And if these goals are incompatible, then what?
Do you mean trans-indentifying males, also known as transwomen? Because transgender females don't seem to be causing much of a problem in any bathrooms.
Why?
Objectively, you do. You're foisting transwomen on women, as a response to the perceived threat to transwomen among men. You're saying that we, as a society, should burden women with this perceived problem, for whatever reason (presumably some version of the greater good).
I am not. What I have been saying from the very beginning is that I am trying to find a way to reasonably accommodate everyone, because I kind of like people and sympathize with the little guy/gal getting bullied for being different. The problem arises when the anti-trans side goes to extremes in order to represent the everyday, and it's true, the extremes have to be dealt with, which is the interesting and difficult part of this discussion. But the anti-trans side doesn't want to deal with the 99+% part, which is fairly benign and mostly the status quo anyway. They want to pretend Bryson is the norm, and start/end argumentation from there. Would it not make more sense to figure out how to maintain the staus quo, and focus on closing the loopholes for predators? I don't think that's as impossible as the anti-transers make it out to be.
You cannot accommodate everyone. People have incompatible desires here. Someone will not get what they want.
I have yet to get a clear answer from you about how you would like to deal with these "extremes".
It's not that the gender critical side doesn't want to deal with them, it's that you don't like their solution.
I never said that Bryson is the norm. But he exists. You even admitted that he has to be dealt with. But you won't actually deal with him. That's why I keep bringing him up.
Perhaps. But you haven't actually shown any interest in closing the "loopholes".
Then why aren't you doing it?
So long as folks like Agee Merager and Haven Wilvich can colorably claim that extant anti-discrimination laws provide them with a legal pretext to enter women's spaces in the nude, the loopholes will remain in place. Do you have any suggestions as to how they might be closed?
Obviously. That's why I put that word 'reasonably' in there. No solution, including and especially your utterly intolerant one, will not get everyone what they want.
You have, and repeatedly. Need it again? OK. Please take notes this time:
Ya, '◊◊◊◊ them trannys' is suboptimal, agreed.
As I've said a dozen times (please grab a pencil so I don't have to keep repeating it), anyone actually menacing should still leave if requested, and in a worst case scenario, you can leave till he vacates. It's an excessively rare occurrence to deal with at all, so it's not like a daily nuisance.
Untrue. The above is not even the first time I posted that.
Better question: why do you ignore anything that doesn't serve your argumentative pose?
Even if that were true, nothing about the recent advances in trans rights activism do anything at all to address that risk. Nothing at all is ever said about that risk, except when needed to rationalize letting men override sex segregation whenever they want. That's the way you're bringing it up right now.
Jews make up only .2% of the world's population. By your logic, they do not deserve "special rights", and non-Jews should be allowed Gentile-only living, working, education spaces.
I've argued repeatedly that in areas where nudity is expected, sex segregation should be the prevailing concern, not gender affiliation. One of the interesting things this discussion has brought up is having me question/examine why exactly that is. I'm not coming up with great reasons besides 'Americans are kind of prudish and we should be cool with that', which is not... a fantastic argument, although I viscerally agree. I mean, a woman is cool with a stranger's labia flapping in her face, but a man is offending her modesty? That's not feeling very strong.
wingsoverscotland.com
In any system ultimately accountable to the people, it's okay to take human nature into account. Somewhere upthread it was mentioned that sexual modesty is thought by anthropologists to be cross-cultural, although specific cultures vary in terms of what counts as immodest.
I have made no hyperbolic proclamations. And you're giving excuses for crapping on reasonable solutions you don't agree with, even though you have nothing better to offer.
The mere presence of someone like Bryson is menacing in and of itself. Do you not understand that? And many WILL NOT leave if they are granted the legal right to be there. We have seen that already.
And what if he stays? Again, if the legal right is granted, you cannot take it away based on such subjective standards.
That is not an excuse to not deal with it.
If you do not define men and women, then an acknowledgement that men's rooms are for men and women's rooms are for women means nothing. The idea that this is anything even resembling a solution is pure idiocy. It is precisely the definition of men and women that becomes the conflict. You want self-ID, which in practice means that the women's room is for women as well as for any man who decides he wants to enter.
In other words, you define men and women based on what they present as. This is the sort of ◊◊◊◊ I mean when I say your position is incoherent. You said you don't want to define men and women, but then you define men and women, because of course some definition is obviously needed in this context. You just do define them badly, so much so that I still don't know whether someone like Bryson (who now dresses like a female, does his hair like a female, and puts on makeup) "presents" as male or female, according to you.
The loopholes were already closed by sex segregation policies. It's only very recently that trans rights activists went off the rails and opened a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of nonsense through.
Ya I caught that the first time. I'm just a little surprised that I never gave that 'yeah that's just how it is' reasoning a lot of thought before.
That's all you object to? Not the entrenched self-righteous flaming ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bit? The candor lately is refreshing.
Yes, and agreed to repeatedly, and fleshed out in the post you are responding to.. Remind me to get you a notepad and pencil for the polyanna this year.
Which is why we don't grant them legal right to be there. I might have mentioned that a hundred or so times already.
Well since I already said 'under force of law if need be'...
Which it's not, especially while I am trying to engage in a discussion about dealing with it.
Yet it's been working for generations. The sign on the doors to this very day do not say Male and Female.
It does not, and I have said so so many times that it is really not possible for you to be misunderstanding anymore. You're doing it on purpose,
You are not this dense. I simply don't believe you are posting in good faith.
No. You can present very consistently as a woman, without 'passing'. There is a fairly thick behavioral line between sincere presentation and 'Bryson in wig' that is not as murky as people here are making it out to be.
Indeed.
Because we realized we were being total douchebags to a very small minority gtoup.
Ya they want to feel normal, like you and I do when we use a restroom. Real ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, right?
I'm willing to try to work out a solution, or at least what would be fair, even if it has little chance of happening.
"Hyperbole" is fairly objective. I am dismissing your completely subjective accusations as unworthy of comment.
You have said many contradictory things. I do not know which ones you truly believe. I do not even know if YOU know which ones you truly believe. But as stated here, I struggle to see how this is actually different from my own position, except that you view yours as some sort of moderate compromise and mine as extreme transphobia. Which, along with your past inconsistencies, makes me strongly suspect that what you are stating here is not in fact an accurate description of your position.
Again, what is it that you mean by "present"? What is your definition? I have asked you repeatedly, and yet you continue to refuse to answer.
There is no line at all between sincere and insincere presentation, not one accessible to external observers. There is a blurry line between consistent and inconsistent presentation, but 1) that's useless as a practical criteria, and 2) it's not even theoretically well-founded as a basis for distinction.
So let's instead be total douchebags to a very large group instead. Progress!
No I haven't. You read words like 'Self ID is sufficient to be acknowledged as transgender, but that doesn't grant bathroom access', and interpret that in whatever goofball way is rhetorically convenient. Bored out of my skull with it.
You want Potter Stewart invoked yet again?