Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Let's unpick this. Women have been correctly-sexing masculine-presenting women since forever. It has literally never been an issue. Women in the past also sometimes turned a blind eye to a man in the women's room if he appeared to be sincerely trying to look like a woman and didn't do anything objectionable. Don't conflate these two things. (The latter wasn't usually extended to changing rooms though.)

What has changed? What changed was that men started demanding access to women's spaces as a legal right, rather than as a favour. They insisted that they had this right regardless of how they dressed or looked, and to a large extent how they behaved. So instead of the very occasional man who was trying to look and be inoffensive, we had men flaunting themselves in women's spaces, getting naked in changing rooms in front of schoolgirls and so on.

The result of this obnoxious, entitled and (it has now been confirmed) illegal behaviour was that women became hypervigilant and defensive. Whose fault was this? The women's, or the men who yomped all over our private spaces? This behaviour has now been conclusively stated to be illegal. Nevertheless the men say they will continue to do it. So, surprise surprise, it's likely women may remain hypervigilant and defensive.

The solution to this is not to tell women that it's all completely unworkable and they better just resign themselves to putting up with whoever chooses to go in their spaces, as before. It is for men to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well stop going in there.

This is at least a refreshingly more reasonable presentation of the objections.

If you don't mind my asking, how common in the UK is it for these more obnoxious transwomen (and imposters) to be found in a women's rest room? Does it happen in your everyday experience? I'm not asking as any kind of gotcha, but over here I can't say I've seen or heard of it, and I'm wondering if it's a much more frequent nuisance on your side of the pond?

 

[Rolfe]

It's not every day, but it happens. The worry that was eating up a lot of women was that if it happened to them, they had no redress. If they complained they were likely to be told that "This is an inclusive establishment and all our patrons are welcome to use the space they feel most comfortable in." If they were unlucky they might be reported for a hate crime.

Now it's clear that we can object to anyone who is violating our spaces, and if we do, the provider of the service is not allowed suddenly to move the goal-posts and declare that the room with F on the door is actually a mixed-sex space, it's just that it was labelled as if it was single-sex. If it's labelled single-sex, it has to be maintained as single-sex.

Also, forget this distinction between "transwomen" and "impostors". They're all men in womanface. We can't read their minds and we don't want to.

 

[Lithrael]

If you don't mind my asking, how common in the UK is it for these more obnoxious transwomen (and imposters) to be found in a women's rest room?

It's not every day, but it happens. The worry that was eating up a lot of women was that if it happened to them, they had no redress. If they complained they were likely to be told that "This is an inclusive establishment and all our patrons are welcome to use the space they feel most comfortable in." If they were unlucky they might be reported for a hate crime.

Where I get lost is why you want to skip over the possibility of adopting conduct rules that could adress both the worst behaviour and the risk of getting charged for objecting to it, on the grounds that it's not the solution you want. Is 'better' the enemy of 'ideal' or what?

 

[Thermal]

Rolfe, I was with you right up till that last paragraph.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, I was with you right up till that last paragraph.

Come on, how is anyone supposed to know the difference?

 

[Rolfe]

Where I get lost is why you want to skip over the possibility of adopting conduct rules that could adress both the worst behaviour and the risk of getting charged for objecting to it, on the grounds that it's not the solution you want. Is 'better' the enemy of 'ideal' or what?

We are discussing the Supreme Court judgement from two days ago. Single-sex spaces for men and women are necessary and allowed for decency and privacy. This happens to be the solution I want, and it also happens to be the unappealable law of the land, and it so happens that it was always the case, it was simply that the law had been misinterpreted by trans activists and most organisations and businesses believed them.

Joyously, we in Britain don't have to listen to suggestions about other possible ways of dealing with these matters, it's a done deal.

 

[Thermal]

Come on, how is anyone supposed to know the difference?

From my vantage point, if they ain't bothering you, it ain't important what's going on in their heads. If they are interfering with you in any way, it doesn't matter if they are sincere or imposters or men or women, to Lithrael's point.

 

[theprestige]

Where I get lost is why you want to skip over the possibility of adopting conduct rules that could adress both the worst behaviour and the risk of getting charged for objecting to it, on the grounds that it's not the solution you want. Is 'better' the enemy of 'ideal' or what?

It's unnecessary. We already have a perfectly cromulent arrangement, well established in custom, and now in law.

Nobody wants to argue with a man in women's locker room about whether he's following the code of conduct. There's no reason for him to be there in the first place.

"The best way to win an argument is to avoid it altogether."

~ Sun Tzu, probably

That said, I'd be willing to consider complicating things with a code of conduct, IF someone can show me that men overriding sex segregation is at all necessary in the first place. No credible medical justification has been offered. Gender expression has already been rejected as a justification. This is a perfect scenario for keeping the simple solution simple.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hm. In my US state, service can be refused by management to anyone. What they can't do is refuse service based on being a member if a protected class. So a Bartender can bounce you because he thinks you are too drunk, but not because you are trans.

I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as you think. For example, I suspect that a urologist can refuse to provide a prostate exam to a transgender identified female, and a gynecologist can refuse to provide... well... any gynecological services to a transgender identified male. I also suspect that an aesthetician that specializes in bikini or brazilian waxing for females can refuse to provide such services to a male regardless of how they identify.

 

[Thermal]

It's unnecessary. We already have a perfectly cromulent arrangement, well established in custom, and now in law.

They do. We don't.

Nobody wants to argue with a man in women's locker room about whether he's following the code of conduct. There's no reason for him to be there in the first place.

"The best way to win an argument is to avoid it altogether."

~ Sun Tzu, probably

That said, I'd be willing to consider complicating things with a code of conduct, IF someone can show me that men overriding sex segregation is at all necessary in the first place. No credible medical justification has been offered. Gender expression has already been rejected as a justification. This is a perfect scenario for keeping the simple solution simple.

I think the first part would be justifying which areas need to be sex segregated in the first place. Restrooms, I'm getting less confident about. Locker rooms and showers (nudity risk places) are pretty slam dunk as justifiably sex segregated.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Where it can be easily done and is a win for everybody, then yes.

Why do you assume it's a win for everyone in regard to bathrooms that need to serve a relatively large number of people at once?

 

[Thermal]

I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as you think. For example, I suspect that a urologist can refuse to provide a prostate exam to a transgender identified female, and a gynecologist can refuse to provide... well... any gynecological services to a transgender identified male. I also suspect that an aesthetician that specializes in bikini or brazilian waxing for females can refuse to provide such services to a male regardless of how they identify.

Right, but if the bikini waxer advertises services for women, not specifying females only, I think they got themselves into a pickle based on our laws as they are.

 

[theprestige]

They do. We don't.

I think the first part would be justifying which areas need to be sex segregated in the first place. Restrooms, I'm getting less confident about. Locker rooms and showers (nudity risk places) are pretty slam dunk as justifiably sex segregated.

I think the burden of justification is with the people trying to change the status quo.

And if there's no reason to change it for sports or prisons or locker rooms, what reason is there to change it for restrooms? Who, exactly, is asking for this, and why?

 

[Thermal]

I think the burden of justification is with the people trying to change the status quo.

The status quo is too ambiguous. That's literally the whole problem. The sign on the restroom door doesn't say male or female; it says men's and women's. Or even worse, a stick figure representation of a kinda sorta humanish figure, one that appears to be wearing a skirt.

And if there's no reason to change it for sports or prisons or locker rooms, what reason is there to change it for restrooms?

Restrooms can easily be unisex, at no ideological compromise to anyone, and it's the one we are most familiar with day to day.

Who, exactly, is asking for this, and why?

I don't know of anyone exactly asking for it. We're bantering stuff around.

 

[Rolfe]

From my vantage point, if they ain't bothering you, it ain't important what's going on in their heads. If they are interfering with you in any way, it doesn't matter if they are sincere or imposters or men or women, to Lithrael's point.

So there's no difference between the two groups you imagine here. So why keep separating them?

 

[Thermal]

So there's no difference between the two groups you imagine here. So why keep separating them?

...because the current discussion is about your court being really big on hard line making a difference between two groups and separating them?

I mean that's literally the point.

 

[Rolfe]

Woman = adult human female (and we include juvenile human females as appropriate)
Man = adult human male (and we include juvenile human males as appropriate)

It's this stupid attempt to change the meanings of words that everybody knows what they really mean, and have meant for hundreds of years (and equivalent words in other languages since speech was acquired) that is causing the stupidity here. Stop it.

 

[Rolfe]

...because the current discussion is about your court being really big on hard line making a difference between two groups and separating them?

I mean that's literally the point.

What? I make no difference between men who have delusions or a fetish about being women, and men who are simply trying it on for fun and profit. The court doesn't either. I don't want any of them in women's single-sex spaces, and they law keeps them both out equally. It's you who keeps suggesting that there's some difference.

 

[Thermal]

What? I make no difference between men who have delusions or a fetish about being women, and men who are simply trying it on for fun and profit. The court doesn't either. I don't want any of them in women's single-sex spaces, and they law keeps them both out equally. It's you who keeps suggesting that there's some difference.

And my country and a lot of others.

This whole gig, in all of its details, has to do with clarifying, legally, the difference between gender and sex and defining man and woman. One of the first lines in your recent ruling says that the court was absolutely not doing so, nor were they even attempting to define what a man or woman is.

 

[Thermal]

Woman = adult human female (and we include juvenile human females as appropriate)
Man = adult human male (and we include juvenile human males as appropriate)

It's this stupid attempt to change the meanings of words that everybody knows what they really mean, and have meant for hundreds of years (and equivalent words in other languages since speech was acquired) that is causing the stupidity here. Stop it.

The dictionary doesn't save you among ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ adults. The concept is far broader, and that shouldn't need to be explained to you.