Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

Right. I think we established many pages ago that you and I were broadly in agreement.

This is the variable. I'm feeling less confident that at least most public rest rooms actually need to be sex segregated. Seems like it's less of an issue than I really thought to have a rare non-conformist using a gender segregated room, or go unisex with occasional genuinely private single occupant rooms.

I think it's probably what will prevail, because if it doesn't, the shower doors open wide and I can't see many people being okay with that. Not sure that's the greatest legal argument, though. "We are all kinda prudish at heart" seems less robust than "we don't discriminate based on sex or gender".

Not seeing it as fully addressed, and of course public policy is going to be the overreaching endgame. Seems like we need to nail down the why and how of sex segregation first, and policy will follow.

Okay, who's this "we" you keep talking about? I've already nailed down the why and how of sex segregation to my complete satisfaction. Is this something you're still struggling with?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The same way I have repeatedly said. Men's and women's rooms will correspond to sex 99.5% of the time. There will be that 1 in 200 occasional non conformist to the sex rule, and it shouldnt pose a problem to anyone, much as it doesn't pose one today.

You say this as if it's proven fact that it doesn't pose a problem today. For a whole lot of females it absolutely DOES pose a problem today.

 

[Thermal]

Okay, this makes sense to me.

So. What's an example of a region where sex and gender are not clearly defined, and how would you propose handling it?

I think earlier you said something about public bathrooms being de facto gendered, not sexed, and that you propose we just codify that and let self-ID prevail in public bathrooms.

My proposal is, of course, the opposite: Codify public restrooms as sexed, and let sex segregation prevail.

Is there any particular reason you'd prefer one of those proposals over the other?

Because I deeply, sincerely, want to be inclusive to trans people. I detest the little guy getting marginalized and told they don't belong. It is viscerally repulsive to me.

That's not the greatest basis for public policy, though, which is why I'm on a discussion thread about the topic, to weigh out whose wants and rights should reaaonably prevail.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is the variable. I'm feeling less confident that at least most public rest rooms actually need to be sex segregated. Seems like it's less of an issue than I really thought to have a rare non-conformist using a gender segregated room, or go unisex with occasional genuinely private single occupant rooms.

Look, I skipped a whole bunch of pages yesterday, so bear with me if you think I'm being repetitive.

WHY are you less confident that bathrooms should be sex segregated? WHY have you decided it's less of an issue than you originally thought? What changed your perspective?

 

[Thermal]

Then why in the absolute everloving ◊◊◊◊ do you have such a hard time with saying that you want sex segregation? If that's really your position (and frankly, I have some doubts), why was this not how you answered my question pages ago?

Jesus Christ, why was that so hard?

Stop snipping and read the posts. I do want it. I'm not sure that my personal wants fly as public policy. So I go way out on a limb and discuss it in a thread dedicated to the controversy

 

[Ziggurat]

Stop snipping and read the posts. I do want it. I'm not sure that my personal wants fly as public policy. So I go way out on a limb and discuss it in a thread dedicated to the controversy

But you weren't discussing it. By refusing to say what you wanted in direct terms, you were avoiding discussion. You were, in fact, making discussion impossible. It's perfectly fine to add a caveat that you don't know how workable your opinion is. But when I ask you what you want and you refuse to say what you want, well, that's not a discussion. And yes, that was entirely your fault.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because I deeply, sincerely, want to be inclusive to trans people. I detest the little guy getting marginalized and told they don't belong. It is viscerally repulsive to me.

I want to be crystal clear here: You want females to be inclusive of males who identify as women.

You're welcome to advocate for male restrooms to be inclusive of any males, regardless of presentation or identity. You're similarly welcome to advocate for male restrooms to be inclusive of females with gendery feelings. That's your prerogative, as a male, when discussing the restrooms that you and your sex uses.

On the other hand, what I perceive is that you're arguing that because you aren't bothered by the idea of it, then females should just stop bitching and let males use our restrooms.

Let's try another illustration. The local YMCA has a pool, and for a really good chunk of time, that pool is available for use to anyone of any age. They have a few times that aren't open. They do an adult swim period a couple of hours that nominally disallows children. They also have a children's swim time that disallows adults being in the pool with the elementary school aged kids. Sometimes there are minors who join the adult swim period, and swim laps for exercise and practice alongside the adults, and that is often tolerated on a case-by-case basis. If any of the adults were to take exception to the minor being there, the child would be expected to leave. The kids swim period, however, doesn't make exceptions.

Do you think it's logically sound to argue that because the Open Swim is okay with any age, that the Adult Swim should also be okay with any age? More on the nose... do you think it's logically sound to argue that because the Adult Swim is okay with making the occasional exception, that the Kids Swim should make exceptions and allow adults to play too?

 

[Thermal]

Look, I skipped a whole bunch of pages yesterday, so bear with me if you think I'm being repetitive.

WHY are you less confident that bathrooms should be sex segregated? WHY have you decided it's less of an issue than you originally thought? What changed your perspective?

Because the rationales presented are so weak that I'm questioning if their time may be past. "I don't want boys in my private girls clubhouse" is fine for children, but I think as adults we might be overestimating it's utility. Gender neutral it seems works fine overwhelmingly. Once in a while, it doesn't (menstrual.issues. etc), and a single occupant room handles that. We stick to our stated non-discrimanatory guns and stand by our societal principles.

You have presented a different argument, oversimplified as a global fear of males. Ok. I intuitively agree, but I'm having trouble justifying it. In the open doors states, we don't see any increase in restroom assaults. Like, not a small increase, but literally dead zero. So I'm still scratching my head about what is best.

All combativeness aside, does that and my above post to theprestige make my position any clearer?

 

[Thermal]

But you weren't discussing it. By refusing to say what you wanted in direct terms, you were avoiding discussion. You were, in fact, making discussion impossible. It's perfectly fine to add a caveat that you don't know how workable your opinion is. But when I ask you what you want and you refuse to say what you want, well, that's not a discussion. And yes, that was entirely your fault.

JFC, dude. "What *should* be done has dead zero to do with what I intuitively want, or whether other rights prevail over my wants. Your question was framed, repeatedly, to be unanswerable, yet I tried anyway. If you finally got what you were looking for, that I have been repeating for dozens of pages, great. Im.glad we got that straightened out. But make no mistake: I didn't say anything new lately. It's the same thing I've been saying, I just legit couldn't parse which angle you were coming from, and tried to answer based on my guess. You apparently aren't interested in what *should* be, as you asked. You wanted to know how it would work in Thermal's Happy World, which I don't see the point in pursuing.

 

[d4m10n]

You wanted to know how it would work in Thermal's Happy World, which I don't see the point in pursuing.

This is such a bizarre take.

What is so difficult about saying which approach you'd prefer to see implemented?

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the rationales presented are so weak that I'm questioning if their time may be past.

This is very much a Chesterton's Fence problem. I don't think you understand the rationale, and I don't think you're in a position to evaluate whether their time is past.

"I don't want boys in my private girls clubhouse" is fine for children, but I think as adults we might be overestimating it's utility. Gender neutral it seems works fine overwhelmingly.

It doesn't. You're basing this conclusion on a lack of criminal complaints in locations where social pressure has so far largely maintained sex segregation despite the legal loopholes that have punctured it under the waterline. But those social pressures will erode over time if the legal framework continues to push that erosion. And that will cause problems. I don't see how anyone with a basic understanding of human behavior can't see them coming a mile away.

You have presented a different argument, oversimplified as a global fear of males. Ok. I intuitively agree, but I'm having trouble justifying it.

I'm not. A lot of male predatory behavior is opportunistic, not planned. And it runs the gamut from the worst stuff to stuff that most people wouldn't report to the police but is still a problem. Reduce the opportunities, and you reduce the problems. It's not complicated. And setting the bar at only considering assaults and nothing below that, well, much as the idea gets overused, that kinda shows your privilege. Women have to worry about a lot more than that.

 

[Rolfe]

Because I deeply, sincerely, want to be inclusive to trans people. I detest the little guy getting marginalized and told they don't belong. It is viscerally repulsive to me.

That's not the greatest basis for public policy, though, which is why I'm on a discussion thread about the topic, to weigh out whose wants and rights should reaaonably prevail.

If you still think that men LARPing womanface, who have captured most of the institutions on this planet, got police forces and businesses decking themselves out in their flag, got everything from the NHS to financial institutions paying to be trained in a gross misinterpretation of the law that gives them all they want, policed language and free speech to the point where many women (and some men) have lost their jobs and income for speaking out against this tyranny and made countless others terrified to say anything, have shouted down and even assaulted women who dared meet to talk about this - if you think these people are "the little guy getting marginalised and told they don't belong", you're not on the same planet as the rest of us.

 

[Ziggurat]

JFC, dude. "What *should* be done has dead zero to do with what I intuitively want, or whether other rights prevail over my wants.

What you want should have everything to do with what should be done, because you should want to do what should be done.

Your question was framed, repeatedly, to be unanswerable, yet I tried anyway.

There was never anything unanswerable about it. And your efforts were almost entirely in justifying your refusal to answer, not in actually answering it.

You know what would have been an acceptable answer? "I don't know". If you think you can't figure out the solution to the problem, then "I don't know" is the correct answer, and one I would have gladly accepted. Or, "I want X, but I don't know if that would work", or "I want X, but maybe that's not optimal", or "I want X but I know that's selfish". If you don't think your own wants are optimal, there are easy ways to qualify your answer while still answering. But you didn't do any of them. Instead, I got endless excuses. And you tried real hard on the excuses, but not on a direct answer.

If you finally got what you were looking for

I'm still not sure, because I still can't tell if that was only your past view or if you still hold to the idea of sex segregation.

I just legit couldn't parse which angle you were coming from, and tried to answer based on my guess.

You don't need to parse what angle I'm coming from. The question stands on its own, regardless of my personal position.

You apparently aren't interested in what *should* be, as you asked.

I'm interested in what you think should be. I have my own opinions about should be, which may have nothing to do with yours. But I still want to know what you think should be, because that's the basis on which we can discuss what should be.

You wanted to know how it would work in Thermal's Happy World, which I don't see the point in pursuing.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps there is no point in discussing the issue with you. You're starting to convince me.

 

[Rolfe]

Because the rationales presented are so weak that I'm questioning if their time may be past. "I don't want boys in my private girls clubhouse" is fine for children, but I think as adults we might be overestimating it's utility. Gender neutral it seems works fine overwhelmingly. Once in a while, it doesn't (menstrual.issues. etc), and a single occupant room handles that. We stick to our stated non-discrimanatory guns and stand by our societal principles.

You have presented a different argument, oversimplified as a global fear of males. Ok. I intuitively agree, but I'm having trouble justifying it. In the open doors states, we don't see any increase in restroom assaults. Like, not a small increase, but literally dead zero. So I'm still scratching my head about what is best.

All combativeness aside, does that and my above post to theprestige make my position any clearer?

You constantly ignore the main issue, which is modesty, dignity, and propriety. Statistically, few of us are likely to be physically assaulted in a public bathroom. (How likely we are to be the victim, possibly without knowing it, of a voyeur, is less easy to quantify.) But for a large chunk of women, and pretty much all women of certain religious faiths, the presence of male people with them in a public bathroom is a violation of their innate modesty and need for privacy. This is not a minority view, it's written into law.

You have consistently failed to recognise this, talking only about the likelihood of physical assault, and if you've addressed it at all it has been only to sneer at women for being so unreasonable. It's bad faith debating.

 

[Darat]

The only possible explanation I have for your post is that you do not understand what the term "self ID" means in the context of this thread.

Why? The judgement now says that a GRC certificate is not required to be protected under the gender reassignment class, all that is required is the person's self identification as a trans person. So the new ruling says gender reassignment is a matter of "self ID". I can't see any way it has not changed the legal understanding of when a person is protected under the Equality act's gender reassignment class. All that is required is self-ID.

 

[Elaedith]

Why? The judgement now says that a GRC certificate is not required to be protected under the gender reassignment class, all that is required is the person's self identification as a trans person. So the new ruling says gender reassignment is a matter of "self ID". I can't see any way it has not changed the legal understanding of when a person is protected under the Equality act's gender reassignment class. All that is required is self-ID.

Because a GRC was never required for somebody to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act.

 

[d4m10n]

The judgement now says that a GRC certificate is not required to be protected under the gender reassignment class...

Please pardon the legal naiveté from this side of the pond, but what exactly does a GRC actually get you these days?

 

[Rolfe]

Why? The judgement now says that a GRC certificate is not required to be protected under the gender reassignment class, all that is required is the person's self identification as a trans person. So the new ruling says gender reassignment is a matter of "self ID". I can't see any way it has not changed the legal understanding of when a person is protected under the Equality act's gender reassignment class. All that is required is self-ID.

Well, yeah. Having a GRC confers so minor extra privileges that it's about as much use as a Blue Peter badge. I can't see that this has ever been any different.

 

[Elaedith]

Please pardon the legal naiveté from this side of the pond, but what exactly does a GRC actually get you these days?

It allows changing the sex marker on a birth certificate. Other documents can be changed without one.

 

[Rolfe]

Please pardon the legal naiveté from this side of the pond, but what exactly does a GRC actually get you these days?

The right to have your birth certificate falsified, the right to be recorded as the sex you aren't on your death certificate, that sort of thing. But you can still demand to have your driving licence and passport falsified without one, so it's not a huge deal. It never was, once same-sex marriage was legalised, which is why so few people bothered.