Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

You're not pointing anything out. You're engaging in whataboutism.

You are ignoring what you don't like. Me pointing it out isn't whataboutism, it's trying to get you to stop ignoring it.

Please follow the exchange back. theprestige congratulated my state for not experiencing the scare stories presented. I pointed out that no jurisdictions where we have any data report them either. Countering by taking the goal posts for a walk is irrelevant.

What is the goalpost? Reported crime statistics?

That should never have been the goalpost in the first place. The goalpost should have been problems created by male access to female spaces. Reported crime stats are one measure of a subset of those problems, so they are relevant, but they have never been a measure of the whole set of problems. Your attempt to narrow it to only that metric of that subset is itself a goalpost move.

 

[Thermal]

It's factually correct. No claim was made about how many franchises do that.

McDonalds doesn't do anything with signage in their resteraunts, so the claim 'McDonalds uses male/female signs' is factually wrong. McDonalds doesn't use anything at all, nor have any say in it.

And the point was never how many used the signs, but what happens when they use the signs. And by your own admission, the signs don't keep out the trans identified males, because the rules don't prohibit them. That's the point. You're actually in agreement. But you're so caught up in your opposition that you can't even recognize that.

I don't think it would deter hard core activists, no. But I think a sex based distinction on the door will give casual supporters pause, and make them think about the difference between gender and sex, as we hash out in depth here.

If a proprietor means to allow restroom access based on biological sex, say so clearly with the signage. Why choose the more ambiguous genered men/women wording if you adamantly don't want gender to factor in at all?

 

[Ziggurat]

McDonalds doesn't do anything with signage in their resteraunts, so the claim 'McDonalds uses male/female signs' is factually wrong.

That's really weak sauce, even for a semantic quibble.

I don't think it would deter hard core activists, no. But I think a sex based distinction on the door will give casual supporters pause,

Why on earth would you think that?

If a proprietor means to allow restroom access based on biological sex, say so clearly with the signage.

They don't set corporate policy. What they mean to do doesn't matter.

Why choose the more ambiguous genered men/women wording if you adamantly don't want gender to factor in at all?

Irrelevant to p0lka's claim.

 

[Thermal]

You are ignoring what you don't like. Me pointing it out isn't whataboutism, it's trying to get you to stop ignoring it.

I'm happy to discuss the other issues. When theprestige mentions the scary predictions, that's focusing on one element.

What is the goalpost? Reported crime statistics?

You assure us that they will increase. They don't seem to. Switching focus to self exclusion (which theprestige wasnt referring to) and all is moving the goalposts, yes.

That should never have been the goalpost in the first place. The goalpost should have been problems created by male access to female spaces. Reported crime stats are one measure of a subset of those problems, so they are relevant, but they have never been a measure of the whole set of problems. Your attempt to narrow it to only that metric of that subset is itself a goalpost move.

Yes, I know they aren't the entirety of the problem. We all know. But we can discuss subsets independently, and see how predictions hold water, yes?

The prediction is that women's restrooms will become mixed sex spaces, and predators will take advantage of this. This is not observed in jurisdictions with open door policies. We can't even find tweetys where people talk about the offenses which don't get reported. There is no evidence that it actually happens.

Did you want to talk about self exclusion now? OK. Self exclusion is a personal decision to remove yourself from whatever playing field. If that is due to avoiding demonstrable threats, that's one thing. If it is due to ideological objection, that's a lifestyle choice. Anyone might self exclude for any reason, reasonable or (very often) not. But you can't blame others for your own self exclusion absent an objective threat. One might self exclude from restroom usage out of fear of catching AIDS. AIDS is real; catching it from a toilet seat is not.

 

[p0lka]

That's a whole lot of cope.

No I'm just pointing out with examples how your conclusion is erroneous.

Not relevant.

Definitely relevant, you were literally arguing that it's one and not the other.

If all you change is the label, then everything will have that loophole. And the problem is not that the label and the rules were out of sync. If the label had been "women" instead of "female", you would still have a problem, because a lot of females do not like males intruding on their categories or spaces whether the label is "female" or "women".

the loophole is caused by the insistence of everyone, society and all, on using gender labels instead of sex labels when they mean sex labels.

 

[Thermal]

That's really weak sauce, even for a semantic quibble.

Alluding that one of the world's largest resteraunt chains has such a policy when they demonstrably don't (and relying on "well i didnt say aaaaaall, or moooost) is pure semantic bull ◊◊◊◊.

Why on earth would you think that?

For the stated reason that immediately followed, that you took the extra time to snip out. Less snipping, more reading, might I suggest?

They don't set corporate policy. What they mean to do doesn't matter.

McDs corporate policy is to allow access. You switched your position now?

Irrelevant to p0lka's claim.

Ok.

 

[Thermal]

Your arguments have descended into such blatant bad faith that I will no longer be engaging with you.

You know what? I believe you. I believe that pointing out your lying in black and white is something you consider blatant bad faith. You essentially demand to be deferred to, even when outright lying.

 

[Thermal]

Keep in mind that you are a male who appears to be under the impression that the only difference between males and females is their genitals.

Untrue. I've even brought up male aggression and strength and violent tendencies many times.

What makes no difference to you may make a big difference to a female who is well aware of all the ways in which males differ from females and may consequently be unwilling to accept that an obviously male security guard is entitled to strip search her,

Again, I've been steadfast in arguing that in areas where nudity would be expected, there should be a hard sex segregation, and that would obviously include strip searching.

Although I'm pretty confident that both sexes would be much much much happier with a woman performing one.

even if you do think they are presenting more like a woman (whatever the hell that means - still waiting for clarification).

Been discussed to death, hasn't it? Are we going back to Rinse and Repeat?

 

[Ziggurat]

the loophole is caused by the insistence of everyone, society and all, on using gender labels instead of sex labels when they mean sex labels.

You've lost the plot. In the Park Run case, which you claimed has a loophole, the label is sex but the rules are gender, which is exactly backwards from what you describe here. And it's only a "loophole" in the sense that the rules are more permissive than the label suggests. But the problem isn't the mismatch. The problem is males entering female spaces and categories, which the rules permit. Changing the labels doesn't matter. Changing the rules does.

 

[Ziggurat]

McDs corporate policy is to allow access. You switched your position now?

What on earth are you talking about? I never said they didn't.

But perhaps you are confused about what my position is. So let me be clear: my position is that since corporate policy allows males to access whatever bathrooms they want, labelling those bathrooms as "female" rather than "women" doesn't prevent any males from accessing those bathrooms. Do you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Thermal]

What on earth are you talking about? I never said they didn't.

I said "If a proprietor means to allow restroom access based on biological sex, say so clearly with the signage."

You replied "They don't set corporate policy. What they mean to do doesn't matter."

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what corporate policy was being set? The only one that was mentioned was McDonald's. No other corporate policies even mentioned in the abstract. I might have mentioned that previously, but you might have been busy snipping it out.

But perhaps you are confused about what my position is.

"You are confused".

So let me be clear: my position is that since corporate policy allows males to access whatever bathrooms they want, labelling those bathrooms as "female" rather than "women" doesn't prevent any males from accessing those bathrooms. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Depends. Why dont you clear up what corporate policy you are referring to that is different from the only one being discussed.

I do agree that hard core activists won't be deterred by signage. But I do think it is highlighting the difference between sex and gender that is likely to give supporters pause.

 

[Ziggurat]

I said "If a proprietor means to allow restroom access based on biological sex, say so clearly with the signage."

You replied "They don't set corporate policy. What they mean to do doesn't matter."

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what corporate policy was being set? The only one that was mentioned was McDonald's.

That's precisely the one I'm referring to. Obviously.

 

[Thermal]

That's precisely the one I'm referring to. Obviously.

Then your statement is nonsensical. What the proprietor means to do is the only thing that matters.

 

[Ziggurat]

So here's an example of a problem that occurred in New Jersey due to a trans identifying male entering a women's bathroom (in this case, at a McDonalds):

Transgender Woman Says She Was Harassed and Told to Leave After Using Bathroom at NJ McDonald's

A Delaware transgender woman says she was harassed and told to leave a Gloucester County McDonald’s after she used the women’s restroom.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

According to the manager (who I find more credible, seeing as how the trans person contradicted himself when talking to reporters), the manager approached the trans person because of a complaint from a girl about his presence. Note that no illegal activity is alleged. This incident WILL NOT show up in any police reports. But it's still a problem. Misty Hill does not pass as female, not even close. I would be incredibly uncomfortable with his presence in a women's bathroom at the same time as my child. And obviously the child was uncomfortable too. Now, Thermal might not care about this sort of case. After all, Misty didn't assault the child. But that is, frankly, not good enough.

Oh, and you can learn more than you probably ever wanted to know about the sort of person Misty Hill actually is here (including a rather expected fascination with menstrual products):

Misty Lana Hill / Brian Casey Pierce / diracdrynx

I've never made one of these posts before, so if I ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, let me know. I'm usually more for commenting than making original content, sorry. Farms, meet Brian, a beyootiful lady. http://archive.is/WyCNN /cow/ already talked about this one back in March, but he's been up to so much, I...

kiwifarms.st

That child had good instincts to be afraid of him.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then your statement is nonsensical. What the proprietor means to do is the only thing that matters.

I'm not aware that proprieters get to override corporate policy.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not aware that proprieters get to override corporate policy.

They generally don't. And since McDonald's has no policy for its individual franchisees restroom signage, your statement still makes no sense.

It *only* matters what the proprietor means.

 

[Ziggurat]

They generally don't. And since McDonald's has no policy for its individual franchisees restroom signage, your statement still makes no sense.

It doesn't matter what their policy on signage is. What matters is their policy on who can use which bathroom.

It *only* matters what the proprietor means.

Not if they can't overrule the corporate policy about who gets to use which bathroom.

 

[Thermal]

It doesn't matter what their policy on signage is. What matters is their policy on who can use which bathroom.

Not if they can't overrule the corporate policy about who gets to use which bathroom.

THERE IS NO CORPORATE POLICY.

 

[Rolfe]

The manager, the

So here's an example of a problem that occurred in New Jersey due to a trans identifying male entering a women's bathroom (in this case, at a McDonalds):

Transgender Woman Says She Was Harassed and Told to Leave After Using Bathroom at NJ McDonald's

A Delaware transgender woman says she was harassed and told to leave a Gloucester County McDonald’s after she used the women’s restroom.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

According to the manager (who I find more credible, seeing as how the trans person contradicted himself when talking to reporters), the manager approached the trans person because of a complaint from a girl about his presence. Note that no illegal activity is alleged. This incident WILL NOT show up in any police reports. But it's still a problem. Misty Hill does not pass as female, not even close. I would be incredibly uncomfortable with his presence in a women's bathroom at the same time as my child. And obviously the child was uncomfortable too. Now, Thermal might not care about this sort of case. After all, Misty didn't assault the child. But that is, frankly, not good enough.

Oh, and you can learn more than you probably ever wanted to know about the sort of person Misty Hill actually is here (including a rather expected fascination with menstrual products):

Misty Lana Hill / Brian Casey Pierce / diracdrynx

I've never made one of these posts before, so if I ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, let me know. I'm usually more for commenting than making original content, sorry. Farms, meet Brian, a beyootiful lady. http://archive.is/WyCNN /cow/ already talked about this one back in March, but he's been up to so much, I...

kiwifarms.st

That child had good instincts to be afraid of him.

There's an interesting point in that article. It says it's against local legislation to "refuse accommodations" to someone on the basis of their gender identity. I would interpret that as prohibiting the refusal of service. A dude shows up in a bad wig, pancake makeup and s minidress, tottering on size 12 high heels? You can't say, you ain't coming in here, you won't be served. But requiring him to use the correct bathroom wouldn't be refusing him anything as far as I can see.

 

[d4m10n]

The problem is this ambiguity applies to your own data as well.

I do not disagree with this, but I'm not actually the person affirming that we have solid evidence about what women want out of their spaces, I'm the one who has expressed skepticism of that claim. If I wanted to show that women are generally discontented with the sort of bathrooms described at the top of #10,205 (which are increasingly common here in the States, even the deep red ones) I would need a survey which specifically mentioned single-user cubicles and all-gender sinks. Basically every survey I could find elides this possibility by focusing on the (much more common) setup of two large multiuser spaces, segregated in some way or another, or leaving it to respondents to make that assumption.