Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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

Sort of. I want transgenders to not be kicked to the curb based on sex or gender discrimination, or the general 'ick' factor of the other occupants. While you and others may not like that distinction, that's where I'm at.

You're welcome to advocate for male restrooms to be inclusive of any males, regardless of presentation or identity.

...or females, or whoever else needs to relieve themselves. This isn't a male/female issue to me. I think that's an artificial reframing.

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.

Ok.

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.

No. I don't think that males should be allowed to use female restrooms.

In case you didn't pick up on that, I'm going to be just as obstinate a pain in the ass about yout reframing terminology. Watch how fast things become unreadable and incomprehensible.

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?

EC. it's not that I don't understand exactly where you are coming from. I do. I understood it the first 800 times, too. My issue is that when considering it's motivations, it's almost entirely 1940s sexism and/or an (IMO) irrational fear of pervy or violent men.

 

[Rolfe]

Women's feelings are irrational, the feelings of men who want to join "club woman" are totally valid and must be accommodated. I see.

You don't want men who want to invade women's spaces to be kicked to the kerb, but women can rot in the gutter for all you care.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

I was right, you don't understand what the term means in this context. That's understandable, it's not a completely obvious meaning.

"Self ID" means more than just you're trans if you say you are trans. It also means that you get to choose to transcend sex segregation based on that self-identification. If being trans affords you no accommodations, then there is little significance to the ability to so identify. The term "self ID" was coined by trans activists as shorthand for their objective to include the ability to transcend sex segregation. So if a male self-identifies as a woman (or transwoman), he can enter female-only spaces based on that self-identification. Without that component, without the ability to transcend sex segregation, they don't get what they want. They don't get the policy of self-ID that they seek. And the UK court ruling has deprived them of this component. It is the death of self ID, as the term is used in this context. The first part is useless to them without the second, and they no longer have the second.

 

[Thermal]

This is such a bizarre take.

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

Having recently repeated it several dozen times lately, why do you think?

 

[smartcooky]

Holup: that's exactly what it means, and I've put up definitions to support that.

... and those definitions you put up are irrelevant.

The discussion HERE is whether Self-ID should allow you to gain access to sex-segregated spaces. If you argue that it does (and both you are @Mycroft are arguing for this) then that is not just a matter of whether a man with girlie feels gets to use female toilets, its whether merely having those girlie feels gives that man the LEGAL right to do so. Its becomes a matter of public policy.

 

[smartcooky]

They shouldn't, no. But the available data suggests the conundrum is imaginary, so I'm not losing a ton of sleep.

Seriously? You think that voyeurism in bathrooms and changing areas doesn't happen?

Upskirting prosecutions 2019-2022 | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

What is Upskirting? | When did it become a criminal offence

Upskirting is a harmful and humiliating form of abuse and often has a devastating impact on all aspects of the victim’s life.

cpdonline.co.uk

The broader category of upskirting can also include indecent filming of anyone without their knowledge, including photographing topless female bathers at a public beach, covertly filming women undressing in their bedrooms, or installing a camera in a dressing room, public toilet or a swimming pool changing room​

​

As previously mentioned, instances of upskirting have also taken place in store, gym or swimming pool changing rooms, public toilets, and on stairs. Other crowded places such as festivals or nightclubs can also attract upskirters. At one time, paparazzi used the technique to gain inappropriate photos of female celebrities getting out of cars; hopefully this is now a thing of the past.​

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Increase in the likelihood of assaults is *a* reason that I want to keep restrooms single sex. But it's not the only reason. And a lack of reported assaults in your state, or a number that you think is small enough that females shouldn't worry about it, doesn't at all address any of the other reasons.

At the end of the day, I'm still seeing your position as being very male-centered. If that's where you're at, then fine. But you're essentially asking that females change the entire way we interact with each other in a space where males are not present, we forego one of the few areas we have where we can get away from males to deal with any number of issues either alone or with help from other females, and that we set aside our own discomfort, and relinquish any desire for modesty or dignity... all so that some few males can feel better about themselves.

You haven't really put in any effort to convince me that females *should* hand over our spaces at all. All you've really done is to downplay our concerns, scoff at our desire for modesty and dignity, and in short tell us that we're overreacting and should just calm down about voyeurism and exhibitionism because it's not that big a deal.

Convince me why females should be expected to give up sex-specific restrooms with a communal area where we can interact with other females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Okay, but it also ruled that neither self-id nor GRC entitles a male person to enter sex-specific spaces designated for the opposite sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. I don't think that males should be allowed to use female restrooms.

Okay, so transgender identified males - transwomen - should not be allowed to use female restrooms. Glad we agree.

In case you didn't pick up on that, I'm going to be just as obstinate a pain in the ass about yout reframing terminology. Watch how fast things become unreadable and incomprehensible.

EC. it's not that I don't understand exactly where you are coming from. I do. I understood it the first 800 times, too. My issue is that when considering it's motivations, it's almost entirely 1940s sexism and/or an (IMO) irrational fear of pervy or violent men.

I don't think you have any real understanding of exactly how many pervy males we have to deal with. You framing it as "irrational" is pretty demeaning.

 

[Thermal]

You constantly ignore the main issue, which is modesty, dignity, and propriety.

Yet again, factually untrue. Modesty, I support. Dignity doesn't really mean anything. Propriety is just an old fashioned concept of "this is what is proper". Utterly meaningless.

Modesty has teeth in locker and shower situations. In the majority of public restrooms, I'm not so sure anymore.

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 a valid consideration, although these same religions may have a lot of issues with what men and women can or can't do, that we are quite free about telling them to take a flying leap over. So it smacks of fig leaf.

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.

Wrong again, surprisingly. EC argues from the fear of men standpoint, and I respond in kind. It's by no means the thrust of any of my arguments.

Yes, your pants are on fire yet again.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm slightly tempted to try to get a screenshot of that opening scene of the Met Parsifal, to demonstrate how easy it is to pick out the two women among the Grail Knights, despite everything the costume and makeup department threw at them to try to get them to blend in with all the men.

Most trans-supporters and activists probably think the rest of the population have the same ability to distinguish males from females as does General Melchett!

 

[Thermal]

Seriously? You think that voyeurism in bathrooms and changing areas doesn't happen?

Upskirting prosecutions 2019-2022 | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Your link doesn’t seem to discuss that, no. Not seeing testrooms (which we wrree discussing) mentioned, at a quick glance. Most upskirtng offenses are in public areas, IIRC.

I'll look it over more thoroughly later though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is a valid consideration, although these same religions may have a lot of issues with what men and women can or can't do, that we are quite free about telling them to take a flying leap over. So it smacks of fig leaf.

Look, I'm a lifelong atheist, but I'm not anti-theist. And among all of the various religions out there, I dislike islam by a massive margin. I'm so far from supporting islam that I can't even see it from here with a telescope.

But even with my personal animosity toward a horrifically oppressive and abusive religion... I take into consideration that if a muslim female violates the requirements of their religion, there's a high likelihood that they would be subjected to physical abuse as a result. By imposing males into female restrooms, you put muslim females in particular into a situation where they must either self-exclude from society and not use public restrooms at all, or they must place themselves in danger both moral and physical by using those restrooms.

 

[Rolfe]

Yet again, factually untrue. Modesty, I support. Dignity doesn't really mean anything. Propriety is just an old fashioned concept of "this is what is proper". Utterly meaningless.

Modesty has teeth in locker and shower situations. In the majority of public restrooms, I'm not so sure anymore.

This is a valid consideration, although these same religions may have a lot of issues with what men and women can or can't do, that we are quite free about telling them to take a flying leap over. So it smacks of fig leaf.

Wrong again, surprisingly. EC argues from the fear of men standpoint, and I respond in kind. It's by no means the thrust of any of my arguments.

Yes, your pants are on fire yet again.

Oh yes, it was Mycroft who declared that he wanted to act with kindness and humanity to people, irrespective of religion, not you.

Dismissing people's religious sensitivities is all of a piece with dismissing women's sex-based sensitivities, I suppose. Orthodox Jewish, Moslem, Sikh and Hindu women are not (all) obeying rules they don't believe in and would rather not have to follow. Their religion is part of them, and they desire, in all piety, to follow its tenets. But you think you can just tell them to take a flying leap.

You think you've addressed things you've simply sneered at, then you insult your opponents again. That's going to win friends and influence people, not. You have no more idea what it feels like to be a woman than all these men who talk about how they feel like a woman and were born in the wrong body and so on. Which is to say none at all.

 

[Rolfe]

By imposing males into female restrooms, you put muslim females in particular into a situation where they must either self-exclude from society and not use public restrooms at all, or they must place themselves in danger both moral and physical by using those restrooms.

That too.

 

[smartcooky]

Your link doesn’t seem to discuss that, no. Not seeing testrooms (which we wrree discussing) mentioned, at a quick glance. Most upskirtng offenses are in public areas, IIRC.

I'll look it over more thoroughly later though.

Added another link to satisfy your narrow constraints!

 

[smartcooky]

Oh yes, it was Myriad who declared that he wanted to act with kindness and humanity to people, irrespective of religion, not you.

Mycroft I think

 

[Thermal]

Okay, so transgender identified males - transwomen - should not be allowed to use female restrooms. Glad we agree.

Seriously, EC?

I don't think you have any real understanding of exactly how many pervy males we have to deal with. You framing it as "irrational" is pretty demeaning.

I do. And I don't think what we are discussing will change that one iota. That's what the data, meager as it is, has shown. Not a slight risk increase. Dead ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ zero. The 'additional' assault risks you have gone on and on about simply don't materialize. We don't see them.

If your state went doors wide open tomorrow (as mine have), I'd bet nothing would change for you. The threats you face would remain the same. You wouldn't even likely notice a policy had been enacted. It would just be another day, like all the others. That's what I mean about irrational threats. We have the data. What you believe happens, doesn't happen. So we get rational about it, not continue with the irrational assumptions.

 

[Thermal]

Added another link to satisfy your narrow constraints!

'Narrow constraints'? It was literally what we were talking about, and specifically.

Eta: and I don't see 'another link'. Were you just kidding?

 

[Thermal]

Oh yes, it was Myriad who declared that he wanted to act with kindness and humanity to people, irrespective of religion, not you.

Lol, you not only got his name wrong, but you demonstrated again that you are not paying the most remote attention to who you are arguing with and what their arguments are. You're priceless.

Dismissing people's religious sensitivities is all of a piece with dismissing women's sex-based sensitivities, I suppose. Orthodox Jewish, Moslem, Sikh and Hindu women are not (all) obeying rules they don't believe in and would rather not have to follow. Their religion is part of them, and they desire, in all piety, to follow its tenets. But you think you can just tell them to take a flying leap.

Please dont lie. It's really annoying. *I* don't tell them to do anything. As a culture, we don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ if their religion forbids women from holding high political office, for instance. We are going to do as we see fit.

You think you've addressed things you've simply sneered at, then you insult your opponents again. That's going to win friends and influence people, not.

Ya, how's it feel, pot?

You have no more idea what it feels like to be a woman than all these men who talk about how they feel like a woman and were born in the wrong body and so on. Which is to say none at all.

Pretty much correct. How would I know? The only thing I've gathered from some female voices here is that men are animals and transwomen pervy freaks. Or 'weirdos', I think was your preferred slur?