Yes, I'm well aware and in full agreement! There are few things I hate more than a Socratic JAQ-off. I'm convinced that the Socratic method only ever actually works in fables, never in real classrooms, and especially never in debates.
I am not trying to lead you into a rhetorical trap, where you are forced by your previous answers to agree with my conclusion.
Ok. I believe you. Please understand that asking me when "men are entitled to override sex segregation" seems like a Socratic and leading question. Men are generically not the issue. Overriding is not an issue, if no hard policy is in place. I don't believe it is an issue of entitlement, and whether a rest room is as strictly sex segregated as many assume is a core dilemma in the whole gig.
Rather, I'm trying to understand exactly what your position is, and how it differs from my characterization. We've covered this ground quite a bit, and I feel that the impression I've formed is pretty accurate. However, you say it's a straw man. So I am trying to understand where I've gone wrong. The best (only?) way I can think of to do this is to ask you specific questions, designed to first put some boundaries on what you might mean, and then focus down to what you actually do mean, in the places where I have misunderstood you.
So.
"When necessary" is something I agree with, synonymous with "in an emergency". You're about to have a potty disaster, you beg forgiveness and use the nearest open facility.
Ok. Agreed, although I'd drop that example more into practicality. By necessity, I was thinking of times I have entered "women's spaces" in more consequential emergencies, that I'm sure no one here would argue with (medical, violence, etc).
"Where practical" is something I have questions about. It seems to me that it's demonstrably practical for a man to override sex segregation whenever they want, assuming a cooperative gatekeeper. There's nothing impractical about letting William Thomas compete as a woman in the NCAA. It's simply a matter of the NCAA rubber-stamping his womanhood. There's nothing impractical about housing a man in a woman's prison. All it takes is a transfer order from a judge or other authority, and a corrections officer to carry it out. Prisoners get moved around this way all the time.
I think prisons and sports are good examples of practical exclusion. It doesn't matter how they see themselves, when their presence puts them at radical advantage over others in physical conflict, as both could be described. Also practically, a slightly built, nonviolent transwoman would be at higher risk of assault in prison. As a practical matter (after an appropriate threat level evaluation), certain transwomen could be held in a women's prison.
So when you say men should be entitled to override sex segregation when practical,
...Repeating: I do not think it is an entitlement, and I do not think sex segregated areas are as clearly codified as such as necessity demands...
do you have an example in mind of when it would be impractical?
Say, if a totally sincere transwoman swimmer wants to shower with the other gals. The practical dilemma is a nude male among nude females. So how the transwoman feels should take a back seat to how their nudity would make others feel.
Similarly with the courtesy criteria. When is it courteous to entitle men to override sex segregation?
Again: no entitlement, definitionally so in the matter of extending a courtesy, in fact. You see what i mean?
To answer: guys fighting or doing lines or whatever in a bar restroom. The women's restroom is miraculously lightly occupied. "Hey, you mind? Kind of rowdy in the men's room", and with a shrug, he is let in without anyone panicking.
BTW, this is how I've basically seen rest area usage, in my most humble of experience.
*waving vaguely* "Guys here, gals there", but quite a bit of transgression. My objection is criminalizing the transgression, in either direction (for doing so, or diming it out as a crime). If you want to summarize my POV in a phrase, keep legislation out of the goddamed bathroom. It's a place to pee. We can handle it without Big Brother.
I think it is. I think the TRA policy proposal is best described as an entitlement.
I do not support or have particular interest in the extremist point.
I don't think it's a human right. I also don't think it's a privilege. That implies something that is earned, and that can be revoked by a gatekeeper. An entitlement, in public policy, is something granted to someone, with the force of law, overriding any other gatekeeping.
Force of Law is where I dig in. I don't want it, in either direction.
For instance, if a woman hops into the mens room to duck the line at the ladies room (very common in some bars I've frequented), it's not usually a genuine emergency, or a practicality. It's a courtesy, hardly noticed by the male occupants. "Whatever" being the common reception. I would be deeply incenced if some twat wanted to "make a point" and got police involved, and had force of law to do so.
And that is the TRA proposal: That any man who self-IDs as a woman, without any independent confirmation or objective criteria, should be entitled by law to override sex segregation, regardless of whether the segregating authority or segregated community wishes it.
That is my understanding, but again, I just don't care. I do not agree with the extreme position, and won't unwillingly defend them by proxy. I mean, why would I?
Anyway, we've agreed that you do not think any man who wants to should be entitled by law to override sex segregation by self-ID alone.
Yes.
My next questions, of course are about under what circumstances or by what criteria you think self-ID should be entitled/privileged/right to override sex segregation.
Oversimplified: if he ain't hurting anyone, it shouldn't rise to the level of criminality.
The when necessary/in an emergency scenario seems reasonable enough.
Can you elaborate on the when courteous scenario, and the when practical scenario?
Hopefully I have done so above. if you find it unsatisfactory, I'll happily clear up any sloppy or otherwise unclear wording on my part.
