Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

They only have the 'right' if they selfID as women, which basically means the other 99.5% would have to lie. Not much different from where we are right now.

They don't even have to lie. They just have to walk in. Since men are allowed in, nobody can even challenge them.

 

[Ziggurat]

They only have the 'right' if they selfID as women

Which any man can do at any time. Hence, proving my point.

 

[Thermal]

It doesn't Affect (for crying out loud!) over 99% of men, maybe. But it affects 100% of women.

No differently that it has for generations. And it affects 100% of women only in the same way it affects 100% of men, meaning virtually not at all and virtually all the time, except as an idea. The tranny peeing and leaving really does not effect you.

 

[Thermal]

Since we are officially at rinse and repeat again, imma bounce for a bit.

 

[d4m10n]

Since we are officially at rinse and repeat again, imma bounce for a bit.

I'll take that as my cue for some EC-style effortposting.

I think quite a few of these issues around public spaces could be resolved much more sensibly if we stopped thinking in terms of imposing a single all-purpose binary. Traditionalists generally want to go back to the male/female dichotomy, progressives want a new dichotomy with cisgender men and transgender men on one side, cisgender women and transgender women on the other. Some policy triangulators have advocated for including third spaces for GNC users who don’t want to inhabit either of those two spaces.

I would argue that we should plan public spaces (e.g. restrooms, changing rooms) around five categories of people:

• People who readily pass as male
• People who readily pass as female
• People who want to be seen as male but aren’t there yet
• People who want to be seen as female but aren’t there yet
• People who don’t want to be seen as either male or female

Almost everyone fits in the first two categories, but I’d argue that we need third spaces for the last three categories of people, spaces where they can take care of intimate business without having to encounter people who might well take exception (or even alarm) at people who don’t fit in either of the first two categories.

This could be accomplished in many existing facilities by simply relabeling “Family Bathrooms” which are generally large enough to fit both a toilet and a sink to something like “Family/All Gender Bathrooms” to make it clear that those facilities are available to the last three categories of users, any of whom might feel uncomfortable using the multiuser spaces reserved for the first two categories of people.

The most obvious problem with this scheme is that passing is itself highly subjective. We can probably agree that Buck Angel passes better than Eliot Page, but it’s not like there is an actual scale. This is essentially why I do not expect hard-and-past top-down laws or policies will ever be practically workable.

 

[Thermal]

I'll take that as my cue for some EC-style effortposting.

I think quite a few of these issues around public spaces could be resolved much more sensibly if we stopped thinking in terms of imposing a single all-purpose binary. Traditionalists generally want to go back to the male/female dichotomy, progressives want a new dichotomy with cisgender men and transgender men on one side, cisgender women and transgender women on the other. Some policy triangulators have advocated for including third spaces for GNC users who don’t want to inhabit either of those two spaces.

I would argue that we should plan public spaces (e.g. restrooms, changing rooms) around five categories of people:

• People who readily pass as male
• People who readily pass as female
• People who want to be seen as male but aren’t there yet
• People who want to be seen as female but aren’t there yet
• People who don’t want to be seen as either male or female

Almost everyone fits in the first two categories, but I’d argue that we need third spaces for the last three categories of people, spaces where they can take care of intimate business without having to encounter people who might well take exception (or even alarm) at people who don’t fit in either of the first two categories.

This could be accomplished in many existing facilities by simply relabeling “Family Bathrooms” which are generally large enough to fit both a toilet and a sink to something like “Family/All Gender Bathrooms” to make it clear that those facilities are available to the last three categories of users, any of whom might feel uncomfortable using the multiuser spaces reserved for the first two categories of people.

The most obvious problem with this scheme is that passing is itself highly subjective. We can probably agree that Buck Angel passes better than Eliot Page, but it’s not like there is an actual scale. This is essentially why I do not expect hard-and-past top-down laws or policies will ever be practically workable.

Blatantly rebounding rfrom.the aforementioned bounce:

The main problem with your proposal is that it creates men, women, and 'others'. The whole point of this mess is that transpeople don't want to be relegated to 'others' anymore, and have gender discrimination law and precedent to back them up.

 

[Ziggurat]

No differently that it has for generations. And it affects 100% of women only in the same way it affects 100% of men, meaning virtually not at all and virtually all the time, except as an idea. The tranny peeing and leaving really does not effect you.

I've said before, and nobody has ever had a response, that this argument about numbers cuts both ways. If accommodating transwomen in women's spaces is acceptable because so few women are affected, then accommodating transwomen in men's spaces is also acceptable because so few transwomen are affected. You can't look at one side and say the numbers are too small to matter, but then ignore the even smaller number on the other side.

 

[Ziggurat]

Blatantly rebounding rfrom.the aforementioned bounce:

The main problem with your proposal is that it creates men, women, and 'others'. The whole point of this mess is that transpeople don't want to be relegated to 'others' anymore, and have gender discrimination law and precedent to back them up.

Wait, I'm confused. Do feelings matter, or do they not matter? You seem to think they don't matter when women don't want males in their spaces, but they do matter when transpeople want to be treated as if they were a different sex than they are. But just like with the numbers, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not the issue, and you know it. I do admire the irony of you saying that you were denied toilet facilities, while you are loudly demanding that you can deny toilet facilities to others.

Oh come one, dude.

Historically females had no toilet facilities in public at all - none. The only spaces that existed were for males. We had to fight in order to get female toilet facilities in place at all. There's even a term for it: The urinary leash.

Males already have facilities they can use, that have been available to them for ages. By requiring that transgender people use the facilities that are consistent with their biological sex, nobody is being denied access to a toilet at all.

They're only being denied the right to override female consent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Or even scold other males to stop harassing males who dress in more interesting ways?

 

[Thermal]

I've said before, and nobody has ever had a response,

Just quickly: bull ◊◊◊◊. I've responded to this directly and multiple times. See below.

that this argument about numbers cuts both ways. If accommodating transwomen in women's spaces is acceptable because so few women are affected, then accommodating transwomen in men's spaces is also acceptable because so few transwomen are affected. You can't look at one side and say the numbers are too small to matter, but then ignore the even smaller number on the other side.

Absolutely. Transwomen can still go in the men's room. No one is saying they can't.

The issue is the Ladies Room Warriors wanting it to be criminalized should one of them tranny weirdos dare to set foot in the room they identify with.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gender and biological sex are not the same. And NEITHER is binary.

Biological sex in humans is binary. In fact, sex is binary in all anisogamous species, which comprises all mammals, all birds, and the overwhelming majority of vertebrates, as well as a rather large portion of plants.

All human beings regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual preference or gender identity should be treated with kindness and humanity.

I agree that everyone should be treated with respect and decency, and the term "everyone" includes females.

Even if their behavior is different than general expectations.

Mmm... as a hypothetical abstract, maybe. In reality... there are some behaviors that are NOT acceptable and should neither be tolerated nor accommodated. Luckily, what clothing one wishes to wear, what adornment one applies, and how one presents* are all things that should be accepted and tolerated across the board.

*Minor caveat for the clothing being appropriate for the venue - nudists don't get to ride the bus in their birthday suit.

My question is how do we do that?

Not by granting special privileges to one set of people that overrides the rights, dignity, consent, and safety of a much larger set of people. That's for damned sure.

 

[Thermal]

Oh come one, dude.

Historically females had no toilet facilities in public at all - none. The only spaces that existed were for males. We had to fight in order to get female toilet facilities in place at all. There's even a term for it: The urinary leash.

Yes, we literally just went over that. It ain't back then anymore, and a rare transwoman using one of your stalls ain't putting you back on a urinary leash.

Males already have facilities they can use, that have been available to them for ages. By requiring that transgender people use the facilities that are consistent with their biological sex, nobody is being denied access to a toilet at all.

They're only being denied the right to override female consent.

Right. Some females are very adamant about telling transwomen to ◊◊◊◊ right off. That's why we are all here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't know. But it is estimated that 1.5 % percent or more of the population has some intersex condition. That equates to the population of Russia. I guess these people don't exist. Or you think you should stick them in the box you decided for them. And screw them if they don't follow your instructions.

Only 0.02% of the population has a disorder of sexual development that presents with genital ambiguity. And of those, the majority can be clearly identified as either male or female with a fairly straightforward test. A portion of those will grow out of their ambiguity when puberty hits.

And once again - if this discussion were about how best to accommodate people with genital ambiguities in a respectful and caring way, it would be something entirely different. But that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about whether or not it's even remotely reasonable to give completely normally developed males the right to override female boundaries on the basis of magic words.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm still confused.

Do you think transwomen without penis or testicles should use the men's facilities?

On principle, yes.
In reality... it rather depends on whether they pass. Seriously - Eddie Izzard could remove their penis and testicles, and they're still not going to pass as female - they read as male with makeup on.

 

[Ziggurat]

The issue is the Ladies Room Warriors wanting it to be criminalized should one of them tranny weirdos dare to set foot in the room they identify with.

Nope. I've seen this explained to you multiple times as well, you really have no excuse for the continued misrepresentation. It's not that they want the mere act of setting foot to be criminal. It's that they want the right to be able to expel them. That's a very different thing, as much as you might pretend it's not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I thought you might have some compassion for surgically altered transwomen who fear using the men's facilities.

Very genuine question for you, Orphia.

You posit that surgically transitioned males fear using male facilities because they fear other males.
I assert that females fear having males in our facilities because we fear males.
Why is their fear more important than the fear of a much, much greater number of females?


Realistically, it's not some panicky fear, it's simple concern and general threat level due to physically more powerful males being in a location where we're partially nude and vulnerable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So what? These people for some reason or another see themselves differently than you do. That you want to dismiss that and them is hardly justified.

You're full of it.

My godchild has a DSD, and doesn't see themself as differently - they see themself as unambiguously FEMALE, which is an accurate assessment and demonstrates their fully developed cognitive capacity. If you were to suggest that they are somehow not a real female, I would enjoy the verbal beat down you would receive, and I'd provide popcorn for the audience.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That you insist on categorizing human beings as to how you define them doesn't change how they see themselves. Regardless if how they see themselves is based on some biologically identifiable characteristic or if it is based on something else. You see, I live my life attempting to be kind and fair to others. If you tell me your name is Fred, I'm not going to call you John or James or Jane.

You say you attempt to live your life being kind and fair to others... but you have been blatantly unkind and unfair in this thread, and your unkindness and unfairness has been directed quite disproportionately at females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No I'm disagreeing with them. I don't dislike you. I do however dislike the attitude and treatment of other human beings.

I dislike your attitude and treatment of the human beings in this thread.