• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

I am not denying toilet facilities to anyone. I am pointing out that they should use the facilities they are already entitled to by virtue of their sex. If they don't wish to use these they should petition for suitable facilities to be provided. Not gate-crash into facilities they are not entitled to use.

I just pause for a moment to marvel at the viewpoint that describes men not wanting to use urinals in the presence of women as "bigoted". You really have got yourself in an amazing lather about all this.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Are we actually going anywhere with this?
Click to expand...
We? I was originally addressing a claim from post #5,632 then you jumped in to make the vital distinction between appeasing activists by giving them what they want and simply following the lead of random Twitter activists because it's cool.
Thermal said:
It could be as simple as a non-activist saying 'you know, I saw a nice idea on twitter..."
Click to expand...
...and then the "non-activists" voted to do the thing which activists wanted to see done and published the usual activist justification for making the changes, magically preserving their non-activist status while covering up urinals for social justice.
Thermal said:
While I'm sure Skepticon's bathroom arrangements were really significant, I'm still on the edge of my seat about the stage thing.
Click to expand...
The significance of the proximity to the main stage was that people who prefer to avoid encountering the opposite sex in the bathroom had to walk a bit further to find another set of bathrooms. It's a relatively minor inconvenience, but the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I am not denying toilet facilities to anyone. I am pointing out that they should use the facilities they are already entitled to by virtue of their sex. If they don't wish to use these they should petition for suitable facilities to be provided. Not gate-crash into facilities they are not entitled to use.
Click to expand...

No one who has spent years insisting that it's perfectly fine for a biological male to use the women's facilities can now insist that it's not perfectly fine for that same biological male to use the men's facilities and expect to be taken seriously.
 
That was pretty much what I was coming back to edit in. If we can be scolded that we shouldn't be objecting to men coming into our facilities and using them, why not scold the men to get over themselves and go and use the men's facilities?
 
d4m10n said:
Unless you're the one having to cover all the urinals. ;)
Click to expand...
Why would anyone need to do that?

At the places I've been to where normally single-sex toilets were designated as gender-neutral, they were labelled according to the plumbing they contained, so anyone choosing that particular facility was aware what was in there. (And single-sex options were also available.)
 
Thermal said:
If you believe that the vanilla cishet male faces the same discrimination as a transperson, you are certifiable.
Click to expand...
They do when it comes to bathrooms segregated by sex, which is what we are discussing.
Thermal said:
Not equivalent, and dishonest of you to say so.
Click to expand...
It is equivalent, because it is in fact the same thing. I am kept out of female only spaces for the exact same reason transwomen are. Not for a different reason, the same reason. You cannot allow self ID transwomen into female spaces without allowing me in.
Thermal said:
Reading bogging you down again? Yes, you guys have been screaming from the rooftops for years that women are entitled to a uniquely segregated space.

Wait... were you and the pinhead brigade unaware that entitlements can be perfectly legitimate?
Click to expand...
You were objecting to the entitlements in question, namely sex segregated spaces. Nobody objects to entitlements they think are legitimate.

And how are women’s sex segregated spaces unique if men get sex segregated spaces too?
 
zooterkin said:
At the places I've been to where normally single-sex toilets were designated as gender-neutral, they were labelled according to the plumbing they contained, so anyone choosing that particular facility was aware what was in there. (And single-sex options were also available.)
Click to expand...

It is highly probable that doing what you describe amounts to sex discrimination. Women can argue that they are de facto unable to use the facility with the urinals in it, for reasons of modesty and decency. Therefore woman are being treated less favourably than men. You have in effect allowed all men into the women's space, but only a few women will go into a space where men are using urinals. In order to comply with the EA, both spaces have to be made cubicles-only.

However, the provision of genuine single-sex facilities elsewhere might be held to mitigate that.
 
Ziggurat said:
They do when it comes to bathrooms segregated by sex, which is what we are discussing.

It is equivalent, because it is in fact the same thing. I am kept out of female only spaces for the exact same reason transwomen are. Not for a different reason, the same reason. You cannot allow self ID transwomen into female spaces without allowing me in.

You were objecting to the entitlements in question, namely sex segregated spaces. Nobody objects to entitlements they think are legitimate.

And how are women’s sex segregated spaces unique if men get sex segregated spaces too?
Click to expand...

Well explained. The comparator for a test of discrimination against a trans-identidied man is another man who is not trans-identified. Since both trans-identified and non-trans-identified men are excluded from women's facilities, this is legitimate.
 
You know, Thermal, that “bigot” is a word I am prepared to wear proudly in the context of this thread. When you throw that word around I, and I’m sure many others, know you have lost this debate.
 
In the first iteration of this thread, Darat was calling me a bigot in just about every second post. I was upset by it at the time. Now it's water off a duck's back.

Now we know that men who object to having to use a urinal when women are present are also bigots, it puts a whole new complexion on everything.
 
Rolfe said:
It is highly probable that doing what you describe amounts to sex discrimination. Women can argue that they are de facto unable to use the facility with the urinals in it, for reasons of modesty and decency. Therefore woman are being treated less favourably than men. You have in effect allowed all men into the women's space, but only a few women will go into a space where men are using urinals. In order to comply with the EA, both spaces have to be made cubicles-only.

However, the provision of genuine single-sex facilities elsewhere might be held to mitigate that.
Click to expand...
I don't recall that anyone raising that aspect of the Con as being a problem. The main controversy relating to inclusion, as an aside, was that some attendees, in particular people of colour, felt uneasy because some of the panels featured members of the police.
 
I'm losing track of which con is which, but I would have thought that in a very woke gathering, the toilets nearest the stage being the ones made mixed-sex, with people having to walk a little further to the single-sex ones, was reasonable enough. It's what they did at Birmingham, and everyone seemed content. If there had been no single-sex toilets at all, I know it would have been a different matter.

Incidentally, there were a total of three "transwomen" attending the Birmingham con. Among several hundred members. Less than one per cent. A hell of an upheaval for such small numbers I think, when the simple provision of one unisex toilet, conveniently situated, would surely have covered it.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm losing track of which con is which, but I would have thought that in a very woke gathering, the toilets nearest the stage being the ones made mixed-sex, with people having to walk a little further to the single-sex ones, was reasonable enough. It's what they did at Birmingham, and everyone seemed content. If there had been no single-sex toilets at all, I know it would have been a different matter.

Incidentally, there were a total of three "transwomen" attending the Birmingham con. Among several hundred members. Less than one per cent. A hell of an upheaval for such small numbers I think, when the simple provision of one unisex toilet, conveniently situated, would surely have covered it.
Click to expand...
I've been referring to Nine Worlds, and there was no central stage or even one main room, the talks were spread around the hotel in rooms of various sizes; there were certainly a lot more than three people who were trans, as well as various other fringe identities. The Con's explicit policy of inclusivity no doubt meant there were a higher proportion of such folk than usual, and anyone going would also have been aware of the situation.
 
I'm all for inclusivity, so long as people who do not want to utilise mixed-sex facilities are also included. For a start, failure to do this pretty much automatically excludes Moslem participants, certainly Moslem women.
 
Ziggurat said:
They do when it comes to bathrooms segregated by sex, which is what we are discussing.

It is equivalent, because it is in fact the same thing. I am kept out of female only spaces for the exact same reason transwomen are. Not for a different reason, the same reason. You cannot allow self ID transwomen into female spaces without allowing me in.

You were objecting to the entitlements in question, namely sex segregated spaces. Nobody objects to entitlements they think are legitimate.

And how are women’s sex segregated spaces unique if men get sex segregated spaces too?
Click to expand...
Ok, you appear to be mightily confused. Willfully so, some might assume.

Transwomen are welcome in the men's room, as far as I'm concerned. As are natal women, and other IDs. Pretty much, I'd expect the same thing in the women's room. Roughly sex specific occupants, with occasional exceptions.

And I'm not 'objecting' to the entitlement. I'm saying the time might well be nigh to rethink it. Maybe it's practical necessity has passed.

For some reason, you are putting up some kind of elaborate charade of not understanding any of that, but i suppose it makes your argument feel stronger. Whatever.
 
theprestige said:
I understand a concept of legitimate entitlement, sure. No idea if it's the concept. It's certainly not your concept.

Anyway, how do you legitimize the entitlement of men to use women's restrooms whenever they want?
Click to expand...
I don't, and I believe we have been over that more than a few times?
 
Thermal said:
I don't, and I believe we have been over that more than a few times?
Click to expand...
You keep waffling on your criteria for entitlement.

You say it's not self-ID, but when asked how you distinguish, you say you don't, and leave the claimants alone to do their thing.

So I'm going to keep pressing you on self-ID, until you finally settle on a clear and consistent alternative criteria.

What do you think legitimizes male access to female spaces, if not self-ID?

This is the question I came into this thread with. This is the question nobody has been able to answer, ever since.

If you have the answer, please share. If not, please stop vilifying everyone who concludes you don't have an answer.
 
Gender and biological sex are not the same. And NEITHER is binary. All human beings regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual preference or gender identity should be treated with kindness and humanity. Even if their behavior is different than general expectations.

My question is how do we do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom