Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

What ought to be done about these people exceeding the speed limit since the stated goal is that every vehicle should travel at a speed within the speed limit?

We could have some sort of surveillance system where people and/or machines perform spot checks and assess fines to violators.

 

[Rolfe]

We could have some sort of surveillance system where people and/or machines perform spot checks and assess fines to violators.

On the other hand, we could simply do what we've done for a century or so, and take action when a woman complains to management that there is a man in the women's toilets who is refusing to leave on request.

My point was, just as someone exceeding the speed limit but not causing either an accident or a disturbance sufficient for people to complain about it will go unremarked, a man in the women's toilet who neither causes an incident nor upsets someone so that they complain about it will go unremarked. It was always thus. It's not ideal, but life isn't perfect.

 

[Rolfe]

This is an interesting article, if rather long.

https://justdad7180.substack.com/p/the-sullivan-review-of-data-statistics

 

[Rolfe]

I saw another interesting Twitter thread about men's reactions to trans-identifying men, and why. Again I didn't bookmark it, but it was interesting.

Men who do not experience any urge to appear feminine struggle to understand other men who do experience this urge. They find this apparent rejection of manhood disturbing and alienating. Considering medical and (particularly) surgical transition, they imagine castration and (possibly even more so) removal of the penis to be an abhorrent thing to want to do, and conclude that these men must be suffering intolerably to want to take such a terrible step. They think about this suffering, and about the enormous, life-changing step of having oneself castrated and having one's penis removed, and conclude that such men have surely done enough to justify their being granted admission to women's spaces. These unkind women who object surely don't realise the enormity either of the suffering or of the almost unthinkable steps that have been taken to allieviate it.

However, it's not just about awarding these men a consolation prize for their terrible suffering and their desperate, mutilating response to it. Normal men are made to feel uncomfortable by these nonconforming men. They don't want them in their group and they don't welcome them in their group. This is the reason for many societies creating separate categories for these men, like The Atheist's beloved Faʻafāfine, who are so very definitely not men that they will punch your teeth out if you say they are. (The irony of that response did not go unremarked.)

We don't have a separate category here for Faʻafāfine or Ladyboys or whatever, so just shunt them off on to the women, that'll do.

Then of course it's not just those who have been surgically altered or even medically treated. Dressing up in women's clothes is something most normal men would find demeaning, so again think of the terrible suffering that must be there to lead these men to want to do that, and surely you can empathise and take them into the women's group and get them out of our hair and WHY NOT, YOU TRANSPHOBIC BIGOT!

And so it goes.

 

[d4m10n]

On the other hand, we could simply do what we've done for a century or so, and take action when a woman complains to management that there is a man in the women's toilets who is refusing to leave on request.

Under existing federal policy in the States, FtM people who pass as men are required to use the ladies facilities. Should these patrons strictly adhere to the policies as written, some women will complain to management (at the courthouse/post office/national park, etc.) and then management will have to gently explain to them that these aren't really men, they've just taken a lot of effort and pills to look like men and now they have been sorted back into the women's areas in accordance with their original sex. (Assuming, of course, that management has some way to check.)

This isn't what "we've done for a century or so," it's new and ridiculous and makes no room for common sense.

 

[d4m10n]

If they pass, they pass and none the wiser.

Assuming they are willing to violate federal policy and risk official sanction, sure, no problem.

If instead they actually follow the new rules, they create problems anywhere run by the federal government—inside the embassy, on base, at the courthouse, at the air depot facility, at the National Parks, etc.

I've been vacationing this week in USVI and still managed to sort myself by sex at the airport, at the National Park bathroom/showers, and also at the Post Office. When I get back to work I'll be going to the local Air Force base where we all have to follow all relevant federal policies at all times.

 

[theprestige]

If we were to roll back the ideological capture—as the aforementioned executive order clearly does for federal agencies, facilities, & enclaves in the U.S.—then we'd be right back at the problem I described above, where trans people can violate sex segregation polices simply by passing as the opposite sex, so long as they aren't public figures like McBride.

What ought to be done about these passing people, given the current policy goal of total segregation by sex at birth?

Absolutely nothing.

Men who successfully pass have never been the problem. Never will be the problem.

The problem is, and will continue to be, men who don't pass, but exploit self-ID policies to deprecate, harass, and assault women that would previously have been protected from such treatment.

The EO serves as a basis for resolving disputes about access. No dispute, no problem.

But all this has been explained to you before. I can understand you disagreeing with this position, though I see no basis for such disagreement. I can't understand you continuing to misrepresent this position, such that it needs to be explained to you over and over.

I can think of a few solutions, but they all come from one sci-fi dystopia or another.

And yet you keep overlooking the obvious solution: Passing, no problem to solve; not passing, you have to leave when told. If I'm to have my pick of sci-fi dystopias, I much prefer the one ushered in by this EO.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Absolutely nothing.

Men who successfully pass have never been the problem. Never will be the problem.

The problem is, and will continue to be, men who don't pass, but exploit self-ID policies to deprecate, harass, and assault women that would previously have been protected from such treatment.

The EO serves as a basis for resolving disputes about access. No dispute, no problem.

But all this has been explained to you before. I can understand you disagreeing with this position, though I see no basis for such disagreement. I can't understand you continuing to misrepresent this position, such that it needs to be explained to you over and over.


And yet you keep overlooking the obvious solution: Passing, no problem to solve; not passing, you have to leave when told. If I'm to have my pick of sci-fi dystopias, I much prefer the one ushered in by this EO.

Sounds like the problem mixed-race people might have had if they wanted to use the White-person's toilet. Am I white-enough to pass as a white person?

What if the trans person in question is having a bad hair day?

 

[lionking]

Sounds like the problem mixed-race people might have had if they wanted to use the White-person's toilet. Am I white-enough to pass as a white person?

What if the trans person in question is having a bad hair day?

Do you know how many times the false racism comparison has been demolished in this thread?

Please catch up and stay on topic or piss off.

 

[d4m10n]

The EO serves as a basis for resolving disputes about access.

You just made this part up; the EO requires all federal agencies to create policies for strict segregation in all intimate spaces. No exceptions for people who pass are even hinted about, nor is dispute resolution mentioned.

 

[theprestige]

You just made this up; the EO requires all federal agencies to create policies for strict segregation in all intimate spaces.

"Get caught, get booted" seems strict enough to me, for things like restrooms. Have you seen any evidence that universities or embassies are interpreting the EO any other way? Have you seen any evidence that the administration interprets it the way you imagine, and plans to go after any organization that doesn't install sex-screeners at restroom entrances?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Do you know how many times the false racism comparison has been demolished in this thread?

Please catch up and stay on topic or piss off.

Zero?

 

[theprestige]

Sounds like the problem mixed-race people might have had if they wanted to use the White-person's toilet. Am I white-enough to pass as a white person?

Race is not analogous to sex. If you aren't able to argue the thing in its own terms, you certainly aren't able to argue the thing in terms of something else.

You now have the option of wasting time trying to get agreement that race and sex are analogous in the way required by your conclusion, which is entirely irrelevant and off-topic; or just argue towards you conclusion in terms of sex, which is relevant and on-topic.

What if the trans person in question is having a bad hair day?

You seem to think trans-identifying males are entitled to use the women's restroom, and that this policy deprives them of their entitlement if they're "having a bad hair day" and are unable to pass.

The policy in question abolishes any such entitlement, and provides legal sanctions for anyone caught flouting the rules. It also provides legal protections for organizations that wish to enforce the rules (e.g., sex-segregated sports organizations).

 

[lionking]

Zero?

Countless times. It’s all there.

 

[d4m10n]

Have you seen any evidence that universities or embassies are interpreting the EO any other way?

Have you seen any evidence that they are interpreting it as a dispute resolution heuristic rather than an across-the-board regulation that everyone is expected to follow?

Anyhow, here's one article on point:

In response to the mandate, the Department of Defense and other agencies barred transgender employees from using the restroom that matches their gender identity.​

I can only speak to how it's going in the DoD from direct experience, but from my POV this is an actual mandate which applies to everyone (just like the other polices laid out in annual trainings) not a new process for handling complaints.

 

[theprestige]

Have you seen any evidence that they are interpreting it as a dispute resolution heuristic rather than an across-the-board regulation that everyone is expected to follow?

You're shifting the burden of proof. You're the one claiming this EO must induce a particular dystopia. You're the one who needs to come up with evidence to support your claim. If you can't find any examples of agencies and organizations implementing the dystopic interpretation you favor, then your claim fails for lack of support.

Anyhow, here's one article on point:

In response to the mandate, the Department of Defense and other agencies barred transgender employees from using the restroom that matches their gender identity.​

It's hard for me to consider seriously an article that misses the point so spectacularly and with such willful ignorance, but that sure sounds like my interpretation, not yours.

I can only speak to how it's going in the DoD from direct experience, but from my POV this is an actual mandate which applies to everyone (just like the other polices laid out in annual trainings) not a new process for handling complaints.

In your direct experience, is the DOD interpreting the order as a mandate to deploy sex-screening systems at all restroom entrances?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This seems relevant:

 

[Pixel42]

I thought my code was more succinct... but lets compromise. "Be Kind" is code for "you women should just shut the ◊◊◊◊ up and do what we want"

I was referring to the fact that those who urge women to "be kind" to trans identifying males never seem to see any need to advise the TIMs to "be kind" to the woman who doesn't want to deal with a menstrual accident in the presence of males, or the female rape victim who'd rather self exclude from the gym and swimming pool than risk finding herself naked in the women's showers with a male stranger. The kindness is only required to go in one direction.

 

[theprestige]

This seems relevant:

Relevant to what?

Is it relevant to the question of whether men should be entitled to compete in women's sports if they say they want to?

is it relevant to the question of whether to prescribe irreversible trans-affirming medicine to minors?

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about finding the right restroom for androgynes.

 

[d4m10n]

You're shifting the burden of proof.

You affirmatively claimed that federal agencies will only act when someone has been reported to them, no evidence has yet been provided for this view.

You're the one claiming this EO must induce a particular dystopia.

You misunderstood the dystopia remark, it was about how to solve the problem of people who pass as the opposite sex using the facilities wherein they do not pass.

In your direct experience, is the DOD interpreting the order as a mandate to deploy sex-screening systems at all restroom entrances?

No, they are simply requiring people to follow current policy if they want to keep their jobs. Federal employees who pass as the opposite sex are now expected to sort themselves into bathrooms where they do not pass, and they know this is expected of them.