Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[The Great Zaganza]

A good compromise leaves everyone equally unhappy.
The no.1 complain I hear from women in my neck of the woods is that there aren't enough toilets for them in busy public places; this of course is the result of men needing on average less time on the loo, due to equipment and clothing.
So as a first idea, I would try out to separate by function, rather than gender: a pissoir behind the one door, and individual stalls behind the other.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Of course it is okay, but violence isn't the only thing we are trying to prevent here.

An argument could be made that most people intensely dislike the feeling of immodesty, so much so that we have cinematic tropes on point.

i disagree - violence against transgender women is very real, and being forced to use a men's toilet puts them at a much greater risk than if they could use the women's. From a basic humanitarian angle, I think we should consider first what will serve to reduce violence and only secondarily what feels more comfortable.

 

[d4m10n]

His gender was not at issue in the trial.

Fact check: False.

 

[d4m10n]

violence against transgender women is very real, and being forced to use a men's toilet puts them at a much greater risk than if they could use the women's.

Is it okay for the skeptical mind to inquire about actual data about transwomen facing violence in single sex toilets? I haven't seen any data put forward which validates your claim about relative risk here.

From a basic humanitarian angle, I think we should consider first what will serve to reduce violence and only secondarily what feels more comfortable.

I disagree, unless you have stats showing that bathroom violence is significant enough to override the more commonplace problems which privacy stalls and sex segregation were designed to solve.

 

[acbytesla]

The people who are being treated horribly by you are women who are fighting for their safe spaces, under attack by selfish TRAs.

Nonsense.

 

[theprestige]

Women's refuges should be able to prevent access to any member of the public they reasonably believe is a threat to the safety of women or staff in the refuge. This would include biological men, transsexual men, transsexual women and biological women. The obvious case would be the ex-partner of a woman in the refuge.

Who disagrees with this proposal?

I do.

In the US, private establishments already enjoy a much broader right to refuse service to anyone, without having to provide any justification at all. If the person believes they are being discriminated against because of their protected class (race, age, gender, religion, etc.), the burden is on them to prove unlawful discrimination. The establishment has no burden to justify refusal. So I disagree with your proposal because it doesn't go far enough.

I also disagree because in the US, establishments like this are entitled to provide a sex-segregated service. While sex is a protected class, women's shelters are entitled to discriminate on the basis of sex. So, again, your proposal doesn't go far enough.

For these two reasons, I disagree with your proposal.

ETA: Specifically, I disagree because your proposal places a burden on the establishment to justify their refusal of service, and because it does not preserve the entitlement to discriminate based on sex alone.

 

[Thermal]

Fact check: False.

Yeah, um... the passage you relied on is prefaced with the sentence "But none of Merager’s “gender journey” or sexuality were part of the case." It was discussing background stuff from years prior, going back nearly two decades? The discussion was about what priors the jury could consider.

In the actual WI spa case in question, it was not at issue.

The yahoo article does remind us though that dickhead acknowledged that he changed his gender because he didn't like serving time in the men's prison, and saw it as an easy out.

Eta: this is how barren was the court's field of ◊◊◊◊◊ regarding his gender. From the same article: "The jury was asked to decide, by official language, if the defendant exposed “himself/herself” with the intent of sexual gratification."

 

[d4m10n]

Yeah, um... the passage you relied on is prefaced with the sentence "But none of Merager’s “gender journey” or sexuality were part of the case."

Why on Earth would the official gender marker matter if gender isn't an issue in the case?

The discussion was about what priors the jury could consider.

With "jurors deciding in the end that Darren Merager simply was behaving like any other woman in a shower, spa or changing room" (emphasis mine) it seems gender played a fairly crucial role in the outcome of the case. Jurors certainly could not have reasoned that way had the defendant been unambiguously a man.

 

[Ziggurat]

i disagree - violence against transgender women is very real,

That is true. But at least in the US, nothing I have seen about such violence indicates that it's because they are transgender, rather than because of other factors such as drug use or involvement in the sex industry.

and being forced to use a men's toilet puts them at a much greater risk than if they could use the women's.

I have seen no objective evidence of this.

From a basic humanitarian angle, I think we should consider first what will serve to reduce violence and only secondarily what feels more comfortable.

I don't think you've properly identified the causes of violence that transgender people suffer from.

 

[p0lka]

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.

It's kind of relevant when the only one on the list that can actually let its thoughts be known, lets its thoughts be known and there's no agreement about the definitions, we humans still have to sort it out.

 

[theprestige]

A good compromise leaves everyone equally unhappy.
The no.1 complain I hear from women in my neck of the woods is that there aren't enough toilets for them in busy public places; this of course is the result of men needing on average less time on the loo, due to equipment and clothing.
So as a first idea, I would try out to separate by function, rather than gender: a pissoir behind the one door, and individual stalls behind the other.

Sounds good to me, but has nothing to do with the question of fiat self-ID in public policy.

Build as many single-occupancy "unisex" cubicles as you like, as long as sex segregated facilities are still permitted to those that want them, or that don't want to go to the expense of replacing them.

 

[theprestige]

Hey, Mr theprestige? Is that you?

Oh yeah, I guess that is me. "Ally" isn't really a bad word, is it?

 

[Thermal]

Why on Earth would the official gender marker matter if gender isn't an issue in the case?

Lots of ultimately irrelevant bull ◊◊◊◊ gets discussed at trials. Are you under the impression that every word at trial has carefully consideered weight? 90% of it has nothing to do with anything.

With "jurors deciding in the end that Darren Merager simply was behaving like any other woman in a shower, spa or changing room" (emphasis mine)...

...and yahoo's author choice of words in summary. Said author doesn't make the short list of consequential litigaton analysts.

it seems gender played a fairly crucial role in the outcome of the case. Jurors certainly could not have reasoned that way had the defendant been unambiguously a man.

And I'm sure they would have found differently if he was an ocelot too. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that he appears to have been naked among other people agreeing to get naked together, in accordance with law.

From.there, it's just a question of the spa's policy regarding transgender access, and if the other members were aware of it. I think its reasonable to assume that he was, and they were. If it was any other way, it would have become the front and center point of the trial, and a whole different ball game.

Why do you suppose no one thought to mention in the actual charges through the verdict that his gender and its appropriateness were at issue? Think they just forgot?

 

[Thermal]

Just once I'd like to see a trans ally take a good look at that, and say, "that's evil and I want no part of it."

"Evil" seems over-the-top. "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid" I'm on board with. "Evil", I like to reserve for a bit more than pissy name-calling.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, um... the passage you relied on is prefaced with the sentence "But none of Merager’s “gender journey” or sexuality were part of the case." It was discussing background stuff from years prior, going back nearly two decades? The discussion was about what priors the jury could consider.

In the actual WI spa case in question, it was not at issue.

The yahoo article does remind us though that dickhead acknowledged that he changed his gender because he didn't like serving time in the men's prison, and saw it as an easy out.

Eta: this is how barren was the court's field of ◊◊◊◊◊ regarding his gender. From the same article: "The jury was asked to decide, by official language, if the defendant exposed “himself/herself” with the intent of sexual gratification."

Why on Earth would the official gender marker matter if gender isn't an issue in the case?

With "jurors deciding in the end that Darren Merager simply was behaving like any other woman in a shower, spa or changing room" (emphasis mine) it seems gender played a fairly crucial role in the outcome of the case. Jurors certainly could not have reasoned that way had the defendant been unambiguously a man.

I think I get what Thermal is saying. A lot of court cases end up being narrowly focused on one or two specific points. They might not actually address what appears to observers to be the central issue at play. In this case, it seems that the specific question being tried was whether the defendant acted lewdly, not whether the defendant had a gendered entitlement to be there.

 

[theprestige]

"Evil" seems over-the-top. "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid" I'm on board with. "Evil", I like to reserve for a bit more than pissy name-calling.

This is a bit more than pissy name-calling. They're promoting bigotry and hatred towards sex essentialists, and trying to normalize the erasure of human sexuality. Saying that lesbians who aren't sexually attracted to transwomen is transphobes isn't just "pissy name-calling". It's marking those women out as the Other. Deserving of abuse and ostracization. It's demonizing their sexuality. It's pushing society in an evil direction.

That you don't see the problem with such rhetoric, and the influential faction that promotes it, is in fact the very nature of my concern.

 

[Thermal]

This is a bit more than pissy name-calling. They're promoting bigotry and hatred towards sex essentialists, and trying to normalize the erasure of human sexuality. Saying that lesbians who aren't sexually attracted to transwomen is transphobes isn't just "pissy name-calling". It's marking those women out as the Other. Deserving of abuse and ostracization. It's demonizing their sexuality. It's pushing society in an evil direction.

Ok, but evil has teeth. Evil has malice and ill will. I feel like this tweeter has neither, and is somewhat impotently voicing their fairly stupid beliefs. Who's going to be influenced? You have to buy into that bull ◊◊◊◊ first.

That you don't see the problem with such rhetoric, and the influential faction that promotes it, is in fact the very nature of my concern.

I don't think they are influential. I think they are a mouthpiece for some weak thinking.

 

[Thermal]

...it seems that the specific question being tried was whether the defendant acted lewdly, not whether the defendant had a gendered entitlement to be there.

Not even simply lewdly- with intent to sexually gratify himself or offend others. That was the jury's instruction, and their failure to be convinced of.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, but evil has teeth.

ETA: This is some "starting a war and getting overmatched doesn't count as starting a war" level thinking.

Evil has malice and ill will. I feel like this tweeter has neither, and is somewhat impotently voicing their fairly stupid beliefs. Who's going to be influenced? You have to buy into that bull ◊◊◊◊ first.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist." - George Orwell.

I think you can advance evil causes without being malicious yourself. Like they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. However, I do think that there is a certain amount of unexamined/unacknowledged malice and ill-will, especially towards women and homosexuals, in the TRA community. And I think statements like this are an expression of it.

I don't think they are influential. I think they are a mouthpiece for some weak thinking.

Trans rights activism is full of weak thinking. And it's also much more influential than I'd like. But even evil that fails to establish a foothold in the broader culture is still evil.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, but evil has teeth. Evil has malice and ill will. I feel like this tweeter has neither, and is somewhat impotently voicing their fairly stupid beliefs. Who's going to be influenced? You have to buy into that bull ◊◊◊◊ first.

Impotence isn't mutually exclusive with evil. If you have evil beliefs, they don't stop being evil just because you're powerless.

And there's a whole lot of hatred expressed towards lesbians who refuse to consider trans identifying males as sexual partners, by some of those trans identifying males. Perhaps you're uncomfortable with using the word "evil", but you certainly don't have a problem with the word "hatred".