Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Ok. So we have virtually the entirety of the planet acknowledging the existence of nonbinary

You live in a bubble. Global opinion is very different from the opinion of western liberal democracies (and yes, even under Trump the US is a liberal democracy in this sense).

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

There is no reasonable way to have female-only intimate spaces that allow males. Doing so makes them mixed-sex.

There's no reasonable way to let in the 99% that *you* have decided are benign males that females should just suck it up and accept while keeping out the 1% that *you* have so generously acknowledged are a problem.

It doesn't matter whether Bryson is an outlier or not - the reality is that when you make policy that allows ANY MALES the right-by-law to use female single-sex spaces, you have in effect given that right to ALL MALES because there is no way to distinguish which are which.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ya, '◊◊◊◊ them trannys' is suboptimal, agreed.

I find it really disconcerting that you repeatedly use derogatory language in this way. Even if you think you;re just forcing those words into someone else's mouth, it's YOU who is using the slur. And I'd really prefer you didn't. FFS, try treating males with gender identity issues with at least a modicum of decency and respect.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not even expecting transwomen to be accepted as women (I used 'women with an asterisk' as a descriptor earlier in the thread). They are not female, after all. But someone's biological sex is not something we deal with day-to-day much beyond our SOs, so I'm very inclined to treat them as what they say they are, because their DNA doesn't impact our interactions.

Well, this isn't true and you know it. You've even referenced it previously. You treat females differently than you treat males - you don't make physical contact, there are things you refrain from saying, etc. You absolutely deal with other people's biological sex every day - every time you notice a female's backside or breasts or general body shape and admire it's desirability you're dealing with other people's biological sex. Every time you adapt your behavior to avoid accidentally touching a breast where you wouldn't avoid accidentally touching a male's chest, you're dealing with other people's biological sex.

Furthermore, you are failing to recognize that how you as a male interact in the world is not the same as the way females interact in the world. There are a whole lot of situations in which someone's sex has a material impact on how females interact, but which has no effect on males. You keep looking at this entire situation from a completely male-centered perspective, you keep thinking about it from a point of "how would this affect Thermal who is male". You've entirely and completely failed to consider "how would this affect Emily who is female".

My argument here isn't for acceptance of transwomen as females, with all the female space passes that come with it. It's to not give women the right to say 'beat it you cross dressing perv' to a transwoman that is really not bothering anyone. That's not protecting women. That's protecting bigotry.

What constitutes "bothering someone" that means females do not have a right to tell a male to leave a female-only intimate space?

 

[Thermal]

I find it really disconcerting that you repeatedly use derogatory language in this way. Even if you think you;re just forcing those words into someone else's mouth, it's YOU who is using the slur.

EC, whether you like it or not, "◊◊◊◊ them trannys" is what you are saying, although it is a bit sledgehammered. Posters here have shown themselves more than happy to use offensive references to both transgenders and their supporters, including myself. It's a two way street, and I don't notice you chastising anyone else.

Would it be more polite to use Rolfe's terminology of "cross dressing pervs" or "freaks in a boob tube" that she applauded? I'll do so from here on in.

And I'd really prefer you didn't. FFS, try treating males with gender identity issues with at least a modicum of decency and respect.

I have it. I'm more than a little surprised by their portrayal in this thread. And of anyone who supports them. And fellow forumites. But y'all do y'all.

 

[Thermal]

Well, this isn't true and you know it. You've even referenced it previously. You treat females differently than you treat males - you don't make physical contact, there are things you refrain from saying, etc. You absolutely deal with other people's biological sex every day - every time you notice a female's backside or breasts or general body shape and admire it's desirability you're dealing with other people's biological sex. Every time you adapt your behavior to avoid accidentally touching a breast where you wouldn't avoid accidentally touching a male's chest, you're dealing with other people's biological sex.

I said genitalia. And no, I don't interact with them at all. Every guy and gal I meet could have anything between their legs, and I wouldn't know, or care.

When you say we are interacting with their sex, you are really interacting with their gender expression.

Furthermore, you are failing to recognize that how you as a male interact in the world is not the same as the way females interact in the world. There are a whole lot of situations in which someone's sex has a material impact on how females interact, but which has no effect on males. You keep looking at this entire situation from a completely male-centered perspective, you keep thinking about it from a point of "how would this affect Thermal who is male". You've entirely and completely failed to consider "how would this affect Emily who is female".

Don't tell me what I think. I run it both ways. If I was running with just how it affects me, there's no discussion to be had. It doesn't affect me at all. Women or transpeople in the men's room.or women's room is a matter of indifference. It's only because I am looking at it from the opposite way you claim that I have any arguments at all.

What constitutes "bothering someone" that means females do not have a right to tell a male to leave a female-only intimate space?

Wed have to make sure that "female only" was agreed to, and "intimate space" first. In my state, the former doesn't exist, and the latter might as well not (there are exclusions from indecent exposure charges when in locker rooms, etc).

 

[Thermal]

There is no reasonable way to have female-only intimate spaces that allow males. Doing so makes them mixed-sex.

There's no reasonable way to let in the 99% that *you* have decided are benign males that females should just suck it up and accept while keeping out the 1% that *you* have so generously acknowledged are a problem.

It doesn't matter whether Bryson is an outlier or not - the reality is that when you make policy that allows ANY MALES the right-by-law to use female single-sex spaces, you have in effect given that right to ALL MALES because there is no way to distinguish which are which.

I've decided nothing. We have data.

 

[Thermal]

You live in a bubble.

Everyone does. This isn't news. But it stands that what women are telling me is vastly different than what you claimed, and your claim about whether I listened was simply wrong.

Global opinion is very different from the opinion of western liberal democracies (and yes, even under Trump the US is a liberal democracy in this sense).

"Liberal democracy", by western global standards? Come on.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Liberal democracy", by western global standards? Come on.

"Western global standards" is an obvious oxymoron. If they are global, they are not western. If they are western, they are not global. Given this incoherence, I have no idea what you are trying to say. But since you seem to have trouble understanding me, I'll be a little more explicit. Opinions in China, India, and Africa (for example) about sex and gender issues are very different from opinions in the US, the UK, France, etc.

 

[Thermal]

"Western global standards" is an obvious oxymoron. If they are global, they are not western. If they are western, they are not global. Given this incoherence, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I don't believe you. Western, from the global perspective, is not a confounding idea that leaves you befuddled.

But since you seem to have trouble understanding me, I'll be a little more explicit. Opinions in China, India, and Africa (for example) about sex and gender issues are very different from opinions in the US, the UK, France, etc.

Which in terms of you telling me what I'm told by women and whether or not I listen is irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which in terms of you telling me what I'm told by women and whether or not I listen is irrelevant.

It's very relevant to your claim that "we have virtually the entirety of the planet acknowledging the existence of nonbinary". Did you forget that this is what the current exchange is about?

 

[smartcooky]

False dichotomy.

It's the conservatives AND independents that oppose your position. The Democratic party and voters seem to have made it a purity test, but even then it is still only 52% in favour.

I am centre-left, so a moderate liberal. I am pro trans-rights in that I believe transgender people should have the same rights as every other citizen to not be discriminated against in matters of education, employment, housing, freedom of speech and personal preferences. But that is not absolute - I am opposed to the idea that trans-identified males ought to be allowed to enter female safe spaces. These are not conflicting positions - just as it is not conflicting to support freedom of speech, but be opposed to that freedom being extended to allow people to publish bomb-making instructions, or falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

[Thermal]

It's very relevant to your claim that "we have virtually the entirety of the planet acknowledging the existence of nonbinary". Did you forget that this is what the current exchange is about?

I actually did, because it is richocheting from one random argument to the next. My bad.

Can we agree that how contemporary America rates on the western liberal democracy scale has little to do with some guy in the ladies room?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think if you have an actual sex change, then yes, access. It shouldn't even be an issue.

Still not sure on where the reasonable line should be for a transgender, especially given that one can't be objectively drawn. That's what is making me lean towards not codifying sex and gender (my earlier position that others here are aggressively talking me out of), but leaving them vague and continue with mob rule. I'd only want to insure that mob rule neither legally allows any woman to eject anyone she pleases for no reason, and that a woman is not charged with a hate crime for ejecting Bryson.

I get that you want to be nice. I understand it, I respect it. But it's not practicable.

For all intents, what you're arguing is that females should be forced to accept males in female single-sex spaces sometimes, but not all the time. But you're not providing any outline who what those times are. And again, you end up supporting the feelings of some males as being more important than the feelings and privacy of any females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I oppose one: legalized bigotry, because it does much more than control Bryson's legally protected access, which I don't think he would have much regard for anyway. Your ' solution' is to be bigoted across the board.

Why do you think it's bigotry to keep males out of female-only intimate spaces?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm mostly down with that. I'm just not feeling 100% that a public rest room is an intimate space. Like the Portland high school, there ain't much shared intimacy going on in a closed stall by yourself and washing your hands, and maybe touching up.your makeup.

Yes, there are some feminine issues that require privacy in the name of modesty. An actual private single occupant room makes 1000% more sense to accommodate for such eventualities anyway, as well as for the occasional Rolfe who can't bear the thought of them cross dressing pervs anywhere near her. In a place big enough for multi occupant restrooms, a single occupant divided off should be no big deal.

Your proposed solution requires females to completely alter the way we behave and interact with each other, and to adopt male norms while in restrooms. Why do you believe that females should be required to become more male-like in our behavior, just so that some males get to be allowed to use female-only spaces?

In broad brush, and with the stipulation that not all transwomen are Bryson, is that a workable compromise?

What if the transwoman is Eddie Izzard, who looks entirely like a male? What if it's a male that looks like a male, is wearing jeans and a t-shirt, but really wants to use the female toilets?

Why do you think that females should be required to compromise our single-sex intimate spaces at all?

More specifically... why do you seem to believe that the feelings of some males are more important than the feelings, privacy, and dignity of all females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Many folks here have said that they are just fine with laws or policies preventing employment discrimination against transgender people, but as soon as actual policies came up forcibly separating trans folk from active duty service (e.g. here in the U.S.) they either went mum or else switched sides and started arguing for employment discrimination against transgender employees under those specific circumstances.

Here's the deal: I'm all for preventing employment discrimination on the basis of gendered presentation or belief. I'm for it in exactly the same way that I'm for preventing employment discrimination on the basis of disability. When the item under discussion either has no bearing on the job being performed, or when the accommodation needed for it is reasonable and not unduly burdensome, I totally support those protections.

I have no objection to people with severe gender dysphoria being excluded from military service, for the same reason that I have no objection to people with clinical depression, bipolar disorder, or severe OCD being excluded. If the dysphoria is severe enough that the individual requires ongoing mental health treatment for it, that is a disqualifying condition for military service, because it directly precludes their ability to actually serve in wartime. Similarly, I have no objection to physically transitioned people being excluded from military service for the same reason that I have no objection to people with epilepsy or asthma being excluded from military service. Any medical condition that requires steady and persistent medical treatment is a disqualifying condition for military service, because it directly precludes their ability to actually serve in wartime.

Now... If an individual identifies as transgender, but does not require psychological or medical treatment, and does not require accommodations in housing or clothing, then I don't care. If a male has gendery feels, but is content to serve in male military clothing, in male military dormitories, and being referred to as "sir" when such comes up... then there's no problem at all.

But the reality is that military service is NOT just like any other job. It has considerably different requirements to even be considered, there are both physical and psychological fitness requirements that are fundamentally necessary to be able to serve in a military capacity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can see treating downrange combat duty as a special case, but not the folks manning desks at the logistics hub tryna get war materiel to the right place at the right time, nor the folks flying drones from a remote site in Nevada, nor the folks calculating orbital transfers for Space Force, nor the folks doing office work at the Pentagon. Those latter cases are all office jobs, and it's just fine if they need hormones or blood pressure meds on a daily basis.

There's never any guarantee that someone in a non-combat MOS will be entirely protected from combat. Every military service member is required to be able to serve in combat if needed. Even the chair force.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The women telling me this are a small handful who show abnormally extreme bias.

No, we're not a small handful, and it's not an abnormal extreme bias to not want strange males in our restrooms!

Where the heck is that survey from 2024 that showed that a large majority of females are no longer okay with transgender identified males using female restrooms?

 

[Emily's Cat]

ETA: also Men Only, Women Only, and Others is probably the worst solution imaginable.

Why on earth is this the worst solution to you?