of fear about every male. In the majority of situations, we don't have any fear at all, and our guard level is minimal. When I'm at work, or at a crowded store, or out with friends, my guard level is pretty low. When I'm out with my spouse, my guard level is as about as low as it's possible to get (they're a big enough, tough enough, trained enough person that nobody ◊◊◊◊◊ with them either).

In some situations, my guard level is going to be a lot higher because of the nature of the constraints. If I'm alone in an unfamiliar part of town, or late at night, for example. Walking through a dark parking lot. And perhaps counter-intuitively to you, when I'm in very crowded venues like clubs or concerts or subway cars.

Sometimes, its the actual person that raises my guard level higher. I'm sure you've run across it, sometimes someone just gives off a creepy vibe - there's just something that gets your neck hairs up, that speaks to your inner caveman and says "danger". It might be an incorrect assessment, it might be a poor judgement, but it's still there, it's a real thing.

I assert that it's reasonable for people in general to have a variable guard level depending on the people they're interacting with and the venue in which they're interacting - the degree of perceived risk and the constraints placed on our ability to mitigate those risks all play into our internal defcon levels.

I'll further assert that in general, it's reasonable for females to have a higher defcon level around males than around females, all else being equal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

@Emily's Cat : do you see the troll wagons circling? I see them. While I appreciate what you are doing, do you seriously believe that this many posters have gone stone dumb at the same time? Suddenly and simultaneously forgotten how to read? Come on.

I seriously believe that this many posters have extremely strong feelings about this topic. All of us - including you - have biases, and we all infer things not said, we make logical leaps from one item to the next even when such connections weren't intended.

I have extremely strong feelings about this topic too. You just happen to be someone I respect and like a lot, but even so I've snapped at you a few times over the past couple of weeks. And you get snippy back at them, which doesn't de-escalate the situation any.

Which is why I suggested just not responding to them for a while. Let them be the peanut gallery observing our debate... and at the end perhaps someone's mind will be changed.

 

[Thermal]

Well said, EC, and I'm with you.

So assuming a transwoman enters a rest room with you... not Dwane Johnson in drag, just someone going to pee. Not pinning you or blocking your access... are you on guard, but reasonably? Cuz I am too, when any guy over say 160lbs is in reach, but I don't think societal rules need to be modified for that threat level.

 

[Rolfe]

Once again, it's not the threat as such. It's decency and propriety. It's a man in what should be a female-only space. Women are hard-wired not to let males see them in an intimate situation without our consent. Some may smother this instinct out of a learned reflex to #bekind, but we all have it.

It's a natural instinct which is part of our makeup to control who we choose to have sex with. Until about five minutes ago this was well understood. Women feel vulnerable in these situations, even if the man in question is a friend. The reason given in the legislation which mandates separate sanitary and changing facilities for male and female employees at work is propriety, not because of a perceived danger that the male employees are going to sexually assault the female employees.

Decency. Modesty. Comfort.

Some men also feel the same discomfort about women seeing them in intimate situations, although I appreciate some don't. But please don't continue to pretend that if only it could be 100% assured that no man would ever sexually assault a woman, in the women's toilets or anywhere, that we'd be relaxed about letting men in, whether dressed up as women or not. We wouldn't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well said, EC, and I'm with you.

So assuming a transwoman enters a rest room with you... not Dwane Johnson in drag, just someone going to pee. Not pinning you or blocking your access... are you on guard, but reasonably? Cuz I am too, when any guy over say 160lbs is in reach, but I don't think societal rules need to be modified for that threat level.

First off, remember that I'm female. I'm not a 6'x" brawny male like you. Keep that in mind as you think about the situation.

If the individual actually for realsies passes, I'm not going to notice them. And by passes, I don't mean they need to look like a supermodel. I mean they have a body shape that is within the normal range for females, they have the facial structure of a female, they have hands and feet that don't stand out as enormous for 90% of females. They don't have to be drop-dead gorgeous, but the do actually have to be shaped like a female in general. And unless they've had some really good voice training or are a naturally high tenor... they probably shouldn't talk.

So, let's talk about the ones that don't genuinely pass. You know what I notice first? That they're male. That's why they don't pass. Any notice of clothing or makeup or other adornment follows explicitly from the fact that they're a male wearing traditionally female clothing.

Recall my post up above:

I assert that it's reasonable for people in general to have a variable guard level depending on the people they're interacting with and the venue in which they're interacting - the degree of perceived risk and the constraints placed on our ability to mitigate those risks all play into our internal defcon levels.

I'll further assert that in general, it's reasonable for females to have a higher defcon level around males than around females, all else being equal.

My guard level will be raised considerably because they're a male in an enclosed intimate space where I expect to only see females.

My guard level will be further raised because they're a male who doesn't care that their presence causes females to feel endangered and uncomfortable, a male who doesn't recognize and respect female boundaries. They're a male who feels that their internal perception of themselves and their own personal emotional satisfaction should be more important than the defcon level of females.

They've demonstrated by being present in a female-only space, that they think it's NOT reasonable for females to have a higher guard level around males in general, and a notably higher guard level around unknown males in an enclosed and intimate space.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

They don't have to be Dwayne Johnson to get my guard up. I'm female, and the vast majority of males are taller and bigger than me. And the reality is that if you put me up against a 5'2" middle-aged out of shape male... they will absolutely dominate me because pound for pound, inch for inch males are stronger than females.

Genuinely - the complaint that pretty much all of us in this thread have is NOT that the people in question are transgender - it's that they're male. If I meet a male out in public that looks like Dwayne Johnson, and they're wearing a fuchsia dress with 6" platforms and gaudy make-up... I'm going to say hi and probably even have a nice chat as long as they're not jerks. Same as I would with a female in unflattering attire, or a male in an out-of-place tuxedo. In an open, public space, they're just another human being that I'm interacting with, and aside from the low-level general awareness of their sex that comes with being female, it just doesn't matter at all. If they're kind and funny and smart, and have great conversations about things I find interesting... then great - they might be my transgender identified male nephew!

I don't care about how they identify, it's irrelevant to our conversation and its irrelevant to how I interact with them*. Hell, they could genuinely identify as an alien spacecraft with papaya-scented exhaust and it wouldn't matter. They could be a flat-earther who loves homeopathy, and spends their weekends searching for bigfoot - it doesn't matter. If the flat-earther-big-foot-homeopath is a female, I don't care.

But that exact same person in a different scenario will absolutely get my guard up. Not because they're trans, but because they're male. And that complete looney-tunes flat earther would cause me no material increase in my guard level in the semi-open showers of the yoga studio, because they're female.

*Except for the fact that I might end up censoring myself and avoiding entire topics of conversation based on the risk they could have to my professional life or my overall well-being if I piss them off and they end up being one of the types of people that will actively try to cancel my right to live my life if I offend them. And yeah, don't judge a whole group by just a few, but the reality is that enough of those "few" do exist in reality that they've gotten several females fired, issued rape and death threats, and harassed females to some absolutely abhorrent levels for doing such basic things as insisting that sex is real and important, and that gender identity shouldn't supersede it in public policy that touches on intimate or vulnerable areas, prisons, and athletics.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Once again, it's not the threat as such. It's decency and propriety. It's a man in what should be a female-only space. Women are hard-wired not to let males see them in an intimate situation without our consent. Some may smother this instinct out of a learned reflex to #bekind, but we all have it.

It's a natural instinct which is part of our makeup to control who we choose to have sex with. Until about five minutes ago this was well understood. Women feel vulnerable in these situations, even if the man in question is a friend. The reason given in the legislation which mandates separate sanitary and changing facilities for male and female employees at work is propriety, not because of a perceived danger that the male employees are going to sexually assault the female employees.

Decency. Modesty. Comfort.

Some men also feel the same discomfort about women seeing them in intimate situations, although I appreciate some don't. But please don't continue to pretend that if only it could be 100% assured that no man would ever sexually assault a woman, in the women's toilets or anywhere, that we'd be relaxed about letting men in, whether dressed up as women or not. We wouldn't.

From my perspective, the decency, modesty, and comfort are all elements of risk. Because at heart, they stem from the same guard instinct.

Males - not all of them but an awful lot - look at us as if we're meat. As if we're an object for their sexual titillation. I'm old and gray, my boobs sag, and I'm not so much "out of shape" as I am "two-day overripe pear shape". And I still get guys staring at my boobs when I'm out in public - they're not even big, they're just average boring 50-yo boobs! Just last summer I got my ass grabbed by a complete stranger when I was at an event with a friend, by some guy probably in their thirties (I can't tell, anyone under about 40 looks like they're 20, anyone under 25 looks like they're 15 so far as I can tell). And not some plausibly-an-accident brush of my backside, but a full-palm-and-I-could-count-all-five-fingers squeeze!

If there's a male around when I'm in an intimate space, I feel exposed, and vulnerable, and at risk. I feel threatened - not because I fear physical injury, but because there's somewhere around a 75% chance that they are thinking about me in a sexual way. Some part of their mind is thinking about my most intimate body parts and they're associating those thoughts with sexual connotations.

And I don't want males thinking sexual thoughts about my body without my consent because I have been subjected to an enormous about of sexual harassment, assault, attempted rape, and overall casual disregard for my dignity and boundaries, that such thoughts indicate an increased risk to me. I am not even close to being alone in that experience and that reaction. One in five females in the US has been the victim of attempted or completed rape. Four in five females have been subjected to sexual harassment or assault.

There's a reason we don't want males to have right-of-access to our intimate and vulnerable spaces, and it has nothing at all to do with how they think of themselves or how they dress and accessorize, or even their sexual orientation - it has to do with the fact that they're male... and males have harmed 80% of us.

 

[Rolfe]

If the individual actually for realsies passes, I'm not going to notice them. And by passes, I don't mean they need to look like a supermodel. I mean they have a body shape that is within the normal range for females, they have the facial structure of a female, they have hands and feet that don't stand out as enormous for 90% of females. They don't have to be drop-dead gorgeous, but the do actually have to be shaped like a female in general. And unless they've had some really good voice training or are a naturally high tenor... they probably shouldn't talk.

That's the thing. There will be men (like Blaire White) who have cultivated such a feminine look that it's quite easy to mistake them for women at first glance. (I'm told that he does get quite a lot of double-takes in real life, as his video stream is intensely curated.) If they don't do anything to attract a second glance, they'll usually get away with it.

Is this ideal? Probably not. But it's pragmatic. Blaire White says himself that he goes in the women's simply because it causes less disturbance than going in the men's, and he's probably right. A man who really, really passes may be taking the right decision there. I would also note that he says he doesn't ever go into the women's changing room, because he would consider that entirely inappropriate.

What women need is not someone gatekeeping the door doing a cheek swab stat on everyone who comes in, we need the ability and the right to say, excuse me sir but I think you're in the wrong place, to the chancers who think they pass but don't, or are just trying it on anyway, or maybe even do pass visually but then start doing something that makes it obvious they're men. To say that, and have the person leave, or be able to call the attendant and have him asked to leave, without risking accusations of committing a hate crime.

For men it's probably the same. Women with facial hair and acne probably have a better chance of not being noticed in the men's, and as with the very feminine men, if they're very masculine they're probably better going there. A small man, even under five feet, isn't going to stand out in the men's the way these hulking lumps in wigs tend to stand out in the women's. Men don't usually talk to each other or even look at each other, and an apparently small, sloping-shouldered man who simply goes into a stall, comes out, washes his hands and leaves, may well attract no attention at all.

Not ideal, but workable.

But they better be sure they really do pass. Because if they don't, they'll be in the wrong and they will be the ones asked to leave. And if they can be clocked like that, they'll be fine in their correct sex-allocated space.

This is why I believe that enshrining both sexes' bathrooms as exclusive to that sex in law is the answer. Not because this will never be transgressed, but because it will keep the number and effects of the transgressions to a minimum. Of course, the additional provision of one or two fully enclosed unisex toilets with the sink and everything behind the lockable door, for use by anyone who doesn't want to use the sex-designated spaces, would also be very helpful and reduce the excuses for transgressing down to zero.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's the thing. There will be men (like Blaire White) who have cultivated such a feminine look that it's quite easy to mistake them for women at first glance. (I'm told that he does get quite a lot of double-takes in real life, as his video stream is intensely curated.) If they don't do anything to attract a second glance, they'll usually get away with it.

Is this ideal? Probably not. But it's pragmatic. Blaire White says himself that he goes in the women's simply because it causes less disturbance than going in the men's, and he's probably right. A man who really, really passes may be taking the right decision there. I would also note that he says he doesn't ever go into the women's changing room, because he would consider that entirely inappropriate.

What women need is not someone gatekeeping the door doing a cheek swab stat on everyone who comes in, we need the ability and the right to say, excuse me sir but I think you're in the wrong place, to the chancers who think they pass but don't, or are just trying it on anyway, or maybe even do pass visually but then start doing something that makes it obvious they're men. To say that, and have the person leave, or be able to call the attendant and have him asked to leave, without risking accusations of committing a hate crime.

For men it's probably the same. Women with facial hair and acne probably have a better chance of not being noticed in the men's, and as with the very feminine men, if they're very masculine they're probably better going there. A small man, even under five feet, isn't going to stand out in the men's the way these hulking lumps in wigs tend to stand out in the women's. Men don't usually talk to each other or even look at each other, and an apparently small, sloping-shouldered man who simply goes into a stall, comes out, washes his hands and leaves, may well attract no attention at all.

Not ideal, but workable.

But they better be sure they really do pass. Because if they don't, they'll be in the wrong and they will be the ones asked to leave. And if they can be clocked like that, they'll be fine in their correct sex-allocated space.

This is why I believe that enshrining both sexes' bathrooms as exclusive to that sex in law is the answer. Not because this will never be transgressed, but because it will keep the number and effects of the transgressions to a minimum. Of course, the additional provision of one or two fully enclosed unisex toilets with the sink and everything behind the lockable door, for use by anyone who doesn't want to use the sex-designated spaces, would also be very helpful and reduce the excuses for transgressing down to zero.

That's spot on. And that's what keeps getting missed by so many of the people we argue with. It's not hate, it's not anti-trans. It's the lack of authority over our own spaces. It's the way it takes away our power over our own boundaries.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Anyway.... @Thermal I'm off for the weekend. Weekends are family time. I'll pop back in sometime next week as work permits.

 

[Rolfe]

From my perspective, the decency, modesty, and comfort are all elements of risk. Because at heart, they stem from the same guard instinct.

Males - not all of them but an awful lot - look at us as if we're meat. As if we're an object for their sexual titillation. I'm old and gray, my boobs sag, and I'm not so much "out of shape" as I am "two-day overripe pear shape". And I still get guys staring at my boobs when I'm out in public - they're not even big, they're just average boring 50-yo boobs! Just last summer I got my ass grabbed by a complete stranger when I was at an event with a friend, by some guy probably in their thirties (I can't tell, anyone under about 40 looks like they're 20, anyone under 25 looks like they're 15 so far as I can tell). And not some plausibly-an-accident brush of my backside, but a full-palm-and-I-could-count-all-five-fingers squeeze!

If there's a male around when I'm in an intimate space, I feel exposed, and vulnerable, and at risk. I feel threatened - not because I fear physical injury, but because there's somewhere around a 75% chance that they are thinking about me in a sexual way. Some part of their mind is thinking about my most intimate body parts and they're associating those thoughts with sexual connotations.

And I don't want males thinking sexual thoughts about my body without my consent because I have been subjected to an enormous about of sexual harassment, assault, attempted rape, and overall casual disregard for my dignity and boundaries, that such thoughts indicate an increased risk to me. I am not even close to being alone in that experience and that reaction. One in five females in the US has been the victim of attempted or completed rape. Four in five females have been subjected to sexual harassment or assault.

There's a reason we don't want males to have right-of-access to our intimate and vulnerable spaces, and it has nothing at all to do with how they think of themselves or how they dress and accessorize, or even their sexual orientation - it has to do with the fact that they're male... and males have harmed 80% of us.

I absolutely take your point there. It was really that I didn't want to go there too explicitly, to try to counter this pervasive calculation that so many TRAs make that it's all about the risk of assault, and if that could be eliminated then men could come and go as they please.

It's about propriety and modesty and decency, but these things are at some level proxies for "if I let a man look at me in an intimate situation, this is a signal I'm sexually available to him." It's pretty much primaeval. Women have evolved to be careful about what signals they give out to men, and letting a man see her in an intimate situation is one thing she's not going to do unless she is considering being available to him. A couple of hundred years ago there was the concept of the "compromising position". Not that sex was actually happening, but that the woman and the man were in a situation where certain signals were being given out.

I don't want any men around in these situations, and that covers when toileting, washing, bathing, showering, getting changed and sleeping. I very definitely include men who are my friends in that.

Case in point. Tomorrow we have a choir concert in a city centre church which is very short of changing facilities. There are only two toilets, and these are needed for the purpose for which they were designed. (They are in fact unisex, with sink and everything behind the lockable doors, and one is wheelchair-adapted. We're not even 100% comfortable with that, going in as a man comes out, but under the circumstances we put up with it.) There is an organ loft, with rather minimal privacy, and although we're all best mates, sops, altos, tenors and basses together, we try to use it sequentially, or divide it up. One time, as the ladies were changing, the organist came in to do something with the organ. There was an immediate flurry of people throwing wraps round themselves and turning their backs. Then someone observed drily that as the organist was in fact the village doctor, he was already entirely familiar with what everyone looked like under the underwear. There were some giggles, but the concealing behaviour went on. What was OK in the consulting room wasn't OK in the changing area.

We'll see what happens tomorrow. Me, I'm going to drive in, pay a fortune to park the car, and just arrive ready dressed. Not because I'm embarrassed particularly, but just because it saves hassle lots of ways.

 

[Rolfe]

That's spot on. And that's what keeps getting missed by so many of the people we argue with. It's not hate, it's not anti-trans. It's the lack of authority over our own spaces. It's the way it takes away our power over our own boundaries.

The other thing is, most of the men who actually pass are HSTS, and really are just there to pee rather than to perv on the women. Some young AGPs seem to pass moderately well on first glance, but judging by what I've seen, they're not into making themselves inconspicuous so as not to upset the women. They're there to lay claim to the space and they make that clear. Those creeps need frogmarching out with extreme prejudice.

 

[Hercules56]

That's spot on. And that's what keeps getting missed by so many of the people we argue with. It's not hate, it's not anti-trans. It's the lack of authority over our own spaces. It's the way it takes away our power over our own boundaries.

I also dont want dogs in the mens room. Does that mean I hate dogs? No, I love dogs.

I also don't want women in the men's room. Is that because I hate women?? No, I love women.

 

[Thermal]

I also don't want women in the men's room.

Serious question: why not? What's the problem?