True, but it's a poor analogy because:
The spaces for changing rooms could be better utilised by having a unisex changing room with individual stalls. E.g., sports groups of one sex using a facility which would overwhelm the capacity of a sex-segregated changing room. A greater number of larger stalls for adults with young children or people who are comfortable seeing each other naked could be provided as well.
Yes. That particular narrow framing is to debate the thing itself - trans rights - in its own terms. That's the appropriate framing and scope for a debate about trans rights.
The difference is that some sex segregation makes sense. Racial segregation does not. Sex is not analogous to race, in the sense you need it to be, to argue about sex in terms of race. You should stick to arguing about sex in terms of sex. Look how much time you've already wasted, arguing about the aptness of your analogy, instead of arguing about the thing itself.
No it doesn't. It shows that neophytes can more easily engage with the basics of an unfamiliar concept in terms of a more familiar concept. It is always intended that serious students will move quickly from the more familiar concept to mastering the new concept in its own terms. Nobody solves real problems in general relativity in terms of a bowling ball on a rubber sheet.
Yes, I'm disgusted at the idea of anti-scientific and irreversible trans-affirming medicine for minors.
It was a yes or no question. If your answer is to abolish sex segregation in sports, prisons, shelters, locker rooms, etc., then that's a different conversation.
Would it disgust you to know that trans rights activists aggressively advocate for such treatment? Would you fear for the health and safety of children who fall under the care of such advocates? I ask, because you say this is about fear and disgust. So I'm curious what triggers your fear and disgust in these matters. Because it sounds like we're actually on the same page.
Neither are meaningful in any practical way that is significant in the context of providing or using a public toilet that meets the desire for safety or privacy.
It's not about framing all women as oppressors, just the people, irrespective of sex, who stoke the fires of hate and distrust.
Yes, this thread is in large part about trans rights activists and the nature of their activism.
Or...rooms where you might need to rinse out your unmentionables because menstruation isn't perfectly predictable.
I'm thinking you might be of the sex where red tent issues aren't on your radar and you can reasonably expect to get everything done in the stall.
I'm not seeing it either, and the forum search function is disabled. Do you still have the link?
Not in non-sexual and non-medical interactions, generally. How often do you interact with other people's genetalia in a toilet stall or when washing your hands? I don't. Their biological sex is just an idea.
Trans people have historically been treated as ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 85th class citizens and equality is being argued against in this very thread. Framing them as oppressors feels even more wrong.
Wasn't my link. It's back a few pages. Basically, it's a wide open row of privacy stalls, and a row of sinks. Not even a room, just an open area between hallways. Occasional scattered single occupant rooms elsewhere, for those who need actual privacy for red tent issues, for example.
Perhaps you haven't noticed that there is no heavily-trafficked thread here about how transmen aren't men. Transmen apparently don't have any trouble using the men's room. As for your hypothetical, if it becomes a problem we can deal with it.
Sex is analogous to race in the sense it is an irrelevant characteristic in the context of providing toilet facilities that meet the desire for privacy and safety. Analogies don't have to have perfect correspondence to be useful.
Wrong. E.g., Google Einstein's many thought experiments. I often think about mechanical problems in terms of electrical quantities, as I'm sure many electrical engineers do.
Your question presupposes the segregation is justified. I think Rosa Parks should be able to sit at the front of the bus.
We are in the same ballpark on the pseudoscience around treatment of kids with particular mental health problems.
www.lbc.co.uk
That's not the issue here, the issue is whether Caitlyn Jenner should be able to join a lesbian club.
What makes a club "lesbian"?
Now you're the one making claims without evidence. The evidence shows that biological sex, not gender expression, has to do with privacy and safety and comfort in restrooms and the like.
Suit yourself.
My suggestion presupposes that sex segregation is justified in some cases. I think sex segregation is justified for all the ways in which sex is not analogous to race.
And I think transwomen should compete in men's sports and be housed in men's prisons.
Not what I asked, but okay, sure.
No, it isn't. Sex is very relevant for this. Do away with your assumption that it isn't, and your argument falls apart. This thread has covered why it's relevant many times before, you provide no evidence or argument for why it is not.
Analogies can be useful as pedagogic tools. They are basically useless as tools of persuasion. Has your analogy use in this thread convinced anyone? No, it has not. All it has done is create arguments about the validity of the analogy itself. That is the usual outcome when analogies are used in debate.
I am male. I want other males to be treated the same way that I am treated. What is unequal about that?
I'm not very concerned with what "feels" wrong. I'm concerned about what actually is wrong. If a female's intimate space is being invaded by a male against her will, and the power of the state is being used against that female for objecting, that looks a lot more like oppression than if the state takes her side in preventing that invasion.
Analogies sometimes allow people to see how their thinking is biased. However, I agree that on page 138 of part 15 of this thread the people remaining largely consist of true believers and those who just like to argue, so analogies or any other line of reasoning is almost certainly doomed to fail.
Suppose someone (let's call her "Sall") wants to start a club where females can connect to each other for either romantic or platonic purposes. Now suppose a transwoman (let's call her "Roxanne") sues Sall's club, arguing that she, too, should be entitled to join since she is a woman and would like to connect to other women for romantic and/or platonic purposes. Should the government side with Sall because it's okay for females to set their own boundaries or with Roxanne because it's discriminatory to exclude women who were born male?
Not directed at me obv, but that's a hard "sex matters" line, unlike, say, a place to pee. Literally, bio sex is what the place is about.