Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

I am in no way opposed to that, but sometimes it is not practical or economical.

This is quite true, but in the context which we were discussing, a large hotel or conference centre being customised for a particular event for a few days, it is usually trivially easy.

 

[d4m10n]

"We kinda want to be inclusive to everybody" is not exactly laden with hot-button buzzwords.

I find it mildly confusing when people put sloppy paraphrases between quotation marks, and I'm not at all sure why buzzwords should matter.

 

[Thermal]

Time scale isn’t relevant to my question.

It is when you want to act like the closet is something new.

Not catering to their feelings constitutes shoving them in the closet? That’s a low bar.

We are not talking about their feelings. We are talking about discrimination. If their feelings (from either side) were that they didn't want black people in their rest rooms, that is not going to be considered either.

What then are we to make of the feelings of women who do not want obviously male people in their bathrooms?

I don't care what traits in people they don't like. Black, trans, whatever. It's not the issue.

Are they being shoved in a closet too? Or are their feelings not important? Or just less important, because they’re women?

You could say that the entitlement of demanding spaces where they dictate who is worthy to enter, when men haven't given a ◊◊◊◊ for generations, might be wearing a little thin, yeah.

Most of the time, it doesn't matter. An occasional privacy room does the trick for red tent and other privacy needs. But I'm feeling like the 1940s are pretty much behind us, and maybe it is time to rethink all this, in the interest of sticking to our non-discriminatory guns. Do we mean it, or is it just talk?

 

[Thermal]

I find it mildly confusing when people put sloppy paraphrases between quotation marks.

I find it super duper confusing when we invoke random churches without explanation, and start talking about specific bathrooms near a main stage that aren't mentioned, so yeah, lo siento.

 

[d4m10n]

If the question is whether the activists who put together the conference made a special effort to accomodate gender non- conforming people, the answer isn't exactly obscure.

 

[Thermal]

No, the question was whether they appeased activists. 'Appeasing' carries some nuance, there Baba Louis.

 

[Rolfe]

If the question is whether the activists who put together the conference made a special effort to accomodate gender non- conforming people, the answer isn't exactly obscure.

Absolutely fine to make a special effort to accommodate gender nonconforming people. Gold star. But spare me the platitudes about being "inclusive of absolutely everybody" if you're excluding people who require single-sex facilities for reasons of modesty, propriety and decency. Not expecting any Moslem attendees for a start?

 

[Brainster]

Whatever. Doesn't change that people are uncomfortable with a certain group of people and they are discriminating against them. Just as they have done based on religion, race and sexual preference. Nothing new about this. Been going on since apes began walking on twoo feet. Probably longer.

At least you're not gassing them. But with people like Trump at the helm, give it a minute.

Bravely standing up against the forces determined to bring on the trans Holocaust, like some modern-day Sophie Scholl!

 

[smartcooky]

It would be nice if we didn't have people trying to shove those tranny weirdos back in the closet where they belong, but ya can't have everything.

Fortunately, absolutely no-one here is trying to do that.

 

[Hercules56]

It would be nice if we didn't have people trying to shove those tranny weirdos back in the closet where they belong, but ya can't have everything.

Naa, just trying to shove them back in the men's room where penises should be.

 

[d4m10n]

No, the question was whether they appeased activists.

What's a better word for when you do what activists would like to see done based upon the justification they put forward?

 

[smartcooky]

No. I am not being "adult" about a man in a women-only space. I am asking that after your darling trans people have been given everything they want and demand, that some provision for those of us who do not wish to share sanitary facilities with the opposite sex should also be provided. Otherwise all this boasting about including everyone is so much hot air and lies.

Unfortunately, no matter how you try to accommodate them with unisex/mixed-sex spaces, there will always be a hard core of TRAs and their disciples who will spurn those accommodations and demand that they be allowed to follow you there in order to maximise your discomfit by waving their lady-dicks in your direction. See the behaviour of Will Thomas in the UPenn locker rooms for a prime example of this behaviour.

 

[Thermal]

What's a better word for when you do what activists would like to see done based upon the justification they put forward?

Why don't we determine that they had any weight at all in the decisions before implying that they were having their objectives met?

Or we could drop it like the restrooms closest to the stage cryptic allusion? Up to you, really.

 

[acbytesla]

Unfortunately, no matter how you try to accommodate them with unisex/mixed-sex spaces, there will always be a hard core of TRAs and their disciples who will spurn those accommodations and demand that they be allowed to follow you there in order to maximise your discomfit by waving their lady-dicks in your direction. See the behaviour of Will Thomas in the UPenn locker rooms for a prime example of this behaviour.

Stupid effing argument. There are moron heterosexuals, and racists of all sorts. There is always one or a few is not a reason to throw up your hands. You're making perfect the enemy of good.

 

[d4m10n]

Why don't we determine that they had any weight at all in the decisions before implying that they were having their objectives met?

I find it odd that you can read their stated justification and remain in doubt as to what sort of activism was in play.

The usual social justice justification for implementing gender-neutral facilities was that we need to accommodate gender non-conformists by providing them with a place where they don't have to label themselves as men or women in order to use the facility, a place where attendees won't be stared at for failing to meet gendered social expectations. I suppose we could say the Skepticon organizers "fulfilled" (rather than "appeased") the expectations of trans activists by converting bathrooms while citing to the standard justification, but either way this was a point at which the "through line in trans rights activism" ran straight into "unisex bathrooms for gender dysphorics" in real life, despite the protestations of post #5,632.

 

[d4m10n]

This is quite true, but in the context which we were discussing, a large hotel or conference centre being customised for a particular event for a few days, it is usually trivially easy.

Unless you're the one having to cover all the urinals.

 

[Thermal]

I find it odd that you can read their stated justification and remain in doubt as to what sort of activism was in play.

I can read it as if they decided to do something cool that was bouncing around the gestalt without them even considering whether or not anyone was being appeased or if their decision satisfied any activism.

It could be as simple as a non-activist saying 'you know, I saw a nice idea on twitter..."

Are we actually going anywhere with this? While I'm sure Skepticon's bathroom arrangements were really significant, I'm still on the edge of my seat about the stage thing. It's like being at one of those David Copperfeild shows.

 

[smartcooky]

Stupid effing argument. There are moron heterosexuals, and racists of all sorts. There is always one or a few is not a reason to throw up your hands.

It's not an argument, it's an observation

You're making perfect the enemy of good.

Pot, meet kettle!

 

[Ziggurat]

It is when you want to act like the closet is something new.

I didn’t. The question isn’t whether it’s new, but whether it’s even applicable in this case. Your argument for it is weak.

We are not talking about their feelings.

You explicitly appealed to their feelings.

We are talking about discrimination.

They face the same discrimination that I face.

Somehow I carry on.

If their feelings (from either side) were that they didn't want black people in their rest rooms, that is not going to be considered either.

Race isn’t equivalent to sex. Racial segregation is not justified, sex segregation is. The logic of your argument would invalidate all sex segregation, but you don’t actually believe that, do you?

Your arguments aren’t serious, so I don’t take them seriously.

I don't care what traits in people they don't like. Black, trans, whatever. It's not the issue.

Then why can’t transwomen just use the men’s room? You claim you don’t care what traits people like, so why can’t they just put up with going to the bathroom around men?

You have no consistency.

You could say that the entitlement of demanding spaces where they dictate who is worthy to enter, when men haven't given a ◊◊◊◊ for generations, might be wearing a little thin, yeah.

Ah. Now we’re getting somewhere. Now the truth starts to emerge. Now it starts to make sense.

You think women are too entitled, and this is their comeuppance.

 

[smartcooky]

I didn’t. The question isn’t whether it’s new, but whether it’s even applicable in this case. Your argument for it is weak.

You explicitly appealed to their feelings.

They face the same discrimination that I face.

Somehow I carry on.

Race isn’t equivalent to sex. Racial segregation is not justified, sex segregation is. The logic of your argument would invalidate all sex segregation, but you don’t actually believe that, do you?

Your arguments aren’t serious, so I don’t take them seriously.

Then why can’t transwomen just use the men’s room? You claim you don’t care what traits people like, so why can’t they just put up with going to the bathroom around men?

You have no consistency.

When you read this, one answer after another, it looks like a systematic and comprehensive demolition of everything the TRA side is arguing.... and that's because it is exactly what it is

Ah. Now we’re getting somewhere. Now the truth starts to emerge. Now it starts to make sense.

You think women are too entitled, and this is their comeuppance.

Clever, You have managed to get @Thermal to let his guard down and drop the pretence.

Its all about entitlement isn't it @Thermal. You think women who want safe spaces are entitled bitches who are undeserving of any consideration when it comes to privacy and dignity.