Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Mycroft]

You don't have any argument for segregation by natal sex or gender identity or anything else. That's odd, considering the amount of keystrokes you've already tapped out on this subtopic.

I started with clothing, but was met with denial that gendered clothing even exists.

First we need acknowledgement that middle ground between the extremes of self-ID and chromosomes exists, then we can discuss where in that middle ground we might fall on.

Honestly I'm happy that at least we've taken woman-face, cosplay and larping out of the dialogue. That alone is a win.

 

[Rolfe]

Not true. Your side, with virtually one voice, has acknowledged that the opposite bio sex goes through sometimes without issue. I do, too.

You don't do nuance, do you?

The critical question is whether anyone of the opposite sex is legally permitted to be in the wrong-sex space. If the answer to that is no, then the people to whom that space rightfully belongs have control. If they see somone transgressing the rule, they can ask that person to leave. What happens next will vary according to how intransigent the interloper is, but the rational move at that point would be to say excuse me, and go. End of incident, nobody died.

There are two situations where that doesn't happen. One is where the interloper's disguise is so perfect that the deception is not clocked. Bear in mind the behaviour has to be unremarkable as well as the visual appearance. The likelihood of this happening is greater for a transman in the Gents than a transwoman in the Ladies, simply because testosterone is a one-way street so it is more likely that a woman will succeed in masculinising herself than a man will succeed in feminising himself. Also, I understand men don't look at each other or make eye contact in the Gents, which makes it even more likely they will overlook a reasonably-passing transman. In the Ladies women engage with each other, make eye contact, and strike up small-talk conversations. It's a lot harder for a male person to negotiate past that, but still, some probably do.

The Supreme Court recognised this, but of course could not give any legal ruling that such people are allowed in the wrong-sex space. Their suggested remedy is slightly complicated but we needn't worry about that. The pragmatic situation is that very well-passing people will not be challenged because nobody will know.

The second situation is where the rightful occupant of the space recognises that there is an interloper present, but decides not to challenge him (or indeed her) for some reason. In a hurry, the person looks inoffensive, don't want a confrontation, whatever. In the past this was far from unheard-of, as Emily's Cat has said. Whether that sort of latitude will continue to be afforded an interloper after all the grief this tolerance has brought us is anybody's guess. Personally, I'm not in a very forgiving mood right now.

These things will happen. Maybe it's not perfection, but we live in an imperfect world.

What we absolutely do not want, will not countenance and will fight tooth and nail to prevent, is any legal right for a man to be in the female space or vice versa. That shifts the power to the person who is trying it on in the wrong place. If challenged, he (it's going to be a he, let's face it) can claim to be one of the special exceptions group, and then we're into "prove it!", and it all escalates from there. Not at all desirable.

If nobody at all is permitted in the wrong-sex spaces, then people who pass perfectly will simply go on doing it and nobody will be any the wiser. People who don't are taking a risk. It's on them. The critical thing is that anyone who is legitimately in that space and objects to the interloper has the right to ask him to leave. If he has any consideration for others, or indeed sense, he will quietly apologise and go.

 

[Mycroft]

You're not wrong, Thermal - but you are missing the other side of that.

If you self assert that you're a ferret the only person who knows you're lying is you. It's impossible for anyone else to know whether you're lying or not - it's unverifiable, and entirely subjective.

Now take the next step from this: Activists for transgender rights want public policy and law to be based on self-id. But nobody can actually know their id for real except the individual. So the effect is that they're demanding that policy be based on self-assertion.

This means that anyone who says they're a ferret gets to play in the ball bit, even if they're observably a 6'6" dude that squashes the balls.

We always look at behavior to see if someone is lying or not.

If I assert I'm a woman but am unwilling to change anything about my life or appearance and only want to enter women's bathrooms to assault cis-women, then it's reasonable to assume I'm lying.

 

[Thermal]

That is an answer to a question I didn't ask

Should he in this world

What's the difference? Do I want him in there? No. He should be in a trench with the other vermin. Do I have any justification for that? Not beyond my global contempt for such people. But the law and society aren't running on my standards. Good job, too. By law, he should be given access. What more can be said? What is your *should*?

We're kicking out the men, though. So what's the basis for allowing Bryson?

Wait, when are we kicking out the men?

You say you don't support self ID, but I'm struggling to see how your preference is different. Please, explain.

I said repeatedly that I don't support self ID as a global all-access pass. I do support it as a gender affirmation starting point, with no need for a certificate or medical diagnosis. Does that make it any more clear?

 

[Rolfe]

First we need acknowledgement that middle ground between the extremes of self-ID and chromosomes exists.

You're on to plums there. There is no practical middle ground. (And I reserve the right to continue to refer to womanface and LARPing and immersive role-play and autogynaephilia whenever it seems appropriate to me.)

 

[Thermal]

You're not wrong, Thermal - but you are missing the other side of that.

If you self assert that you're a ferret the only person who knows you're lying is you. It's impossible for anyone else to know whether you're lying or not - it's unverifiable, and entirely subjective.

Now take the next step from this: Activists for transgender rights want public policy and law to be based on self-id. But nobody can actually know their id for real except the individual. So the effect is that they're demanding that policy be based on self-assertion.

This means that anyone who says they're a ferret gets to play in the ball bit, even if they're observably a 6'6" dude that squashes the balls.

Right, and I get that. My position on self ID is specifically to take the person's word for it that they are sincere, and not have an external paper bag test to satisfy others.

As I said to Ziggurat and others, that does not mean self ID is a magic ticket to do anything.

 

[Mycroft]

You don't have any argument for segregation by natal sex or gender identity or anything else. That's odd, considering the amount of keystrokes you've already tapped out on this subtopic.

Looping back to this, how come you ignored my question about how profound your sense that you aught to become a woman is? What are you willing to do for this feeling?

That's not a trivial question.

 

[Mycroft]

You're on to plums there. There is no practical middle ground. (And I reserve the right to continue to refer to womanface and LARPing and immersive role-play and autogynaephilia whenever it seems appropriate to me.)

I think there is middle-ground. The choice between self-ID and measuring hip-bones is a false choice fallacy.

It doesn't surprise me that you embrace those pejoratives. The mask slips.

 

[Thermal]

It's easy enough to see that gender expression is on a spectrum (running from very feminine attire and accessories almost never worn by males on the pink end to very masculine attire and accessories almost never worn by females on the blue end) but is that what you meant or did you mean gender identity instead?

Gender expression is probably closer to what I meant, yeah, but I am assured by others (without totally understanding) that they feel there is wiggle room in there, too.

If asked what sex they feel like, it's all kinds of a binary answer. But gender? Some do say they are half and half, or neither or both. Not my department.

 

[smartcooky]

Unlike gender, which very much is on a spectrum, and is largely the thread topic here.

Gender might be "a" topic, but it is not "the" topic.

Biological Sex is vital to ANY discussion about Sex-segrated spaces (and they ARE SEX-segregated NOT gender segregated as the SCOTUK ruling has made abundantly clear). And with a 6-3 conservative majority on your SCOTUS, that clarification is coming your way sooner than you might think.

Discussions about strict definitions may well belong in the other thread, but discussions about the impact and the implications of Biological Sex on the application of sex segregation in public policy do not. The question "what is a woman" is VITAL to any discussion in this thread.

 

[Rolfe]

I think there is middle-ground. The choice between self-ID and measuring hip-bones is a false choice fallacy.

It doesn't surprise me that you embrace those pejoratives. The mask slips.

I wasn't aware I was wearing any mask. I say what I think. If nuance is too much for you, maybe reflect on that.

There is no workable middle ground between strict sex segregation with interlopers dealt with as I outlined above, and a complete free-for all.

 

[Ziggurat]

By law, he should be given access.

Depends on location. Laws vary from place to place. In some places he has the legal right to enter. In some places he is prohibited.

What more can be said? What is your *should*?

He should not be permitted access because he is male.

Wait, when are we kicking out the men?

All the time.

I said repeatedly that I don't support self ID as a global all-access pass. I do support it as a gender affirmation starting point, with no need for a certificate or medical diagnosis. Does that make it any more clear?

Not in the least. What should be (not is) required for access to women's bathrooms? You say self declaration doesn't suffice. What do you think should suffice? I still have no idea.

 

[Thermal]

You don't do nuance, do you?

The critical question is whether anyone of the opposite sex is legally permitted to be in the wrong-sex space. If the answer to that is no, then the people to whom that space rightfully belongs have control. If they see somone transgressing the rule, they can ask that person to leave. What happens next will vary according to how intransigent the interloper is, but the rational move at that point would be to say excuse me, and go. End of incident, nobody died.

There are two situations where that doesn't happen. One is where the interloper's disguise is so perfect that the deception is not clocked. Bear in mind the behaviour has to be unremarkable as well as the visual appearance. The likelihood of this happening is greater for a transman in the Gents than a transwoman in the Ladies, simply because testosterone is a one-way street so it is more likely that a woman will succeed in masculinising herself than a man will succeed in feminising himself. Also, I understand men don't look at each other or make eye contact in the Gents, which makes it even more likely they will overlook a reasonably-passing transman. In the Ladies women engage with each other, make eye contact, and strike up small-talk conversations. It's a lot harder for a male person to negotiate past that, but still, some probably do.

The Supreme Court recognised this, but of course could not give any legal ruling that such people are allowed in the wrong-sex space. Their suggested remedy is slightly complicated but we needn't worry about that. The pragmatic situation is that very well-passing people will not be challenged because nobody will know.

The second situation is where the rightful occupant of the space recognises that there is an interloper present, but decides not to challenge him (or indeed her) for some reason. In a hurry, the person looks inoffensive, don't want a confrontation, whatever. In the past this was far from unheard-of, as Emily's Cat has said. Whether that sort of latitude will continue to be afforded an interloper after all the grief this tolerance has brought us is anybody's guess. Personally, I'm not in a very forgiving mood right now.

These things will happen. Maybe it's not perfection, but we live in an imperfect world.

What we absolutely do not want, will not countenance and will fight tooth and nail to prevent, is any legal right for a man to be in the female space or vice versa. That shifts the power to the person who is trying it on in the wrong place. If challenged, he (it's going to be a he, let's face it) can claim to be one of the special exceptions group, and then we're into "prove it!", and it all escalates from there. Not at all desirable.

If nobody at all is permitted in the wrong-sex spaces, then people who pass perfectly will simply go on doing it and nobody will be any the wiser. People who don't are taking a risk. It's on them. The critical thing is that anyone who is legitimately in that space and objects to the interloper has the right to ask him to leave. If he has any consideration for others, or indeed sense, he will quietly apologise and go.

I actually am in agreement with you on a lot of this. Even if a transwoman doesn't *pass* all that well, if she is just doing her bathroom thing, let it go, much as we do in the gents room (your quite correct that we don't look at each other or talk much, IME).

If she is making anyone uncomfortable, for any reason, she should be asked to hit the road, and should comply if her intent is not to cause a scene. If her intent *is* to cause a scene, disturbing the peace and/or disorderly person charges should pop up, and be dealt with accordingly.

Now I get that the devil is in the details. What justifiably makes others "uncomfortable?" and all that road to Hell. But I think it's a starting point where everyone in this thread should find some common ground?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think there is middle-ground. The choice between self-ID and measuring hip-bones is a false choice fallacy.

Ok. Then where in that middle should we land? You seem unwilling to say.

 

[d4m10n]

Looping back to this, how come you ignored my question about how profound your sense that you aught to become a woman is?

Probably because you ignored my request for an argument as to why I shouldn't use the ladies' room to rest my weary feet.

 

[smartcooky]

This black/white dichotomy is precisely why you insist on sex and not gender.

Exactly, becaseu that is all there is. Black/White dichotomy is precisely that which applies to sex...there are no other sexes than biological male and biological female

Why do you think gender dysphoria exists? Do you think it's real or just made up?

Why does paranoid schizophrenia exist? Why does bipolar disorder exists? And gender dysphoria? I don't know why they exist any more than you or anyone else does. What I do know is that they are mental disorders, and as such, they need to be treated, not celebrated.

 

[Thermal]

Gender might be "a" topic, but it is not "the" topic.

Biological Sex is vital to ANY discussion about Sex-segrated spaces (and they ARE SEX-segregated NOT gender segregated as the SCOTUK ruling has made abundantly clear). And with a 6-3 conservative majority on your SCOTUS, that clarification is coming your way sooner than you might think.

Agreed, our SCOTUS shot down Roe, so we can predict which way they will go. But in the here and now, my fair State has its laws laid out bare, and my Governor literally incorporated it into law in such a way as to make it extra difficult to be easily flipped. Socially, sex and gender are virtually the same, with interpretation favoring gender as the operative concept.

Discussions about strict definitions may well belong in the other thread, but discussions about the impact and the implications of Biological Sex on the application of sex segregation in public policy do not. The question "what is a woman" is VITAL to any discussion in this thread.

Agreed, it's the entirety of the discussion. Woman has two primary definitions that I cited upthread: adult human female, and person who thinks they are, +/-. Which one prevails is the whole shebang, or maybe (as I advocate) a mash-up with clear limitations.

 

[Rolfe]

I actually am in agreement with you on a lot of this. Even if a transwoman doesn't *pass* all that well, if she is just doing her bathroom thing, let it go, much as we do in the gents room (your quite correct that we don't look at each other or talk much, IME).

If she is making anyone uncomfortable, for any reason, she should be asked to hit the road, and should comply if her intent is not to cause a scene. If her intent *is* to cause a scene, disturbing the peace and/or disorderly person charges should pop up, and be dealt with accordingly.

Now I get that the devil is in the details. What justifiably makes others "uncomfortable?" and all that road to Hell. But I think it's a starting point where everyone in this thread should find some common ground?

It's not up to anyone else other than the woman in the space at the time to decide whether the interloper should be "let go" or not. There is not and should not be a defence of "but I wasn't doing anything that should have upset her!" The very presence of an identifiable male in a female-only space is going to be enough to upset some women, maybe a lot of women, and that should be absolutely respected. Also consider Moslem or Jewish women (or Sikh or Hindu I'm told) who are forbidden by their religion from sharing an intimate space with a man. Any man who chooses to transgress in that way is doing it at his own risk, he's somewhere he has no right to be, and anyone at all has the right to ask him to leave. And he should leave immediately. It would have been far better for everyone if he hadn't gone in in the first place.

 

[Mycroft]

Probably because you ignored my request for an argument as to why I shouldn't use the ladies' room to rest my weary feet.

If I answer that question, will you answer mine?

 

[d4m10n]

If I answer that question, will you answer mine?

Sure thing.