Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

How exactly are we supposed to tell the difference?

You're not. If they ain't bothering you, it ain't ya business. If their very existence where you just don't want them bothers you, that's a different problem.

They're NOT accepted for what they feel they are. Realistically, I don't think you actually for realsies accept them for what they feel they are.

Look - you might know a few very well-passing transsexuals, so do I. And you might even think "yeah, they're pretty hot" if they pass well. But I'm about 98% sure that if they have a schlong, no matter how well they mimic the external appearance of a female, you wouldn't consider them as a potential sexual partner. I give you 2% because you might be more heteroflexible than I assume .

Agreed, but the extremes of the debate are less at issue than the generalities, at least in broad brush.

Dude, again, you're looking at this from the perspective of how males use restrooms, how males interact in restrooms - and you're assuming that males use restrooms the right way, and that everyone should use restrooms the same way that males do. You think this is a great solution from a purely male perspective.

Your solution takes away something that females value, and it forces females to change how we interact with each other, how we behave when we're not in the presence of males. You're forcing female social norms to change to mirror male social norms, because you think it's more convenient and reasonable... but you're only looking at it from a male point of view.

What does that solution do negatively to females? They have pure privacy when needed, and when it doesn't matter, females are likely much safer with others around. A lone attacker is at a disadvantage with multiple people around, some of which would be male.

 

[Thermal]

She very much suggested exactly this. Because she was delusional. But suddenly this analogy isn't working for you any more.

Ok, I'm going by memory and I'll concede that my memory may be off. I recall her once defending herself, saying she was white and knew it but identified so strongly with black people that she was willfully taking the piss (heavily paraphrased). But I'll check back into it.

 

[theprestige]

A lone attacker is at a disadvantage with multiple people around, some of which would be male.

Something women have never asked for. In all the decades of women's restrooms, women have never indicated that having males in their space would make them safer. Quite the opposite. You're trying to solve a problem women never had, to enable a delusion that should be treated.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to make quoted text visible

 

[Thermal]

Something women have never asked for. In all the decades of women's restrooms, women have never indicated that having males in their space would make them safer. Quite the opposite. You're trying to solve a problem women never had, to enable a delusion that should be treated.

"What do you want?" is rarely the question. "What do we all need?" is usually the one.

 

[theprestige]

"What do you want?" is rarely the question. "What do we all need?" is usually the one.

I'm sure you think this cleverly sums up a clever argument that you think is so clever that you don't actually have to make it.

 

[Thermal]

I'm sure you think this cleverly sums up a clever argument that you think is so clever that you don't actually have to make it.

No, I think it's what we are talking about. We didn't ask white people what they wanted when integrating schools. We did what we needed to do as a nation.

Eta: my state is already selfID. All these horrors you are theorizing aren't happening. It doesn't affect either sex any more than it did previously. Things kept going along plus or minus like they had previously, the only exception being that the bigots had no grounds for complaining about it anymore.

 

[d4m10n]

There is a clear through line in trans rights activism. That line does not pass through "unisex bathrooms for gender dysphorics". If it did, we would know.

Why do you think Skepticon went to the trouble of creating unisex bathrooms, if it wasn't an attempt to appease gender activists?

 

[Thermal]

Why do you think Skepticon went to the trouble of creating unisex bathrooms, if it wasn't an attempt to appease gender activists?

Maybe they examined it critically and determined it was the right thing to do?

 

[Ziggurat]

Right. Womanface, like blackface, would be something to mock. Beyond a Benny Hill sketch, it isn't a thing.

You haven't seen early Dylan Mulvaney, have you? It's very much a thing.

? Because sincerity, yo. Because empathy. If someone says they are gay, I'm not going to accuse them of faking it for my rhetorical convenience

The thing about gays, though, is that they don't demand any accommodations for being gay. Unless I'm considering having sex with them, it makes no difference to me whether they're telling the truth or not. The same cannot be said about trans people.

It matters if someone is sincere.

Does it? Why? Think about your answer very hard.

Rachel Dozeal is the lead example, and she never for a minute even suggested she thought she was actually black.

Why didn't she? Why does she not claim to be actually black, but many (not all) transwomen claim to be actually women?

Because society supports one delusion and doesn't support the other, and everyone knows that. Dolezal didn't claim to think she was actually black because she knows she couldn't get away with that claim. If you think someone like "Jessica" Yaniv claims to be a woman for any other reason than he thinks he can get away with it, you're kidding yourself. On an objective level, Dolezal is closer to being black than Yaniv is to being a woman.

 

[Ziggurat]

"What do you want?" is rarely the question. "What do we all need?" is usually the one.

OK. So why do transwomen need to use the women's bathroom?

 

[d4m10n]

Maybe they examined it critically and determined it was the right thing to do?

Or maybe they decided it's best to trust social justice activists about the right thing to do, in accordance with standpoint epistemology^WP.

 

[Rolfe]

That is what new court cases will have to decide - you may hold that opinion, but it is not yet backed up by case law. Now my opinion is the same as yours as I don't think such a direct approach will be upheld, I expect the cases will be based on points regarding a right to privacy and the like.

Look, I'm still puzzling over what the hell you mean by this. The judgement is as clear as crystal and doesn't need any case law to back it up.

Please describe the nature of the court case you think might be brought under this issue. A trans-identified male can't go to court for the right to use a female bathroom, because he is male and if he were granted that right that would render the female bathroom mixed-sex. What else can he go to court about? He doesn't need to seek the right to use the men's room, he has that right. If he is harassed in there on account of his protected characteristic of gender reassignment, he certainly has a case there, but the remedy will be to charge the person harassing him, not to give him access to the women's room.

Right to privacy? He has the same right to privacy as every other male. If he doesn't want to use the urinals he can go into a cubicle. Nobody cares. Could he go to court for the right to have a unisex space provided? No, because there is no stipulated right to have a unisex space provided. It has been suggested (by Lady Faukner) that the trans lobby might campaign for the provision of unisex toilets, and so they can, but no court will award any trans person the right to have such a space under present circumstances. So no, I am not following you.

 

[Rolfe]

Eta: my state is already selfID. All these horrors you are theorizing aren't happening. It doesn't affect either sex any more than it did previously. Things kept going along plus or minus like they had previously, the only exception being that the bigots had no grounds for complaining about it anymore.

I don't think you would recognise self-exclusion if it came up and slapped you in the face. I don't think you have any care at all for the women who are simply not taking part in things because there is no bathroom or changing room for them to go to. I don't think you have any care at all for the women who are unhappy and uncomfortable and feel that their dignity is being violated. They're not even on your radar. And that's before we even start on sporting opportunities being lost to males. Because self-ID is not just about bathrooms and changing rooms.

The only thing on your radar seems to be making men who want to go in women's spaces comfortable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Pokin my head in here as usual to ask (and get told off for asking) why on earth we can't have the "Alertable ◊◊◊◊◊◊ Behaviour Is Happening" based on 'alertable ◊◊◊◊◊◊ behaviour' instead of on 'there's somebody in here who doesn't pass.'

It (still) looks to me like it would be WAY easier to codify the actual creepy behaviours we want to control, than (gestures at the thread in general). Can we really NOT make 'staring' 'lounging around all spread out' 'loitering for no reason' (ie no friends in there) 'digging in the trash' etc etc, ejectable (and equal-opportunity) offenses?

Like. You guys speak as though it's impossible to have a regular-ass woman ejected from the restroom for being a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ creeper, which is... a problem.

Sure... I consider it creepy and unacceptable behavior for a male to either 1) be naked in a space where I'm also naked without my express permission or 2) view me naked without my express permission.

Problem: solved. Any male in a space where I'm partially or completely naked is engaging in creepy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ behavior and should be ejected forthwith.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

How do you tell the difference between a transwoman (regardless of polite or obnoxious) and an imposter?

 

[Rolfe]

Dude, again, you're looking at this from the perspective of how males use restrooms, how males interact in restrooms - and you're assuming that males use restrooms the right way, and that everyone should use restrooms the same way that males do. You think this is a great solution from a purely male perspective.

Your solution takes away something that females value, and it forces females to change how we interact with each other, how we behave when we're not in the presence of males. You're forcing female social norms to change to mirror male social norms, because you think it's more convenient and reasonable... but you're only looking at it from a male point of view.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

The logical consequence of your position is that females end up having to tolerate the presence of "imposters" as long as they're not doing anything that YOU consider egregious... regardless of how negatively that impacts a whole lot of females. Essentially, females need to just shut up and let males enter areas where we're naked or vulnerable regardless of our consent.

 

[Rolfe]

I've had it with him. The posts he put up while I was out at the Film Society show such a profound ignorance of the issues combined with a fixed refusal to consider anybody else's perspective but his own (and that of the fictitious "sincere trans" person he wants the world to be remade around) that it just isn't worth engaging with these posts any more.

 

[p0lka]

FYI, some transgender identified females have actually insisted that gay males should be willing to take them on as sexual partners... and that it's bigoted of gay males to not want to have sex with "front holes".

What do you mean by 'transgender identified females'? Do you mean transmen or transwomen? Either way that's a stupid insistence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 get that you're getting less comfortable about restrooms being sex-segregated. Let me give you a scenario, and let me know if it alters your view.

Venue: Dance club, where lots of people are drinking. Bob the Male decides that Betty the Female is super hot, and Bob wants to hit that. So naturally, Bob starts flirting with Betty, dancing near Betty, etc. Betty on the other hand, isn't interested in Bob. Betty moves away from Bob on the dance floor, but Bob keeps following and trying to dance with Betty. Eventually, Betty leaves the dance floor and heads back to a table. Bob follows Betty over and continues trying to talk with Betty and interact. Bob's had a few, so Bob's being a bit pushy and is definitely NOT taking the hint. Bob, in their inebriated and horny state, mistakes Betty's politeness for a come-on.

For all of my life, the female restroom has been the only place that Betty can go to actually get away from Bob for a bit. It's an escape that many females use in many packed-venue social situations, especially ones where alcohol and horniness are present.

If you remove the sex-segregation from restrooms... what is your proposal for how Betty can get away from Bob's persistent pestering?