Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Surely you have further noticed that I have repeatedly acknowledged feminine issues to be a damn good reason for sex segregation in restrooms?

I see you give lip service to this, but never more than that.

 

[Rolfe]

He says that, but then he adds that in his opinion the reasons given by posters in this thread do not pass his test of "good enough" therefore he rescinds that concession and decrees that we should all have to put up with any hairy-arsed man who wants to get changed with us.

 

[Thermal]

<snipped for focus*
...So there it is, Thermal. Do we stipulate that overriding sex segregation stems from some mental health need? If so, where's the science? No science, no overriding sex segregation.

Or do we stipulate that overriding sex segregation stems from nothing other than some men wanting to? The way some men want to play darts, or dance naked, or run marathons, or sit ringside at a pro basketball game? If so, why override sex segregation at all?

How did you arrive at that dichotomy? I can think of several others. How about compliance with our own anti-discrimination laws? Or simple civility, and steering clear of hate laws and harassment?

A note about different policies in different jurisdictions. You argue that fiat self-ID in your jurisdiction haven't manifested the issues some people seem so afraid of. And that's fine. I'm glad that's working out for you in New Jersey, or whatever jurisdiction you're in.

Mine, and in literally every other jurisdiction where we have data. Meanwhile, no evidence at all has been presented that the predicted behaviors actually increase. None. It's fear mongering on the Slippery Slope, but we don't se it actually happening when put to the real world test.

 

[Thermal]

Really, jeans & t-shirt = man; make-up = woman?

Other posters have clearly pointed out that women are likely to use things like body shape for male/female discrimination.

Did you somehow read that I posted that jeans and t-shirts or dresses and makeup are the standards? I don't recall posting that. Actively hallucinating today, are we?

 

[Thermal]

He says that, but then he adds that in his opinion the reasons given by posters in this thread do not pass his test of "good enough" therefore he rescinds that concession and decrees that we should all have to put up with any hairy-arsed man who wants to get changed with us.

Please stop lying, Rolfe. I have been unwavering in supporting sex segregation in areas where nudity would be expected.

 

[Thermal]

I see you give lip service to this, but never more than that.

I guess like your comrades here, you're seeing what you want to see.

 

[Thermal]

Emily isn't the one trying to dictate other people's use of language, you are.

No, I encourage you to use the terms you prefer. If they are slurs, you show your cards. That makes things easier.

 

[Aber]

Did you somehow read that I posted that jeans and t-shirts or dresses and makeup are the standards? I don't recall posting that.

You posted, and I quoted above:

it's their presentation that more defines how I treat them

I find transwomen to present more like women than men,

Care to expand what you mean by presentation, if not clothes or make-up?

 

[Thermal]

You posted, and I quoted above:


Care to expand what you mean by presentation, if not clothes or make-up?

What most English speakers mean: how you present yourself to others, of which clothing may or may not be a significant factor. More often, it is primarily subtle behavioral cues.

The answer to my question was apparently "yes, I am actively hallucinating".

 

[Ziggurat]

What most English speakers mean: how you present yourself to others, of which clothing may or may not be a significant factor. More often, it is primarily subtle behavioral cues.

Indeed, look at all the subtle behavioral cues.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed, look at all the subtle behavioral cues.

Without opening the link (it's giving me a hard time about downloading an app), let me guess: it's not exactly a pic of Representative McBride, yes?

 

[theprestige]

I am profoundly skeptical that any trans-identifying male has the slightest clue what subtle behavioral cues signify womanhood, let alone how to consistently express them. Indeed, I am profoundly skeptical that more than a few trans-identifying males are even interested in expressing these subtle cues. I think it's broad strokes and gross caricatures all the way down.

 

[Ziggurat]

Without opening the link (it's giving me a hard time about downloading an app), let me guess: it's not exactly a pic of Representative McBride, yes?

It's a video clip of Dylan Mulvaney, doing one of his "days of girlhood" bits. There are literally hundreds to choose from, you can find them easily enough if you are interested. The link is a web page, you should be able to open it in your browser even on mobile.

tl;dr: there's nothing subtle about his "girl" performance.

 

[Thermal]

So, we know that there are establishments (certain McDonald's restaurants just for a start) where the toilets are indeed labelled "male" and "female".

We 'know' of exactly one, and that starts and ends the list of establishments. One franchisee that apparently went far out of their way to find such signage, as they are not easy to come by. I suppose you would find this one franchisee to be quite the kindred spirit.

You postulate that on seeing these labels, trans-identifying men will recognise them as excluding them. In that case, where is the campaign to end transphobia in McDonald's?

McDonalds, as I posted earlier, has a stated corporate policy of their guests using the restroom that aligns with the individual's gender identity. Memory slipping again?

 

[Thermal]

It's a video clip of Dylan Mulvaney, doing one of his "days of girlhood" bits. There are literally hundreds to choose from, you can find them easily enough if you are interested. The link is a web page, you should be able to open it in your browser even on mobile.

tl;dr: there's nothing subtle about his "girl" performance.

One cherry picked individual rarely a representative sampling makes.

My mobile is telling me 'Can't complete request', but it may have to do with my settings. I'll take your word for the page's content.

Eta: also, if a given individual gives a more flamboyant presentation than the norm, so what? Lots of people present flamboyantly, to their tastes. I don't consider Kanye West to be representative of millionaires, either.

 

[Ziggurat]

One cherry picked individual rarely a representative sampling makes.

True enough. But he's still an example worth considering. He is not, as far as I can tell, a sexual predator, so your objections to considering cases like Bryson don't apply. And as far as I can tell, he's also not faking his trans status.

But Dylan Mulvaney does not "present" as a woman based on any subtle behavioral cues. He "presents" as a woman because of how he dresses (including makeup and hair) and because of rather gross (as in obvious, antonym of subtle, not as in disgusting) behavioral cues.

Is he representative? Maybe not, but he's certainly not unique, so I don't know how he fits in your paradigm. And I'm not sure what subtle behavioral cues you refer to when you say that trans identifying males "present" as female. Perhaps you can give me some examples.

Eta: also, if a given individual gives a more flamboyant presentation than the norm, so what? Lots of people present flamboyantly, to their tastes. I don't consider Kanye West to be representative of millionaires, either.

So I'm trying to get at what you really mean by "presenting" as a woman. You said subtle behavioral cues. I don't know what you mean by this, I don't know what subtle behavioral cues you're referring to, and I would like some examples. Dylan Mulvaney is not an example of a trans identifying male displaying subtle behavioral cues that present him as a woman.

 

[Ziggurat]

McDonalds, as I posted earlier, has a stated corporate policy of their guests using the restroom that aligns with the individual's gender identity.

So even if the label says "female", that won't matter, because the policy is to use gender identity and not sex.

Which still undermines p0lka's claim about the effects of changing labels. Changing the labels but not the rules accomplishes nothing. The labels don't matter, the rules do.

 

[d4m10n]

I've concluded, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that women do not want, and never have wanted, unisex bathrooms.

Seems a bit odd to be keeping all that evidence to yourself on a forum about evidence-based reasoning.

Whenever I've gone looking for data, I've found that female respondents are roughly evenly split on this issue.

You keep saying this, backed up by no more than your own circle of acquaintances.

If you reread what I wrote, you will find that did not make any general claims based on convenience sampling from my acquaintances.

I do appreciate that you posted actual data, even though they are wide of the mark on the question of unisex designs since the questions presume a binary multiuser setup—segregated by either sex at birth or gender identity at present—rather than unisex designs such as private stalls across from public sinks.

 

[Rolfe]

Please stop lying, Rolfe. I have been unwavering in supporting sex segregation in areas where nudity would be expected.

I'm not the one who's lying. Here's what you said. "Restrooms." Public toilets, in non-US speak. Nothing about nudity.

Not those reasons. Surely you have noticed that different posters are arguing different points? Surely you have further noticed that I have repeatedly acknowledged feminine issues to be a damn good reason for sex segregation in restrooms? One of the better reasons, in fact? Or are you pretending that I'm saying something else?

You have repeatedly declared that while you're sympathetic in principle to the idea of women having sex-segregated toilets, you have decided that the reasons given by posters in this thread don't meet your purity standards, so you withdraw your support for this provision.

 

[Rolfe]

We 'know' of exactly one, and that starts and ends the list of establishments. One franchisee that apparently went far out of their way to find such signage, as they are not easy to come by. I suppose you would find this one franchisee to be quite the kindred spirit.

McDonalds, as I posted earlier, has a stated corporate policy of their guests using the restroom that aligns with the individual's gender identity. Memory slipping again?

I'll check other McDonald's branches as I encounter them, and indeed other establishments. Aber says he has seen others. There's nothing about "gender identity" posted in that restaurant, just "Male" and "Female". So where is the vociferous campaign by outraged trans people that they can't use the loo they prefer, even in this one branch? There isn't one, because they'll use the loo they want to anyway, regardless of the wording on the signs. Which everyone knows is the case except for Polka.

As an aside, if McDonald's is so keen to promote a policy of gender identity, and yet "Male" and "Female" signs are contrary to that policy, why have these signs in the first place? The answer is because the wording on the signs makes bugger-all difference to trans behaviour, so it's not important to them. Polka is wrong.