Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ivor the Engineer]

Of course they can. They always could. It's also noteworthy that while we could give chapter and verse of multiple examples of trans-identifying males assaulting women in the women's bathrooms when asked (it's just that the numbers cited were deemed insufficient), the poster who said that trans-identifying men were being "habitually beaten and harrassed" in the men's room was unable to give a single example. It isn't a thing. They might be stared at, even laughed at, but they're not going to be beaten up.

This is why I find it much more helpful to concentrate on the "autonomy, privacy and dignity" part of keeping men out of women's spaces. If I see a man in the women's bathroom or changing room I'm not generally afraid that he's going to attack me, I'm disgusted.

My impression of what Lady Faulkener said is that she was taking at face value the TRA's insistence that they couldn't possibly, never, no way, use the correct bathroom, and not appreciating that this is pure theatre. They legally can, of course, and if they don't want to, then they can find another solution.

If I see a black in the white people's bathroom or changing room I'm not generally afraid that he or she is going to attack me, I'm disgusted.

 

[zooterkin]

I personally have great sympathy with trans people; I know several and have no problem with them expressing their gender how they choose. I support trans rights, in general, as I support rights for any group. The one thing I cannot accept is the idea that you can change sex, and things like changing birth certificates feels wrong to me because it is altering a recorded fact. For medical situations, it is important to know biological sex, too.

That said, I can understand why someone who genuinely feels they are a woman would want to be treated as one. And I suspect many trans people have been quietly going about, using the facilities of their assumed gender, without much trouble, even if they've been spotted by the apparently 100% reliable detectors all women have. The problem is that a group of men have seized on the freedoms that were granted, in some cases, and assumed, in others, and used them for their own ends, whether to gain access to places they shouldn't be (toilets, women's sports committee posts intended for women, etc.), or to escape consequences of previous misdeeds (going to a women's prison instead of one for men).

The people I know who are trans do not, so far as I can tell, fit into this latter category, but because of the perfectly justifiable pushback by women given the antics of the group, genuine trans people are being branded the same as the offenders. What should be a minor setback, from their point of view (if they actually do view TWAW as true; not all do) is viewed as part of a wider resistance, especially given the current climate in the US, so anyone expressing any doubts is viewed with suspicion.

It's a problem that if you express any reservations about trans rights, you are likely to be branded a TERF; nuance is not permitted. If I posted this on Facebook, it's extremely likely I would be blocked by several people I know and respect (I mentioned skeptics before, but quite a few performers are also taking hardline positions).

 

[Rolfe]

The hate is strong with this one.

What a superb argument. I have entirely revised my opinion. (Not.)

@acbytesla, I note that this issue is plastered across every front page in Britain this morning. The most straightforwardly informative was the Daily Telegraph.

However the first prize, red rosette and gold medal goes to The Sun, of all things. I may actually have to pop up to the shop and buy a copy.

It dominated all the major news programmes last night. I am reliably informed that it is being discussed on news and current affairs programmes around the world.

Do you still think it's a nothing-burger that affects almost nobody?

 

[Graham2001]

The UK Supreme Court has just confirmed what anyone with a grasp on reality has always known: that women are adult human females. In a unanimous and refreshingly rational judgement, the justices in For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers make clear that the word ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 means exactly what it says – male and female, as determined by biology. It’s a landmark victory for women’s rights, and a resounding humiliation for the Scottish ministers who thought they could rewrite reality.

Women exist. Get over it!

 

[Rolfe]

I have no desire to pee in the "Ladies". I proposed (and have seen implemented in many places) a safe, fair and workable solution to dealing with human excrement in public spaces without the need to segregate based on sex, gender, sexuality, eye colour, race, clan, etc.

The UK court made the right decision: biological sex trumps the delusions of a tiny minority.

Oh, not another one who thinks he's Emperor of the Known Universe and that his brilliant solution should be the one that is adopted. And note, we are talking about segretation by sex, nothing else. If you don't see why that's important to a great many people, back off and stop telling others that their concerns are unjustifiable.

But, glad you agree with the decision. Maybe you could be a bit less obnoxious in your agreement?

If I see a black in the white people's bathroom or changing room I'm not generally afraid that he or she is going to attack me, I'm disgusted.

Not that again. You only need to scroll back three or four pages to see that canard being dismantled by several posters here.

 

[Graham2001]

For much of the past 10 years, transactivist organisations have been directing an immersive theatrical performance across the UK, with participation virtually mandatory. Women have been forced into supporting actress roles, propping up the leading lady fantasies of especially demanding and sometimes dangerous men. And the progressive establishment has mostly nodded along, clapping like seals. But yesterday the Supreme Court brought the final curtain down, rejecting the arguments of Scottish government ministers that possession of a certificate can change someone’s sex. Eschewing the amateur dramatics to which we have all become accustomed, judges went with a famous line of Scots poetry instead: a man’s a man for a’ that.

How women won the gender wars: It took brains, guts and heart

 

[Rolfe]

How women won the gender wars: It took brains, guts and heart

Ah, one I'd missed! Thanks for that. Oops no, I had read it, but thanks anyway.

 

[Thermal]

Of course they can. They always could. It's also noteworthy that while we could give chapter and verse of multiple examples of trans-identifying males assaulting women in the women's bathrooms when asked (it's just that the numbers cited were deemed insufficient), the poster who said that trans-identifying men were being "habitually beaten and harrassed" in the men's room was unable to give a single example. It isn't a thing. They might be stared at, even laughed at, but they're not going to be beaten up.

Experiencing sudden memory loss, again, Rolfe? Did you forget about the Reuters article I posted in quick response to your claim? Transwomen in the USA experience about 32,000 instances of assault annually. That's not harrassment, either, which is a much larger percentage by an order of magnitude. That's physical and sexual assault.

Your 'data' are mostly twitter anecdotes, most of which don't even apply. You posted one with a long list of alleged trans offenders (although globally it is noise range). Unlinked, of course. I searched the first, who was a well known serial killer... who never identified as trans. His wikipedia page says he briefly wore dresses while in prison, possibly because he wanted access to the women inmates (he was a rapist after all), or that he was just stone cold nuts (which he appears to be). But aside from unevidenced claims from some openly bigoted articles, he never identified as trans.

Spot checking through the list (no, I didn't go through every unsourced name), One was a sexual predator that offended as a man, served his time, and later came out as trans, but was never even accused of reoffending.

So i gave some available data. You have not, to date, at least as long as I've been ITT, except for the claim of the 79 unspecified trans sex offenders incarcerated in the UK, which we not only do not know what they did, but according to you guys, predators 'fake' being trans to exploit loopholes, so literally every one might not be trans.

 

[Rolfe]

Thermal, you gave no examples at all of trans-identifying men being attacked in the men's bathroom. Which was what was requested.

I would also like to know what these "assaults" consist of, since being addressed as "Sir" appears to constitute an assault to some people.

And you know what? There is no difference between men putting on womanface for one reason or for another. It's all the same to us. There's no magic "trans" essence. There's just the fact that men who dress as women have a very high rate of sexual offending. (Look up Andrew Miller, a.k.a. "Amy George" for a particularly nasty one, albeit one that didn't invlove a women's bathroom.)

 

[d4m10n]

If I see a black in the white people's bathroom or changing room I'm not generally afraid that he or she is going to attack me, I'm disgusted.

Do you really think it makes sense to compare spaces set aside at the request of an oppressed group (females) to spaces where an oppressed group (people of African ancestry) has been forcibly segregated by an oppressor group?

 

[zooterkin]

For the postmodern view on gender and sex, Judith Butler is entertaining (unless you happen to be writing a dissertation on performance and need to actually understand what she's saying). https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/1650/butler_performative_acts.pdf

 

[theprestige]

If I see a black in the white people's bathroom or changing room I'm not generally afraid that he or she is going to attack me, I'm disgusted.

Transwomen are not analogous to black people. Sex is not analogous to race. If you can't argue the thing itself in its own terms, you're not ready to try on an imperfect (or completely busted, in this case) analogy for the thing.

You're better off trying to talk about biological sex, and its role in sex segregation in public policy.

 

[Thermal]

Thermal, you gave no examples at all of trans-identifying men being attacked in the men's bathroom. Which was what was requested.

I would also like to know what these "assaults" consist of, since being addressed as "Sir" appears to constitute an assault to some people.

Rolfe, perhaps you forgot the Reuters article? No, harrassment was reported at 19%. Actual physical and sexual assaults in the goddamned men's room were reported seperately.

And you know what? There is no difference between men putting on womanface for one reason or for another. It's all the same to us. There's no magic "trans" essence.

And that, whether you can face it or not, is naked bigotry. Trans people are people too.

There's just the fact that men who dress as women have a very high rate of sexual offending. (Look up Andrew Miller, a.k.a. "Amy George" for a particularly nasty one, albeit one that didn't invlove a women's bathroom.)

I'm not interested in individual anecdotes on a planet of 7+ billion. I'm interested in data, so we can consider how well your claimed fears stand up. Are they based in bigotry, or are they well-founded?

 

[Thermal]

Do you really think it makes sense to compare spaces set aside at the request of an oppressed group (females) to spaces where an oppressed group (people of African ancestry) has been forcibly segregated by an oppressor group?

You've used this argument before. Women in their restrooms are not 'oppressed'. The transwomen who are trying to be criminalized for peeing are.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh, not another one who thinks he's Emperor of the Known Universe and that his brilliant solution should be the one that is adopted. And note, we are talking about segretation by sex, nothing else. If you don't see why that's important to a great many people, back off and stop telling others that their concerns are unjustifiable.

It's not my solution, it's the obvious solution that meets people's desire for privacy as well as being fair and a more efficient use of space. But don't let logic, efficiency or fairness infect you ideology.

But, glad you agree with the decision. Maybe you could be a bit less obnoxious in your agreement?

How about: Biological sex is a more workable and objective representation of reality for society to use than individual opinion?

Not that again. You only need to scroll back three or four pages to see that canard being dismantled by several posters here.

Of course it was "dismantled" by the group to protect its very unique worldview. Reading this thread is like visiting an isolated tribe in the rainforest.

 

[Hercules56]

Transvolk have to use the bathroom of their natural sex.

Oh, the horror.

 

[Elaedith]

Of course it was "dismantled" by the group to protect its very unique worldview. Reading this thread is like visiting an isolated tribe in the rainforest.

I don't think the view that sex segregation in a few very specific contexts is not comparable to racial segregation is a 'unique worldview'.

 

[Rolfe]

Many of these articles, written by journalists scrabbling frantically to get up to speed with an issue they've been sneering at from the wrong side of the sidelines for years, are going on and on about how this is a huge change and all these guidelines will have to be scrapped and re-written and so on.

In one sense this is correct, it is a big change from what we have been told was the situation, and enormous reams of guidelines and policies will have to be re-written. But the truth is, this was the law all along, and many many people tried to assert this and point out the correct position. The problem has been that Stonewall asserted an erroneous interpretation of the Equality Act (that the class "women" included men with a GRA) and then extended that to assert that (presumably since the possession of a GRA was confidential) any man at all who claimed trans status was included.

Not only did they propagate this erroneous interpretation, they set themselves up as an authority and as a provider of training and accreditation in the area. They took many thousands of pounds from public and private bodies to provide entirely wrong training. They encouraged their "clients" to jump through ever-multiplying hoops such as requiring employees to put pronouns in their email signatures and wear rainbow lanyards and remove the word "woman" from all literature. Do it well enough and you get a place in the coveted top 100 Stonewall-approved employers. Stonewall were writing policies and guidelines not according to the actual law, but according to what they wanted the law to be, and it was all over the place. Almost everyone fell into line to avoid being branded as transphobic.

It wasn't as if nobody noticed. Plenty of people did, but they were shouted down and branded as transphobes. I've seen umpteen articles by HR professionals and lawyers about their approaches to organisations pointing out that their policies and guidelines were not in accordance with the law (a very frequent one was claiming that "gender identity" was a protected characteristic, which it isn't, and omitting "sex", which is) and their efforts to get these corrected. Mostly I think they were ignored. The organisation was using the Stonewall template and that was what mattered to them.

This shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone who was paying attention. But so all-pervasive was Stonewall's influence and so successfully did they squash all opposition into the silenced box labelled "transphobe" that the revelation of what was actually the truth all along has come as something as a shock to a lot of systems.

Ironically, one of the lawyers who has been heavily involved in this says that the prospect of any of these organisations sueing Stonewall for giving erroneous, illegal advice is remote. Stonewall are not lawyers. The organisations should have known better than to base all their policies on advice from such a source. Stonewall will simply say, it was their fault for believing us, and they'll get away with it. They have no professional standing.

In retrospect it may be a very good thing that way back when the Scottish Government included that definition of a women in its legislation about representation on public boards. It was done because they were cooking up the GRA at the time, and they pre-empted this in the earlier legislation. I remember women bewailing this and saying, they've shafted us, they got that in while nobody was looking, while we were all still writing long and detailed submissions to the consultation on the GRA which were subsequently binned as the work of transphobes and probably racists. But it was the existence of this in actual statute that was the way in to getting the entire thing destroyed. It was a wee insignificant-looking jenga stick that was the key to collapsing the whole edifice. The SG said they were only following the EA (according to Stonewall Law), FWS said no you aren't, and here we are.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not interested in individual anecdotes on a planet of 7+ billion. I'm interested in data, so we can consider how well your claimed fears stand up. Are they based in bigotry, or are they well-founded?

And we're back to this again.

Thermal: can you please try to remember for more than a couple of minutes at a time that most females do not want any males in their intimate spaces. Not even nice, well behaved ones like you. For the reasons explained at length, many many times. So even if the number you're trying to establish is zero, which it most certainly is not, it's irrelevant.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Transwomen are not analogous to black people. Sex is not analogous to race. If you can't argue the thing itself in its own terms, you're not ready to try on an imperfect (or completely busted, in this case) analogy for the thing.

You're better off trying to talk about biological sex, and its role in sex segregation in public policy.

Here you go making unsupported assertions again.

It is natural to want to put some distance between yourself and people you consider to hold objectionable beliefs.