Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[ahhell]

Listen, the human body is beautiful. If you are upset by the sight of a penis, well that's on you, you should probably get some therapy and stop going to the gym.

I will clarifier, I was not serious here but that is basically what some folks seem to be saying. I think it's quite reasonable for women and especially girls to desire not to see a penis in public restroom or pretty much anywhere but where they choose to see one.

There is clearly a tradeoff here that is not being acknowledge by some. Women should have a right to places that exclude penises. Transwomen should have a right to use the bathroom. I think most self-described trans-women are what they say the are, a person that would feel much more comfortable in the body of a women. Some self-described trans women are not that but men who wish to victimize women and girls.

Who's rights should prevail?

 

[theprestige]

I don't support fiat self-ID. I think anyone and particularly a young person feeling like they are in the 'wrong' body should be carefully assessed and supported by trained professionals in mental health. Only after that could a GRC be issued.

So you're on the "papers please" side of the issue. I happen to think this is a bad position for two reasons:

First, there doesn't seem to be any good science to support social transition as an ethical or effective treatment for dysphoria. I'd like to see a lot more rigorous research and a lot more sensible regulation, before we start allowing access based on a diagnosis and a GRC.*

Second, how is that enforced? A man walks into a women's restroom, and a woman demands to see his GRC, and then demands that he leave if he won't/can't produce it? That's just "men stay out" with extra steps. Might as well just stick with the convention of "men stay out", since there's no good reason to make an exception for transwomen.

---

*I also think a GRC is a bad idea for other reasons.

 

[ahhell]

Well I know - more than four in every five

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment

Come on, an online survey?

 

[theprestige]

The GRC process is mainly for the wellbeing of the people who believe they are in the wrong body to help them to make the right choices.

One problem I have with the GRC is that there doesn't seem to be any good science to support the idea that social transition is the best way to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. Or even a good way.

 

[Ziggurat]

It heads right to the same protections, which you advocate a need to revoke.

No, it absolutely doesn't. Which is why there isn't a single court case you can point to which establishes that the Civil Rights Act prohibits the kind of sex segregation that we're advocating. It has never happened, because you are wrong about what the Civil Rights Act does.

 

[d4m10n]

Then your claim that these were single sex spaces is bull ◊◊◊◊.

Just because it is illegal to keep males out does not imply that the spaces were not single sex de facto, as the result of cultural inertia combined with the fact that the vast majority of males would be (rightly) hesitant to expose themselves to a roomful of women and girls, on grounds of personal sexual modesty and on ethical grounds.

Everyone going there was aware that they were gender segregated, not sex, insomuch as they are familiar with the language and their representatives' legislation.

I've no idea why you'd expect ordinary spa-goers to be familiar with cutting-edge civil rights jurisprudence. Even trained California lawyers could not know in advance whether the amendments to the civil rights code would be interpreted as banning sex segregation in favor of gender segregation, although they should probably have known that the ACLU was fighting for this particular interpretation if they spent time around those sorts of activists.

We know there WI spa had a list on that very day of transgender patrons, of which Merager was one.

Even if they did maintain a list (source?) it wasn't tacked up on a public bulletin board.

What was the transgender policy at that time?

Wi Spa immediately issued a statement that they strive to avoid running afoul of state antidiscrimination law, and we can probably take them at their word on this, although that there was also an email instructing managers on duty not to admit Merager in particular.

What was disclosed to patrons?

I'm fairly confident patrons were not told in advance to expect to find bepenised people on the women's floor, although California civil rights lawyers would have known in advance that this was always a live possibility.

Oh, so you want to return to the good old days, when people knew their place?

In former times, males knew not to expose themselves to minor girls (even at the spa) and I've already said that I would welcome a return to that norm being broadly understood and socially enforced. I can think of some other things we did better around the turn of the millennium, if you are interested, but it hurts my old head to call that the "good old days."

The argument was that this was not a male specific argument.

Any norm against exhibitionism is going to overwhelmingly constrain male behavior, that's just a fact you have to take into account.

 

[Thermal]

I've no idea why you'd expect ordinary spa-goers to be familiar with cutting-edge civil rights jurisprudence.

Ya the hoary days of antiquity back in 2021were comprised of simple folk.

Even if they did maintain a list (source?) it wasn't tacked up on a public bulletin board.

Not addressing the needed information. Where did the transpeople normally go? If you don't know, you cannot argue that it was the first time, or even unusual.

Wi Spa immediately issued a statement that they strive to avoid running afoul of state antidiscrimination law, and we can probably take them at their word on this,

Also not addressing anything. The boilerplate language enlightened us on exactly nothing.

I'm fairly confident patrons were not told in advance to expect to find bepenised people on the women's floor,

Why? Why would you be confident that staff would not advise patrons (probably via signing a discclaimer/consent form when registering?) that nudity, including transgender nudity, should be expected when using their facilities?

In former times, males knew not to expose themselves to minor girls (even at the spa) and I've already said that I would welcome a return to that norm being broadly understood and socially enforced. I can think of some other things we did better around the turn of the millennium, if you are interested, but it hurts my old head to call that the "good old days."

I feel this.

Any norm against exhibitionism is going to overwhelmingly constrain male behavior, that's just a fact you have to take into account.

Men murder more than women do. The principle of murder being illegal can ignore that as irrelevant.

 

[Thermal]

No, it absolutely doesn't. Which is why there isn't a single court case you can point to which establishes that the Civil Rights Act prohibits the kind of sex segregation that we're advocating. It has never happened, because you are wrong about what the Civil Rights Act does.

You're being evasive about this elusive "kind" that you're talking about. Care to go into detail about the discrimination disclaimers in the Civil Rights Act? You can include the cases that built off it to the present day.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're being evasive about this elusive "kind" that you're talking about.

I don't think I'm at all evasive. We're talking about sex segregating bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, sports, and domestic violence centers. Oh, and strip searches. Is there any other kind of sex segregation you think is relevant here?

Care to go into detail about the discrimination disclaimers in the Civil Rights Act?

I don't think I need to. I think it's pretty clear that nobody who wrote it wanted it to prohibit sex segregating bathrooms, for example. And there have been no court cases to back up such an interpretation. If you think the CRA does prohibit this, the burden is on you to demonstrate how.

 

[Thermal]

I don't think I'm at all evasive. We're talking about sex segregating bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, sports, and domestic violence centers. Oh, and strip searches. Is there any other kind of sex segregation you think is relevant here?

All very much unresolved and still at play in the public theater. That they haven't had a UK style decisive ruling to clarify is due to hot potatoing.

I don't think I need to. I think it's pretty clear that nobody who wrote it wanted it to prohibit sex segregating bathrooms, for example. And there have been no court cases to back up such an interpretation. If you think the CRA does prohibit this, the burden is on you to demonstrate how.

Virtually every claim, case, and law that involves transgender rights refers to the CRA provisions and the supplemental cases which expanded their interpretation. The simple word 'discrimination' references the legal protections of the CRA. When advocates talk about being discriminated against and their rights, do you think they refer to some other protection?

 

[Ziggurat]

All very much unresolved and still at play in the public theater.

These are all unresolved only in terms of what public policy we should adopt. Not a single one of them is unresolved in terms of what the Civil Rights Act allows. Remember, that was your claim.

Virtually every claim, case, and law that involves transgender rights refers to the CRA provisions and the supplemental cases which expanded their interpretation. The simple word 'discrimination' references the legal protections of the CRA. When advocates talk about being discriminated against and their rights, do you think they refer to some other protection?

Yes. Various state laws that prohibit discrimination on various bases. State laws can and do prohibit discrimination that the federal Civil Rights Act allows. Did you not know this?

You cannot point to a single case where the CRA prohibits the kind of sex discrimination we're discussing. There are forms of sex discrimination that it does prohibit (for example, in housing), but none of those are being advocated for here.

 

[theprestige]

"You are confused".

It heads right to the same protections, which you advocate a need to revoke.

Revoke what? There's no protections to revoke.

Sports are not protected against sex segregation. Nothing to revoke there.

Prisons are not protected against sex segregation. Nothing to revoke there.

Shelters and locker rooms are not protected against sex segregation. Nothing to revoke.

Nor are spas. Nor are restrooms. The protections you imagine were never established by the Civil Rights act, were never implemented in compliance with that act, and do not exist to be revoked.

 

[Thermal]

You cannot point to a single case where the CRA prohibits the kind of sex discrimination we're discussing.

That's because the SC has not chosen to hear one. You keep yapping about a single case prohibiting it; if there was, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion.

 

[Thermal]

Revoke what? There's no protections to revoke.

Sports are not protected against sex segregation. Nothing to revoke there.

Prisons are not protected against sex segregation. Nothing to revoke there.

Shelters and locker rooms are not protected against sex segregation. Nothing to revoke.

Nor are spas. Nor are restrooms. The protections you imagine were never established by the Civil Rights act, were never implemented in compliance with that act, and do not exist to be revoked.

The CRA protections, broadly, include protection against discrimination based on sex, applied to the public and the private sectors. You can't just imagine that away. Whether they will continue to avoid the big test is a separate matter. The plain English reading contains no exceptions.

 

[theprestige]

The CRA protections, broadly, include protection against discrimination based on sex, applied to the public and the private sectors. You can't just imagine that away. Whether they will continue to avoid the big test is a separate matter. The plain English reading contains no exceptions.

Legalese is generally not amenable to a plain English reading.

 

[Thermal]

Legalese is generally not amenable to a plain English reading.

I'd be happy to hear the legalese exceptions spelled out?

 

[Trausti]

Hilarious.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm fairly confident patrons were not told in advance to expect to find bepenised people on the women's floor

Why?

Because the victims reacted as if it were an unexpected event:

Within a few minutes, a small crowd of upset women and girls, wearing terry-cloth robes and shower shoes, fled the lockers and assembled at the front desk, where they complained to the attendant that “a man” had infiltrated the women’s area and was exposing “himself” in front of them. One woman who had brought her young daughter to the spa told the clerk it was the first time her child had seen a penis.​

What Really Happened at Wi Spa - LAmag

A viral video shot outside the ladies' locker room of a Korean bathhouse set off weeks of skirmishes and a national debate over trans rights--but nobody got the real story.

lamag.com

 

[d4m10n]

Men murder more than women do. The principle of murder being illegal can ignore that as irrelevant.

I think we can say with some confidence that men and women are roughly equally upset about being murdered.

Can we reasonably say the same about being flashed?

 

[d4m10n]

Not addressing the needed information.

Let's deal with the unevidenced claim that a list existed first.