Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[acbytesla]

No, I'm pretty sure I know that. Some women naturally have male-like facial hair. But those women do not develop male facial features, body proportions, or musculature. If the woman in question has both facial hair and masculine features and musculature, she is taking male hormones. That's the only way to produce that combination.

Pretty sure isn't certainty. Some women produce more testosterone than others. I dated a girl in high school during the 1970s who was quite muscular. I assure you she wasn't taking testosterone or steroids.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, Rolfe. Olive branch time. I think I seriously understand why we are talking past each other. Please bear with me here:

Your question is "BUT HOW DO WE TELL?" and my answer has been "YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT THE PENIS POLICE". Is that a fair description of this disagreement?

As I see it, men's and women's rooms have never had a 'Bio Only' sign on the door, and no law with penalties enforcing it. It has always been a kind of 'men here, women here, y'all just play nice'. But we have never been 100% on that. As you say, you have sometimes tolerated transwomen in your midst. In the guy's room, we have always tolerated everybody, pretty much without discriminating at all, but we maybe have the luxury of not giving a ◊◊◊◊ one way or the other.

So the current bruhaha is about radically changing the status quo, not maintaining it. It's the changing that I am bristling against, because it is a move towards less acceptance and lower toleration for people who are different. I think we should be broadly moving towards greater acceptance of our nonconformists, not lesser.

So while we clearly are not going to agree, can you at least understand that I am answering you very directly? We never had hard laws against cross sex access, and we never had Penis Policing. You are demanding it now, presumably because you believe the abuses are going over the top and beyond the noise range tolerable level. I respect that belief, but I don't see the anticipated, inevitable threat borne out in practice.

Olive branch response, even though I'm not Rolfe.

It all comes back to the red bit above. You seem to see the current situation as the status quo - and the current situation in the US is one that in a whole lot of place, any male at all who says that they feel like a woman on the inside has been granted the privilege of using female spaces and NOT playing nice.

For us, the status quo is what was in place about 10 to 15 years ago. That was the situation you describe in blue. We were okay with that. That wasn't perfect, but it was pragmatic and it was workable.

The status quo got changed perforce, without our consent, and without any discussion with us at all. It got changed in a way that takes away the authority of females over our own sexual boundaries, it removes our right to privacy, and it makes our safety and dignity subordinate to the happy feelings of some males. And it's made worse because there is absolutely no safeguards at all - it is fiat self-id, and it means that LITERALLY any male who wants to be there is allowed to be there simply by saying the magic phrase "I'm a woman". That's all - nothing else is required. This change that happened without our consultation has resulted in:

• Males taking places and positions in female sports that exclude females from our own leagues and competitions
• Males being lauded as "the first/best/highest-paid/etc. female xxx" in some male-dominated field
• Males being placed in shared cells with female prisoners, using open shared showers with them, etc.
• Males showing up naked in showers and changing rooms and spas where females are nude
• And most importantly - Females being branded transphobic hateful bigots and hags if we object to any of this

It has resulted in a decade of absolutely vile harassment of females for the crime of recognizing that sex is real and important, and for wanting to retain our single-sex spaces. It has resulted in males who profess a transgender identity feeling entitled to vocally threaten females with torture, rape, decapitation, physical assaulted, and death for not wanting to relinquish our intimate spaces and services to males.

If I thought it were possible to go back to the status quo that you describe in blue, I'd be happy to do so. But I don't think it's possible. I think that ship has sailed. At this point, I think the only possible course is to codify that single-sex spaces and services are based on actual, real sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. I'm asking if something has changed which has pushed matters beyond reasonable tolerance.

I'll take your non-answer as meaning no, they're not a problem and never have been.

25 reactions | We love this! A protest in the Capitol bathroom by trans people 🏳️‍⚧️ Loving the song too..... Klymaxx - Meeting In The Ladies Room 🎶 | By Trans Radio UK | Facebook

We love this! A protest in the Capitol bathroom by trans people 🏳️‍⚧️ Loving the song too..... Klymaxx - Meeting In The Ladies Room 🎶

www.facebook.com

 

[Thermal]

@Thermal, I think it is important to see how there is a fundamental zero-sum problem here.

To the extent a toilet solution can work for a transwoman, it can only do so in exactly the same degree in which it transfers that problem to women.

What is the problem?

A man feels more comfortable expressing himself as a woman, and by this is meant by adopting the outward stereotypes of femininity in dress, voice, mannerisms etc..

And then, having done so, said transwoman no longer feels comfortable in the men's room? Why? Because men are dangerous, apparently. But the solution requires transferring the same danger to the women's room which defeats the purpose of the women's room.

Dude, I totally get all that. So we start looking away from our starting assumptions, and look towards the data, and what do we see? No instance at all of these transwomen or transposers doing anything at all untoward. But we do see transwomen being harassed and even physically assaulted at exponentially higher rates, specifically in public rest rooms.

So of the two groups, both of which are absolutely groups to be listened to, only one faces a real threat. The other is imaginary.

Now, I get the objection: but transwomen are women!
First, I don't think anyone really believes that. The compromise has always been about politely accepting a fiction.

Agreed. They are not bio women, or 'real women'. But I would argue that they are far closer to women than men. Their package doesn't interact with anyone else. Their appearance and mannerisms do. And no, that doesn't mean Ethan Hunt level masquerading. It means that in any practical sense, they are much closer to being identified as a woman if one passed you by that you weren't specifically scrutinizing (cherry picked oddballs from Twitter excluded).

Second, even if real transwomen were in a different class to the predatory opportunists who only pretend to be transwomen, there is no way to sort between them.

...aaaand we're back to the Penis Police. Dude: they don't exist. Nor do the opportunistic predators that the scary tales are told of.

 

[Thermal]

No, it's saying that sex is a real, physical, objective thing.

Agreed. Just not the issue.

 

[Rolfe]

Olive branch response, even though I'm not Rolfe.

It all comes back to the red bit above. You seem to see the current situation as the status quo - and the current situation in the US is one that in a whole lot of place, any male at all who says that they feel like a woman on the inside has been granted the privilege of using female spaces and NOT playing nice.

For us, the status quo is what was in place about 10 to 15 years ago. That was the situation you describe in blue. We were okay with that. That wasn't perfect, but it was pragmatic and it was workable.

The status quo got changed perforce, without our consent, and without any discussion with us at all. It got changed in a way that takes away the authority of females over our own sexual boundaries, it removes our right to privacy, and it makes our safety and dignity subordinate to the happy feelings of some males. And it's made worse because there is absolutely no safeguards at all - it is fiat self-id, and it means that LITERALLY any male who wants to be there is allowed to be there simply by saying the magic phrase "I'm a woman". That's all - nothing else is required. This change that happened without our consultation has resulted in:

• Males taking places and positions in female sports that exclude females from our own leagues and competitions
• Males being lauded as "the first/best/highest-paid/etc. female xxx" in some male-dominated field
• Males being placed in shared cells with female prisoners, using open shared showers with them, etc.
• Males showing up naked in showers and changing rooms and spas where females are nude
• And most importantly - Females being branded transphobic hateful bigots and hags if we object to any of this

It has resulted in a decade of absolutely vile harassment of females for the crime of recognizing that sex is real and important, and for wanting to retain our single-sex spaces. It has resulted in males who profess a transgender identity feeling entitled to vocally threaten females with torture, rape, decapitation, physical assaulted, and death for not wanting to relinquish our intimate spaces and services to males.

If I thought it were possible to go back to the status quo that you describe in blue, I'd be happy to do so. But I don't think it's possible. I think that ship has sailed. At this point, I think the only possible course is to codify that single-sex spaces and services are based on actual, real sex.

I wasn't especially happy with the situation where were were under social pressure not to object to men who came into our intimate spaces. I didn't like it. These men seemed to be bumptious and entitled and revelling in "marking their territory". I had, however, been suitably brainwashed to believe I ought not to object to this. Now, however, we know what these men are really like, there is no possible way I will consent to one of them being in the same toilet, changing room, shower, dormitory or indeed women's help group with me. That ship has sailed, and sailed completely.

 

[Rolfe]

Dude, I totally get all that. So we start looking away from our starting assumptions, and look towards the data, and what do we see? No instance at all of these transwomen or transposers doing anything at all untoward. But we do see transwomen being harassed and even physically assaulted at exponentially higher rates, specifically in public rest rooms.

So of the two groups, both of which are absolutely groups to be listened to, only one faces a real threat. The other is imaginary.

Agreed. They are not bio women, or 'real women'. But I would argue that they are far closer to women than men. Their package doesn't interact with anyone else. Their appearance and mannerisms do. And no, that doesn't mean Ethan Hunt level masquerading. It means that in any practical sense, they are much closer to being identified as a woman if one passed you by that you weren't specifically scrutinizing (cherry picked oddballs from Twitter excluded).

...aaaand we're back to the Penis Police. Dude: they don't exist. Nor do the opportunistic predators that the scary tales are told of.

What colour is the sky on your planet?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think they are saying men are too icky to be around. I think they are saying it feels more normal to be around other women in a restroom, rather than being the only one in a dress with four construction workers staring at you (or worse).

It doesn't feel normal to most women to have an obvious male in our restrooms, though.

Why should their feelings supercede those of female humans?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The problem is a transwoman doesn't see herself as a man, and feels just as uncomfortable as a bio woman standing in the middle of a line of urinals. That's literally it.

But *we* see *him* as a man.

The anorexic doesn't see themself as underweight.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Got a quiet transwoman minding her own business? Leave her be. Got a Bryson trying to slither in? Sound the alarm, but don't rely on the police to do anything.

I still don't know how you think you can tell the difference.

If you genuinely can't, you genuinely don't have a problem.

I have a huge ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem, Thermal. And I'm aghast that you can't seem to get it through your skull. Bryson is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ double rapist! A sex predator that preys on females! What the holy hell is wrong with you that you think females shouldn't have a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem with a goddamned rapist in our intimate spaces, just because we can't tell at a glance that they're a rapist. WTAF, dude?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, that's intolerance.

I don't follow your contradictory positions.

It's intolerant of females to not let a male do what makes them comfortable... but it is NOT intolerant of males to not let females do what makes us comfortable. Your usage of intolerance boils down to giving males the privilege and entitlement to pursue their own comfort regardless of the impact on females, and it requires that females sublimate our own needs in our own spaces in order to make males feel good.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thermal: Complains about people veering into hypothetical fantasies.

Also Thermal: Swerves into hypothetical fantasies harder than a tween writing Twilight fanfic on Wattpad.

Dude, you're killing me today

 

[Emily's Cat]

@Thermal - you keep insisting that there are no problems in NJ due to the open door gender-identity-based usage. I suggest that you amend your view to say that there are no reported crimes, but ask that you understand that's not the same as there not being problems.

This is a problem:

After what happened to them, both of my girls now self-exclude from public restrooms, only using them in an absolute emergency. They have also self-excluded from using the local public swimming pool because they got no support from the management in excluding the man who keeps using the womens changing rooms. They are not the only women in this town who have done so.

There are a lot of females who self-exclude from public life for this reason. I am lucky to not have a lot of issues, because I don't go many places. But there have still been a few times where I've ended up with a male in the changing room when I'm shopping, and it's extremely uncomfortable for me. There are a couple of stores I just won't go to any more because of it. They don't have locking doors for their change room, just curtains. These are nice, high-end clothing boutiques by the way. But I end up mostly undressed when I'm trying things on, and I really, really, really don't like that there's a male in the near vicinity. So I won't go there anymore.

You seem to think that me not having made a stink and filed a police report means there's no problem. I disagree. The problem is that I and many other females have found ourselves in a world where we have to limit our own ability to participate in society. Our choice is either to avoid going places that we used to be able to go... or we have to just accept that the world has decided it's okay with males peeping or flashing us as long as those males say magic words first.

 

[Thermal]

I have a huge ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem, Thermal. And I'm aghast that you can't seem to get it through your skull. Bryson is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ double rapist! A sex predator that preys on females! What the holy hell is wrong with you that you think females shouldn't have a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem with a goddamned rapist in our intimate spaces, just because we can't tell at a glance that they're a rapist. WTAF, dude?

And I've said that Bryson shouldn't be in there. How are you missing that? Fortunately, it's not a problem because A) he's in prison, and B) when he gets out, there is no way in hell that he'll go anywhere near a woman's rest room, because of the attention it would draw. BAD GUYS TRY NOT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THEMSELVES BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH THEIR OBJECTIVES.

Jesus Christ, why can't you see this? It's ridiculously simple, AND ACCOUNTS FOR WHY WE SEE NO INCREASE OF PERVING OF ANY KIND IN OPEN DOOR POLICY AREAS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR

 

[d4m10n]

That doesn't change the fact that military personnel are required to be able to be deployed into combat.

Generally speaking, it takes more than calling something a fact in order to demonstrate it to be true. There are some AFSCs & MOSs that just aren't going to be deployed into combat, such as the 61S1X series in the USAF. I knew one of those who got sent to the Green Zone to serve as a dedicated quant doing Nate Silver number crunching for a general who cared about standing up Iraqi elections, but he was a truly exceptional case—literally the only person we knew (in that subfield) who got to hear explosions in the distance.

 

[Thermal]

@Thermal - you keep insisting that there are no problems in NJ due to the open door gender-identity-based usage. I suggest that you amend your view to say that there are no reported crimes, but ask that you understand that's not the same as there not being problems.

I have said exactly that a dozen times. I even scoured Twitter trying to find some earlier, because i acknowleged that even informal tweets of non reported instances would be valuable. That you keep misrepresenting my position is not your style. Please stop.

This is a problem:


There are a lot of females who self-exclude from public life for this reason. I am lucky to not have a lot of issues, because I don't go many places. But there have still been a few times where I've ended up with a male in the changing room when I'm shopping, and it's extremely uncomfortable for me. There are a couple of stores I just won't go to any more because of it. They don't have locking doors for their change room, just curtains. These are nice, high-end clothing boutiques by the way. But I end up mostly undressed when I'm trying things on, and I really, really, really don't like that there's a male in the near vicinity. So I won't go there anymore.

You seem to think that me not having made a stink and filed a police report means there's no problem. I disagree. The problem is that I and many other females have found ourselves in a world where we have to limit our own ability to participate in society. Our choice is either to avoid going places that we used to be able to go... or we have to just accept that the world has decided it's okay with males peeping or flashing us as long as those males say magic words first.

Yes, and that's an argument. So we weigh whether it is a sound argument, or a paranoid and unreasonable one. We do that by looking for data of any kind, from tweets to police reports. What have you found? I've found that the fear is imaginary. So whose rights prevail, the women who are making theirs up, or the transwomen who are not?

And I'm not saying this as a pro trans position I'm sayingbthis as a "your particular chosen argument is weak and prejudiced".

 

[Ziggurat]

Pretty sure isn't certainty. Some women produce more testosterone than others.

Absent a tumor or similar, no woman produces male levels of testosterone.

I dated a girl in high school during the 1970s who was quite muscular. I assure you she wasn't taking testosterone or steroids.

I can assure you she didn't look like she was male, even if she was muscular. Naturally muscular women still look like women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I'm pretty sure I know that. Some women naturally have male-like facial hair. But those women do not develop male facial features, body proportions, or musculature. If the woman in question has both facial hair and masculine features and musculature, she is taking male hormones. That's the only way to produce that combination.

It might be very unlikely, but their neighbor could actually have a DSD. That's rather irrelevant to this thread, but it's still a possibility.

It's also possible that they're a perfectly normal female, with the very common condition of PCOS, but acbytesla doesn't think they fit the mold of what they consider an acceptable level of femininity, and thus perceives them as being masculine due to their own biases and stereotypes. Kind of like how I know a surprising number of males who seem to genuinely think that Michelle Obama doesn't look like a female at all and looks completely "masculine" to them. I don't know any females who think Michelle Obama looks masculine. Tall, strong, and confident? Yes. Masculine? No.

 

[Rolfe]

And I've said that Bryson shouldn't be in there. How are you missing that? Fortunately, it's not a problem because A) he's in prison, and B) when he gets out, there is no way in hell that he'll go anywhere near a woman's rest room, because of the attention it would draw. BAD GUYS TRY NOT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THEMSELVES BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH THEIR OBJECTIVES.

Jesus Christ, why can't you see this? It's ridiculously simple, AND ACCOUNTS FOR WHY WE SEE NO INCREASE OF PERVING OF ANY KIND IN OPEN DOOR POLICY AREAS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR

That is so far removed from reality as to be in another space-time dimension.

Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals

The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

www.independent.co.uk

Unisex changing rooms put women in danger | Fair Play For Women

There is unequivocal evidence that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities. Get the facts

fairplayforwomen.com

Girls assaulted in gender-neutral toilets — as predicted

Police are investigating allegations that female pupils were sexually assaulted in “gender-neutral” lavatories at a school in Essex. A teenage boy has been arrested on suspicion of sexual assault, with three of the four alleged attacks apparently taking place in toilets used by both sexes. Is...

unherd.com

And none of these is actually the article I went looking for.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Jesus Christ, why can't you see this? It's ridiculously simple, AND ACCOUNTS FOR WHY WE SEE NO INCREASE OF PERVING OF ANY KIND IN OPEN DOOR POLICY AREAS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR

NO IT'S BECAUSE YOU ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ LEGALIZED PERVING!