Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

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.

The poll question you linked to is a different issue than what theprestige is talking about. There's some overlap, but they are absolutely not identical, and the difference can easily change how someone might answer. And there's considerable ambiguity in the question itself. A lot of "gender neutral" toilets currently in the US are single-occupancy toilets, not communal toilets. Are respondents answering according to how they view using single-occupancy gender neutral toilets, or communal gender neutral toilets? We have no idea. And that's not even getting into the distinction between being personally comfortable using one and being in favor of having them.

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.

Good point. The problem is this ambiguity applies to your own data as well. Nothing about the poll question indicates what kind of unisex toilet is being considered.

 

[theprestige]

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.

I've given you my evidence: Lack of explicit demand, lack of change over time. Rolfe has given you clear survey data. Nobody is hoarding evidence. We're sharing it with you and you're discarding it.

 

[p0lka]

In your experience, trans people and their supporters don't scream blue murder transphobia when any truly female-only space or service is established, and demand that trans-identifying men must be allowed access? You don't get out much do you? I advance just as one example the fact that after much campaigning it was agreed that the organisation that runs the domestic abuse and rape crisis services in Brighton had agreed to add one single female-only meeting to its existing range of services, all of which were and still are open to men who announce themselves as trans. One single group. No change to any of the existing groups, they carry on as before. Nothing taken away from the trans lovelies. Instant denunciation in the press, trans-exclusionary, discriminatory, appalling, shouldn't be allowed, trans-identifying men MUST have access to everything.

Interesting, can I have a link to the press that denounced it?

No, I do not mean facilities labelled as for women, we are specifically discussing facilites that are labelled "male" and "female", the labels you declare will sort everything out because trans-identifying men won't use the ones labelled female.

Yeah yeah, that's exactly what I want info from.

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

I don't know as there's no info at the moment. But I postulate that it would be harder to justify to oneself, if one is honest, to go through the label that factually doesn't describe you, so there would be a difference in numbers. In terms of sports in which there's an ability to say 'no you don't qualify' then if you wish to make some sports as female male only then it's trivial to do so, instead of arguing about gender.

 

[p0lka]

Not really. It may seem like that because his views are not even self-consistent, but incoherence is not subtlety.

That requires that transwomen will treat spaces labelled "female" differently than they will treat spaces labelled "women's". Which is not only not nuanced, but observably wrong, as we saw with Park Run.

You do understand that parkrun was never segregated yeah?
They had male and female categories but anyone was allowed to join them, so how does parkrun show that I'm observably wrong?

The thread was all complaining about the categories at the time, then I posted the rules.

 

[Ziggurat]

You do understand that parkrun was never segregated yeah?

The categories for registration were segregated.

They had male and female categories but anyone was allowed to join them, so how does parkrun show that I'm observably wrong?

The labels were sex based. That was your claim: sex-based labels would cause people to segregate by sex.

They did not. Your excuse is that the rules didn't require them to. But that's precisely my point: the rules matter, the labels don't. Park Run is an example of that. They used sex-based labels, but since the rules did not enforce sex segregation, sex segregation didn't happen. The labels made no difference.

Rules matter. Labels don't.

The thread was all complaining about the categories at the time, then I posted the rules.

Exactly: the rules. Not the labels.

Even now, you can't get this difference through your head.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I postulate that it would be harder to justify to oneself, if one is honest, to go through the label that factually doesn't describe you, so there would be a difference in numbers.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

In terms of sports in which there's an ability to say 'no you don't qualify' then if you wish to make some sports as female male only then it's trivial to do so, instead of arguing about gender.

Indeed, it's quite trivial. But how do you actually do this? By setting the rules for participation. The label doesn't matter, the rules do. Call it "female" but allow anyone to join like Park Run did, and you won't get sex segregation. We have observed this, it's not speculation. Call it "women's" but prohibit biological males, and you will get sex segregation. It has never been about the labels.

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed, look at all the subtle behavioral cues.

I don't even have to click on the play button to see that is a blindingly obvious bloke.

 

[smartcooky]

One cherry picked individual rarely a representative sampling makes.

Not hard to find cherries to pick when the trees are having a bumper crop!

Here's a few more "cherries" for you.... nothing subtle about this little lot of "poor little delicate flowers who only want to pee"

ALL transgender identified males
ALL of whom have been convicted of one or more of the following
- Voyeurism
- Domestic violence
- Sexual assault
- Rape
- Child molestation
- Assault with a deadly weapon
- Manslaughter
- Murder

What fine bunch of people you support

Trans Crime UK – Documenting crimes committed by transgender individuals in the UK

 

[Aber]

We 'know' of exactly one, and that starts and ends the list of establishments.

Have another one
https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/mcdonalds-london-25

And another one...
https://www.accessable.co.uk/mcdona...urt-road#B60C58DF-5C2C-A141-B50C-73266CABF6D6

 

[Aber]

I don't know as there's no info at the moment. But I postulate that it would be harder to justify to oneself, if one is honest, to go through the label that factually doesn't describe you, so there would be a difference in numbers.

It's an interesting postulate.

However if the number using facilities different from their sex is not zero, it still means that single-sex spaces have been changed into mixed-sex spaces.

In any case the argument is moot following the Supreme Court judgement.

 

[Rolfe]

The Edinburgh Festival just started, and one venue operator decided to put up signs on their toilets saying that everyone was welcome to use whichever facility they felt most comfortable in. There was a bit of an uproar and these signs have been removed. The signs are now "Male" and "Female". I think things were said about the Supreme Court and some legal action threatened. It would be interesting to know if their insurance company got involved.

 

[theprestige]

The Edinburgh Festival just started, and one venue operator decided to put up signs on their toilets saying that everyone was welcome to use whichever facility they felt most comfortable in. There was a bit of an uproar and these signs have been removed. The signs are now "Male" and "Female". I think things were said about the Supreme Court and some legal action threatened. It would be interesting to know if their insurance company got involved.

I notice that nobody demanded that the toilets be made unisex.

 

[smartcooky]

The Edinburgh Festival just started, and one venue operator decided to put up signs on their toilets saying that everyone was welcome to use whichever facility they felt most comfortable in. There was a bit of an uproar and these signs have been removed. The signs are now "Male" and "Female". I think things were said about the Supreme Court and some legal action threatened. It would be interesting to know if their insurance company got involved.

Almost cerainly, either their lawyers, or their insurance companies (or both) would have been involved in the decision to back down.
I think those of you in the UK who feel as you do need to network with each other, calling out these small organizations that might try to fly under the radar, and make multiple threats of legal action to keep them compliant with the law.

ETA: Keep in mind that anyone can apply for a Judicial Review, and unlike a lawsuit they are relatively cheap... it is trivially easy to show these people are breaking the law.

 

[Rolfe]

I notice that nobody demanded that the toilets be made unisex.

I believe one lot had open urinals in it and the other was cubicles with dividers that were nowhere near full length. I think the hand-washing facilities in both were communal.

 

[Rolfe]

Almost cerainly, either their lawyers, or their insurance companies (or both) would have been involved in the decision to back down.
I think those of you in the UK who feel as you do need to network with each other, calling out these small organizations that might try to fly under the radar, and make multiple threats of legal action to keep them compliant with the law.

ETA: Keep in mind that anyone can apply for a Judicial Review, and unlike a lawsuit they are relatively cheap... it is trivially easy to show these people are breaking the law.

It's going to take time but FWS are loaded for bear, Sex Matters likewise, and JKR has said she will bankroll any woman with a legitimate case against her employer.

 

[smartcooky]

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

Indeed. IMO those are just weasel words to deflect criticism. He has expressed opinions that directly contradict these words.
Simply put, you are either in favour of sex segregation or you are not. There is no grey area - the moment you allow an exception for just one member of the opposite sex into a sex-segregated space to use it, that space is no longer sex-segregated.

 

[Matthew Best]

Mine, and in literally every other jurisdiction where we have data.

I clicked on the word "data" but it didn't go anywhere. How about you present this "data" you keep saying you rely on?

 

[Thermal]

I clicked on the word "data" but it didn't go anywhere. How about you present this "data" you keep saying you rely on?

It's the same goddamned evidence as presented upthread, that no one else finds as uniquely challenging as you do to keep up with.

Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Others were reported by CNN, NBC, and others where no increase was reported in any jurisdiction adopting a gender open policy, but let's see what you want to do with the UCLA Law study before I go running any more errands for your lazy ass.

 

[Thermal]

Have another one
https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/mcdonalds-london-25

And another one...
https://www.accessable.co.uk/mcdona...urt-road#B60C58DF-5C2C-A141-B50C-73266CABF6D6

You're on fire now! 3... count them three... out of 42,000 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ McDonalds franchisees found male and female signage to put on their doors, that they chose themselves as individuals, having nothing to do with the policies and practices of McDonalds Inc.

McDonalds has no policy for restroom signage in their individual franchises,, but does have a stated policy of supporting both their guests and corporate buildings being open to restroom access consistent with the user's gender identification.

Your claim that 'McDonalds uses Male/female signs' continues to be factually wrong.

 

[smartcooky]

Your claim that 'McDonalds uses Male/female signs' continues to be factually wrong.

For certain definitions of "factually"