Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

Disturbing claims if true....

Starmer’s silence on Supreme Court ruling is deafening

Disturbing, but not surprising. There was always going to be a period of thrashing around breaking stuff after an announcement like last week's.

However, the court judgement is absolutely clear and absolutely watertight. Starmer may have been on the TRA side in the past, but he's far more likely to jump on the side of putting the whole thing to bed and moving on than he is to continue the fight, whatever some of his MPs might want. The judgement is final and can only be changed if parliament passes new legislation. Theoretically it is possible for parliament to pass a law declaring that men with a GRA are women in every possible sense of the word including the EA, but there are huge difficulties. First, it would be wildly unpopular with the public, and Labour can't take the electoral hit that would involve. Second, it wasn't in the manifesto at the last election, so any such legislation would have to go to the House of Lords, who would spike its guns in a heartbeat. And third, it would take a long time, time which the government needs for other bills on its programme, and time during which the current judgement is the law and has to be implemented as such.

What is more important is to try to squash the issuing of more incorrect guidelines that talk about "a case by case basis" and "where proportionate", and get it enshrined in codes of practice that the essential choice faced by providers is whether or not to provide single-sex spaces and services, or not. If they do, these have to be genuinely single-sex and administered as such. If they don't, they may well be open to action for sex discrimination, so they need to be very careful. (Also, removing existing single-sex spaces to make them mixed-sex is likely to go down like a cup of cold sick with the public.)

Another issue is other legislation covering areas not covered by the EA, for example PACE. The campaigners are gearing up for legal action to try to get the SC ruling applied over these areas, so that for example a female police officer cannot be required to do a strip-search on a male prisoner, and women visiting prisons cannot be searched by a trans-identifying male prison guard.

It's still going to be a long haul, but the important battle has been won.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Very lofty and altruistic attitude, putting the comfort of others above your own. Funny thing though... the anti-trans contingent here doesn't share your spirit of goodwill. "◊◊◊◊ them" is what it boils down to, unabashedly.

This is disingenuous, and a mischaracterization.

We're putting the comfort, dignity, modesty, and safety of HALF THE POPULATION above the feelings and desires of a tiny segment. You keep characterizing this as if there's some kind of hatred involved, but seriously, it seems as if the only thing you would see as not being bigoted and nasty is if females just kowtow and surrender our boundaries so that this group of special males will have happy feelz. Never mind that by doing so, we end up effectively relinquishing ALL of our boundaries to ANY MALE who wants to transgress them.

 

[theprestige]

They got enough problems

Do they, though?

How many have been diagnosed with anything that might be considered a real problem?

How many people have actually been prescribed social transition or overriding sex segregation as good medicine for treating the problem they've been diagnosed with?

Are you making an appeal to emotion, here? Or are you making an appeal to science and medicine?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've had 13 replies to my posts, and there's been 5 pages in here since I left here last night. I don't have the time to reply to everyone, but this post is most relevant to what I've said:



You all assume I'm arguing for surgically transitioned transwomen to use women's facilities.

I'm just arguing for them to have safe spaces.

Rolfe comes up with a solution of sorts, the disabled space, which I can see some of them finding problematic.

I think it would work with a name change, like "differently-abled", perhaps, though that's just spitballing.

Perfectly fair.

 

[Rolfe]

I've had 13 replies to my posts, and there's been 5 pages in here since I left here last night. I don't have the time to reply to everyone, but this post is most relevant to what I've said:

You all assume I'm arguing for surgically transitioned transwomen to use women's facilities.

I'm just arguing for them to have safe spaces.

Rolfe comes up with a solution of sorts, the disabled space, which I can see some of them finding problematic.

I think it would work with a name change, like "differently-abled", perhaps, though that's just spitballing.

I have heard disabled people voicing concern about this solution, apparently on the grounds that they might have to wait to use the toilet. I'm not sure how realistic that concern is, given that we're always being told how few "transwomen" there are, and that there's always the possibility one might have to wait for another disabled person to vacate the facility anyway. I would have thought that in smaller venues where there aren't huge numbers of people and perhaps not the space for yet another toilet this would be a reasonable solution. The disabled toilet in such places seems to lie empty much of the time anyway. In larger venues it would surely be a more practical proposition to provide a separate unisex toilet. Some modern places already have that.

Baroness Falkner has said she believes it is up to the "trans community" to lobby and campaign for unisex toilets to be provided in addition to existing single-sex facilities. It's what they should have been doing for a long time of course. Unfortunately, though, for most transwomen the "validation" of using the women's toilet is what they want, and many have been heard angrily refusing to use a unisex toilet even where it's provided. I think and hope that will change.

I also hope that men will step up and do the right thing when they see a man in women's (or just plain weird) clothes in the men's toilet. The right thing is not hard. They simply have to ignore him completely and pretend they didn't even see him. There are solutions, with a bit of give and take. The one thing that is not going to be given or taken is women's single-sex spaces though.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm chivalrous by nature.

I really, really don't see any evidence of that at all. Your constant denigration of women and insistence that any attempt by them to assert their rights over those of males who want to trample over these rights is pretty much the polar opposite of chivalrous.

 

[Rolfe]

This is disingenuous, and a mischaracterization.

We're putting the comfort, dignity, modesty, and safety of HALF THE POPULATION above the feelings and desires of a tiny segment. You keep characterizing this as if there's some kind of hatred involved, but seriously, it seems as if the only thing you would see as not being bigoted and nasty is if females just kowtow and surrender our boundaries so that this group of special males will have happy feelz. Never mind that by doing so, we end up effectively relinquishing ALL of our boundaries to ANY MALE who wants to transgress them.

Quoted for truth.

 

[d4m10n]

Is it justifiable alarm or discomfort though?

I would say it is nearly always justifiable to take alarm (or at least feel discomfort) upon seeing a longstanding social norm violated, because you have to wonder what other rules might well be out the window.

That's really what this all is about.

I will happily concede that one pertinent line of argument is really all about telling (certain) women that their discomfort is unjustifiable, but I'm not about to tell either side that their discomfort isn't valid.

 

[Rolfe]

Another excellent article in the Thunderer, the paper of record.

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

 

[d4m10n]

There are no needs involved.

How unchivalrous of you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have heard disabled people voicing concern about this solution, apparently on the grounds that they might have to wait to use the toilet. I'm not sure how realistic that concern is, given that we're always being told how few "transwomen" there are, and that there's always the possibility one might have to wait for another disabled person to vacate the facility anyway. I would have thought that in smaller venues where there aren't huge numbers of people and perhaps not the space for yet another toilet this would be a reasonable solution. The disabled toilet in such places seems to lie empty much of the time anyway. In larger venues it would surely be a more practical proposition to provide a separate unisex toilet. Some modern places already have that.

Here's an interesting country difference. While there are always some exceptions based on the layout of the venue, in most US buildings, the disabled stalls are inside of the male or female restrooms. They're not a shared, separate facility. I don't know the specific guidelines, but for some given number of stalls, some portion of them are required to be wheelchair accessible.

Almost every chain restaurant will have one male and one female wheelchair stall; in the female restroom, it often does double-duty as a family restroom and has a diaper changing station.

The US also seems to be a bit less protective of those spaces. They're generally deemed to be prioritized for disabled individuals, but if there's not a disabled person around they can be used by anyone. They're almost never the first choice, we will use all of the smaller stalls first. But if there's a line and nobody is disabled, the wheel-chair accessible stall gets put into rotation. If a disabled person shows up though, they'll get first call on that stall as soon as it's open.

Not the same for parking spots though - if you aren't disabled and you park in the disabled spot, you're going to hear about it from anyone and everyone who sees you.

 

[Rolfe]

Here. the disabled toilets are almost always unisex, and located outside the single-sex spaces. One suggestion is that this is helpful if the disabled person has a carer of the opposite sex. Sometimes this is necessitated by the normal sex-segregated toilets being down a difficult staircase, and a single disabled facility has been constructed on the main floor. I have seen configurations such as you describe too, though, and these are more likely to be used by non-disabled people if it's busy.

I agree with you that the disabled toilets should be usable by anyone if there is a lot of pressure on space, rather than sitting empty, but that view gets a lot of push-back. I remember a situation in a small modern tourist attraction where there was a massive queue for the small women's toilet, and the staff positively urging the women to use the disabled loo, which they were simply ignoring.

 

[Mycroft]

Applicable to @Thermal, @Mycroft, @acbytesla, and others. That has become clear over the last few weeks of their posting here. Its clear that they neither care, nor want to care.

Not at all. That's why I deliberately sought the opinion of women, an action for which I was highly criticized.

Here is another example that points up the complete BS @Thermal is spouting - 'you'll just have to fight them off' is a complete BS argument - yes @Thermal, that is the argument you are making, whether you understand it or not. Pound-for-pound, men have more than 250% the punching power of women. My girls are both about 5'6" and 8½ to 9 stone. Neither of them would have had the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of fighting off this guy. One punch would have been enough to knock them from here to next Christmas.

Maybe, but not every man has that kind of advantage over every woman. I would posit that trans-women don't have that kind of advantage. Again, your hysteria is picturing Danny Trejo in lipstick as the supposed transwoman.

 

[Mycroft]

What would be an archetypal example of this recent and unfounded panic?

That transwomen using women's bathrooms means very masculine men can just enter women's bathrooms at will if they say they consider themselves women on a momentary whim, where they will proceed to rape the cis-women found there.

 

[Mycroft]

Your unilateral word games are your own affair and thankfully nobody else is listening.

This is the equivalent of declaring yourself the winner and then putting your fingers in your ears while screaming, "Lalalala!!1!"

If it were as you say, there would be no argument at all. The reality is there is huge disagreement.

 

[d4m10n]

That transwomen using women's bathrooms means very masculine men can just enter women's bathrooms at will if they say they consider themselves women on a momentary whim, where they will proceed to rape the cis-women found there.

This feels less like an example of trans panic and more like a custom-made strawman, but does your preferred policy solution actually involve telling masculine-presenting people that they have to use the other bathroom?

 

[Mycroft]

No, nearly all of us are not hateful at all.

A few pages back you implied a trans-man wouldn't be safe using a woman's bathroom even though they were using the correct bathroom according to your ideology. You said something about a hen with a beard and feathers up it's butt.

I've seen in this thread trans people referred to as cosplayers, larpers and other terms that minimize them.

There is also this autogynephilia nonsense, where people are dismissed as perverts.

I would count all of these as expressions of hate, and conclude that being hateful is more common than not among the anti-trans crowd.

 

[Mycroft]

This feels less like an example of trans panic and more like a custom-made strawman, but does your preferred policy solution actually involve telling masculine-presenting people that they have to use the other bathroom?

I have never encountered anyone at a public restroom door enforcing any policy about who can use that restroom or not.

 

[Mycroft]

I agree with you, apart from the gender means nothing as it obviously means something to the many people out there that don't want to/or can't conform to traditional gender roles.

It means something to people who do conform to gender roles too.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you arguing that there isn't *enough* rape of females by males in female-only spaces, so we really need to make it easier for males to access those spaces so they can do more rape?

How many females being raped by males in female-only spaces do you think is an acceptable number?

Danny Trejo in lipsticks, just waiting for his chance to ID as a woman so he can enter a woman's bathroom and rape a cis-woman.

I'm being unfair to Danny Trejo, who I understand is actually a very nice guy.