Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

What the hell are you talking about? I *am* saying clearly and unambiguously to change the rules.

Perhaps you are confused about what was under discussion. p0lka has explicitly claimed that changing only the labels would accomplish something. And I was explicitly referencing p0lka's claim when I said:

"even were we to adopt "female" as the label for bathrooms etc, it would do nothing to resolve the conflict."

Note that there is no reference to rules here, ONLY to labels. And your response was,

"I think it would do wonders, and am still curious about the conservative resistance on this point."

"it" here must refer to what I was talking about, which is therefore a label change and not a rule change. Now, perhaps you did not mean that. Perhaps you meant a rules change and not simply a label change. But if so, that was your confusion, not mine, because I said nothing about rules. And if you read your own post carefully, you will see that neither did you in your prior post.

I am in agreement with you that specifying unambiguous rules establishing sex segregation is the correct way to go.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps you are confused about what was under discussion. p0lka has explicitly claimed that changing only the labels would accomplish something. And I was explicitly referencing p0lka's claim when I said:

"even were we to adopt "female" as the label for bathrooms etc, it would do nothing to resolve the conflict."

Note that there is no reference to rules here, ONLY to labels. And your response was,

"I think it would do wonders, and am still curious about the conservative resistance on this point."

"it" here must refer to what I was talking about, which is therefore a label change and not a rule change. Now, perhaps you did not mean that. Perhaps you meant a rules change and not simply a label change. But if so, that was your confusion, not mine, because I said nothing about rules. And if you read your own post carefully, you will see that neither did you in your prior post.

In the very next line after your quoted snippet, I said "If an area was formally deemed sex segregated..." which is a clear distinction that the rules would be established. Not changed, because there are none as-is, save a small handful of recent red state laws passed to that effect.

I am in agreement with you that specifying unambiguous rules establishing sex segregation is the correct way to go

Which I suppose is the more important thing. Whether a public rest room, where nudity is not generally expected, qualifies as an area needing strict sex segregation is still debatable.

 

[theprestige]

In the very next line after your quoted snippet, I said "If an area was formally deemed sex segregated..." which is a clear distinction that the rules would be established. Not changed, because there are none as-is, save a small handful of recent red state laws passed to that effect.

Which I suppose is the more important thing. Whether a public rest room, where nudity is not generally expected, qualifies as an area needing strict sex segregation is still debatable.

Everything is debatable, in principle. But this doesn't need to be debated.

Once you concede that trans identifying males aren't entitled to override sex segregation in sports, prisons, shelters, spas, and representation statistics, there's no reason to debate overturning the conventional sex segregation in public restrooms.

You've already told TIMs that they need to find other ways to express their identity/satisfy their urges/treat their mental health conditions/whatever they're calling it this month.

Making an exception would just undermine the principle you've already committed to: They're not women, and they're not entitled to any of the things society reserves for women.

 

[Thermal]

Everything is debatable, in principle. But this doesn't need to be debated.

Once you concede that trans identifying males aren't entitled to override sex segregation in sports, prisons, shelters, spas, and representation statistics, there's no reason to debate overturning the conventional sex segregation in public restrooms.

You've already told TIMs that they need to find other ways to express their identity/satisfy their urges/treat their mental health conditions/whatever they're calling it this month.

Making an exception would just undermine the premise you've already committed to: They're not women, and they're not entitled to any of the things society reserves for women.

The sex segregation (not really a rule but those areas having very convincing circumstances including nudity and potential for rape, etc) in your list above might not apply to rest rooms though, any more than the Barbie dolls section in the toy department is "sex segregated".

 

[p0lka]

Because the gender label has always been synonymous with the sex label, in the context of sex segregation.

Nobody ever thought the women's room was open to any man who said they were a woman.

Some people wanted it to be that way, and worked very hard to foist that notion on the rest of us. But nobody on either side of that debate was ever truly confused about what was really going on. That's my position.


The two labels are synonymous in the context of sex segregation. They always have been. Everyone understands this. There is nothing stupid about it. You're heavily invested in a confusion that doesn't actually exist.

I know it was anecdotal, but i have already said that growing up 70' early 80's i met people that wanted to be treated as a man or a woman in spite of whatever actual sex they were. So your premise about synonymity is incorrect in my experience.

 

[theprestige]

The sex segregation (not really a rule but those areas having very convincing circumstances including nudity and potential for rape, etc) in your list above might not apply to rest rooms though, any more than the Barbie dolls section in the toy department is "sex segregated".

Nobody is this confused about the sex segregation of public restrooms.

 

[Matthew Best]

The sex segregation (not really a rule but those areas having very convincing circumstances including nudity and potential for rape, etc) in your list above might not apply to rest rooms though, any more than the Barbie dolls section in the toy department is "sex segregated".

If you want to make the case for rest rooms/toilets/bathrooms not being segregated by sex, then I guess you can try. I don't see it being very popular, though.

 

[theprestige]

I know it was anecdotal, but i have already said that growing up 70' early 80's i met people that wanted to be treated as a man or a woman in spite of whatever actual sex they were. So your premise about synonymity is incorrect in my experience.

Did any of them ever actually explain to you what it meant to be treated as a man or a woman, without reference to sex?

 

[Ziggurat]

In the very next line after your quoted snippet, I said "If an area was formally deemed sex segregated..."

Yes, that is when you introduced by implication the idea of setting rules. But rules weren't in the discussion prior to that, which was my point. You seemed to think I had been talking about rules when I hadn't been, I had only been talking about labels, and that was my point. Your introduction of rules to the discussion doesn't mean I had been talking about rules prior to that. I wasn't.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, that is when you introduced by implication the idea of setting rules. But rules weren't in the discussion prior to that, which was my point. You seemed to think I had been talking about rules when I hadn't been, I had only been talking about labels, and that was my point. Your introduction of rules to the discussion doesn't mean I had been talking about rules prior to that. I wasn't.

...right. You weren't talking about them. I did. Then you called me confused and said I didn't mention rules. Which I had brought up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did any of them ever actually explain to you what it meant to be treated as a man or a woman, without reference to sex?

Doubtful. What they probably meant is what transgender people mostly want even now: not a gender identity decoupled from sex, but to be treated as if they were a different sex than they really are. They still want to be treated according to sex, just not their actual sex.

 

[Thermal]

Nobody is this confused about the sex segregation of public restrooms.

If anyone thinks that there is or ever was strict sex segregation, especially with force of law in these Great United States, they are very deeply confused.

Eta: barring those few aforementioned red states with their new potty laws

 

[p0lka]

Did any of them ever actually explain to you what it meant to be treated as a man or a woman, without reference to sex?

Nobody is this confused
I can't speak for all of them as it was a long time ago, but the idea was to not reference sex, as it wasn't relevant but just treat them as themselves.
Themselves tended to be stereotypical gender roles though in some cases. which was a bit annoying.

 

[Ziggurat]

...right. You weren't talking about them. I did. Then you called me confused and said I didn't mention rules. Which I had brought up.

You WERE confused. I'm not making that up, that comes straight from your own mouth. You expressed confusion, explicitly. You said, "What the hell are you talking about?" I then explained what the hell I was talking about, which wasn't rules, but only labels. That's why your subsequent introduction of rules didn't matter, because they weren't what I was talking about. And prior to your expressed confusion, you weren't talking about rules either. It seems like you were thinking about rules, and thought I was too, but I wasn't, and you hadn't actually been either. Perhaps you are still confused about this point.

 

[Thermal]

You WERE confused. I'm not making that up, that comes straight from your own mouth. You expressed confusion, explicitly. You said, "What the hell are you talking about?" I then explained what the hell I was talking about, which wasn't rules, but only labels. That's why your subsequent introduction of rules didn't matter, because they weren't what I was talking about. And prior to your expressed confusion, you weren't talking about rules either. It seems like you were thinking about rules, and thought I was too, but I wasn't, and you hadn't actually been either. Perhaps you are still confused about this point.

*rubs temples*

No, I was only confused about why you would lock onto your own hobby horse topic and not acknowledge that.. perish the thought.. someone brought up something else.

 

[Thermal]

If you want to make the case for rest rooms/toilets/bathrooms not being segregated by sex, then I guess you can try. I don't see it being very popular, though.

Not with this crowd, certainly. But I did so at length, months ago.

 

[p0lka]

Doubtful. What they probably meant is what transgender people mostly want even now: not a gender identity decoupled from sex, but to be treated as if they were a different sex than they really are. They still want to be treated according to sex, just not their actual sex.

It sounds like it's different now, with people denying reality and so forth, which I think would be easy to counter but apparently not? My personal experience back then was roles in society and sex were decoupled.
This whole argument came about because I said that the tra's didn't start this gender separation, as I remember the separation as I grew up.
Does it matter when it started?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I was only confused about why you would lock onto your own hobby horse topic and not acknowledge that.. perish the thought.. someone brought up something else.

I don't think you properly understood what I said, and it looks like you don't think I properly understood what you said.

So let's step back for a moment to the original issue prior to our exchange, and make it simple. p0lka has claimed that changing labels from "women" to "female", on its own, with no other rules changes, will somehow significantly improve things. I contend that a label change alone will do nothing, that only a rules change really matters. Do you agree with p0lka? Do you agree with me? Do you disagree with both of us?

 

[Ziggurat]

It sounds like it's different now, with people denying reality and so forth, which I think would be easy to counter but apparently not? My personal experience back then was roles in society and sex were decoupled.

I don't think that has ever been true, but it's certainly not true now. Just look at sex differences in occupations like teaching and nursing vs. luberjacks, welders, etc. These jobs are not sex exclusive, but the heavy tilts still indicate that there's absolutely a coupling between roles and sex even if that coupling isn't absolute. It may be a weaker coupling than in the past, but you would have to be blind to think it doesn't exist. And it probably always will.

 

[Matthew Best]

Not with this crowd, certainly. But I did so at length, months ago.

And how did it go? Did everyone coalesce around your suggestion?