Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Tomboy]

I get that, and despite my argumentation here, I sympathize.

I have trouble believing that. You say it now and then, but you demonstrate the opposite much more often.

But carry it out: a violent criminal is not deterred by a sign on an unlocked door, or some trivial annoyance for being accused of being in the wrong restroom. If some guy means to attack you in a restroom, there is literally nothing stopping him right here and now.

What would be different with the policy change?

No, I don't think all violent criminals will be deterred by a sign on the door, but I think some will, the same way that not all thieves will be deterred by a locked door but some will. I can't say I agree with the philosophy of not implementing a safety precaution because it won't prevent all instances of the harmful act occurring.

I think some potential violent criminals will be deterred by the threat of knowing that if the woman shouts for help, she'll actually be helped vs knowing that if she shouts for help, all he has to do is declare himself trans and he gets a free pass and she becomes the criminal. That's what would be different with a policy change.

You think a rapist considers it a big deal to walk into a restroom for his crime now, but won't under policy change?

There is no real threat difference.

Yeah, I think there is a real threat difference. Maybe not a huge one, but a greater-than-zero one. Moreover, there's an emotional aspect at play. I feel vulnerable with my pants around my ankles, but I feel less vulnerable if I know that I maintain the right to control the environment and that the authorities will support me in removing someone who doesn't belong there. Even if you're right and the threat level is the same, I feel safer, and that's not trivial. That's the same reason that many transpeople give for wanting to use the women's restroom. It would be nice if those who advocate for the transperson's right to feel safer and to maintain their dignity in vulnerable situations also considered the right of women to have those same considerations.

So do you not use public facilities right now, for the same reasons you say you fear?

Course not. I said in my post that I use public rest rooms all the time. If things keep going in a direction that continues to erode my rights, though, I'll be one of those women opting out of benefiting from the convenience and improved quality of life that public rest rooms provide.

Eta: you think the sign on the door is deterring an attacker. Ok. How about we put another sign underneath it that says 'No Attacking Females'. All good now, right? Because these violent attackers are so concerned with misdemeanor policy compliance?

Please don't patronize me.

 

[Thermal]

That thing that never happens, happened again:

I'd take that over this:


Pervs be equal opportunity pervin'. A new policy doesn't change that.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Trans-identifying males are not analogous to migrants. They're also not analogous to black or gay people, in case you were thinking of retrying those canards next.

So why are exactly the same arguments made against migrants as trans-women? I.e. they are a threat to women and need to be excluded.

Predators are predators, whether they do or don't have brown skin or consider themselves to be the opposite gender to their biological sex.

This has nothing to do with that. It's about hatred from ignorance and fear. The slang term "womanface" batted around here reeks of prejudice, as do the character assassinations of individuals by the people in this thread they have probably never met and know next to nothing about.

The far-right is rubbing its hands together and getting ready for government.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd take that over this:

Why? It's not one or the other.

Pervs be equal opportunity pervin'. A new policy doesn't change that.

You cannot categorically exclude males from male spaces, obviously. But you can categorically exclude males from female spaces. And given that male voyeuristic fetishes about females is far more common than male voyeuristic fetishes about other males (or female voyeuristic fetishes about anyone), it seems pretty obvious that in order to reduce voyeurism, excluding males from female spaces would accomplish something.

 

[theprestige]

So why are exactly the same arguments made against migrants as trans-women? I.e. they are a threat to women and need to be excluded.

An argument that does not apply in one situation can still apply in another, non-analogous situation. Your complaint about similar arguments fails because the situations are not similar.

Predators are predators, whether they do or don't have brown skin or consider themselves to be the opposite gender to their biological sex.

It's not strictly about predation. All men are prohibited from women's restrooms, not just the predators. It's this blanket prohibition that trans rights activists are seeking to override with fiat self-ID.

This has nothing to do with that. It's about hatred from ignorance and fear.

Do you think the longstanding convention of sex-segregated spaces for women is about hatred from ignorance and fear?

Do you think generations of women have been sexist all along, for not simply demanding equal access to men's restrooms, locker rooms, and prisons?

Not even in Europe, where private individual commodes are supposedly more commonplace, are women clamoring for equal access to men's communal intimate spaces. No, even in Europe women are content to have their own communal intimate spaces, free from the opposite sex.

And you have so far given no rational reason for why trans-identifying men should be entitled to override the longstanding convention of sex-segregated communal intimate spaces.

 

[theprestige]

I tend not to punch them in the face.

Appealing to sexist and violent ideation isn't really the play, here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Appealing to sexist and violent ideation isn't really the play, here.

Oh, I don't know. Seems to fit with everything else he says quite naturally.

 

[Thermal]

Why? It's not one or the other.

Seems to be, under your reasoning. You find a Ticky Tocker taking selfies so be so vile that we have to change laws, but the pee pee guy is kind of casual to you. And if we must ban ALL transpeople because of the cherry picked ones, surely we must ban ALL males from their intimate spaces? Who knows what those pervs will do?

You cannot categorically exclude males from male spaces, obviously.

Of course we can, and your argument seems to lead that way. If you are consistent, that is.

But you can categorically exclude males from female spaces. And given that male voyeuristic fetishes about females is far more common than male voyeuristic fetishes about other males (or female voyeuristic fetishes about anyone), it seems pretty obvious that in order to reduce voyeurism, excluding males from female spaces would accomplish something.

No no no... it's not a numbers game, (according to you). It's any threat *at all*, even just a creepy vibe, that must result in banning. So pee pee guy is enough of a threat to justify banning men from the men's room.

Or maybe he should be forced go to the ladies room? Doesn't seem that he would be a threat there, as he has demonstrated himself to be in the men's room.

 

[Thermal]

Appealing to sexist and violent ideation isn't really the play, here.

You asked for one example. Since you apparently are ignoring the last times I gave some, I figured you wanted something with more pizzazz.

 

[theprestige]

You asked for one example. Since you apparently are ignoring the last times I gave some, I figured you wanted something with more pizzazz.

I have not ignored; I have completely and entirely missed those examples. How do you treat women differently from men?

 

[Ziggurat]

Seems to be, under your reasoning.

Then you are under some serious misapprehension about what my reasoning is, and I cannot even guess what that misapprehension is.

You find a Ticky Tocker taking selfies so be so vile that we have to change laws, but the pee pee guy is kind of casual to you.

There's nothing casual about it at all. Recording is already illegal, and properly so. He deserves criminal prosecution.

But we cannot make a law to keep males out of male bathrooms on account of them being males, for practical reasons that I hope should be obvious (though maybe I assume too much). So I do not know what equivalent legal change even could be made to cover his case and deny him access, especially a priori. Do you have a proposal for how to amend the law to address cases like his? Because if you don't, then there's really no equivalency at all.

And if we must ban ALL transpeople because of the cherry picked ones, surely we must ban ALL males from their intimate spaces?

I've been advocating all along to ban all males from female intimate spaces. I'm not suggesting treating trans people any differently. So either you've just demonstrated the consistency of my position, or you're referring to something else, and I have no idea what that might be because you're not expressing it comprehensibly.

No no no... it's not a numbers game, (according to you).

On what basis do you make that claim? Because I never said that.

It's any threat *at all*, even just a creepy vibe, that must result in banning. So pee pee guy is enough of a threat to justify banning men from the men's room.

Are you under the impression that I think practical considerations are irrelevant? That would be wrong.

Or is it that you think practical considerations are irrelevant?

Or maybe he should be forced go to the ladies room? Doesn't seem that he would be a threat there

That's an unwarranted conclusion.

 

[theprestige]

And if we must ban ALL transpeople because of the cherry picked ones

Why are we cherry-picking some males to be exempt from the ban in the first place?

ETA: I apologize. That was unnecessarily rhetorical. Here's why you pick some men to be exempt from the ban: Because they say they'll be sad if you don't give them the exemption they want. That's it. Full stop. Not because it's medically necessary. Not because it's biologically sensical. Only because they want to. That's your criteria.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why are we cherry-picking some males to be exempt from the ban in the first place?

Because it upsets them if we don't.

That is literally the justification he gave.

 

[theprestige]

Because it upsets them if we don't.

That is literally the justification he gave.

I edited to include that, but not fast enough. Well ninja'd, my ninja.

 

[Myriad]

I'd take that over this:

Why? I would much prefer to have some anonymous dude take a video of my wee-wee in a public restroom and masturbate to it later, with it being overwhelmingly unlikely that I'd ever even find out about it, than to have my wife or any female relative or acquaintance in my life openly confronted and frightened by a male in female-stereotype clothing overtly filming them in a public restroom with the intention of posting it publicly to promote an agenda.

Come on, man. "You can do what you want to the girl, just leave me alone" is supposed to be a joke about a line of dialog you'd never hear in a movie*, not a policy position!


*The exception being a Penn and Teller movie deliberately referencing that joke, which IIRC didn't even get a laugh in the theater.

 

[d4m10n]

That was a restroom being considered a seperate and secure premises, while arguing that the whack job didn't commit defiant trespass.

Whether defendant committed misdemeanor defiant trespass (as his lawyers argued) or the higher-level infraction of criminal trespass (as prosecutors argued) doesn't really matter since your claim that was that it "never was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ illegal" for him to enter that part of the building at all. Either way, he was breaking the law of trespass in that jurisdiction. Moreover, every state is free to interpret their own trespass laws in the same way.

Next time you want to claim that something was never criminalized, you might consider a couple minutes of googling beforehand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is it considered exhibitionism for a male to expose their genitals to nonconsenting females in public?

No.

Okay then. You seem perfectly fine with dudes showing their junk to nonconsenting females, so with that I'm out. You're on your own and I'll leave others to deal with your willful blindness.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is ultimately a dispute about values, and values are always in the end axiomatic. You value the "dignity" of tans identifying males over the dignity of females like Rolfe and Emily's Cat. I don't. There isn't actually much more to it than that

And Pixel42 and Manger Douse and Sherkeu and Tomboy and a few others I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That thing that never happens, happened again:
Trans TikToker “Lily Tino” Facing Possible Legal Action From Woman He Caught On Camera While Taking Photos In Female Restroom At Disney World

Tino looks and sounds like a male. It's completely nuts to expect that everyone else in the world should *pretend* that they don't perceive reality.

Seriously, it's up there with face-tattoo-people getting upset when people stare at their face tattoos. Like, what the hell did you expect to happen when you tattooed your damned face? Of course people are going to look you dolt.

 

[Thermal]

Okay then. You seem perfectly fine with dudes showing their junk to nonconsenting females, so with that I'm out. You're on your own and I'll leave others to deal with your willful blindness.

Snipping out the important part to make a strawman? You're better than this.

You read what I posted. You know it is right, and that you hadn't thought out your "exhibition and voyeurism would be legal, dude!" silliness.