Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

I can't find any precedent for having force of law in ejecting a transperson

We need to distinguish between (at least) three different scenarios here in terms of applicable laws.

A: People have a legally protected right to enter opposite-sexed spaces and services, based on applicable antidiscrimination laws around gender i.d.
B: People have a legally protected right to use single-sex spaces and services, based on explicit carveouts to antidiscrimination laws around sex.
C: Public accommodations get to choose their own policies regarding such spaces, bound only by laws of general applicability.

California is in the first scenario, where someone like Merager has a legally protected right to display his genitals to women who did not consent to see them. UK appears to be on track for the second scenario, since the recent ruling against the Scottish Ministers. I've no idea if anyone still enjoys the third scenario, possibly some purple states, but it was once common prior to progressive reforms followed by conservative pushback.

 

[d4m10n]

No, it probably just moves the scene of the crime.

This is unevidenced speculation at best.

 

[theprestige]

I agree.

Transsexual woman =/= Voyeur.

[Men demanding an entitlement to access women's spaces whether women like it or not] ∩ [Men who are opportunistic predators enabled by this demand]. It's that overlap that is the problem. Again, #notalltranssexuals.

 

[p0lka]

OK, what's a woman gender role?

A 'what should be an antiquated term but still persists' woman gender role is whatever people that care about gender roles think.

 

[theprestige]

No, it probably just moves the scene of the crime.

It immediately terminates the crime in progress, of voyeurism without consent.

It immediately establishes the crime of exhibitionism without consent and terminates the act in progress.

Both of these crimes aren't really amenable to a change of scene. You can't peep at vulnerable women if you're prohibited from the scene of their vulnerability. You can't really expose yourself in public without being immediately witnessed committing the crime. That's why some men are so invested in being given access to women's restrooms whether the women like it or not. Because it effectively eliminates women's restrooms as spaces safe from this kind of behavior.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It immediately terminates the crime in progress, of voyeurism without consent.

How does it terminate it? Because the woman says "get out"?

It immediately establishes the crime of exhibitionism without consent and terminates the act in progress.

How does it terminate it? Go on, play the scene in your head out for me.

Both of these crimes aren't really amenable to a change of scene. You can't peep at vulnerable women if you're prohibited from the scene of their vulnerability. You can't really expose yourself in public without being immediately witnessed committing the crime. That's why some men are so invested in being given access to women's restrooms whether the women like it or not. Because it effectively eliminates women's restrooms as spaces safe from this kind of behavior.

So if the male isn't allowed to do it, he can't. Robbing shops and banks are illegal too. I guess those don't happen in your imaginary world.

 

[Ziggurat]

An alternative title for this thread: Rules To Protect People From People Who Don't Obey Rules.

You are under a misapprehension that it's the predator whose cooperation with the rules we need. It isn't. It's the people who would potentially eject the predator. If the rules prohibit them from ejecting the predator, then they probably won't eject the predator. If the rules allow them to eject the predator, then they can eject the predator. So in a sense, you're right: the rules aren't for the predator. What you fail to realize is that they are for other other people, people who do try to follow the rules.

 

[ahhell]

How does it terminate it? Because the woman says "get out"?

How does it terminate it? Go on, play the scene in your head out for me.

So if the male isn't allowed to do it, he can't. Robbing shops and banks are illegal too. I guess those don't happen in your imaginary world.

People still rob banks even though its illegal, I guess we should make it legal then?

 

[smartcooky]

How so?

The fact that humans are the only ones on a list of definitions are the only ones on that list that can discuss those definitions, is because humans created those definitions. It is is therefore irrelevant to the substance those definitions.

 

[theprestige]

How does it terminate it? Because the woman says "get out"?

Yes. Specifically, because it gives the woman the social and legal standing to say get out and expect compliance.

How does it terminate it? Go on, play the scene in your head out for me.

So if the male isn't allowed to do it, he can't. Robbing shops and banks are illegal too. I guess those don't happen in your imaginary world.

Again, I'm talking about a specific cohort of opportunistic predators, that are enabled by fiat self-ID. We didn't have this kind of predation when men were entirely prohibited from women's spaces. If you don't have men, you don't have to worry about figuring out which ones are voyeurs. Problem solved! That was the status quo ante.

 

[Thermal]

Indecent exposure, public disturbance...

Both of which are and were crimes under either policy, and neither have anything to do with what I asked.

And really, an explicit law is always a last resort. Social pressure can often be enough. Was often enough, prior to the advent of fiat self-ID in public policy.

Ok, so the straight answer to my question was "no, they never 'had' to leave. That was a fiction which sounded good".

But yeah, it probably has to be a law now, because we've reached a critical mass of predators and jackasses, and can no longer have nice things.

Agreed, something gotta give. I think we could start by discussing it without gaslighting, yeah?

 

[theprestige]

Both of which are and were crimes under either policy, and neither have anything to do with what I asked.

Fiat self-ID effectively decriminalizes both activities, if they occur inside a women's restroom. Worse, it criminalizes women's objections, if they perceive that these activities are occurring.

Ok, so the straight answer to my question was "no, they never 'had' to leave. That was a fiction which sounded good".

No. The straight answer is the one I gave.

Agreed, something gotta give. I think we could start by discussing it without gaslighting, yeah?

I've been discussing it without gaslighting all along. It's unfortunate that you feel misled by some of my arguments, but I don't see how I can improve that for you.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes. Specifically, because it gives the woman the social and legal standing to say get out and expect compliance.

"Don't rob me! It's against the law and I expect you to comply!"

Again, I'm talking about a specific cohort of opportunistic predators, that are enabled by fiat self-ID.We didn't have this kind of predation when men were entirely prohibited from women's spaces. If you don't have men, you don't have to worry about figuring out which ones are voyeurs. Problem solved! That was the status quo ante.

So why were laws created against predation, such as voyeurism and indecent exposure, if you didn't have it?

 

[Thermal]

We need to distinguish between (at least) three different scenarios here in terms of applicable laws.

First we need to clarify what *are* these single sex spaces, and if we are serious about their status. The problems kind of largely sort themselves out automatically.

A: People have a legally protected right to enter opposite-sexed spaces and services, based on applicable antidiscrimination laws around gender i.d.

Then they wouldn't be single sex spaces.

B: People have a legally protected right to use single-sex spaces and services, based on explicit carveouts to antidiscrimination laws around sex.

Workable, but getting consensus is the current debate on this side of the pond.

C: Public accommodations get to choose their own policies regarding such spaces, bound only by laws of general applicability.

Cant see this happening. In practice, its "violate anti-discrimination laws if you feel like it". Any other interpretation is self-negating and becomes one of the first two.

California is in the first scenario, where someone like Merager has a legally protected right to display his genitals to women who did not consent to see them.

Never happened, as far as I know. Wi spa had transgender members, of which dickhead was one. I haven't been shown anything that indicates he was in violation of their policy, which every female member agreed to when joining. Do you know otherwise?

 

[Thermal]

Fiat self-ID effectively decriminalizes both activities, if they occur inside a women's restroom.

It does not. They were illegal, and remain illegal. Christ, the Wi spa guy was charged with lewd and lascivious in ultra-liberal California, regardless of his gender or sex. He only prevailed because the definition of L&L requires that it be done for sexual self-gratification, which the jury was not convinced of. That standard is the same under both policies.

Worse, it criminalizes women's objections, if they perceive that these activities are occurring.

Agreed, that is a problem. Unless they are in fact violating the transperson's rights.

I've been discussing it without gaslighting all along. It's unfortunate that you feel misled by some of my arguments, but I don't see how I can improve that for you.

You said a transperson "had to leave" when ejected by occupants. That is factually untrue at every level. That's gaslighting.

 

[d4m10n]

I haven't been shown anything that indicates he was in violation of their policy, which every female member agreed to when joining.

If every female patron was indeed forewarned about that policy, some of them must have forgotten it completely when they angrily confronted the spa staff. There is a wiki on this incident if you want to review how it went down.

 

[d4m10n]

In practice, its "violate anti-discrimination laws if you feel like it"

If you cannot see the difference here, I'm not sure I can help.

Imagine California before they decided to protect Merager's right to show off their junk to nonconsenting females.

 

[Thermal]

If every female patron was indeed forewarned about that policy, some of them must have forgotten it completely when they angrily confronted the spa staff. There is a wiki on this incident if you want to review how it went down.

I did, which is where I got the information, but it does not spell out the policy or show the membership agreement.

It would hardly be the first time someone hadn't read the T&Cs they signed and claimed ignorance, but if you want to run around naked with strangers yet still be offended by some of them, that's a stellar time to read the fine print.

 

[Thermal]

If you cannot see the difference here, I'm not sure I can help.

Imagine California before they decided to protect Merager's right to show off their junk to nonconsenting females.

See above. You pretty sure they didn't consent, in writing, when joining?

Eta: I just double checked the Wiki, to see if it was updated with the MA or trans accommodation policy. Doesn't appear to have been.

I was reminded though of the initial complaintant, "Cubana Angel". When asked if she was referring to a transgender person, she said "There's no such thing as a transgender person". This was on the video she posted.

So ya, I don't think she forgot anything. She was a straight up bigot who knew what she was getting into and rode that wave on (and with) purpose

 

[theprestige]

"Don't rob me! It's against the law and I expect you to comply!"

The kinds of voyeurs and exhibitionists that are enabled by fiat self-ID weren't trying to force their way into bathrooms before that became a policy.

So why were laws created against predation, such as voyeurism and indecent exposure, if you didn't have it?

I don't understand what this means.